Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:06, 2 April 2009

• WP:POVN
• WP:NPOV/N
• WP:NPOVN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114

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

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

• Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article was tagged by user HotRaja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same as below) but there has been no constructive criticism forthcoming from any editors, and I am beginning to feel that NPOV is being abused by some editors to somehow prove their POV. Though the article does have a plethora of unreferenced information (it may merit a "Refimprove"), I believe tagging an entire article as POV is blatant abuse of WP:NPOV. Once again I seek an independent settlement and to get on with adding material. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Kargil War

• Kargil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article was tagged by user HotRaja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but there has been no constructive criticism forthcoming from any editors, the "tagger" inclusive. Please help resolving this once and for all. Thanks. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wagyu

Is Abortion article neutral?

There's been an RFC going on at the talk page for the Abortion article about whether that article is being censored to favor one POV, and in particular whether Misplaced Pages should allow a discernible image of what will be aborted in a typical abortion. Neither that article nor any other Misplaced Pages article presently describes what will be aborted in a typical induced abortion, and instead that article only provides positive info about abortion, e.g. it is "safer than childbirth", there is no substantial risk of breast cancer, or fetal pain, or mental health problems, et cetera. Since that RFC has been closely divided, I thought it might help to get some input here.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an editor of that article but one way to approach this issue is, what do reliable sources do? Do they typically include this type of image? Or is this the sort of thing that is usually only found in anti-abortion literature? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reply, AQFK. The type of image proposed is not the sort of thing that is usually found in anti-abortion literature, for several reasons: anti-abortion literature more often shows (1) color photographs instead of black-and-white drawings, (2) dismembered or obviously injured fetuses instead of intact fetuses, (3) fetuses that are farther along in development so they look more like little people, and (4) anti-abortion literature seldom shows how tiny and unformed an embryo is in comparison to a much larger fetus. So, the suggested image is very different from what would be in anti-abortion literature. Regarding reliable sources, I found many reliable newspaper and magazine articles that showed images of a fetus in conjunction with articles about abortion. However, it was then objected that I should only focus on general reference books for general readership, instead of considering reliable sources more broadly. Then, when I actually was able to find some online general reference works that show images of a fetus in conjunction with articles about abortion, which is difficult because Google Books does not provide an image search feature, it was objected that the images in the online general reference works are slightly different or faulty in some other way (e.g. they show slightly more of the intrauterine environment, or some unrelated images in the reference work are imperfect, or the image relates to a spontaneous rather than induced abortion, et cetera).

So, basically, whenever I linked a reliable source that shows what is aborted in conjunction with an article about abortion, opponents pointed to some slight distinction or difference from the image that is now proposed. Never mind that almost all the images currently in this Misplaced Pages article are unlike anything in reliable general reference works!Ferrylodge (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So, uh, is no one going to express an opinion about whether this article is currently a censored, slanted, POV propaganda piece?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a response like the one above discourages people from commenting. -GTBacchus 22:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's appreciated, but that's, uh... not the response I was talking about... -GTBacchus 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific then? What about the previous responses discourages comments?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment at your talk page - I think it's independent of the question being asked here. I'm just now working on a post there. -GTBacchus 23:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll look forward to your comment at my talk page. This is obviously an unpleasant and contentious subject, and I suspect that is a more likely cause for the lack of comments than anything I said.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with a user giving misleading opinions (accusation retracted)

I've recently had a discussion with an editor who seemed to think he knew enough to comment on a technical subject but clearly didn't. He was reasonably civil but preferred dodging the question & trying to mislead me in preference to admitting ignorance. Had I not know considerably more than he, I and other users of that page would have been confused or quite simply mislead. This would have undermined the point of wiki (of providing accurate information). I may be being over sensitive but - should I complain, and to where? Water pepper (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

...you first should provide the username of the editor in question, but anyhow, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement seems like the place to go.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the page: "Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc." WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It would have been unreasonable at that point to have given a name, but that aside, I've decided it's too technical a discussion to be easily weighed by a non-expert and perhaps I'm being a bit uptight anyway, so I'll drop it. Probably for the best. But thanks for pointing me in the right direction.Water pepper (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He is referring to my responses to his questions here. In my opinion, he doesn't want an answer. He wants an argument. Any reasonable person would have read the answer and, if it wasn't clear, asked for clarification. He took the route of accusing me (and another user) of trolling and being uneducated by providing him with the answer to his question. -- kainaw™ 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn it, here's the question you can't even acknowledge exists:

"Hi all, I recall reading somewhere that one of the properties (atomic, consistent, isolated, durable) was implied by the others, something like "if a transaction is atomic and consistent then it must have had the appearance of being isolated". Or perhaps if it's A and I then it must appear C. Can anyone clarify? - 22:54, 22 April 2008

"Anyway, regardless of that I still feel that my core point above, that Isolated implies Atomic, still stands (until someone shows otherwise)." - 14:54, 4 March 2009

"But back to my original question; now you've established a mechanism for Isolation, does not this isolation imply Atomicity? " - 00:30, 7 March 2009

You keep telling me what isolation is, and what atomicity is (and wrongly at that, I'm sure). That's not what I asked. So the question is, and read this carefully, what is the relationship between isolation and atomicity? Does I imply A, and possibly the converse? If you don't know, just say it.

I didn't mention your name here - nor link to the discussion - because I though it would be spiteful and unfair on you, and I may have just got it wrong and all out of proportion. I didn't want to drag you back in . You did that. Answer my question; does Isolation imply Atomicity and if not why not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.82.237 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(added forgotten sig)Water pepper (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the very first sentence of my very first response: "They do not imply one another." Everything after that is an explanation why. I can make the explanation much longer if you like. I often have to lecture for over an hour on just this one topic. -- kainaw™ 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I did not follow your explanation. Let me pick it up from a point I did follow. You said later on "In other words, if you use 2PL, you are guaranteed that the result of multiple transactions running at the same time will be the same as at least one serialized ordering of those transactions - which is the definition of isolation". We're agreed here (not on 2PL but isolation), that isolation means the results are exactly the effect of taking a bunch of transactions and running them one after the other - in any order you like - but precisely one after the other. Do what you like in reality, but the effect must be *as if* they'd been run one after the other. They can't (have the effect of) interfering with each other because then they'd be (having the effect of) running in parallel and thus interfering, which offends the principle of Isolation. Now, Consistency. From wiki: "If, for some reason, a transaction is executed that violates the database’s consistency rules, the entire transaction will be rolled back and the database will be restored to a state consistent with those rules. On the other hand, if a transaction successfully executes , it will take the database from one state that is consistent with the rules to another state that is also consistent with the rules." (my additions in square brackets). So Isolation says no interference, Consistency says the transaction completes entirely or is rolled back entirely. So the two together say transactions a) have no mutual interference and b) either fully complete or are fully rolled back ie. as if they'd never been. Wiki definition of Atomic "Atomicity refers to the ability of the DBMS to guarantee that either all of the tasks of a transaction are performed or none of them are". Now, that looks pretty damn close to the a) and b) above. In fact if you've got a) and b) then it seems you've got (the effect of) atomicity. I + C implies A (so it seems to me. Not that this is not my previous supposition that I -> A, though similar). Now, do you see why I'm thinking this? I grant, it's difficult to reason here without formal language but let's try the converse; suppose a transaction failed atomically, could it still be Isolated and Consistent? I don't see how. But then, it's late and I'll think tomorrow. But can you see *what I'm trying to get at*? Are you familiar with any formal notation we can use to sort this out on an unambiguous basis? Water pepper (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kainaw responded privately and in detail. It will take some time to go through his exposition with the care it requires but it's clear that he knows the subject in much greater depth than I do, or than I gave him credit for. I must retract all my previous statements and implications that suggested otherwise. I'll post a similar acknowledgement on the original thread.Water pepper (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it is technical, but since you're the one who raised the issue, and now want to drop it. Done. (just play nice folks) WhatisFeelings? (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

USS Impeccable

The article about the incident at the USS Impeccable seems completely written from the US navy perspective. Surely this can't be complicant with the Misplaced Pages NPOV policy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.78.111 (talk • contribs)

I can say this so quickly in response because I happen to have already read the article and some of its sources, but it seems to be pretty honest to the sources it cites (several independent, major news sources). Albeit, they probably got much of their own information from the US Navy, so there's no surprise there. You have to keep in mind that the neutral point of view is about reporting all significant opinions that appear in reliable sources. It's not about countering one viewpoint with an opposing viewpoint, as sometimes, only one viewpoint is significant. If there are reliable sources that take a different view of the incident, you can be bold and use them in the article, or you can discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so because it doesn't refer to all facts as a statement of US military and government organisations. Surely you won't mind if I edit this article so it will reflect this better.

I removed some unverifiable claims copied from www.rightpundits.com (a rightwing opinion website). Surely we are allowed here to quote all kinds of claims and opinions, but only if presented as such and not as a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.78.111 (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The section you removed also cited CNN, which is not regarded as a rightwing opinion website. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 10:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, the CNN ref had not yet been added when the section was removed. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that 82.92.78.111 - I've struck out my comment. I looked at Someguy1221's diff instead of your. That'll teach me to pay attention... Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 10:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute some POV. Not to the extent that you claim, however. Anyway, the page has been significantly edited since these claims were made, with several phrases being replaced to be more neutral/unbiased. Thanks, Ono (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of direct quotes and recreation of tables from RS material considered NPOV?

I have been directed here from WP:RSN. We have a situation where there is consensus that a General Accounting Office report is WP:RS, but citing information from it is considered NPOV. I have tried to get the editors that hold that view to explain their position and their response seems to be that they find me to be 'Data mining' and 'Quote Mining' without going into further detail. This was my response when this most recent explanation for the brusque deletions was given:

As for quote mining? How could it escape the eye of anyone that read the website summary, let alone the report, that 3 out of 5 panelists did not agree that Searle had shown that aspertame would not cause brain tumors. Same goes for the information regarding the responses from surveyed researchers, its right there in the web page summary. It is true that the direct quote regarding the FDA Task scientific opinion on the quality of the Searle studies is *buried* on the 2nd line of the first paragraph of the first page of the section dealing with the findings of the FDA Task force. If there was some problem with the surrounding text or placement in the article, that should be discussed on the aptly named discussion page, not unceremoniously deleted, but thats just my opinion of course.

I don't understand how you can call the full reproduction of the questionnaire data 'data mining', we already cover the data but currently in a form that is borderline WP:PN. I first tried my hand at rewriting the entry in question but was quickly reverted, without proper explanation.

Then in an attempt to avoid contentious wording I reproduced the tables verbatim and added them in good faith, this was promptly reverted. In an attempt to find consensus I proposed a section on GAO87 and tried to move forward. To which I received this response.

I am opening a section on NPOVN as per the recommendation of the editor who responded over on WP:RS please do not try to frame this as forum shopping I am simply trying to counter the attempts at Policy shopping that I seem to be facing. user:orangemarlin clearly tried to shed doubt over the use of GAO87 as a NPOV source and user:keepcalmandcarryon holds the opinion that I am 'slanting' the information. This could all have been averted if any of the involved editors chose to be less brusque and more constructive. I apologize in advance for having to take up other editors time with resolving this.

At the risk of WP:SOAP: If we are in a situation where verbatim reproductions of tables is 'Data mining', quoting GAO report summary findings, section summaries is 'quote mining' and GAO reports are understood to be low weight primary sources then wikipedia is in serious serious trouble. Unomi (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the table was a bad move because this kind of detailed information really doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. But it's painfully obvious how a new editor in your situation would make this kind of mistake. An intelligent person who finds themselves in front of a huge brick wall will change direction. If this brick wall was illegally erected in the middle of a motorway, this may lead to them being stopped by the police in the middle of a field. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to ask those who built the brick wall to show a permit for it.

I didn't follow this very closely, but after a cursory reading I got the impression that secondary sources are being used to make claims about what a government document ("GAO87") allegedly says which are explicitly contradicted by what the document says. When Unomi tried to fix this problem they found themselves under a torrent of accusations, most of which consisted of an abbreviated link to a policy or guideline which he supposedly had broken. Most or all of these accusations were never substantiated or withdrawn. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have had a much closer look now, focused on Unomi's first sequence of edits, and have come to the conclusion that he was mainly motivated by an attempt to fix a misrepresentation of GAO87 that was introduced with a rewrite by Keepcalmandcarryon in January. My full analysis in tabular form is at Talk:Aspartame controversy#Unomi deserves an apology. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Charles' bio

I noticed when reading the Wiki bio of Ray Charles that it stated: Years active 1947-2015 That would be tricky since its only 2009 and the gentleman died in 2004!

Thanks for allowing me to presume that this is a mistake! I think it verifies itself!

NV Barbara —Preceding unsigned comment added by NV Barbara (talk • contribs) 06:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation for a book that describes the publishing company

I've just run across a citation where an editor is insisting on putting the aims of the publishing company into the citation along with title, author, etc. This simply doesn't seem right. It isn't a question of whether the publishing company is legitimate or reliable, the book involved is by the subject of the article and it appears to be an attempt, correct or not, to use the aims of the publisher as a comment on the author. Here's a dif to show what I mean - towards the bottom of the 2nd paragraph in the new edit. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not NPOV. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case I think it is - you need to be aware of the context. It's gone now, all the references have been removed by the same editor. But is it something I should raise elsewhere, or is it really ok to have part of the citation a statement of the publicher's aims, or the types of books it publishes (if from a statement by the publisher), etc? dougweller (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. We shouldn't be adding weird little non-standard things to citations. Especially if they smell of POV. It's not neutral. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing "neutrality nomination" box from your Misplaced Pages page.

“This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.”

When the box containing the above notice appears on the top of your page, and for discussion purposes is caused by someone who simply wants to injure the page, how long does it stay there as a "red flag" to the page?

If the person who caused it to go on the page in the first place either drops out of the "talk page" or keeps the discussion alive in order to keep the page "red flagged" by having the box at the top - is there a point in time of resolve to get the page back to its normal and proper appearance and purpose.

Assuming the charges are unfounded - who decides this and who is in charge of removing the box - and how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainman20 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, the editor who added the box made some kind of comment on the discussion page for the article. If they didn't, I would feel comfortable removing it from a low priority article - but I personally would bring it here if it were a high priority article and ask for help in what to do next (or even to the help desk or both). I've added neutrality boxes to articles, I usually write one or more paragraphs on why. If anyone wants to remove it, they should address the concerns I listed. Usually, it's because the article is a biography and the only source of material is the person in question and only quotes and citations from their own work is referenced. Or, it's because someone says something like "So and so successfully shows that Kant is wrong on X," when Kant isn't quoted and the person quotes only so and so. More is needed.Levalley (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

Best & Less

The article on Best & Less is having a IP, User:203.221.217.226, who is owned by the company, is adding POV into the article , and reveting attempts to remove it from the article . The main things that lead me to believe bad faith are the use of adjectives - "our helpful, friendly staff are committed to serving you better", "a leading listed retail group in South Africa".

This was also discussed at WP:COIN two weeks ago. The user was counselled, and since has been blocked for 31 hours.

More eyes and some preventive action on this user is what i am after. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Whitewashing of notorious antisemite occurring. WP:NPOV does not require mining Mein Kampf for quotes justifying Hitler's anti-semitism, but that's exactly what's happening to this article, where reliably sourced material is being removed in favor of primary source quote-mining to create a fake "balance" in favor of fringe thinking. Compare old version to new version. THF (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please somebody not involved comment on my revisions, motivated originally by the substantial BLP issues (reported at WP:BLPN, which is how I came to the article). Thanks. Rd232 04:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the major BLP issue which prompted me to get involved with editing heavily was the NPOV problem that the quotes used to characterise the subject's positions in the old version consistently omitted context to make the quotes appear (more) damaging, plus were arrayed in the lead almost like a charge sheet (instead of a short summary of the issue). "Blackwashing", one might call it... Rd232 05:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm been editing on this that for the last year with several editors and the main consensus has been to present his views and let them speak for themselves and then have a separate section on accusations of antisemitism and response. There was a recent misunderstanding about use of primary sources, but that has been resolved.

Yesterday User:THF comes along and declares that Atzmon is most notable for being an antisemite (without providing WP:RS) and therefore in effect all the political edits must be written to prove that point and any other views of his are simply fringe and not worth much mention. If that isn't POV I don't know what is. In fact I was considering quoting some of his statements to that effect here for comment myself. See all the talk entries from here on. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check out talk entry on Using WP:RS interviews in NPOV way without WP:OR

And feel free to comment as a third opinion since at least two editors continue to assert or don't seem to understand that just because a few opinion pieces published on WP:RS say he's an antisemite, it is Not ok to take quotes out of context of these interviews to prove that point. See Using 3 recent WP:RS interviews in NPOV way without WP:OR CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy to Violate NPOV through Edit War and Information Suppression

Here is an organized and concerted conspiracy to violate NPOV by removing any use of the word "cold" to describe the mantle even though the verifiable and reliable peer-reviewed science uses the word "cold" over and over again to describe the mantle. Also see Expanding Earth where a deliberate organized attempt is being made to suppress any information that might portray the hypothesis in NPOV. And subduction where all critical citation is suppressed. Wikkidd (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that this editor and a suspected sockpuppet have been blocked indefinitely for edit-warring and personal attacks and block evasion. dougweller (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Katyn Massacre

I think this page is very POV. I am giving you some sources to check out:

1. Goebbels J (1948) «The Goebbels Diaries (1942-1943)», translated by Louis P. Lochner (New York: Doubleday & Company)(about the Katyn massacre)

2. «Pravda» 19 April 1943

3.Fisher B «The Katyn Controversy: Stalin's Killing Field»,

4. Furr G. at http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/discuss_katyn041806r.html

5. Roberts G «Stalin's Wars» (New Haven: Yale University Press) (footnote 29)

6. United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States: diplomatic papers: the Conference of Berlin (the Potsdam Conference), 1945, Volume II (1945), page 803

7. Experts of Nuremberg Archives: Nikzor.org - 59th Day, Thursday, 14 February 1946 and Conot R E (1984) «Justice at Nuremberg» (New York: Carol & Graf Publishers) page 454

8. US Congress, House of Representatives, Select Committee on the Katyn Forest Massacre, 82d Congress, 1st and 2nd Session, 1951-1952, 7 parts (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1952)

9. United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1952-1954. United Nations affairs, Volume III (1952-1954), page. 13 and 15

10. Rule E, «The Katyn Massacre», www.stalinsociety.org.uk/katyn.html

11. http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/03/and-now-for-something-not-completely.html

12. "Katyn Graves Story Declared Grim Fraud" ("New York Times", 28 June 1945)

The rest of the editors refuse to even discuss the subject. Spastas (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection? I see a bunch of cites above, but no actual objection. We shouldn't have to go to another website or book to find out/figure out what your objection is. Just tell us. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of people believe that the massacre was the work of the NAZIs, and I think they have a pretty good case for it. I am basing this on the books/sites/newspapers that I am citing. This view is not even mentioned in the article so I can surely say it is POV and needs to be corrected. I have tried to speak to the rest of the editors but they keep telling me that thinking that this article is POV is "ridiculous" and that all of the above sources are "junk". They refuse to acknowledge that somebody is questioning the neutrality of the article, even though I have tried to explain it to them. Spastas (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

During World War II, the Western Allies and the Soviet Union were at war against Nazi Germany. The news of the Katyn Massacre was a huge embarrassment and potentially damaging to the Allied war effort. So, publicly, yes, the Nazis were blamed and yes those accusations were reported by newspapers of the day. But privately, the Allies believed the Soviets were responsible. In any case, in 1990, the Soviet Union finally admitted responsibility for the Katyn Massacre , so there really isn't a debate anymore. There was 60-70 years ago, but not anymore. That's why the editors were saying that these weren't good cites. New information has since come to light. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with TQFN here. The fact that the Russians admitted responsibility means you need to provide some compelling evidence that the admission was false and that the Soviets did not in fact commit the massacre. None of your reliable sources seem to demonstrate that. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I can not prove beyond any doubt that this crime was not committed by the Soviets and that it was committed by the NAZIs, but neither can anybody prove the opposite. None of us were there, so we have to rely on historical sources, both of that time, and of the present. I think that the fact that there is proof that the documents produced by the Russian government are fake(or inconsistent with historical facts to say the least), is something that should make us question them. Also there is a lot of evidence as to who committed the crime. For instance the bullets used for the murders were German and the Soviets could not have had them, as Goebels admits in his diary. Also the rope used was German. The style of execution matches other German crimes. The bodies had not fully disintegrated when they were unearthed. If the crime had been done by the Soviets 3 years earlier, the bodies would have fully disintegrated. Churchill, after the world war, in his famous talk about the "iron curtain" mentions that the crime was the work of the Nazis.

So I believe this is a valid theory, substantiated by a lot of facts and should be at least noted in the articleSpastas (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It may well be a valid theory, but you need to provide modern sources that are reliable, as requested on the talk page of the article. I am not arguing what the truth about the actual massacre is; I am sure you have more familiarity with the subject itself than I do, but I have to support those who question your sources until you can provide reliable (meaning not a blog) modern sources that there is more than a fringe belief that the massacre was perpetrated by the Nazis and not the Soviets. As another editor also noted on the talk page, covering the question of whether the Soviet admission of guilt was a lie can be covered in the article as an added section if consensus supports it, but the sources you provide are not enough to change the tone of the article. The mantra on Misplaced Pages is we report verifiable information, not the "truth". I personally think the two groups, Nazis and Soviets, are equally repulsive so I am certainly not taking a side based on any personal preference, only the relative merit of the sources. I also am not arguing about what you say about the German bullets and rope; it may be true and it may not, but to be included in the article, you need verifiable, reliable third-party modern sources. Historical sources being used to draw conclusions in this case would be original research, so you need to find sources from reliable modern historians discussing these points, not the original documents. Even pre-1990 historian opinion cannot be relied upon because they wrote their opinions before the Russians admitted to the massacre. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)There's no reason for the Soviet Union (and later the Russian Federation) to admit guilt for the massacre. I did some more research, and in 1992, Moscow released the original 1940 execution ordered signed by Stalin himself . Encyclopedia Britannica places the blame on the Soviets as does History.com . The CIA's report on the Katyn Massacre goes into a lot more detail . Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I just edit conflicted with more or less exactly the same answer as The seeker4: we need up to date Reliable sources that put this forward as a legitimate theory in the 21st century. That means recent journal articles, mainstream newspapers and magazines; otherwise we are venturing into Original research which is not permitted here. --Slp1 (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert's book(Yale University press)(2003): In the footnote (n.29, p. 400) Roberts records Harriman's summarizing his daughter's conclusion that "from the general evidence and the testimony Kathleen and the Embassy staff member believe that in all probability the massacre was perpetrated by the Germans."

In the TEXT (pp. 171-2) there's a much longer quotation from Kathleen Harriman.

First, she remarks on how "fresh" the bodies looked. This was a big issue with Burdenko. The Germans said the Soviets had shot the Polish officers in the Spring of 1940, which would have meant they'd have been in the ground during three whole summers, when the earth is warm and decomposition would be rapid.

The Soviets contended that the Germans had shot the Poles in the Fall of 1941, so they'd have been in the ground during only two summers (1942 and 1943). Logically, therefore, better preserved bodies would point towards German guilt.

Goebel's diary might not be new, but if Goebel's admits to the crime...

Supposedly they were "discovered" in 1989. But Gorbachev denies having seen them, or knowing about them at all, at all until December 23, 1991, two days before he left office. (On these points see New York Times articles of October 15, 1992, p. A1 and October 16, 1992, p.A6, available from the Historical New York Times database).

Surely these are reliable sources Spastas (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Kathleen Harriman:

"The coverup began in April 1943, almost immediately after the Red Army had recaptured Smolensk. The NKVD destroyed a cemetery the Germans had permitted the Polish Red Cross to build and removed other evidence. In January 1944, Moscow appointed its own investigative body, known as the Burdenko Commission after the prominent surgeon who chaired it. Predictably, it concluded that the Polish prisoners had been murdered in 1941, during the German occupation, not in 1940. To bolster its claim, the commission hosted an international press conference at Katyn on 22 January. Three American journalists and Kathleen Harriman, the 25-year-old daughter of US Ambassador Averell Harriman, attended. After viewing exhibits of planted evidence, they endorsed the Burdenko Commission's findings. (Ms. Harriman later repudiated her 1944 statement before the House select committee.)" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

First Opium War

No mention of the rigid chinese protocol that forced the emperor and britan into not settling the war peacefully or of the restrictions of the britsh from the rest of the country except Canton due to Xenophobia. Also no mention of the British refusal to meet with anyone except the emperor and refusal to kowtow (kneel and place head on the ground 9 times) due to a belief that GB is greater than any other country. Article is skewed slightly in these respects..... Lbparker40 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"it seems that way because pbhj seem have to adopted the article and is bulldoging it against attempts to provide balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk • contribs)" Lbparker40 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST

An RFC has been opened regarding the guideline WP:TERRORIST on the talk page at WT:WTA. To all viewers: your comments are welcome. Ray 18:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion needed at Meat

In coming across the article on Meat especially the "Nutritional benefits and health concerns" section, I felt as is that part of the article was written by a devoted vegetarian: there is hardly a sentence about the benefits of meat in a balanced diet, and the section waxes verbose on a slew of primary sources that report a correlation of some aspect of meat eating with a disease as if meat eating was in all cases causing the disease in question. However, I would appreciate a second opinion to gauge whether I might be too easily offended. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section is very one-sided POV. A tiny blurb at the beginning about being high in protein is followed by paragraphs of "meat is bad because..." Definately needs cleanup. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The section also has some problems with WP:MEDRS, especially the use of primary sources. -Atmoz (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started work on the section. Additional help and/or feedback would be most welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Separation of Indology and Indian Politics on Subhash Kak

A user or users have used language in the past that conveys their POV. We discussed some things, and most were obliged. However, he/she/they will not allow the ToC subjects of Indology and Indian Politics to be separated. These are inextricably linked, but mutually exclusive subjects. Please make note of my previous edit, and how it was reverted.

Also, several people were engaged in off-topic discussions that at times got quite personal and nasty, which should have at least been discussed more privately.

NittyG (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia terminology on articles relating to Greece

A straw poll is currently ongoing about how the Republic of Macedonia should be described in the article Greece and related articles. The name of the Republic of Macedonia is a controversial issue in Greek politics and a number of articles relating to Greece use a different terminology from that in operation in the rest of Misplaced Pages. The straw poll proposes that the terminology should be standardised across Misplaced Pages to meet neutral point of view requirements. Please leave comments at Talk:Greece#Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issue from WikiProject Firearms (section 24 "navbox" related)

{{USgunorgs}} nominated for NPOV-check because of additional problems with the template beyond layout. Trying my best to do this right, sorry if did it wrong --Kuzetsa (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So...what are the "additional problems with the template beyond layout"? Aside from two comments made in September 2006, I don't see any discussion of POV issues with the template. --Hamitr (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

removing the controversy section from a company article

See Talk:Websense#.22Controversy.22_section. Someone wants to remove all the controversies around Websense, a software that is know for all the controversies around it. Removed sources include Amnesty International, internet free speech defender Peacefire and political scientist Norman Finkelstein. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite accurate, Enric. I don't feel the Controversy section (or, indeed, the article as a whole) is neutral and it gives undue prominence to very minor matters.

• Websense is a software product that gets installed on web gateways - it can be done by companies (or schools, or libraries, or public service/government organisations) to stop their employees/users browsing for porn, or non-work sites, or illegal download sites, or whatever.

• Websense, the company, filters websites into predefined categories (and administrators of the software can put any site they wish into any category they wish). The categories get downloaded onto the local copy of the software at predefined intervals.

• The administrators of the installed software decided what categories get blocked, or don't get blocked. (Or, IIRC, that some categories get blocked during working hours but are fine on lunch/after hours).

So why is the article NPOV?

• Inaccuracy: The lead says "This enables its clients, businesses and governments, to block user access to chosen categories of website." Websense's clients are organisations. Businesses, schools, colleges, ISPs, libraries, voluntary and public sector organisations. Not governments. I'm not aware of any government that acts as an ISP.

• Bias: A screenshot is captioned "Having been set up in this instance to filter the category "advocacy groups," Websense is seen preventing access to the human rights organization Amnesty International at http://amnesty.org/" That would be because Websense (the company) correctly placed the Amnesty site in the category "Advocacy groups". Some admin in the organisation where the screenshot was taken decided that the category "Advocacy groups" should not be available from that organisation's web connection. I.e., not the fault of Websense (the company). A fairer screenshot and caption might be of Websense blocking access to some adult/porn site...

• Undue weight: From the reference, Norman Finkelstein's blog was apparently placed in some category that got it blocked - by some unspecified organisation. A user complained to Websense that the blog was in the wrong category. They fixed it the next day. Websense categorise thousands of sites every day - I'm sure they'd admit they're not 100% accurate, but when it was brought to their attention, they changed it. How is that noteworthy? They've mis-categorised several sites I've needed for work, and an admin either changes it themselves, or gets Websense (the company) to do it - no real hassle, or conspiracy. Bastun 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The controversies are sourced, so I don't think they can be removed outright. Fair or not, the media has covered these criticisms, so the best thing to would be to include answers to the controversies (even cited to the company itself would be valid as long as the answers are noted as being the company's answers) in the controversies section. I think that would be more fair, and more balanced, since removing this content would be ignoring the very real coverage of these issues. Just my uninvolved opinion :-) The Seeker 4 Talk 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Article lead seeming to attempt to exempt article from NPOV and RS.

I came across an article which desires to be a List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience. It has 2 major problems as far as I can tell, but I could be wrong, 1. It defines a limited number of 'appropriate sources' from which these characterizations may come from, rather than relying on RS and Notability. 2. Some of these characterizations come from non-RS sources but these 'characterizations' are not in-text attributed to those that made them. I believe that no matter what is written in the Lead, the WP policies regarding attributing 'opinion' still holds. There is a bit of back and forth on the talk page which may be of interest, the current discussion starts here Unomi (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology is generally not a RS for subjects related to science and pseudoscience. It's a pseudoreligion that pushes pseudoscientific ideas.

WP:RS states that sources must be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and WP:V that "he appropriateness of any source always depends on the context". Those important phrases obviously are requesting editors to make common sense judgment calls each time they edit. Especially the first one requires that sources that misuse information and twist words cannot be considered "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

No pseudoskeptical sources can be considered "trustworthy" or "authoritive" on the subjects of science or pseudoscience, since they don't understand them and they reinterpret the words to mean whatever they wish them to mean. Humpty Dumpty is not a good source. Through the Looking-Glass-type sources only create confusion. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

@Fyslee: I am going to ask you one last time to cease and desist with using strawman tactics and attributing statements or intents to me which you do not back up with diffs. I have never sought inclusion of Scientology sources. I repeatedly stated that the Scientology discussion was silly. But nor do I accept that a non-rs source is used as an RS, and further, to the exclusion of other sources of similar RS-status on the basis of your special pleading and irrelevant thesis. The source which you seem to hold in such high regard was held in such low esteem by California Superior Court Judge Hon. Haley J. Fromholz that he saw fit to write

and

This is not some woo-woo propaganda. You bandy his website around on the feeble excuse that there are 'no better sources', seeing as how he is presumably (one can hope) used as a secondary source I find that somewhat hard to believe. If anyone is trying on a No true scotsman type fallacy it would be you with your tenuous grasp of 'trustworthy' and 'authoritative'. Now I have not tried to stop you from using Barrett as a sources if that is what you wish, but you must realize then that in-text attribution of the opinions must be given and further that this opens the door for other sources as per WP:NPOV. It is exactly to exclude Scientology etc. that I argued for the strict adherence to RS, and that RS/N was the place to go for confirmation of what constitutes RS. You consistently indicated your unwillingness to abide by wikipedia guidelines and policy and seemed to imagine for yourself some loophole where you could cherry pick sources without going to RS/N. That is why we are here at this noticeboard; if you continue to make unfounded and slanderous accusations we will very quickly see ourselves at yet another venue for dispute resolution. Unomi (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unomi has a habit of sounding a lot like other (in this case banned) editors. Both points of Unomi's are misleading and at best show he is working under a misunderstanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Quackwatch has been found to be, on and off wikipedia, a reliable source. Fyslee is correct, and is referring to a recent discussion on the article talk page. There is no NPOV-problem at this article (except with the occasional edit that is quickly fixed or reverted), the article after extensive discussion was renamed and edited to more than address any possible NPOV concerns. In my view it went to far, and we're now seeing editors with a certain view trying their luck at taking the next mile. Verbal chat 19:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My points are not misleading, they are exactly the heart of the matter. That you seem to exhibiting signs of Ego defence to the point of mis-characterizing me is troubling. If you do a search on RS/N for QuackWatch you will find that it has indeed never been held as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages, and I think that the quote of the judge above paints a rather different picture than the one you are trying to paint. As the article is currently having its NPOV status questioned by multiple editors on its talk page it certainly does seem to have an NPOV problem. Unomi (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What is this dispute about? I mean, I see what you're arguing about, but what specific Misplaced Pages content or policy is at issue here? Actually, I see that User:Eldereft made the same request. Quit mining court decisions, which even with the ridiculous contextomy you've performed have no bearing on the matter at hand, and try making a specific suggestion in a reasonable tone. Is your point that you don't think Barrett is an appropriate source? I might agree with that, depending on the circumstances, but when you start mining court decisions you're essentially warning me not to take you seriously. MastCell  21:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that it seems like we are using non-rs material in an RS fashion, ie without direct in-text attribution. It also seems like there is confusion as to which entities may have their characterizations included. This is a direct consequence of not, in my opinion, adhering to RS and/or NPOV. The quotes which you found absurd in the highest degree are, I believe, representative of the Judges assessment of Barrett, but you are right that it does not belong here, I was merely trying to make Fyslee see that what I saw as his appeal to authority was unfounded in more ways than one. Unomi (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any non-RS sources used in an RS fashion, I just see a POV-pusher trying to label any RS he disagrees with as being unreliable. DreamGuy (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• DreamGuy which 'POV' do you believe that I am pushing and based on which actions of mine? Unomi (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, you really do need to read the contents found at the link listed in this box (copied from the top of the Quackwatch talk page: -- Fyslee (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

An amendment to a previous ArbCom finding has been made. In the process, important observations were made about the use of Quackwatch as a source.

I have read it, perhaps you should take the time to read it again. Let me summarize my understanding of it again and perhaps this time you will have the courtesy of responding to my comments regarding it. Arbcom found that they should not make content rulings, and as such should not characterize QW as reliable or otherwise. The fact that they don't say that it is reliable does not mean that they found it to be reliable nor does it exempt it from being used in accordance to WP guidelines or policy or being subject to the findings of RS/N. If you believe my summary is incorrect here and now would be the time to point it out to me. Unomi (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather selective and twisted interpretation. You're welcome to be more specific on my talk page. This is not the right place for this discussion. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, I have some questions for (only) you here. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between a list of pseudosciences and a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience?

What would be the difference(s) between a "List of pseudosciences" and a "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience"? -- Levine2112 00:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the words "topics", "characterized" and "as"? Shot info (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. Allow me to rephrase. What is the difference(s) between a list of pseudosciences and a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience? -- Levine2112 03:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, please refrain from changing the topic of this thread. While this might be a remotely related matter (because it comes from the same article talk page), it only muddies the waters and sidetracks the discussion to bring it up here. I'm already having trouble figuring out what Unomi really is after without you bringing this other topic up. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posed a valid question which - as I mentioned before - directly relates to topic of this thread. I have have posed this question (or an amalgamation of such) several times in the past day or two, but no one has yet answered it for some strange reason. If you would be so kind to answer this time, I'd greatly appreciate it. What is the difference between a list of pseudosciences and a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience? -- Levine2112 04:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the work "characterized"??? One would be a list of X. One is a list of somebody saying it is X?????? The reason why you probably haven't received an answer is possibly as it is self evident. But what do you propose, that the two lists (assuming there are two lists) are merged? Or created? Or modified in some fashion. Don't forget that here in WP, you have the right to ask a question (numerous times in fact) but you have no right to an answer. Shot info (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer can be found in the long discussions that led up to the change of title, which made the title NPOV (it violated it before) and brought the title into line with the existing inclusion criteria and content. You were an active participant in those discussions, so this is a disruptive discussion here, and knowing you it's probably a trick question. Go and reread the discussions and you will find the answer. Why should we do your work for you? You're misusing this board. The community of editors who discussed the whole matter made a decision. Just because you don't want to abide by it doesn't mean you can legitimately misuse this board now, so long after the decision. Abide by the results of that decision and start editing in a collaborative manner. This nitpicking, stonewalling, and general disruptiveness is very tiring. You're not getting your way there, so now you are spreading your dissatisfaction to this board in a form of forum shopping and it shouldn't be encouraged by legitimizing your question with an answer which you already know. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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