Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:56, 9 July 2015

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

Countries in Europe

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

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

I think this says more about you than about me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, lies about sources are not ok, i agree. You should stop doing that then, as you may be blocked. Also, i do not plan to provide anything to you anymore, as there are more then enough opinions already. Also, i do not plan to further communicate with rude editors who misrepresent basic information's and comments. That very, very bad. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

At the end, why not, just to point how deep and one sided dispute with reality one editor can have. If you have one source, that is not a fact, thats just your view on the situation. Kosovo is not a regular country, but a disputed territory that want to be a country. One day. Maybe... "Kosovo government will never gain full control of the disputed territory", "The disputed territory of Kosovo", Quality of Life in Kosovo (Disputed Territory), "Kosovo is a disputed territory following the collapse of Yugoslavia", "Kosovo remains a disputed territory largely because of three conditions", "it has been a highly disputed territory", "from the still-disputed territory of Kosovo", Danish Ex-KFOR Soldier: Kosovo Is Not A State... etc, etc, etc, a lot, lot more... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 10:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Half (all?) of those sources are not even reliable, particularly with regard to this question (a graduate student essay, a Serbian news site, etc.) The fact that you trot them out like this only speaks to your own bias and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: As the discussion on the Kosovo page has only yielded another stalemate, would you prefer that the issue be referred to CfD (as in discussion as to how the category/categories be treated), or via the DRN? This is obviously not going to be resolved as a consensus decision on the article's talk page, therefore my preference would be to have a neutral sysop/neutral parties evaluating the policy and guideline based arguments. As you'd be aware, I have made a case for my own preference, but I'm a genuinely neutral party with arguments grounded in theory over other forms of RS.

As a plea to other parties involved, don't keep using this page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. bobrayner brought it up here in order that uninvolved editors join in at the discussion is taking place on Talk:Kosovo. Personal attacks and WP:UNCIVIL interaction on this noticeboard is not productive. It is consensus that is being sought, not further division (and derision). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone should notify User:Future Perfect at Sunrise about this discussion. Anyway, I think this is a no-brainer. Yes, Kosovo is a country in Europe. That's how various international organizations, like the World Bank classify it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Those citations were indeed taken from publishers unlikely to be deemed reliable. Concerning the question of "various international organisations" that classify it as a country, this entire debate is about what makes Kosovo's case different from regular countries and more identical to other unrecognised entities. Now let me get this straight, despite those publishers being unsatisfactory, does anybody truly want reliable sources that confirm Kosovo is a disputed territory? Is there an editor that actually doubts that Kosovo has fewer recognitions than the State of Palestine? If so, I will gladly reveal proper sources. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If a similar issue arose with respect to the State of Palestine, then I'd take the same position; putting it in whatever "country" category is appropriate. But this is .Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read WP:OTHERSTUFF so you don't need to fix the broken link. This one is on the knife edge. We've already established things need to be looked into case by case. But all parties are guilty of introducing OTHERSTUFF elements to the discussion (mainly at Talk:Kosovo, not here). I have likened Kosovo to the other entities featured in this list, those to support the category have been providing comparison with entities in that list. One need only see for himself where Kosovo lies, therefore to suddenly grind it into top level over all else (particularly of all on account of sources from recognising bodies) truly returns us to the seminal question, does the category violate NPOV?. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe. Hence, our article on Kosovo belongs in Category:Countries in Europe. It's not rocket science.

I notice that Anastan has dredged up some sources - terrible quality sources - but they don't even say what Anastan claimed. How long must we tolerate this tendentious editing? bobrayner (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting points! Reliable sources call it a country in Europe and Anastan has never provided a source to claim "Kosovo is not a country". Therefore it belongs in the category. You may have mentioned these once or twice, , , , , , , , , , , . To save another rebuttal per WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE all of which trump the ostensibly "reliable source" daydream, I suggest you read the following: , , , , , , , , , , . Feel free to read it back to yourself as many times as you wish until the information registers. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ouch! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure what those diffs are supposed to show except that some users (well, the two above) engage in a lot of WP:IDIDINTHEARTHAT. So you know, things have to be repeated at them since they appear to have difficulties with comprehension.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I heard him the first time. Clearly if an editor cannot see that there is an issue that goes deep beyond the wording of one shallow source which has been addressed numerous times then you need to ask yourself who has difficulties with comprehension. Unless of course they understood it the first time in which case they would be the ones guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem we have here is that we are talking about a category, not a passage, template, infobox or caption note. This is probably the one thing for which neutrality is in all honesty impossible. In the aforementioned circumstances, editors from two sides of a dispute have the freedom to dress the presentation so that all aspects are observed. For instance in mainspace there is the option of the Kosovo note template to reflect parity. But a category, well either it is there or it is not, sadly there is no middle road. In this case, the "reliable source" is taken by its subscribers to serve as some kind of trump card that ranks higher than all disputes, impartiality and objective editing. Yet if it were that simple, if an acknowledgement from the website of an organisation that has admitted the subject as a member was so reliable as to be conclusive then there would have been no dispute from editors because there would have been no dispute from the real life players. The governments of Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Belarus would only need to be delivered a reference from the source and all would realise they were wrong to refuse recognition and would subsequently reverse their positions. We would never have articles such as Kosovo status process, International recognition of Kosovo, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, International Steering Group for Kosovo, Ahtisaari Plan and Brussels Agreement (2013) if it were that simple as to behave in such a way as to ignore the problem. You do not have anything like this for South Sudan yet that country broke away three years after Kosovo. Curiously, this conversation is happening on the NPOV noticeboard though I'd question whether the OP has ever read the conditions. Per WP:WIKIVOICE (which would without doubt define a category listing since it is inflexible), there is one essential point relevant to this debate (the rest largely pertain to mainspace writing but even they could be said to be relevant):

• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

"Category" is mentioned once in WP:WEIGHT and this says:

• Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Obviously there are no competing views since even a source to refer to Kosovo or Somaliland as "a country" would not do so in a way that would not address the wider issues of the dispute were they to be extended articles rather than fact-boxes.

So if 80 world states continue to recognise Kosovo as subject to Serbian territorial integrity, that cannot be classed as WP:FRINGE. As such, reliable sources do indeed cite the divided opinion over what Kosovo is according to which party. So I say finally, I have seen many editors accused of "Serbian nationalist fantasy" for their opposition to this category, and yet nobody has these past two months inserted, or proposed to include Kosovo in Category:Autonomous provinces of Serbia alongside Vojvodina, and this is the polar opposite to the country category.

Now you'll realise that balancing the scales is impossible and not simply down to the words of a source. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Note for admins/interested persons

Just a courtesy note to clarify that the matter is resolved. I as main opponent of the category have amended my position based partly on the discussions at Talk:Kosovo and partly on other examples as set on other articles. I believe this conversation can now be archived to make space for the newer issues. Regards to all. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Oranges Juicy: For those of us who haven't been following the discussions, would you be willing to write a brief précis for the benefit of future editors searching for outcomes on the various centralised boards before this section is archived? An advanced thanks for your input! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I'll give it a shot! Give me a bit of time to revise the two discussions which will undoubtedly caused readers to think WP:TLDR. At Talk:Kosovo a related matter has now come to RfC but this noticeboard subject is concluded. I will get straight on shortly. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't had time to keep up with the discussions, therefore a summary would be informative (even if stretches to tl;dr for Wikipedians not involved/interested in the subject matter). It's really a 'for the record' request for future reference for those who are interested and involved who wish to know what the outcome was. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Précis

Opinions were sought here over whether wording within a reliable source warranted Kosovo's inclusion in Category:Countries in Europe. Arguments to oppose the inclusion were based on the practice across the site where other partially recognised disputed territories were concerned. Arguments, or should I say, the argument for inclusion of the category on the article rested solely on the source. Accepting the high figure of states recognising Kosovo (which is actually what led to the source in question, rather than the source being a conclusive reference) coupled with the realisation that other entities with slightly higher or lower recognition (and to some extent disputed territories also) had contained their relative Countries in categories, I stumbled across the rival entity Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija only to find it was drafted in asymmetrical contrast to Kosovo. I edited the article as best I could to rephrase the dubious lede and then proceeded to boldly restore the category I originally opposed, but only after consulting two or three of the editors to originally oppose the category. None objected. I believe that is the core explanation less the usual insults thrown about! :))) --Oranges Juicy (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Oranges Juicy. In order that this instance be closed off, and to avoid further disruption over the issue, I understand that Kosovo has been deemed a sovereign state/nation-state, and that the top level category of Countries in Europe has been applied reflect consensus (although it is further qualified by Disputed territories in Europe in order that the reader be aware that it also falls under the sovereign territory of Serbia). This discrepancy has, furthermore, been qualified by in the WP:LEAD and WP:BODY of the article.

Ultimately, the consensus for Kosovo doesn't set a precedent for other "claims", and every disputed territory must be assessed to meet the criteria for recognition on a case-by-case evaluation of RS and verifiability. As this has been hashed out thoroughly with consensus standing as the criteria meeting the requirements, for the sake of future challenges, an editor (or editors) would need to bring new sources and arguments to the table in order to overturn the consensus outcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The essential factor was the wording of the rival article. Obviously Kosovo is only as top-level and sovereign as it is an autonomous province. I must be clear that the editors to argue in favour of the category did so on the pretext of a World Bank publication which as you know is no more a reliable source for the subject than a statement from an ambassador to Serbia that does not recognise Kosovo. As a matter of fact, I can safely say we won't be seeing an identical source from the all-new AIIB with its 50 inaugural members, since this world bank is in China which does not recognise Kosovo and thereby will surely not grant it membership. Whereas the EU countries are almost certain to renege, China has given no such indications that it will follow suit - and China is the last country that is about to default, adopt the Euro or seek assistance from the ECB. Of course you are right that Kosovo cannot set a precedence for other disputed states, each must be assessed accordingly. That said, if anybody now wishes to raise the profile of other breakaway republics then I certainly will be unable to argue against it after this experience. We are still debating the opening line at Talk:Kosovo, but for now, the category is welcome by all sides. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my reading/interpretation of the discussion at this point. In fact, the status of Kosovo is, by no means, settled. The dispute is ongoing, therefore it cannot be understood that there is consensus decision. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

True, but on the bright side, it can be said that there is dissensus! :-) --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Kosovo is a country according to the definition provided at Country: "A country is a region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics." Kosovo fulfills the criteria of sovereignty and therefore by definition is a country. Many editors confuse sovereignty with partial international recognition. For a state to be defined as Sovereign State, there needs to exist a recognition by at least one UN country (not by all UN countries). In the Talk:Kosovo there is a substantial clarification why Kosovo is a sovereign state, backed up by a majority of editors. The problem with Kosovo is that editors from countries opposing the Republic of Kosovo always oppose the factual existence of the Republic of Kosovo. I believe Misplaced Pages should take a bold move to prohibit further debates that aim at denying the existence of the Republic Kosovo. Despite Serbia's dispute, Kosovo is factually as a sovereign state, and naturally a country. 95.90.184.96 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You should go back to your account (if its not blocked or banned). Its not ok to spam this many pages here on wiki per Misplaced Pages:SHOPPING. Go back to Kosovo talk page, and go back to your account, so we can solve this chaos you made. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

95.90.184.96, can I kindly ask you not to spam this section of this page with your views. This is a précis which I have drafted for future reference on a matter that has been settled. This was about the category, the category is there as you wished it to be, nobody is proposing its removal. The reasons why both parties are in agreement with why it should be there despite earlier discussion is in the first paragraph. For the ongoing issues, please continue to use Talk:Kosovo, there you are free to suggest or oppose any Kosovo-related matter. Thank you. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

WWE Global Warning issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would appreciate admin help here to sort this out once and for all, thanks. Curse of Fenric (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

How does one get the attention of an admin here? This is rather important. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Curse of Fenric: This is not an administrators' noticeboard. This is simply a forum used by editors to discuss NPOV concerns. I am unfamiliar with the general topic, but an email by a WP editor to someone does not count as a reliable source. I do not have an opinion about wider matters.

If you have issues with the conduct of a user and want the community (not just an admin) to look at it, you need to use WP:ANI. It is a very chaotic and unforgiving place, mind you. I would urge you to read the essay (not policy) Misplaced Pages:ANI_advice before taking such a step. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

IDF

The Israel Defense Forces article is bias and not neutral because it focuses on positive sides of the topic .To ensure the article is neutral i added links to other articles that are directly related to the subject .These links have been removed. the diff is : Line 703:

• Massacres_committed_by_Israel
• Muhammad al-Durrah incident
• 2014 Gaza war beach bombing incidents

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariq Fadel (talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 June 2015

Looking over the pages of various military organizations, it seems to be standard practice to list major wars or campaigns they have been involved in, and endemic problems or controversies like United States military veteran suicide, but not controversies or scandals pertaining to isolated incidents. Those would presumably be linked from articles with a narrower scope around the particular battles. Rhoark (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Navajo Generating Station, Kayenta Mine

I hope there are some knowledgeable editors here who are willing to have a look at these two articles, which read like promotional pieces and have, besides tone, other serious problems with sourcing, much of which is from primary or otherwise associated/COI sources. Have a look at the history. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

UNHRC's rebuttal of the Secretary General's (Palmer) report included in Gaza Flotilla Raid lead

There is a disagreement as to whether the the UNHRC's rebuttal of the Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry (the Palmer Report) on the Gaza Flotilla Raid should be removed from the lead.

Currently the UNHRC's rebuttal (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=11363 - note that the term "UN Independent Experts" is how the UNHRC describes individuals working on its behalf) is included as a rebuttal of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry. However rebuttals of the UNHRC's report (from the United States and the European Union) have all been removed from the lead leaving a situation in which one "side" is permitted to have rebuttals in the lead, and the other is not. It is my opinion that all rebuttals should be moved to the relevant body paragraphs as they clutter up the lead, but to have rebuttals of one report and not the other in the lead is POV. Drsmoo (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

To the other editors. The statement under question is the following:

The UNHRC later also set up a panel of five human rights experts to examine the conclusions of the Palmer report. The panel stated that Israel's blockade of Gaza amounted to collective punishment and was unlawful.

There is a discussion about this here. The RfC which discussed the earlier inclusion of EU/US role is here. My own view is stated in the discussion there, but I will repeat it here for completeness:

The statement is by five experts, the special rapporteurs. They are called "UN independent experts" because they are independent of governments. Moreover, their opinion on this matter (that the blockade was illegal) is absolutely standard, all the way from the Red Cross to the European Union. See the lead for the Blockade of the Gaza Strip, last paragraph. By contrast the EU/US statement was simply a political response by various governments to the UNHRC report, which was just weasel words, and it did not even include the reactions of the 30 supporting countries (the report passed 30-1, the US was the 1, some of the EU countries abstained.). It is simply improper to link the two as if they are somehow comparable. WP:NPOV does not mean false balance. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification, the "independent experts" are working on behalf on the UNHRC. Their rebuttal of the Palmer report is the UNHRC's rebuttal of the Palmer report, which has remained in the lead while the US/EU rebuttals have been removed. I would also advise Kingsindian to refer to the relevant article Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Legality_of_blockade as most (or at least a substantial number of) law experts have described the blockade as legal. (That is just an aside, and not relevant to keeping the lead neutral, I am also aware that wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.) I'm not sure why Kingsindian is going with the argument that because he favors a particular point of view, that the article's lead should as well. Drsmoo (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

SEDAI

• Hamideh Kaffash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - PRODed
• Discrimination in education in Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- at AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Discrimination in education in Norway
• Discrimination in education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- at AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Discrimination in education

• on one side we seem to have pro-SEDAI campaigners
  • PenLover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note, account was formerly named "Sedai2014"
  • WorldPeaceLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Educationinpeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Hkhaledi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • please note Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sedai2014

• on another side we have two users who showed up recently related to those articles:
  • Jonh-Los (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Arne-Barack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • please note: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonh-Los

So... there is apparently a group called Stop Educational Discrimination Against Iranians (SEDAI) and they have come to Misplaced Pages to advocate with regard to their issue. Orland, Nicky mathew have been trying to work with them. I've also left messages for all the editors listed above that Misplaced Pages is not a place for SOAPBOXing or campaigns of any kind. I just wanted to make sure the wider community is aware of this nest of advocacy and to get more eyes on the articles and deletion discussions, and make sure the people listed above can come here and get wider community feedback - this isn't personal. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about NPOV

Hi all.

Can anybody here point me at a Misplaced Pages discussion page that can assist me? I'm not sure that this page is the right place, so please excuse me if this question is better asked elsewhere.

I was looking for information about a particular food brand and discovered that about 40% of the main article for the brand name was about how the brand is the subject of a boycott. Although the boycott itself (which includes much more than just this one brand) is worth its own Misplaced Pages page, I didn't think that devoting 40% of an article about a brand to a single (much larger) boycott effort was NPOV in terms of weight. For example, the reason that I looked at the page in the first place was to see if the page listed products and different flavors - none of which were listed.

Since I'm not a frequent editor (and I have never edited this article before), I figured I would try asking for guidance first. No, I haven't tried asking on the article's talk page, at least partly because this article doesn't really have anything on the talk page, and isn't frequently edited.

Help please? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techielaw (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you indicate which article it is that you're having problems with? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Sabra_(company) article and the reference to Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions that takes up 40% of the article. I'm sure that Israel/Palestine issues are a frequent edit-war issue, so I would really appreciate some feedback about the best way to approach this.Techielaw (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reduced material that seemed to be WP:COATRACK. Adding material about specific products, especially using Sabra itself as a source, would be promotional and undue - except if any secondary sources have written about the product's culinary or cultural noteworthiness. Rhoark (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Rhoark. I'd only just found a little time to investigate this further, and am in agreement with your evaluation and changes to the Sabra (company) article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer to the WP:COATRACK - this provides some context for my concerns. I still have some concerns about the balance in this article. Since both of you seem interested in resolving, would it be better to move this discussion to the talk page of the article itself, so that we can continue editing there? Techielaw (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Detroit Public Schools and University Prep High School

On the talk page I found Talk:Detroit_Public_Schools#Snippet_on_charter_schools where an IP editor believes that the section on University Prep High School in the article Detroit Public Schools "reads as an ad". He made it back in 2013 and maybe things changed since then, but it would be nice if somebody can review it.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Reykjavik Excursions Kynnisferðir

If this isn't an ad, I don't know what is. Hartenhof (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... yeah... multiple problems there. It does read like an ad (so at minimum - it needs a major rewrite). There are currently no sources cited (I have tagged it). It also does not (currently) pass WP:ORG. Being one of the larger tour companies operating in Iceland, it should be notable... however, I did a quick search which did not turn up any reliable sources that are independent of the company (Google turns up a few sources that mention it in passing, but don't discuss it in much depth... and a few mirrors of our Misplaced Pages article.) Not willing to nominate it for deletion ... but it definitely needs work. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a paraphrase of their website. The offending content was added in this edit by SPA Johannahreidars. This is what's happened since then. —George8211 / T 17:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Disqus

The article on Disqus may have been targeted to increase the amount of criticism in it. Currently, Disqus#Criticism and privacy concerns is abnormally long compared to the rest of the article.

Some groups of edits in time gone past, featuring lots of IPs and (at a brief check) possible SPAs:

• (small)
• (big addition of criticism section)
• (!)

Perhaps I'm making this overblown, but it seems a bit suspicious to me.

—George8211 / T 14:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for a Palestinian state

Would somebody please look over the recent actions regarding the article Proposals for a Palestinian state's former grammo/typo prone biased lead section (yes, that includes my actions ;) Why? I feel that a non-legitimate edit war accusation was forced on me through an involved non-contributing (probably uncivil) editor. I am calm and am open for constructive critiques, though. Plus, I feel that the two-sidedness of the article was not addressed properly, what I had documented in the ongoing TP discussion. I do not edit war and am not a vandal! There already is a constructive coop in effect between 3 contributing editors. Thank you for your help --Miraclexix (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want help here, you should be more clear about the content that concerns you and leave out conduct. Rhoark (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity the Koch's primary political advocacy organization

Article: Americans for Prosperity, also covers the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

Content:

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is the Koch brothers’ primary political advocacy group.

Sources:

1. Vogel, Kenneth P. (May 9, 2014). "Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity plans $125 million spending spree". Politico. Retrieved May 6, 2015. The Koch brothers' main political arm intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives, according to a memo distributed to major donors and sources familiar with the group. The projected budget for Americans for Prosperity would be unprecedented for a private political group in a midterm, and would likely rival even the spending of the Republican and Democratic parties' congressional campaign arms.
2. Goldman, Andrew (July 25, 2010). "The Billionaire's Party: David Koch is New York's second-richest man, a celebrated patron of the arts, and the tea party's wallet". New York magazine. Retrieved March 25, 2015. In 2004, Koch started a group called the Americans for Prosperity Foundation devoted to personal and economic freedom. AFPF is now Koch's primary political-advocacy group. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
3. Beckel, Michael (September 4, 2014). "The Kochs' Political Ad Machine". Slate. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved April 20, 2015. In all, Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers' flagship political operation, alone has aired more than 27,000 ads in a combined nine battleground states, according to Kantar Media/CMAG.
4. Kroll, Andy (November 6, 2014). "2014: The Year of Koch". Mother Jones. Retrieved May 9, 2015. The Koch brothers' flagship organization, Americans for Prosperity, had an equally stellar Election Day.

Talk-page discussions:

1. Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Conflicting accounts
2. Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Americans for Prosperity is the Koch's primary political advocacy group

A version of this content was added in March, 2015, collaboratively work-shopped on talk, please see Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity#Conflicting_accounts. The talk page consensus was that the consensus across multiple RS was strong enough for inclusion, and strong enough to support WP voice, making in-text attribution unnecessary. This content was recently 23 June deleted with an edit summary of "Return article to neutrality" by user Onel5969 as a small part of major, undiscussed content blanking. Recent commentary at WP:RSN also supported WP voice. I am currently seeking comments on the neutrality of the paraphrase across multiple reliable source references, and the neutrality of inclusion. Thank you in advance for your time. Hugh (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on talk page was not for inclusion. HughD's campaigning and forum shopping seem to be paying off for him. There was no content blanking, but there was a reorganization of the article, and editing to bring the article more in line with an NPOV status. An edit which had received consensus, until Hugh's campaigning tactics (posted discussions about this article on at least 8 different forums, seeking to push his POV). Onel5969 18:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff to the content blanking and reliable source purge, including section blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, by user Onel5969 on 23 June: . This is not a behavioral report; seeking comment on the neutrality of the paraphrase across multiple reliable source references, and the neutrality of inclusion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV requires that we present the content of the article as the reliable sources present it. The tight connection between the Koch's and AFP is one of the essential features of almost every discussion of AfP and for our article to minimize the connections is, per policy, unacceptable and non negotiable even if there were a "local consensus" to try to whitewash the connections. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Is HughD forum shopping or is Onel5969 whitewashing? Zoidberg says, "Why not both?" I see in the large diff HughD provided seems to have replaced one POV with the other POV. For the single edit that was the basis of this thread, I echo Red Pen. Neutrality doesn't consist of sweeping criticism under the rug. Rhoark (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. "seems to have replaced one POV with the other POV" When one of two alternative edits of an article does not fairly summarize reliable sources then they are not equivalent. The purged content, including the relationship with the Kochs and the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, was not criticism, it was neutral. Please tell Zoidberg asking for help at a notice board, when the "local consensus" tries to override a pillar, is not forum shopping, it is a reasonable, considered, legitimate dispute resolution step. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• The "Transparency" and "Funding" sections were a good example of "blackwashing", including opinions in Misplaced Pages's voice, and containing synthesis by adjacency. The one sentence seems appropriate, although all the sources state that they are biased against the organizations, or quote sources which state that they are biased against the organizations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"The one sentence seems appropriate" Thank you for your support. This thread is for discussion of the above proposed content. Your comments about other deleted article content are not appropriate here. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• The articles clearly support the claim and it merits inclusion into the Misplaced Pages article. I was on the fence about including a comment of the size of Koch Industries in the previous noticeboard discussion, but this one is straight forward.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• The articles are strong enough to include in the WP entry. Having looked at the talk page it seems there is a lot of back and forth as to how the information is presented and where it should be in the article. If there are articles which conflict with the above sources then both should be presented as conflicting points of view. I would say the information should be included but how has not been resolved. Springee (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It is justified to say "the German government *claimed* something" when western newspapers present evidence that it lied about an election result?

@Centpacrr: Would anybody mind having some input on this matter? This revision has: "With the completion of voting on the referendum (which the Government claimed had been approved by a "98.79% 'Yes' vote""

• One Wikipedian's position is that the New York Times article ("Hitler gets biggest vote: Many blanks counted in, 542,953 are invalidated." New York Times, March 30, 1936.) has shown evidence that Hitler's count is lying (See talk page) so the article should say that "the government claimed" and that saying "the government stated" would bring a connotation that the German government was telling the truth.
• My position is that the use of "claimed" is sneaky and evasive: "claimed" has connotations that one side is lying, but the word doesn't technically mean that, so it is an underhanded way of saying the government is lying. Instead there should be a direct statement such as "the German government says one thing, the New York Times says the German government is lying because of this evidence and TIME magazine says the German is lying because of this evidence." or "the New York Times stated there is evidence of a lie because..." - something to that effect (if it's not directly germane to the topic it can be explained in a footnote)

The Wikipedian posted extracts from TIME and New York Times stories that show evidence of the German government lying: User_talk:Centpacrr#.22stated.22_vs._.22claimed.22. That does not change my belief that "stated" should be used. Instead I believe there should be a footnote that explains that TIME and New York Times stated that the German government was lying. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

See my earlier comments on this issue here. As I pointed out there, the use of the verb "claimed" (which means an "assertion") as opposed to "stated" is not "sneaky and evasive" or is it "underhanded" and I would appreciate it if you would cease falsely referring to it as such and instead at least assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Instead it accurately reflects the two March and April, 1936 news articles (New York Times and TIME Magazine) that I cited as sources. Dictatorships such as that of the NSDAP which controlled Germany in 1936 have universally held faux elections, referenda and plebiscites for show that they manipulate to achieve false results which they then claim to represent virtually universal (98%+) approval. This is a well known tactic of such governments for propaganda purposes in an attempt to feign democratic legitimacy. (See for instance further discussion of this issue in 2011 the book "Voting for Hitler and Stalin: Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships" Ralph Jessen, Hedwig Richter, Editors (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag GmBH), and especially two of the papers contained therein entitled: "Elections in Modern Dictatorships: Some Analytical Considerations" by Werner J. Patzelt, and "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban.) To ignore this reality of how dictatorships customarily conduct "elections" in the false name of "neutrality" does not promote neutrality at all, but instead introduces an element of misleading POV itself. Centpacrr (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM says that we should be careful with such words as "claimed", but it does not say that they should not be used. Generalised opinions about the dishonesty of dictators, however, should not be the criteria by which we make judgements. We should be looking at what historians say about this specific plebiscite. However, this is an article on the LZ 129 Hindenburg. The plebiscite is just mentioned in passing. Frankly, I see very little difference between stated and claimed in this instance. Paul B (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of the term "claimed" is not based on the "generalized opinions about the dishonesty of dictators", but on the information included about this specific 1936 plebiscite in the news accounts by the New York Times and TIME, the two sources cited. Why this is such a matter of concern to this thread's OP that he felt obliged to change this long standing text is a puzzlement to me. Centpacrr (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Those are not good sources. They are journalistic responses at the time - primary sources. We should be using the views of specialist scholars, not quoting primary-source journalism. As for the OP, he has stated (or perhaps claimed) that he wants to eliminate the word 'claimed' from Misplaced Pages, which is not an aspiration supported by policy. Paul B (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While I do not agree that the 1936 New York Times and TIME accounts are "not good sources" simply because they are contemporary to the event, if you will look above you will see that I have already cited in this thread two such recent scholarly papers that are included in the 2011 book "Voting for Hitler and Stalin: Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships" ("Elections in Modern Dictatorships: Some Analytical Considerations" by Werner J. Patzelt, and "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban) that directly address and support the use of the term "claimed" in relation to Die Reichstagswahl vom 29. März 1936 in its context here. If the OP of this thread is in fact on some sort of personal campaign against policy to eliminate the word "claimed" from WP that seems to me to be a troubling endeavor -- especially for a sysop who should really know better. That would also seem to explain why he keeps using such inappropriate and intemperate terms as "sneaky", "evasive", and "underhanded" to describe its use by his fellow editors. Centpacrr (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You referred to those sources, but did not say how they support the word 'claimed' specifically. Most sources I am aware of take the view that the reoccupation of the Rhineland (the main subject of plebiscite) was extremely popular, and that the plebiscite genuinely reflected that, even though the approval figures were almost certainly exaggerated. However, the precise ins-and-outs of the referendum are not relevant to an article on the Hindenburg. As I oppose the Orwellian aspiration to eliminate any word altogether, I see no problem with either word in this case. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While the claimed excuse to the March 29, 1936 plebiscite was to justify the the reoccupation of the Rhineland three weeks earlier, the ballot made no mention whatsoever of that but instead was designed to turn the membership of the Reichstag entirely over to the NSDAP. I addressed the specific issue of why the cited sources support "claimed" over "stated" earlier in a thread on my talk page here. Centpacrr (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time you linked to an open edit on your talk page. The link should be to a diff or section (but since there only is one section, just User_talk:Centpacrr will suffice). However, what you says there about those sources is the same as what you say here. I am perfectly well aware of what the plebiscite said, and why it was worded in the way it was, but why do I have to keep repeating that we are talking about a passing sentence on the Hindenburg airship article? This is not a discussion of detailed content regarding the article on the plebiscite. As for the picture. I think that's the ballot paper of the plebiscite held after the death of Hindenburg, but I wouldn't swear to it. Paul B (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I linked again to the thread on my talk page because you asked about specific language in the NYT and TIME sources which appears there but not in this thread. As for the image of the ballot, it comes from the German WP article on the March 1936 plebiscite and also conforms to the description of how it was conducted in order to suppress virtually all potential votes against it in the paper "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban which reads in part:

"Hitler resorted once again to the referendum in March 1936, when German troops invaded the demilitarized Rhineland and made military action—especially by France—a real possibility. In the same Reichstag assembly of March 7 in which he announced the invasion. Hitler declared the Reichstag dissolved and proclaimed that a ballot would take place on March 29. The tactical nature of this decision is shown by the fact that the Reichstag was not dissolved immediately, as would have been the case in the Weimar Republic. Rather, Hitler scheduled the dissolution of the Reichstag officially for election day. Thus, any semblance of an intermediary phase was avoided, and it would have been possible—should the need have arisen—for Hitler to have convened the Reichstag to make a formal declaration on foreign affairs. The election result was once again a great success for the NS regime, which won 98.7 per cent approval.

"A closer scrutiny reveals two radical features to this vote, however. First, the mechanism to exclude so-called Germinschaftsfremde (aliens to the community) from the group of eligible voters was already in operation, since the German Jews were no longer allowed to take part in the election. Second, those arguing for a legalistic course within the regime found themselves increasingly on the defensive as it became known that Minister of the Interior Frick, under the directive of the Ministry of Propaganda, was no longer allowed to make a separate record of spoilt ballot papers. Furthermore, the Reichstag, in the absence of occasions suitable for propaganda, did not convene once for a constitutive meeting during the first nine months following the election, which clearly violated the procedure stipulated in the Reich's constitution.

"The reason why Hitler decided in March 1936 to hold a Reichstag election rather than a referendum can no longer be determined with certainty. More important, though, is the fact that the National Socialists themselves barely distinguished between these two modes of balloting at the time. This is evident not only from the numerous intentional and unintentional terminological muddles, which can be attributed in part to a certain secretiveness, but also from the fact that Hitler liked to take decisions at short notice."

The form of the ballot illustrated above also conforms to the description in the April 6, 1936 TIME Magazine article "Foreign Affairs: May God Help Us!" which reads in part:

""There was nothing free about the election. Voters could not even choose names from the long list of hand-picked Nazi candidates for the Reichstag posted inconspicuously in the polling places. They could only write Ja or put an X in a circle, voting full confidence in Adolf Hitler."

While the overall matter of the use of the word "claimed" in this article is not in and of itself a huge deal, that of a single WP editor (and a self identified sysop at that) going on a personal "crusade" to eliminate the use of any perfectly good word in the project is a matter of considerable concern to me. I find this especially so when such an editor employs such inappropriate and intemperate terms as "sneaky", "evasive", and "underhanded" to describe its use by his fellow editors. If that is indeed the intent of this editor (the OP of both this thread and the one on my talk page), then I would ask him to admit that and counsel him to desist in this practice as it is both against WP policy and results in a huge waste of time and effort on the part of other editors in the community in unnecessary exercises like this one. Centpacrr (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Centpacrr, this is becoming ridiculous. I never asked "about specific language in the NYT and TIME sources". I asked about the scholarly sources which you claimed to support the word claimed. You still have provided no evidence that they do, though it's a rather marginal question whether they use that exact word or not. Your interminable quotations about the ballot paper are also rather irrelevant. It seems to be one of the unused ballot papers that could be bought from this website, which does indeed say that it's from a different ballot (but that's hardly an authoritative source, nor is this even important). As I've already said, I see no problem with either the word claimed or the word stated. Paul B (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have simply tried to answer your questions as I understood them. If these answers are not satisfactory to you I'm not sure what else I can do. I do believe, however, that the quotes I have supplied from both TIME and the Urban paper are more than sufficient to show that the way the process was structured, the ballots counted, and the large numbers of German citizens virtually certain to oppose the NSDAP who were unable to participate because they had been disenfranchised by the 1935 Nürnberger Gesetze (Nuremberg Race Laws) that a claim by the German Government of "98.7%" real support among the German people for the March 1936 plebiscite was a very significant exaggeration.

As for the ballot illustrated, it is completely consistent with what is described in both sources as having been that used in 1936. I very much doubt the similar ballot illustrated in the website you referred to was actually used in the March 1933 Reichstag election as that was an actual general election with candidates running from 15 different parties and in which the NSDAP finished with under 44% of the vote. March 29, 1936 was not such an election but was instead a plebiscite with "candidates" only from one party, the NSDAP. That is what the above illustrated ballot shows.

That being said, please note also that I am not the one who started either of these threads complaining about the use of the term "claimed" both in this instance and, as you have noted, Misplaced Pages-wide, and doing so using uncollegial and inflammatory language. As I have said now several times I find this attempt to be unwise, unencyclopedic, against WP policy, and thus a matter of very considerable concern to me. Centpacrr (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Centpacrr: I was talking about the word choice and the word having the problem and the word itself in that usage being sneaky and evasive, not a user. I was arguing why the word shouldn't be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

They do not appear to be saying it was used in the March 1933 election, but that it was a "replica of the election ballot" that contained different wording. Admittedly, it's not clear. But this is all marginal. As has already been said, no-one doubts that the plebiscite did not really give the electorate any choice, though of course that does not technically invalidate the result that was claimed/stated. If your electors have no real option but to vote yes, you are very likely to get a 90+ percent result, especially if you try to disregard spoiled papers too. Your source bluntly says, "The election result was once again a great success for the NS regime, which won 98.7 per cent approval." So it seems to me that "stated" is legitimate (they did get some sort of big 'yes', however it was achieved) and "claimed" is too. For some reason, the OP has not so far chosen to engage here, but I would add that his suggestion that we should add the following is impractical: "the German government says one thing, the New York Times says the German government is lying because of this evidence and TIME magazine says the German is lying because of this evidence." Sure, that could go in the main article, but for this article concision would be appropriate. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: What if there was a short footnote pointing to the main article and/or a section of the main article that explains the issue in more detail? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be rather overkill. It's just one word, but I've no objection. Paul B (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if it's a simple article link, like <ref>]</ref> or something like that? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Urban says "The election result was once again a great success for the NS regime, which won 98.7 per cent approval" but he also clearly explains why that number is bogus in the following paragraph which begins "A closer scrutiny reveals two radical features to this vote, however". These relate to the overt disenfranchisement of all Jewish and other non-Ayrian voters and the dishonestly skewed method of counting votes. Context is important in understanding the results claimed by the German Government. I am also not particularly surprised that the thread's OP has fallen silent in the light of how the discussion has gone. Centpacrr (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• My take on this is that "claimed" is the appropriate word in this context. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• My feeling is that some users misinterpret WP:CLAIM, which (like all the words to watch) says to use those words with care and to be mindful of their implications, not to never use them at all. It is entirely appropriate to use the word "claimed" in a context where the overwhelming majority of sources throw someone's claim into question (and where it is near-universally described as merely a claim in reliable sources); in that case, we are neutrally reporting the fact that their claims have little backing. I would argue that insisting on always using "said" is actually a violation of WP:VALID; the point of words to watch is to be careful to avoid using language to make someone's position appear weaker than it is (to avoid words that "suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.") But when it is verifiable -- when reliable sources are nearly unanimous in talking dismissively about what they said -- then it is entirely appropriate to use "claimed", because in that case the implication is intentional and backed by good sources. Presenting all claims equally is not WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: - So if it's okay to use claimed if sources are unanimous that a party has lied, should someone make a talk page section, catalog all of the relevant sources, and point out how they all say that the party lied (assuming the party does not make/has not made an admission that it lied). That way it confirms that "claimed" should be used here. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• The real issue is apparently not the appropriate usage of "claimed" in this particular case, it is whether or not the OP is attempting to ban the term altogether from Misplaced Pages. If that is indeed the OP's intention he should either admit it, or if not deny it. Either way, however, the use of such pejorative terms as "sneaky", "evasive" and "underhanded" by any editor (and especially a sysop) to describe his fellow editors use of terms such as "claimed" is both inappropriate and against the tenants of WP:AGF. I therefore ask the OP to clarify his position on this issue one way or the other. Centpacrr (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Centpacrr: Okay, I'll clarify it. The issue is not preventing the word "claimed" from being used at all. The issue is using the word "claimed" specifically to insinuate some entity is lying: this is exactly what Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Synonyms for said is talking about. I believe the accusation of trying to "ban the word altogether" is unwarranted.

When I said "the use of the word is sneaky" I wasn't talking about any particular editor, but rather about what the word does: the word itself in the way it's being used: it insinuates that somebody is lying, but it isn't actually saying that. Therefore I believe it's a poor choice to use the word. I don't believe there is an AGF problem in saying "the usage of a word is sneaky and underhanded". I am not talking about an editor. I am talking about the word choice and why it's being used.

However if the Misplaced Pages community agrees that this is an appropriate use of claimed, then that is that. If "claimed" can be appropriately used to say that a party is lying if all reliable sources agree that the party is lying (without the party having made an admission that it lied) I think the sources should be documented on the talk page.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, the word "claimed" does not imply that the person/government (whatever) is lying. For example politicians regularly claim that their views represent the interests of the people - "Politician A claimed that his policies would put the economy back on its feet, while politician B claimed that they would lead to disaster". Sure, you could replaced it with "said" in both cases, but there is no implication in the original from the word "claimed" that either politician is lying, nor is there anything "sneaky and underhanded" about the use of the word. Also, words can't be 'underhanded', only people can. So it difficult not to interpret such a comment as an attack on an editor. We don't need sources to agree that a claim is a 'lie', only that it is problematic. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: - Okay.. I guess I should think about how to rephrase that. I was trying to say that the word is problematic and unclear and it's better to be direct. Saying, for example, "the people were only allowed to vote for one candidate in the election in such-and-such country" is a direct way of showing how the result is illegitimate. It shows the reader proof that the election was bad. A reader can understand seeing this that the result is not to be trusted. Anyway, I'll let the other editors decide what's best.

@Centpacrr:, I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In general, I would say that the point at which we should report something as a "claim" is when we have sufficient sourcing to describe a contradicting view as flatly true in article voice. For instance, if we're reporting a historical claim that the world is flat, it would be appropriate to call it merely a "claim." It might also be appropriate for claims about BLPs that have been unequivocally dismissed by reliable source -- writing that "the police said the article's subject stabbed the victim to death", in a situation where the accused was found innocent, actually strikes me as less neutral than writing "the police claimed that the article's subject stabbed the victim to death". I don't agree with the assertion that "said" is automatically more neutral in all cases; again, it's a violation of WP:VALID to try and make every claim look equally-valid across-the-board. --Aquillion (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with both Paul B's and Aquillion's comments. All that WP:CLAIM says that applies in this instance is: "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." That is why I use "claimed" here and provided citations to two reliable sources to support it. I really don't see that anything more is needed. Centpacrr (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Describing The Guardian (newspaper) as being of the centre-left (as fact)

I personally feel that describing The Guardian (newspaper) as simply of the centre-left, as if it were a fact, and without equivocation or qualification, because the newspaper (unofficially) said so, from a single (and now outdated) source (being a quote from an interview of a journalist of the Guardian by another journalist of the Guardian, as a side-story in an article (about themselves; namely, their own election coverage of the United States presidential election, 2004) from the year 2004, as cited in the article ()), violates the requirement to be descriptively neutral. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While the reference may be inadequate, I don't find the term inaccurate. You can find more references here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it bizarre to tag a political alignment as "self-described". Aren't they all by definition? Mezigue (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that self-described is being used to make it clear that it is not some sort of labelling by political opponents.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Greece on Economic Aspects

The phrase on page Greece "Greece is a democratic and developed country with an advanced high-income economy, a high quality of life and a very high standard of living" is misleading not reflection the facts in current situation. I strongly recommend an update for it. --OnlyTheTruth 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantikadam (talk • contribs)

Well... a lot depends on what we are comparing it to. Even with all its problems, Greece certainly has an advanced high-income economy, a high quality of life and a very high standard of living compared to the economy, quality of life and standard of living of (say) Somalia. Blueboar (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

New American Movement

This article does not describe the organization of which I and many other democratic socialists of my acquaintance were members. I fear that the sources used are either not neutral, or are being cherry-picked to exaggerate the radicalism of the group. As a former member, of course, I can only make this observation and ask for some eyes on it. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there recommended NPOV refs we should look at? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It would defently help if you can post reliable sources that counter the existing sources and how they are better than what we have now. Also, it would be helpful if concrete examples of how specific sources are misused can be presented.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Venezuelan map showing claimed territory

There is an issue that has been causing different editions and reversions in the article Venezuela. As stated in the article, "Venezuela also claims all Guyanese territory west of the Essequibo River, a 159,500-square-kilometre (61,583 sq mi) tract dubbed Guayana Esequiba or the Zona en Reclamación (the "zone being reclaimed")".

That claim has also been acknowledged on a treaty signed in 1966 by the interested parties: Venezuela, the United Kingdom and the then government of British Guiana (now Guyana), countries that have been involved in discussions supported by the good offices of a United Nations' Secretary General representative over decades. Venezuela official maps show this territory as belonging to Venezuela or, at least, as claimed territory. The United Nations website published the text of the above mentioned Agreement here. I notice that Misplaced Pages shows the claimed territories on the maps of other countries, such as Argentina, China, Chile, Morocco, India, Pakistan and so on.

There is a map of Venezuela here in Misplaced Pages which includes the claimed territory. That map was proposed to be erased but the result of that discussion was that the map shouldn't be erased since it fully complies with the NPOV policy. Nevertheless, the above mentioned map has been repeatedly removed from the article Venezuela by some users in order to enforce the Venezuelan map that does not show the claimed territory, arguing that the map with the claimed territory in light green violated the NPOV policy by "reflecting a Venezuelan poing of view". There have been several discussions on the talk page of the article about this problem, here, here, here and here.

In order to solve this recurrent and old problem, I'm looking for your assistance to receive a valuable opinion. My humble opinion is that the article must show the map with the claimed territory, since that claim is a formal one that is supported by a Treaty signed by all the parties involved, and also backed by the fact that the parties have been trying to solve the issue using the means of pacific settlement of disputes under a United Nations diplomatic process. In my opinion, what is contrary to the NPOV policy is to show the map without the claimed territory, since that way one would be supporting the position of some guyanese people (although, in fact, the State of Guyana abides by the above mentioned treaty). It is important to note that the map with the claimed territory is not saying that the territory is Venezuelan, but only that Venezuela has a claim over it. Hence, there's no violation of the NPOV policy here.

Also, if we are going to dismiss this claim by showing the map without the claimed territory, we would have to do the same with all the other maps that show the same (Argentina, Chile, China, Morocco, Taiwan, Cyprus, Israel, India, Pakistan, Sudan and similarly with all the cases of territorial disputes listed here. We have also this map Misplaced Pages uses in the article List of territorial disputes, which clearly notes the region claimed by Venezuela as a disputed territory.

I hope I can get your opinion soon, since this issue has also brought lots of problems in the Spanish version of Misplaced Pages, generating this huge, long discussion over it. The valuable opinion of people from the Misplaced Pages in English might bring some light and clarify what we must do in the end.

Regards, --Hiddendaemian (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: Due weight of 2012 Koch-related funding of Americans for Prosperity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to this request for comment, at which due weight has arisen as an issue. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

This is inappropriate WP:CANVASSing, especially since it's already been brought up on this board, and consensus leaned against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution