Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Global Warming Art

The following page is a local copy of the Wikipedia page at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. (more info)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to post a new topic or discussion.

NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise.

Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why.
This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation.

Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Contents


NPOV dispute on Ron Paul article

I'd like to get some feedback from some uninvolved editors regarding our Ron Paul article. For those that don't know, US Congressman Ron Paul appeared in Sacha Baron Cohen's latest film, Brüno. Ron Paul's segment has been covered by dozens of (if not hundreds) of reliable sources including Slate, The New York Times, Time Magazine, The Boston Globe, Political Intelligence, Huffinton Post, The Guardian, The Independent, San Francisco Gate, Forbes, Entertainment Weekly, Phoenix Times, The Star, Variety Magazine, Newsweek, The Wallstreet Journal, etc. Last week, an editor included a single sentence reference [1] to Paul's appearance in the movie which was promptly removed. Since then, there has been an ongoing debate on the article talk page about whether to mention Paul's appearance in Brüno. Although various (and sometimes creative) reasons were given for its exclusion, it all seemed to boil down to a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Now there's talk of a filmography which honestly sounds like a bad idea for a politician. Can we get some uninvolved editors to weigh in on the discussion[2], please? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the reason why I think this is a NPOV dispute is that Ron Paul's appearance in Brüno is a bit of a political embarrassment to Ron Paul. Although many reasons were given to exclude this information from the article, I think it ultimately boils down to the fear that it might make Ron Paul look bad. The Slate article goes into some detail about Paul's use of the word 'queer' along with with Ron Paul's spokespeople either denying or explaining the usage of the term.

Also, to clarify further, the edit[3] that was immediately reverted[4] was extremely benign and didn't mention anything controversial. It only mentioned that he appeared in the movie. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an NPOV dispute. The issue is whether Paul's appearance in Brüno is worthy of mention. This same issue was previously posted at the RfC noticeboard. The resulting discussion can be found at Talk:Ron Paul#Brüno incident. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is such a joke. A Quest is running home to momma here simply because he got outvoted. The proposal on the RP talk page is to have a compromise edit which includes a TEXT section (not a listed filmography) which covers appearances in film and documentaries (particularly I.O.U.S.A. and American Drug War, in addition to Brüno). The rationale behind the compromise is that there has always been tension between two camps of editors on RP's page over piddly issues; adding Bruno only will antagonize one side, while not including Bruno at all will antagonize the other. By proposing a comprehensive, film appearances text section, one side gets the movie they want in, and the others can't point at the mention of Bruno only as a means of claiming bias on the part of the adding editors. That's the proposal. There's more in favor than against. A Quest is the minority of one and has come here to round up the posse. Those are the facts. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Foofighter: Wikipedia is not a democracy and getting opinions from outside editors is a valid part of the consensus-building process. In any case, can we please wait to hear from some uninvolved editors to take a look at the issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
And? I made a proposal and a rough consensus was reached. Within that consensus you were the minority of one. You lost to a well-reasoned middle ground and apparently were displeased enough to bring this here. Thus, here we are... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
And...you made a proposal and consensus was not reached. Your solution included giving equal weight to non-notable film appearances with that of notable film appearances. Clearly, your argument lacked merit so we need the input of uninvolved editors to settle this dispute. If you are so sure of your opinions, why are you so addiment against allowing outside editors to weigh in on the issue? I am fully confident that if we can find editors who can take the time to read everyone's opinion, they will agree that Ron Paul's appearance in Bruno is note-worthy and should be included in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor: I agree that it would be obvious bias to mention a film that a person appeared in unwillingly (as our article about the film states he was "deceived" into being filmed) but not to include the documentary films that he apparently appeared in willingly. A film appearances paragraph or filmography is not merely a compromise, but a neutral and encyclopedic response.

Foofighter20x is cautioned to maintain civility even when dealing with people with whom he disagrees. The "running home to momma" remark is outside the bounds of acceptable conduct on Wikipedia. --FOo (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. As someone who is not involved, I would say this almost qualifies for "WP:Lamest edit wars". I would suggest that the Bruno reference should be put into the article provided it can be worked into the context of the article itself, and not inserted as an offhand attachment - as is the chronic case on a lot of wikipedia articles. For example, you cannot have a heading like "political positions", then suddenly "Appearance in Bruno". The article perhaps most infamous for this is Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans. Colipon+(T) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Can do, Fubar. All I'm trying to do here is make it clear for everyone to see how this is a non-dispute without any need to be resolved here. It's been resolved already: a general consensus was reached, but apparently for some wasn't good enough. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It has not been resolved because my concerns have not been addressed. Thus far, this NPOV dispute has attracted the attention of two uninvolved editors, one of whom seems to lean with one side and another that seems to lean with the other side. I'm not sure that really qualifies as a consensus. Ron Paul's appearance in Bruno (whether wittingly or unwittingly) has attracted lots of media attention from reliable sources. It's against WP:NPOV to exclude or eliminate information from WP:RS just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A one or two sentence reference to this very notable event is all I'm asking for (which, to be honest, is already a compromise. I could have just as easily asked for a full section, but have not). I have dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources to back my claim that it's notable so I believe that it obviously belongs in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
While it may be wrong to exclude notable information from a BLP, in this case, it's my view that the WP:RS contain only trivial mentions on Mr. Paul's involvement in the film. He is notable as a politican, not as a film actor. Jogurney (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The Slate and Huffinton Post articles feature 14 and 10 paragraphs on the incident (respectively). The fact that Ron Paul's spokespeople were forced to issue issued public comments on the incident indicates it has some notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Do those meet WP:RS? Perhaps they do, but I'm at a loss as what you mean by spokespeople being forced to issue comments? Who forced them? I trying to follow WP:AGF, but those type of comments make me wonder. Jogurney (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can change the verbiage to "issued" but the sentiment is still the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A Quest: Your concerns were addressed because you got what you wanted in the compromise proposal on the talk page, which is that the Brüno appearance gets into the article. That's what you wanted, that's what the consensus on the talk page got you. Why you feel that other film appearances can't be included is the real issue. Of the four editors on the RP talk page discussion this, three settled on meeting you halfway. When you didn't exactly what you wanted, you bolted and brought the issue here.

And accusing me and the other consensus editors of attempting to exclude information is an outright lie, and you know it. The consensus on the RP talk page decided not only to put in the information you requested, but to put in more than what was asked. Quit twisting what's really happened in order to save face here in the hope of vindicating yourself. And the reason I'm adamant about my proposal's pending approval on this dispute board is that any editor who checks out the RP talk page can easily verify what I've just said. You version of the events don't fit the facts. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Foofighter20x:
  • "Why you feel that other film appearances can't be included is the real issue." As I already explained on the talk page, I looked up the two other film appearances that were mentioned and they aren't nearly as notable as the one in Brüno. Ron Paul's appearance received coverage by literally dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources, many of which are major news outlets. In contrast, these other films received scant converge.
  • "And accusing me and the other consensus editors of attempting to exclude information is an outright lie, and you know it." Hmmm...these edit diffs seems to suggest otherwise: [5], [6], [7]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me sum up. "Brueno" was not a notable film and therefore Paul's appearance in that film was not notable. Any discussion of Paul's appearance belongs in the "Brueno" article. Your argument was Well, I would imagine that a lot of the viewers of the Bruno movie who have never heard of Ron Paul apart from this movie and are curious as to who Ron Paul is. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a journal of undergraduate humor and that standards must apply. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
A major box-office film is notable, arguing otherwise is disingenuous. Ron Paul's appearance in it was notable, it's an arguable, but ultimately silly point to argue. The information should be included. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at our FA on Barack Obama. Even though press was all over Ayers issue and you might deem it as notable, it is not even mentioned in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 11:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If lots of reliable sources mention one film, and the others do not, then UNDUE says only mention that one. As an aside, keeping Ayers out of BO's article is probably the biggest NPOV violation on this whole website, and I'm a die hard democrat. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And I was a volunteer for the Ron Paul presidential campaign. In fact, I walked door-to-door getting signatures so he could be on the ballot here in Illinois. If anything, I should be advocating the omission of this as well, but I'm not. It's clearly notable, is clearly supported by numerous reliable sources and adding one or two sentences hardly violates WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it sounds like our policies would lead to just Bruno being included, but I'm getting the feeling this noticeboard has no teeth. If this little discussion solves the problem, I'd be curious to hear about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. So far, no solution has been reached. To resolve the issue, we attempted a straw vote and the majority of editors are in favor of inclusion, but since Wikipedia is not a democracy, the issue remains at a stalemate. The real story here (far apart from Ron Paul or Bruno) is the amount of time wasted by dozens of Wikipedia editors over a single sentence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital and the organ harvesting allegations

User:Ohconfucius has kept insisting on his version of the page that seems to construct a narrative debunking the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. He says that mentioning the United Nations reports or the independent research by David Kilgour and David Matas is a breach of WP:UNDUE, see Talk:Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital#This is a hospital FFS!. However, he keeps inserting three paragraphs that only attempt to discredit the allegations. A version with only a link to the main Wikipedia article discussing the organ harvesting is not alright with him, either. For more information, see the edit history. I would like to get some comments on this matter. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  • We obviously have very different ideas of what constitutes 'balance'. I am not trying to establish or debunk anything, but in creating an encyclopaedic article. I unwittingly walked right back into another article protected by the Falun Gong cabal, which I'm beginning to detest more and more. I'm outta here. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I believe focusing more on the organ harvesting allegations than the hospital itself makes sense, since that's what it's famous for; as far as I know, most hospitals are not notable just for being hospitals, and even if they are that's not what this one is notable for. Of course, a section ought to be added (if such information can be found) detailing the basic hospital information. And, given the focus on organ harvesting allegations, perhaps a change of the article title is also in order (such as Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital organ harvesting controversy or whatever).
I just woke up and haven't really looked at any actual diffs of the August 7 edit warring. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Fellow Wikipedians, kindly wake up and smell the coffee. This article was about the hospital, and has become an attack page controlled by devotees of Falun Gong used against the Chinese Government. The hospital isn't "famous" for anything. The allegations are unfounded and have been largely disproven by, inter alia, a US Government Commission, and I see no need to move the article to another title as there is already an article with the weasely title 'Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China' which deals with the wider subject in great length. As the article stands, I suggest a redirect to the 'Reports' article would be a reasonable compromise. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
All the references I tried to insert into the article are more recent information than anything you insisted on having there. However, I support the redirect to the 'Reports' article.
Oh, and your comment "this article was about the hospital" is simply not true. The hospital itself is not notable at all. See the first version of the page. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The article's title says "Hospital" -- what do you think people expect to read in an article about a "hopital" -- my guess is about a "hospital"... am I so totally from Mars?Seb az86556 (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: the article was not about the hospital as such. It would never have been created just to have an encyclopedia article on this particular hospital. The sole reason for creating this article was because of the organ harvesting allegations. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) Regarding the claim that this has become an "attack page"... not sure if this helps, but I should just clarify that although the article focuses mostly on the organ harvesting claims (and thus might rightly be called a coatrack), most of that discussion is geared towards debunking those claims, or summarizing the reports that did so. At least, that is how it was back in October 2008, the last time I looked closely at this article.
As for redirecting to the "reports" article...I support that, given that there is nothing else to say about this hospital. We should just make sure not to lose any decent content in the move. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I must say that OhConfucius' position on this article is very reasonable. The allegations about Sujiatun is circumstantial and unverified (and according to some sources, disproven). It very much seemed like an attack page and I think it should be redirected as per Rjanag's suggestion. Colipon+(Talk) 23:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the allegations are true (they're probably not), the investigations happened and the controversy is probably notable. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I support the redirect to the report page. Rjanag have you read this report? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
(undent) how many pages on organ harvesting does FLG need? I support OhConfucius' position.Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Celente article as of August 7, 2009

Gerald Celente is a talking head, a gloom-and-doom prognosticator, a business consultant who has made appearances on TV, made statements in newspapers. But the Gerald Celente Wikipedia page is being used by several of his supporters as an advertisement. These supporters have make repeated claims about the accuracy of past predictions without proper attribution to sources. The pro-Celente supporters have reverted well-researched articles, added statements with no reliable sources, used YouTube videos as "sources", have undone repeated "citation needed" tags. They have repeatedly replaced fair and neutral statements about Celente (which had references) with unsupported statements. The result is an article highly biased towards Celente. It's not NPOV. It violates the Wikipedia policy against original research. See history and talk page of Gerald Celente.Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Dealt with problems in the lead. I left a note on talk. Work it out from there. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

more eyes needed

the Little Richard article is having ongoing POV issues that could really use input from more experienced editors. please see the edit history and these talk-page sections: Talk:Little_Richard#Testimonials_Section, Talk:Little_Richard#comment_from_Smoovedogg and Talk:Little_Richard#improving_the_.22Influence.22_section. thanks Sssoul (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

a parallel situation is developing on the Rock and roll article - please see the recent edit history and this talk-age section. if editors interested in POV and WP:Advocacy issues could have a look and offer some input that could be a great help - thanks Sssoul (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Are we blurring the line between description of a political epithet and discussion of an actual school of political thought? Compare Israel and the apartheid analogy, which was once Israeli apartheid.BYT (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My untrained eye sees these two articles as very similar. The titles are different, but that doesn't really bother me that much. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania and Russia

Please keep an eye on 2009 Lithuania–Russia crisis. It reads like a soapbox against Russia. All the references are in Lithuanian, which means that very few people are able to verify that the sources actually state what we say they state. I think this is very little for bold assertions like "The Russian Federation has officially declared that they are targetting Lithuanian truck drivers on purpose." 94.212.31.237 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If this article is not sufficiently updated it may actually warrant deletion. It honestly doesn't say much, there is no background, and extremely lacking in NPOV. Colipon+(Talk) 03:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Russian media covers (present tense) the topic as well (i.e. in Russian in English) and there's no POV conflict. Yes, it's a unilateral action against Lithuanian-registered truckers. But it appears that the govt hasn't yet explained WTF is happening (really happening) and perhaps they never would. Does the case warrants a wikipedia article? Wait and see, it's a current event. NVO (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Got worse today, now they embargoed Lithuanian dairy products. Again, plenty of English sources. NVO (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's turning into a real POV-fest. See for instance this edit by Samogitia (talk · contribs) at Portal:Current events/2009 August 14: "Lithuanian carriers are forced to look for the assistance from foreign colleagues who could help to deliver cargo on time. Due to this our state is losing revenues into the budget and Lithuanian carrier companies are being harmed." 94.212.31.237 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Leslie Van Houten questionable tone

A first read of portions of this article Leslie_Van_Houten, especially the Parole section seem to be written with a bias. There has been discussion in the talk sections but I thought it might be prudent to get a bunch of new eyes on the subject. It just generally strikes me as written to portray a particular point of view by its language. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.129.208 (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed a problematic quote that was lacking a citation anyway. There are Leslie Van Houten apologists out there... as I believe they should be. Fight the good fight! Just don't fight it on Wikipedia. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

“Reception” or “Criticism”

We have a dispute over whether the article Academic views on Falun Gong should be renamed to Reception of Falun Gong or Criticism of Falun Gong. A group of editors advocate the latter, while some (including myself) disagree. Some points here, in no particular order, just points of discussion:

1) Reception is suggested because it avoids a WP:POVFORK, where "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."

  • On the other hand, it is argued that the term "criticism" in this case does not refer to "negative criticism," (thus avoiding a POV fork) but could also include positive criticism, neutral criticism, and general commentary. In this interpretation, "criticism" does not have to have a negative interpretation (or, maybe they are arguing that it simply does not?) In this interpretation, "criticism" does not actually mean what is usually meant when we say "So and so criticised John the other day," but refers to the neutral appraisal of a topic, as we would talk about Literary criticism.
      • In response to this it is argued that this is an argument over defitions, and that criticism does have a negative connotation a lot of the time. Calling the article "Reception of Falun Gong" simply avoids this entirely.

2) There are arguments advocating both Criticism and Reception, and arguments against Criticism, but no arguments against Reception that I am aware of.

3) The essay on criticism says: "Often Wikipedia articles separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. This is often the clearest (also, this often helps to keep the description of the topic itself neutral). Another advantage might be that a general "reception history" section usually avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic." and makes a recommendation on this. John Carter, who supports Criticism of Falun Gong and opposes Reception of Falun Gong, points out that essays are not policies.

4) Some attempt has been made to summarise the dispute here, but this strikes me as rather biased. Why are red crosses next to the arguments in favor of reception, and green ticks in front of those in favor of criticism? I have issue with how some arguments are dismissed and how straw-men are put up for others. There's no sense reiterating them one by one here (I started but deleted it all). The crux of the whole issue is really about the definition of the word "criticism." So let's look what the dictionary says: The Free Dictionary (primary meaning of the noun: "1. fault-finding or censure") [8]; Merriam-Webster (primary meaning: "1 a : the act of criticizing usually unfavorably") [9]; Dictionary.com (secondary meaning: "the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding") [10]; Answers.com (primary meaning of the noun in thesaurus: "A comment expressing fault: blame, censure, condemnation, denunciation, reprehension, reprobation. Informal pan. Slang knock. See praise/blame.") [11]. This is"the context which the vast majority of English speakers deploy the word in on a daily basis". Presumably I don't need to provide definitions of "reception" to show that it has an exclusively neutral meaning.

5) There also appears to be some doublespeak here on the part of proponents of the Criticism of Falun Gong title. It is at once argued that "criticism" in this context is not supposed to be negative commentary, but all commentary, however, the list of articles which follow this model of "Criticism of...", which the Falun Gong page is supposed to fit into, are all almost exclusively negative commentary on the subject, such as that for Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, which I just checked. Secondly, proponents of the "Criticism" title use the word "Critics of Falun Gong" to refer to someone who has commented negatively on Falun Gong, as evidenced by the list of proposed named in that proposed category (of "Critics of Falun Gong"), and also by PerEdman's suggestion that this would be a "POV magnet."

So does "critic" and "criticism" mean someone who makes negative comments, and negative commentary, respectively, or anyone who makes comments, or commentary generally? In arguing for the page to be called "Criticism of Falun Gong" the term is given a neutral meaning, but when defining categories of people and in the examples of criticism of other religious gropus, it is used in its conventional, negative sense. This strikes me as doublespeak.

6) With an article entitled "Criticism of Falun Gong," which is focused on negative criticism of the subject--as in all the other articles referenced to other religious groups--would we then not also have a "Praise of Falun Gong" article, which documents the positive criticism the subject has received?

...


It all boils down to this: to be able to have the article titled "Criticism of Falun Gong" the word "criticism" has to NOT be given the meaning of "the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding", "A comment expressing fault: blame, censure, condemnation, denunciation, reprehension, reprobation," as defined by several dictionaries, but given the meaning of "both... positive, negative and neutral commentary on a subject matter," as defined by user:PerEdman. Yet PerEdman regards "Critics of Falun Gong" to be a POV magnet, the list of "Critics of Falun Gong" are all people who have made negative comments, all the articles titled "Criticism of <topic>" are all actually criticism of that topic, and not general commentary on that topic. There is a clear inconsistency here.

"Reception of..." is a standard formula on wikipedia, it's recommended by an essay, it prevents a POV fork, it is unambiguous in being an article about all commentary on the topic, i.e., the reception that topic has received rather than soley the negative reception the topic has received. It seems to me that it solves the POV issue entirely to call the article "Reception of Falun Gong," and avoids having to split hairs over the meaning of "criticism," and even making seemingly contradictory statements, where it means neutral in one context and negative in the next. "Reception" includes no hint on the tone of the reception. If they are essentially synonymous, except for the problems with "criticism" discussed above, the question is, really, why not call the article "Reception of Falun Gong"? Does it have a particular flaw? Why not call the article that?

I bring this case here for the community to discuss.--Asdfg12345 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My only comments would be that the objection to the word "criticism" seems based on an essay, which by definition pretty much has little weight, and that I see only two articles (not counting redirects), Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien and Reception of country music as per this page, which follow the "reception of" title format, while at this point 55 articles (not counting redirects) use the "criticism of" format as per this page, with an additional 15 articles (not counting redirects) using "Criticisms of" as the beginning of the title as per here, and one article Criticisms and theories on Yahweh, using a variant form of that title. To say that a format which is used by 2 of the 73 articles using one or the other model is the "standard" is to my eyes a bit of a misstatement of fact. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Asdfg12345 forgot to mention that "Criticism of..." is more common than "Reception of..." and is the defacto standard, despite the good ideas in the WP:Criticism essay. I have found eight or nine "Criticism" articles on religion and philosophy.
I also argued that the risk of the word "Criticism" being misunderstood to mean only negatives is significant only if there is a number of readers who would make that interpretation AND if the article itself is so poorly written that it is not immediately clear that it contains all forms of criticism (correctly sourced and notable, of course). Not to mention that an "all-negative" article would definately not be very wiki.
To me, this is a discussion on style, readability, standards and presenting articles in a manner that readers will be familiar with.
Finally, I do not disagree with the suggestion of a Critics of Falun Gong article or the suggested Practitioners of Falun Gong because they would contain "all people who have made negative comments", but because they would excessively attract point-of-view discussions (something I never explained, sorry). There is no inconsistency: The word "critic", just as the word "criticism" encompasses both positive, negative and neutral commentary or film critics would all be in advertising. PerEdman (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, all of these arguments have been heard on the page and openly addressed in more than one way, by a wide range of editors. To rehash all of these opinions seems rather time-consuming and unecessary to me. Colipon+(Talk) 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It is the case that many articles begin with the "Criticism of..." title; please check the articles that you referenced, like those to Islam, Buddhism, Christianity etc.. They are almost solely based on material critical of those subjects, not the general material on the subject. This isn't an issue of style, readability, and standards, it's an issue of bias or neutrality. The reason for bringing it to this board is to get some wider views about the issue.--Asdfg12345 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I really have not read all 72 of them, but even if this were true, it says nothing of the content of a similarily-titled article on Falun Gong. This is a request for comments about the title of the page rather than the content, unless I've misunderstood. / PerEdman 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
btw, PerEdman, your view about what a "critic of Falun Gong" is, is apparently not shared by your peers. The people listed as candidates for that category have only negative things to say about the subject. You guys are basically tying yourselves in knots, denying that "criticism" means "negative" and trying to say that it means positive, negative, and neutral. "Reception" also means positive, negative, and neutral, and even no position at all. Let's not argue against "criticism," let's hear what is wrong with "Reception."--Asdfg12345 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In general, most religious groups or philosophies have primarily negative response from others, at least the majority of time. After all, if someone really praised any belief system, they would be, more than likely, going to become adherents of it, and thus would no longer be external to it. So, on that basis, I'm not sure how well the objection applies. If I were to see a significant amount of information regarding any religion/belief system from outsiders which truly spoke well of the belief system as a belief system, then perhaps I would change my mind. I have not to date however not seen particularly much evidence that this belief system has received an unusual amount of commendation from outsiders strictly as a belief system, so I'm not sure on what basis it is being argued that this must be treated as a special case, and think that perhaps it might be more useful to present the material regarding outside commendation first, and establishing that it is greater than that of other such entities, before criticizing the standard title format.
And I do believe that what we would be looking for would be outside commendation of the belief system as a belief system. The Catholic Church and other entities regular receive commendation for their charitable, civic, and cultural work, but that is not praise of the practices/beliefs, and thus generally isn't counted as "commendation" of that group. I don't think it should be any different for this one.
Also, and this might be a side issue, the issue of whether something is particularly different enough to be treated as notably different must be considered. I think it is generally agreed that "prayer", if done right, has psychological benefit. I do not however see that included in articles relating to religious groups that emphasize prayer, because it is so standard. So it would probably also be indicated that reliable sources indicating that the commendation this group receives are substantially more frequent than that of most similar meditation/philosophical systems before this potential issue becomes one which has to be considered a factor. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, I cannot identify with your comment above. If you believe I speak for any person or group other than myself, you will find plenty of apparent contradictions and I will not be able to explain them to you. / PerEdman 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguments we've heard so far... (Summary for reference)[12]

  • The word criticism has more than one meaning and could lead to misunderstandings, such exclusively negative criticism
  • The word criticism has been redefined by the Chinese government and can therefore not be used in this context
  • The word reception is neutral
  • The word criticism will invite a POV-fork
  • Any Criticism of-article mandates a Praise for-article
  • The word reception would allow for inclusion of pre-persecution events
  • WP:CRITICISM is a rule that strictly forbids such wording
  • The word reception is a better choice because of historical circumstances and the topic's recentness
  • A majority opinion is to be overruled since wikipedia is not a democracy, and the minority should prevail
Number of individuals holding these opinion(s): 4
  • Many other articles concerning religions/belief-systems are titled Criticism of and this one should be in line with that de facto standard
  • The possible different meanings of criticism are "fringe-meanings" and do not apply for most readers
  • In common English usage, the word criticism has not been appropriated by the Chinese government
  • The word reception constitutes a euphemism
  • Criticism of-articles do not mandate Praise for-articles because the word criticism simply means any commentary by outsiders, negative and positive
  • Not using the word criticism will be to the detriment of the majority of readers who are not intimately familiar with the Chinese context
  • WP:CRITICISM is not a rule but an essay, a recommendation
  • Not using the word criticism would be a tacit endorsement of Chinese newspeak
Number of individuals holding these opinion(s): 9

Seb az86556 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this list and how is it relevant? Who put the ticks there, and who decided these were the locus of the dispute and the conclusions reached? Why does this seem like an overly simplistic attempt to carve up and dismiss the bones of contention with flashy symbols and a claim to greater numbers? Sorry, I don't want to give an overly negative assessment, but it may help if you clarify how this is a useful metric for people wishing to engage in an unbiased evaluation of this issue. Please feel free to elaborate.--Asdfg12345 17:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a simple list of arguments used in the discussion. It was created by Seb az86556, unless I'm mistaken, but this should also be clear from the article history. It is an "simplistic" overview of a convoluted discussion. It lists the arguments used and their adherents, which could be used to focus the extremely hard-to-read Talk thread. PerEdman (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to attack the list, asdfg. It was created for reference purposes; please assume good faith. I actually think it summed up all the arguments quite coherently. Colipon+(Talk) 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I find it dismissive and misrepresentative. Sorry.--Asdfg12345 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Uniformity suggests we should use Criticism for the article title rather than some other compromise. The tendency of the FLG to try and avoid any sign of criticism is rather disconcerting.Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Like I said elsewhere, I went through all the article pages that linked to Falun Gong. In that process, I didn't find any that I remember that related to content in which Falun Gong was particularly commended. If I missed any, I would be more than happy to be told what they were. Yes, it and its practicioners have been defended, and in some cases commended for resisting the Chinese government, but I'm not sure how that would directly related to Falun Gong itself, but just those individuals basically standing up for their human rights. Is it notable that people may have commended the practicioners for doing so? If such commendation has been reported in the press or reliable sources, yeah, it is. But we would want to be careful in differentiating between commendation of practicioners of Falun Gong and Falun Gong itself, unless there is clear evidence or statement from someone that Falun Gong with its unique characteristics is somehow necessarily a part of the actions resulting in the commendation. I have no particular objections to considering a change like that proposed above if I had such material, but I haven't seen it that I know of to date. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, if you look here you will notice that this content fits in into a Reception article not Criticism article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
We are getting lost here. There is a very important principle. Writing about criticism of a subject is NPOV. Writing to support criticism of a subject is not NPOV. The title of the article that is under discussion was originally meant to be a "criticism" article, until it was unilaterally moved to the euphemism "Third party views" and then to another even more shady euphemism called "reception".
The article we are talking about here will address many of Falun Gong's controversial sides that do not fit under any other title. In addition, it will discuss all the academic treatments given to Falun Gong. The title "criticism" will address everything from the cult question to other topics of Falun Gong that have generated significant notability to warrant inclusion. There is no need to pretend that the article itself will give "equal treatment" to "praise" and criticism. Its contents are meant to objectively present criticisms of Falun Gong, not to highlight criticisms of Falun Gong in comparison to "praise". I feel this is especially important because Falun Gong "does not accept criticism" (Rouseau, 2006). "Reception" in this case is a euphemism, a weasel term if you will, that avoids the use of the word "Criticism". In this sense, reception, then, is actually the non-NPOV term to describe the type of article we are talking about, while Criticism is NPOV. Colipon+(Talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
What is the main source of criticism against Falun Gong. I guess it's undoubtedly the propaganda war generated by the PRC to justify its persecution. Should Falun Gong practitioners accept that criticism and do things contrary to what they know is right, aka. ZSR? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
If there was no criticism against Falun Gong before 1999, what then was it that caused 300 protests against media criticism between 1996 and 1999, culminating in the protests against He Zuoxiu? Did the justification precede the action, or not? / PerEdman 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
He Zuoxiu had nothing to do with the PRC government, unlike what FLG likes to make people believe. I read He's critique in 1999 when it came out. Falun Gong later propagadized that he was a "marxist-atheist", used to be a communist propagandist, and then labeled him as such on Wikipedia. He Zuoxiu's essay is still available online in its original text. It mostly criticized Qigong and zoomed in on Falun Gong. The man was a pseudoscience critic, not a Falun Gong critic per se. Colipon+(Talk) 17:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I would also call attention to the text Digging Out the Roots from 1998 where Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Gong, talks about the critical media attention received by Falun Gong and how to handle it. It's jargon, but its existence can hardly be contested. / PerEdman 17:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Although I think we are going sidetrack with the discussion, it's arguably not that simple, see Digging Out the Roots and http://adecadeofcourage.com/ which I think contextualizes very well the weight and the intention of the PRC Mass Media before 1999. That is even if the persecution officially began in 20 July 1999, it's simplistic to think that the preparation for it started then. The documentary, which is substanciated with some evidence, like banning the Falun Gong books, suggest that the preparation started as early as 1996. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
WP has its own language and conventions, and that alone is enough of a reason to stick to 'Criticism'. What is more, WP is not censored, and does not do euphemisms. I have suggested 'Critique', but that seems unconventional; I guess 'Critical evaluation' or similar terms would be too. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
True WP has also its own policies, and this is what we are discussing now. Just because what is fair can not be discussed under these policies. But the good point is that nobody can censor anything and that the euphemisms you bring up it's just a word, because so far I don't see it substanciated with facts. For it to be substanciated with facts there first would need to be an article called reception and then point out why reception does not really reflect the content of that article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's unclear how "reception" is a euphemism here. What is being pointed out is that "criticism" means negative commentary; and in all the articles that follow this apparent convention--which does not even have a wikipedia essay on it--the article is about just that: negative commentary. The issue here is that if you are arguing that "Criticism of Falun Gong" is to follow the convention of "Criticism of Islam" etc., then you presumably mean that it is to be an article principally about negative commentary on Falun Gong. If not, then it's not an article in line with that apparent convention anyway. There are other article titles which do not include criticism in the title, thus not implying that the article will be about negative commentary on the subject, like: Reception of Falun Gong, Commentary on Falun Gong, Representations of Falun Gong, or something else. Unlike other topics, there is no history of "Criticism of Falun Gong" (as in, negative commentary on the subject), probably because it has such a short history; such an article would attempt to fit into the convention for which there is a history of content, but be unable to. There are neutral article naming possibilities which would indicate to the reader what the article is about, and what it isn't. Mainly, I am interested in thoughts on the observation about the other articles cited going along "Criticism of..." -- did you guys look at them? Do you realise they are principally documenting negative commentary on those subjects (referring to, for example, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity)?--Asdfg12345 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I must ask, so?Simonm223 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And I am interested in seeing what sort of "positive" material would be included in the article. I think it would probably be reasonable, and possibly in accord with WP:BURDEN, to at least give an indication of what material one would see in the one article which would be seen as dubious for inclusion in the criticism article. I am myself interested in seeing an answer to that point, which I had earlier raised above and still not received any response to. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that Falun Gong practices have merits as well as any qigong or meditative activity. Improved resting pulse, controlled breathing, better general wellbeing but results mainly in-line with placebo. I would like to see both opinion pieces and research, if any, on this. / PerEdman 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I never said otherwise. But biological data would probably not qualify under "reception" as it has little if anything to do with "reception" of the movement by other people, but rather analysis of biological phenomena. And I think most of that material would also probably be more relevant for an article on either qigong and its medical benefits (unless there is clear and specific material indicating that Falun Gong has benefits which general qigong does not) or some other article. But I have no reason to believe that there is any reason to believe such material would qualify for inclusion in the proposed article. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we'll find much biological data on medical benefits, but all the more acclaim for its existence. / PerEdman 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi John, is this the content you where looking for? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure specifically which material you are referring to. I see some basically "neutral" material, and material which contradicts other negative proposals, but I don't immediately see anything which would appear to be "commendation". While saying "they're not an evil cult" isn't negative, it's more or less a response to a negative criticism, and thus kind of dependent on it. The argument as I have understood it is about whether what might be called positive comments about Falun Gong have been made which might not belong in a "criticism" article, but criticism of criticism isn't quite the same thing. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you are looking specifically for material that does not fit in Criticism and fits in Reception, right? If that is the case here is one short concrete example: "Livia Kohn, Professor of Religion and East Asian Studies at Boston University and a scholar in Daoism, claims Falun Gong has "a high success rate in creating friendlier people, more harmonious social environments, and greater health and vitality."[1] Benjamin Penny considers many aspects of Falun Gong "deeply traditional", at the same time, the system, "completely modern."[2] According to him, "The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2,500 years." [2]" --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Basically, I got the impression that "reception" was to be used because of material which some would argue wasn't "critical" enough to be included in "criticism", yeah. The impression I got was that positive commendation of Falun Gong was what would be, as it were the turning point. Of the two citations you produce, Penny's seems to be, basically, neutral, as neither "deeply traditional" nor "completely modern" are necessarily commendations, but rather just observations.
The quote from Kohn is more useful. The one comment I have regarding it whether the same statements might relate to other Qigong practices. If the commendation is more or less a "generic" one for Qigong, even if only Falun Gong is named, I'm not real sure that's a real commendation of Falun Gong. There's also the question about whether "reception" should cover what seem to be medical/psychological effects. Like I said before, I know that several people have indicated prayer in general is a good thing, as per efficacy of prayer, but don't know that such is mentioned in any articles on specific religions which engage in prayer as a positive for that religion. I do think a medical benefits of Qigong article or some similar content would be a very good idea if it can be sourced, and I have no doubt it can, but am not as sure that it would have much place in an article of this type.
I realize the above might sound needless contentious and nitpicking to some, and apologize for that. I hope it is just realized I'm trying to look for something which really, as it were, cries out that "criticism" would be a bad title to be used on the content which would be contained in this article. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think any neutral reception, which I think you observed that there are quite a few, would not fit well in an article named "criticism". What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the concept of "neutral reception" builds on a logical concept with no counterpart in reality. Events, objects and people who do not provoke any positive or negative reactions, do not cause criticism. There are no banners waved for mediocrity, no flags burned and no heroes hoisted in a "neutral" reaction. / PerEdman 10:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


Asdfg, are all 72 "Criticism of"-articles entirely negative of the concept they describe? I find that difficult to believe. Again: This is a discussion about the name of the page, not the content. Furthermore, what you "point out" is rather a claim than a pointing out. / PerEdman 22:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, a second comment. You cannot possibly be serious in claiming that "Unlike other topics, there is no history of "Criticism of Falun Gong" (as in, negative commentary on the subject)". There is plenty of such criticism, too, much of it already sourced on the wikipedia page. What edits have you been reverting as slander, POV and propaganda, if there is no negative commentary on Falun Gong? I'm sorry, this comment completely baffles me when I thought I had grown unbaffleable. / PerEdman 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no history if by history people usually mean at least 100 years. There is criticism, mostly from the PRC due to the persecution, and there is praise, as I pointed out above. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
If that was what people meant by history, then yes, but I feel you may be trying to sidetrack the discussion here. I would say all things have history, including Falun Gong, even though it only goes back to 1992. Hm. Are you now saying Falun Gong isn't related to ancient chinese traditions going back than more than 100 years? / PerEdman 17:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come on, who is trying to sidetrack the discussion? Before 1992 it is said that it was kept secret, so if nobody knew about it do you think there will be any critics that you can cite? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What was "kept secret" before 1992? I'm talking about the period 1992 to 1999, before the persecution, where you claim the criticism stems from the PRC persecution, which can hardly be correct if the criticism predates the persecution. I naturally do not mean to say that the criticism of the movement could predate the movement, but I would accept that criticism of qigong could certainly predate Falun Gong. Please do not misunderstand. / PerEdman 10:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I did not mean to misunderstand your words. Regarding the criticism between 1992 and 1999, that would still include some criticism generated because the persecution was being prepared as I highlighted above [13] some facts and sources for it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait - are you in fact first saying that there was no criticism before 1999 and that all criticism comes from the persecution of Falun Gong by the CCP, and then when I point out that there was, you revise your statement to mean that the criticism that was before 1999 was ALSO criticism caused by the persecution that hasn't started yet? I'm sorry, but during the time 1992 to 1999, the CCP and Chinese government were *promoting* Falun Gong, and you're saying that at the same time, they were orchestrating criticism as a prelude to a persecution 7 years in the coming? I'm sorry, I really wish you hadn't said that, but that really makes no sense at all, has no sources to support it and could very easily be interpreted as construction of new reasons to keep believing in a precluded conclusion. Is there any basis at all to this speculation? Any sources? Anything at all? Please share.
(I've already read Li Hongzhi's statements in "Digging out the Roots"; I even linked it for you. It cannot possibly be seen as a reliable, notable third-party view - it's Li Hongzhi! The "Academic views" page seems to contradict it, too.) / PerEdman 19:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion?

Editors Asdfg12345, HappyInGeneral have argued against the change. Editors John Carter, PerEdman, Colipon, Simonm223 and Ohconfucius have argued for the change. Editor Seb az86556 attempted to list the arguments for and against, which spawned a metadiscussion. No outside editors have engaged in the discussion. At this point the discussion seems to have stalled.

In my opinion, the discussion needs to be taken back to the project talk pages until there is something concrete and concise for other editors to comment on. / PerEdman 10:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We need outside opinions, there is no other meaningful way of dealing with these disputes. Let's take it to another forum until a bunch of uninvolved editors weigh in and argue among themselves and come to a conclusion. I think our continued argumentation only highlights our differences, whereas I think we should be quickly referring disputes that start to look tricky to other forums, and work together where we can collaborate. We should try to emphasise where we can collaborate, and not go around in circles on what we simply do not agree on. Better to 'outsource' the dispute sooner, before the chain gets jammed in the crank, if I could put it that way. PS: I'm not sure where else to put this, but my problem with Seb az86556's apparent attempt to list the arguments for and against was, with the use of ticks and crosses, an attempt to guide the discussion process, and promote one set of arguments over another. I really do not want to get into the to-and-fro, so I'll just say that, but I must point out why I objected to that, and I had not done so clearly earlier. One idea: we move to another forum. I can only edit wikipedia once every 24hrs at the moment. Unless someone does so before me, I will list for an RfC on the talk page and see what attention that receives.

Or, another proposal for wrapping this up for now is to actually drop this whole thing for now, build the article, and then see how it goes later on. We may find we have more in common after working together for a few months. just an idea. I'm happy to go for it if others are. What I mean is to just leave the title as it is, build the article, then figure out the title. Can we get some feedback on this? If this is not agreed on, we can take it to another forum.--Asdfg12345 05:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since a voice of reason has entered the discussion in supporting a neutrally titled article, let me retract the suggestion that we simply leave it as it is. The article should just be given a neutral title. I can't see it any other way.--Asdfg12345 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How can we know what we "can collaborate" and what we cannot, if we do not discuss? How can we avoid that which we disagree on? I urge you to re-read the WP articles on consensus, and "what is consensus" to see that we do not need to all agree to reach it. We don't need to be deadlocked by a few people continuing to disagree. I don't believe "drop this whole thing for now" is a solution, just procrastination.
What voice of reason would that be? / PerEdman 10:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:What is consensus? and a few related policies as well, thank you for pointing it out. I think that Manus did summed it up well here. In the same spirit I think that the idea of Wikipedia:Consensus is correctly relayed by Asdfg above, saying that it's better to move on, and when there is some more substance to the article then it's the best to decide if it falls into Reception or Criticism, otherwise it's just an issue of perception of personal preference. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Good that you have read the. But to "move on" because a scarce few refuse to accept consensus is to give those scarce few the veto to procrastinate any change indefinitely. That can cause incessant deadlocks as all anyone would have to do to keep an edit out of the article would be to disagree, repeatedly, and say "let's move on by not changing anything". That's not a viable alternative, as I'm sure you can see.
I do not believe, as you do, that this is merely a question of "perception of personal preference". Some relevant and valid points have been made: Relevant to wikipedia's current state, guidelines and policy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for personal opinions. / PerEdman 19:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

General comment on "Criticism of ..." entries

Moved my comment to a more appropriate place, but it does relate the above discussion as well. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Is_.22Criticism_of....22_malfeasant.3F.

Dave Warwak

The original version of this article looked as if it had been copied from somewhere else, including footnote numbers in brackets, but I couldn't find the original source. It has since been rewritten enough that I supposed it's no longer a copyright violation, but its pro-Dave Warwak tone is rather nauseating. I've put a POV tag on the article I think three times, now, and the author keeps removing it. This reads as if it was written by Warwak himself, including mentions of his trying to teach the kids "kindness" and a discussion of his trying to show them "the plight of the animals". This thing needs to be toned way down, or else deleted. I do agree that he's probably notable, but none of the claims is cited to a specific source, and all of the references at the bottom of the page don't link to any lines in the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like more of a vanity article than anything else. The story read neutral enough (as if anyone cares about some middle school teacher making object-lessons out of his art assignments), but its notability is questionable. You might consider deletion. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Eco-terrorism claims against Sea Shepherd

An IP is duplicating information that is already in the article Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (in a relatively NPOV form). The IP is putting the duplicate information into a new second section, entitled "Eco-terrorism". I have already reverted twice, in part because of BLP concerns. I was going to take this to AIV, but now the IP is showing some limited signs of intelligent reaction to what I am writing. But not enough, so additional eyes are needed. Hans Adler 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP is also persistently adding inappropriate POV information about Sea Shepherd to the Ecoterrorism article. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been involved in the sea shepherd conservation society page for a little while now. I have been doing my best to adhere to WP:EXTREMIST and others have noted that I have done so with success. Furthermore, I feel like the two above editors had been consistantly POV pushing and personal attacking in the discussion. The personal attacks have died down now and I've addressed the issues on both of thier talk pages. They have also relented from deleting the well cited information of the notable experts and have begun to work towards consensus. Still, recent comments by Geronimo in talk worry me that it might soon start up again. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I certainly didn't say that you were successfully trying to adhere to WP:EXTREMIST. The eco-terrorism accusations against Sea Shepherd were already in the article (one of them even twice). You insisted on putting them in again, so that one was covered twice and the other three times. You insisted to do this in a short section you created for the purpose, whose title Eco-terrorism jumped out of the page with an unattributed accusation. (You can't attribute such an accusation in a title, so using the word in the title at all is the problem.) You only calmed down after I removed the mission statement along with your problematic section. And you are quite liberal with inappropriate templates to user talk pages. I am not impressed with your conduct. Hans Adler 00:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

University Canada West

An editor with the IP address 99.225.138.205 has continually edited in unsubstantiated and biased content meant to damage the reputation of the school. I know the people who run the school, so I suppose I have a conflict of interest, but I'd like to request arbitration in this regard. Ingoman (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This you should take to the admin's noticeboard, not here. It may be best to block that IP altogether. Colipon+(Talk) 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Wikipedic Article Josip Broz Tito

Wikipedia states all articles and other encyclopaedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. The above mentioned article is not. Important factual information is missing thus making it biased and lacking in objectivity. This then results in an overall inbalance. Here are four examples of 20th century European Balkan history that are missing (which all can be referenced): 1. Cult of Personality (of the dictator Josip Broz Tito) 2. Bleiburg massacre (Operation Keelhaul) 3. Foibe massacres 4. Josip Broz Tito’s failure in addressing the ethnic tensions and economic crisis of Yugoslavia (section Ethnic tensions and the economic crisis of Yugoslavia)

Also there are other facts missing as mentioned on the talk page by other previous writers such as; UDBA’s full role in the former Yugoslavia, which he established (a notorious secret police), and his immensely luxurious life style as a dictator.

My attempt to start improving the article’s inbalance on the talk page (Talk:Josip Broz Tito) was eventually met with abuse and then deletion. If I have crossed any of Wikipedia’s protocol etiquette I apologise (I am new at this). I just wish to express my concerns to Wikipedia and also to try to improve the Wiki articles if I can. If Neutral point of view/Noticeboard finds that the article is fine I shall then accept it gracefully also I would like to thank Simon Dodd for undoing what was done on the talk page. Thank you for your attention dear reader.Sir Floyd (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor attempted to insert his POv into the article in opposition to other Users and without a single source to support his claims. He is, in my honest opinion, not objective and is here on an agenda trying to "stir-up trouble" against me personally (see user edit history). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear reader I would like to correct DIREKTOR’s statement from the above (11:25, 16 August 2009). I never attempted to inserted any POV into Josip Broz Article, in opposition to other Users and without a single source to support my claims. Those events never happened (see user edit history).Sir Floyd (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
References are provided within the Wiki Articles themselves (they can be viewed via the internal link) but they are too numerous & would be impractical to list here. Josip Broz is mentioned in Wikipedia's Cult of Personality article & was the Commander of all Partisans and Communists during WWII. He then later became Yugoslavia's political leader and was the main decision maker in military & political matters. There are BBC articles as well as TV documentaries that were aired on BBC 4 in which people testified to the truth of these historical events. Sir Floyd (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to take part in this discussion otherwise, but I'd like to point out that Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources (but they can help you in finding proper sources). Kotiwalo (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to further focus my attention on the issues concerning the Josip Broz Article. I am taking a more specific approach to the economic realities of former Yugoslavia (this being one of the many reasons why the article needs improving). All political leaders and their party faithful, be it a one party system that was in Yugoslavia or a Western Democracy have to make economic political decisions. From the late 1960’s to the 1970’s economic decisions that were made by Josip Broz and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia put the country in a disastrous political situation. Signs of this happening already started in 1978/79 and subsequently became worse in the 1980’s.

“After Tito's death the Yugoslav economy faced catastrophe. Immediately following that event, the federal government realised that it could not repay almost US$20 billion of external debt. Difficult negotiations with international banking institutions continued for years. They were prolonged for political reasons.”

The above is referenced information from Ivo Goldstein’s book, 'Croatia A History', a Mc Gill Queen’s University Press Publication. Ivo Goldstein is a Professor at the University of Zagreb & a former Director of the Institute for Croatian History of the University of Zagreb.
The economic political decisions from the late 1960’s to the 1970’s that were made laid down one of the foundations that contributed to the tragic break up of Yugoslavia. A well-balanced written encyclopaedic article would have this information in one of its many paragraphs.Sir Floyd (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The issue of Cult of Personality:

“Virtually every communist system extinct or surviving at one point or anther, had a supreme leader who was both extraordinarily powerful and surrounded by a bizarre cult, indeed worship. In the past (or in a more traditional contemporary societies) such as cults were reserved for deities and associated with conventional religious behaviour and institutions. These cults although apparently an intrinsic part of communist dictatorships (at any rate at a stage in their evolution) are largely forgotten today.”

“ Stalin, Maio, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Sung, Enver Hoxha, Ceascesu, Dimitrov, Ulbricht, Gottwald, Tito and others all were the object of such cults. The prototypical cult was that of Stalin which was duplicated elsewhere with minor variations”

The above referenced information is from ‘Discontents: Postmodern and Postcommunist’ by Paul Hollander. Paul Hollander is an American scholar, journalist, and conservative political writer. (Ph.D in Sociology. Princeton University, 1963, B.A. London School of Economics, 1959 Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Center Associate, Davis Center) Sir Floyd (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Referenced information from R. J. Rummel’s ‘Death by Government’. Rudolph Joseph Rummel is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii.

"Frank Waddams, a British representative who had lived outside of Belgrade, said he knew first hand of ten “concentration camps” and had talked with inmates from nearly all of them. “ The tale is always the same, he said “ Starvation, overcrowding, brutality and death condition, which make Dachau and Buchenwald mild by comparison. Many Slovenes who were released from Dachau at the end of the war came home only to find themselves in a Slovene camp within a few days. It is from these people that the news has come that the camps are worse than Dachau.” Out of a Slovene population of 1,200,000, Waddams believes that 20,000 to 30,000 were imprisoned."

The above clearly shows the inner workings of Josip Broz Tito and his government post WW2. The Wikipedic article does not mention such things. If it had done so it would show a more balanced and modern view of history. Sir Floyd (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The bold is to highlight what is missing in the Wikipedia’s Encyclopedic Article. It’s not to make the individual Josip look good or bad.

“The irony of Tito’s remarkable life is that he created the conditions for the eventual destruction of his lifelong effort. Instead of allowing the process of democratisation to establish its own limits, he constantly upset the work of reformers while failing to satisfy their adversaries. He created a federal state, yet he constantly fretted over the pitfalls of decentralization. He knew that the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and others could not be integrated within some new supranational, nor would they willingly accept the hegemony of any of their number; yet his supranational Yugoslavism frequently smacked of unitarism. He promoted self-management but never gave up on the party’s monopoly of power.

He permitted broad freedoms in science, art, and culture that were unheard of in the Soviet bloc, but he kept excoriating the West. He preached peaceful coexistence but built an army that, in 1991, delivered the coup de grâce to the dying Yugoslav state. At his death, the state treasury was empty and political opportunists unchecked. He died too late for constructive change, too early to prevent chaos.”

Referenced from www.britannica.com Sir Floyd (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar

(Changed the wording; previous version -even longer, more complicated & boring- here)

There is a (very heated and very long) discussion in the Gibraltar article regarding the first sentence of the lead.

All editors agree that Gibraltar is not 100% self-governing. The Government of Gibraltar has said that it does not control external affairs, defence and internal security. The UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office adds public service to that list.

The current version reads: "Gibraltar is a self-governing[14] British overseas territory" (it explains details of governing status in the Politics section and wikilinks). Supporters argue that, in the context of British Overseas Territories, the expression "self-governing" will be understood as not really 100% self governing and, anyway, details are below in the same article and in wikilinks.

I (and other editor) think that this is ambiguous, as self-governing can be misinterpreted to 100% self-governing, sovereign, etc...[15][16]. I also think that this ambiguity benefits the Gibraltarian POV, that claims that Gibraltar should be delisted from the UN "Non Self-Governing Territories List." I also think that -if you look at it- the current citation is not valid for saying that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory" but that "once in 2001 a UN officer called Ambassador Donigi proposed a text for a referendum that mentioned the current status of Gibraltar as self-governing." Furthermore, the current lead does not include the UN POV. (The limits to Gibraltar self-government and the UN list are mentioned in the Politics section and in wikilinks, but I think that this does not make the lead NPOV if it includes the governing status but not al POVs about it).

I propose an alternative sentence: "Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. It has self-government in all areas except external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" [17] (the citation is of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth country profile of Gibraltar). And add "Gibraltar is on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories since it was nominated by the UK in 1947, though politicians both from the British Foreign Office[3] and Gibraltar wish to see it removed citing that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised.[4]" in order to include the UN POV (and its criticism by others).

What do you think? Thanks!! --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Only other contested overseas territory I can think of are the Falkland Islands. That article saus self-governing OT. Maybe that could be a guide. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! It just seems that many people that support the current version in Gibraltar also usually edit the Falklands article. So unfortunately it probably is not an independent example... --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The UN list was drawn up as part of the process of de-colonization following the Second World War. Since the process is now complete the list is now merely a curiosity. The remaining "colonies" have chosen to retain their status. So I would omit it from the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting! I am not sure that the UN list is a curiosity. Take a look at Ban Ki Moon's statement here (one of those 16 territories that the Secretary-General mentions is Gibraltar). Also, 2001-2010 has been declared by the UN the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism[18]. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Its only a 'long argument' because of one editor's flawed POV and despite trying to educate him he does not want to hear.
  • Britain does not have any colonies.
  • The elected Government of Gibraltar control internal security.
  • The elected Government of Gibraltar control the civil service etc.
  • If Spain abandoned its silly 305 year old claim which is going nowhere, life would be a lot easier for everyone.
--Gibnews (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your opinions with us. Please keep them off of Wikipedia. We don't decide whether Gibraltar should belong to Britain or to Spain, and it's not for us to tell Spain what to do. You should read Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. One sentence perfectly describes your most recent comment here: "You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral." 94.212.31.237 (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read wp:civil and also note that the difference between facts and opinions is that the former can be established. --Gibnews (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
How is what I wrote incivil? Inconvenient for you perhaps, but incivil? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Your contribution seems to be designed to cause offence. My last item is a POV, however the others are facts for which there is ample evidence. This may directly clash with Imalbornoz's beliefs. I have already explained the difference between facts and opinions. --Gibnews (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would note that:

  • "Self-governing" is accepted by sources.
  • The lead need not describe the situation in detail if such description is available later in the article - as in this case.
  • Limits on the extent of self-governance are common to many jurisdictions in the world that would generally be considered "self-governing", including sovereign states. The phrase is commonly used in reference to Gibraltar by sources (quoted on Talk:Gibraltar). We have an article dealing with the concept of a Self-governing colony, which cites Gibraltar as an example (though noting that the UK no longer calls its overseas territories "colonies").
  • There is benefit in distinguishing a British Overseas Territory from the overseas territories of other states, many of which are treated as integral parts of the sovereign states concerned.
  • There is benefit in distinguishing a British Overseas Territory that is self-governing (such as Gibraltar) from a British Overseas Territory that is not self-governing (such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands). Pfainuk talk 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Myself, Gibnews and Pfainuk are part of the discussion in the Gibraltar article (the last two are also contributors to the Falklands article). I will welcome if they say where my introduction to this section is wrong or non NPOV. Otherwise, I would thank other uninterested opinions. Thanks!!--Imalbornoz (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I already have done so. Since the 2006 constitution the GoG has assumed those things you to which you refer. apart from Defence and Foreign affairs, however the only significant foreign affair item is the territorial claim in which the UK states its policy is constrained by tbe wishes of the people of Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with them that there is a benefit in distinguishing Gibraltar from other less autonomous territories -but it is both in theirs and my own proposed texts! --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There is very little need to go into gory detail about the exact mechanics of Gibraltar self-government in the lead. You wouldn't start an article about Spain by describing the precise mechanics of the Cortes Generales, nor by describing the precise mechanics of Spain's relationship with the EU. Nor would you start the article about Wales by listing the limits of its devolved government. Nor would you start an article about Indiana by detailing the relationship between a US state and the federal government. There is no reason why Gibraltar should be different. Pfainuk talk 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Imalvornoz seems to be flogging a dead horse. There is no consensus to remove "self-governing" and no arguments have been posited that refute the abovementioned points by Pfainuk (which have already been made on a number of occasions). Whether or not certain users also contribute to the Falkland Islands page—which as it happens, I don't—is neither here nor there. RedCoat10 • talk 17:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Pfainuk says that we shouldn't go into gory detail. I say that the current first sentence ("Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory") is ambiguous and its ambiguity favors one POV. Please, Pfainuk and anybody else, can you help set the limit for gory detail so that we can look for an intermediate consensus solution: 20 words, 10 words, 5 words? Thanks!! --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
So you've now moved on to claim that it's ambiguous (scraping the bottle of the barrel?). Why exactly is it ambiguous? Please don't say "self-government could mean 100% self-government" because we've already explained why this is not the case (in this context). I can only imagine that your confusion is the result of language barriers. Perhaps you may prefer to contribute to the Simple Wikipedia where they use "Basic English and Special English". Hope that helps, RedCoat10 • talk 10:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
RedCoat10, two things: 1) I have said that it’s ambiguous or misleading here, here, here , here, here, and here. You obviously know it because you have been following the discussion all along. Is this some kind of tactic trying to spam this noticeboard so that this issue isn’t properly discussed? And 2) “self-governing” means what it means (look at my links above). This context is very familiar to you (as you are very active in editing articles related to Gibraltar), but probably not to many other people, whether or not they are proficient in English language. For those people, the current expression can be -at best- ambiguous and -at worst- it can be totally misleading. That’s why I opened this question in this noticeboard. Thanks for remembering this comment in the future. --Imalbornoz (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
To answer Pfainuk point by point:
  • "Self-governing" is accepted by sources. What sources? (the current one is a bit weak for such a statement). Also, see below.
  • The lead need not describe the situation in detail if such description is available later in the article - as in this case. Then, if you explain it later in the article, why not leave the "self-governing" term with all the detail in the Politics section where it has been for 7 years until it was put in the lead without any detail last April?
  • Limits on the extent of self-governance are common to many jurisdictions in the world that would generally be considered "self-governing", including sovereign states. The phrase is commonly used in reference to Gibraltar by sources (quoted on Talk:Gibraltar). We have an article dealing with the concept of a Self-governing colony, which cites Gibraltar as an example (though noting that the UK no longer calls its overseas territories "colonies"). Again, what sources? BTW, the self-governing colony article has a warning for not citing sources. And the last edit there has been done by... Gibnews!!!
  • There is benefit in distinguishing a British Overseas Territory from the overseas territories of other states, many of which are treated as integral parts of the sovereign states concerned. I agree, that's why my alternative text also pursues that benefit.
  • There is benefit in distinguishing a British Overseas Territory that is self-governing (such as Gibraltar) from a British Overseas Territory that is not self-governing (such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands).I agree, that's why my alternative text also pursues that benefit. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Pfainuk, I have to say that the expression "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory" is not accepted by any of the following sources (except the current citation). Please notice that the UN explicitly says "is a non self-governing territory" and the other sources either leave it at “British Overseas Territory” or qualify the “self-governing” expression with “except in …” (please also notice the nature of the current source):

Source Term used in introduction Details in Politics / Gvt. section
UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) “British Overseas Territory”[19] “Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government.” Also, “The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [20]
BBC “British overseas territory”[21] “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy”[22]
Encyclopedia Britannica “British colony, Europe” and “British overseas territory” [23] “is self-governing in all matters but defense”[24]
Merriam Webster “a British colony” [25] n.a.
Encarta “British dependency” [26] No explicit reference to self-government
British Library “self governing British overseas territory in all matters but defence and foreign policy” [27] n.a.
UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) “almost complete internal self-government” [28] (pg. 16) "The constitution defines the responsibilities of the Governor as relating to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" [29] (pg. 146)
United Nations “Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” [30] (pg. 3) “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.3” [31] (pg. 3)
UN Ambassador Donigi, in Peter Gold book "Gibraltar: British or Spanish?"

(current citation)

 n.a. "(Peter Caruana, Gib. Chief Minister) referred to a paper written by the Chairman, Ambassador Donigi, in which he had proposed that a referendum should be held in Gibraltar on the question: “Should Gibraltar remain a self-governing territory of the United Kingdom?”." [32] (pg. 259)

(Gibraltar is not self-governing in the areas where the Governor holds responsibilities: he reports to the the UK Secretary of State who heads the UK FCO, which is monitored by the House of Commons FAC -a tripartisan Parliamentary Committee; Gibraltar is self-governing in all the other areas).

Funny, the current first sentence of the Gibraltar article in Wikipedia looks like it’s been fine tuned to literally contradict the UN’s statement (a long standing Gibraltarian demand). Are we sure that adding 5 or 10 words to qualify that sentence in the lead would be gory detail? (that way we would avoid Wikipedia being the only relevant internet source supporting the POV of one of the parties in this international controversy in the lead of its article). --Imalbornoz (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As the discussion here is about NPOV rather than the specifics, I think you have clearly demonstrated your POV is far from neutral. Most of your references are to the situation prior to the 2006 constitution, for instance you cite 'the council of ministers' - this has not met for 30 years and today does not exist on paper. It may be mentioned in out-of-date publications but surely we want Wikipedia to be accurate? Otherwise the article on Spain might refer to it being a fascist dictatorship, which is no longer its form of government. But there are plenty of outdated references that say that.
I think your interest in denying self-government borders on the obsessive, and you fail to see the wood for the trees. The introduction needs to be concise and accurate. It is. --Gibnews (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter my POV (or yours, which is also clear). What matters is that all POVs are present in WP, and that verifiable sources are used. On that account, before you go on, please read your own Constitution from 2006: "article 45.-(1) There shall be for Gibraltar a Council of Ministers, which shall consist of a Chief Minister and such number of other Ministers (not being less than four) as may, subject to subsection (2), be prescribed by the Chief Minister; and such Council of Ministers, together with Her Majesty who is represented in Gibraltar by the Governor, shall constitute the Government of Gibraltar. [33]" The next time I would be more cautious before criticising UN documents (BTW, the link I posted above is from 2008 -which is post 2006 Constitution-, but here you have the 2009 version). --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I admit that Gibraltar is self-governing, in some areas (I think everybody agrees about that). My point is that it is not NPOV to build a first sentence in an Wikipedia article that looks like a manifesto from a Gibraltarian anti-UN activist (please look at other sources, I don't want Wikipedia to be the only relevant internet source to support only one side of this issue in the lead). And the fact that you want to veto a proposal to add 5 or 10 more words in the lead to make it less POV oriented and more accurate with the excuse that it would be "gory detail" does not help your credibility (as does talking about your government with complete apparent ignorance of what your Constitution says). --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether User:Imalbornoz has seen the Main Page - particularly the "In the News" section: "The British government suspends the self-governance of the Turks and Caicos Islands for up to two years." If you want to discuss the technicalities, please return to Talk:Gibraltar. This is not the place, thanks. RedCoat10 • talk 10:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)Imalbornoz, the Canadian Constitution (the Constitution Act 1867) states:

9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
10. The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated.
11. There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council for Canada; and the Persons who are to be Members of that Council shall be from Time to Time chosen and summoned by the Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and Members thereof may be from Time to Time removed by the Governor General.

This is the same as the Gibraltar constitution, and Canada is considered to be self-governing.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's very interesting. My impression is that the gradual evolution of Canada from a non self-governing colony to a self-governing nation[34] is something very different to Gibraltar (even though they share things in common in their constitutions), with very significant consequences in practical government. First, the Constitution Act of 1791 (as an answer to the American Revolution) whereby Canada had some self-government but the Executive responded to London; then the rebellions against the "de facto" aristocracy who controled the country through the "Family Compact" in 1837; then, in 1848 London agreed to give responsible government to Canada (although that is not written in any constitution) years before the 1867 Act. No Constitution Act (in 1867 or in 1982) included many "unwritten principles" developed by practice or some British and Canadian statutes, but all of them are considered "with constitutional effect" by the Supreme Court[35].
I am sure that, according to those "unwritten principles", the UK government considered Canada something similar to a "colony" in 1791 (despite the Constitution Act) and that it did not have any doubt that it was a "self-governing nation" long before 1919 (when it joined the League of Nations).
Regarding Gibraltar, the Constitution gives many responsibilities to the Governor, many of which probably are -as in the case of Canada- merely "institutional" (e.g. appointing the Chief Minister). So, what are the practical sourced and verifiable facts (that can give an idea of which the "unwritten principles" are in the case of Gibraltar)?
  • The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee says that Gibraltar has “almost complete internal self-government” [36] (pg. 16)
  • The UK government explains with special emphasis the responsibilities of the Governor in certain areas: "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [37] (it does not give the same emphasis to other "institutional" responsibilites).
  • The Chief Minister of Gibraltar admits that his government is not responsible for foreign affairs, defence and internal security [38] (page 4).
  • In 2007 it was the Governor who suspended the Chief of Justice –after complaints from law firms-, while the Chief Minister of the GoG emphasised “the GoG’s complete distance from the process”[39] pg. 80
  • The UN keeps Gibraltar in a list of 16 "Non Self-Governing Territories", and it reviews that list every year. Last year Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon said that solving the non self-governing situation of those territories was one of the strategic goals of the UN[40].
Given those facts, I would say that:
1) It is clear that Gibraltar is not 100% self-governing (surely not in important areas such as internal security and public service, on top of the areas typically not controlled by associated states such as foreign affairs and defence).
2) The UN POV -which I am sure that it is notable enough for Wikipedia- is that it is a non self-governing territory.
Do you think that those two points deserve some room in the lead of the article? (take a look at other facts notable enough to be in the lead, such as the longevity record of Gibraltar's population).
--Imalbornoz (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No. And we have already said why not. When used in this context, and in common English usage, the term "self-governing" does not extend to defence etc., as evidenced by the term "self-governing colony". But if that's not good enough for you, the fact that the Intellectual Property Office for the United Kingdom describes Anguilla as a "self-governing BOT" means that the British Government endorse it. The Andorra analogy is a further example. The principle remains the same; the only difference is that we're using 'British Overseas Territory' instead of 'colony' in light of Gibraltar's official legal status. Secondly, the article already refers to the Special Committee on Decolonization list and mentions that Gibraltar is on the list (in the politics section). It is also misleading to represent the C24 list as the official position of the UN, it is not. The only reason Gibraltar was ever included, was because it was listed by the UK. RedCoat10 • talk 09:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
RedCoat, I really appreciate your effort in answering every time I ask someone else, but I think that the discussion would be much clearer otherwise (as you said, I already know your answer since long ago). Regarding new data, OK, so some patent department of the UK Government describes Anguilla as "self-governing BOT". Does the Intellectual Property Office define the international position of the UK government? What does the competent institution -the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office- say about Anguilla? Most importantly: What does it say about Gibraltar (see above)?
Regarding the UN's position: I hate to repeat myself, but I have to every time that you bring to the discussion some false information. You have seen my previous links to Ban Ki Moon's statement on decolonization[41] and to the WP article[42] about the 16 non self-governing territories? I think I still haven't linked to the General Assembly's list[43]. How official is that? Do you have any source to say that Ban Ki Moon's official position is different to the UN's in this matter? If you don't, you will have to admit that the UN's official position on Gibraltar is that it is a Non Self-Governing Territory (it's true that it was listed by the UK, but it is also true that 93 territories have been delisted when they were considered self-governing by the UN -the last one in 1994-, and Gibraltar has not). As controversial as it may be, it is the current UN's official position. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You can't dismiss a citation simply because you don't like it. You claimed, erroneously, that "self-governing British Overseas Territory" is not official and not endorsed by the British Government. The aforementioned citation refutes that claim. If it were not endorsed by the British Government it would not figure on the website of the Intellectual Property Office for the United Kingdom. Secondly, you should read the Wikipaedia article on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The list is considered controvertial and politically biased due to the inclusion and exclusion of certain states (Tibet for example). Again, the list is not the UN's official position - the United Nations General Assembly created the De-colonisation committee to oversee the process of decolonisation, not to take sides. Ban Ki Moon's statement reflects that fact. At the end of the day, the UN has no power on the matter. The lead is not the place to expatiate on these issues, which already appear in the 'Politics' section. RedCoat10 • talk 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
RedCoat10, did you actually look up Gibraltar's profile in the Intellectual Property Office for the United Kingdom? Was it anything like self-governing BOT or plain BOT? No... Surprisingly, it is... "Independent member within the Commonwealth"!!!!![44] (same as, say, say... Grenada!!) So much for the reliability and accuracy of the Intellectual Property Office for stating the self-governing status... (It's allright, this is not their responsibility, I am sure that they are totally competent in matters of patents and so on). --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, in theory, Gibraltar is an "Independent member within the Commonwealth". Gibraltar is not part of the UK and a member of the Commonwealth. Voilà, an independent member of within the Commonwealth. So it's not hard to see what it could mean. In any case, the "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", see Wikipedia:V. The link to the UK Intellectual Property Office was intended to refute your assertion that the label "self-governing BOT" was neither official nor endorsed by the UK Government, not to cite Gibraltar's status. One again, could you please refrain from using excessive markup (such as multiple exclamation marks) as per WP:TPG. Thankyou, RedCoat10 • talk 17:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
RedCoat10, I just think that UK Intellectual Property Office does not comply with WP:RS in the area of international status of overseas territories (at least you will agree that there are some incoherences), that's all. Don't you think that the UK FCO or the FAC are better sources? --194.143.215.69 (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Where the comparison between Gibraltar and Canada is most valid is before the enactment of the Statute of Westminster 1931 which was enacted after Canada became admitted to the League of Nations. I attach an article from the New York Times 1920:

Public opinion in Canada is keenly aroused in respect to the objections at Washington to Canada's vote as a separate nation in the League of Nations....The question that Canadians are asking is why the United States should make so determined an effort to keep Canada in the status of a colony....The real causes, as Canada sees them, are twofold. One is the difficulty of understanding that States really independent can have a common sovereign....The second cause of opposition in the United States to the claim of Canada is undoubtedly the Irish vote....Do Irishmen in the United States wish to affront Irishmen in Canada...?[45] [The US had argued that Canada was not self-governing because it was not independent in defense and foreign policy, its governor-general was appointed by the King, and the ultimate court of appeal was the Privy Council.]

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting! So, at the time, it seems that EVEN the Canadian self-government was put in doubt by some people in the US, even though the US President, the UK PM and France PM accepted Canada as a member of the League of Nations? Surely, that declaration in 19 May 1919 by the three leaders put in paper what was already in "unwriten principles" (I didn't know that, but I would say that this supports my point). Surely, nobody would suggest that Gibraltar has presently the same degree of self-government as Canada in 1919?
Anyway, regarding the case of Gibraltar and the UN, it's a bit weird that nowadays some people want to veto any change to the first sentence in the WP Gibraltar article which almost literally contradicts the UN official position: "Gibraltar is a Non Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (UN) vs. "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory" (current WP version), isn't it? Isn't this sentence a bit partisan? (OK, you can find some details in the Politics section, but... 160 lines below!!!)
Can't we find a less partisan formula (inspired, e.g., in the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-08 Report -which is a very strong supporter of Gibraltar's position in a great deal of issues)? --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to reiterate this once again because you seem to be ignoring it: The list is considered controversial and politically biased due to the inclusion and exclusion of certain states (Tibet for example). Moreover, the list is not the UN's official position - the United Nations General Assembly created the De-colonisation committee to oversee the process of decolonisation, not to take sides. Ban Ki Moon's statement reflects that fact. At the end of the day, the UN has no power on the matter. However, we're not omitting the fact that Gibraltar is on the list; it's included in the more appropriate 'Politics' section. RedCoat10 • talk 17:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Imalbornoz, your objection was The Government of Gibraltar has said that it does not control external affairs, defence and internal security. I provided the example of Canada in 1919. At that time, Canadian foreign affairs were conducted by the UK and Britain's declaration of war meant that the entire British Empire was at war. It was not just "some people in the United States" who rejected Canada's independence but the U.S. Congress. (The President may not conclude treaties without Senate ratification and the US did not join the League of Nations.) Because Canada was considered a colony it was not allowed to join the fore-runner of Organization of American States. So there was a similarity. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OUT) RedCoat10, Gibraltar is a "Non Self-Governing Territory" according to the General Assembly (which is the one that sets the UN official position). You can see that Gibraltar is in this list in un.org "NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2002" (sorry for the markup, it's in capitals in the original). If you want to have a general idea about the decolonization process you can see these Q&As from un.org. For some more updated and detailed info, you can dive in some of the last GA resolutions from the 63rd session here, here, here. I agree that the list is controversial and the UN has many deffects. But the fact is that the list is the UN official position and Gibraltar is in it.

I think we should not miss the point here: "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory" (current WP article's first sentence) vs. "Gibraltar is a Non Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (UN). Can't we find a less partisan wording? --Imalbornoz (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that this was discussed at length here where it was agreed that the list should indeed be mentioned, but in the 'Politics' section, not in the intro. RedCoat10 • talk 21:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Except the UN Decolonization Committee has a rather strange definition of what is or is not a self-governing territory. It bases it upon the criteria that the territory is not:
  • A sovereign state
  • An integral part of a sovereign state
  • A state in free association with a sovereign state
The UN C24 criteria bears no relationship to whether a territory actually governs itself, which is most peoples definition of what constitutes self-government. Indeed Gibraltar is more democratic than many of the countries on the C24. And as noted on the Gibraltar talk page Imalbornoz has actually acknowledged that Gibraltar is self-governing but has now chosen to return to the extreme Spanish nationalist POV he espouses off-wiki [46]. He is also forum shopping on the mediation cabal [47], NPOV noticeboard [48] and RS noticeboard [49], [50] and [51]. It should also be noted that the UN position is mentioned in the article as well as the limits on self-government that results from its status as a British Overseas Territory. Justin talk 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I am just glad that you accept that the UN's official position is that Gibraltar is a "Non Self-Governing Territory" (however you may disagree with the definition the UN officially uses for that term). --194.143.215.69 (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC) unsigned by Imalbornoz (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC) (sorry)
I have NEVER said that Gibraltar is not listed by the UN decolonization Committee, it is included in the article already. Your continued tactic of misrepresenting the views of fellow editors is unhelpful and disruptive. I have instead pointed out that its not needed in the lead. The views of the UN decolonisation committee are also far from neutral and are instead dominated by the politics of countries on that committee with their own agenda. Now you've already had a neutral party point out that the lead is NPOV, why don't you just let the matter drop. You've tried numerous forums that all have said the same. Justin talk 10:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say I am glad that you accept that this is UN Decol Committee's official position, but that I am glad that you accept it's the UN's official position (as you can see in the links to UN documents above...) BTW, nobody here has said that it is neutral or non-neutral (about 7/8 of this section is full with our blabbering, which is not what it was intended for). --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Again the official position of the UN is formulated by the Security Council or the General Assembly. It is not formulated by committees such as the C24. The committees are to oversee mandates imposed by the GA or SC. The pronouncements of the C24 are frequently taken without vote, the positions they publish merely reflect the evidence presented to them, which is presented uncritically. They do not present the official UN position, though they are frequently misrepresented as such. Justin talk 13:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
But as I note this has been explained to you previously, on numerous occasions; and again you know the score, misrepresenting what I say is unhelpful. Justin talk 14:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Justin, let me call your attention on this previous comment of mine, where I explain the position of the General Assembly on Gibraltar (which -as you say- is the one that sets the UN official position). Please tell me where do you see that this is not the General Assembly's position.
Gibraltar is a "Non Self-Governing Territory" according to the General Assembly. You can see that Gibraltar is in this list in un.org "NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2002" (sorry for the markup, it's in capitals in the original). For some more updated and detailed info, you can dive in some of the last GA resolutions from the 63rd session here, here, here. Regards. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
And as I've pointed out to you the position of the UN GA actually bears no relation to the degree of self-government enjoyed by a territory. The UN GA has made no comment whatsoever about the level of self-government of Gibrltar, it merely applies an arcane definition that actually bears no relation to the whether or not the territory governs itself. But then this has actually been explained to you again and again. AGAIN THE ARCANE DEFINITION IS:
  • A sovereign state
  • An integral part of a sovereign state
  • A state in free association with a sovereign state
Gibraltar is none of those but Gibraltar enjoys self-government and has since the 2006 constitution.
You simply turn around to repeat the same point that has already been rebutted, again and again and again. It is becoming so intensely frustrating that I took a week off and still I'm here explaining the same point again, and no doubt you'll turn round and simply say "Yes but the UN doesn't say that" again. What the UN documents you're dragging up say bears no relationship whatsoever to what a reasonable person would classify as self-government. And no this isn't WP:OR or whatever excuse you want to dream up next for going to another forum. At what point will you actually sit down and acknowledge what is being said to you, because it is deeply and intensely frustrating to be going over the same ground again. Gibraltar is self-governing, as multiple sources will testify. Its also been explained to you why it doesn't belong in the lead but then the lead isn't suppressing material or designed to be misleading, its not controversial or misunderstood. The article mentions the C24 and explains the limits on self-government, it conforms to WP:NPOV. Justin talk 16:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Just for info, wikipedia described the suspension of self-government in the Turks and Caicos islands thus - [52]. All BOT operate under the same policy. Justin talk 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I understand your position about the UN. You say it has nothing to do with self-governance, and you have your arguments.

I agree that the UN is not the oracle of TRUTH, that it has many defects and that its arguments for defining a self-governing territory are very complicated, intricate and non-intuitive.

I understand that you agree that it is a fact that the official UN position is that Gibraltar is a "Non Self-Governed Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." (with the caveats of my previous sentence).

Can we build on that common ground? (sorry to insist, but I want to be sure we have some common ground before moving on). --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I GIVE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Justin talk 09:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Imalbornoz, no one has denied that Gibraltar is on the UN's list. However, you've just ignored everything that's been said as to why its inclusion in the lede would be inappropriate. Even The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick agreed that it should be mentioned, but not in the lede (albeit last October!) [53]. In any case, by using the list to cite the incorrect assumption that Gibraltar is not self-governing we would be skewing the article in favour on one POV. This means that we'd also have to include Gibraltar's POV, i.e. that's it is self-governing and has been decolonised. Now I think we can all agree that that hypothetical scenario would, unnecessarily, land us with a very messy lede. RedCoat10 • talk 10:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
RedCoat10, I think you have a very reasonable argument and I agree with all of it. I only add to that the fact that the current first sentence of the article almost literally contradicts the POV of the UN. Please compare them word by word:
  • "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory" (current lede)
vs
  • "Gibraltar is a Non Self-Governed Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (UN POV)
I propose that we change the current lede so that it reflects the fact that Gibraltar has a high degree of self-government but in a way that it doesn't slap ;) in the face of the UN POV. That way, we wouldn't need to make a mess of the lede. For example:
  • "Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory with almost complete internal self-government" (That expression only adds 4 words to the current lede and it even has a UK source)
This solution would not be very different from the one proposed in the RS Noticeboard.
Another option that would eliminate the POV problem (also proposed in the RS Noticeboard) is to eliminate the reference to self-government in the lede (they said it isn't needed as the norm for populated BOTs is to have some self-government). I would accept it, but I understand that it is something that some editors want to keep it in the lede.
What do you think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you need learn the meaning of the word NO. The reference to self-Government is important because its claimed in Spain that Gibraltar is a colony of British ex-pats governed by London and that is not the case. --Gibnews (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI at New Chronology (Rohl)

More eyes please. --dab (𒁳) 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias actively being practised?

I point you to the Cybersquatting discussion page. As you can see, there was an uproar when Wikipedia decided that Domaining (the 100% legal, as per many news sources, and multi-million dollar industry) was equal to "Cybersquatting" (the 100% illegal and wrong practise) and put in a re-direct as such.

After a lot of proof was shown, a Domaining page was set-up. However now, the same biased Wikipedia admin who caused the wrongful re-direct is now pushing to delete the Domaining page, probably to re-direct it back to the cybersquatting page. How is this in-keeping with Wikipedia's policies?

Please look at all the reputable links and proof given to support the fact that "Domaining" is a reputable and legal practise.82.15.29.29 (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Tristan Perry

If you really want to encourage the non-profit project to make the internet not suck to distinguish between two related ways to make the internet suck for profit, then perhaps it might be advisable to be a bit more diplomatic. Hans Adler 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones

User:Dewen12 and I have a disagreement about whether or not a paragraph he wrote should be part of Van Jones. It is my opinion that the paragraph is negatively biased and sourced by non-reliable sources. It is his opinion that, since I am a Democrat, I am inherently inclined to remove unflattering information, and so his paragraph should remain, exactly as he wrote it. Rather than enter into a pointless edit-war, I'd appreciate some assistance in looking at Dewen12's desired contribution and helping decide what the most neutral version might be. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV on "Socialism" Article

This article does not seem neutral. It equates socialism with communism. That is not the general academic view of the subject. The article even goes so far as to submit a thesis about the way Marx and Engels used the term "socialism." The rest of the article looks pretty sloppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklisted newsking (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be poorly organized. It begins by describing classical socialist ideology without mentioning how it has developed. There is too much mention of Communism as well. The criticism section should be removed because it does not apply to all types of socialism and instead should be inserted into the sections of the article where it applies. It does not appear to be deliberate NPOV. Do you have any suggestions to improve the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Newsking. Your objection seems a bit too general to me. It might be better to go to the Talk:Socialism page and make specific comments about what you think ought to be changed. It looks like quite a well-used talkpage, so I'm sure someone is likely to respond to you. Think people will find it difficult to respond to something like "a bit sloppy". Positive suggestions about ways to improve the article will probably be more welcome. --FormerIP (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Concur with FormerIP; I am now watching Socialism but am uncertain specifically what changes you are proposing. Please assist on talk page.Simonm223 (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

StartKey

The stub article StartKey, which sites no sources, describes an apparently-fizzled competitor to U3. With no citations, the page makes the following claim:

"On the Microsoft homepage an advertisement is running positioning Windows Live as an alternate with the headline "Forgot your Memory Stick again?". It would seem reasonable to presume that this idea falls into Microsoft's embrace, extend, extinguish strategy."

This phrasing seems unnecessarily biased against Microsoft.

However, it would be unreasonable for me to make the correction myself- I have a clear conflict of interest. (I'm on Wikipedia because I'm slacking off at work, and, as my current IP address will reveal, I work for Microsoft.) Can someone not so inherently involved in the topic decide whether I've got a point, and rewrite that passage (at least, although the stub could use more help than that)?

Thanks, 65.55.31.147 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for bringing this here. I only performed a cursory search for actual information to replace the speculation, which indicated that the project is still considered in development. If anyone more familiar with the area feels like tackling it, the article is pretty bare. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Deedat

I'd like opinions on an ongoing dispute at Ahmed Deedat. Just as background, Ahmed Deedat was what might be called a Muslim missionary, or at least a Muslim missionary writer. He worked in the area which (depending on your POV) either attacked Christianity or defended Islam against Christian attacks. The problem with a Wikipedia article on someone like that is you tend to only get two types of editors: those Muslims who are admirers of his work, and those Christians who are very critical of his work. (I admit I am in the latter group). I have tried to insert a link to a page of writings critical of Deedat's work, by a Christian author named John Gilchrist, and a number of Muslim editors continually revert it. (Of course, from their POV, a Christian is trying to disrupt the article and only gets support from another Christian). Debate on the issue on the talk page (Talk:Ahmed Deedat) almost invariably falls along Christian/Muslim lines. So I am looking for some new editors - preferably without strong opinions on Deedat - to take a look at the issue.

To me it's a pretty clear case. Deedat wrote against Christianity, so a Christian response is notable if it's by a notable enough writer. I detail my reasons that Gilchrist is notable at Talk:Ahmed Deedat#Should we link to the anti-Deedat material at Answering-Islam.org?; but briefly I offer 3 strong sources backing up Gilchrist's writings: (1) Christianity Today, probably the leading evangelical Christian magazine in the world (CT page here[54] references Gilchrist's "The Christian Witness to the Muslim", which is partly a response to Deedat's writings); (2) two of his books were endorsed by leading Christian writer Ravi Zacharias in 1995[55]; and (3) Gilchrist co-authored a book with Josh McDowell (probably the leading Christian apologist, at least at the popular level in the 1970s/early 80s) in 1981 (book is here [56] an 8 MB downlaod; Amazon page is here [57]).

It has been objected that these are Christian sources and so are inherently biased, but that misses the point. In the field of Muslim-Christian debate, there are really only two sides - the Muslim side (which Christian consider flawed) and the Christian side (which Muslims consider flawed). Note WP:NPOV says: "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly... Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

A second objection has been that it's POV to put a link to a Christian critique unless we first explain Deedat's arguments so the reader knows what Gilchrist is arguing about. To me that objection is nonsense - we link to Deedat's anti-Christian writings (about 12 times in the article) so there's plenty of context for a single link to a notable Christian response. After a back and forth with a single editor over this, with neither of us backing down, I've decided to call for other opinions. Our debate is in the last part of Talk:Ahmed Deedat#Should we link to the anti-Deedat material at Answering-Islam.org?, beginning at 16:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Anyway, what do people think? I think it's a clear example of a notable critique of Deedat, which is on-topic, and not POV to insert, in view of the large number of pro-Deedat links the article already contains. But I'd like some more opinions... Peter Ballard (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the source you are using is all that encyclopedic. While notable opinions are welcomed and should be cited in an article, it isn't clear to me that you have made a good case for Gilchrist's prominence as a generator of opinions about Ahmed Deedat. If Ahmed Deedat has explicitly acknowledged Gilchrist, then that might be a good argument for the prominence of Gilchrist's commentary (and offer an opportunity to address the debate objectively -- remember it is better to assert facts rather than cite opinions in controversial articles). I notice, for example, that Deedat's debate with Anis Shorrosh and Jimmy Swaggart are noted directly in the article. This seems reasonable to me because Deedat by agreeing to debate them has made their commentary of special interest to his biography. But if Gilchrist's commentary is to be notable, it should probably rise to a similar level or, at the very least, third-party independent observers should have noticed his commentary directly when writing about Deedat. If you can find a mainstream, secular, neutral, or even pro-Deedat sources that mention Gilchrist's website or arguments, that might be a better way to approach inclusion of whatever material may be of relevance to the article. But we should not be in the business of referencing attack pages that float below the radar screen. It is up to you as the person who proposes the source as a balance to show why this particular source has the prominence with respect to the subject to warrant inclusion. Arguments that Gilchrist is associated with Christianity Today, endorsements and co-authorships with other Christian writers go towards establishing his relevance to those people and subjects not towards establishing Gilchrist's relevance to Ahmed Deedat. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Some more facts which were in the long argument at the talk page, but not in the abbreviated argument above: Gilchrist debated Deedat in 1975, and continues to debate Deedat's successors as recently as 2009 (it's disappeared from http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/ but you can see a snippet of the debate publicity poster here [58]). The book co-authored by Josh McDowell and Gilchrist was a direct follow-up to a McDowell-Deedat debate in 1981, and includes the entire transcript of the McDowell-Deedat debate (in addition to extra material by McDowell and Gilchrist). The McDowell/Gilchrist book is (IMHO) clearly notable, but it is only available as an 8 MB download,[59] so it seems to me that the similar material expanded and more accessible format should also be notable (i.e. this page http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/index.html ).
As for whether Deedat mentioned Gilchrist's arguments: he wrote the book "The God that never was" as a direct response to Gilchrist. The blurb (at this link [60] ) says in part, "There has appeared a man in Benoni. He is not qualified in theology, but is fondly cherishing the self-delusion that he is an apostle of Christ, appointed by God to convert Muslims to Christianity. Because he is a lawyer by profession, he is adept at juggling with words and quoting the Holy Qur'an totally out of context without knowing a word of Arabic." He is talking about Gilchrist, who is a lawyer. I hope that gives a bit more context to Gilchrist's notability. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
p.s. the reference for Gilchrist having debated Deedat in 1975 is page 10 of the 8 MB book above. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article right now states, "Deedat's first well-known debate occurred in August 1981 when he debated well-known Christian apologist Josh McDowell in Durban, South Africa." but the reference right now does not indicate that this really was the first "well-known" debate. That needs to be addressed first because obviously, in your opinion, the first well-known debate was earlier than that. Of course, your opinion or the opinion of any Wikipedian is irrelevant. What we need to do is to find a third party source which discuss the impact and prominence of the various debates. An example: [61]. Here it is stated:

In the 1980s and 1990s Deedat debated in several countries with religious opponents, who in most cases were representatives of evangelical or fundamentalist forms of Christianity. For example, he debated with the American TV evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, the Palestinian Christian Anis Shorrosh, and the Swedish Pentecostal Pastor Stanley Sjoberg.

Those are the only debates deemed notable to this particular third-party reviewer. Of course, there may be other sources out there. Newspaper articles, commentary from outsiders, etc. would all be really good to find to get better sourcing. I suggested starting here and working your way through the journal articles. If you cannot get access to them, go to your local university or college library, or you can message me and I can send you quotations. Alternatively, you can look for sources from news outlets like these which can also establish external notability. Unfortunately, looking for both John Gilchrist and Ahmed Deedat yielded almost nothing. If the book you mention is clearly notable, we're going to need to find some external third-party reviews of it, some indication of its popularity, or, even better, some criticism.
Your final point is perhaps the most interesting, but this is how I would handle it. If you can find a third-party source which indicates that this particular source is somehow a notable Deedat book, then I think it should find its way into Ahmed_Deedat#His Writings and Speeches. Looking at that location right now I see some real problems. Which writings are most famous and what is the standard for including them? That needs to be worked out first. I found a third party source which states,

Deedat’s key mode of argument, manifest in his most famous works, Is the Bible God’s Word? and Crucifixion or Crucifiction? is to critique Christianity through close biblical hermeneutics.

which indicates that Deedat's most famout two works do not include the one you reference. Once you and the rest of the editors can agree on an objective standard for deciding which of Deedat's writings to have prose in our article, then if Deedat's book "The God that never was" makes the cut it clearly makes Gilchrist a notable character.
However, I suggest the following tactic. This source actually discusses both Deedat and Gilchrist in the larger context of South African religious identities. In particular, with respect to Gilchrist,

Naude and Greyling's academic and mission work was complemented by those of Gilchrist and Nehls; the latter worked in the Western Cape while the former worked in the Transvaal where he had established his "Jesus to the Muslims" organization. In 1977 Gilchrist, a lawyer, produced his work The Challenge of Islam in South Africa, in which he provided an overview of the position of Islam and Muslims with the aim of arming his "Jesus to Muslims" society and others regarding Muslim beliefs and practices.... Gilchrist saw the web as another avenue to make his ideas and writings known to a wider audience.... Gilchrist has since the 1970s spent a great deal of time studying sources of Islam and produced his extensive work Jam' al-Qur'ān — The Codification of the Qur'ān Text. This text's main objective was to undermine the Muslim interpretation and acceptance of the Qur'ān's authoritative and divine nature. In addition to these, he brought out "The Qur'ān and the Bible Series" and the "Christianity and Islam Series."

The author remarks that what distinguishes the form and content of both Gilchrist and Deedat's activities was their "exlusivist" outlook towards their religions informed by missionary or reactionary impulses in some cases mirrored in the activities of the Anglican and NGK churches. The author then lists Deedat, Vanker, and Laher as Muslim exclusivists with Pypers, Nehls, and Gilchrist as Christian exclusivists. However, apparently the popularity of exclusivist approaches waned through the 1980s and 1990s in favor of pluralism, thus casting both Deedat and Gilchrist as anachronisms. This is perhaps a way Gilchrist can be addressed in this article as it is a fairly good quality source. This isn't exactly an argument to include his website, but in the larger context of this discussion Gilchrist's reliance on web-based technologies is a unique identifying feature. I must warn you, the connection here is very tenuous and is shared amongst four other people as well, so we're looking at something that will not be weighted very highly. It may mean that Gilchrist's actual commentary gets excluded from the article simply by virtue of the fact that it seems to lack sufficient prominence, especially in comparison to other aspects of Deedat's life works.
So this is the type of scholarship we need to be engaged in if we are going to do a good job of writing this encyclopedia. This is the tack you should be taking.
ScienceApologist (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There were earlier "well-known debates" in which Deedat participated. A highly regarded orbituary on Deedat states:
"Deedat was undeterred and debated the likes of A.W. Hamilton of Kimberley (1961); Cyril Simkins, a Professor of New Testament Exegesis from Tennessee (1963); and prominent Seventh Day Adventist David Lukhele (1966)."
Clearly, the earliest "well-known debates were earlier than the 1980s.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a good third-party source to me. I note, however, that this obit does not mention either Gilchrist or McDowell. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a couple of problems here. First, I cannot access either of the scholarly articles you reference, so this creates practical problems (even if you help me this once, there are long term maintenance problems). Second, and more importantly, I think you are focusing too much on scholarly rather than popular publications. I've seen enough scholarly articles (both theological, and in my professional field) to know that their quality varies enormously. The first one you reference - this one [62] - does not mention Deedat's debate with Josh McDowell (a major Christian author, and the most famous Christian Deedat debated except for Jimmy Swaggart). but mentions debates with the far less well known Anis Shorrosh and Stanley Sjoberg. I think I can guess why - Muslim bookstores sell videos of the Shorrosh[63] and Sjoberg[64] debates, but not the McDowell debate. And the article author didn't look any further (either due to lazy research, or simply because he had enough examples for his purposes). So I wouldn't use that article as the sole gauge of the importance of Deedat debates.
On the other hand, I think you are being a bit too dismissive of the popular level Christian sources. In the field of inter-religious debate, I don't see why widely read Christian sources lack weight as a measure of Christian opinion. I think it is fair to say that Christian-Muslim dialogue is generally of little interest to the "mainstream secular neutral" media, but this dialogue is still of interest to a large portion of the human population, so I believe it is notable even if the mainstream media laregly ignores it. For instance, to take the most extreme example, if the Pope had written a response to Deedat then it would be notable - as a measure of the Roman Catholic position - whether or not it was covered by the "mainstream secular neutral" sources. Now Josh McDowell is not quite (or even nearly) the evangelical pope, but he's such a popular evangelical Christian writer means that his anti-Deedat book is a notable evangelical response to Deedat whether or not it is covered in the mainstream secular media. Would you at least agree with that - that even if Gilchrist's books don't make the grade, surely McDowell's does, by virtue of McDowell's standing?
As for Gilchrist... since Christianity Today, Ravi Zacharias amd McDowell are very widely read and respected (amongst evangelicals), surely their endorsements indicate that Gilchrist is a "generator of opinions about Ahmed Deedat", to use your words. And Deedat's own response - something you requested - adds more. It doesn't really matter whether ""The God that never was" (the anti-Gilchrist book) is one of Deedat's best-sellers. What it does indicate is that Deedat took Deedat seriously enough that he wrote a response. I think these sources are all more weighty than the journal article you mention. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to flatly disagree with your approach and reasoning here. The scholarly papers I spent about 1/2 and hour last night reading were at a much higher level of discourse and much closer to reliable sources than almost everything that's currently in the article right now or the sources you are proposing. WP:BATTLEGROUND is of relevance here. The advantage of the scholarly sources is that they really do not care about who is right and who is wrong in these "debates", they instead look at them through the lens of religious studies, cultural studies, or history. That's the NPOV way to deal with these topics. I think that the Christian sources are valuable primary source documents, but we have a rule for primary sources: WP:PSTS. What we should rather be looking for are secondary and maybe even tertiary sources which discuss this particular person and his context. To that end, I can see how Gilchrist fits in to the topic. He appears to be a minor player that nipped at the heals of Deedat. Remember, the subject of this article is not "inter-religious debate". The subject is Ahmed Deedat. To that end, it is our duty as encyclopedists to gather all the best sources on the subject and use them as guides. WP:RS is very clear that scholarly, peer-reviewed articles are of far better quality than self-published websites. Disparaging them as you are doing here is not in-line with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practices. If you disagree, I think you ought to ask at WP:RSN whether anyone there thinks answering-islam.com is a better source than, say, the three scholarly articles I reference. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Before I go further, might I ask your opinion on linking to McDowell's book? (Because if I can't convince you on linking to McDowell, there's little point arguing over Gilchrist). Recapitulating: McDowell is a major Christian author (certainly better known than Deedat at the time of the 1981 debate, and possibly still today), and I'd propose saying something like "McDowell, who debated Deedat in 1981, published a book in 1983, in which he criticised Deedat's writings at a number of points from a Christian POV, as well as including a transcript of the debate". (with a link to the 8 MB pdf book). Bear in mind I am not proposing any analysis of McDowell (or Gilchrist), simply a mention and a link. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's put it this way, if there is third-party independent acknowledgement of McDowell's book being relevant to Deedat, then I think inclusion is good. If that's the case, though, I think that we may want to look at WP:BK. Would it be reasonable for Wikipedia to have an article on his book? You'll need to find some external reviews or some rationale for why that book deserves coverage. I don't think that just because someone wrote a book as a counter to Deedat's claims, that necessarily makes the book worthy of inclusion. Third-party independent sources need to acknowledge the prominence of the work first. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoah. Now you are practically saying that any book used as a reference must be significant enough to have its own Wikipedia article. That's setting the standard far too high.
Josh McDowell isn't just "someone". This is a person who debated Deedat. I said before the McDowell was a major writer... it turns out his book "Evidence which demands a verdict" was ranked by Christianity Today as the 13th most influential post-war evangelical book[65] (and the 3rd amongst apologetic books), making him a once-in-every-couple-of-years author. Plus Deedat devoted space in one of his major works - "Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction" - countering arguments in the book in question (McDowell's "The Islam Debate").[66] I think that automatically makes his book of interest. I didn't find a lot of other notable references to it - I found a book review[67] and a seminary syllabus [68] - but I think that's largely attributable to the book coming out a long time ago. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite setting the standard that high. I do think, though, from what I understand of how you are proposing to use this source, that evaluating the notability of this particular book is an appropriate way to determine how or whether it should be used as a reference. What I think is missing here is context. To wit, why is Josh McDowell's book important in the biography of Ahmed Deedat? To answer this question I think we need some third-party independent sources establishing the book's prominence relative to Ahmed Deedat. I see no problem with using this book as a source if it is agreed by the consensus of editors that a sentence such as, "Certain Evangelical Christians have written entire books to dispute Deedat", but if the goal is to say something like, "Josh McDowell wrote a book from an evangelical Christian perspective that attacks Deedat" then you have to establish that the book is somehow prominent enough with respect to the subject for inclusion as a singular reference. See what I'm saying? It's about specificity. I get the impression that your goal is to provide a "counter" to the "pro-Deedat" sources that are currently being referenced in the article (in a sort of tit-for-tat model of editing). I'm trying to persuade you that the NPOV approach to this particular article is to use independent sources which establish a perspective that is one-step removed from the debate (as, for example, WP:PSTS recommends). Your ASA source is a start, but doesn't really establish the prominence of the book. In fact, the review explicitly says that the book is really only worth the transcript of the debate. If this is truly the case, then linking to the book for any other reason than to reference the actual content of the debate should be avoided per WP:SOAP, and this editorial perspective, to me, is made all the more forcefully because the ASA is a Christian organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I maintain that the notability is self-evident. Deedat criticised Christianity. McDowell is (arguably) the best known living writer of Christian apologetics. Furthermore McDowell debated Deedat personally and so has a very good knowledge of his writings. It is hard to imagine anyone more qualified to critique Deedat.
As a roughly equivalent example, consider the article on C. S. Lewis, the most well known Christian apologist of an earlier generation. There is some direct critique of his writings. Look at references 30, 31 and 32 (in this version [69] in case it changes). Who says that John Beversluis, John Hick and N. T. Wright are qualified to critique Lewis? I've never heard of Beversluis, but he got a book published on Lewis (as McDowell did on Deedat) so I've no objection; the other two are eminent enough that their criticism is appropriate. We don't need a reference in the mainstream press to establish that Hick or Wright are qualified to critique Lewis. They are eminent theologians, they are experts in the area Lewis wrote about - that is enough.
I admit that I would like to see a link to writings critical of Deedat. But I also believe it enhances the article. Links to positive and negative evaluations for further reading are common in Wikipedia, and quite appropriate. The C.S.Lewis article above is one example (see the "References" section). Others examples are Richard Dawkins, Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam. I would also appeal to WP:IAR - doesn't the inclusion of links to Deedat's writings, and to notable critiques of them, enhance the encyclopedia?
Anyway, I'd like to see other opinions. I came to a wider forum to get other opinions, not just one. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I should also address your point about the (partly) lukewarm review by ASA. We're establishing notability, not quality. Anyway, as I pointed out when I started, Ravi Zacharias is full of praise for Gilchrist's work,[70] which has a lot of the same material (remember Gilchrist is co-author of the McDowell book). And it's not as if Zacharias had to praise it - he only recommends two publications on Islam, and the other is his own! Peter Ballard (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Since you would like a third opinion, might I suggest WP:3O? I'm sorry that no one else is engaging you on this matter. Just let it be known that I think the best way to handle this situation is to get third-party sources rather than relying on the say-so of Gilchrist, McDowell, an co. All the sources you mention that recommend these authors are not exactly independent. The closest thing you have to a mainstream source is Christianity Today, and I wouldn't exactly call that a source of ecumenical dialogue - their agenda is fairly plain and seems to be in line with the sources you want to see included in the article. In my opinion, appropriate scholarship demands a bit more independence from these bible-thumpers and Qu'ran-thumpers. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
One last thing before I cast the net wider: any thoughts on this source from Google News: [71]- a book review from The Miami Herald, December 31 1983, by Religion writer Adon Taft. I paid the $2.95 for the article and don't want to violate the terms of use - suffice to say it was a very positive review of it ("The Islam Debate" by McDowell and Gilchrist) as a resource on Christian/Islam differences. However it doesn't contain the magic phrase "Josh McDowell is an expert on Ahmed Deedat" :) Peter Ballard (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

<- (outdent) I'd use it as a source for the Josh McDowell article, certainly. Not sure if it is the best for the Ahmed Deedat article for the reason you outline. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is "Criticism of..." malfeasant?

An interesting discussion emerging from the ongoing Falun Gong discussion, one editor has suggested that the "Criticism of X" structure of titling for religious pages is generally malfeasant. This is coming out of the fact that pro-FLG editors have blocked efforts to create a "Criticism of Falun Gong" page, prefering other titling structures. The argument in favour of the "Criticism of Falun Gong" titling has been that it is standard with other religions. This led an editor to say, essentially that it is wrong with other religions. Thoughts?Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think any major religion gets that much criticism that a "criticism of X" page is appropriate, and it's hard to think what else to call such a page. However criticism should be handled in a NPOV way, including responses to the criticism, otherwise the article is a POV fork. (Of course both criticisms and responses need to use WP:RS.) At least that's what I argued once up a time (at Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive4#Deleting, and no one objected. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled onto the Falung Gong naming dispute and I've thrown my two cents in elsewhere but I figured I'd stress a more general point here. Arguments in favor of the "Criticism of ..." approach have pointed out that there are 72 Wikipedia entries using this approach as opposed to 2-3 using the alternative. This is a good argument for picking "Criticism of ..." if one is forced to have a seperate entry in the first place. How many entries in the English language Wiki? 3 million. And how many of these subjects have "Criticism of ..." entries? 72. How many entries on religions or on religious groups? (Does someone know?) How many have "Criticism of ..." entries? I'm sure it is a similarly minuscule fraction (though given the subject matter a bigger one than is generally true). The point is that these types of entries, by any name, are not "standard practice". We should avoid them if possible. Criticism should be integrated into main entries unless it is simply too widespread and notable. The fact that, for instance, the world's major religions, which have been around for centuries, have their own such critical entries makes perfect sense. Having seperate entries for the criticism of NRMs that have been around for a couple of decades makes no sense at all. Notable criticisms should be included in the main entries ... but every little variation of criticisms or responses to such criticisms should not be given their won two sentences or whole paragraphs simply because a different individual or group has uttered the criticism (or response to criticism).PelleSmith (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Critical entries for NRMs that have been around for a couple of decades makes no sense at all unless, for example, they have generated significant and notable third-party criticism in that short time or if their main reason for notability is the criticism they have received. For example. / PerEdman 13:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaking the notability of criticism, which I completely agree belongs in the main entries, for the need to have a seperate "Criticism of ..." entry. It is the latter and not the former I am arguing against.PelleSmith (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
And note also that the balance between critical perspectives and other perspectives is a weighting issue to be resolved in the main entry itself. My personal opinion is that in the midst of POV warring between detractors and apologists "Criticism of" entries are often split out as some kind of compromise. Critics get to pile on the minutia, apologists get to remove the criticism from the main entry while also piling on minutia in response, and well meaning third party editors get less of a headache in editing the main entry. The result is not encyclopedic however. Consider in the example put forth just above where something is well known for its criticism. In such a case removing the notable criticism from the main entry simply opens up more space in that entry for other non-notable minutia about the subject matter or issues related to the subject matter to creep in and unbalance the entry. The more difficult but more encyclopedic approach is to present the subject matter in totality on one page if it is possible. In this instance it clearly is. From a brief overview I would say 75% of the text on pages related to Falun Gong should never have seen the light of day here.PelleSmith (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose I did make that connection, but I really did mean separate article OR section heading within an article. As you know, both sections of articles and separate articles exist with the "Criticism of..." heading. In the case of Falun Gong, I think I could successfully argue that their allegation that China harvests the organs of Falun Gong practitioners has reached significant enough notability in third-party sources... but then I would fail to show sufficient attention in reputable sources to actually support my argument. The better alternative is NOT to have a separate section OR article about criticism, but to insert the points of contention into the flow of the text in the main article and if one event is notable enough, create a redirect to the main page. (The argument, put forward by some editors, that "the article is too big!" is in reality, under these circumstances, a reason to shorten the article rather than break out parts of it to separate articles.) / PerEdman 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be entirely satisfied of a section heading within the article rather than a separate article. I've been a major advocate for paring the number of FLG related articles we have to a more reasonable number. However the section heading should, IMO read "criticism of..." as that appears to be a standard for discussing critical response to a religion.Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that full integration into the main entry, without a separate section is preferable. If there are notable controversies over specific issues they can be treated similarly and do not need the heading "criticism" either. Anyway I agree with PerEdman that integration is the ideal solution.PelleSmith (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Jobbik

This article about an ultra-right Hungarian political party is littered with sympathetic attempts to prove that the biased left-wing Western media élite have got it all wrong, etc. Every piece of critical information - and the mainstream sources are overwhelmingly critical - is immediately followed by something like "but the party denies the allegations[1][2][3][4] as patently absurd[5][6][7] and promoted by Communists[8][9][10][11][12][13]." In one case, an article in The Economist is criticized as biased, with the source for the criticism being... the article's online comments section. I've done some work on the lead section at least, but rather expect to be reverted by the party hacks who are clearly dominating this article. 74.14.71.144 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Worked a little bit on the lead. There is a lot that can be done there. The talkpage is something of a nightmare too. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your objectivity input on Jobbik. I concur totally with all of your changes (bar one small one, see below). 74.14.71.144 came and provided rather advanced wiki-revisions from a non-registered IP. Note also that they had to invent their own quotation to you, rather than simply copying & pasting one from the article. Moreover, his/her suggestion that an Economist article was dismissed as biased is disingenuous: the sentence concerned questions being asked over their use of sources; which happened.
The contrary viepoint to 74.14.71.144's suggestion that this party is "ultra-right" as they seem so determined on having uncritically accepted: is that it is simply not true. S/he seems to think that "every piece of critical information... ...is immediately followed by something like" is some sort of criticism. This is precisely what I have endeavoured to do. Introduce impartiality, by making clear that there are two versions of events. (If the party is accused of Fascism[ref.10] and Western journos have talked to Socialist politicians,[ref.46] and one of the party's vice-presidents is quoted as saying these comments are only made by Communists,[ref.15] and the Socialist party is the self-admitted succesor to the former Communist party[ref.21,22] - surely this is a relevant and a valid inclusion?) I hope this was not wrong. His/her suggestion that I am a party hack is also totally false (but what if I was? - surely this is an ad hominem). I am merely bi-lingual and attempting to provide exactly the impartiality that was so far absent; to provide a more balanced (and informed) picture precisely for readers like you who come to this article "knowing absolutely nothing."
I have addressed your review, point by point, on the talk page. (74.14.71.144 has not contributed there once) I only ask that you take a trip to it and look at the one objection I had (I won't make any changes until you do). Also, I'd like to tell you that I am commited to adding extensive information to this article that has so far been totally absent. (I am sorry for the length of the talk page, and this comment given your request for brevity, but I think it unethical to engage in a major augmentation project on a controversial political issue without providing a detailed scrutinisable rationale.) I'll be doing this pretty thematically, heading by heading, so when I do them, might I be permitted to send a message here requesting an NPOV review? It would just be four headings, therefore four occasions. As a relative wiki-newbie they could really use being read over by an impartial observer to prevent any glaring POV errors and curtial later party-politically motivated vandalism etc. Thanks again, and best regards. Tedhovis (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Good progress. I agree with your request to add the adjective "Western" until someone can locate a Hungarian press source that uses this language. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely fair! I am confident no such sources will be located. That's kind of the point. Such statements made in Hungary would result in a libel prosecution. But I agree totally that the door should be left open just in case. Personally, I am more than happy to consider the Lead issue resolved, for the moment at least. I personally shall not be making any further changes to it. I'd now much rather be concentrating my research and writing efforts on the new proposed First Heading. Which as self-defining, is much less likely to be controversial. And hopefully we can finally see more informative info here which will allow people to actually understand and make up their own minds about this party's growth and appeal. When this is done I'll take the liberty of informing you. Thanks again. Tedhovis (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina

On August 19, User:Rvcx tagged the article for Carly Fiorina with {{Template:POV-check}}. He later added that including what he believed to be content supportive of Carly Fiorina "isn't appropriate if none of the criticism appears here." He then went through and stripped the article of most anything he deemed to be supportive, edit warred to keep the content out, and was blocked as such. If someone could please review the article and determine whether it is or is not, in its current state, neutral, the objective viewpoint(s) would be very helpful. If you could stick around, keep the article on your watchlist, and help police this frequently-controversial wp:blp, that'd be even better. Please. Pretty please? Thanks in advance! user:J aka justen (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:MoffittCancerCenter

Clearly WP:COI. just keep reverting and eventually tag for vandalism. cheers! Seb az86556 (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The H._Lee_Moffitt_Cancer_Center article wasn't too hot either. Lots of stuff that looked more like ad copy than encyclopedia. (Exciting new partnerships!!!) I have deleted some of the most offensive material.Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Organ harvesting in China: Weight given to Falun Gong victims

Editors Maunus and myself hereby ask the opinions of fellow editors on whether the further existence of the separate article Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China is warranted, or if the contents of that article should be integrated into Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. We are currently deadlocked over whether this is a matter of Notability or of giving undue attention (non-NPOV). The former article is currently very long on its own while the latter has only recently grown due to an attempt to integrate the contents of both into the one. Aside from that, the more general article was very short indeed.

I have recently suggested a merger and that discussion is currently held on the talk page of the target article. Mergers has been suggested in the past and there are several discussions on the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China talk page, on the Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China talk page, as well as archived discussions on this Noticeboard. Please browse through these discussions and the articles themselves and give us your input.

Thank you.

/ PerEdman 17:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with PerEdman that this material would be much better off merged however, I am already very much involved in the original discussion of this.Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the best place for a unified discussion of this issue is Talk:Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China#Proposed merge, and have offered my newly-involved comments there. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be a good idea.Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Toronto Port Authority

I am looking for outside viewpoints on the Toronto Port Authority article. I have expanded the lead (summarize the whole article) and started a 'History' section, both of which are being objected to and removed by a user User:Kdickson who works for the agency. I do not work for any political opponent of the agency, but have been accused of being biased against the agency. Because we have been going back and forth, an administrator has placed a one-week protection on the article. I would like some outside comments if possible to resolve this and move forward. Alaney2k (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither revision was is perfect. In general the revision you favour was less PoV however it, too, appears to exclude sourced information available in the other. Unless one of those sources would be considered PoV (in which case that should be a matter of talk page discussion) I would suggest using your favored revision as a template and then making sure to include all relevant NPoV information from the Kdickson revision.Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wing Chun and Wing Tsun

There is discussion ongoing on whether to merge Wing Chun and Wing Tsun on the Wing Chun talk page. I just noticed it today. The argument against merging is that either a) Leung Ting's divergence from Wing Chun, marked by his trademarking of the spelling Wing Tsun is notable or b) Wing Chun is a generic category of martial arts; like Karate while Wing Tsun is a notable art within the category (much as Shotokan would be). Neither of these assertions are particularly correct. Leung Ting's divergence is more about the ongoing lineage conflicts that plague TCMA and are, perhaps, notable enough for a sub-header in the Wing Chun page. More to the point, Wing Chun is a single martial style of southern wugong. Leung Ting's divergence is not notable enough for a separate header. Likewise the Hung Gar page contains information both on the Wong Fei Hong / Lam Sai Wing lineage and other lineages within Hung Gar / Hung Kuen.Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you've afforded your self the opportunity to post your opinion here as well as an incorrect summation of the "other side's point" instead of just asking for people to take a look at the thread there, I'll include a couterpoint to your opinions here as well. This was up for merge proposal last year, and it failed to gain consensus then amongst fellow members of the martial arts project and people familiar with the art. A) The divergance issue you mentioned is not valid, Yip Man linage is not the only lineage - all wing chun does not come through him, diverge through him, or tack back to a single solid source. B) There are lineages that have more or less than those 3 sets you mentioned. c) There are lineages that use other concepts than the ones you mentioned or use them differently. D)Simultanious attack and defense is also not interpreted the same across the board. That's the reason for bringing up points A throuh D, becuase the Wing Chun page was designed non-lineage specific and to be generic enough to include a description covering all the branches - which there is indeed a wide variance of. RPF was correct in his assesment of the genericness, you are incorrect in regards to yours on that matter. It appears you're not familiar with Cho Ga, Yuen Kay San, Nguyễn Tế-Công, Pao Fa Lien, Fut Sao, Hung Fa Yi, and others which are in many cases drastically different, and all share no "divergence" from the Yip Man branch - they were around before it or isolated from it. With regards to Leung Ting's group, it has it's own further development of material that doesn't belong on this page, including the material developed in Germany (currently highlighted on that page), the Lat Sao program, the combination with Latosa Escrima, it's specific ranking organization and international governing body. All things that do not belong on the wing chun page but do belong in an article on that specific and notable branch of the Yip Man family - which is the real issue, is it notable enough (recieved enough coverage from notable and reliable resources) to support it's own article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no question that there are other lineages beside Yip Man's lineage. That is not at issue here. Rather what is at issue is whether other lineages should have separate pages from Wing Chun I say no. With regards to your second through fourth points the question now is not "do other lineages have supplimentary material?" but rather "do they retain the same core?" I have seen nothing to suggest that Leung Ting's Wing Tsun does not use the Wing Chun core. I think, however, that your response has shown me where the problem lies. Wikipedia is not the correct place to vent lineage wars.Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Herschel

This article came to my attention through the Fringe noticeboard. It is definately a Fringe issue but there are (as is frequently the case in fringe articles) WP:NPoV and WP:DUE issues with this article. Please have a look.Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

This article on an Indian Hindu nationalist politician who is currently under investigation for his role in the 2002 Gujarat violence needs outside eyes. According to the New York Times and the Times of India, the investigation was ordered earlier this spring by the Indian Supreme Court, in response to a complaint by the widow of former MP Ehsan Jafri, a muslim who was murdered by a Hindu mob in the 2002 riots. The allegations say that Modi's administration sat on their hands while the rioting went on.

For background, please see:

Mdabdul (talk · contribs) has repeatedly – at least half a dozen times [73][74][75][76][77][78] – removed any mention of the accusations levelled against Modi from his BLP. This is not appropriate; if there are articles on it in the Times of India, the New York Times and The Economist, and if the man is currently under investigation by the Indian Supreme Court for it, then it is a notable controversy that should be mentioned in the article per NPOV. JN466 18:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I will wait for some wiki admin to come. Then I will show how few wiki users are manipulating facts like User_Talk:Sturunner and User_Talk:Jayen466 in wiki to carry there Anti-Christian, Anti-Hindu, Pro-Muslim and Anti-Indian propaganda. From Sturunner edits any wiki admin can see and understand how Sturunner is not adding anything in wiki but he is only manipulating facts and articles in wiki. This user Jayen466 is blidnly supporting Sturunner.Mdabdul (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, Mdabdul (talk · contribs) has deleted the material for the seventh time: [79]. It is material sourced to the New York Times, the Economist, and the Times of India, reporting that Narendra Modi is being investigated by the Supreme Court of India. Is the Supreme Court of India also anti-Hindu, pro-muslim, and anti-Indian? JN466 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see any evidence of any such bias on User:Sturunner I didn't bother looking at User:Jayen466 I would caution you against making accusations of this nature against editors who appear to be making good-faith edits in an effort to be NPoV.Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd count myself as having no particular bias in this but, to my eyes, it seems that the removal of criticism of Modi is completely inappropriate, since there is an clear controversy regarding him that appears to be well-documented in reliable sources. He also appears to have been praised eleswhere, so it is appropiate that this is also mentioned. I also don't think that the accusations of religious or anti-Indian bias made by Mdabdul appear fair. I can't see any edits that go any further than honestly reflecting the sources. It would be wrong to have an article mentioning only praise for someone who appears to face serious questions about his conduct in office. If the New York Times calls someone "India’s most incendiary politician", then it is surely correct to include mention of this side of him in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I also see a clear purpose for keeping the material in the article, and also reject any accusations of bias on Jayen's part. Sturunner on the other hand, is editing more or less properly, but his/her ridiculous accusations of POV pushing that have still gone unsubstantiated (as of this timestamp). Also sturunner claims to crusade against Hindutva. He certainly does not violate any policy and works for a better page, but mdabdul is right in calling out his bias.Pectoretalk 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I agree with Pectore that it will be helpful if editors forego the use of edit summaries saying another editor's work is due to their following a particular political or religious ideology. --JN466 22:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

neutrality questioned @ Circumcision

  • An editor is wondering why mutilation is frequently used in Female circumcision but not allowed in the Male circumcision article.
  • Also the neutrality of the term uncircumcised vs intact.

see Talk:Circumcision#The Word Mutilation (Uncircumcised & Intact) Garycompugeek (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Mutilation not neutral. Intact is neutral. That is all I really want to say on this... pointed... subject.Simonm223 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Department of Defense Police

The Department of Defense Police page is in need of attention. There is very little in the way of citations, and was recently edited by someone who included sweeping generalizations with no supporting research (i.e. "most" statements, "most DoD police officers are incapable of getting jobs elsewhere", etc.). Parts were written in the first person point of view, using "I". This article has lacked neutrality from its inception, and probably meets the definition of an "editing war" as well. Other biased statements include that the only requirement to work as a DoD police officer is to "have ten toes and ten fingers". Furthermore, the grammar is atrocious and in need of proofreading.

I rewrote the author's "Important note" in the meantime to reflect a more neutral tone until the article can be revamped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grozny09 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Important note section was unacceptable, thank you for bringing this up. For users to comment on the subject in the article openly as was done in the article (even referring to it such as "writing an article about this subject") was unacceptable. Soxwon (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I just sorted through the rest of the page and it's in horrible shape. Hard to read, meandering, and constantly going off topic, I'm wondering if this one should just be put down. Soxwon (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting editing assistance for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands page

This page's history is riddled with edit wars. This is a combination of authors that regularly edit the page as well as both registered and unregistered editors who make edits with or without discussion.

It seems there's a pretty obvious pattern of accusations flying back and forth whereby the "regular" editors make consensus that "new" editors' language fails NPOV; on the other hand, the "new" editors accuse the regulars of forming a cabal that prevents any new edit contrary to what the "regulars" see as NPOV...thus violating NPOV.

This is a classic tit-for-tat, he-said vs. she said, on a known controversial article that has already been through medcab at least once (2007-09-11 Falkland Islands) if not more times. Would suggest locking and assigning a neutrality editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.57.10 (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Additional note...same for the Gibraltar article. Here again we see a similar history of edit wars and mutual NPOV accusations by various registered and unregistered editors on one side, and a clan of regular editors on the other side, in an article about a known controversial subject. I'd submit that both articles should be edit-protected while a third pair of eyes gives a good once-over and maybe the creation of a neutral and permanent avenue for third-party dispute resolutions (as it's a sure bet the current ones won't be the last). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.57.10 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Kongu Vellalar

First, I'm hoping I posted this in the correct place. I came across an article, Kongu Vellalar that has some atrocious aspects mostly POV. But I do not know about the top and wouldn't want to make changes. The article is: Kongu Vellalar It appears to deal with an India sect. Even though I know nothing about this topic it, surely it should not contain sentences such as:
"The government of India census wants to keep its people ignorant on this aspect "
"which has aroused considerable jealousy and fear among the real holders of Power"
"which mostly go unresearched partly due to the heavy stench of ideological biases of contemperory Tamil historians"
The article also has NO references for anything.
There is a Neutrality warning at the top of the article, but is this sufficient? How can sentences like the above be left in? These might be the worst, but the entire article is absolutely filled with unreferences and sometimes absurd statments like:
"Concerned scientists have warned the community to have at least two children per family to maintain steady trend"
I thought I'd mention this as I've honestly never seen anything quite like this on Wikipedia. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Prostitution and POV forks

The article Prostitution has had several sections broken out of it and moved to larger article, often without any notice on Talk:Prostitution and without any linking or announcement to appropriate WikiProject. The articles in question are Feminist views on prostitution, Prostitution (criminology), and Legality of prostitution (specifically, the "Debate_over_legalization" section). These forks are quite blatantly one-sided, presenting an anti-prostitution/"prostitution abolitionist" position as basically the sole political and academic view on the subject. These articles are now severely unbalanced and in violation of WP:NPOV and represent POV forks.

The thing is, some of these subjects are large enough topics to break out into their own articles. However, it seems that in practice, the purpose of breaking these sections out into independent articles was to create editorializing articles away from watchful eyes in the original article.

I am requesting more eyes on these articles and suggestion on how to reintegrate the articles, clean up content forking, and turn these forks back into simple content breakouts.

Also, how does one deal with articles like the above where undue weight is a significant problem, that is, where editors have made extensive, referenced contributions, but are entirely one-sided? Bringing the article back to WP:NPOV seems to require either of two problematic alternatives: 1) add content until the article is balanced, which may take a long time in articles where previous editors have flooded the article with content from one perspective, or 2) delete excess content so that the article may be more easily balanced, but in the process take out referenced content and risk charges that content is being deleted for POV reasons. I'm really not sure how to deal with this dilemma. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to note that this seems to have blown up into a full-blown NPOV dispute. An editor who has edited several of the above-mentioned articles holds that there is an "academic consensus" against the idea of consensual prostitution and that views opposing this are of a "small minority". Naturally, I disagree with this and see editing prostitution-related articles toward this point of view as POV-pushing. I would like to get third-party opinions on this dispute and hopefully head off a full-scale edit war over several articles. Discussion is at Talk:Prostitution #POV_Forks. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

Two editors have launched a massive POV re-write of Lyndon LaRouche, involving well over 100 edits between them over the past week. The effect of their editing has been to take a stable, neutral BLP well into attack-article territory. The main emphasis has been the deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche ([80][81]) while giving undue weight to obscure critics ([82][83][84][85].) The NPOV tag that I placed was also reverted [86]. I would appreciate some intervention from non-involved editors. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"A massive POV rewrite"? Is that a neutral account of the dispute? The subject has received a lot of attention in the past month due to his "Obama=Hitler" campaign against health care reform, which caused a spike in readership of the article, and in turn to uninvolved editors who've posted to the talk page their views that the article is too long. Over the past year a lot of trivial press mentions have been put in that don't add to readers' knowledge of the subject. So there is some long-overdue revising going on. Uninvolved editors are encouraged to read the article and see what they think needs fixing.   Will Beback  talk  16:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Watching the article. Will try to gague nature of conflict before speaking further on it.Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this correct way to defend neutrality?

I refer to these recent edits of the article False prophet: [87] and [88]. In my opinion those edits violate neutrality of the article. They have been discussed in the talk page. No consensus has been reached. Uikku (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that isn't NPoV territory exactly although it could constitute a violation of WP:DUESimonm223 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 W The content appearing above is a local copy of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard page from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It was written by various Wikipedians (contributor history) and is distributed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (license text).

The version shown above has Revision ID: 317996024 and was last updated October 5, 2009, 6:41 am.

Current version on Wikipedia: view / edit Read Wikipedia's disclaimers.
Retrieved from "http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:GWArtMirrorPage"
Sea Level Explorer
Random image
Toolbox