Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 14 November 2011

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

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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

College dating

Whatever the reason, the College dating entry represents, in contrast to "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" on the topic, only one view, one that neither claims nor cites evidence to suggest that it is representative. One editor says that being "just incomplete and poorly developed" should be an exemption from the basic requirement of the NPOV policy quoted above, and has removed a maintenance template, directing me here. So I am soliciting views on both the specific article, and on the general topic of whether an article that is so incomplete that it gives a skewed view of its subject is in conformity with the NPOV policy.

Thank you, _matic 03:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thee is a reason we do not slap POV templates on all stubs, and other poorly developed articles. Look at Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Even a C-class article states, by definition, that it is not comprehensive. Yet, we don't tag all C and below class articles with POV templates for a reason, the reason being that not being comprehensive is not the same thing as not being neutral. In even simpler words: small is not necessarily evil, just... small :) POV applies to articles that are biased towards some points of view, not to articles that are simply not comprehensive, because they are not developed. The article may deserve tagging with some Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Cleanup indicating a need for expansion, but not with the generic POV template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Some forms of incompleteness lead to POV problems, some don't. The incompleteness in this article does. It's not a question of missing certain pertinent but non-essential facts. Rather, it's a case of a very narrow subset of the topic being presented as being representative of the topic or relevant to the topic on a standalone basis. I have created dozens of stubs, none of which (as far as I'm aware) has ever been tagged for POV violation because of its brevity, so the "small ≠ evil" concept is well familiar to me. But it's simply inapplicable here. _matic 13:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are just repeating yourself. Let's wait for input from others. Oh, a disclaimer on our POVs: I am instructor of the students writing this article, and Bongomatic is an editor who tried to get the article deleted, and even after the debate was closed keeps commenting on talk that the article should be deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about the npov tag itself, but the article is very incomplete. It says there are several "types and traditions", but then only describes one (disturbing) practice. There is already a globalization tag, which is certainly needed as it seems to have an unstated focus on dating in one nation (US, I would guess). The article makes no mention of possible negative outcomes to dating, i.e. the only mention of date rape is the see also link that I have added, and which has been questioned as even belonging - a section should be added about the topic. LadyofShalott 16:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the article is far from being comprehensive. The point asked, however, is - does it make it non-neutral? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article has improved since I last looked at it--it now resembles something close to an article, and in its current state I don't see the need for a POV tag. I am glad to see a section on date rape, of course; I suggested a while ago that sexual violence on college campuses ought to be paid some attention. So I am not displeased, on the whole--but when Bongo started this thread, the date rape thing wasn't in there (unless I'm mistaken), and I think that his tagging was warranted. Now for that globalize tag... (other countries have colleges and dating too, I would imagine) Drmies (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I still think the article is woefully inadequate and fails to address all of the significant perspectives on the matter, including some of the most basic (what percentage of people find their spouses from college dating? etc.). But it has improved substantially and I don't have a strong opinion on the tag any longer. _matic 14:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

19 out of 40 references about violence and rape? I get the impression that rape is a major factor in daily college life in Amerika. I'm curious about the frequency, must be a few reports per week per campus, by the looks of it? or is it just a coatrack? DS Belgium (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory definition

The Conspiracy theory article is having some POV problems. I am trying to follow WP:LEADCITE and am supported by Mystichumwipe and Mystylplx but we have editors reverting under the guise of a consensus which with the three of us think doesn't exist.

Here is what I want to put in:

A conspiracy theory in its broadest sense is "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means." but it is also used as a derogatory term to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.

1) "But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.)

2) "What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.

3) Balaban, Oded (2005) Interpreting conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations at Camp David II and Beyond Peter Lang Page 66

4) Parish, Jane (2001) The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences Wiley-Blackwell page 94

5) "conspiracy theory n (1909) the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties. Originally a neutral term, but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event." 20th Century Words (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15.

Keeping WP:LEADCITE in mind just what is wrong with this lead?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am half-heartedly involved.

It appears the issue at Conspiracy theory concerns whether the lead should say

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.(permalink)

or should say

A conspiracy theory in its broadest sense is "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means;" but it is also used as a derogatory term to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.(permalink)

One side asserts that the first summary is accurate and the second is an attempt to cleanse "conspiracy theory" to remove its negative connotations so it is merely a theory about a conspiracy rather than a cuckoo belief as is actually the case. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that my version has reliable sources to back it up while the version it replaces has NONE. WP:LEADCITE clearly states "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Again, keeping WP:LEADCITE in mind just what is wrong with the lead I am presenting?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Drop the "but" and use a separate sentence on the general nature of: Some conspiracy theories are thought sufficiently unlikely that the term is often used to indicate extreme unlikelihood of a theory being correct. Avoiding any "negative" wording, but making the nature of the problem clear to readers. IMO. Collect (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The but likely reflects comments by authors like Keeley (see Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15#Conspiracy_theory-definitions_and_meaning) who makes a distinction between conspiracy theories in general and Unwarranted Conspiracy Theories (UCT). Clearly the referenced version is the better one.--67.42.65.209 (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Collect's suggested changes. I think the "but it is also used as" can give an impression that the second definition is somehow suspect, or less valid. Mystylplx (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(I'm involved) Mystylplx, why do you think that "but it is also used as" casts the second definition as suspect or less valid? I'm also concerned that BruceGrubb use of quotes creates the impression that the source say exactly that, and they don't, but I expect that is more of an issue for WP:RS. In way of context, we did hold a straw poll on this issue two months ago, see Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15#Up_or_down_.21vote_on_Black_Kite.27s_suggestion in which we reached rough consensus to use the simple version, but BruceGrubb has refused to accept that or to acknowledge that most sources do use the pejorative meaning. My basic question for this forum would be are there any neutrality issues in regard to the first version listed here by Johnuniq? I don't think there are any POV issues with it myself, but it seems to me that BruceGrubb's suggest introduces a POV issue by stressing that the "broadest meaning" is neutral, and that seems unsupported by sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you have admitted that you cannot read some of these sources and your claim "In your version of the lede, you're presenting the definition as a quotation, and none of the sources use that exact phrase" presented in the talk page can be proven to be false as the two sources quoted at length above do indeed use that exact phrase:

"But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a 'conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.)

2) "What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.

In fact, "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means" is taken straight from the first source ie a direct quote.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, we're here to get outside opinions on the POV question, not to carry this endless debate to yet another forum. And I'm sorry, you're right about the quote appearing in the one (although you attribute it to four), but that's a posed question, not a definition. I think to use a portion of the question in this way to define the term is not neutral. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

After going to the talk pages it is clear that you and several others are ignoring NPOV. The version with actual references is the superior version so give it a rest.--216.31.124.148 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, the version you and several other editors support has NO references to back it up--not a single one. Are you and those other editors now claiming that a book published by the freaking Oxford University Press doesn't know what it is talking about without thing to back that up?!? Do any of you understand how insane that position is? When I challenged Knight's claim of the phrase first appearing in 1909 I at least had reliable sources to back up my position; so far all we have seen contesting my position is a bunch of empty OR rhetoric and not a single RS backing up any of it up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street nuetrality needs checking

My major concern is the use of academics, authors, activists, celebrities and other living persons in a way that may violate Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policies and guidelines. Even as a strong supporter of the Occupy movement I am disturbed by the promotional tone that is near pamphlet like in its prose and references seem to be used to promote the author's works, especially in the case of lawrence Lessig, which now seems to have only Misplaced Pages making claims about this academics involvement with protesters at the level being claimed. (I have removed much today, but it keeps being returned by a very stubborn editor) in google searches and all sourced by the same editor. The use of user submitted video with copyright problems seems to be way out of line for many reasons, point of view being just one of them with very weak explanations and arguments to include. Heavy use of images without context to article and only decorative, many from the same photographer/editor that could be seen as POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I do share your concern but IMO it is overshadowed by (and perhaps difficult to separate from) the behavior of a few extremely disruptive editors who seem to feel they should not be fettered by troublesome policies such as V, NOR, and CON. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A recent edit to the article has used a reference from the NY times that shows David Haack to have a leadership role in the protest and the Demands working group. how do we handle his blogs and articles concerning the movement moving forward? Also the 99% Declaration continues to be used as a primary source to reference claims about the document. Is this within MOS or should it be used as an illustrative source behind secondary sources?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Biased presentation of the critical response to Hart of Dixie

The article on Hart of Dixie misrepresents the critical response to the show, deliberately portraying it as more positive than it actually is. See discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hart_of_Dixie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephkugelmass (talk • contribs) 01:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently balanced in the Critical reception section. As you can see on the article's talk page here, the new editor above has suggested the favorable comments be deleted. This would consititute WP:UNDUE. this has already been explained to him. Indeed, another editor has also already stated that as it is, the article is balanced re: positive and negative reviews by TV critics. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The above statement is a deliberate misrepresentation. If I thought the existing positive material should be deleted, I would have attempted to delete it. I merely disapprove of Lhb1239 actively re-editing the document so that the positive quotations precede the negative ones, which were more representative, and which appeared in more reliable publications. Take a look for yourself! Josephkugelmass (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass

I think that the current critical reception section gives undue weight to TVLine. WP:UNDUE states that "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." For creative works like televions shows, WP:UNDUE also states that an article can describe how the "work has been received by prominent experts". Note that the prominence of the source matters. Putting these ideas together, applying WP:UNDUE here mean that the proportion of positive and negative reception in the article should match the proportion found in prominent TV critics. For television shows, MOS:TV provides a list of prominent critical sources: "Reviews should preferably come from the conglomerates (Associated Press, REUTERS, Canadian Press), major newspapers (USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times ) and major periodicals (TV Guide, TIME, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly)."

The current Hart of Dixie critical reception section gives TVLine priority by listing it first and giving it much more space than TV Guide and the LA Times (whose review for Hart of Dixie was published by The Toronto Star). I've looked for other reviews from sources listed in MOS:TV, and so far, they've all been negative. For example, USA Today wrote, "There's nothing deep in 'Hart of Dixie'".

While I think it may be good to provide a brief positive statement about the show and TVLine would work as a source for that, the current version of the reception section is out of line per WP:UNDUE and MOS:TV.-- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sanity check on Calgary Stampede

Specifically the animal welfare section. Another editor has periodically made edits that, in my opinion, are an attempt at slanting the section towards an anti-chuckwagon racing POV. See my reversion from yesterday's changes here. I feel that the changes made do not reflect the sources that pre-existed, while new additions are from advocacy sites and blogs that do not qualify as RSes. Knowing the controversy exists, I went to significant lengths to try and present both sides as neutrally as possible. Given I wrote the article in its current state (and took it to FA), I would rather not resort to simply reverting such changes without other views so as to avoid appearing to be taking a WP:OWN stance on the article. As such, I would appreciate opinions on both the section of the article, and the appropriateness of my revert. Thanks, Resolute 17:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

minor comment: The couple refused, attending and participating in a private demonstration of rodeo and chuckwagon events.. Seems unlikely they actually refused, the Royals don't usually make public announcements about such issues. DS Belgium (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading your version it seems POV as well.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, DS Belgium. I will reword that. Slatersteven, can you give me an example? Resolute 17:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"the animal activist community placed political pressure on travel agencies " smacks of POV, as does "Each year, the Stampede attempts to balance rodeo", which I cannot find mentioned in the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see you have made modifications to both passages, thanks. FWIW, the latter was cited to here (ref 112 in the article): "The two-step between contemporary animal-welfare sensitivities and hootin’-and-hollerin’ rodeo tradition continues in 2010". Resolute 17:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And suddenly there is an IP editor tagging the hell out of the article, with no actionable reason why... on the talk page they seem upset by my intro paragraph on my FA nomination rather than anything to do with the article itself. Could someone assess this discussion as well? Resolute 18:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation: Reduction of the whole melange to perhaps three paragraphs from the current six, removal of the images, removal of such words as "argue" and "claim" and simply stating that animal rights groups are unhappy that the Humane Society works with the major fair. Heck, cutting the entire article in half would double its effectiveness. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I would like to think that I haven't put too much bloat into the piece, so a theoretical cut down would possibly necessitate a split to a history of... child article. I'm not sure I want to do something like that at this point, but it is worth considering in the future. Resolute 22:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The section is way too long. We should provide more attention to what the Humane Society, the mainstream animal welfare group, says, and less to fringe animal rights groups. TFD (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The VHS is, alas, a mainstream group, while the animal welfare issue is becoming a dominant theme at the Stampede. I have tried to detail not only the local and outside views of the various humane societies, but the attitudes of Stampede itself, and changes made irrespective of outside influence. Cutting paragraphs 3 and 4 seems the most logical to me, but I fear that doing so would strip the section of historical context. I am interested in any specific suggestions you have in mind, however. Resolute 14:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have paired down one paragraph by a couple of lines,Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that. Thank you, Resolute 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

shortemde thje following paragraph too, there is a bit too much detail.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Vancouver Humane Society is not a mainstream organization. It is not a member of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and should not be confused with the Vancouver branch of the BC SPCA, the main animal welfare group in the city. Note too that the Stampede does even take place in British Columbia. TFD (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that (and on that latter point, the Calgary Sun has had some truly amazing front pages and editorials attacking the VHC for butting into Calgary's business). However, affiliated or not, they have been major players in recent controversies and have managed to push bans at other major rodeos. I don't care for them too much, but I can't call them fringe either. That said, they aren't even identified by name in that section, so I think I only wasted your time bringing them up. Sorry about that. Slatersteven's modifications look like they are helping pare the section down. Resolute 16:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland has no conservative parties at all?

has the edit summary:

Remove unsourced section. The SVP btw is no longer consider a conservative party)

Leaving not a single conservative party in that entire nation. Nil. Is this true? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

All that's needed is to find a source calling it conservative.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the parties removed is the "Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland." I kinda sorta think that finding a source calling it "conseervative" is a no-brainer. YMMV. The WP article calls it "centre-right." is also clear. Has proof of existence been met? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Some parties with "liberal" in their name are actually conservative - we can't go by names alone. "Centre-right" isn't the same as "conservative". If we can find a source saying that the party is conservative then add it back, if not then leave it off. I don't see an NPOV issue here.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Note further that the entire unsourced section was added today.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In the case at hand, the parties are clearly considered "conservative" by multiple RS sources, are each described as "conservative" in their respective articles on Misplaced Pages (sourced), and each is on the "right" in Switzerland per Swiss news articles. I wot not how to explain this to you, but sometimes it looks like replies are made without thought. And how does the adding of material by another editor make any difference at all as to whether there are absolutely no conservative parties in Switzerland? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For the amusement of onlookers - see as one example which makes clear that there are, in fact, conservative parties in Switzerland! Collect (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources then add material summarizing them. No big deal.   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In order to categorize a party as conservative, or christian democrat or liberal, etc., we need to demonstrate not only that some sources call it that but that that is the normal categorization of the party. The article clearly states in the section on political parties, "According to Alan Ware, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK retained viable conservative parties into the 1980s. ... Since then, the Swiss People's Party has moved to the extreme right and is no longer considered to be conservative. " The Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland btw is actually called the Bourgeois Democratic Party of Switzerland and is a splinter of the the SVP. However, it may be too insignificant for any sources to exist about its categorization. The Christian Democratic People's Party is categorized as christian democratic, rather than conservative. Will, these foreign "liberal" parties really are liberal, they just do not conform with American terminology. See for example Arthur Schlesinger's 1956 "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans": "...liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country...." TFD (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but much of this looks like a typical case of WP:SYNTH. You have Ware (with his idiosyncrasies) claiming "viable parties", then you substract the SVP based on Flecker (who may use a different classification scheme) and end in none? Finally (here is my Meta-WP:OR!), party classifications are very much ambiguous, and many parties can be classified as both "conservative" and "liberal" (European sense, or "conservative" and "christian democratic". In particular, the German CDU and CSU have been classified as "conservative" for really long periods of time (and, weirdly enough, the "Christian Social" party is universally regarded as more conservative than the "Christian Democratic" party - these are just labels). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see any NPOV angle to this matter. Why can't this be discussed on the article talk page?   Will Beback  talk  05:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of an entire section based on a SYNTH claim that no conservative parties exist in Switzerland is absolutely an NPOV issue, Will. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The categorization was developed by Klaus von Beyme. Ware is merely used as a source for the broad acceptance of Von Beyme's categorization. Of course Ware was writing in the 1980s, and Flecker writes in 2007, "a party that was formerly a conservative one...."(p. 217) Flecker of course is writing about the "extreme right", which is part of Von Beyme's terminology. Note that in A Europe, a Political Profie : AnAmerican Companion to European Politics (2011), Hans Slomp identivies the SVP as "Radical right", which is a category of the extreme right. (p. 486) And Slomp explains the various ideologies in Chapter 7, "European Liberals are Not American Liberals". In fact there are extensive sources for categorization of modern European parties, all of which place the SVP in a different category from traditional conservative parties. Incidentally I originally created the Switzerland section, but removed it when I found that later writers did not consider the SVP to be conservative. TFD (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ecopsychology

This page was nominated for a POV check back in 2007 but it doesn't look like much was done or that it ever made it here. I know nothing of the subject so I'm not sure where to start. Nformation 22:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it NPOV to use a Mormon source to describe a critic as a "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist"?

See . I did a quick Google Book search and didn't find similar comments, although Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal seems to be mentioned in a number of books. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. Such a claim would have to be supported by an independent scholarly source. The source provided is not independent, nor is it scholarly. As a self-published source, it would fail as "unduly self-serving", as the LDS Church has a vested interest in undermining the journalist's credibility. Even with attribution, it would almost certainly fail WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course a document hosted by Brigham Young University cannot be used to write that a critic can be dismissed merely as a "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist". While a case could be made to attribute the statement as an opinion (of those who disagree with the journalist), that would be a rather transparent attempt to cherry pick factoids in order to discount a critic. An article on Misplaced Pages should not discount a statement attributed to an author unless an independent source has discounted the author. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am coming late to this issue, but I have to say I agree with Dougweller that the statement is not NOPV, but not for the same reasons listed here. I have no problem with the source itself, not using "Mormon source". However, To assume that all LDS scholars are Bias and cannot be objective, is just as inappropriate as a Mormon editor insisting that an all "Anti-Mormon" scholars can't be objective about Mormon research. One's religion should not even be an issue on Misplaced Pages. Mormons (not the Mormon church) have a very good history at researching history. However, again, I don't think the statement is NOPV and should be removed since it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but is just an attack.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 16:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The source is a book review in a publication of Brigham Young University, which puts it on the same level as a book review in an academic publication. However I do not think that makes it a good source and the author appears to be expressing his own opinion rather than the consensus opinion of historians and therefore WP:WEIGHT would require us to igore it. TFD (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. The statement is POVish and dose seem to be a matter of the authors opinion. It should not be used and should be ignored. However, the statement above like "Such a claim would have to be supported by an independent scholarly source" and "Of course a document hosted by Brigham Young University cannot be used to write that a critic can be dismissed...." are what I took issue with. It seems that Dominus Vobisdu and Johnuniq are saying (and if I'm wrong forgive me) that a book review in a publication of Brigham Young University, is not an academic publication, since it came from Mormons. That is what I took issue with, just as I take issue with Mormons who say that I can't be objective about Mormonism since my family history was part of Mormonism, but I am not one. I just don't think that "They are Mormons" is justification for removing the statement and it sets a very bad precedence.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 17:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Brigham Young University has some distinctly non-standard policies with regard to academic freedom that limit its use as a reliable source on issues where the Mormon faith is concerned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So has a large number of other Universities. If your going to limit Brigham Young University sources you have to limit them all.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 21:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the examples you link to are either not based on official policy, or are several decades old. Brigham Young has a specific policy of forbidding opposition to Mormonism. If there are other universities that limit academic expressions, then yes, these are indeed dubious sources for that field. Liberty University publications are not, e.g. reliable sources on biology or geology or anthropology. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sound like typical Anti-Mormon bigotry. BYU dose not have "a specific policy of forbidding opposition to Mormonism." That is your opinion. You can't have it both ways. Ether it is or it isn't a academic source. If we are then every collage in everywhere has to have a second source for everything.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 12:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Is this not an example of where the solution is just to write "Mormon source X writes that Y is a "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist""? Including that seems more a matter of WP:DUE than NPOV since it is a factual statement about what a Mormon source has written without omitting the sources possible bias or representing the sources opinion as a fact or in a non-neutral manner.AerobicFox (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

While I like your suggestion, the more I read over the talk page the started this discussion (ie Talk:Children of Joseph Smith) the more I think this has nothing to do with "Mormon sources" vs "Non-Mormon Source" but an attempt to reopen the "Abortion" debate in the past on that page. Therefor I'm not sure if the this will solve the issue. Not that this help, but I thought it was worth mentioning.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 18:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI: A WP:Consensus and a WP:Compromise between the two editor in this issues has been reach so I have made the agreed upon changes. Therefore the page will no longer include the POV statement nor Mormon source anyway, making this issue Moot.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 21:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

JIMPORTANT! Challenges Tab on Junie B Jones/ Childrens Book

Junie B. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

am writing herein as the Talk page for this article has many posts yet nothing has changed. This article is not open to editing or I would have clarified the problem.

The Challenges Tab is completely misleading. It references The American Library Association site staying that these books are #71 of #100 on their "Challenges" list and states why these are listed thereon. Unfortunately, any additional reference of explanation of what the list actually represents is not included.

This ommission is Crucial since the Talk Page has been addressing the Challenges Tab over and over and it is absolutely Critical to Clarify what this list is and the fact that the ALA DOES NOT SUPPORT these listed books as needing any censorship outside of parental choice. To the contrary, according to The ALA (cited as below), they advocate for First Amendment Rights. The list is compiled from newspaper articles, feedback from other libraries, etc. and The ALA's research has been completely distorted in this article to the point where the author of these books has a good case for there being LIBELOUS MISREPRESENTATION OF HER WORK THAT WOULD BE A BASIS FOR A LAWSUIT AGAINST[REDACTED] SINCE, WITHOUT A READER LIKE MYSELF DOING FURTHER RESEARCH, MOST PERSONS REFERENCING THESE BOOKS ON THIS WEBSITE WOULD BE SWAYED TO NOT PURCHASE HER MATERIAL!

I personally almost decided not to purchase them for my granddaughter.

Please take the necessary action. I almost always check references when seeking clarification but from the posts on the Talk Page, it would appear people disagree with the author's mistake but they did not read through The ALA's website as the link cited in the article just goes to the list of censored books. Seeing the Harry Potter series as #1 as well as literary classics on this list is what made me investigate further.

Thank you for your time and attention to this potentially volatile misrepresentation.

Corinne Smith <redacted>

If you need a volunteer to investigate articles, I would be happy to help out. I am both a reseacher and writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corspeak (talk • contribs) 16:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any action whatever is required here. Warned Corinne about the NLT policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, I'm trying to look at this, and in the article there's a brief description of why it's on the list, cited, unfortunately, to a blog directly. We don't consider blogs to generally be reliable sources, so that's one problem, but the cite doesn't go to the specific blog post mentioning the Jones books which is also a problem. The ALA list used as a reference does list both Banned and Challenged books and has Junie B. Jones as #71 on the list, so that's accurate. Part of the reason for that list is to highlight classic books that various groups don't like (Steinbeck, Mark Twain, etc).

Also, please, please be careful using legal terms on Misplaced Pages. We've got a very strict policy called no legal threats that I don't think you cross, but it gets a bit close. I don't think WP pointing out that a book is on a banned or challenged list from a major group like the ALA is even close to the criteria for libel. Unfortunately for Barbara Park, some groups do object to her books. That's just a fact. I think that section could use some additional references and maybe some examples though. I'll add it to my list of things to look at. If you happen to find some good examples of groups that have challenged that book (and why) or something from the ALA about why they added that book to the list, adding them to the talk page would be helpful. Please look at our reliable sources page though so you'll know what kind of sources we can use in our articles. In particular, most blogs are usable sources for us. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Subtle anti-Israeli sentiment in the lede of the Palestinian people article

What can I say, I really don't know what else to do so I'm here. This is the discussion, but really, apart from "it's relevant" no one has a convincing argument. The problem is best described below the aforementioned paragraph, under the RfC heading that yielded virtually no response. Here is how I presented the question – hopefully, this will be settled in an encyclopedic manner:

• Basically, the question is whether or not it is appropriate for the lead section of an article about Palestinian people to:
  1. Precede the wikilink Palestinian territories by the expression "Israeli-occupied";
  2. List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Under international law it is occupied.Slatersteven (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't there be an argument that excluding this information would be much more anti-Israeli? That would be to suppress the hard information that the area is controlled by the Israeli military and has a large Israeli population. Surely?

Plus, I think "it's relevant" is actually a pretty killer argument. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the international law, but how relevant is any of it to the lede? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting point: Palestinians have always lived in an occupied territory, first in the Ottoman Empire, then in the British Empire, then in Jordan and only then (since 1967) under partial Israeli control. Isn't this just a little undue weight towards the Israeli issue? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you should consider that the issue may be that you haven't verified whether you can reliably detect bias in the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. You wrote an RfC statement that says "List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed"". You repeated it here on a neutrality noticeboard. It's the kind of sentence you might find in an article by CAMERA where standard perfectly neutral terms are transformed. Settlers become residents, occupied becomes disputed, areas outside the green line such as East Jerusalem are in Israel. It's out of touch with reality according to RS-world. I think it demonstrates an inability to see bias. You should be concerned about that if you plan to continue editing in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks and address the issue in question. And just for the record, CAMERA is no less a reliable source as the leftist propaganda clumsily masked as mass media you so eagerly advocate for. And lastly – before you judge me, think how many aspects you ignore in your edits and comments to fortify an agenda. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack and I'm not judging you in a negative sense. It's sound advice offered free of charge that will help you avoid conflict and making mistakes in the topic area. I'm not interested in the issue at hand because I don't believe there is one. I wasn't aware that I had advocated the use of leftist propaganda unless you are referring to the use of China Daily and Xinhua in various articles about Chinese topics and elsewhere. They qualify as leftist propaganda in some sense I guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, Sean. Let's deal with your accusations one at a time.

1. Residents – please read the definition of the word, do they not reside in the area? If anything, settlers is a far more biased word.
2. Disputed – is there not at least one side that disputes the issue? Suppressing the dispute's existence is more biased than at least balancing it with neutral wording.
3. If according to Israel, Jerusalem is the undivided capital, does it not exist in your world? Or is Israel and its supporters (such as CAMERA) nothing but a sack of lies that should always be seen as such? Surely you cannot admit to such belief, but your comments strongly suggest it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Hearfourmewesique

1/ Think about Nazi personnel living in France 1940 – 1945. They where certainly residents - but would you say the term occupiers was less relevant?

2/ I dare say Hitler and his chums would have "disputed" claims made against them. Dose that automatically validate the term disputed?

3/ Surly scepticism about some of the claims Israel makes re. the status of Jerusalem, does not amount to "Israel and its supporters (such as CAMERA) nothing but a sack of lies"? Prunesqualor billets_doux 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

<- Hearfourmewesique, since Malik has separated out a section below I'll respond here. With respect, it's not a good use of your time to try to explain your position to me because I think your approach is fundamentally flawed. We just reflect what reliable sources say in a way that is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the project. To me this is just cold, heartless information processing. Assuming for the sake of argument that I had some personal views on the issues that mattered to anyone, they still wouldn't be part of the decision procedures. I honestly don't care in the slightest about the words themselves; resident, settler, colonist, disputed, occupied, Israeli village, Israeli settlement, Israeli colony, West Bank, Judea and Samaria etc etc even though these words have great symbolic significance for many people for reasons that are a bit puzzling but are always irrelevant to content decisions. The objective is simply to maximise policy compliance by ensuring that the language we use is consistent with the plurality of reliable sources (noting important discrepencies and disagreements over language of course) in a demonstrable evidence based way by actually properly sampling RS-world and faithfully reflecting what we find.

Years have been wasted in the I-P conflict topic area with people arguing and edit warring over which string of words properly describes something according to policy when sampling a large set of RS usually makes the optimal solution quite obvious. My point is that an editor may think something is biased or neutral but we have to actually know whether something is biased or neutral according to policy and be able to demonstrate that using evidence sampled from RS-world. When it comes to words like resident vs settler, occupied vs disputed, what is in Israel and what over the green line, the results from sampling of RS and the constraints imposed by policy are clear. There's no need to waste time on arguing about wording issues like these or to use words that are inconsistent with RS. That's not to say that your concerns about detailed wording tweaks in the article's lead in question here are necessarily invalid (although I personally think they are). That's up to others to decide, I won't be participating.

My point was simply that I don't think you can reliably see bias, you shouldn't assume that you can and that you should be concerned about that in the topic area as it will bring you into conflict with both policy and editors. I'm not sure which sources you meant by "leftist propaganda" but if they are mainstream sources that other RS and the community regards as reliable, dismissing them as leftist propaganda is probably another thing you should be concerned about as it will compromise your ability to make proper evidence based assessments of policy compliance. This isn't meant as criticism. There are a number of topics about various places and issues, mostly technical but also political that I'm probably too close to to reliably see bias or properly stick to policy without messing up. I don't edit them. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is fallacious in more than one sense, but unfortunately I don't have too much time at the moment, so I'll make it short. As I wrote on the article talk page, Palestinians were never a sovereign nation, they have always lived under someone else governing them. To this day, Israel is the first – and only – governing body that gave them control over Gaza and parts of the West Bank following the Oslo Accords. The article lede, which is supposed to give a concise summary of the entire article, does not say any of that – it only tells the reader that the territories are occupied by Israel/got annexed by Israel and that a relatively high number of Jews live on their land. It doesn't give the slightest idea as for why the territories were annexed to begin with, and what part the Palestinian (and other Arab) leaders played in the entire process. This is why I believe the article is initially presented with a strong bias and the lede should be changed to tell the whole story, rather than hand-picked parts of it. I have more to say, but I must go now. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The main point of this post, reiterated since it's already been buried under irrelevant stuff

• Basically, the question is whether or not it is appropriate for the lead section of an article about Palestinian people to:
  1. Precede the wikilink Palestinian territories by the expression "Israeli-occupied";
  2. List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed".
• Food for thought:
  1. Palestinians have always lived in an occupied territory, first in the Ottoman Empire, then in the British Empire, then in Jordan and only then (since 1967) under partial Israeli control. Even if anyone thinks it is relevant to the lede, isn't this just a little undue weight towards the Israeli issue?
  2. Out of all the governing bodies in the area, Israel is the first – and only – one that gave Palestinians control over Gaza and parts of the West Bank following the Oslo Accords.
  3. The main reason for annexing territories was boosting security in the area, following constant threats and attacks by Palestinian and other Arab militant groups. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, you already started an RfC on this subject. Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Malik, this is the irrelevant stuff. I'm trying to get the point across and get honest opinions based on all the facts. Please stop. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it forum shopping, it is clearly and demonstrably based on false pretenses. To begin with, Palestine was not "occupied territory" under the Ottomans. And the annexation of East Jerusalem had nothing, and I mean nothing, about boosting security in the area, following constant threats and attacks by Palestinian and other Arab militant groups. There is an open RFC about this on the talk page. So far Hearfourmewesique has not gotten the answer he or she has hoped for and has sought to run to the other parent for a different one. Though when getting an answer not to his or her liking even here, the user chooses a creative way of responding. Disruptive and tendentious, pure and simple. nableezy - 19:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments that are purely there to spew hate (i.e. comparing Israelis to Nazis and their leaders to Hitler) are unwelcome on Misplaced Pages, since – as I already wrote in the edit summary – this is not a hate forum. And you have the audacity to call me disruptive and tendentious??? Especially after "sweeping" my honest answer to your "Excuse me?" on your talk page, so that you can continue your smear campaign under the pretense of free speech just because it's your own user/talk page. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove others comments. The end. nableezy - 12:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To quote the policy: "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowedRemoving prohibited material such as libelRemoving harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalismPosts that may be considered disruptive in various ways areborderline case". Comparing Israel to the Nazis is libelous, disruptive, racist, hateful and any other adjective that comes to mind, in other words – unacceptable. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, no, and no, but as you insist on edit-warring to remove others comments that are neither personally attacking anyone, trolling, vandalism, or in any other way disruptive Ill just let somebody else deal with you. nableezy - 19:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber

A group of active editors in both the Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber articles have made a decision to omit any and all references to their relationship. I find this decision to be in violation of our best practices and virtually unsupported by the preponderance of reliable sources on the subject. Although I am uninvolved in this issue, having only just noticed this glaring omission, I would like to hear from uninvolved editors who have not contributed to either article and are willing to take a look at this problem with fresh eyes. However, if you are involved in contributing to these articles and you wish to share your opinion, please note your involvement. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian Michelides

A report regarding this article recently appeared at WP:COIN. The article is about an Austrian psychotherapist whose article on De WP has reportedly been somewhat contentious. Several users have come to En WP from De WP and feel that other editors' aims conflict with WP and have cited the German article being locked several times. Some editors there feel that there's a never-ending fight between editors creating an encyclopedic article and members of a fan club who have resorted to socking to push their point of view.

As there's no evidence of a close connection besides claims of fanclub membership, I bring this report here and have asked the involved editors to discuss the issue here and ask for the help of the members/watchers of this noticeboard. OlYeller21 19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC) @Robertsan - stop vandalism because of bad emotions, like on the other page is told by OlYeller21"it sounds like the article is good in its current shape " and by the way - in the German version wie have "und wirkte maßgeblich an der Organisation der ersten Regenbogenparade 1996 auf der Wiener Ringstrasse mit" and its more the correct version than Yours - by the way an version preferred by Elisabeht (see German discussion) - because it is the truth - again - without Mihcelides no CSD at this time -read the source and like all your unreading, ignorierin and inaccuracies - McWien without an a. So stop vandalism because of envy and hate - article was good in the beforerobertsan-shape - you are the man on a mission i guess.--Das-Geheimnis-der-Sphinx (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I did some edits in the article, correcting the hardest POVs according to the German sources. And I deleted the unsourced parts. For CM never got any academic degree in all the studies he mentioned in the beginning, I took them out. There is only one paper he wrote as a student in Vienna to be found in the national library. Every catalogue is published by himself and only one book is in the national library, the only book he (or his fanclub) did not mention in the article. It was a catalogue for an exhibition in the rooms the company he was working for. The dog is not part of the job and so we decides to change to a more neutral photo in German WP. So I will change it in this article, too. You can see how the two two accounts talk about how to work here. McWien is blocked forever in German WP because of being a man on only one mission, to use WP for glorifying Christian Michelides (there are articles in es and francais based on the POV article in English). I hope there will be help from the watchers/members of this board here. Thank you for your attention. --Robertsan (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess all this needs discussion - we are 3 people who thinks article was in a good shape and only YOU - ONE guy, says other things - dog is part, he as studied - and where i can read here in en wikipedia, that a catalogue puplished in his own publishing house can not be a source - show me and don't regulate by yourself. and by the way again - you change without discussion when discussion is needed!--Das-Geheimnis-der-Sphinx (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Servie:block--Robertsan (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning user Robertsan because of his vandalism, see McWien (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is no vandalism, dear McWien. My Answer you can find there. --Robertsan (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Medical Torture

Big problems at Medical_torture#Asserted_medical_or_professional_complicity but I don't have time to clean it up right now. Also includes at least one severe BLP violation. causa sui (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

Some editors at Astrology are intent on adding the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature into the article (see here for full context: ]):

"Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)".

The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration, all of which are non-peer-reviewed fringe sources. Nevertheless, they are being used to challenge a genuine peer-reviewed scientific study, using WP:PARITY and the fact they they are identified as fringe journals as a justification.

The noteworthiness the criticisms is questionable as none of these criticisms have been discussed in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are part of mainstream scientific discourse.

Your input would be appreciated at the article's talk page: ]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This conversation also took place on Jimbo's talk. Nformation 02:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, this issue is more relevant to the WP:RSN, because the three journals you mention Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration are not scientific journals at all. For example, none of them is included into the ISI database. They have no impact factor, they are not considered as scientific by scientific community. Therefore, to include them into Misplaced Pages (as a source, not as a subject of discussion), means discredit Misplaced Pages. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's essentially been the point that many editors have been trying to make. Would you be interested in swinging by and joining the discussion? Nformation 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Roerich

He seems to have been a genuinely notable guy; but this article, apparently poorly translated from one or more other languages, is absolutely worshipful (as well as being poorly formatted and ungrammatical). I've taken a very shallow pass at it, but would really appreciate some help here, ideally from a Russian-speaking editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sailor Moon (English adaptation)

I'm posting this here as an effort for a dispute resolution, so some help here would be greatly appreciated. The discussion at WT:WikiProject Sailor Moon#Is this correct?WP:Sailor Moon (The beginning starts with a different issue so if you're reading it, it may be best to skip the first few paragraphs). The question with whether that article is aWP:POVFORK or a legitimate WP:SPINOUT article. The POV contention is that it places undue emphasis on the importance (ie the overall impact and not the quantity of sources) of the English localization of Sailor Moon vs. the Japanese when sources do not support this. The counter-argument is that more sources cover the English version and its a natural spinout article.∞陣内Jinnai 23:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jinnai. I have a slight correction to offer - it's not that more sources cover the English version, it's that it is a natural spinout article which meets the GNG. --Malkinann (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

it makes no sense to separate english localization and distribution. A more logical choice as jinnai has said (and so have I) is to make an anime article. Not to mention has information that can easily merge to the other daughter articles such as list of sailor moon chapters and list of sailor moon episodes. Plus it gives undue weight to each individual alteration instead of actually summarizing it.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

also not too long ago, you were defending the article status by saying how much influenced the series had in the west. Its not a very good spinout. Its definitely POVFORK just by looking at the title sailor moon (english adaptation). Suggesting there's a different work with the same name when its just distribution and localization. Also gives undue weight and a lot of original research. Later you've admitted an anime and/or manga article could exist and meet the GNG but denied because this article meets the GNG. This article splits into two distinct medias that can easily help make more concrete article(s).Lucia Black (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I've been inconsistent - I have been having difficulty working out what you want to do with the article, and may not have understood what you were getting at at all times. I do not feel that the current name of the article implies there is a different Sailor Moon work (although the dub was radically different, people "became" fans by arguing on the internet about dub vs sub, as discussed by Neo and Patrick Drazen). I do not feel that the English adaptations article should be merged because it is a valid SPINOUT article, supported by multiple reliable sources, which meets the GNGs. --Malkinann (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Meeting the GNG does not mean something deserves an article though. If you read WP:N it clearly says its just the bare mininimum for showing notability and other factors could way in for deciding whether an article should exist. In this case its my contention this is a POVFORK even if it meets the GNG and therefore shouldn't exist as an NPOV violation.∞陣内Jinnai 17:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I proposed a clarrification at WP:N#change to GNG which addresses this.∞陣内Jinnai 01:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Malkinann, is your point that because the article passes WP:GNG as you argue, then WP:POVFORK and WP:SPLIT do not have to be considered? patsw (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim organizations

I brought this here both because the user in question claimed it was a POV issue. I think it's a simple question of sources, but it would be very, very silly to bring these sources to RSN...

CNN, Radio Netherlands (link is dead but article is available elsewhere), and Agence France-Presse call the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid) anti-Muslim (as do the New York Times, the Telegraph (link is dead but the article is available elsewhere), the Economist, etc.). Given this, are we justified in placing the article in Category:Anti-Muslim organizations from the Netherlands?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. Wilders has repeatedly and stridently declared that he is anti-Islam, but not anti-Muslim. Andries (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, almost all right-wing extremists claim they're not anti-muslim. however, what matters in the end is the assessments of reliable secondary sources.-- mustihussain  19:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And now we've got the same issue at Danish People's Party, where the sources include the Guardian, the Seattle Times, and the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, and at Stop Islamization of America, where the sources include the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mondoweiss, and the Huffington Post. This isn't about whether Wilders has denied being anti-Muslim; this is about two editors' campaign to deny that anyone is anti-Muslim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

exactly! roscelese is absolutely right.-- mustihussain  20:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think some scholarly, political science sources would be preferable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why should we hold this designation to a higher standard than we hold any other? Why is it perfectly acceptable to source other elements of PVV's ideology to newspapers, to a paper by a graduate student (anything under a dissertation is not considered reliable, IIRC), or to a "living abroad country facts" webpage, but it's so very important to ignore otherwise reliable sources to avoid calling anyone anti-Muslim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever having argued in favor of any of those viewpoints. What is the PVV? It sounds like an WP:OTHERSTUFF type argument to me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

PVV = Partij voor de Vrijheid. Which article were you referring to? As for the OTHERSTUFF argument, the reason that's considered a flawed argument is because it's often comparing apples to oranges. Here, we have elements of the same class, viz. parts of the group's ideology, but you're arguing that we need scholarly sources to call it anti-Muslim, while lower-quality sources calling it anti-Islam (because they aren't against the people! just ignore their inciting of hatred) are just fine. Why should we use different standards for exactly the same sort of material? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Noone has argued that those two cases should be treated differently. (I came from the Danish People's Party article). I think we generally should use better sources to support claims about political ideologies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think before we state as a fact that a party is anti-Muslim, we need a source that says that is how they are normally viewed, rather than an example of where they have been called that. TFD (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, why should we hold this designation to a higher standard than any other? Piles of reliable sources describing the organization as anti-Muslim aren't enough, we have to go meta? Whereas propagating their claim that they're just anti-Islam, without any similar meta source, is completely fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Any reader with a bit of capacity of independent thinking can see that the quesiton of anti-islam or anti-muslim is pure sophistry. But yes - we need good sources - preferably scholarly sources summarizing different views on their political stances. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the distinction is pure sophistry, but in the interest of compromising with these other editors (one of whom has since been blocked for edit-warring), I tried to find sources that used terminology they would find acceptable. It hasn't helped, clearly. I'll look round for scholarly sources in a bit, I'm sure it won't be difficult to find some. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Added! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

there is an abundance of reliable secondary sources demonstrating clearly the anti-muslim nature of these parties. in addition, there is a campaign going on where the anti-muslim category is deliberately being removed from a wide range of pages without any discussion i.e. in violation of wp:brd. these pov-pushing spa-accounts need to be stopped.-- mustihussain  20:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of the sources presented are particularly weighty - it is easy to find exaggerated claims about the ideologies of most any political group if using only news sources and websites.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why I've reverted those changes: all the sources have been cherrypicked by one user just because they contain the exaggerated 'anti-Muslim' claim in it. None of the sources explain the question in any depth. According to Roscelese's logic, just because a sensationalist claim has been posted between the lines by CNN we should immediately make the encyclopedia article reflect this usage. Estlandia (dialogue) 09:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Categorization must maintain a neutral point of view: categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial" - WP:CAT. I've been told adding something about terrorism in a category is not acceptable based on that argument. If members of the group deny the assertion that they are anti-muslim then it is controversial. Time getting bent out of shape over the removal of a cat would be better spent making the prose clear. This would be of the most use to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

you missed the point. "anti-muslim"-category tags are suddenly being deleted by two editors, unilaterally from several pages. they don't have any consensus.-- mustihussain  21:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you missed the point. I don;t care if editors are being lame or if the party in question really do hate Muslims. I care about what CAT says. Pay more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV requires reflecting the views of reliable sources, rather than suppressing them. The category is justified in the article text; unfortunately, the users who are removing the category are also removing the article text, so maybe this is why you are confused. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial". A group or person denying something doesn't make it controversial. Terrorism related categories are widely used as are criminal convictions (with no dependency on the opinions of the convicted), holocaust denial, pseudoscience, and categories related to all sorts of things that represent facts and overwhelming consensus positions. I don't know about this case because there would need to be enough samples to establish whether it really is the case that there is a consensus view that justifies the categorization. But my point was that a denial means little by itself and manufacturing controversies that don't actually exist in RS-world is a popular sport in Misplaced Pages so sampling a lot of RS wouldn't hurt. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What we should base our conclusions on are not a few newspaper articles cherrypicked by one user where the label 'anti-Muslim' has just been used passing by (probably synonymously with 'anti-Islam'). There are equally reliable sources that tell e.g. that PVV is a centre-right party (and conversely, there are sources out there labelling it far right). We shouldn't attach all those labels to the articles, but as Maunus has rightly said find “scholarly sources summarizing different views on their political stances.” That is, articles that really substantiate the opinion, not just use sensationalist labels without giving a reason how is, say, PVV 'anti-Muslim' (as opposed to 'critical of Islam').Estlandia (dialogue) 09:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Your source describes the PVV as "conservative", not "centre-right". I suspect you mixed it up with the VDD. Of course, neither description is strictly incompatible with "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islam" (a purely rhetorical distinction without practical substance). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree that there is no distinction. However, to make Filippuson (currently blocked) and Estlandia (not currently blocked) happy, I found sources that use the terminology they preferred; obviously treating the two terms as equivalent, since they are, would find even more sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Colleague, the page clearly reads PVV /Conservative (Centre-right). I'm not mixing up anything.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. I look at the text for the party ("A Dutch conservative political party which combines..."). You look at the table. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

With 119,000 hits for anti-Islam and 189,000 for anti-muslim this is not about "cherry-picking" but about terminology. The dichotomy of "anti-Islam" and "anti-muslim" is about the same as with "anti-gay" and "homophob" - nonexisting. BTW both lemmata link to Islamophobia. --78.53.37.169 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages only cares about RS, Google search doesn't know how to identify those, so results like these have limited value. I don't think there's any way to avoid manually sampling RS in cases like this. Even if Google hits mattered you have only sampled part of the space. You've excluded the cases where neither term appears. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• The key here is to distinguish fact from opinion. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, we should not apply labels to a person or group ourselves. Instead, we should report on the labels others (reliable sources) apply to the person or group. This means we should attribute any labels to those who apply them: "Radio Netherlands has labeled the party as being 'anti-Muslim'" etc. If the person or group disagrees with that label, we would mention that as well. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• So at what point does that become unnecessary? I've cited/linked ten (IIRC) reliable sources which call it anti-Muslim. Should we name each of them? Would we also, do you think, write "The New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, describe Michelle Bachmann as conservative"? There is a point at which consensus in reliable sources relieves us of the need to attribute, and that point has long been passed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What I was saying is, with 100,000+ hits it's not about opinion but about phrasing. If PVV wouldn't be considered "anti-Muslim", it wouldn't get that many hits or vice versa. Neutrality in this case is not about creating a Polish Parliament, but about reflecting informed judgement. --78.53.37.169 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mylo Xyloto

Edit req, Talk:Mylo Xyloto#Edit request from , 2 November 2011. Thx.  Chzz  ►  06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY

The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.

I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: ]. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section on Occupy Wall Street

I wrote a summary of some criticisms of the movement, using the same words as the sources. The sources were were themselves describing those criticisms. It was challenged and removed apparently because it sounds POV. I would like outside observers to take a look at it. Description here. Thanks all! B——C_ritical 00:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we clearly need more input over this. The 'criticisms' seem to be insults, and the sourcing is questionable, in that it isn't sourced to critics... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I provide quotes from the sources on the talk page. Aren't we supposed to use secondary sources, not primary sources? The sources are: The Chronicle of Higher Education which is the major news service in the United States academic world, CBS news site, and The New York Times, an article by Kate Zernike who was a member of the New York Times team which shared the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting. B——C_ritical 04:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugg boots - is "It's a generic term" the mainstream view?

If you are involved in contributing to this article and you wish to share your opinion, please note your involvement and nationality. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is about the Ugg boots article. The hatnote states that it's about the boot style, and the hatnote does not limit the discussion to the countries of origin, Australia and New Zealand. Therefore this is about the boot style in the entire world. The article has naturally attracted a severely disproportionate group of editors from Australia and New Zealand, with only a few editors from other countries. The WP:CSB project is designed to counter the kind of systemic bias that arises when one demographic group is dominant.

Ugg boots are a fashion phenomenon, with worldwide sales growing 5000% in the past 16 years. Deckers Outdoor Corporation is almost entirely responsible for this growth, and has trademarked the word "ugg" (or terms like it) in 145 countries, including all of the 29 most heavily populated countries, as the brand name for its line of sheepskin boots. Opinion polling has been introduced as evidence in the courts of several countries, that proves an overwhelming majority of the people in these countries perceive "UGG" as a brand name; Deckers has also introduced declarations from professionals in the footwear industry who stated that "UGG" is widely recognized in the industry as a brand name, not a generic term. (Walter, John F., February 25, 2003, UGG Holdings, Inc. -v- Clifford Severen et al, United States District Court.)

The term "Ugg" originated in the slang of two tiny countries, Australia and New Zealand, and is in common usage there to describe a boot style. There are also 110 other countries in the world where Deckers did not trademark the term, but they are not part of Australian or New Zealand culture. So what we have here are 145 countries (including the 29 most populated ones) saying "It's a brand name," two tiny countries saying "It's a boot style," and 110 countries undecided. WP:WEIGHT, a section of WP:NPOV, clearly defines "It's a brand name" as the mainstream view, and "It's a boot style" as the minority opinion. Deckers UGG brand dominates the worldwide market for this style of boots. Australian companies only retain a significant share of the market in Australia.

A group of editors from Australia and New Zealand are attempting to treat "It's a boot style" as the mainstream view in the Ugg boots article. They are planning to change the current version of the article, which is fairly well-balanced and close to compliance with WP:WEIGHT, to a version that more closely resembles this one: The entire "Concerns about quality" section will be removed. Four key words, "a protected trademark or," will be removed from the article lede. In addition to the changes shown, the Australian editors also want to remove the product counterfeiting cases won by Deckers worldwide. Essentially, they want to remove all the cases that Deckers won, and keep in the article all the cases that Deckers lost.

Aussie editors have repeatedly claimed that the word "ugg" has been removed from the Australian trademark registry, without any basis in fact: The fact of the matter is that only the trademark "UGH-BOOTS" was removed from the registry, and it was for non-use. The Australian government's intellectual properties office, IP Australia, released a fact sheet stating explicitly that IP Australia could not and would not declare "uggs" to be a generic term, and that only the courts had the authority to do so. So far, no court has ruled on the matter.

The fact sheet is posted on the Deckers corporate website. Deckers could be subjected to severe civil penalties, and its corporate officers extradited to Australia and prosecuted in criminal court, if they altered or forged this official government document. This PDF scan should be treated as a reliable source. Much of the content of the IP Australia fact sheet has been mirrored by other reliable sources. The IP Australia fact sheet was once posted on the official government agency website, but it was removed.

The "Concerns about quality" section is an expansion and correction of a single sentence that has existed in the article for several months. None of the Australian editors had any problem with it when the single sentence stated that quality testing showed an Australian company making the best ugg boots. But when the quality testing results were more accurately described as a pair of Australian "fake uggs" being the most difficult to tear apart, followed by Deckers Ugg boots as the toughest brand made of genuine sheepskin, and all the other Australian brands "fared poorly for quality," suddenly the Australian editors wanted to delete the new section, "Concerns about quality."

This encapsulates the approach of the Australian editors to this article. If material supports the idea that "UGG" is a brand name, or if it makes Deckers look good, they want it out of the article. If material supports the idea that "UGG" is a generic term, or if it makes Deckers look bad, they want it in the article and they want to expand upon it. The history of this article, aside from the usual vandalism that a fairly high profile subject attracts, has been low scale edit warring between a large group of Australian editors who believe "It's a generic term" should be presented as the mainstream view, and a small number of other editors who realize that "It's a brand name" should be and is the worldwide mainstream view.

The article's talk page and its archives are loaded with enormous efforts to resolve this dispute, covering a span of over one year. At the start of your response, please indicate whether "It's a generic term" should be treated as the mainstream view or the minority view per WP:WEIGHT. Also indicate whether the current version of the article should be retained, or reverted to the earlier version preferred by Australian editors that does not contain the "Concerns about quality" section, and removes all the counterfeiting cases that Deckers won. Thank you.

• Minority view. It's 145-2, with 110 undecided. I believe the current version of the article should be retained, with the "Concerns about quality" section, the counterfeiting cases Deckers won, and the four words, "a protected trademark or" in the article lede. Phoenix and Winslow (talk)
• I am involved. The efforts to use Misplaced Pages to promote the UGG trademark and UGG brand are exasperating, and have nothing to do with NPOV. We know Deckers owns the trademark "in 145 countries worldwide" (as the short lead says), and there is no reason to use an article about boots (see title Ugg boots) to hammer the reader with primary sources showing that Deckers has or has not won this or that legal battle. If it is notable, write an article on the UGG trademark legal issues, but please stop trying to use an article on boots to defend a company against counterfeiters and convicts down under (as I've asked on the talk page, please identify any text in the article that unduly promotes some interest and we can consider removing or rewording it). The Ugg boots#Concerns about quality section is a joke as it uses a pathetic puff piece from a space-filling entertainment show with zero reliability—the "review" consisted of pulling a few boots apart, and to no one's surprise, the significantly more expensive genuine boot was harder to pull apart! The source fails WP:RS, and the information is not encyclopedic. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"... please identify any text in the article that unduly promotes some interest and we can consider removing or rewording it." Unfairly attacking the leading company in an industry "unduly promotes" all its competitors, both lawful and unlawful. By creating an article that undermines and dilutes the worldwide legal rights of a company that is obeying the law, you are (intentionally or not) enabling those who victimize that company by breaking the law. The requirements of WP:WEIGHT are clear. There are 145 countries (including the 29 most populated countries) where "It's a brand name," and only two tiny countries where "It's a boot style." Misplaced Pages policy forbids us from presenting "It's a boot style" as the mainstream view. The source was sufficiently reliable for all the Australian editors (including you) to accept it when the article said, "An Australian boot was highest quality." But now that the article more accurately says, "The American company's boot was the highest quality made of genuine sheepskin," suddenly you object to the reliability of the source. The testing was done by an independent consumer advocate; if necessary, we can identify the TV station that reported it as sensationalist in nature, but that doesn't make the testing unreliable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Phoenix and Winslow that the current version is best. I'm not sure that the Concerns about Quality section may need better referencing.MONGO 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Afghans in Pakistan

Hi, can someone please look at the edits of user:Mar4d in the Afghans in Pakistan. He is editing with anti-Afghan POV, trying to make Afghan refugees living in Pakistan look veyr bad and make his own Pakistanis look good. Can someone please neutralize his edits because when I do it he keeps reverting it and I'm not in the mood for this childish revert war game. Thanks.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll not comment on user:Mar4d's edits, as I don't know enough about the subject. I would however suggest that you do little for your case by suggesting that "Pakistanis are known for lying" in an edit summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

1. http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/index.cfm

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution