Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ViperFace (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 29 January 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Sex offender registries in the United States

Sex offender registries in the United States has serious advocacy issues and appears to have been written primarily to provide a soapbox for changes in the law. The editor that started and has been the primary author is an admitted SPA who has made few edits outside this platform. The article needs massive adjustment to conform with NPOV or if that is not possible should be deleted if policy continues to be violated and the article persists in being hopelessly biased.--MONGO 11:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That article contains 178 notes of this writing, most of which are citations of reliable sources which support positions taken in the article. If there are other reliable sources taking issue with those which are cited, then the first step is to cite them and take issue within the article with its allegedly non-neutral positions.

The article also cites (in sidebar, primarily) three national and five state organizations, all of which have WP articles and all of which are calling for changes in sex offender laws.

It is correct that the main editor is a SPA. However he or she is not a U.S. citizen or resident (s/he's Finnish) which makes the case for personal bias harder to demonstrate.

I have removed the NPOV label as I do not see that Mongo has provided meaningful justification for its application. deisenbe (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is a one-sided advocacy piece that was created purely to soapbox on behalf of changes to sex offender legislation. Until sufficient neutral editors chime in to determine if changes are needed, you cannot as one of the editors unilaterally remove an NPOV tag.--MONGO 16:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

These other articles, the three national an five state organizations, have articles because the primary author also wrote those. They themselves might need to be deleted due to a lack of notability. There may need to be a topic ban added should this SPA and his cohorts continue to misuse this website for their promotional POV agenda.--MONGO 16:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is true. I wrote those, although I only included two most notable in the article as I thought not all of them needed to be included. The rest were added by Deisenbe. I'll go ahead and ping all the editors I know of having shown any interest on these topics in the past (mainly here): ScrapIronIV, DHeyward, Tom harrison, Flyer22, Etamni, Cityside, Kevjonesin, Lucutious,James Cantor, Ivanvector, Herostratus, Epeefleche, FourViolas. Note: MONGO, ScrapIronIV, DHeyward, Tom harrison on one side, and I and James Cantor on the other were involved in dispute related to Adam Walsh Act article as anyone may verify from the link above. It got somewhat personal at times (e.g. , and ). I personally believe hard feelings, rather than legitimate concerns of neutrality, might play major part in this NPOV notification. After all the article cites 44 peer reviewed studies, one book compiling topic specific studies, two reports by Human Rights Watch + handful of studies by government entities. The rest of the refs are news, including few editorials and links to government pages supporting the content. Relevant discussion related to our last dispute can be found from Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Sex_offender_and_Adam_Walsh_Act. I was looking to have this article nominated as Good Article at some point where it would be put under scrutiny. Since I'm not expecting much attention from un-involved editors to this NPOV and possible future AfD, I'm afraid that I and Deisenbe will be railroaded by MONGO and his allies from Adam Walsh Act incidence. That happened in AWA case: me and James Cantor got eventually tired of trying as these four kept pushing their side while numerous un-involved editors merely passed by dropping their opinion (all of them siding with me and James BTW) but never really engaged in the discussion. Hopefully, unlike the last time the discussion revolves more around the content of the article rather than the fact that I'm currently pretty much SPA. ViperFace (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words, at the Adam Walsh page your efforts were rebuked so you created a POV fork as a new place to misuse the website for the purposes of advocacy.--MONGO 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No they were not, I just got tired like James Cantor did. Numerous un-involved editors told you and your gang to back down, but you didn't. I have pinged all of them. I and James were chased out from the AWA article by your personal attacks and persistent unwillingness to seek consensus. I have also posted RfC since I want more editors contributing to this article. This far only 4 or so have made good contributions and no NPOV issues has been raised by those editors. You on the other hand, with no editing history on this article just happened to bump into it and wanted to pick a fight immediately. Unless I can't find enough good faith editors to watch this article you and your buddies will attempt to introduce false parity by removing sourced material as you can't block it by reverting anymore as you did in AWA. This article is split from sex offender registry as the U.S. section covered more than half of it. This is how it was after the split. Anyone may compare the first draft and current article and decide for them selves how much I have POV-pushed in any other way than raising the number of peer reviewed citations from 6 to 44 which you so much would like to have excluded of these articles. It's too late now. I am not interested in chatting with you MONGO. I rather wait for others to comment so please do not respond to this post. ViperFace (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My "gang"...oh you must mean the MONGO-bots...Yeah...that's it. Look, I'm sure from your perspective you're trying to do the right thing, but it seems to me that you have a serious conflict of interest that is interfering with your ability to edit neutrally and dispassionately in this controversial subject matter. The fact that your edits have no other focus also raises alarm bells.--MONGO 02:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

By gang I meant those who I felt were acting counter-consensus back then. Thank you for assuming good faith. You are right, I am trying to make this article as good as possible. Due to my POV other editors are needed to ensure neutrality. This is a controversial subject and we need to get this right. Unfortunately not much interest has been given to this article. Now that the article is there, could you point to some paragraphs that need to be changed to be more neutral and I'll try to take care of it. I already made an attempt to improve the paragraph pointed out by Herostratus. ViperFace (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a non sequitur. My field of expertise is Misplaced Pages editing so I guess you all can defer to me...

Of course the article is not neutral. The I don't know whether it can be fixed or not, but for goodness sakes don't remove the tag. I don't know if it can be fixed because it's a difficult subject to discuss because what you have is, not so so much people with a fundamental disagreement about a particular law, but about the nature and purpose of laws in a democracy in general -- which is not an easy thing for people to talk about and end up shaking hands on. The question of to what extent "the public strongly supports it" versus "most experts support it" is the best basis for making laws is too complicated to hash out here. Since we can't agree, let's just keep the article short and descriptive and, to the extent reasonable, stick to anodyne facts ("law was passed on such-and-such date") that we can all agree on.

So that's why "While sections of the public strongly support , many experts... characterize them as ineffective and wasteful at best, and counterproductive at worst...", even tho probably true I guess, still does not belong in the lede and let's not do stuff like that, people. That's just one example and there're other instances where the general tenor is "look! these laws suck!" Maybe they do suck -- in fact, I think in their current form that they do suck, but my opinion on that matter has zero do with what I think should be in Misplaced Pages legal articles -- but let's let the reader come to her own conclusions, ok?

The law is a crude instrument. Get used to it, people. Life isn't fair. Many if not most laws suck. Many if not most laws let some offenders slip through while catching up some innocents. Earth is not heaven. Let's just stick to the facts. Herostratus (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the piece you raised up does not necessarily belong to the lede, maybe it should be in overview in a more neutral tone. This piece was added by Deisenbe, not me (just in case someone wants to accuse me of pushing it to front). How would you change the tone more neutral? What I have tried to do is to describe what sex offender registries in the U.S. are, where they came from, what restrictions comes with registration, how it affects people, how effective the laws are; what general populace, legislators, scholars and other stakeholders think of it; how courts have handled challenges and what law scholars think of that. I think that's what Misplaced Pages editors are expected to do. I'm not trying to introduce my personal opinion on this subject, it comes through the RS and it is hard to balance as there is not much academic RS in support of current registries to balance with. As far as I know there is RS in support how the registries were in early 1990's or how they currently are in 2 or 3 states, but this article is about current laws as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperFace (talk • contribs) 13:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - After glancing briefly at this article's content and history, I'm inclined to agree with MONGO's assessment. Sadly, this type of single-purpose account soap boxing behavior is all too common WP. We lack good mechanisms to deal with it. To be frank, I think an immediate topic ban for ViperFace wouldn't be unwarranted here. This article covers a highly sensitive topic, and to have it turned into an advocacy piece really threatens the integrity of WP as a whole. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: Steps have already been taken to achieve more neutral tone by me and user DHeyward who was quite heavy handed but I also agree with his removals. MONGO actually thanked me twice for my attempts to seek neutrality. ViperFace (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Continued move towards neutrality gains points.--MONGO 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@ViperFace and MONGO: - Ok. Well if Viper is genuinely looking to reform, we should try to aid him in that process. NickCT (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do. Like I have said, I have strong personal POV on these matters but I also want to write neutral encyclopedia. Now that I have taken more closer look it seems that this NPOV notice was warranted. ViperFace (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

5 (UTC)

@ViperFace and MONGO: - Ok. Well if Viper is genuinely looking to reform, we should try to aid him in that process. NickCT (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This issue is mainly the article. I'm concerned that trimming may be insufficient. It is clear ViperFace has a POV and critical analysis of existing laws is fine, but as you mentioned, soapboxing is not. A topic ban would essentially be a site ban since this is their primary focus.--MONGO 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole article? Aren't most of the sections merely describing the reality as it is? At least 6 first sections are merely describing the history and different components of the legislation as they are. I don't know what you think of the "Impact" and sections following it, but that's what peer reviewed RS has to say about these subjects. Critical analysis is hard to balance with positive accounts as I can't find any other than general opinions of registries being "a useful tool". That's honestly all there is. This article can't be in 50%-50% balance with positive and negative accounts. Consensus among scholars is clear, they are critical to current registries. The only positive findings are already included in "Effectiveness". I deliberately put them on front of the section. What is currently missing is the rationale behind this legislation, which originally was keeping tab on sexually violent predators and habitual offenders, of which none of the scholars seem to have nothing to complain about. ViperFace (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to remove all the commentary throughout the history. Arguments for/against registries is out of place. that debate happens in legislatures. This article isn't the place to discuss how or if they work or whether they are effective. All that advocacy material needs to go. --DHeyward (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. What particular parts of this article you consider as commentary? Where in this article arguments for/against is taking place? Please, give me a copy/paste example and I'll do my best to make it more neutral. At this moment RS supporting current legislation seems to be lacking. I'd be more than happy to include such RS when provided. ViperFace (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There is such a thing as carrying an argument too far. Laws generally take a long time to be enacted, perhaps longer to be amended and even longer if ever to be repealed. Using Misplaced Pages as a platform for the amend and or repeal options is advocacy and is a violation of policy. I'd be more inclined this article could be saved if it previously had a history that was.more neutral...but since its new and this is where its at, even with the most recent alterations, I'm inclined to think the article should not exist. I'd recommend a move back to its original starting point before you split it off. None of these studies conducted indicate that the percentage of inconvenienced registrants that "do not deserve this penalty" can be quantified. The studies cite a few examples but all seem to fail to give us solid percentages, instead only citing small numbers as grounds for saying 'bad law'. Laws supposedly protect the law abiding from the law breakers and inevitably some people will end up being excessively penalized inadvertently.--MONGO 10:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to make the article more neutral. If the quotes must go in order to make it more neutral I'm ok with it (DHeyward probably meant this), altough, at least, the Wetterling critique is kind of notable as she was the person who initiated the first federal legislation. The article does not try to quantify the number of "wrongly" or too "harshly" "punished" (officially registration isn't a punishment). I can't imagine how anyone could even construct such a number objectively as drawing a line after which life-long registration is ok, say, to age difference, would be arbitrary. I'm sure there are estimates of the percentage of sexually violent predators which I guess is somewhere between 5-20%, the rest of the registrants are something else (not saying that all of them should not be registered). You really think that the whole article should be deleted?? Honestly, would you propose this to be deleted had this been written primarily by someone else than me? I do understand that my username is pretty stigmatized, but that should not mean that all of my edits are garbage. To me it sound like ad hominem argument against otherwise relevant subject that warrants its own article. I wish more editors were involved, but not many are willing to touch this subject other than correcting my typos. They don't want to became "that sex offender editor". ViperFace (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty frustrated as not many seem to be interested providing comments. I propose we do this: I'll try to make this article "complete", which would mean (to me) improving "Public notification" -section, checking what was lost after DHeyward pared and adding relevant parts (if there is any) to appropriate sections, and splitting "state court rulings" into their own article page. After this I would nominate the article to be peer reviewed. I propose we do this in honest way, assuming good faith and without unnecessarily poisoning the well or trying to influence the opinion of the reviewers in any other way, maybe even removing NPOV tag for the time of peer review process. After all this should be about the quality of the article, not my editing history or my POV on these matters. I don't believe that any of us are able to be completely neutral. This NPOV notice is already somewhat poisoned as it started the way it started. We need truly neutral editors to determine what should be done. Tell me what you think of this proposal? PS. I have removed all but two of the reform groups from the sidebar template as it gave them way too much weight. I did not add them in the first place, BTW. ViperFace (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't begun to trim. I just removed the blatant violations from a few sections and ViperFace restored some of it. A complete review would eliminate about 70-85% of the article as speculation or POV. --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hence my rationale that until neutrality can be achieved, this is better off not being a stand alone article.--MONGO 04:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward I almost entirely agree with removal you did. Eg. the lede is currently identical to how it was initially written by me. Much of POVish material was added by one or two other editors, although many of the sections written solely by me did, in fact, contain POVish expressions, which I have tried to pare off. The whole article has much more neutral tone now. To my knowledge I have not restored anything you removed other than the image of Zach Anderson. The text under the image is not necessarily neutral. I'll fix it right after this post. ViperFace (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply here; my current schedule has kept me away from Misplaced Pages more than I would like this past month. When I signed in today, I found that I had been pinged to this conversation way up above someplace, and feel compelled to comment about this situation. This topic has been of interest to me for some time, but I don't normally do more on this subject beyond minor copy editing. (I did suggest a merge with some other articles but there was no consensus and I closed that discussion -- the removal of the merge-templates were probably my most major edits to the article.) In general, I am interested in subjects related to disproportionate treatment of certain populations within the US, especially within the criminal justice system. This includes, but is not limited to, the treatment of those labeled as "sex offenders" by society.

As ViperFace started editing this and other related articles, I was concerned that the sources might not have been legit or balanced, but I've found that with only two exceptions, every link I've checked has gone to sources that meet the definition of WP:RS, and I've been unable to find any counter-examples that are anything other than "opinion pieces" where non-expert commentators basically say that they approve of sex offender registries. On my user page, since well before this discussion started, has been a userbox link to Okrent's law, which states that the pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true. (Imagine if the suggestion that an article cannot contain any POV were applied to the article on The Holocaust.) Seriously, nearly every section of WP:NPOV supports the work that has been done with this article. The suggestion that ViperFace should be topic-banned is ludicrous; we need more editors who will dedicate themselves to improving the articles here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm ludicrous then because I think ViperFace, a single purpose account, should be topic banned. If the laws are so bad, why are they not only virtually unchanged but in most cases, they have been strengthened. A few states have contested some federal guidelines but not a single state has ceased using registries.--MONGO 08:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The article makes an attempt to discuss why amendments are not happening, altough I removed the quote of one legislators. If "the Wetterling- critique" was allowed, it would also discuss why the laws are often strenghtened. Sex offenders as a group are frowned upon by the public as they associate the word "sex offender" with rapists and child molesters. Any move to further punish such people gains points to legislators. The problem is: the laws target every offense that has an sexual element and even some that don't. I have not found a single piece of RS arguing that registries should go away entirely, but virtually all RS says they should not target those who are not considered dangerous. This critical view is overwhelming in peer reviewed RS. ViperFace (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There is such as thing as losing the argument because you take the argument too far. The article even with my updates and trimming reads like an apology piece on behalf of sex offenders. Of course there is going to be negative fallout from some laws, but the incidence of recidivism has declined BECAUSE of the registries...prior to their implementation, the recidivism rates were four times those for released prisoners that had been incarcerated for none sex related crimes. You're only telling the story you want to promote...that is a violation of NPOV.--MONGO 01:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"the incidence of recidivism has declined BECAUSE of the registries..." This is nothing more than your personal opinion. Pretty much all RS says that registries do not seem to have noticeable effect on recidivism. A few studies have found some effect, and these studies were included in the article before you removed the whole Effectiveness- section because you don't like what the RS says. Everything you have removed recently was well supported by multiple high end reliable sources. ViperFace (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

By sources, you mean from biased sources. Explain why recurrence is significantly lower now than before the laws and registries were implemented. In the late 80's and early 90s the recividism rate was four times greater than for non sex crime parolees. You apparently did not look at my efforts to bring NPOV to the article. You've been deliberately cherry picking sources to promote your agenda.--MONGO 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The source articles have been published in peer revieved scientific journals. Even studies by government entities find similar results. The whole Academia seems to be biased to you. The RS also says that sexual crime trends started to decline well before any registration laws were passed. It declined along with the general crime trend. Talking about cherry picking, you added findings of study by Dr. Gene Abel. This study is a survey on a small sub group of sexual offenders that are known to pose considerably higher risk of recidivism than all sexual offenders as category. It's a survey on sexual predators or preferential child molesters who molested "pre-pubescent boys outside the home". Unlike the sources you removed, it is not a statistical analysis on all those who have been ever convicted of any crime involving any sexual element or even some crimes that don't but still require registration. Although I don't dispute the findings of that study (some scholars do BTW, the methodology can be seen as questionable), you are giving undue weight to a one study that was studying sexual predators (who are the correct target group for these laws) to push a POV that people who piss on the street, take nude selfies, have sex on the beach, "cop a feel" or have consensual teenage sex would pose an equal risk of attacking "young boys outside the home". Sex offender ≠ sexual predator. Furthermore, you cite a paper that is not a peer reviewed study. It is a paper by National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The current president of the said organization, Patty Wetterling, is one of the most vocal critics of current registration laws. She's biased, right? ViperFace (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This Gene Abel?? Ssscienccce (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So one editor is adding pseudo-science sources, and calling for the opposing editor to be topic banned.

And I see he adds things like: but based on studies regarding recidivism of such crimes which, based on a 1994 report, was four times greater than recidivism for those convicted and sentenced for non-sexual related offenses.

Claiming that recidivism rates for the two groups are compared, while the source compares the sex offenses committed by both groups. Ssscienccce (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

After adding that statement diff, the user removed material that contradicted his claim: diff with edit summary "remove biased falsehhods)" Ssscienccce (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighting in. Yes this is the same Gene Abel. I did not know this guy was that controversial, but when writing my last post I did have a fuzzy memory of some scholars having questioned the results of his studies. Now, if I recall right, in this particular study the subjects were participating in a treatment program and they were constantly encouraged to disclose more victims. Failing to disclose more victims would lead into terminating the participation in the program and presumably longer stay in incarceration/civil commitment, pseudo-scientific methodology indeed (I'm not 100% sure, I'll verify this later). I relly hope that MONGO merely did not bother to check the sources, but just added what the NCMEC paper said. ViperFace (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Striking over as this is not the same study I assumed it was, although some problems of this particular study seems to be discussed in Gene Abel That being said, what MONGO wrote in the article is not entirely correct description of what the FBI (or NCMEC) paper actually says. (page 15). Also, I don't think it is appropriate to refer to the victims of child molestation as "partners" in the article, even though FBI downplays the seriousness of those crimes by choosing to use such a word in their paper. ViperFace (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

We can remove Abel but my removals of advocacy POV pushing stands. We have more trimming to do before this article could possibly be a neutral treatise on the subject. ViperFace has used this article as advocacy platform and that is a policy violation.--MONGO 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dead wrong ViperFace...the report is merely the coversheet of an FBI produced report used for training purposes at that time at the FBI training facility in Quantico. To set the groundwork for why these registries were established it's important for NPOV to provide background on the available data at the time. Subsequent studies performed mainly by advocates on behalf of sex offenders also have their place, but interestingly, courts have routinely rejected their arguments because of a lack of empirical evidence. The evidence compiled by such sources as the bureau of prisons as well as probationary and enforcement data better reflects trends in post release than some newspaper or some pro sex offenders advocacy group who cite one or two examples of how the laws have negatively impacted a tiny fraction of persons and then surmise that because this tiny fraction was inconvenienced then the laws are too heavy handed.--MONGO 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You say: "Subsequent studies performed mainly by advocates". The RS you removed as "biased falsehoods" includes:

• DUWE, GRANT; DONNAY, WILLIAM (May 2008). "THE IMPACT OF MEGAN'S LAW ON SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: THE MINNESOTA EXPERIENCE". Criminology 46 (2): 411–446. Criminology has an Impact Factor of 3.098 and has rank of 2/55 (Criminology & Penology)
• Agan, Amanda Y. (February 2011). "Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?". Journal of Law and Economics 54 (1): 207–239.
• Prescott, J.J.; Rockoff, Jonah E. (February 2011). "Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?". Journal of Law and Economics 54 (1): 161–206. Journal of Law and Economics: ranking: #16 out of 45 in Economics: Law
• Levenson, Jill S.; Brannon, Yolanda N.; Fortney, Timothy; Baker, Juanita (12 April 2007). "Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies". Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 7 (1): 6. Rank: 30/41 (Social Issues); 58/62 (Psychology Social). According to Google Scholar this paper has been cited 288 times.

You removed content stating that studies find lower recidivism rates than is commonly believed, and is for sex offenders as a broad category, actually second lowest among all offender groups. This was supported by:

• "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994". U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs.
• "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010" (April 2014). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Office of Justice Programs.
• Harris, Andrew J. R; Hanson, Karl R. Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question. Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

I have not had much problem with the paring you did earlier, but NOTE: There is clearly NOT consensus for ANY further trimming to be made by you without discussing about it on the talk page first as your recent edits were not accepted by Etamni (diff, diff), nor user Ssscienccce, nor Me. When user Etamni asked you to show "any specific statement in the article that "advocates" for change?" you didn't even bother to answer. Further, when Etamni asked the same questions on your talk page, you asked him to go pack to the article talk page, the same page where you did not bother to answer.

JRPG (diff) seemed to approve how the article read before you started deleting supported content. User JRPG also characterized your behavior as possible violation of WP:NPA against me and reminded you of WP:AFG (diff). ViperFace (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep trimming it in hope it can be neutral and not the advocacy piece you would like it to be. If that's not feasible due to your incessant POV pushing and coatracking it will have to be sent to Afd where it will be voted on for deletion, merge or whatever.--MONGO 07:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly WP:AGF is required. Neither ViperFace nor I are US citizens and neither of us have any personal benefit to be gained from the article -which isn't going to change US law. I came here following a RFC request and this is the first and last sexual article I will comment on. The issue has been much debated in the UK where public opinion favours publication. Successive UK governments have rejected this and WP:RS newspapers have highlighted the draconian effects of teenagers being registered for many years for unwanted but non forceful sexual approaches. Nothing that Viperface has written appears to be NPOV and whilst I have full respect for MONGO and his contributions, assuming the sources are WP:RS he is out of order here. FWIW I have had a school governor role and therefore have had training in child protection UK style. JRPG (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If content supported by WP:RS is further removed without seeking consensus on talk page I will revert on sight and request the article to be fully protected. We do not need another edit war. It is obvious now that most editors have concerns with your behavior MONGO, rather than mine. ViperFace (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MONGO, looking at this in a dispassionate way, and the terms you use when making edits or describing ViperFace’s motives, I suspect you have reasons for your obviously very strongly held views. I note you’ve contributed very little to this discussion but have simply deleted material from the article as you saw fit. Whilst there is consensus that the article is too long , I don’t think you’re helping. You’ve previously asked your friends to tell you when to shut up and as someone who respects your massive contributions over the years I think you should consider taking a voluntary break from this topic. I propose restoring an earlier version as a base and remove the state by state section to a separate article. JRPG (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I'll decline your suggestion. The trimmed POV pushing and advocacy that I removed was put in the article by a self admitted single purpose account and I am well aware of his editing history. These things may be fine in an article titled Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries but in the form they currently dominate this article, they are simply bloat and distraction. We still have much to do to get this disaster balanced.--MONGO 17:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You are pretty much only one who sees considerable POV pushing in this article. The article from which this one originates as a split on the other hand seems to be as POVish as they come. I (pretty much single-handily) re-wrote and expanded the whole article according WP:RS. There is not a single revision where citations are from advocacy sites, or advocacy blogs, or studies by advocates (don't really know where you get that from). If there is a POV in this article it originates from the RS per WP:RS as it should. Yes, there was some unnecessary repetition and highlighting of some points which were already removed per the discussion we had here. Only thing I have problem with is the removal of the tiny section about reformists (which could be trimmed more) and the loss of a large part of the "effectiveness"- section. Other than that I consider the current revision as the most stable version this far. Also, having repeatedly reading through WP:SPA I seem to be well within the allowed boundaries. Other editors seem to have acknowledged this. Please, calm down a little and take time to reach consensus on the talk page. ViperFace (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MONGO WP:NORUSH applies, it can be sorted -don't make yourself ill over this. JRPG (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'm not...but there are so many policy violations here it makes me question your ability to understand what neutral point of view is. ViperFace spun this article off and has used it as a platform to espouse his already well exposed POV. These "reliable sources" are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions. I've already seen your POV posted to ViperFace's talk page, whereby I have previously stated that there is always room for critique of laws, just not room for 90% of an article to be a soapbox for changing the laws. No idea why you or ViperFace would give a hoot since the laws and registries have little to zero impact in your native countries. ViperFace once said in his country they are considering strengtjing their sex offender laws and he was concerned that anyone reading en.wiki articles on American laws might cast a too favorable view to outsiders. I have dealt with SPAs with an agenda before and each time they end up banned.--MONGO 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have said that there was a short public discussion about having US style registries here, where professionals were quick to point out the obvious flaws of the US system. That's how I learned about the whole issue and the fact that WP did not have a sufficient article about US registries. You say: "These 'reliable sources' are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions." I say: You are lying. Please put forward at least one "inaccurate advocacy opinion" as an example. It is pretty much your responsibility after making such a statement. Anyone may go and look previous diffs to verify that 1/3 of the RS was and still is from peer reviewed academic sources or studies by government entities. Rest are news reports used as secondary sources. There were initially a lot more academic RS included but they were removed per WP:Citation overkill, but no "inaccurate advocacy opinions". Someone is lying through his teeth here to gain an upper hand again as initial poisoning the well did not work. ViperFace (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is how the original article was before the split: diff. The article initially said: "Studies almost always show that residency restrictions increase offender's recidivism rates" and other BS like that. I actually cleaned it up quite a lot and you say I spun it off??? I'm also worried that you might have some WP:COI issues as you seem to be working, or have worked for the Department of Homeland Security and tracking of sex offenders seems to be within their remit. ViperFace (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahem...I wouldn't have any idea if the DOHS is involved in overseeing sex offender registries...the legislation is passed at the federal level but its likely enforced by state regulators, parole boards and such. I am also not a liar. Four editors here have questioned the neutrality of this article so it's not just me nor my fault this board gets too few posters. I suppose if trimming the article of its inherent and obnoxious POV and advocacy is going to be so argumentative, it likely needs to be sent to afd to gain a wider audience. It might survive that venue now that it's been trimmed down some but I think it pretty obvious you need to be shown the door sooner rather than later.--MONGO 05:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And four have OK'd the neutrality. There's also one editor who has not commented here but did contribute to the article relatively much (Cityside). Like I have said, the article reads as more neutral after the paring we have done but I and couple of other editors were not happy with some of the most recent deletions. Still, I'm quite confident that it would have stood AfD even before any clean up, although comments of neutrality would have likely been seen. I was considering to send this to AfD myself to just to get this over with. These accusations really piss me off: "These 'reliable sources' are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions." Either you have not really bothered to check the sources, or you are deliberately saying things that are not true, trusting that your good reputation is enough to sway the opinions of other editors. I really, really, really hope it is the former one. You really need to be able to post some diffs after such accusations. One option would be put this trough peer review process but I'm ok with AfD if you want to do that. ViperFace (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I promise to self impose myself a ban for some time on these topics after we have reached consensus with respect the few controversial deletions you did. ViperFace (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A note to anyone in this place who still gives a crap: In response to my changing one word that MONGO had previously edited in which mis-characterized the source material (and providing clear reasoning why it was a mischaracterization), MONGO deleted the whole paragraph with a mocking comment of "good point...its POV". When I reverted and asked for reasoning or sources rather than a hand wave, he immediately got the help of a friend (ScrapIronIV) to revert it again in the same fashion ("Per WP:NPOV").
When I challenged ScrapIronIV for reasoning or sources, he responded "Not happening" and began blanking everything that didn't match his and/or MONGO's POV, with only token attempts to pretend his reasoning was any more than an echo of MONGO's "POV" claim. (Now he's all-but admitted they were deliberate POV edits in retribution.) Meanwhile, MONGO is bragging about how this is what happens to people who contradict him and his friends, and accusing me of being a ban evader based on the evidence that... I'm an IP who disagreed with him.
Gee. I wonder why I ever left, this place is a paradise... oh wait, now I remember. It is a paradise... for those who know how to game the system, because the rules make it easy for them to make others waste much more time following the spirit of the rules than they themselves waste by pretending to follow the letter of the rules (well, usually). And for some strange reason, people give up once they realize this. That was why.
So, yeah. Good luck with it, and I'll go back to remembering there's no point in caring about an organization that doesn't mind being used for the ends of small groups with an agenda. (Not to mention an organization that has refused to learn from its own history, or Stephen Colbert's attempts to warn it about Wikiality.) 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I never asked anyone to revert your revert. It's entirely possible that others disagree with you.--MONGO 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was never asked anything by anyone. I came across it patrolling recent changes, which is one of the things I do here. My edits were to remove a slew of predetermined and biased information. Even when something is sourced, it does not necessarily belong. So many small sourced statements were being made that it led WP:UNDUE weight to the information presented. Errata, like a rule in one place where Registered Sex Offenders are not allowed to pass out Halloween candy. Make enough statements like that, and each little item adds a straw to the camel's back - the article was overloaded with loaded - but sourced - statements. I reduced it, and removed clearly biased and argumentative information. The article is about Sex Offender Registries, not about homelessness among sex offenders, or how their rights are being violated (particularly when the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise). Let's keep a clean article about registries, and leave the activism for sex offender rights out of it. Scr★pIron 22:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It was much more believable when you openly admitted they were POV edits ("Any additional cruft to show criminals as victims will be promptly addressed.") and simply refused to provide any rationalizations ("Not happening") when asked for reasoning or sources. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A glance at your contributions page shows you were indeed extremely busy making edits on a variety of pages, I'll concede.

So how, pray tell, were you able to read a very large article, fairly determine the weight that should be given to each of multiple POVs based on what the sources actually say, and discern that MONGO was in the right and should be assisted using all of the above rationalizations that you've given... in the space of under a minute?

It certainly couldn't be that you didn't, and simply reverted because you had been asked to. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been involved with a number of these pages. You will find my contributions on at least four registry/law pages on this topic. The third highest of my contributions to talk pages is on one of them. I was quite familiar with the contents of the page long before I saw that pointed addition. Coming to that conclusion should not have taken a full minute, if it did - I'm slipping. Stalk much? Keep this up, and I will open up a thread on YOU here. Scr★pIron 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Threatening an editor, IP or not, for revealing the fact that you're being blatantly dishonest isn't particularly becoming. The only "crime" I'm guilty of is taking a look at your contributions, which show you decided to back MONGO up in the space of a minute between edits. If there's a policy that says no one is allowed to look at others' contributions, please cite it.

As to your claim that you already knew MONGO was right by virtue of familiarity with this page, it strains credibility. You weren't on the list of the last 500 edits until you jumped in on MONGO's behalf. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever performed recent change patrolling? By it's very nature, you only see edits performed in the last few seconds. See, identify what looks questionable - or see an article that you are familiar with - follow the link, evaluate; not rocket science. My last 500 edits? I often put in 500 edits in a week. I may not have ever edited that particular article, but have read it, and it's on my watchlist. So, go bark up another tree. Anyone here with actual experience can tell you it's not a big deal. And yes - running to contribute to discussions you have never been involved in because I reverted your edit on Millennials? Yeah. Somebody has a problem, and it ain't me. Makes me feel nostalgic, I'd almost think one of my favorite banned editors is back. (Wink, wink! Nudge, nudge!) Scr★pIron 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not wish to add any more fuel to the fire but to me it is hard to overlook the fact that the three editors who have been blanking this article (today and in the past, regardless of the comments left here and the talk page by numerous un-involved editors) are the same editors who were involved in the debate in the Adam Walsh Act article. To me the behavior in both cases resembles remarkably well what is described in Misplaced Pages:Tag_team#Tag_team_characteristics. Before this day the article was being improved step by step, but it looks like the minor edit (a single word) by an IP initiated a response that resulted in wholesale blanking of some 20% of the article with simple WP:JUSTAPOLICY justification. ViperFace (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This needs special note: If you knew that MONGO was right because you were familiar with the page, why did you claim in your previous comment that you reverted a "pointed addition"?

You should probably go back and read the history before you continue. If you actually knew what was going on and made a considered decision as you pretended, you would have known that I added nothing. I edited one word ("rare" to "some") to match what the sources actually said, MONGO deleted the section in response, I reverted that, and you restored his deletion.

I'm not talking about your edits. I'm saying that you weren't in the last 500 edits on the page - i.e. the last two months - until you jumped in on MONGO's behalf. And what you're saying sounds suspiciously like an admission that you are not making your edits as considered decisions, but as snap judgments. Whether or not they're at others' request is now the only thing in doubt.

On to your new claim - where in the blazes did you come up with the lie that I'm a banned editor? I'm nothing of the sort, and I suspect you already know that but are trying to muddy the waters. Either give some evidence that you're not pulling that out of your tail end, or retract it. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting more and more personal. Hugs and kisses.--MONGO 00:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV - Good call getting MONGO to come and muddy the waters again, but it's not "personal" to provide clear evidence that an editor is lying and acting in bad faith. Let's review:

You're lying about knowing MONGO was right because you were familiar with the article. You hadn't seen it in at least two months, during which it went through massive changes. To boot, you didn't even know what you were reverting, as evidenced by the mistaken claim that you were reverting a "pointed addition". You're also making an accusation (that I'm a banned editor) that is demonstrably false, based on no evidence.

So where would you like to start in trying to climb out of the hole the two of you have dug? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What hole? That an editor was checking recent changes and since he edited a related article that was also a POV mess and so he decided to jump in and start cleaning this one up too...how is that a hole? That you changed "rare" to "some" and I decided the whole statement was a POV synthesis...so I removed it...how is that a hole.--MONGO 00:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with MONGO about the existing POV bias and think that part of content can be easily deleted, however removing other parts is actually too much. This could be shortened and rephrased, but this is basically a valid and well sourced info on the subject. But whatever. I do not have time for this. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks...while it will likely be seen as a POV fork, the peripherals on this matter should be on a new page as I mentioned earlier in this discussion.--MONGO 04:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• You suggested above that removed content belongs to "Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries". How come if the content you removed includes the following subtitles: "Registration process", "Public notification", "Additional restrictions", "Effectiveness", "Perceptions", etc.? This is not about any "legal challenges". Look, you made this posting on the noticeboard to have opinions by 3rd uninvolved parties, and here is it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

These sections were supposed to be worked on to make them more neutral. Mongo and NickCT were on to it, but for some reason ScrapIron came in like a Rambo and blew up like half of the article. I really can't see Mongos' reasoning for not allowing these sections to stay on the page and rework them as the original plan was. The accusations of the ip editor do not seem far fetched to me as I have seen this go down on another article related to this subject. 3/4 of the editors who did this in the Adam Walsh Act article are now involved in blanking this article, regardless of multiple opposing opinions of uninvolved editors. Mongo did not have a problem with these sections (at least ostensibly) before ScrapIron removed them, but now he is suddenly edit warring for ScrapIron. This same counter-consensus behavior took place in AWA article. All of the sections are relevant to this article. I have now reinstated them. Just stick to the original plan you and NickCT had, Mongo. ViperFace (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I do not see any reason for these paragraphs (in my last diff) be removed, and I do not even see a reason for them to be significantly reworked. Now, speaking about a similar removal on another page, I too agree that it was unwarranted, because it merely describes and explains the application of Law. Yes, this is a serious offense and must be described as such - with all consequences, per sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the history of that page, the revert on the Adam Walsh Act was the same material that he had removed based on COPYVIO. I looked it over as well and felt it was at the very least an extremely close case of paraphrasing material. --MONGO 17:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about this removal? Can you give any link where this came from? This is different from the text removed as alleged copyvio , and according to the edit summary by ViperFace it was taken from another WP page. But this is a peripheral issue. Looking at discussion on article talk page , it appears that idea was indeed to improve the text rather than remove. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct on the revert issue in that the COPYVIO revert was different and that material was added by an IP, which originates from Helsinki, Finland. Yes, ViperFace, I am sure that must be you...it seems rather implausible that another Fin would be editing these articles on en.wiki. We're not here to discuss a different article. I'll look over ScrapIrons latest revert but it does appear to be very COATRACKish for this article.--MONGO 17:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, please take a look. I think this is personal bias. Texts in question describe real life consequences for people who committed the crime and their families. The consequences might be viewed as "unfairness" of the US law and practices, but that's irrelevant as long as the content is properly sources, and yes, it is about the subject. My personal bias would be different: people have every right to know the results of application of the law in their country, no matter if something was "fair". My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

When you are going to remove the pseudo-science piece of Gene Abel you added, Mongo. Also, inb4 "Boo-hoo! Viper is a SPA!".— Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperFace (talk • contribs)

MONGO is blatantly gaming the rules, and will continue to do so for as long as he is allowed. First he brings in his old ally ScrapIronIV to agree with him... at least until ScrapIronIV slipped badly and revealed that he didn't even know what he was agreeing to, continued to repeatedly (and demonstrably) lie about why he started with that then went on to blank 20% of the articleoldid=689869232] (and demonstrablyand finally upped his bluster to crude threats. Then when a new genuinely-uninvolved editor became involved and explained why he felt both sides had a point, but undid ScrapIronIV's blanking until a compromise could be reached, a "long term articled" editor whose talk page reflects repeated personal and noticeboard support from MONGO just coincidentally happened to stop by and feel very strongly that the blanking should be restored,. This story seems to have been repeated, here and elsewhere.

MONGO repeatedly "jokes" about bringing in his "army" to come agree with him if you make edits he doesn't like. At the very least it's not funny, and it doesn't appear to be a joke either. If I had a great deal more spare time, it would be well worth bringing it to AN/I... well, it would be if (big "if") anyone cares enough about ending routine collusion to address even blatant cases, or the rules that make it easy.

To be fair, I don't like addressing nasty, time-consuming problems either. But sooner or later someone has to, or ArbCom might as well be renamed "Top-Level Dispute Resolution". 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hum...you should log in with your regular account. Anyway, maybe trimming the yet unaddressed issues that have been tagged will finally fix this soapbox article.--MONGO 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I love the fact that you and ScrapIronIV are so fond of insinuating/asserting/threatening that I'm a banned editor - without a shred of evidence. For the third (or is it the fourth?) time, I'm not. I left long ago of my own accord when it became obvious that you and people like you will always win unless WP is willing to reform the rules.

It's far too easy for those who (usually) pay lip service to the letter of the rules to bury editors of good will under dozens of hours of work following the spirit of the rules. Your appeal to AGF just now by implying "Who, me? I have no idea what you mean, let's start aaaall over again and now you can beat your head against my 'army' of 'Mongo-bots'‡ to game consensus until you give up in despair" is a perfect case-in-point.
I can read histories just fine, thank you, and I do well enough at creating my own despair. So no, I'm not interested in returning to editing and wasting dozens of hours demonstrating how long you've been doing this, if you can just bat your eyes and say the magic words "But I've changed and I've learned how wrong I was, soIapologizeandnowIdeserveanotherchance (or a dozen)." Nor am I interested in hoping you'll dig your own grave a hundred feet deep by continuing to use allies who make mistakes as obvious as ScrapIronIV's.
No one, except perhaps those who try to pretend that you and your ilk haven't made WP fodder for comedians, is that obstinately blind. If not even an admin is willing to tackle you - even when your group has made it this obvious that you're colluding - there's little point in me alone trying to do so.
‡ - "Why yes I do keep saying it, but I'm only joking, you big silly. Tee hee. Like I said, let's start over again." 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To imitate ViperFace's wisecrack, "In b4 someone praises MONGO and ScrapIronIV as prolific editors‡, the usual defense of those whose misbehavior is so egregious as to actually get in trouble for it."

‡ - I swear, I have never understood why anyone would consider this a mitigating circumstance. To me it's appalling to know that someone has been getting away with driving other editors away from "their" articles this long. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If I thought ScrapIron had made a mistake I wouldn't have reverted. In fact, this article still needs more trimming to maintain focus and achieve NPOV. Aside from that, schreeching about alleged collisions that are unrelated to whether we are closer to neutrality are about as helpful as the average pile of donkey doo.--MONGO 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

By "mistake", I'm not referring to the fact he blanked 20% of the article.

I'm referring to his having accidentally admitted that he didn't even know what he was agreeing to, when he reverted on your behalf. He then compounded this mistake by demonstrably,) and repeatedly, inventing false reasons for it.

Would you like to try to justify that, or will you continue trying to bluster your way out of it? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Mongo said: "Anyway, maybe trimming the yet unaddressed issues that have been tagged will finally fix this soapbox article." If this is the case, why an earth are these three edit warring for deleting this piece ? This well sourced 20% of the page content has one trivial "citation needed" and one "NPOV statement"- tag. The former can be easily cited or deleted. The latter one should go into the "debate" section as originally planned, or to the "effectiveness" section that was deleted earlier in similar manner, and the citation should be changed from NYT op/ed piece to this considerably more reliable US Government publication which says the same thing. Majority of uninvolved editors have now disproved with the latest deletions. Why ask for third opinions if one does not care about third opinions? ViperFace (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that this topic hasn't generated more input from uninvolved editors after all this time on this noticeboard. As it stands, the article has been gutted and the original editor has moved on to other topics of interest (possibly disproving the claim that it was an SPA). I'm really disappointed that, as a community, we have apparently decided to ignore the WP:RS and instead go with practically a bare bones de minimus article on the subject. Yes, it's more than a stub, but certainly not the encyclopedic work I was hoping to see when all was done. As it stands now, the article supports beliefs from popular culture (i.e. beliefs supported by television crime dramas and the like) and does nothing to inform the reader, based on RS, the way an encyclopedic article should. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing doesn't end up on WP:LAME! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  12:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

ViperFace is much braver than I am and this is an emotional topic involving reputable editors from different cultural backgrounds. There have been suggestions that the UK follow the US -a view firmly rejected by the UK government who seem to share many of ViperFace's arguments. Important, properly cited material has been deleted but the article was too long. I would support splitting it along lines previously suggested. It should be available. JRPG (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Even this discussion has become a wall of text that many will not read. --sigh-- I'm all in favor of organizational changes that make the article easier to read and understand. My concern is the wholesale deletion of WP:RS from the article that has gone unchallenged by the larger community, even when such deletion supported a particular POV. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  14:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. I believe Mongo is concerned that this article could influence US opinion. Could we build a consensus on a link to a new article Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries containing the wp:RS deleted material? I had thought this was going to happen weeks ago. JRPG (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this if anything should be in Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries. This piece was imported from Sex offender registry when I did the split . The rest of the content that has been thrown out, that is, the Effectiveness section and the part that has now been subject to edit warring belongs to this article. Anything else would be WP:POVFORK. I personally think this version covers the subject quite well, but it should be checked for balance and POV expressions by someone else than the deletionists. I get that my version had some balance issues but the ultimate bias the deletionists hold is pretty clear from the Adam Walsh Act case. After all, MONGO said that I and — James Cantor, who happens to be an expert notable enough to have his own Misplaced Pages article James Cantor, are "apologists for deviant behavior and want to misuse the article as a platform for their agenda." We did provide around 50 peer reviewed articles to support our position but these same three editors kept on reverting any mention of them. I have deep mistrust to these editors and I genuinely believe that MONGO's intention was never follow through with NickCT's plan as Nick was not going to remove WP:RS, he was simply going to reword and re-organize the article. Suddenly, wild ScrapIron appeared out of nothing. ViperFace (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Its comical that anyone would assume that since you finally went and edited an unrelated article or two that this now means you aren't a POV pushing sex offender apologist. All laws tend to have more writings that oppose the laws than ones that support them. The key is whether any of that advocacy has led to alterations of any significance to the laws and in this case they haven't. The laws regarding the death penalty in the U.S. have similar advocacy against them....yet in many states in the U.S. the death penalty is still legal. I'm sick and tired of your POV pushing and advocacy and misuse of this website to attack laws in a country that isn't even your own...I don't need to read my wiki resume to you to demonstrate that I've always followed our policies such as BLP, NPOV and SOAP long before some of these were even policies.--MONGO 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The key is to follow what WP:RS says, not what your gut feel says. If all of the RS take critical position, that's the position the article takes. Another key policy is to flow with the consensus. It is true that I came here as an WP:Advocate to correct great wrong. My early ways of editing was intercepted by many long term editors. Since then I have tried my best to stand corrected. You and your bots are the only editors who seem to have hard time of acknowledging this. Your wiki history demonstrates the fact that the community is not able to address your violations properly. You are one of those who are able to come up clean after dipping in a pit of greasy doo-doo. Also, I'm striking over your blatant violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA. ViperFace (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't alter anyone's comments...funny you might do that while at the same time stating that I am "one of those who are able to come up clean after dipping in a pit of greasy doo-doo.", and referring to others who see your POV pushing and sex offender SPA platforming for what it is as "bots". We're done here...I'm going to revert you on sight.--MONGO 07:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps on joking(?) about Mongo bots. The IP brought that up and I happen to agree with his/hers account. You also seem to be able to avoid sanctions even when ArbCom finds you guilty. You and the "others", who are non-neutral editors, have been removing WP:RS which has been objected by majority of neutral editors who have responded here. You posted this here "in hopes of soliciting neutral contributions for balance." The questions of neutral editors still remain unanswered. How about answering them? You also fail miserably in keeping your own promises. ViperFace (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• ViperFace, I can completely understand getting furious at being called a "sex offender apologist". But Misplaced Pages has a policy for the correct way to do everything, including removing blatant personal attacks against you. At least as I understand it, the correct way is to add a template. Big surprise. (-_-)
• MONGO, did you seriously just pretend to be offended that you infuriated someone by calling them a "sex offender apologist"? I guess that means you consider even de minimis alterations of others' comments to be worse than breaking the hell out of NPA. If that's the case, how should the community respond to someone who unabashedly deletes comments they don't like on an article talk page? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reconsidered my position. I think we should try to build consensus around what MONGO and JRPG have proposed above. I try to see this as more of a WP:SPINOFF rather than WP:POVFORK. The problem is this. To save the deleted RS what MONGO considers peripheral for purposes of this article, multiple separate articles are needed. Could we add the debate section, which would have subsections with minimal coverage on each topic which would provide links to the main articles? ViperFace (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I freely admit I am utterly bewildered at the intensity of the emotion shown in this discussion. I suspect it reflects both the European v US backgrounds of the editors + perhaps some victim experience. The UK has considered publication of the register and the RS are therefore useful. A debate section may be the best way of continuing to avoid excessive article length. JRPG (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some sort of response from those who initially removed the debate section and other RS material. It's very frustrating to try to build the section if it gets arbitrarily removed without much of an explanation. ViperFace (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

I don't know if you have already noticed that I have created WP:SPINOFF article Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States and removed what might be considered as "peripheral" from the Constitutionality section. I'm planning to do this to other sections as well. I'd like to hear opinions of other editors, specifically of those who have been opposing my earlier work. Would this resolve the POV issue sufficiently so that we could at some point remove the POV template? ViperFace (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In other words...unable to get clear consensus to POV push in the aforementioned article, you are creating new articles where you can POV push there. Why am I not surprised?--MONGO 10:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It is hard to get consensus when you do not reply, even when pinged. This is what you wanted earlier - to have the "peripheral" content to be moved into articles with appropriate names so I did just that. You have a very frustrating habit of not answering the questions of other editors you are in dispute with. You are simply doing what is described in Misplaced Pages:POV railroad ViperFace (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Now one of the cabal members is attacking the WP:SPINOFF articles with allegations that pretty much exposes their WP:BIAS. That being said, I'll tag the assertions made in the history section as they are not supported by any sources. If the source is not added to tie the recidivism studies to the evolution of these laws this piece has to be deleted. ViperFace (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Koshare Indian Museum and Dancers

I visited two related articles, Koshare Indian Dancers and Koshare Indian Museum in the course of doing research on my current topic of interest. I found the content to be drawn from the Koshare Dancer's own website, or from travel websites that copied that content almost verbatim. Many of the links were also dead, since neither article had received much attention since the 2009 Anniversary of the group. Failing to find alternative sources of the material to fix the dead links, and generally finding the content to be unsupported by reliable, unbiased sources, I deleted much of it in preparation for merging both articles into a section in the article Otero Junior College. A merge had previously been discussed and approved in 2009 but not done, for some reason.

I place a NPOV tag on both articles, but this generated no interest, perhaps due to the holidays.

I later found some secondary sources referring to the Koshare Indian Museum and Dancers, all providing the Native American POV. Adding content from these sources drew the attention of Kintetsubuffalo, who instead of engaging in a discussion began by removing my edits, presenting his own interpretations of WP guidelines as rules, and then resorted to making personal insults.

FriendlyFred (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I made two changes to the lead section of Koshare Indian Dancers that use neutral language to describe the nature of the group and its performances. If these remain along with the viewpoints of Native Americans, the balance of the article is now acceptable. I attempted to begin to resolve the notability and NPOV issues with Koshare Indian Museum by merging its content into Otero Junior College, but was reverted. The content of the museum article is taken mainly from the organizations' own websites, and from travel websites which use uncritical descriptions to promote the museum and its activities as and educational and entertaining tourist attraction. I can find no RS that attests to the authenticity or educational quality of the museum's collection, which would be essential in establishing its notability for an independent article. The "tourist" information indicates that there is a mixture of historic Native American objects and art by contemporary artists who may or may not be Native American. There is none of the identification of expert curation one would expect for a museum located on a college campus.FriendlyFred (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Although I have been actively editing since 2012, I cannot claim much experience (or interest) in the administrative side of WP, since I am only researching and writing about topics that interest me personally. Previous issues have been quickly resolved when other editors participated in discussions to reach a consensus. This does not mean I agreed with the result, but was willing to accept it as the way a collaborative work must be written. It is now approaching two weeks with no additional participation here or on the talk pages. Admittedly the articles are of little consequence, which is one of my points. I see no justification for having articles on one boy scout troop, and a "museum" with no secondary sources establishing any notability, only travel-related sites promoting it as an interesting place to visit. There is also a biography of J. F. Burshears whose only claim to notability is being the scoutmaster who founded the Koshare Dancers. All three might be combined and merged into the section in the Otero Junior College article. Or they could simply deleted, but as long as they exist the NPOV issue would remain.

I found one scholarly reference mentioning the Koshare Dancers specifically as a modern example of the book's thesis, and did not think there is any option but to include a summary of that thesis, so I added:

In his book Playing Indian, Native American historian Philip J. Deloria presents his thesis that, from the Boston Tea Party to the present, white people have used their version of "Indianness" to build an American identity while ignoring the conquest and dispossession of the actual original inhabitants of this continent.

referencing not only the book itself, but a synopsis of the book on the publisher's website, Yale University Press. This content was reverted three times by Kintetsubuffalo, so I posted to the edit warring noticeboard. That posting has been archived with no action having been taken. I questioned this by posting here. FriendlyFred (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

ExxonMobil "Funding of global warming skepticism" moved from "Environmental record" to "Criticism"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since roughly 2008, the "Environmental record" section of article ExxonMobil has included a subsection "Funding of global warming skepticism." The subsection was about nine paragraphs in length, and well-referenced by about 40-some reliable sources, including the The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, the The Guardian, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and InsideClimate News. The subsection summarized copious investigative journalism into what ExxonMobil knew and when they knew it regarding cliamte change, and ExxonMobil's extensively documented support for lobbying and grassroots lobbying in favor of fostering climate change denial and scepticism and in opposition to environmental regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

24 December 2015 this subsection was moved en mass to the "Criticism" section, and 27 December 2015 re-headed "Attitude towards global warming."

Policy WP:STRUCTURE requires us to extend our neutrality principle to article organization and section headings. The subsection content is an integral component of the environmental record of the subject of the article. The subsection content includes activities, not criticisms, not attitudes. The references in the subsection are investigative journalism, not editorial opinions. The subsection move creates "an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false."

Please see previous attempts to resolve this neutrality issue at article talk at Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general and Neutrality.

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I do see serious issues there and problems with dialog. I see that the section heading is currently gone from the content. SageRad (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a clear WP:STRUCTURE violation. Isn't the article or at least the subject matter under ArbCom sanctions? --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm still seeing seriously strong non-NPOV issues over at this article, and i think i'm the only person who's responded from this noticeboard with any sort of assistance there. Still calling for help. SageRad (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet

I'm seeing some serious NPOV issues occurring at Paleolithic diet. I don't have much time to give this, but if you see the article's current content, edit history, and talk page, i think the problems would be obvious to an uninvolved observer. I'd rather not prejudice anyone by saying what i think about the issues, but just to highlight the article for more eyes. I'd ask for anyone's help there. I'm probably not going to be editing there much due to the toxic environment, but more eyes could be useful in helping this article conform to WP:NPOV basics. Thanks for anyone who has the willingness and energy to do so. SageRad (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What's the problem, exactly? The idea of a single homogeneous "paleolithic diet" is ridiculous, and the fact that it's a fad diet is hardly controversial. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to let people decide for themselves. However, since you've gotten specific here, i have to say that there is not any assumption of a single homogenous "paleolithic diet" being made, so that's a strawman argument, and secondly, the notion (not "fact") that it's a "fad diet" is most certainly controversial. So, on both points, note that there is strong difference of opinion, and the things you've stated are not accepted facts. SageRad (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

These are controversies according to you, but not according to RS. To be neutral we need to ensure Misplaced Pages follows RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I dispute that assertion, clearly. There is a case of a biased WP:OWNBEHAVIOR at the article. There is a case of WP:POV RAILROAD behavior that's taken over the page and made reasonable dialog completely impossible as a means to deciding content cooperatively. It's a nasty and toxic environment there. Let some others who are uninvolved bring their own eyes and minds to the question, can't we? SageRad (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Like many things, i think it's about perspective -- and i have a strong sense that we need more editors with various perspectives to add their voices there. It seems like there are two strong perspectives currently butting heads and it's not very fruitful. SageRad (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not deal in the perspectives of editors, but in the views contained in the best RS. That is the essence of NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand the essence of NPOV but issues arise when the perspective of editors causes bias in which sources are used, which are deprecated, and how they are represented, so perspective of editors is still a factor that can lead to biased articles. SageRad (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• The first sentence: The paleolithic diet is a fad diet based on the foods that proponents believe Paleolithic humans might likely have eaten, such as meat, nuts, and berries, and excludes food which proponents think Paleolithic humans did not eat, like dairy. The first sentence is garbage. The first sentence should explain what it is. This could be fixed, but I am not going to fix it. I am dealing with way too problems at the chiropractic page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To me eyes, the problem persists and is getting worse by the hour. Needs attention regarding NPOV compliance. SageRad (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

POV editing continues on this article, and a small group of editors have essentially occupied the article, and they are maintaining the POV state of the article despite serious and well-intentioned attempts to work collaboratively, and to use proper sourcing to follow policy and to remove the intense attack POV that has already been pushed into the article. In other words -- good editors need to come and help untangle that mess there. Please.

I have no strong personal stake in the subject of the article, but i do believe in the potential for Misplaced Pages to be an encyclopedia with integrity. We cannot suffer editors blatantly gaming the system and let them get away with it, and still pretend that there is a working system in Misplaced Pages. SageRad (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

.... and.... it's continuing, with even the onerous anti-consensus removal of an NPOV tag from the article, edit warred out of the article by one of the people who are occupying the article. Does anyone care? Is anyone listening? SageRad (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you're seeing. The article actually describes and explains the diet and it says the various points why it was thought up and what the evidence is. It is a fad and it says so. It doesn't do anything like sort stupid things some hard-line anti fringe editors try doing like removing anything properly describing the topic for weight reasons and only leaving criticism.. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Things are getting worse. The entire lede is trash writing. It looks like a blog post. I am listening but I do not have the time to spend hours reviewing sources to just get reverted in the end. If there were expert authority then it could be fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Without explanation, sourced text was deleted and replaced with unsourced text and non-neutral wording. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The changes you want to make have been discussed repeatedly on the talkpage. Showing up and making them without actually checking to see if they have been discussed (and repeatedly rejected by multiple editors) is not going to get anywhere. If you have a new argument (you probably have a better and more policy compliant one compared to some) please take it to the talkpage and discuss it there. There are plenty of people watching it and perfectly happy to discuss it with you. However heavy-handed changes which have already been rejected are just not going to work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Original research in the lede

The part "proponents claim" fails verification and the part "classed as a fad diet by mainstream authorities" fails verification. Without explanation the tags were removed without removing the text that failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The two US political parties are named REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRAT .

No Democratic party exists. However nearly all articles in WIKI contain this misleading error. Inacurractely naming Democrats, Democratic, conveys a false sense of identity to Democrats - inferring Republicans are not democratic. A global change is needed to correct this misnomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.153.1 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 January 2016

Can you show that "Democratic party" is not used in reliable sources? A cursory web search shows that it is. Washington Post, Washington Times, Pennsylvania Democrats

The capital D in "Democrat" is meant to distinguish it from general proponents of democracy, just like the R in "Republican." This is generally understood.

If you want to and can find sources, you could add a section to Democratic Party (United States)#Name and symbols explicitly stating that the difference between Democrats and democracy. Darkfrog24 (talk)

The Party Charter clearly labels it as the Democratic Party. Torven (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There's a distinction between "the Democratic Party" (a proper name), "a democratic party" (a common noun), and "a/the Democratic party", a mixed usage that – while attested (probably as an editorial error) in some publications – is ambiguous, confusing, and has no reason to be used on Misplaced Pages. WP does not capitalize general political philosophies, per MOS:ISMS, so "capital D in "Democrat" is meant to distinguish it from general proponents of democracy" is an invalid rationale here; it's capitalization for emphasis, the first "do not" point at MOS:CAPS.

It's unclear what dispute the anon is referencing; Democratic party redirects to the Democratic Party disambiguation/set-index page, as one would expect. Assuming there is some actual dispute on this somewhere, I'll try to address it as broadly as possible: About the only potential legitimate use of "Democratic party" on wikipedia would be in reference to a comparison between two unrelated parties in two countries both with "Democratic" in their name ("the Democratic Party in the US and the People's Democratic Party of Kerblachistan"), but such a usage would be sloppy; "the two Democratic parties differ in their views on ..." can simply be rendered "the two parties differ in their views on ..."; it's also PoV pushing, because the equation of their uses of the word is a fallacy of equivocation and of false equivalence that ignores that words have different meanings in different contexts, and advances the original research implication that the parties are philosophically connected by their use of this term (this is obviously nonsense; many of the extremely undemocratic communist regimes of the 20th century included "Democratic" in the names of their nations and subnational entities as a propaganda move, and this has also been true of many political parties). In the case of two parties with genuinely connected political philosophies and both named "the Democratic Party" (perhaps in neighboring countries, or one being a later version of an earlier one in the same country), we'd use "the two Democratic Parties differ on ..." or, again, just "the two parties differ on ...". This is just basic copyediting, folks.

The objection that that often comes up in cases like this, summarizable as 'but it's in some of the RS that way, so I can use it no matter what' is wrong for three different policy reasons: MOS is not obligated to permit every known style that ever existed, and the guideline is based on editorial WP:CONSENSUS, as it is part of internal WP:POLICY, not an article subject to WP:CORE; editorial consensus on how to write a particular article is not required to accept and regurgitate the exact phrasing in previously published material (we're encouraged to not do this, per WP:EDITING and WP:PLAGIARISM); and WP:BURDEN clearly says we do not have to accept facts or sources as encyclopedic simply because they exist somewhere, and the most common rationale for rejecting something is WP:NPOV policy, though there are many others (all of which are valid, because what to include is also a matter of consensus). This tendentious campaign being waged by a handful of editors that whatever they can find in some source somewhere dictates exactly what MoS may and may not say or do, or what editors may or may not come to consensus about, has to stop. One of the parties here has already been topic-banned from a swath of the MoS for pursuing this kind of consensus-takes-a-back-seat stuff. This is strong evidence that the community's patience for pet-source and pet-style pushing has worn out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Information from a "senior military official"

In this edit at the Free Syrian Army, user Nulla Taciti returned quotes to the phrase "senior military officials" quoted by one source, explaining, "actually quoting an assertion in the article."

There is no reason why the phrase senior military official should be quote, and this appears to be an obvious case of scare quoting. Ordinarily I'd view this as just disruptive, but Nulla Taciti may not be a native speaker of English. If anyone's interested can they please verify that putting quotes around the source name cast editorial doubt upon the existence or authenticity of the source? -Darouet (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not scare quoting, it's indicating that it is our cited source, not WP itself, who claims it was a military official at all, and that they were senior, claims that no one can verify because we don't have access to who that source was. WP is not in a position to make such a claim in our own voice when we don't even know who it is. Both the factual claim and the subjective one in the same construction are primary source claims by the author of what we're citing, even if the piece is otherwise secondary. We could probably dispense with the quotes by using a non-subjective paraphrase, e.g. "a military source whose identity was protected by ".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  12:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes – identification in opening sentence as "white supremacist"

IP 158.143.212.121 and I have been having a disagreement at Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Scholarship. He thinks Rhodes should be identified in the opening sentence as a "white supremacist" and thinks this description of his obituary on the Guardian website is a weighty enough source to support that. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a pointless edit war over this so I'm bringing the issue here for discussion. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

158.143.212.121 has not taken up invitation to enter discussion here and repeatedly restores the wording. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Identification of Cecil Rhodes as a "white supremacist" in opening sentence. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm 100% against included this terminology. The Guardian is a centre-left newspaper, so of course it would use that terminology. This should be removed from the opening sentence.  — Calvin999 12:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The characterization of Rhodes as a white supremacist strikes me as a tough call. It's probably a little inflammatory for the first sentence, particularly stated as baldly as IP 158.143.212.121 has put it. At the same time, it's a legitimate critique that should probably be included somewhere near the top, particularly since the second paragraph talks about the opposing "hero/villain" views of Rhodes. Would you be ok with me trying to come up with a phrasing that takes it out of the first sentence but leaves it in the first couple of paragraphs (above the contents box)? (I've had an account for years, but am just getting started editing, so apologies if my formatting here is not up to standards.) MikeDunford (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with something along the lines of "His expressed views have led detractors to condemn him as a white supremacist."—have a look at how I handled this in the lead for the Ian Smith article. Cheers Mike. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, and thanks for the pointer to how you handled this issue elsewhere. I'll see if I can find a place in the lede to work a change in that's along those lines. (I'm guessing the change might be better received coming from someone new to the issue.) Cheers. MikeDunford (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'd thought too. Cheers Mike. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and pulled the white supremacist from Rhodes Scholarship. If it's reverted, I'll try to find somewhere more appropriate in the article for it. MikeDunford (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Mike. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, all! Since the first user posted this, I added additional sourcing including the original quotations in which Rhodes calls whites the 'supreme race' and blacks barbaric, etc. Mike, I like what you've done with the page--rather than culling the term from the top. Rhodes' racial ideology can't really be separated from his views on colonialism or imperialism, as it was at the foundation of his political career in South Africa and his beliefs on the expansion of the British empire.

From the NPOV page, neutrality means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." For contentious labels such as racist, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Rhodes said explicitly that whites are supreme, blacks are inferior, and he is widely and exclusively described as white supremacist and racist in the academic literature. There is no academic dispute or disagreement as to these adjectives. By using sentences like "detractors allege" he is a white supremacist, it implies that there are some who don't think he is--which is not true. Ultimately, this makes it sound like there's a dispute on whether he was a white supremacist when there isn't one (instead, the academic dispute is about whether his contributions outweighed all this.

If there is a dispute as to whether he's a white supremacist, I'd understand your concern. But given there is no dispute (unless you can find a source saying some argue he wasn't a white supremacist), I don't see what the issue is.

P.S. This is the current definition of white supremacy on Misplaced Pages's page: "a form of racism centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people." The reason why no one disagrees with Rhodes being a white supremacist is because he has essentially said this, verbatim. 15:17, 15 January 2016 by 158.143.212.121 (talk)

(Above was unsigned so i found the diff and added signature of the IP user. If anyone can do this better than me please change it. IP user, you have to sign your comments by typing four tildes after them, please.) SageRad (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to state your views here.

Yeah, I'm not disputing the characterization (I'm not a scholar in this area, and have no strong views one way or another) of Rhodes as a racist or white supremacist. But the term is very loaded, particularly given the modern context - as an American, when I read "white supremacist," the first image that pops to mind are violent, heavily tattooed white prison gangs. Transposing that terminology to the 19th Century is a bit difficult for me, because there was a different cultural context at that time. (NOTE: I am not saying that this excuses the conduct or reduces the impact of Rhodes beliefs/acts, just that it's a relevant explanatory factor.

I am more concerned about the distraction impact of the loaded term in the use on the scholarship page than on the Rhodes page. I think the relevance is a bit less on the scholarship page, so there is less reason for the possibly distracting language. MikeDunford (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

...and the first image to pop to mind of a non-American...? _Fortuna 15:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

being an American, I can't speak to that, but I'd be curious to hear the answer. MikeDunford (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Actually, Rhodes Scholars have been criticizing Rhodes for racism and white supremacist views since the 1960s, along with the rise of the Civil Rights movement. It's hardly a new flare up and I've updated the Rhodes Scholarship page to reflect that. It is our modern views that say that it's very loaded and an 'epithet' at all--Rhodes would happily have described himself as a white supremacist.

I do understand that it's a modern view to say that "white supremacist" is a loaded term or an epithet. But Misplaced Pages is read by modern readers, and I think it's reasonable to believe that many of them will have that understanding of the term. As I've said, I'm not opposed to having the information in the article, but I think that a cautious approach is reasonable under the circumstances. Along these lines, is there an existing consensus on how to handle the issue of cultural change and/or increasing awareness when it comes to issues of race, sex, and so forth? MikeDunford (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• All of the three citations provided thus far on this epithet or characterization are from the past 10 or 11 months. I therefore don't think it merits being in the lede (or possibly even in the article at all). It seems like a recent flare-up. If there is nothing substantiating this characterization from the 20th century, this stuff should probably be relegated to something at the end of the article that mentions recent criticism (or omitted entirely). In the lede it has way too much weight (WP:UNDUE), which is not justified by a few items from merely the past year. And yes it also violates WP:NPOV. Softlavender (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Softlander. I updated the Rhodes Scholarship page to include a history of criticism of Rhodes for being racist and white supremacist going back to the 1960s. This is not actually a new criticism--it's widely discussed in South Africa. If anything, I'm surprised that pages describing him haven't mentioned it before....

I agree. This critique goes back to the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe revolution.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On a meta-level, a few things:

• The IP user needs to learn to sign their comments, please...
• If it's true then it's true and can be in he lede, in my opinion. If there are good sources and it's a solid label then it belongs. We call things what they are here -- no exaggeration but no protectionism.
• This discussion really belongs on the talk page of the article, except for meta-level concerns about NPOV.
• If the IP user was reverting without discussing then that would be edit warring, although the user is probably new and so people should go easy and carefully explain that to them, in a welcoming way to get them to discuss -- and they are now discussing, so hopefully this remains civil and no sanctions are needed.

SageRad (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

There are problems with POV editing, cherry picking, undue weight, coat racking and soapboxing at my bio.

Certain editors have attempted to place false information at my bio about a court trial verdict, my affiliations and why I am notable.

Certain editors at the bio appear only interested in making the bio as negative as possible regardless of reliable sources, often ignoring the historical record. They also favor minority opinions or fringe theories and cite unreliable sources that offer false and/or misleading information.

One editor said, " if suggestions non-stop and provide sources to substantiate arguments, the edits based on these sources may not be to liking." The point here is what? Seems like a threat of negative editing to induce me to stop making suggestions at the talk page. Another editor requested that I stop for 6-8 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Alan Ross (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed the guidelines at Misplaced Pages and in my opinion the guidelines are not being followed by some of the editors at my bio.

Is it possible for someone to please look this over?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)21:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There have been extensive discussions at Talk:Rick Alan Ross, with many editors, including multiple postings at WP:BLP/N. So, before anyone weighs in, I suggest reading the threads there. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Cullen328, Figureofnine, Ronz, JzG, Collect, Fyddlestix, GB fan, and Jbhunley - Cwobeel (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cwobeel is the editor that threatened me with negative editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not threaten you in any way or manner. You asked to add material about a book you wrote, and provided sources . When these sources were used, you objected to the material derived from these sources. So yes, if you provide sources, we will follow them, and the edits may or not be to your liking. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It reads to me like a threat. Your editing pattern has been to make the bio as negative as possible. IMO you use undue weight, coat racking cherry picking.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I am done with that article. I'd let others attempt to convince you to stay away, and let the article develop. I had enough already. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You said this before and then came back even more aggressively. Frankly you behave like a bully.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You should heed the advice given to you by many editors, and back off. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey you two - knock it off. Ross has some valid issues with some of the claims and their wording on his BLP, and with some Scientology-specializing editors, and unfortunately does not understand that iterating valid points does not gain more opinions from editors. And those editors who appear unwilling to write conservatively-written biographies should also be aware that being loud about "Ross had a hung jury and was not acquitted" when the contemporary news accounts and the actual court records agree on "acquittal" that sometimes "scholarly journals" can be absolutely wrong on facts especially when the factoid is not stressed as being important. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That issue was discussed and resolved in talk. No idea why you bring this up again, unless this is you again shit-stirring unnecessarily. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Given Rick Alan Ross' conflict of interest and need to self-market himself for his livelihood, it seems he's so entrenched in his pov that he simply doesn't understand what a neutral article about him would be. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I spent quite a bit of time reading and noting Misplaced Pages guidelines. I may not be as sophisticated as you concerning Misplaced Pages, but I understand NPOV and my bio isn't even close.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• The matter of Rick Alan Ross should more properly be addressed at WP:COIN. I, and others, have brought up the problem of him overwhelming the talk page and the editors there and his civil POV pushing - most recently today . Personally, I am at near wits end about how to make him understand that NPOV is not ROSSPOV. Jbh 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It was previously decided that though I cannot edit my own bio there is no conflict of interest in my participation at the talk page. This is the editor that suggested that I not comment or offer reliable sources at the talk page for 6-8 months. I have responded at the talk page to certain editors pushing a POV. Because I point out POV editing doesn't mean that I somehow don't understand NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Because I hate out of context remarks the quote was: "There are now enough people editing here that the article is assured to be well looked after. I second the suggestion you have been given by the other editors here - take a long break, six or eight months, and let a stable article emerge by consensus without your constant input. After it has become stable for some months come back and comment. Right now your constant walls of text seem to be annoying many if not most of the editors who are trying their best to make this article meet Misplaced Pages's requirements. Remember we are here for Misplaced Pages not for you. So please, back off for a few months. Thank you." @Rick Alan Ross: when you make accusations or quote people you need to provide the related WP:DIFF. Thanks. Jbh 00:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)Previously at WP:COIN (archives): - Cwobeel (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I had the same issues with Ross and walked away eventually and even stopped watching. That is always an option for all of you. You could also keep watching and just WP:SHUN unless something actually useful is offered. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: Biographies of living persons BLP rules have been ignored at my bio. Facts are deleted or when suggested rejected despite reliable sources. Undue weight is given to anything negative. When I point this out certain editors posted personal attacks, tried to silence me or threaten me. Now I should to be shunned? NPOV editors have been overwhelmed by a persistent POV core group, which seeks to control my bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So you say, but you appear to just be casting aspersions rather than working cooperatively with the editors that are helping you.

I'm tending to agree with the other editors here that we wait for RAR to learn how to properly cooperate with others. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You are being vague. What does "properly cooperate with others" mean? This is a biography of a living person. We give special consideration to the real-time effects our encyclopedia has on people's lives as they are being lived. You say "I'm tending to agree with the other editors here that we wait for RAR to learn how to properly cooperate with others". Others may have the luxury of waiting but the subject of the biography understandably wants certain issues addressed in a timely manner. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Please read the article talk page and the sections of my talk page relating to the subject. We have all been extremely responsive to RR's requests. What we have not done is agree with his interpretation of what is wrong all of the time. To give you an idea of the talk page RR has made 300+ edits there in the last 2 months . He has not been ignored. Jbh 16:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have suggested on the article talk page that Rick Alan Ross open a new thread here about the specific NPOV issue he has and to address that issue and only that issue. I am not quite ready to give up on him but my frustration is very high. I sincerely hope he takes on board all the advice he has been given. Jbh 16:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As concerns proper cooperation I think the subject of the biography has exercised restraint. The Talk page has been used. Sources have been presented. Arguments have been levelheaded. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am becoming increasingly skeptical about fairness at Misplaced Pages. Editors say one thing, then they say another and often contradict each other. One editor says to point out errors and provide reliable sources. I do that according to the rules. Then another editor says I am doing it too much. Meanwhile yet another editor is heavily editing and making more mistakes or misleading statements. I point that out, but then I am again criticized for doing too much. Everything is detailed explicitly on the talk page for anyone to see. IMO certain editors seem to be gaming the system to make the bio as negative as possible.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Break to discuss the actual material at issue

Posting this as I recommended RR do so the current issue at hand can be discussed. In the article Rick Alan Ross the subject, Rick Alan Ross feels the text below does not fairly represent the sources cited to describe the publication of my his book in China.

In 2014 Ross self-published the book Cults Inside Out. Ross's book was also published in China in 2015 by the Peace Book Company in Hong Kong, and it was featured in two official press organs of the Chinese LOCPG, the Wen Wei Po and the Ta Kung Pao, the former describing the book as exposing "the evil cult Falun Gong", and the latter mainly referring to opposition to Falun Gong, labeling the spiritual practice as a totalitarian organization and a cult. It also describes Ross' opinion that a destructive cult is based upon behavior and not belief.

References

1. Cite error: The named reference CultsInsideOut was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. "和平圖書". Peace Book Company. Archived from the original on January 15, 2016.
3. "美专家斥法轮功是邪教 批创始人是独裁者". Ta Kung Pao. Archived from the original on January 14, 2016.
4. "美學者：邪教「法輪功」害人 市民必須警惕". Wen Wei Pao. Archived from the original on January 14, 2016.

There is probably a better way to summarize the sources but RR does not want the content of the articles discussed at all. He only wants to use the sources to say he has been "published" in China and his book is no longer "self published". My opinion is either the publication of the book in China is a significant event in his biography, in which case we summarize the response in China, or it is not, in which case we cut the section. Jbh 17:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No. That's not what I said. Please look at the talk page. I suggested several ways to make this NPOV. WP: Biographies of Living Persons One suggestion was to pare it back to a version completely sourced, neutral and on topic.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope - and this is on point for NPOV. We do not put in one fact (that "the book was published") and then attribute all the other claims which verge strongly on WP:SYNTH at best to discredit that book. Note that the person was earlier the target apparently of pro-Scientology editors on Misplaced Pages (per ArbCom decision), and thus he is likely to be quite cognizant of any sideways attacks on his positions. In short - mention the fact of publication, but do not try adding (more-or-less) "the Chinese welcomed the book to support their evil suppression of a religious group". Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The current treatment in the article appears undue. While "self-published" vs "published in China" obviously mean a great deal to RAR, it's barely more than trivia.

Judging by the other comments, please correct me if I'm wrong, basically all RAR did was write something that supported the official Chinese government position, correct? --Ronz (talk) 18:15,

Wp: Civility Being condescending and insulting isn't helpful. I wrote a 584-page book with more than 1,200 research footnotes, an 18-page bibliography and 15 page index. It has one chapter about Falun Gong and another about a Falun Gong intervention. The book has 23 chapters. it includes chapters concerning the history of modern cults, family cults, abusive controlling cult-like relationships, "cult brainwashing," intervention, case vignettes, and chapters about Scientology, large group awareness training, recovery, etc. I published the English version through CrateSpace at Amazon/Kindle. I sold the Chinese language rights to Peace Book in Hong Kong who published the book in complex Chinese for the Chinese market.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So you assume bad faith? I'm no longer surprised

We don't care how you promote yourself. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are some facts:

• RAR self published a book at Amazon. A year later the same book was published in Hong Kong, and according to RAR, that book contained a section on the Falun Gong which was not in the self-published book. On the basis of the published book in Hong Kong, RAR requested that we mention in his bio that he is a "published author", so we requested sources for that claim.

• RAR provided PDFs of two Hong Kong newspapers' articles in which he said the book was mentioned (the Wen Wei Pao and the Ta Kung Pao).

• I researched these two and found copies of the articles online. A cursory read of these two articles, show that the articles refer mainly to Falun Gong, following the line of arguments of the Chinese government against that sect.

• There are about thirty-two newspapers in Hong Kong, of which three of them are LOCPG controlled. The articles describing the book appeared on two of these three and none others, most probably because these newspapers toe the Chinese government's line against Falun Gong (see Persecution of Falun Gong).

• We have been very careful not to engage in SYNTH, and only describe the facts of publishing in Hong Kong, the name of the newspapers and their provenance, as well as some quotes from the articles to denote the basic thrust of the sources. This is the edit which summarizes these sources: , about which RAR is complaining, demanding that we just mention that he is a published author.

• As a compromise, we offered to remove the entire thing including the mention of the self-published book, but he is relentless in his demands that we edit the article to say just that he is a "published author".

- Cwobeel (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I leave you with that, and will no longer get involved in this article, had enough! What is the point of researching and responding if all that work is relentlessly dismissed with ad hominem and lack of AGF? Good luck to you all. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Cwobeel made the misleading statement, "according to RAR, that book contained a section on the Falun Gong which was not in the self-published book." Both my books in English and Chinese contain the same identical chapters about Falun Gong and a Falun Gong intervention. The Chinese publisher added some short articles in the back I had written about Falun Gong that were not in the English version. I also mentioned that I did an interview on Phoenix Television (not owned by the government) and lectured at the 2015 Hong Kong Book Fair. IMO purging all mention of my book is not a compromise.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• It does look to me like this editor-subject is being hounded inappropriately. While he should refrain from editing his own article, this is difficult to do if he feel's it's being manipulated to be pointedly negativem, so he's right to to take the matter to a noticeboard or other WP:DR process.

  Frankly, the "published author" dispute is WP:LAME. It was self-published, but has now been published independently, so it's published. If the book is a significant factor in the subject's life in an encyclopedically relevant way, it's permissible to mention it (consider that if a football player is also an avid golfer or on the board of a nonprofit organization, their bio article will almost always mention this). Every article on a blogger we have mentions their blog, but they're self-published. WP's antipathy toward WP:SPS is with regard to their use as sources, not the fact of their existence. That said, it's up to WP editorial discretion whether Ross the subject is described as "a published author"; I would oppose it on redundancy grounds. If someone is notable and is described as an author in their article here, it's presumptive that their work has been published, so the word "author" is sufficient, and is appropriate to include in the lead. If someone is notable for some other reason, but also has self-published some stuff, this would be mentioned in the "Personal life" section, or in passing in the main body if directly relevant to what they're notable for, but it wouldn't be in the lead, and we'd say something like "has self-published a book...", not call them an author. Ross is published, so he's an author. The end.

  That mountain—molehill dispute aside, Ross the editor clearly needs third-party help ensuring that Ross the subject's article follows WP:CORE. My own watchlist is too long to for me to promise any long-term help, but as I have no connection to the subject or the editor, and with no knowledge of or opinion about Falun Gong other than I know they're controversial, for reasons the details of which don't interest me. I'd be willing to look into the matter as an informal mediator (I'm a WP:DRN volunteer, though a recent one), if this is desired, and if this NPOVN concludes without sufficient resolution. In that event, just ping me or leave a message on my talk page, as I don't watchlist NPOVN. Or open a formal WP:DRN request and ping me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, RAR keeps asking for help at various noticeboards (BLP being a common venue) then when experienced BLP editors take a look, they either find no problem, or that the article is actually being skewed in a NPOV manner towards RAR. RAR then takes exception to this, and the circle continues. Basically RAR would like his BLP to say what he wants, with nothing negative, and puffing up his side-jobs in order to detract from his main reason for notability. Its pretty much tiring out a lot of people and will probably end up going badly for him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm just volunteering to look at it with new eyes if the venue fails to resolve the matter. It's been my observational experience that minor-notable figures often have crap articles here and legitimate complaints. We enacted BLP for a reason, and Jimbo, back when his views mattered a very great deal, was always on the warpath about it. That said, it's been all our experience that people who are both editors and subject usually have a very hard time not trying to tweak their article to be rosy, and that COIs in general usually are not capable of neutrality about themselves. The latter problems happen much more frequently than the former, but in an particular case the potential fallout is worse in the former. This means we should take the subject's complaints seriously (and their desires with a grain of salt), but when the two categories coincide, there's a tendency to dump hard to the editor-subject because of all the bad experience with COIs. I've had some experience helping some professional cue sports player navigate the NPOV process, some successfully, some not. So, I know what I'm getting into and why it sometimes won't work.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I think this issue has been addressed but there is always something going on at the article talk page. I have been working with him for the last several months so you might want to read through the threads on my talk page as well as the last couple of talk page archives to see how things have been going. I can think of at least three cohorts of editors that have cycled through the article and become frustrated since RR returned to editing. I think RR has taken on board some of the suggestions to let the normal editing process work. I mentioned the phenomenon of COI push back to RR and that I feared that might become an issue. RR's does have reason for concern, in general, but it is hard to get him, as the subject, to understand that just because he does not like something does not mean it fails NPOV - sometimes it does though but the harder he presses the harder it is to see. More eyes and a fresh opinion can only help. Jbh 15:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I won't have endless time to devote to it, but hopefully can help even this out to some extent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  15:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Campus Sexual Assault

There is an open RfC on the Campus Sexual Assault page regarding how to deal with an argument from an opinion columnist regarding a sexual assault statistic. The case is explained in more detail on the page, but I'm posting a request for participation here because it deals, in part, with a question about neutrality.

This is a fairly old dispute, and a previous RfC was inconclusive largely due to a lack of participation. If you have time, an outside voice might help us move toward consensus.Nblund (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:Axxxion on Syrian civil war and Russia-related articles

Other editors have persistently been forced to revert or take action on edits made by them on these topics. In particular, they seem to be toeing the official line, making edits ostensibly defending the actions of the Syrian or Russian governments (under the guise of countering "POV-pushing"), relying on original research and unreliable sources as opposed to citing more reliable sources available. Is it possible to look into or take action on this? (Also, seems like there's some global block evasion? See CentralAuth/ru.wp ArbCom.) Thanks. 108.2.58.56 (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

0.999... Academic and common sense POV

The article 0.999... promotes an academic point of view and disparages a common sense point of view. I added an external link to an article which defends this common sense point of view. My link was removed and the ensuing discussion is on my talk page. It was suggested that I bring the discussion here. My edit was made at 11:37, 8 January 2016‎. Kevincook13 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: edit was this. Reverted here by user Materialscientist with warning on user talk. Further Discussion at User talk:Kevincook13#Recent edit to 0.999.... - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The article in question deals with a mathematical question that requires a modicum of mathematical understanding. An external link to a deeply flawed pseudo-analysis is not useful, and the position that 0.999.... is different from 1 is as WP:FRINGE as the claim that 0.333... is "not a real number". NPOV does not mean that we have to include every opinion, it means that our article has to reflect published expert opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The article says, "Nonetheless, some students find it sufficiently counterintuitive that they question or reject it." That seems to be sufficient mention per fringe. TFD (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Then the article needs to address it via reliable sources not via some non-RS external link. WP:ELNO#2 is very clear "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." as is WP:ELNO#11 "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority". The proposed link looks to be both. Jbh 13:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean that I agree with TFD. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread. Jbh 13:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TFD that the sentence on counter intuitiveness of the topic suffices. In any case, if you want more on this point, we would require reputable published sources (not sources self published on the author website like the provided article) to back any such claims. Also note that as a tertiary, encyclopedic work, Misplaced Pages should only refer to insights that have at least some substantial coverage in reputable published primary and secondary sources. If you think this point of view needs more attention in such primary and secondary literature, try to get the ideas published there. Arnoutf (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This noticeboard is supposedly not for discussing reputability of sources but rather for discussing neutrality of point of view. But with regard to reputability of sources, the only concern should be whether or not the author is who the website claims he is and whether or not the author wrote what the website claims he wrote. So far no one has questioned either of those assertions. There seems to be no real concern about reputability of sources. However, I am concerned about neutrality of point of view. The article acknowledges that the academic point of view is counter-intuitive but it gives the reader the false impression that those who espouse the common sense point of view are unschooled children. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What you describe as 'the common sense point of view' seems in fact just to be your own personal opinion. WP should only include what is shown in reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source which clearly states that what you say on your web site is generally considered to to be the common sense view then we might be able to add some more on that subject to the article or include a link to a web site expounding that particular view. If you cannot find such a sources then we cannot do either. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The common sense point of view is that "by adding more and more nines to 0.999...9, one can get as close to 1 as one wants, but not to 1 itself."

This common sense view can be mathematically formulated as follows: "For any number you name, as small as you like, we can find a number N such that the difference between 1 and 0.999...9 (with N nines in total) is smaller than your number." This statement can be rigourously proven. I don't see any discrepancy between the academic point of view and the common sense point of view.

Now, on your site I see a claim that "an infinite sequence does not have an end and is therefore not a sequence. An infinite sequence is a sequence variable." To me this sounds like nonsense rather than like common sense. But... whatever sense it is or is not, it could be taken onboard as an external link, provided other relevant authors use that term in the same context. As far as I can see, there aren't any. The author of a website that claims that the moon is made of blue cheese will never succeed at inserting a link to his website in our articles Moon or Blue cheese. - DVdm (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My concern with the article is that it gives the reader the false impression that people who espouse the view that the term 0.999... refers to a variable are unschooled children. This is a subtle yet effective strategy for persuading people to accept the view that the term refers to a number. Misplaced Pages is being used to persuade people to accept a view of academic authorities whose success relies upon such acceptance. If you think that conflict of interest is unlikely, then you might be interested in reading about the experience of a graduate student who recently posted a paper entitled "A proof of the inconsistency of ZFC" on his personal academic website. The website was shut down. Subsequently, the student wrote: "Why hide? If you are interested in the truth and in teaching the truth then come out in the open. Say who you are and how you think the quest for truth benefited from your actions." Kevincook13 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To me personally, "people who espouse the view that the term 0.999... refers to a variable" are worse than unschooled children. They are more like a certain brand of unschooled children who, when repeatedly being told what it actually refers to, cover their ears and suffer from the illusion that they know better than ordinary people and schooled academics. Misplaced Pages does not care what the student (i.e. you) wrote, and that is by design. I already told you (twice now) that you have come to the wrong place. Speaker's Corner is over here. - DVdm (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Kevin, you are most welcome, as far as I am concerned, to carry on your mathematical argument, but not in Misplaced Pages please. For all I know you might even be right, I am not qualified to decide. The point is that editors at Misplaced Pages do not make decisions on mathematics that is done by mathematicians who get their opinions published in reliable sources. If you can get your opinion published in a reliable source, or find a reliable source that agrees with you, then we would have to include it here. If you cannot produce a source then we cannot include what you want to say, even if we think you are right.

You may think that the acedemic system is somehow stacked against you. Unfortunately there is nothing that we can do about that. You will have to take up that fight elsewhere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand what both of you are saying. One of you thinks that the proposal by Kevin Cook is not worth reading. The other asserts that unless his ideas are published in a reliable source of academic thought, his ideas cannot be referenced in the article. However, I feel that my comments are not understood. You write that I am welcome to carry on my mathematical argument, yet my concern is much more about people than it is about math. Yes the article is about math, but it is also about people, what people think about math. One way to resolve my concern may be to remove from the article any suggestion of what people think about the ideas presented in the article. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As fas as I can see, everything in the article is backed by reliable sources, including what it reports about what people think about the ideas. If you find something in the article that is not properly backed by relevant sources, you can flag it in the article with a {{cn}} or {{dubious}} tag, or—preferably—bring it up on the article talk page Talk:0.999...,. - DVdm (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. This must be a record holder in that respect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I perceive a lack of good faith. I accurately reflect back to you what you are saying, but you do not reciprocate. Rather, you obfuscate. Your tactics may result in some success. But obfuscation is easy to detect for those who are interested in genuine discussion. I am confident in Misplaced Pages's potential to prevail over such obfuscation. Unless you immediately show that you are interested in genuine discussion I will not respond to either of you. I will continue discussion on this topic, but will ignore your posts. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

DVdm, you are the one who sent me here in the first place. In our discussion on my user page I wrote: "I believe you about the culture here. I believe I have come to the right place. Before I start a conversation with other people about the point of view of this article, could we talk about it briefly? Can you see why I believe that the article currently does not take a neutral point of view?" You responded by writing: "At this point I can't help you anymore. The place to go is Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" So, I brought the discussion here. You joined the discussion here, but you have not yet shown any willingness to acknowledge why I think the article does not take a neutral point of view. Why not at least do that? Why did you send me here? Kevincook13 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I first advised you to come here () when you said: "Your refusal to allow the link violates the spirit of the neutral point of view policy." Then you said: "It does not appear to me that you are very interested in a neutral point of view.", so again I suggested you to come here () to get a fourth opinion. So you got a fourth opinion, and a fifth, a sixth, a seventh and an eighth, some of them repeated twice or more. Nobody here seems to agree with you, so I am afraid there is not much to discuss anymore. The bottom line seems to be what I already told you in my very first message () and what someone else has told you here too: your link violates wp:ELNO item 11. It blatantly does so. Actually, it violates a lot more (see your talk page and here above), but one is usually sufficient. - DVdm (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It is easier for me to follow your advice when you show me that you understand my concern with the article as it now stands. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my last comment was simply a mathematical joke (as to the value of 1 - 0.999...). It was not intended to be a personal remark of any kind. However, as DVdm says, there is not much more we can say to help you. You are always welcome to propose alternative changes to the article and see if there is a consensus to keep them. See WP:BRD.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that consensus can be reached to retain the change I already made. The road to reaching that consensus begins with a willingness to discuss my concern regarding the neutrality of the article. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The only change that you have tried to make is this one, and everybody seems to agree that it is a blatant violation of at least four policies and guidelines. I think that the consensus is that the article is perfecly neutral. - DVdm (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DVdm Kevin. Adding a link to your own private research and opinion will never gain consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed: link is obviously inappropriate per wp:ELNO. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason that guidelines are flexible is to help avoid losing sight of the objective, which is a great encyclopedia! Speaking of the encyclopedia, this article in particular, would anyone be interested in addressing my concern with its neutrality? Kevincook13 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Back at square one. Perhaps you could benefit from reading how to recognize when no means no. - DVdm (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany

A new user (Dontmakemetypepasswordagain) who is very fluent in Wiki-speak has openly challenged basic facts about the events in Germany and has made having a simple discussion about a NPOV page title extremely difficult. The user also continues to edit the article page selectively to remove views that differ from their own. Talk page discussion statements by the user that "It was a mass sex assault of white women by Arab/North African men" is clearly fringe theory and indicates the user's POV. I suspect that this user, who is strangely fluent in Wiki-speak and uses terms like NOTFORUM with only 100 or so edits, is up to something.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "basic facts" I've "openly challenged", or what that would entail, exactly. I'm just making sure the article conforms to sources and eliminating some unsourced things. The comment about "mass sex assault" was in response to a complaint that RS's were characterizing the event in that way; I was merely commenting that the RS characterization was fairly accurate while also complaining that, IMHO, complaints about mainstream sourcing aren't really a fit talk-page topic. In any event, even if they are, as I mentioned at the article Talk page, it's not really our place to second-guess widely circulated press accounts from RS's even if we do complain about them. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd feel better about it if there were sources commenting on the impact of Breitbart's and The Daily Stormer's articles. Neither of them is RS on anything but their own opinions, and I don't see what the opinion of either has to do with racism is Germany. It feels like the section is only there to make the reader jump to a conclusion that cannot be explicitly stated, for want of support.Torven (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Vehbi Koç

raises an interesting question.

A person buys a property at public auction. Is it proper to add the parenthetical claim "at a price significantly below value" where no claim of collusion at the auction is made or supported by sources? Or is that added claim a non-neutral imputation that the person really should have raised his own bid at an auction to reach actual "value"? Collect (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

through public auction at a price significantly below value, in the owner's attempt to avoid paying the tax-hike

First, that comma after "value" is unnecessary and "tax hike" doesn't need a hyphen. Next, there are two assertions being made in this case: 1) that the price was significantly below value and 2) that this low value was part of the attempt to reduce the tax burden." If you have a reliable source for only #1, then put that information in a separate clause so that #2 is no longer implied. If you have reliable sources for both #1 and #2 (and they're not contradicted by better sources), then the sentence is good. Remember, Misplaced Pages must be neutral, but that means that we report the consensus views of reliable sources. If that consensus is skewed one way or the other, it's okay if the article reflects that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The person making the edit was trying to say that it was a "forced sale" as the seller did not pay the required taxes. The "new tax" was a "war profits tax" and a new "wealth tax" which was arrived at by government "assessment" of wealthy persons, as far as I can determine in the available sources. The problem here is that the apparent intent of the edit is to imply the buyer somehow took improper advantage of the seller. The only really solidly sourced claim is "the person bought the property at public auction during WW II." Collect (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be relevant on an article about the property, if one existed, or in an article about say the mis-valueing of property due to shenanigans by the government, I cant see how it has any relevance at all to a BLP of someone who bought the house unless they were responsible in some way for it being sold off? Otherwise 'Person X buys house at auction' is pretty much all there is. Why is that even relevant to the biography? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Only in death does duty end. It is hard to see what the disputed text is doing in the article at all except as an attempt to smear the subject. Anything said must at least be impeccably sourced. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Your attention is called to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cities#Request for comment, where a discussion is being held concerning the Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles, article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Climate change denial

Whatever any given sources say, this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone. I just made two single-word edits and they were reverted within 3 minutes. There is severe ownership going on here. Please take a look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is bo such thing as Climate change denial. Delete the lot. --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If I thought for a moment that you honestly believed that I would propose an immediate and permanent topic ban on the basis of WP:CIR. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Threats of this nature are not in accordance with the requirement for civil discussion. Please not that WP:civil is a core WP policy unlike WP:CIR, which is just an essay. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a threat. I found the comment amusingly meta: climate change denial denialism. It has a certain poetry. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you start a sentence with "Whatever any given sources say...", it's very hard to continue the statement to something in line with WP:NPOV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

So you believe this is an WP:Ignore all rules matter where you are right and the sources are wrong and there are severe ownership issues there because the editors don't acknowledge that fact. Would that summarize your position? Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The "two single-word edits" appear to be this, broadening the definition to any doubt and not specifically unwarranted doubt, and the prompt addition of a POV tag. When another editor removed the tag as unwarranted, Kindetsubuffalo started a talk page section with the same claim that "Whatever any given sources say, this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone." As Jess pointed out in reply, NPOV requires consideration of sources: Kintetsubuffalo has failed to provide any. . dave souza, talk 13:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be edit warring around both the POV tag and the word "unwarranted". SageRad (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Kintetsubuffalo that this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone. This is not about about sources, it is about the polemical style of writing in the article. Biscuittin (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you an example of something that you like better but still is in line with the facts? Dmcq (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Biscuittin that the whole article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

To User:Dmcq. For a start, I'd like people to stop reverting when I change "unwarranted doubt" to "doubt". The word "unwarranted" appears to be a POV inserted by a Misplaced Pages editor. Biscuittin (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a clarification specifically made by the NCSE. . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I also think the statement "the politics of global warming has been impacted by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate" is misleading. The phrases "climate change denial" and "climate change scepticism" are used interchangeably in the article and this creates confusion. Climate change sceptics accept that warming is happening but have a different view on what is causing it. Because sceptics accept that warming is happening, they are likely to be very keen to propose adaptation measures, rather than prevention measures, because they believe that the prevention measures will be ineffective. Biscuittin (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you could produce a source which has the facts mainly right and which you think does the job halfway well, it would provide a much better argument for your point of view. Just writing a longer spiel spiel saying you don't like it is not the way to show it can be done better. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Look at the Bjørn Lomborg article: "In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics". While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions". Biscuittin (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added this to the article. Let's see how long it takes to get reverted. Biscuittin (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

To cheer you up, I've removed it from the lead, where you put it: a 2009 opinion piece in www.businessinsider.com isn't a good source for science, or significant enough for the lead. Try putting your case on the article talk page, rather than trying forum shopping here. . dave souza, talk 20:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Another sentence I object to: "Typically, public debate on climate change denial may have the appearance of legitimate scientific discourse, but does not conform to scientific principles". The same could be said about many statements made by climate change alarmists, particularly the "97%" claim. Biscuittin (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

An opinion piece is not a RS for anything that the opinion if the authors. On the other hand, there are several reliably published studies coming to numbers comparable with the 97%. Moreover, "they do it to" would not be a valid argument even if the premise were correct. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

My opponents are so predictable. First they ask me for references, then they claim that my references are unreliable. And I'm not forum shopping. I didn't start the thread on this page. Biscuittin (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)\

That looks rather WP:BATTLEFIELD – a pointy edit then "My opponents are so predictable" when it's removed for discussion. Not good. . . dave souza, talk 03:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There are now at least 3 separate, independent peer-reviewed studies supporting the approximately 97%, Doran/Zimmermann, Anderegg et al (published in PNAS), and Cook et a. You offer an unreviewed opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. If you present shitty sources, people will reject them. It's nearly as predictable gravity, and I think that's a good thing. If you don't cherish the experience, bring good sources or just adapt your opinion to the evidence - a bit like a scientist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish the IPCC would adapt its opinion to the evidence. When actual temperature readings disagree with the output of their computer models, they claim that the temperature readings are wrong and need "adjusting". Biscuittin (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The IPCC does not do original research. or do adjustments.There are several different independent groups that keep temperature records and assemble temperature series. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We are straying off the point. The problem is not references but the style in which the article is written. There is far too much polemic and use of derogatory words to describe climate sceptics. Biscuittin (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me get this right, you think the business Insider article listing some people who deny climate change or in Lomborg's case want people to ignore it and leave it to their descendants and wrote a book full of twisted bits about it is a good model for what the Misplaced Pages article should be like when describing climate change denial? Misplaced Pages has a policy WP:PSCI which says "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight." The Business Insider article only described a whole list of contrary views and had practically nothing in the way of criticism. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternative explanations of climate change (e.g. Piers Corbyn's solar cycle theory) are not pseudoscience. Why should an article about an alternative theory include criticism of that theory. You seem to think it is Misplaced Pages's job to tell people to ignore alternative theories. Biscuittin (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE: "Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." I have been unable to find anything useful by Piers Corbyn via Google Scholar - a few false positives, and a short interview on a denialist blog. Where can I see that "not pseudoscience"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Where (apart from your own assertion) can you see that it is pseudoscience? Biscuittin (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Potentially a more useful source, Climate Change Denial in the Classroom, has an appropriate comment in its abstract: "While the principle of academic freedom remains paramount, it is nonetheless imperative that university students be presented with accurate scientific information." The same goes for Misplaced Pages readers. . . dave souza, talk 03:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This source is just a character assassination on Professor Tim Patterson. Supporters of the IPCC seem to be fond of doing character assassinations on people who disagree with them. Biscuittin (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Eh? The report, published in the Skeptical Inquirer Volume 37.3, May/June 2013, assesses misinformation from Tom Harris (mechanical engineer), of the so-called International Climate Science Coalition. See Dehaas, Josh (2 March 2012). "Professor criticized for course denying climate change". Macleans.ca. . . dave souza, talk 18:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want a description of various opposing theories which have been put forward see Global warming controversy. I did argue till a year or so ago that global warming skeptic should redirect to global warming controversy but it is pretty evident from the literature that by now the term 'climate change skeptic' is in practically all cases a misappropriated term by those denying the facts trying to claim scientific skepticism. The article about climate change denial is not about the science but about the denialism. I don't know if Piers Corbyn actually believes all the rubbish he spews or is just doing it for the money for his predictions but he most definitely supports denial in saying that CO2 has no effect on temperature and the earth is getting cooler. He hasn't actually written any sort of study on the business - he claims his methods are company secret or something like that. Why do you waste your time on that sort of stuff? He is criticized in secondary sources because of that, are you really saying we should ignore such criticism and say how marvellous his theories are that he hasn't written any papers about? Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Piers Corbyn is not the only person who is proposing the solar cycle theory. Look at Professor Tim Patterson, to whom User:Dave souza has kindly drawn my attention. Note: "As of 2007, Patterson has published over 120 articles in peer-reviewed journals" and "In recognition of his research efforts Patterson was awarded a 2002-2003 Carleton University Research Achievement Award for 'outstanding research'". Is he a pseudoscientist? Biscuittin (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly true that he has much better scientific credentials, but he has not as far as I can see written any paper on the theory, all the controversial stuff he says is in meetings for the Heartland Institute or interviews for papers and things like that. Don't you find that just a little strange? Have a look at Global warming controversy#Solar variation which is about the science related to this, there are some people who have actually done a study of this there. As I said before the climate change denial article is about the denial rather than the science - but then again I suppose Tim Patterson has only contributed his reputation so that is not science. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the climate change denial article is not about the denial. It is a criticism of the denial. If the title was changed to Criticism of climate change denial I would be reasonably happy with it. Biscuittin (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The article does describe what climate change denial is and the actions of the various organizations involved in it. You talk about Piers Corbyn and Tim Patterson is as if they were actually describing something that some peer review had found some grounds for. The article talking about what a genuine skeptic would be interested in is global warming controversy. The phrase 'Climate change skeptic' means the same as 'climate change denier' nowadays. That does not eliminate the possibility that there are some genuine scientific skeptics of climate change around but I do not believe you have found one in either Piers Corbyn or Tim Patterson nor does it mean the three word phrase 'climate change skeptic' means anything other than a climate change denier nowadays. If you want Misplaced Pages to talk about climate change denial in a positive light you need to change the section WP:Fringe theories and pseudoscience in this policy first. As the Neutral Point of View policy says 'Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance'. NPOV does not mean give equal weight to pseudoscience. Dmcq (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not reading every comment given in this discussion, however I think it's more productive if specific lines are addressed for NPOV concerns. A good example of this is the "unwarranted doubt" concern. Neither of the sources given use the word "unwarranted" when describing doubt. The Powell source does mention "unwarranted gloom" when speaking about the media's coverage of climate change, but this is not the same thing as "unwarranted doubt". So pending any counter evidence, I'd agree that "unwarranted" should be removed.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose that on the basis of Dunlap . Most descriptions are going from climate change denier to their signs but Dunlap goes the opposite directon from the signs to whether they are deniers or skeptics which is what the article has at its start. It says 'Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves “skeptics,” and in some cases this term is warranted, especially for members of the public who—for various reasons—are doubtful that AGW is a serious problem.' The three word phras 'climate change skeptic' does refer to denial nowadays but being skeptical does not mean a person should automatically be labelled a climate change skeptic. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking on board that point, I've added an inline cite to Why Is It Called Denial? | NCSE which makes the specific point that the NCSE "opts to use the terms 'climate changer deniers' and 'climate change denial' (where “denial” encompasses unwarranted doubt as well as outright rejection)." . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, you say "You talk about Piers Corbyn and Tim Patterson is as if they were actually describing something that some peer review had found some grounds for". Why are you so obsessed with peer review? Science is not about papers (peer-reviewed or not). It is about measurement. Biscuittin (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin, for science to have credibility, peer reviewed publication is needed. Publication in BusinessInsider doesn't meed that need. . dave souza, talk 18:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Scoobydunk, for the focus on one phrase. This discussion should be at the article's talk page, except insofar as it works as an example of NPOV meta-issues.

The lede sentence reads:

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts.

• "Denial" is hyperlinked to denial which is very important to the meaning of the sentence. This carries psychological and moral overtones that are desired, i believe, to the meaning of the sentence.
• "scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming" is hyperlinked to the article Scientific opinion on climate change. This is also important to the meaning of the lede sentence.
• The sentence cites two sources: National Center for Science Education 2010, and Powell 2012, each with extensive quotes.

My reading is that this sentence is solid and in line with the bulk of reliable sources on the subject, though in sharp opposition to a small minority of sources that show a strong POV in line with climate change denial itself. It's not that the two sources used to support the sentence do support it, but that the vast majority of reliable sources also support it. It's not enough to have just a couple sources to claim that a point of view is "denial" (which is to say that its claims are bunk) but rather that it's a widely accepted viewpoint without significant opposition except among a clearly delineated minority group who are pushing it. Ultimately, there is no "absolute truth" within Misplaced Pages, but rather a complex triangulation (sort of a cluster map analysis) of many reliable sources, with us as editors evaluating the positions and likely truth values of each source and doing a complex meta-analysis. In this case, it pretty much comes down to a picture of a group of sources that have been partly funded by huge vested interests (the fossil fuels industry) to create the illusion that there is significant doubt about the reality of human-caused climate change.

I would prefer the sentence to be simpler:

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial of the scientific consensus that climate change is significant and is caused by humans.

This simpler definition removes the fuzziness about whether there is valid skepticism about the rate or extent of climate change, or about the extent or nature of impacts, and such things. I do think there is valid skepticism on those fronts, and it would not necessarily be included in the label "denial".

I hope my contribution is useful, and can be fodder for meta-level discussion about what NPOV (neutral point of view) means in regard to this article. SageRad (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

One has to be very careful about the word 'is'. The word might be used as in 'a horse is an odd-toed ungulate animal', or 'a horse is the domesticated subspecies of Equus Ferus' and there's a few others. You have said you are giving a definition as in the second meaning of 'is' but in fact you are using the first meaning. That is what I was saying was different about Dunlap - that was a definition whereas the others described characteristics of climate change deniers as in the first 'a horse is...'rather than defined what it meant. You have included rhinos in your definition. Dmcq (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The trouble with the suggested simplification is that it becomes over-specific, and excludes positions covered by the taxonomy cited in the article. For example, cases where there is acceptance of the scientific consensus that climate change is significant and is caused by humans, but denial (or unwarranted doubt) that it's worth doing anything about it. The spread of coverage is well cited in the article. . dave souza, talk 18:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

While we're at it, perhaps we should ask: "Is a cow still a cow when nobody is looking at it?" Biscuittin (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's struck everybody dumb. Perhaps they didn't understand the joke. Biscuittin (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is their intention, but the IPCC cheerleaders seem to be presenting the IPCC as a religious cult. A peer-reviewed paper is the Word of God and anybody who disagrees with it commits blasphemy. Everything else is pseudoscience. Biscuittin (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

...yawn... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh good. They are learning to ignore me. Biscuittin (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, as with several other articles, that 'climate change denial' is rehotric and therefore unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia, even if it is used in reliable sources. Whatever the arguments for or against people who question climate change we should state them here in plain language. We should not use vague and emotive terms like 'climate denial'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The terms I prefer to use are "CO2 hater" for climate change alarmists and "CO2 lover" for climate change sceptics. However, I'm sure there will be objections to these. We really need to find neutral terms to describe both camps. Biscuittin (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Another problem is the ownership of climate change articles. A small group of editors act as owners of the articles and refuse to allow people outside the group to edit them. Biscuittin (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Another problem is "health warnings". I have no objection to it being said that CO2 lovers are in a minority, because this is true. What I do object to is warnings saying "and you must not believe them because they are charlatans and pseudoscientists". It is not Misplaced Pages's job to tell people what they may, or may not, believe. Biscuittin (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

But it is Misplaced Pages's place to point out to these people that their view is not consistent with the scientific consensus and to point out that the scientific consensus it the best model of objective reality that we have at this time. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion just not to their own version of reality. Jbh 19:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You are imposing your point of view but you seem unable to recognize this. Biscuittin (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Jbhunley, it is not WP's job to point anything out; 'state' yes but 'point out' no. We should, of course state what 'the scientific consensus' is so long as that is properly sourced.

Some organisations do use the term 'climate change denial' as rhetoric precisely because it is their job to try to change people's behaviour. Their job is to 'persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations' and so they should use the term as it is 'the available means of persuasion'. That is not our job; we should just state the facts.

My complaint here is not with stating all the facts but with the language used. The phrase 'climate change denial' is an emotive, pejorative term in that it intentionally draws an improper link with things like 'Psychiatric patient denial of mental illness'. Beyond that it has no clear meaning at all. What is wrong with using a strictly factual term like 'climate change criticism'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2016‎ (UTC)

"Point out"/"State", essentially semantics but I do see your point. On your disagreement with the term because it "is an emotive, pejorative term; The current sources use the term 'climate change denial' it is not our place to make up 'more neutral terms'. The article is pretty clear in defining the term "Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts" - they are not criticizing it they are denying it. If the conclusion readers draw from this is that the 'deniers' are not fully grounded in reality then that is fine because that is, in fact, the case. Any other claim would be WP:FRINGE because the overwhelming scientific consensus is that what is being denied is in fact true to the best of the experts' ability to know. Jbh 20:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It is you, Jbh, who is deciding "that the 'deniers' are not fully grounded in reality". You are then trying to impose your view on readers. I believe that readers are quite capable of making up their own minds what is, or is not, reality. They do not need "guidance" from you. Biscuittin (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Nor do they need POV statements which would 'guide' them to consider the scientific consensus to be less solid than it is nor to believe that the views of 'deniers' have validity or support which they do not. See WP:FALSEBALANCE for a more detailed explanation. Jbh 22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I may be making such POV statements on talk pages but I am not making them in articles. Lack of criticism does not mean support. Biscuittin (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't know if you intended it but you've certainly convinced me you support some strange ideas about climate change. It certainly is possible that some of the many bits of pseudoscience or conspiracies that are detailed on Misplaced Pages actually are true and the people who say they are just silly will be proven wrong. However even so Misplaced Pages has to go with the established science and it is not going to start calling people CO2 haters or CO2 lovers because that is not what the sources say. And if it was supported by the sources I get the feeling you would object to climate change deniers being called CO2 lovers. Using sources gets around personal ideas like that.

The neutral point of view policy is based on treating the sources with due weight and you just don't seem to have any sources that are of halfway decent relevance never mind weight that support anything like what you want to do. I really wish you'd get to a more source based argument and show how some source says something more in line with what you want to put in. Otherwise this is all just a waste of time. You need to change this policy or appeal to a different policy to do anything much different. Dmcq (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I've produced lots of sources but, each time I do, one of your gang claims that the source is unreliable. Here is another one. How long will it take you to declare this one unreliable? Biscuittin (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You found something said by somebody. How representative is this of reliable sources? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Trewavas FRS, FRSE, is a very distinguished professor. Does this count for nothing? Biscuittin (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Anthony Trewavas (whom God preserve) of Edinburgh (age 76) appears to have had a distinguished career in Plant Biology, Plant Behaviour, Plant Intelligence and Plant Physiology. He may of course have published something climate related in a reliable source, but his statement to the HoC is essentially self-published by a non-expert, with no editorial oversight. As is evident from the flatly false statements he puts in about the supposedly "Misleading 'Hockey Sticks'." If you like, we can discuss how he's blatantly wrong on the topic, but I'd suggest any such discussion should take place on the talk page of any article where you propose it as a source. In general, statements to the HoC really need a secondary source for evaluation on confirmation whether or not they have any significance. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem Biscuit, is not that people are actively trying hard to prove your sources unreliable, its that the sources you come up with are really really bad. They dont need to *try* to declare them unreliable, they declare themselves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, in a search for objectivity, as per the scientific method (say), you might consider looking for articles that do not support your preferred hypothesis. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is the first source you've mentioned which has a bit of relevance for the article. That he has no weight as far as the global warming controversy article is not really relevant, what is relevant is that he has given an opinion on climate change denial. In that he would be weighed against social studies works and science academy statements and secondary news reports. Climate change denial is in essence a social phenomena rather than something to do with the science of climate change. Bringing up Galileo gives him 40 points in the crackpot index but we should be clear on what is the basis for the article. Dmcq (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

To Isambard Kingdom. This is precisely the point that Trewavas has made: "Sceptical assessments form the basis of scientific progress. Models are only as good as the information put into them. Questioning climate models is an essential part of progress on understanding". How many of the pro-IPCC gang have questioned climate models? Biscuittin (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin: Understood. But I'm asking about your efforts .... are you searching, searching until you finds something, finally, that agrees with your hypothesis? Just asking. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Biscuittin, if by "pro-IPCC gang" you mean IPCC WG1 authors, almost certainly all of them have questioned climate models. The questioning procedure is called peer reviewed publication. What peer reviewed publications has Trewavas authored on the topic? . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Peer review again. You should read "The peer review fairy tale" by Donna Laframboise. She found that, in a 2007 IPCC report, about 30% of the references were not peer reviewed and included "newspaper and magazine articles, unpublished masters and doctoral theses, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund documents, and press releases". Of course, you won't believe this because you probably regard Laframboise as an unreliable source. Biscuittin (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You're evading the question. IPCC authors are scientists who have properly published detailed critiques of climate models, Trewavas is obviously ignorant about climate science and lacks expertise to critique these models, and Laframboise's fairy tale suggests she, like yourself, doesn't seem to know the difference between WG1 and WG3. So how do you justify giving any weight to their fringe views? . . dave souza, talk 23:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Fringe views" is your opinion, which you keep pushing. Trewavas may not be a climate scientist but he is qualified to speak about the scientific method and that is what he is doing. Biscuittin (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Trewavas makes obviously false statements about climate science, repeating common denialist misinformation. To the extent that he makes valid comments about scientific method, no-one disagrees and climatologists follow that method: the problem is that he seems to have been misled about practice in climatology. For example, this nonsense about questioning climate models. Climatologists do that all the time in peer reviewed publications, all he seems to have done is complain vaguely about it in an unedited text he's posted to the HoC committee. . . dave souza, talk 23:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"...questioning climate models. Climatologists do that all the time in peer reviewed publications..." Could you give me some examples of this questioning please? Biscuittin (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

For your entertainment. Of course "questioning" does not mean "denying their usefulness". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep jumping off into irrelevancies? The article is climate change denial. What you are asking about is global warming controversy. The bit in the piece you pointed at which is relevant to the climate change denial areticle is

"8. The term Denier or Denialist to describe sceptics is indicative of the closed mind and a term of abuse for the scientific process. It is reminiscent of Galileo’s problem with the inquisition in the 16th century and politicians of all kinds should have slapped the term down."

I can't see anything else relevant there. Dmcq (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

We can go on like this for ever but it's a waste of time. What we need is input from a wider range of editors. I assume this is why Kintetsubuffalo brought the discussion here. Biscuittin (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you see something else relevant to the article? And if so why is it relevant? Dmcq (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This has descended into a points-scoring game. I am not going to play this game and I propose that the discussion be closed. Biscuittin (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh! Since all the points are against you, I can see why you'd want it to stop, but it's not going to until you drop the stick, and I see no signs of you doing that yet. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Climate change denial" is a thing. Not everyone believes it is a thing, but it's a thing. So is "commodity status of animals" (to use another disputed concept, currently discussed at Talk:Veganism). Both of these are concepts that are well-defined in a huge number of sources, but they are also controversial in that there are groups of people who don't believe they're real things but who believe that they're rhetoric that "the other side" is using to attack them. This the nature of points of view. Misplaced Pages can document this, as it is. Misplaced Pages doesn't have to necessarily "endorse" that climate change denial is real, but can point out that it's a phenom observed by a huge number of reliable sources, and denied by a vocal and politically-aligned minority. Same, with slightly different details and demographics, for "commodity status of animals". There are those who deny the reality of that concept, and Misplaced Pages can document that. SageRad (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was going to comment on this, but SageRad covered every point I would have, perfectly and in half the space I would have used.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  15:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sadly SageRads reasonable sounding post above completely ignores Fringe, NPOV, undue etc which are quite explicit that not only are not all viewpoints equal, but that unless specificially relevant, they may not be given significant space in an article and in some cases may not be documented at all. Failure to understand due weight is a problem SageRad consistantly has. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It sounds to me like saying whether the earth goes round the sun or not is just a point of view depending on morals or the law or social values. Or am I missing a point somewhere? Couldn't he just advertise his dispute straightforwardly somewhere if he wants to draw attention to it instead of drawing comparisons like that in unrelated discussions? Or is this some sort of allegation that scientists all round the world are involved in some conspiracy so it really is just a moral social or legal question? Dmcq (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

SageRad I cannot work out whether we agree or not. I am not trying to state an opinion on either climate change or veganism or the status of animals. My point is about the use of rhetoric (please do follow the link) in articles, particularly as a title.

The facts about cimate change are that the political/scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change. It is also a fact that some people dispute that statement. Whether you or I agree with those facts is irrelevant, there should be plenty of sources supporting them. The problem is with the language. The word 'denial' is rhetoric. It is used to imply that anyone who disputes that humans are causing climate change is crazy or delusional. It is intentionaly ambiguous. At one extreme it can be defended as being plain English, so 'climate change deniers' are simply people who deny that human created climate change exists. At the other extrem it can mean that these people are mad, evil or both. People defend the term using one meaning knowing full well that other people will take it to have another.

The 'property status of animals' is similar rhetoric used to promote the opinion of vegans.

Of course there is no reason why we should not have an article on 'Climate change denial' but that article must make quite clear from the start that that term is rhetoric used by a particular group of people to push a particular point of view. Whether that POV is the wrong one or the right one is of no importance. have a look at the essay wp:Rhetoric. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The use of rhetoric to subtly push POVs in WP seems to be on the increase. I would like to propose that wp:rhetoric is promoted to be policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if it was as straightforward as Moon landing conspiracy theories but there's no industry funded denial of the moon landings. Unfortunately the closest is something like HIV/AIDS denialism where governments have tried to deny it exists and the terms used are the correct ones both by the literature and by meaning. You don't get denial in vegetarianism. Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You would get denial in vegetarianism if they thought that they could get away with it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin is right. Rhetoric is the problem. Biscuittin (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, your essay looks like misuse of rhetoric, and your statement above misstates the facts. The topic of denial is well supported by reliable sources, weasel wording would give undue weight the fringe POV. . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Industry funded denial. Not all climate change sceptics are funded by industry. I am no friend of the coal, oil and gas companies because I want to nationalise them. There is also the little matter that the IPCC receives massive funding from governments so it also has an incentive to give governments what they want. Biscuittin (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin, you're going offtopic a bit here. The articles doesn't say that "all climate change sceptics are funded by industry", the IPCC gets along on remarkably little funding, and what governments want has commonly been denial of the unpleasant truth of scientific findings: for example, interventions over wording by Saudi Arabia and the USA have tried to minimise issues. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Dave souza, my essay? I was not a contributor to that essay. What facts do I misstate?

I am not asking for weasel wording but plain encyclopedic English. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Biscuittin (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your "political/scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change. It is also a fact that some people dispute that statement." is wrong. There's clear scientific consensus that the main cause of current global warming is human activities, politics is irrelevant to that. Some people may "dispute" that, but groups and individuals promote denial of that consensus or of its implications, rather than agree to action to reduce the impacts of the warming. That's the focus of this topic. . dave souza, talk 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

These are vague generalisations, be specific and provide reliable sources to support your argument. . dave souza, talk 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume the above is addressed to Martin Hogbin. What I am trying to do (and I think MH is too) is to get the tone of the article changed. It is not wicked or mad to have a different view from the IPCC about climate change or global warming so the article should not use language which implies that it is. Biscuittin (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly correct. I have no 'argument' concerning climate change as Dave suggests. I agree that the scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change. There is also political consensus. We also agree that groups and individuals hold the view that that consensus is incorrect and that those individuals and groups promote the view that they hold. I have no problem with stating those facts in this article.

My complaint is that, in Misplaced Pages's voice, we use the rhetoric of one of the sides of that dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Another problem is inconsistency. I've been criticised for citing a paper by a biologist on the grounds that he is not a climate scientist. However, one of the references in the Climate change denial article is to a paper by R. E. Dunlap, who is a sociologist. Why is it OK to cite a paper on climate change by a sociologist but not a biologist? Biscuittin (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The article climate change denial is about a social or psychological phenomenom. The global warming controversy is the one about the science. I believe I've said this a few times before so I'll assume you've read it and dismissed it as wrong. Could you explain why you disagree? Dmcq (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As to Martin Hogbin's essay wp:Rhetoric it is just wrong for Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages should not be based on either 'rhetoric' or 'logic' as in WP:OR but on summarizing what is in reliable sources with the appropriate weight as in them - and not indulging in WP:FALSEWEIGHT like some TV shows do when they bring in some charlatan to 'balance' a scientist's findings as in . Dmcq (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I would expect an article entitled climate change denial to be about the views of climate change deniers. If the article is about sociology and psychology I would expect it to be entitled Sociology and psychology of climate change denial. Biscuittin (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, WP:rhetoric is not my essay. I have not dismissed your point; I think it is a very good one. If the article is indeed intended to be about the social phenomenon it should still use neutral language. I would need to start with something like ' "Climate change denial" is a term used by X to refer to Y', thus making clear that WP is describing, as a third party, a social phenomenon .

I am not sure what you mean by 'psychological phenomenon'. Do you mean 'How some crazy people refuse to believe what we all know to be true', or something else? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

See the article denialism about the phenomenon. 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking for false weight. I'm just asking for non-IPCC views to be given a little weight, rather than being dismissed as pseudoscience. Biscuittin (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For example, take the Solar cycle. Unless you believe that it has no effect at all on the climate, you can't claim that it is pseudoscience. Biscuittin (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin, it's been a while since I looked through the IPCC report, but I recall that solar effects were considered there. They are also discussed in the literature fairly often, but they are certainly not the mainstream explanation of recent global warming. Note that the relevant subject is not the solar cycle per se, but, rather, slow secular change in solar output over the past century or so. This secular change is very difficult to measure, but it is less than the 11-year solar-cycle variability in output, and solar-cycle variability barely affects global temperature, so most researchers conclude (reasonably) that secular solar change in output is insignificant for recent global warming. If this subject interests you, then it should be taken elsewhere, and you might consider reading up on the subject, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out before the article global warming controversy talks about that. The pseudoscience is in telling people that somehow it is a full explanation and carbon dioxide has no effect when the studies on it indicate no such thing. The climate change denial article is about the phenomenon of people wanting to believe things like that and industry obfusticating the science. It isn't about any rational argument about the facts. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I only raised the solar cycle as an example of a real phenomenon which affects climate and is therefore not pseudoscience. Other examples are other greenhouse gases, such as water vapour and methane, which rarely get a mention because there is so much focus on carbon dioxide. Most climate change sceptics do not dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They just question the relative importance of CO2 compared to other climate drivers. Again, this is not pseudoscience. Biscuittin (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but it isn't the solar cycle that affects long-term climate, as I explained. I think you're off track. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin, your arguments would have more credibility if you familiarized yourself with what climate scientists actually study rather than of working from assumptions. For example, far from "rarely getting a mention" non-CO2 greenhouse gases are studied in enormous detail as even a cursory view of the literature will show. And as for not disputing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- it's nice that "skeptics" accept the state of science as it was in 1859, but we really have learned a few things since then. If you want to familiarize yourself with what climate scientists work on I'd be glad to point you to some clear, readable sources. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be an expert on climate science. I'm simply pointing out that the article Climate change denial is written in unencyclopedic language and supports some anti-scientific views, such as the claim that climate change sceptics/deniers are pseudoscientists. I can't think of any other branch of science where scientists who disagree with mainstream opinion are labelled pseudoscientists. Biscuittin (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Scientists who disagree with mainstream opinion" is a very vague term. But people who maintain repeatedly refuted positions in opposition to the available evidence are regularly called "pseudoscientists'. See e.g. creation science or Detoxification (alternative medicine) or HIV/AIDS denialism. If you look at Climate change denial, it's not defined as "disagreeing with mainstream opinion", but as "involv denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming ". It's a phenomenon that is well-defined in the referenced literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin, you "can't think of any other branch of science where scientists who disagree with mainstream opinion are labelled pseudoscientists", so apparently you're unaware of intelligent design. In case you think there's no connection, see the signatories to statements issued by the Cornwall Alliance such as "We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history." . . dave souza, talk 17:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm comparing one scientific view with another scientific view. I'm not comparing a scientific view with a religious view. Biscuittin (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This article reads like tabloid journalism. I very much doubt if it is peer-reviewed but it is cited in support of the "pseudoscience" claim in the Climate change denial article. Biscuittin (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Biscuittin, Your rhetoric looks like unencyclopedic language which supports some anti-scientific views, such as the claim that intelligent design proponentsists are pseudoscientists: signatories of Cornwall Alliance statements include some prominent in climate change denial: Richard Lindzen, Robert M. Carter, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, David Legates, Joseph D'Aleo and Roy Spencer (scientist). You're the one who asked about what other branch of science has scientists who disagree with mainstream opinion being labelled pseudoscientists: evolution has the ID example, and lo, the same scientists deny climate change science. . . . dave souza, talk 19:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, phys.org/news published by Science X looks reasonable as a reliable source, the NIPCC is a fake organisation with a very poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy. You can of course raise that point on the article talk page. dave souza, talk 19:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Your rhetoric looks like unencyclopedic language which supports some anti-scientific views, such as the claim that intelligent design proponentsists are pseudoscientists". I don't understand this sentence. Are you claiming that I do, or do not, support intelligent design? Biscuittin (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Climate change denial by Cornwall Alliance supporters is a religious view regarded as pseudoscience: doesn't that answer your question? Above you were "just asking for non-IPCC views to be given a little weight, rather than being dismissed as pseudoscience", these ID views are clearly non-IPCC views which you seemingly want to give some weight. . . dave souza, talk 21:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't introduce intelligent design into this discussion. You did. Biscuittin (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin, you said you "can't think of any other branch of science where scientists who disagree with mainstream opinion are labelled pseudoscientists" – evolutionary biology is such a branch, where creationists "disagree", and the Cornwall Alliance neatly combines climate change denial with a declaration of support for ID creationism. . . . dave souza, talk 12:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Closure

I think this has gone on long enough. Biscuittin, you have rather obviously failed to persuade in two venues now. I suggest that you do one of two things: (1) drop it or (2) start, and abide by the outcome of, an RFC on the article talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. RfC done at Talk:Climate change denial. Biscuittin (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I'd call an RfC... it's more like a list of vague complaints. We had an RfC on some of those complaints just two months ago, and consensus was quite clear. This has been to BLPN, RSN, NPOVN, ANI, and spanned across a great many talk pages, and everywhere the consensus has been in favor of following the academic sources currently used in the article. After all this bickering and hopping from one venue to another, I don't see any concrete proposals ("change X to Y") which are backed by reliable sources we can use. I don't think it's time for an RfC. I think it's time to drop the stick.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't got a stick to drop and it was Guy who suggested the RfC. Biscuittin (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no WP policy requiring users to stop discussion because other editors disagree with them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing, WP:LISTEN and WP:FORUMSHOP. All of which boil down to editors who do not get the message when consensus is against them will sooner or later exhaust the community's patience with predictable results Jbh 18:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no consensus against which Biscuittin is arguing. A quick look at opinion here shows that a total of 6 editors here support what Biscuittin says and 5 editors oppose it. What I see here is bullying and ownership. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin and yourself are welcome to produce reliable secondary sources to support your arguing, remember WP:NOTAFORUM. . . dave souza, talk 12:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, your "quick look" seems to be rather selective and/or wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic POV dispute

Article: History of Kyrgyzstan

Revision: http://en.wikipedia.com/search/?title=History_of_Kyrgyzstan&diff=693129384&oldid=693112682

Issue: Implication of an Indo-European origin of turkic-speaking Kyrgyz people without clear evidence. The phrase concerning the genetic origins of the Kyrgyz people is being misused for ethnic point of view. That the haplogroup R1a is thought to have been connected with a part of Proto-Indo-European speakers is true, however there is also considerable scholarly evidence that in the essence we are not able to determine which R1a haplotypes were carried by early Turkic tribes and which carried by early Indo-Indo-European tribes. Since Misplaced Pages is not a place for ethnic POV clashes, such phrases generally should not stand in this kind of articles, except there is a clear evidence of an affiliation with this ethnos-article. Currently there is no direct evidence. Thus I request an administrative intervention. --Sikkkk (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative

Hello, I would like to bring to attention the move discussion currently under way at Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move_22_January_2016 in which issues of neutrality have been raised. Thanks, 101.175.138.28 (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Persian or Iranian

LouisAragon raised an interesting point here which I found to be quite controversial. I must say that the user has also been pasting such questionable material into the leads of several articles important articles which is quite worrisome if unchecked. He also appears to make rather bold POV statements such as this. The user's justifications for employing the term "Iranian Empire" is that "scholars use Iranian and Persian interchangeably for all post-Achaemenid periods, while Iranian is inarguably less ambiguous." So before I reach any conclusions, I would like to ask the community a fundamental question: is it Persian Empire or Iranian Empire? WP:NCGN states:

Use of widely accepted historic names implies that names can change; we use Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul in discussing the same city in different periods. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases.

Would that apply here in this case as well? Though the term Iranian has existed for millennia, I know that Persians never called themselves Iranians back then. Also, I've always believed that Iranian is much more of a modern nationalist term, and that we shouldn't retrospectively apply it to the Persian empire which was quite different in nature. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your “concerns” as formulated here contain numerous blatant errors and, what is factually seen, as a lack of research. Let me help;

1) First of all. You opened this case regarding your “concerns” about the interchangeable usage of “Iranian” and “Persian”, yet in already the second sentence, you link a totally unrelated diff here. Seems to me like you’re trying to fish for something as well. That being said (I always assume WP:GF first, but I'm here for long enough to realize whats going on in such ANI boards), that edit was totally legit, for the Achaemenids indeed conquered most of what is modern-day Bulgaria, as well as the fact that the demise of the Achaemenids saved Greece and Europe from a different fate of history;

("In addition the Persians gained Thrace (modern-day Bulgaria) -- Kidner et al. Making Europe: The Story of the West. (e.d 2). Cengage learning. ISBN 978-1111841317 page 57.
"(...) conquering the Indus Valley and much of modern-day Bulgaria (...)" -- Thonneman, Peter.; Price, Simon (2010). The Birth of Classical Europe: A History from Troy to Augustine Penguin UK, ISBN 978-0141946863.
"at its greatest extent the empire included Afghanistan (...) adjacent areas of Central Asia to the north: Iraq, Turkey, Bulgaria", parts of Greece (...) -- C. Howard, Michael (2012). Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval Societies: The Role of Cross-Border Trade and Travel McFarland ISBN 978-0786490332 page 39)

2) To me, it seems as if you don’t seem to grasp the usage of both aforementioned words, or how they were actually used in historiography and/or politics. Iran (the nation) was universally called “Persia” by outsiders prior to 1935, but to natives, it was always known as “Iran”. Hence, post 1935-historiography very often uses Iran and Persia interchangeable. And yes, thats for ALL post-Achaemenid Empires of Iran.

3) Oh, in fact, I even found numerous references that refer to the Achaemenid Empire as an Iranian Empire as well. Doesn’t seem rocket science to me given that it had an Iranian identity and was based in what is modern-day nation of Iran.

“The Achaemenian Empire remains to this day the largest Iranian Empire ever (…)”

“Be that, as it may, it is the Persian Empire, ruled by two consecute dynasties, the Teispid and the Achaemenian, that can be considered the first Iranian Empire”

• Shenkar, Michael (2014). Intangible Spirits and Graven Images: The Iconography of Deities in the Pre-Islamic Iranian World. Brill, ISBN 978-9004281493 Page 5.

“Iran, as a region, is defined by borders that have fluctuated over time. For most of its history, it was more than a region; it was notionally an empire, meant to be ruled by a king of kings. Such a notion of a cohesive Iranian Empire…(...)”

• Johnston Iles, Sarah (2004). Religions of the Ancient World; A Guide. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674015173 page 598

4) Now, lets drop some more sources that confirm that all empires that were based in Iran (from after the Achaemenid period), were and are known as Iranian Empires as well, shall we?

SASANIAN EMPIRE:

Muhammad had just died, but the triumphate which then assumed command of the Moslem nation, Abu Bakr, Umar, (...) after the success of the expeditions in Syria, those which were directed against the Iranian Empire.

(...) things seemsed about to turn in favour of the Persians, when reinforcements arriving unexpectedly from Syria brought about the defeat and rout of the Iranian army."

:(...) and a catastrophe was about to overthrow the ancient fabric of the Iranian monarchy - the Arabs were at the gates."

• Huart, Clement (2013). Ancient Persia and Iranian Civilization. Routledge. ISBN 978-1136199806 page 136

(Chapter: Sasanian Iran: "Thew new King of Kings, Ardashir I, and his son and successor Shapur I, ruled an Iranian Empire that would remain a lastig rival of the Romans and Byzantines (...)"

• Bladel van, Kevin (2009). The Arabic Hermes : From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science: From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science Oxford University Presss. ISBN 978-0199704484 page 23

SAFAVID EMPIRE:

(...) that sought to profile a newly constituted Safavid Iranian Empire (...)

• Mitchell, Colin P (2009). The Practice of Politics in Safavid Iran: Power, Religion and Rhetoric Chapter: The practise of politics in Safavid Iran. I.B. Tauris. ISBN 978-0857715883 page 182

“During the Safavi era, Iranian Armenia was divided into two administrative units, Yerevan (then called Chukur-e Sa'd) and Ganjeh. Nakhjavan was part of the former, Qarabagh of the latter. Shifting fortunes of the Iranian Empire as a whole…”

• Atkin, Muriel (1980). Russia and Iran, 1780-1828. U of Minnesota Press, ISBN 978-0816656974

Basically the whole book; New Perspectives on Safavid Iran: Empire and Society (Mitchell, Colin P, 2011, Taylor & Francis, 3 mrt. 2011 ISBN 978-1136991943 pp 1-256)

The peace Treaty of Amasya (1555) between the Iranian shah and the Ottoman sultan (...)

• Floor, Willem,; Herzig, Edmund (2015). Iran and the World in the Safavid Age I.B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1780769905 page 21. (but read other pages as well, many more examples of Iran and Persia being used for the Safavid state, and in general quite a nice book)

QAJAR EMPIRE:

"By the end of the eighteenth century, the Qajars took control of the Safavid domains, thus unifying the Iranian empire again."

• Daryaee, Touraj. (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford Univeresity Press. ISBN 978-0190208820 page 306.

"The basis for the relationships between the Iranian and Ottoman Empires in modern times was the Treaty of Qasr-i Shirin (17 May 1639). (...) eastern Anatolia remained under the Ottoman Sultan, while the Caucasus remained in Iranian hands, later to fall to Russia".

• Fisher et al (1991). Cambridge History of Iran. chapter 8 (Iranian relations with the Ottoman Empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries), Cambridge University Presss. ISBN 978-0521200950 page 297

And here another 62.700 results for Qajar Iran and 86.700 results for Safavid Iran at Google.books, including the continous and widespread usage of it by the most highly accredited scholars in Iranian/Near Eastern history - take a look at it, if you'd like to.

I can post tons more from other historians, analysts, specialists, lecturers, general scholars and what not, that further show, that its indeed completely legit and correct to refer to all these empires as Iranian Empires, Iranian dynasties, or Iranian entities, apart from the usage of referring to them as Persian Empires, dynasties, or entities. But I really don't believe that would be needed (overkill).

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fishing for anything. That edit can be viewed as POV and this is a NPOV board so I want to have that clarified. As for the rest, I would like neutral observers to see whether WP:COMMONNAME should apply here. Calling it Iran would perhaps confuse readers into believing Iran was a continuum of a state since the post-Achaemenid period. And per WP:NCGN, I've always assumed that historical names must take precedence or at least be mentioned when it comes to the distant past. For example, we had a recent discussion at Azerbaijanis in Armenia where Yerevan was added next to Erivan. This situation may not be so different. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Your attention is called to an RfC at the 'Veganism' article, where a discussion is being held concerning the use of 'the commodity status of animals' in the lead. More neutrally-minded editors welcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Biased addition at Magyarization

Please check this addition. Radezic (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution