Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

A clear violation of rule of neutrality on Wikipedia has been detected in serbian version of Adriatic Sea article( http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Јадранско_море) and in Croatian version of wikipedia (http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadransko_more), about an ongoing border dispute regarding the Bay of Piran and Slovenia's junction to the high Sea. In both, a list of countries with access to the High Sea (croatian: "Zemlje s izlazom na otvoreno more") and countries Without Access to the High Sea("Zemlje bez izlaza na otvoreno more") were made. As I edited the croatian version and put Slovenia under the countries with access to the High Sea, and added note saying "disputed"(croatian: osporeno), it got reverse edited by administrator MaGa (http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor_sa_suradnikom:MaGa) and ultimately locked. My call to find a solution to the wiki-warring that occured was so far ignored by other users(http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor:Jadransko_more). As the dispute is to be settled by tribunal, and since the agreement is bound to determine where and how will Slovenia's junction to the High Sea be, not question it, I find the article being prejudgemental and biased, therefore, "unWikipediish" . In an Arbitration Agreement, signed by both Parties in Stockholm in 2011, Article 3 (Task of the Arbitral Tribunal) it clearly states that; "(1) The Arbitral Tribunal Shall determine (b) Slovenia's junction to the High Sea". The term "Junction" has been used by the internacional court of law in Hague regarding the Burkina Faso/Mali border dispute(1986), Salvador/Honduras(1992), Botswana/Namibia(1999), Cameroon/Nigeria(2002), and was used as a word to define a direct contact between two bodies of water according to previously stated agreements. Secondly, according to the Maritime Law, every nation has the right of access to the international sea/high sea, either directly, or indirectly through territorial waters, what is called an "innocent passage".

I also add the reference link to official and signed arbitration agreement, as a proof; http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/10.a_Arbitražni_sporazum_-_podpisan_EN.pdf

Mrwho00tm (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't comment on anything that happens on Serbian or Croatian wikipedias. You will have to take the points up on those projects. This page relates to the English-language Wikipedia only. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I know why the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was started up in Switzerland :) On the English Wikipedia list articles tend to be inclusive and treated as a way to get to the individual articles that will say more, rather than as being definitive about a topic. But as said above what another language Wikipedia does is up to them. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

the problem is that because they recently had a war, their nationalism is inflated, therefore, everybody stands together in forging the facts. So, to whom should i write, when the whole wikipedia is run by nationalists? Mrwho00tm (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any way except to argue your case on that wikipedia itself at whatever is closest to this noticeboard. And you may have to just concede defeat. Sometimes people bring things like that to Jimbo's talkpage or to the Wikimedia Foundation but you need a far more obvious and blatant example and have had a reasonable go at dispute resolution on that wikipedia first. I'd have to say your dispute does not look to me like it has anywhere near the obviousness needed for an appeal like that to be successful. Dmcq (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please compare the article as it were in July 16, 2009, and how it is now after literally hundreds of small editions -- specially more recently, after Red Rose started vadalising it.. The history of this book is full of contoversy and law suites due to changes made in the book after the death of the author by Self-realization Fellowship. One of the most polemical was the forgery of the author's signature. The vadalism has been made to eliminate the controversy and has turned the page a propaganda of Self-Realization Fellowsip's edition -- ignoring the other publushers and using the cover of the Self-realuzation Fellowship publication to illustrate the article. It is as if the Self-Realization Fellowship publication is the one and only. The reason of so many editions is the fact the book is in publuc domain, Red Rose did the same thing in the Portuguese Wikipedia, but had his sectarian editions reverted. Since the tactic used is to make hundreds of small editions, reverting the article will eliminate all the changes -- but it is impossible to check one by one. Anyway I will revert the article and I ask for mediation. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Tat Sat, Red Rose 13 didn't make the edits, if you take a look at the history, it's Sitush, a neutral wikipedia editor that cleaned up the page. The page contained numerous information from pov and unreliable sources. As I have mentioned on the talk page, wikipedia only allows information from verifiable third-party sources. The page as it was 3 years back, contained many primary research while linking to blogs, personal sites and other non-notable sources of information. Your edits are welcome but make sure you are providing appropriate sources as outlined by wikipedia. Please do not start an edit war. NestedVariable (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone, for a long time now there has been a lot of discontent with the Ancient Aliens article. A group of editors have constantly removed edits that explain things brought up in the show and have cited a number of negative sources that are invalid. For example: The Fritze article was published before the TV show was even aired, and a few other negative statements are left uncited. If you look at the talk page a lot of people have asked for this article to be fixed, but the group of editors that have been editing the page refuse to let anything positive by.

We all understand that fringe science does not receive priority on Wikipedia, but we would like to have a section discussing the proposed evidence in the show. We're not trying to present this in a way that seems factual, but simply to give a reference point to people who read this article and see "pseudoscience" all over it and would like to know what exactly is being criticized. --Xm638 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You misrepresent the Fritze source as being published before the TV series. It was published in response to the pilot episode, prior to the serialization, but its criticisms remains perfectly valid for the pilot episode.

Otherwise, the TV show presents a popular concept of pseudoscience which is completely unsupported by mainstream scientists: that alien astronauts landed on Earth a couple of thousand years ago. We already have an article for that: Ancient astronauts. All of the arguments in favor or in opposition should be presented at that article, not at the article about the TV show. The only things relevant to the TV show are viewer numbers, broadcast dates, and critical responses. There is no need to create a coatrack POV fork within the TV article, one that presents the supposed evidence of the TV show. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely. We have an article on ancient astronaut hypotheses, which is where the arguments go. Articles such as Ancient Aliens and Weird or What? are not appropriate places to discuss the claims made by the programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is a tentative warning for people watching the white nationalism page. According to this thread, there are plans by white nationalists to "infiltrate" and push their POV on the article. I think that administrators and relevant parties should be aware of this situation. -Multirecs (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The person who started the thread at that antisemetic forum claims to be the same Steven L. Akins who back in 2004 was trying to claim chieftaincy of Clan Akins in part by editing the then Wikipedia article Clan Akins (now a redirect). The whole thread is a sad testament to the nature of these pathetic creatures. (One claims to have snuck in some racist edits and gotten away with it, but doesn't specify what article(s).) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just thought that I should make people aware of the situation. -Multirecs (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is much appreciated. As suspected, there was IP socking at the article: ""Alas, Akins, my repeated attempts to add your good self to a list of Prominent Individuals in WN on Wikipedia (using a variety of different IP addresses), over the last week, have all been shot down in flames. Apparently, you just don't rate." I wasn't editing in 2004, but I was involved at the time of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wyvren/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am very new at editing, so forgive me if the wording of this notice strays from protocol.

In Chris Collins (county executive), an article on a congressional candidate, an editor has removed a section titled "Controversies" numerous times now (see [1]) after my own addition of the section, another editor's additions, and reversions of his edits from myself and from much more experienced editors. The editor has been contacted twice on his Talk page (see [2], and I attempted starting a discussion on the article's Talk page as well (see [3])...before I knew the correct definition of "edit warring."

This is pretty small in the grand scheme of things, but it nonetheless appears to constitute censorship and an issue of a less-than-neutral point of view, so I'd appreciate any guidance on how to proceed. For further context, this person has edited only this one article, and has a history of removing negative information from the page since 2010. As of this writing, another editor has since restored the section, but it seems likely "Abe5678" will revert this again if history is any indication. Sssppp888222 (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that Abe5678 (talk · contribs) has not made edits to any other article, what this looks like is a slow-moving edit war. I've cautioned him about that and invited him (again) to discuss the situation on the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And since he refused, I just blocked him for 31 hours for violation of the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for addressing this. LaTeeDa (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I originally posted this on the fringe theories noticeboard, but I'm not sure whether the issue is most relevant to that board or this one. Please look at my report here on WP:FTN for the details.

Briefly, we seem to have reached an impasse at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories regarding the proper treatment of Joe Arpaio, an Arizona sheriff who has been going to great lengths to "investigate" the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. The NPOV question here is complicated by the fact that the underlying aim of this particular article is to document various fringe theories as fringe theories, without giving them undue prominence or credibility.

This article has been fully protected because of edit warring, but that protection is due to expire in about four hours' time, and I unfortunately predict the problem will resume as soon as the protection expires. Any comments or suggestions for a more effective, long-term intervention would be welcome. Thanks. — Richwales 04:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We appear to have reached a consensus for new wording regarding Joe Arpaio, so I think it's OK to close this request for assistance now. — Richwales 21:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've developed an article I'm proposing to call badger culling in the United Kingdom, which is presently in my sandbox. In writing it I've needed to suppress strongly-held personal opinions, so please could someone supply an independent pair of eyes to take a look at it and check for NPOV issues? All the best—S Marshall T/C 19:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a closer look. Do you have sources for some specific points? I'm thinking in particular of the "costs a tenth of what cage-trapping costs", because this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Guardian article cited at the end of that section, and also the "under EU law it is not currently permissible to vaccinate cattle with a needle" and "EU declared Scotland...". bobrayner (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input. All three of those are sourced now.—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ledes are very difficult to write. I would cut out all the "controversial topic", and say that badger culling is a response to bovine TB. I recall reading about the ban on cattle vaccination in the Muckspreader column of Private Eye. It might be considered reliable, or might lead you to other sources. A useful article, thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your advice, I've done that.—S Marshall T/C 20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Can a citation be found for "The government had been struggling to keep a lid on compensation payments", (keep a lid on) reads like a POV, if its someones POV that you can cite then you can put it in using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV otherwise that stands out as an editors POVWebwidget (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In 2011, about 26,000 cattle were slaughtered because of bTB, at a cost of £100 million.[16] to who? its begging to say "to the tax payer" if that is who foots the bill. Webwidget (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Could you explain why "keep a lid on" sounds POV, please? I've clarified the other matter.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me and just my opinion that the government are trying to keep things quite like there is some kind of cover up to prevent this coming out in to the public domain which sounds like a POV without a citation to back it up, if they are trying to keep a lid on it then there should be an RS talking about this being the case Webwidget (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. Yes, that's potentially confusing, I'll rephrase it.—S Marshall T/C 22:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is an ongoing argument at the article on A Thousand Plateaus about whether to include the following sentence: "Physicsts Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont suggest that, like several of Deleuze and Guattari's other works, A Thousand Plateaus contains many passages that use scientific terms in arbitrary or misleading ways." The sentence is properly sourced, to a widely praised academic book, but two editors - IP address 108.213.200.251 and 271828182 (note that that's not an IP address, despite the numerical name) have objected to it, claiming that it does not meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. Specifically, they argue that Sokal and Bricmont's view is not "significant" in the sense understood by NPOV ("Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.") I've tried to explain, during the long and tedious discussion that has resulted from this disagreement (see here), that "significant" in the sense that NPOV uses the term basically means non-fringe. The IP has simply rejected this outright, stating "Your reading of the policy has no basis in fact" without offering any further argument.

The IP has also asserted that there is consensus for removing the Sokal and Bricmont material altogether, which is not the case, as Maclean25 supported inclusion in some form. It removed the material most recently here. I apologize for bringing this dispute here, but I see little alternative, due to the persistence of the IP. Comments from editors not previously involved in the discussion would be welcome. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Sokal and Bricmont mention the actual topic of the article - the book A Thousand Plateaus once in their book, and only in passing (as one of a couple of books they just list and give a series of page numbers for saying "and there's bad stuff here too.") I agree that Sokal and Bricmont are a significant view on the authors in general, and I agree that a section of the Gilles Deleuze article, for instance, should discuss Sokal and Bricmont. But I see no evidence that they are significant commenters on this specific book by Deleuze and Guattari. I've suggested providing, on the talk page, secondary sources showing that Sokal and Bricmont's commentary on this specific book is significant and has been quoted in other articles, but Polisher of Cobwebs has flatly refused to provide any such sources. Absent that, I simply don't see how a passing mention on one page of a book can be called significant even if the book is itself a significant source on other related topics. Again, I don't mean this as some sort of broad "Sokal and Bricmont are a marginal view that ought not be mentioned anywhere." There are articles in which their views deserve a significant hearing. But I don't think they are automatically worthy of mention on every single work by every single author they talk about. When they don't mention a work beyond a fleeting list of page numbers and can't be shown to be a significant viewpoint on that specific work then they shouldn't be included. When they can, on the other hand, they should. For instance, if we were to have an article on The Subversion of the Subject, an essay by Jacques Lacan that Sokal and Bricmont tore into and where their critique is very widely mentioned and debated, I would agree that a mention of Sokal and Bricmont is wholly in order. But that doesn't seem true here - it seems like a minor part of their book and a trivial part of A Thousand Plateaus's larger critical and academic reception.

The idea that the due weight portion of NPOV is just a ban on fringe sources, meanwhile, is absurd. Fringe sources, it notes, should be all but completely excluded. But even within reliable and mainstream sources there's an issue of due weight, which is also the policy that governs how much attention we give to any given viewpoint. When dealing with a book like A Thousand Plateaus, which has over ten thousand citations in other academic works - and that's just its English translation - merely being an academic source is not sufficient to establish that it should be mentioned in the article. And when the discussion of the book is as fleeting as Sokal and Bricmont's is I think it's a stretch to say that it should be included prima facie, without further evidence. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Sokal and Bricmont mention A Thousand Plateaus "once in their book, and only in passing" is absolutely and utterly irrelevant for purpose of determining whether theirs is a significant view in the sense in which "significant" is defined by WP:NPOV. Nowhere in the policy does it say that whether a view is significant or not has anything to do with the number of pages someone spends discussing something. The IP complains that there is "no evidence that they are significant commenters on this specific book by Deleuze and Guattari." It appears to be using "significant" in some other sense entirely than the sense which WP:NPOV is concerned with. The IP writes that, "The idea that the due weight portion of NPOV is just a ban on fringe sources, meanwhile, is absurd." It may be absurd. It's also a view I've never supported at any time, thus the IP is trying to rebut a view that isn't mine. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is about a specific book, A Thousand Plateaus, by Deleuze & Guattari. This is the only mention of that book by Sokal and Bricmont:

"Should the reader entertain any further doubts about the ubiquity of pseudo-scientific language in Deleuze and Guattari's work, he or she is invited to consult, in addition to the references given in the footnotes, pages 20-24, 32, 36-42, 50, 117-133, 135-142, 151-162, 197, 202-207, and 214-217 of What Is Philosophy?, and pages 32-33, 142-143, 211-212, 251-252, 293-295, 361-365, 369-374, 389-390, 461, 469-473, and 482-490 of A Thousand Plateaus."

That is, Sokal and Bricmont do not discuss A Thousand Plateaus in any detail at all. They refer to it in passing. While Sokal and Bricmont's views on Deleuze and Guattari's works in general are significant, and are included in the main article on Gilles Deleuze, their view on A Thousand Plateaus is not a significant view, as it is a fleeting mention without any specific discussion of the subject of the WP article. To include a sentence almost as long as the original source's fleeting discussion would be to give undue weight. "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. [...] An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." 271828182 (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not define "significant" in terms of the number of pages someone spends discussing something. That's quite simply an irrelevant issue. I think the key word in the part of WP:NPOV 271828182 quotes is "may." This is an issue of judgement. I think it's perfectly reasonable to (briefly) cite what a famous book says about another famous book, even if it says something about it only in passing. To get some sense of perspective on this, consider the fact that the article cites Antonio Negri's view that A Thousand Plateaus is "the most important philosophical text of the 20th century." I'd like to ask 271828182 how many pages Negri spends establishing this rather surprising and unconventional view, which hardly represents the thinking of most philosophers? Many, or just a few? If it's just a few, then your argument against Sokal and Bricmont would apply equally against Negri as well, but you've never suggested that the mention of Negri is unreasonable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You never asked. I'm not attached to Negri's judgment. It sounds like the sort of thing some editor added to the article to establish notability, though, so it may call for different standards than the Sokal and Bricmont sentence. In any case, I'm glad to see you agree that what counts as "significant" is a matter of judgment rather than claiming that any comment, however scanty, that a famous book makes about another famous book is ipso facto "significant". (Lest you accuse me of erecting a straw man, here are your words: "It appears self-evident to me that views expressed about a book in a famous book that received widespread praise are indeed significant.") Do you have a response to my reductio, namely, that your position implies we should litter articles with every stray mention of famous books by other famous books? (E.g., inserting John Allen Paulos' views into articles on the Flood?) 271828182 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What I said seemed self-evident to me was a matter of my judgement. Generally, one would indeed expect a famous book's comment about another famous book to be worth reporting, even if only briefly. For that matter, comments in books that aren't famous can also be worth mentioning in many cases. WP:NPOV is intentionally meant to be a flexible policy, and it doesn't automatically suggest that such material either should or shouldn't be included in any given case. In this case, I don't think it's reasonable to call criticism of a book "litter." It is helpful to readers to inform them that a book has been criticized by well-known writers.

The Negri material, by the way, is apparently sourced to Communists Like Us. I don't have access to Communists Like Us, but I was fortunate enough to be able to find New Lines of Alliance, New Spaces of Liberty free online from Mayflybooks.org. It appears to be a republication of Communists Like Us under a different title, and after searching the document and looking through it carefully, I can report that it simply doesn't mention A Thousand Plateaus, neither to call it the most important philosophical text of the 20th century nor to say anything else about it. So I suspect that the Negri material is wrongly sourced. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The biggest difference is that Negri's work is explicitly built out from Deleuze and Guattari's, with their concept of deteritorialization being the basis of Negri's work and something spelled out primarily in A Thousand Plateaus. This makes the connection much larger than that of Sokal and Bricmont. I'm not sure why the source used isn't Empire itself - someone who owns a copy of the book should have no trouble fixing that, though. But more to the point, finding secondary sources that comment explicitly on Negri's reading of A Thousand Plateaus is absolutely trivial: [4] [5] [6] [7]. It's very easy to show quite thoroughly that Negri's commentary on this specific book is an oft-cited thing and thus a significant perspective on the book. I've only spent about ten minutes trying, but it proved much harder to do that with Sokal and Bricmont - their commentary on Deleuze and Guattari is oft-cited, but seemingly not their commentary on this specific book. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If their argument is solely that it isn't "significant," then I reject that argument. These are notable physicists who are criticizing an aspect of his book. As someone said above, it's irrelevant how many pages they spend discussing him. We're not talking about an entire section on this, we're talking about one brief sentence. I'm hesistant about "like several of Deleuze and Guattari's other works." Unless it is crystal clear and accepted that this is true, it seems to me more appropriate, in light of NPOV, to rewrite sentence as "Physicsts Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont suggest that A Thousand Plateaus contains many passages that use scientific terms in arbitrary or misleading ways, as is the case with several of Deleuze and Guattari's other works." This way it's shown that this is according to the physicists, and not to the Wikipedia editor, regardless of his views. But generally, I believe the sentence should be kept. --Activism1234 02:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions to improve this material. I'll make the change. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think that the brevity of mention precludes the possibility that their commentary on A Thousand Plateaus is significant. It should also be made clear, Deleuze and Guattari are not physicists, nor is their book about physics. So that Sokal and Bricmont are notable physicists is of tangental relevance here - they're commenting outside their field. While, in this case, their comments outside of their field are broadly significant - as I've said, I have no doubt that they should be included on a discussion of, say, Gilles Deleuze - this surely doesn't filter down endlessly to every subtopic of every writer they discuss.

I'd make an argument by analogy. There are frequently cited and appropriately credentialed climate skeptics, and their viewpoints are correctly discussed on top level articles on the topic of climate change. But as we get into secondary and tertiary topics in climate science the broad disputes about climate change stop getting aired in each article, and rightly so. Because the overall dispute on climate change is of interest as an overall dispute, but it's not a major part of the discussion of each and every detail. A similar situation exists here - there is a general line of critique against postmodernist theory and particularly Deleuze and Guattari that Sokal and Bricmont form a major part of. But it doesn't follow that Sokal and Bricmont should be mentioned on subtopics within the authors they critique unless their commentary on that specific subtopic is of notable significance to that subtopic as distinct from the whole.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong and Sokal and Bricmont are a significant viewpoint on this specific aspect of Deleuze and Guattari's work as opposed to a significant viewpoint on their work in general. I am open to that possibility. I just want to see some evidence - secondary sources discussing Sokal and Bricmont's views on A Thousand Plateaus specifically - that indicates significance of this line of criticism. I'm surprised, honestly, that a request for sources like this is proving controversial. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies on sourcing do not, so far as I'm aware, require that a source's comments about a book be discussed in other books in order for them to be mentioned in an article about that book. This is just as well, because would be an unreasonably restrictive requirement that would make expanding the contents of articles much more difficult. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, but they do require that a source's comments on a subject be a significant viewpoint, and I don't really see how, in the case of a dispute, that's going to be determined without evidence of some sort. I'm not proposing secondary mention as a requirement for insertion of material. I am proposing that in this specific case, when there's sane reason to question whether or not this particular perspective is significant in terms of this particular topic, that further sources might help. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got a problem with some of these articles in that they list, with various dates, early United Monarchy kings whose existence and dates are debates (List of state leaders in 1040s BC and other lists), mythical Irish kings at pages such as List of state leaders in the 13th century BC who are now considered to be pseudohistory (List of High Kings of Ireland, and other mythical kings such as Latinus Silvius without stating their status as disputed or mythical. Obviously we are not going to call Saul or David, etc mythical, but as it is a fact they are disputed, then how should we phrase this? And should we actually have any clearly mythical kings (although I'd guess there are people who dispute that also). A number of these (as with the United Monarchy rules and Ancient Egyptian ones) have very uncertain dates also, but I guess that's another issue. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

State the article being discussed.

Article on "Marco Rubio", Major Section on "Personal Life"

Include diff[erence]s to the specific change being proposed, paste text here.

Text as it appeared earlier:

Personal life

Rubio married Jeanette Dousdebes, a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader, in 1997. She is of Colombian descent, and together they have four children named Amanda, Daniella, Anthony, and Dominic.[37] Rubio and his family live in West Miami, Florida.[1][38] Rubio attends Catholic Mass as well as a Southern Baptist church in West Kendall, Florida.[39][12][40]

"Son of exiles" controversy

In October 2011, the St. Petersburg Times and The Washington Post reported that Rubio's previous statements that his parents were forced to leave Cuba in 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, were incorrect as they had in fact left Cuba in 1956 during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. According to The Washington Post, Rubio's "embellishments" resonate with many voters in Florida, who would not be as impressed by his family being economic migrants seeking a better life in the U.S. instead of political refugees from a communist regime.[7]

Rubio responded, "The real essence of my family’s story is not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they traveled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro’s Cuba forever and permanently settled here."[41][42][43]

Text as it currently appears:

Questioned immigration story

In October 2011, the St. Petersburg Times and The Washington Post reported that Rubio's previous statements that his parents were forced to leave Cuba in 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, were incorrect; they had in fact left Cuba in 1956, during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista.

In response to the controversy, Senator Rubio’s office elaborated on the events in question in the following way. The office noted that after arrival in the U.S. in 1956, his parents returned to Cuba after Castro’s takeover (i.e., as legal immigrants returning to their home country for a visit with extended family), with possible intent to return to Cuba. In particular, the office stated that Senator Rubio's father, Mario, remained in the U.S., in Florida, in 1961, “wrapping up the family’s matters" while his mother, Oriales, returned to Cuban with their two children “with the intention of remaining permanently”, but that it soon became clear to the visiting Rubios that “Cuba was headed ... toward Communism", leading to a return to the U.S. within weeks.[7] While headlining the conclusion that Rubio embellished his imigration story in political presentations, the same Washington Post article included examination of the passports of Mario and Oriales Rubio, and confirmed the underlying travel contentions made by the Senator's office: that following admission to the U.S. in 1956 and Castro ascendance to power in January 1959, Oriales Rubio made 4 documented trips to Cuba, including a month-long visit in February-March 1961, for a total time in Castro's Cuba of just over 2 months (with visits by the father, Mario, being a shorter five days).[7] Senator Rubio has clarified information on his senatorial web pages, where it now states that "My faith in America’s promise was shaped early on by my parents who left Cuba in 1956 and, after Fidel Castro solidified his communist grip, were never able to return."[37] He has otherwise not altered the essence of his family's immigration story in response to the Post's and related stories, noting that it is "not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they traveled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro’s Cuba forever and permanently settled here",[38][39][40] but about the aspirations that the family sought and achieved through its immigration. Even so, The Washington Post story suggests that Rubio's purported "embellishments" might resonate with voters in Florida, who could be less impressed by economic migrants seeking a better life in the U.S., rather than political refugees from a communist regime.[7] Notably, as of July 2012, the Background subsection (tab) of the WP Politics Section of the Washington Post states that "Rubio was born in Miami to parents who fled Cuba after Communist leader Fidel Castro's takeover."[41]

Marriage, family, and religion

Senator Rubio married his teenage sweetheart; Jeanette Dousdebes-Rubio, from a family of Colombian descent, also attended South Miami High School, though their meeting came at a later neighborhood function (he at age 19, she at age 17).[42][43] Dousdebes-Rubio worked as a bank teller, joined the Miami Dolphins cheerleaders with her younger sister in 1997 (where on game days, the young Rubio cheered from the stands); she had interests in fashion design before expecting their first child, and now stays at home with their four children, Amanda, Daniella, Anthony, and Dominic, as well as leading a weekly woman's bible study group from their home.[44][1][45] Rubio attends Catholic Mass, and Christ Fellowship, a nondenominational church in West Kendall, Florida.[46][47][12][48][49] Rubio and his family live in West Miami, Florida. [edit]

Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.

The substance of the issue is that an editor seems to want to maintain control over this section, allowing no edits, and so repeatedly reverts the longer form with greater information and citations, to the shorter -- without explanation or evaluation of the added content.

The edits made here were repeatedly explained in the talk section. The response was nevertheless to repeatedly revert them without discussion. In the science areas where I write extensively, this never happens. Revisions are constantly added, further revised, etc. It therefore leads me to believe there may be an underlying subject bias that leads this editor to want the shorter to remain.

This is stated in particular, because the longer article (i) adds clarifying information from the same sources as the original article, (ii) adds additional sources and information from reputable sources (Fla newspapers, Washington Post site), and (iii) that the added information expands the available information on two subjects (facts regarding immigration, and spouse).

The expanded content should -- in this academic's opinion -- be accepted until critical review indicates other, better content. (It is not my claim this longer version is the best writing, or that it is complete.)

It is, however, much more complete and balanced insofar as it is clearly citation-based, to whit it:

   + clarifies Sen Rubio's wife's correct legal name, as reported in a Fla newspaper expose (earlier, on senatorial candidate spouses)
   + provides other details regarding the Senator's spouse's history and occupational pursuits (same source),
   + indicates a change in the Senator's representation of the immigration matter (Rubio website),
   + provides the response of record of the Senator's office to the Washington Post article (WP, **as it is given in that article**), and so adds no bias,
   + indicates factual concurrence between the WP report of passport evidence and the Senator's statements (correlating above sources), and, it
   + indicates that the current information at original reporting site suggests no ongoing controversy (WP site).

I believe it cannot be defended, that the article remain with redacted information on the spouse (which seems to reflect a bias, via her presentation in a particularly limited, and so unflattering way), and with only a description of part of the original WP article on the immigration matter, without the WP report of the Rubio office response, the correspondence between the two accounts, and the WP's follow-up representations (the lack of which, taken together, seems to reflect a bias to present the immigration matter in an incomplete, and so a possibly unflattering way).

Notably, while the response and timelines offered by the Rubio office are not factual merely by virtue of their being offered by that office, their being offered by the office in response (and reported as such by the WP) is a fact of the case, as are other pieces of information reported by the WP. Moreover, **the Rubio office response is given in the same WP article drawn upon for the short article version above, but mention of the response per se is omitted in the short article version** (an oversight corrected in the long); this partial reporting of the content of the WP article suggests bias in the original, shorter wiki article version.

Finally, I would note that I am not a political partisan in this, but as a wiki editor, try to address matters outside my subject area when there are facts that I would like to have to understand this situation. Here, based on what I read initially, I felt I was being left hanging, and with a somewhat negative view of spouse and Senator. I therefore looked to expand the story as full as reputable reporting would allow, with an aim toward balance. News report, and response to news report. Not only one side or the other.

Bottom line, I believe continued reversion to the shorter version, without critical review/editing does not accomplish anything, except to unnecessarily propagate a sense of bias in this article. Prof D. Meduban (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC) [Note, though omitted above, the longer revision also corrects the church affiliations of the Senator and family, based on a Florida newspaper account, and provides the correct name and location by visit to that church's web-site. Once again, the object is accuracy and neutrality.]

I doubt anyone will read all of this. Anyway, the back-story is that Meduban is edit-warring, repeating the same edit even though it has been rejected by multiple editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is your contention, just as it is mine that you consistently deleted edits, carte blanche and without any explanation, early in this process -- which I have noted from others is contrary to good wiki practice -- and that in doing so, set the stage for the matter that developed. I may have been technically wrong in the way that I handled the attempt to get attention and adjudication for this matter. But as the more senior, and more experienced wiki practitioner, I think you need to accept that your behaviour was not beyond reproach (though I have no idea how one might adjudicate that matter, here). And I stand by the fact that the general inability of a small set of contributors to this article, to consider change to a section which clearly seems to be to be biased -- this raises concerns over the impartiality of the current participants. I will look for remediation, however it is proper to do so; my trust in the impartiality of the few regulars at the article, that seem set on guarding the current text, has vanished.Meduban (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Have faith in the system, Nomo..., as I have, and please, here, don't side-step the matters of substance raised above for unhelpful accusation (edit-warring). I am offering explanation for my edit (expanding an article), but you are offering no explanation for its apparent bias in short form (and constant redaction). Please, (i) respond to the matters raised in the content, and (ii) let other editors do the same. Speak only for yourself, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meduban (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is supposed to be discussed at the talk page. Meduban/Prof_D has been edit warring rather than allowing the talk page discussion to take its course. Whether Meduban's concerns have any merit frankly is beside the point. Meduban needs consensus to make the desired changes, and so far the editor has made more reversions trying to insist on his or her changes than contributions to the talk discussion because he or she refuses, despite others' efforts, to recognize that the onus for obtaining consensus is on the person looking to make a change. Basically, Meduban thinks that because he claims to be "an academic" that we should simply accept his or her work product until something better comes along. Even if Meduban is a professor, that simply isn't the way it works. No one is special, and Meduban has to convince fellow editors to accept changes just as anyone else would have to. "Explaining" isn't enough. Meduban needs to persuade. So far, Nomo has pointed out OR concerns, and Meduban's only response has been to start this distraction of a discussion. -Rrius (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this issue is about warring. The issue is autocratic unwillingness to change clearly flawed text, where the claim vis-a-vis flawed is citation- and fact-based. I disagree that when presenting information about a living person's life, that whether such a claim has merit is less important than wiki process concerns. I ask Rrius to un-ruffle from the mention that I am professionally trained to sit in judgment over texts, and to review sources, etc. The question is simply, should inaccurate and half- (and therefore seemingly biased) presentations about a living person stand because (i) we normally require consensus before changes (which is not the case in science editing, where factual challenges lead to immediate content removal), and because no one is willing to expeditiously and without bias, review the content arguments presented? My claims are straight-forward, and easily reviewed and verified. I suggest the section be deleted, rather than have a half story, mistake-ridden and biased as it is, remain in place. Meduban (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion probably shouldn't be away from the talk page at all yet, but if it we are at that point, the more rational place is WP:BLP/Noticeboard, especially given the original research claims. -Rrius (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify... what you see as the original research claims. I am aware of none, and do not see this claim clearly from Nomo... (There is no original research; as close as it might come, is the observation that the WP article makes the same passport date claims as the Senator's office; it is merely holding the two sources alongside each other, and saying, "no substantial difference".) As for where this should be adjudicated, I have no strong concern, except that it be a fair venue, one tasked to make decisions and that can focus on matters of substance, and that it be a relatively expeditious process. (Life is too short for conversations that don't make any progress.) Note, I was sent to the NPOVN site because the truncated version and the insistence that it remain appear to reflect a content bias -- or why not admit further citation-based information? As for the research claims and explanation of the abbreviation, I look forward to your response. Thank you. Meduban (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not my job to set out Nomo's OR concerns. As for venue, there was nothing unfair about the talk page; you just refuse to wait for consensus, preferring instead to edit war. By the "abbreviation", I suppose you mean "BLP", which (as you would discover if you clicked on it) stands for "biography of a living person". I will address your proposed edits (which do appear to violate, at the very least, WP:UNDUE, as originally pointed out to you) this evening or tonight at the article's talk page since you insist on addressing content-based arguments at me, even though I explicitly said I didn't plan to wade into the content (being more concerned with your original misapprehension about what version should remain live during discussion and your stubborn refusal to take advice and read up on WP guidelines on the topic). -Rrius (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would ask the reviewers at the NPOVN location to see the long critique from Rrius, and my italicized responses, at:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marco_Rubio (Section, "Problems with Meduban's version")

given the tone and content of that review, and of an earlier one (Section, "WP:OR, etc."), I remain convinced that there are biases at play that lead to the desire that this Section of the Rubio article not change. I would also ask further advice/decision, because Nomo... has subsequently suggested this matter be adjudicated at:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP/Noticeboard#Marco_Rubio    (Section, "Marco Rubio")

I don't know the best way forward on this, but am committed to seeing it through to proper adjudication, with more senior Wikipedia guidance.Meduban (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If any administrator reviewing this has history with this article and this subject matter, I would ask that we avoid apparent of conflict of interest and review it to a fully neutral party for remediation. Thank you.Meduban (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

A section of the page 2012 Burgas bus bombing contains the following passage.

The Washington Post's editorial page on July 20 contained an editorial headline "Holding Iran accountable for terrorist attacks," in which The Washington Post said that Iran must suffer for its acts of global terrorism, and "The Security Council should review the abundant evidence of involvement by the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah in this year’s attacks and punish both those groups as well as the Iranian government with sanctions." The newspaper wrote "Using the territory of countries across the world, working sometimes through proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah and sometimes with its own forces, Tehran has been intentionally targeting not just diplomats of enemies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia but also civilians."

An appropriate reference to The Washington Post is included.

A certain user decided to add a POV tag to the top of the article. You can see the tag by going to the top of the article. His reasoning in the summary box was - "Added POV tag. User:Activism1234 added a Washington Post opinion piece to the aftermath section."

Here is the diff.

I don't think that the tag should be there. I have mentioned this to the user who created the tag, but he has ignored my reasoning. I will list my reasoning below. Let me know what you guys think about this - whether the tag should be kept, removed, or whether the passage should be removed.

• What was added was not an opinion piece, as was claimed in the summary box. Editorials are written by the newspaper staff.
• I likely would not have added it if it was an opinion piece. However, The Washington Post is an internationally known media outlet that is read daily by thousands and thousands, if not millions, of people. Their view on the matter seemed to be noteworthy, and was relevant to the section on "aftermath," as they talked about what response should be taken in regards to the attack.
• The claim that it's POV pushing is silly. If I wanted to push a POV, presumably that Iran was responsible for the attack, I would've put this into the "perpetrator" section. Instead, i put it in the "aftermath" section since it dealt with a media outlet's take on what should be done in response which is read by thousands and thousands, if not millions, and appears to be noteworthy.
• The passage itself does not violate POV. The passage explicitly states it is an editorial. It is not a case of an opinion piece or editorial being inserted without mentioning what it is, and passing it off as a fact or the views of someone else.
• Adding a POV tag to an entire article solely because of one passage that doesn't violate NPOV is ludicrous.
• Tons of Wikipedia articles contain similar passages that explicitly state the media outlet and editorial, or if it's an opinion piece "X, writing for Y, wrote that..." Consider the article Public image of Barack Obama (just a random choice), which has The Washington Post mentioned 17 times, often as "X writing in The Washington Post" or "An opinion piece in the Washington Post..." As I noted above, this isn't even an opinion piece - this is an editorial. And it has been specified explicitly that this is an editorial.

It may very well be that the editor is unfamiliar with the rules. He has been on Wikipedia since 2010, but apparently didn't know he violated 1RR and 3RR, and still was confused after an administrator told him that he did in fact violate these policies. Still, the only way I can see a breakthrough is if people here agree that the tag should be removed and there is nothing wrong here.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Thanks. --Activism1234 01:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that inserting mention of the Post editorial is inappropriate. I would think that an "Aftermath" section would mostly describe what people have done, and especially what the people involved have done. Reporting on what someone else is reporting seems... disconnected. It also seems like an attempt to push a POV by "wrapping" in in a citable quote. (Please note that I am not accusing you of this; I'm just letting you know what it seems like to me, as an outside, uninvolved reader.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a section on "Proposed suggestions," since many media outlets have penned editorials on this and former officials have spoken out on what should be done in the aftermath. Would you find it acceptable in that case? --Activism1234 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) An editor is insisting that this article does not conform to NPOV and is insisting on POV tags remaining on the article, though discussion stopped sometime in may. He posts walls of text on the talk page making discussion nigh on impossible. Would a few editors please look over the article to see if it is in fact not neutral. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you list some of the key points of the arguments he raises about POV (if he makes any?)? That would help a lot. Reading the article itself, I'm not an expert and never heard of this group, but the wording and text seem to be fine with me. If his/her issue is mainly that X isn't mentioned, then he/she should go ahead and mention it with a proper, reliable referenced and be bold. Otherwise, the actual wording/text doesn't appear to have POV issue. But if just a few of his main arguments could be raised here (if he makes any arguments, I've seen people just add tags with reasons such as "Hahaha if you don't understand why it's not NPOV you must be new!"), then that would probably help alert us to those specific issues and review it. --Activism1234 18:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well he hates them with a passion which I imagine would be one of the reasons :o) He insists on calling them a "sect" in violation of WP:WTA. Another thing he demands is "Al'Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology withSufism." should be and must be inserted back to this version of Ahbash page" (bolding his) But that is already in the article, first line of [8] this section. I have no idea what he wants, look at the talk page and see for yourself. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And now he accuses me of OWN issues[9] given he had his two sockpuppets kept that article at a stub for years makes that statement ironic. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If he can provide reliable sources that refer to them as a sect, then I think he'd be allowed to briefly mention somewhere that "According to X, Al Ahbash is a sect." The sources should also be notable, not some random author who has only written a page on the topic. Otherwise, there's no legitimate reason to add that in. And the fact that the page doesn't have it doesn't mean it violates NPOV. As for your second point, let me get it straight - he wants to insert that sentence into the article in another place, despite it being in a paragraph already about their religion?

If you feel that there is a serious issue going on here, especially since he had sockpuppets, I highly suggest that you take it to an Arbitration Enforcement page or edit warring or incidents page, and file a report against him. Please be aware of the WP:BOOMERANG effect if it would apply to you. --Activism1234 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I just came across this article Yasin al-Qadi which I need a pair of eyes to look at this . Major changes were made to this page in the last month and I'm noticing references to blogs, personal websites, non-credible websites, and "news" organizations. Especially the HUGE HUGE red flag is the "Mitt Romney Connection" ViriiK (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the list of references up to number 87. I counted about 26 possible blogs and websites. And there are a lot more to look at. Is there a section in particular that concerns you? I don't really have time to look at every reference in question.Coaster92 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It was pretty much the entire thing of that user's entire edit to that article. There was so many guilt-by-association accusations construed by the user's view with no balancing POV. My concern wasn't just the sources but it was just blatant conjecture. The "Mitt Romney Connection" was an entire "Ahh, you were connected to so-so connected to the main person so therefore you're guilty!" If the world operated like that, we'd all be in jail. ViriiK (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello ViriiK, please see the talk page for the Yasin al-Qadi biography. Thanks to your pointed criticism, some of which is reasonable, I intend to re-write the article from scratch, and I hope you will be willing to share your full and frank opinion of the results as the article progresses slowly, section by section. My goal is to produce a solid, peer-reviewed, objective article that is well sourced and does not sound like "blatant conjecture." Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you that the Mitt Romney section was conjecture. It was actually very well sourced, based on a Wall Street Journal article that clearly indicates Yasin al-Qadi's friend, Zuhair Fayez, was helping him to skirt UN Sanction by moving money through off shore accounts. Zuhair Fayez really is on the Board of Directors at University of Colorado (their website says so), and Bruce Benson, the president of CU, really is a major fund-raiser for Mitt Romney. He was national co-chair of the Romney campaign in 2008. With regard to "conjecture" about what all of this means, you may be right. Wikipedia is no place for speculation. However, I will stand by those sources as solid, and the information really is very relevant to Yasin al-Qadi, who remains in the news. Bringing the profile up to date requires going into some very emotional and political issues (he is extremely controversial). If you have suggestions for maintaining balance and objectivity, they will be greatly appreciated. Sniping, however, is not helpful. Please keep it to a minimum. Thank you, Markshern7 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Markshern7 Markshern7

Which exactly meets the definition of conjecture. What does Mitt Romney have to do with Yasin al-Qadi directly? The answer is nothing. Just because A is associated with B and B is associated with C and C is associated with D does not mean D is associated with A. In this case, Yasin al-Qadi (A) is a friend of Zuhair Fayez (B) who works with Bruce Benson (C) and is a fundraiser for Mitt Romney (D). There is no direct connection here therefore it should have been left out. Another example, let's say Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States in the 90's which Bill Clinton was the President at the time but George W. Bush took office so therefore there is a "connection" between Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush. What does that mean? Does it mean they're friends now? If you want to go ahead and establish a Mitt Romney connection using the same pattern you use again which is absurd by any standard, I will report it again and get it removed. ViriiK (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all I think it means you have not read the Wikipedia article on Arbusto Energy. Bush really was in business with the Bin Laden family. But more importantly, your point is well taken. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to "connect the dots." That's called synthesis or Original Research (a no-no). My point is that it may be equally wrong for biography writers to ignore or suppress current information. That's called censorship. Modern day propaganda is largely built on the suppression of "inconvenient truths." Half truths and sins of omission damage fairness and distort objectivity every bit as much as the inclusion of false information. To erase data, to erase points on the map, to fail to record ALL relevant information to the best of one's ability, is to distort the truth and to live in a distorted world of half-truths. Ignoring information and erasing uncomfortable facts does not return one to a state of fairness or objectivity. The story of Yasin al-Qadi is a story full of distortions time 10, because he is so political. Striking a rational balance is going to be very difficult. I would appreciate your help in achieving that balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markshern7 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what I have not read or have read. I know about the whole "Arbusto Energy" but we're talking about the Bin Laden Family which is the largest construction group in Saudi Arabia, big deal! However the story is irrelevant because the investor died before the 9/11 attack ending it there. The point still stands. As you acknowledge, none of the Wikipedia editors including yourself are not allowed to connect the dots to make up a story. If you want to do that, go make your own blog and write there. There is no censorship going on here. You were just relying on bad sources to fabricate a story which went against WP:LIBEL rules which brings legal issues against wikipedia. There were some reliable sources which you again skewed it to offer a certain story contrary to writer's intentions of those articles. Again remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a soapbox, see WP:NOT ViriiK (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In article Circumcision and law, editor Sugarcube73 (talk · contribs) introduced a new section for Canada. It included:

According to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (2009): "To date, the legality of infant male circumcision has not been tested in the Courts. It is thus assumed to be legal if it is performed competently, in the child’s best interest, and after valid consent has been obtained."^[1]

and we both agree this is relevant for this new section.

Sugarcube would also like to add the following two items, which I do not believe adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE in particular:

1. Bouclin (2005) argues that the circumcision of children violates the child's rights to security of his person under Article 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and furthermore, parents are not empowered to grant surrogate consent in the absence of therapeutic necessity.^[2]
2. In 2011, the British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the conviction for criminal negligence causing bodily harm and reinstated convictions for aggravated assault and assault using a weapon of a man identified as "D. J. W." who attempted to perform a non-therapeutic circumcision on his son in his kitchen for religious reasons. The court remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing,^[3] however, Mr. D. J. W. has been given leave to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada.^[4]

Regarding #1, I do not believe the opinion of Bouclin is warranted in a high-level section discussing circumcision and law in Canada. From Suzanne Bouclin's resume, this seems to be the only paper she's ever published on this topic, and according to Google Scholar it's rarely cited, and when it is, it's often in an opinion piece in opposition to it. This paper doesn't seem nearly notable enough to line up against statement of the CPSBC. The CPSBC is established by the BC provincial legislature as the licensing and regulatory body for all physicians and surgeons in the province. The notability and weight of Bouclin isn't even in the same ballpark, and in my evaluation, it is undue weight to include Bouclin, and not any of the many dozens of other equally notable commentators on this subject.

Regarding #2, the DJW case, Sugarcube said in our discussion on Sugarcube73's talk page, "The BC Court of Appeal decision is important because it is being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. It would end up setting a policy for the whole nation of Canada" and I agree with Sugarcube73 that if this were true, it would be warranted to mention here. But (as I wrote on Sugarcube73's talk page),

I have found absolutely no reliable sources to support this claim. Unlike the Cologne ruling in Germany, the DJW case is barely getting any notice in the press at all. I found just a handful of mentions about the Crown's change of mind to take up the appeal. Here they are:

• this short article in the tiny Times Columnist
• this article from Postmedia News

That happened back in April. Nothing in the news since. Don't you think if this case really had the notability to set a country-wide precedent regarding circumcision, there'd be more about it? And where in either story is there support for "It would end up setting a policy for the whole nation of Canada"?

The nature of the actions of DJW (read the stories above to see what I mean) have nothing to do with what reliable sources mean when they discuss "circumcision". What is happening in the DJW case has nothing to do with "circumcision" as discussed in reliable sources and it's absolutely irrelevant to the Circumcision and law article.

Input please. Zad68 18:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be relevant to mention that I believe Sugarcube has been having a history of POV-pushing or tendentious editing. I outlined this here on Sugarcube's Talk page in the section "Please stop POV edits regarding circumcision"--please use this link to access it as Sugarcube has since deleted the content of that section. Zad68 18:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Canadian DJW case and the controversial Cologne Germany case both involve the conflict between a parent's right to practice religion and the child's right to physical integrity and protection of human rights. For this reason, the DJW case is very important. I don't know why the Canadian media has not picked up on this.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Canada, unlike the United States, has one criminal law code that covers the whole nation. A decision about the criminality or lack thereof of the DJW circumcision case would impact the whole nation.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been involved in the Cologne court ruling Wikipedia article edits. As for this Canada one (#2), I will honestly say I never heard it either. It doesn't mean much though, I'm sure there's a lot of news I haven't heard. And yes, it does seem noteworthy at first glance. However, it appears that the court ruling is a case where the father performed a non-theraputic circumcision himself, and was charged with a crime. It doesn't appear that circumcision was charged as a crime, and is unlikely to create a precedent. My recommendation is to wait and see what happens with this court case. If it does actually somehow end up criminalizing circumcision, or even ends up saying that circumcision should be encouraged, then it'd be notable to include. As for #1, I haven't checked out the source, but if what Zad68 is true about the author, then it would also appear as WP:UNDUE. As a side note, it's possible that Sugarcube is engaging in good-faith edits and what he honestly fells. In my personal opinion, I certainly wouldn't include the second one, and wouldn't mention the first if what Zad68 is true. Thanks. --Activism1234 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To me, this dispute looks like Sugarcube73 is trying to use Wikipedia to change the political situation, bringing non-notable cases to the fore in opposition to mainstream views. I don't think NPOV is being respected. I support any edit which removes minor cases "the Canadian media has not picked up on". Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For whatever reasons, some editors are refusing to allow any mention of relevant gun control issues to be discussed in the article 2012 Aurora shooting. Over the last few days, every attempt to add it has been removed with discussion on talk amounting to "Viriditas is a gun control advocate so he can't add it" (I've never once discussed my views about gun control on Wikipedia) and "Gun control has nothing to do with this article" (actually, there are dozens of RS devoted to the topic of the Colorado shooting and gun control). I have now added a POV tag to the article 2012 Aurora shooting and I've made a very small list of sources here and here which I'm working on expanding and improving. I'm filing this report in the hopes that someone not involved in the article (or active on gun issues) can point the way forward. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I will consider myself a relevant party, as I was the first to voice a concern about neutrality on the article's talk page. On the 25th, I had witnessed Viriditas writing about his personal feelings on surging gun sales on the article's talk page, at great length and with what I interpreted as a very distressed tone about firearms. The talk page looked like this before that section was wiped by editor Ryan Vesey. I was worried that Viriditas's very strong thoughts might lead him to add incorrect or biased information to the article, but he did not. A day later, when the article was still silent about gun control, he added to the lead section but Ryan Vesey recommended that he move the information to a new section. When I saw this section added, I commented on the talk page suggesting that he may be POV pushing in light of his removed "Colorado wackiness quotient goes to 11" comments. I realize this was a bad faith assumption, and I apologize for reacting harshly.

As far as content is concerned, I believe the article should say that firearm sales surged, which can be attributed to a fear of more restrictive gun laws in the future, and also to a heightened desire for self-defense. Both of these reasons were mentioned in the news report that Viriditas originally linked to and can be cited. We should also mention (if sources are available) that anti-gun groups were angered because the AR-15 rifle (the target of many assault weapons bans) and high-capacity magazines used by Holmes were available legally and purchased legally. Besides those, I don't see any other required or appropriate mentions of the gun debate. Technician Fry (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by your response. I just provided two separate links to sources in my opening statement here, one with URL's and one without, so I'm confused as to why you are continuing to ignore the sources while claiming that you "don't see any other required or appropriate mentions of the gun debate". Clearly, those sources mention issues you have not yet addressed, from the historical background of gun laws in Colorado that allowed the shooter to arm himself to the role of the gun lobby, to the positions of voters and elected officials. You've already argued that we should talk about the gun laws, so it follows we should include a brief historical background of gun laws in Colorado that the sources describe. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I am very neutral on gun control. I live in Canada and have never used it as a reason to change who I vote for. I believe it should be decided by democracy in each jurisdiction. That said I agree the article should not be a forum for it. I agree with the one sentence that says permit applications increased and only one other sentence with wikilinks to the state's gun law article and to the gun politics in the US article. 'This incident has led to more debate on gun control and the state laws.' type thing--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Covering a topic does not make it a "forum" for that topic, and I have no idea where you get that from. What we have here is a small group of vocal editors (who do not represent a majority nor a consensus) attempting to override WP:NPOV. That's the only reason I'm participating in this discussion. I have ZERO interest in gun control issues or debates. Per NPOV, we must represent the gun control and issues related to gun control "fairly, proportionately" and without bias" using "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". A small sample of these views are represented by 22 sources about the shooting and gun control. Based on the preponderance of reliable sources on this topic, it deserves far more than "one sentence", and there is, in fact, no justification nor any rationale for demanding only one sentence aside from "I DON'T LIKE IT". As for neutrality, neither you nor Technician Fry are uninvolved, and I've specifically asked for uninvolved editors to comment, specifically uninvolved editors who are not connected to any gun topic. As far as I can tell, you and others are trying to override NPOV and that is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But it should go in a gun debate section in the gun debate article as most others have said. This article is not about gun debates. This article is about the incident. Feel free to create a section in that article and link it. I don't see theater securty debate, police actions debate, evacuation debate, etc, etc all wanting to add to this article. Please stop WP:STICK.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The sample of 22 sources I've cited above are directly about the background, impact, and reaction to the Colorado shooting. They are not about a "gun debate article" as you keep trying to claim. Please stop attempting to reframe the discussion in order to push your POV. You are not neutral on this subject and I've repeatedly requested uninvolved editors not connected to this topic nor to gun control topics. It is my opinion that you are trying to override the WP:NPOV policy due to your strong beliefs about guns. This subject is appropriately covered by dozens of sources and must be represented in the article about the shooting, not in a separate article. It should be noted that one of the primary tactics of POV pushers is to move information they don't like to other articles. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

While certainly a case can be made for adding a paragraph or two about gun control, a case can also be made for just a sentence or two. Ultimately, there are no right or wrong answers, but I can understand the desire to keep the article from becoming a WP:COATRACK for gun control. If it were me, I'd probably err on the side of caution and focus on the shooting itself with just a brief mention of gun control. Readers who want to know about gun control can just go to the Gun control article.

I noticed that one of the editors on the talk page called gun control the "elephant in the room". It seems to me that the elephant in the room is actually mental health.

I suppose one way to handle the situation is to create a separate article on 2012 Aurora shooting and gun control. This way, you can keep the main article focused on the shooting, while still being able to provide in-depth coverage of how the shooting affected the gun control debate. Everyone wins and it gives you guys a second article to fight over. Happy editing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a WP:POVFORK which is discouraged. I have many sources documenting experts from academia, law enforcement, and the government, talking about federal and state gun laws in the context of this shooting. And while I've documented more than 20 reliable sources on the subject, the number I'm currently working with is about 50. The problem is that every effort to add this material is reverted by the same three or four editors who have very strong positions on gun control. Meanwhile, the sources are not being used. The process you describe is backwards. We're supposed to work from the parent article first, and if the topic gets too large, then we split out. Right now, I can't even get two sentences in without being reverted, and the rationale for the reverts is rarely supported. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The number of sources doesn't have any impact on whether the material is being represented properly. I could have 10,000 sources saying they sell M&M's at the concession stand at this theater, but it doesn't mean I MUST include a mention of the concession stand. What is the rationale for making a larger proportion of this article talk more about gun control? That is the key question you should be answering. -- Avanu (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not uninvolved, Avanu, and I've never said this is about the number of sources. I've said that the preponderance of sources meets and exceeds the threshold for inclusion of this topic as a significant viewpoint, and deserves due weight. It is not being given due weight because editors are claiming it violates NPOV, but the opposite is true. It is a violation of NPOV to remove it and to not allow us to represent the topic in proportion to its coverage in the sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

@Viriditas: A POV fork is when:

a) You rewrite the same article from a different POV. IOW, if you wrote the article with a pro-shooter perspective.

b) You write an article about a particular POV. IOW, if you wrote the sub-article only from a pro-gun perspective or an anti-gun perspective.

Instead, what I'm suggesting is that this is a sub-topic of the main topic.

Anyway, I don't want to get too involved in an NPOV dispute. I've given you my uninvolved opinion. Take from it what you will. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." Avanu, Canoe1967, and Technician Fry would have us believe that we can't mention that Colorado has loose gun laws compared to other states (The New York Times, 'Canberra Times, other sources) and that the "high-capacity ammunition magazines" used in the shooting "would have been outlawed under the 1994 federal assault weapons ban that Congress allowed to lapse in 2004." (Los Angeles Times) We also can't mention that Colorado has "no ban on assault weapons. No ban on high-capacity ammunition clips. No registration. No gun owner licensing. No background checks for online gun sales. No police discretion to determine who carries concealed handguns in public" and "No limit on the number of handguns you can buy in one purchase." (Canberra Times) All of these items are relevant to the shooting and the sources discuss this. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, I would ask that you read my question and answer it, not make stuff up. In my last comment I asked: 'What is the rationale for making a larger proportion of this article talk more about gun control? That is the key question you should be answering.' Instead of talking about that you said "You're not uninvolved, Avanu", which simply puzzled me, and then in your reply just above, you claim I that I don't want a "mention that Colorado has loose gun laws compared to other states", which ALSO puzzles me, because I don't care what you include as long as you do it in a way that makes sense. So please... focus on my question. I didn't ask it just to waste effort typing. I'll repeat it if you missed it: "What is the rationale for making a larger proportion of this article talk more about gun control?" And don't simply say how many sources you have... that only relates to verifiability. So, great... we have sources that show something is covered in the press. But answer my question and MAYBE you'll see why I am asking it. -- Avanu (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, stating facts about gun laws is not discussing gun control or the gun control debate. You are arguing that NPOV should not apply to this topic because in your opinion, gun violence and gun law are not relevant—but they are and sources indicate that they are a significant part of the topic involving the shooting. By removing this material, you and the other editors are actually violating our core policies. The only source that argues that gun violence and gun laws are separate issues that aren't relevant to public health are special interest groups like the NRA. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the rationale for making a larger proportion of the 2012 Aurora shooting article talk more about gun control? -- Avanu (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I do think it appropriate for the article on the shooting to mention that the event has sparked a renewal of the political debate over gun control (such a mention would appropriately be placed in a section on "Reactions" or "Aftermath" etc.) However, that mention should be brief, leaving actual discussion of gun control to other (linked) articles. Keep the article on the event focused on the event itself. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If RS report it we record it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not quite... WP:UNDUE indicates that sometimes we don't record things, even if they were reported by RS. In the context of an article about an event, it usually is appropriate to briefly mention political debates resulting from of the event... but we run the risk of devoting too much space to discussing such political debates, which detracts from our coverage of the event itself... ie too much discussion of the political debates might well give undue weight to those debates in the specific context of an article about a specific event. Determining how much space any one aspect of a topic should be given always requires some editorial judgement. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Gun issues are an integral part of the event. We cover gun issues in depth in similar articles, such as the Virginia Tech massacre. The problem isn't undue weight, the problem is not enough weight. At this point, we've got somewhere between 50-100 reliable sources focusing solely on gun issues and Aurora. This continued claim that it only merits a brief mention when we have this many sources focusing on the topic doesn't make any sense, and frankly, isn't supported by the policies. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Whenever major crimes are reported they spark debate about whether current laws are adequate, which should be mentioned. TFD (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There are an immense range of topics that are related to but not about the topic. Two that come to mind are those including prominent folks like Ted Nugent who are saying that if the other folks had been armed, casualties would have been less than 1/10th what they were, and other folks saying that more gun control would have solved it. IMHO we could briefly mention those but otherwise the article should avoide those and stay on topic. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ted Nugent is not considered a reliable source about gun issues and the Aurora shooting. On the other hand, an expert like Robert Spitzer is. I intend to expand the article with statements of facts from experts. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I added more. "The assault rifle had been banned for 10 years starting in 1994 and expired in 2004. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but no bill has reached the floor for a vote."--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this article, which appears to engage in subtle WP:PEACOCKing and WP:COATRACKing (e.g, the idea that everything which the subject stands for is necessarily oppression, which we just can't say as a neutral encyclopedia). I am not good at rewriting articles so I ask for your assistance. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, as much as I can do. Not the best at this either, but others can improve on this.

Imam Daayiee Abdullah,(no comma needed) is a gay Muslim who aids in the fight has been fighting against discrimination and hatred (an editor would be able to easily prove that hatred does exist, but another editor may be able to prove that the use of the term shouldn't be here, true or not, so I'll just leave this note here) towards homosexuals and Muslims alike.[1] Adbullah is one of the front-runners against the injustice against LGBT Muslims, Through a group called the Al-Fatiha Foundation, Abdullah has been active in this campaign, and has even been perceived by many as being at the front of this campaign (citation).[2] Although there is much controversy, Abdullah has become raisinged' awareness of the oppression of homosexuals in Islam (same as before, Muslim communities may be better wording), but also is also viewed by many stands as a symbol of hope and proof[peacock term] that one can be gay and Muslim.[2]

Not perfect, but may be a start.--Activism1234 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

David Jewett was a Privateer in the employ of the Buenos Aires businessman Patrick Lynch in 1820. In that year he set sail on a privateering voyage with Letters of Marque that authorised him to seize Spanish ships. However, he failed to find any Spanish ships instead he seized a Portuguese and an American ship. As a result he is considered by many reliable secondary sources to have crossed the line into piracy.

He is considered an important figure in Argentina's sovereignty claim as in October/November 1820 he entered Port Louis, Falkland Islands to repair storm damage and whilst there performed a ceremony claiming the islands for the Republic of Buenos Aires.

Editors are objecting to the use of the word "Pirate" in the article, as in their perception it is detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim and thus fails WP:LABEL. Some authors do question the value of a ceremony performed by a pirate, equally other authors point out that as a privateer authorised to seize Spanish property, a former Spanish settlement was fair game.

Other than being one of the lamest edit wars ever, I rather suspect it is a language confusion as the Spanish equivalent Piratas is considered somewhat of an insult. We have politely pointed out this is not the case in English but the same editors point blank refuse to believe us.

I would request a 3rd opinion, as to whether Pirate in this context fails WP:LABEL. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I would avoid bluntly saying "Jewett was a pirate" in Wikipedia's voice... instead phrase it as an attributed statement of opinion ... saying something like "Many historians, such as X, Y and Z, are of the opinion that Jewett crossed the line into piracy." Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that he was regarded as a pirate, and RS call him such. Also this Argentine sources calls him a pirate http://www.argentinaindependent.com/life-style/thecity/colectivaizeishon-the-20/ So its hard to see how this can been seen as a label violation, but perhaps in the sprit of compromise change the text to “David Jewett, who had been accused of piracy”. He had been accused of piracy by the portugese government.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

One clarification: WCM says that those who oppose the use of "...is a pirate" in the lead are introducing the sovereignty dispute into the discussion. But if you check the article, it's another thing: the source that calls Jewett a pirate is a source involved in the dispute and taking a side in it, not a generic source such as a biography or a "history of X place" report. And it is explicit in that it calls Jewett a pirate to justify the British claim of that dispute. Page 9, 4º paragraph.

Besides, the problem of the lead is not just the use of the word "pirate", but the use to construct an ad-hominem description of Jewett, using misleading half-truths to confuse the casual reader. When you read "Colonel David Jewett was an American pirate who played a notable role in the history of the sovereignty dispute between Great Britain and Argentina", you may interpret that when Jewett raised the flag of Argentina at the Malvinas it was an act of piracy. Not quite: the issue that takes piracy into the equation is a completely unrelated issue with a Portuguese ship, and neither Portugal nor the whole action is related to the one of the flag or the sovereignty dispute. Cambalachero (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC

The above does neatly illustrate the problem. The actual edit Cambalachero disputes is this one [10], which reflects secondary sources cited in the article, meaning the lede reflects the article. There is nothing in the article to make such a link and we don't remove information in case a reader makes a link between two disparate pieces of information. There is nothing in the article to link Jewett's actions on the Falklands as an act of piracy, the article makes it plain the difference between the legitimate and illegitimate acts. And for information, Jewett's acts of piracy are not a factor in the British case see [11]. As I make plain above, some authors make that link but it is NOT a factor in the British case. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No. but this book (publisehd in Nw Yrok in 1835) does make a link http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3aQNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA512&lpg=PA512&dq=David+Jewett+%2B+piracey&source=bl&ots=q352eWkoQ5&sig=_W_aQ0ZClce9_t0Im_7nzLoqlLQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3GEUUP75Esa00QW_2ICgDQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=David%20Jewett%20%2B%20piracey&f=false. Saying (in esecne) that it is orinic that Argentian shuld cliam the Falklands based upon the ations of a porate. This might also need to be checked Destefani, Laurio H. 'El coronel de marina David Jewett y el crucero corsario de la fragata Heroine.Slatersteven (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Slatersteven, have you actually read what you linked? I wouldn't count as an "Argentine source" one where the writer says himself "As a prominent Brit in Buenos Aires I...". The second is a primary source of 2 centuries ago. Cambalachero (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV should support the lead to say "Colonel David Jewett was an American privateer and pirate" as it is indisputable that he was both. The actions under his privateer marque were legitimate while those under piracy were not. The piracy can't affect the legitimacy of his privateering actions. Weddell's arguement is the only one with any substance. The arguements that his piracy affected the legitimacy of the Falklands claim can't be supported and is just cherry picking by historians with an agenda. Wayne (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The second source is not primary, it is secondary. It was not write by a participant of the action, not by any of the two-compeatating parties the Islands future. As to it's age, all that means is that this represents a contemporary view of him. It’s clear he was accused of being a pirate, and was regarded by both the USA and Portugal of being such.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. p. 77. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Quote: "In 1820 he was appointed Commander of the pirate frigate "Heroína", with which he made an ill-fated campaign where he faced mutiny and scurvy". And a Google search [12]. There is ample evidence in secondary sources he was referred to as a pirate. Destéfani is significant, as the book was printed in 1982 and 127,050 free copies distributed to libraries around the world, with the sole purpose of presenting Argentina's sovereignty claim in favourable terms. Clearly even Argentine academics do not consider the denonym "Pirate" as a problem. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WCM, I have the book you're citing in front of me, and it refers to it as "fragata corsaria" which would translate (according to Linguee.es, which works like an Rosetta Stone that uses online reliable sources with both English and Spanish versions available) as "corsair ship" or "privateer ship". I quote (in Spanish, of course): "En 1820 fue nombrado Comandante de la Fragata Corsaria Heroina y con ella partió en una desventurada campaña corsaria, signada por el motín y el escorbuto".

Also, another thing: the capture of the American ship Rampart was ruled as "good prize" by the Tribunal de Presas in Buenos Aires, because the cargo she was carrying was destined to Madrid.

Someone quoted Wedell above: I remind you that Wedell is a primary source, therefore not reliable. Same goes for John Murray Forbes, United States' comercial agent in Buenos Aires at the time the Rampart was taken to port, who was "openly in war" (his words) with David Jewett. Jose Antonio da Fonseca Figueira, perhaps the foremost expert in Jewett's life (he traced his later career in Brazil and found his grave in Catumbi cemetery), argues that Forbes was part of a conspiracy who profited from the sale of blank letters of marque to corsair ships (more about the affair here). He even remarks against these accusations, that the Rampart was ruled as fair game by the aforementioned Tribunal of Presas and that his conduct as Captain of the Heroina was approved by the Governor of Buenos Aires, Martín Rodriguez, in 1821.

All this being said, it is evident that not all authors consider Jewett's actions as "piratical". What's more, it is not being proved here that the term "pirate" is "widely used by reliable sources to describe" David Jewett. This is required in WP:LABEL and that's the reason why I oppose to the term pirate being applied in the lede to both Jewett and the Heroina ship: "value-laden labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". The Google Books search provided above by Wee Curry Monster only yields fifteen (15) results out of about 16,700 occurrences for "David Jewett" term alone. I'm sorry but no, that's not a widely recognized attribute/profession of David Jewett.

Regards. --Langus (t) 01:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have the English language version of the Destefani book and it says Pirate, the above is a direct quote from the English language version published in Argentina. Funnily enough you can see the quote in Google books, so trying to deny it exists is rather futile. And just to remind everyone Destefani is especially significant for the reasons stated above and I'm sure they made an effort to get the translation right. Further it has been demonstrated the description is widely used, was contemporary at the time and your attempt to dispute this is weak at best. I thought you stated on the talk page you'd respect the opinions here? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

not all of the hits here [13] are for the man wwe are speaking off. But the first hit that clearly is calls him a pirate.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So, it all comes down to a mistranslation? When sources have mistakes they should be silently ignored, not cited as if they were facts. Sources are not infallible, we should not act as if they were. Yes, surely they wanted to make a good translation, that does not mean they actually achieved it.

And, as pointed, there 15 results for "David Jewett" + "piracy", and 16,700 for "David Jewett" alone. And even within those 15 results we can find false positives, when the word "piracy" was used but not in relation to Jewett. 15 out of 16,700, that enough to take WP:UNDUE into the discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't a mistranslation, its a direct verbatim quote, and its not 15 hits out of 16,700. Nor is it a mistake in the source, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is a contemporary viewpoint. Lets bring out the elephant in the room, why did you consider this had a material impact on Argentina's sovereignty claim and why do you think that has any relevance to removing it from the lede. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a wikipedia mistranslation, it is a verbatim quote of a mistranslated book. As for Forbes, he points his own views, it is too pretentious to expect that all XIX century people shared his view, simply because he wrote them down in a book. As for your question, the very report used as reference (which supports the British claim) says that. Cambalachero (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WCM, Slatersteven, Cambalachero, I believe we've all made our points clear. I'd suggest we wait for input now. --Langus (t) 14:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Destefani's work is an Argentine book, produced purely to present Argentina's sovereignty claim in 1982. So I suppose it and every other work is a mistranslation? This isn't a case of examining contemporary sources to show that a claim made in a reference work is demonstrably false, something which Langus-TxT attacked me for here. Its a case of finding reasons to ignore sources because you don't like the point they make. Fundamentally you both object to the denonym "pirate" because you consider it detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim, which is why you claim it fails WP:LABEL. The British claim does not depend on the characterisation of Jewett's actions as piracy, see the link above, one author makes such a comment but as I've pointed out others dispute it, and, this is an important point, we don't make that claim in the article.

BTW in case you haven't noticed all the feedback from uninvolved editors, and I include Slatersteven in that as he was not involved in the discussion, is that we should include "pirate" in the description. Do you want to wait for a dissenting voice or accept you are both wrong in this matter? 16:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wee, it fails WP:LABEL for the reasons exposed above, which instead of addressing you chose to resort to personal attacks and to the straw man argument of linking this issue with the sovereignty claim.

Slatersteven is a regular of Falklands-related articles, like you and me, he is fully involved.

Please, I insist, lets hear opinions. --Langus (t) 23:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Langus' claim I created a straw man argument of linking this issue with the sovereignty claim is completely and utterly untrue. It was raised by Langus and Cambalachero as an objection, for example [14] and I quote " And it is a word that labels because it is seen as negative information by the reader and casts doubt on the legitimacy of the actions told immediately afterwards (see Ad hominem)." Its fairly clear that the reason they object to this, is their perception it is detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim.

Apparently finding reliable sources isn't enough, [15], sorry but it is. NPOV indeed does requires we reflect ALL major views in the literature. Not just the ones we don't consider detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to avoid value-laden labels unless widely used by reliable sources. --Langus (t) 11:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Except A) it isn't a value-laden label but you refuse to believe us [16] and it is widely used by reliable sources. Your stated reason for refusing to allow its use in the lede is that you consider it detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim but that is a POV position fundamentally at odds with a WP:NPOV; we present ALL mainstream opinions in the literature. In respect of just about every principle involved in writing for wikipedia you are utterly wrong, even to the point of ignoring Argentine historians. Finally, you're simply ignoring the fact that all of the feedback from the none involved editors supports its use. Frankly you don't have a leg to stand on here. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

15 of 16700 entries is not "widely used", and I repeated several times that the link of piracy and the sovereignty dispute is made in the report used as a source. Is this your tactic? Go around in circles, repeating the same refuted arguments until the others get tired of it? Cambalachero (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not 15 out of 16700, you're comparing apples and oranges. In addition, you made the link then tried to justify it post hoc with the comment about the reference, ignoring A) that it isn't in the article, B) other sources dispute the point and C) it is irrelevant to the officially stated British position. No matter how much you try and obfuscate the facts, there is a written record that contradicts you. Please stop your accusations of disruptive conduct, you know where WP:ANI is. And you're still ignoring the fact that outside opinion disagrees with you. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Going in circles and trying to win a discussion by repeating several times the same thing until wearing out the others is not disruptive, it's just weak argumentation. So far we have seen 3 sources, 4 if we count the mistranslation, that call Jewett a "pirate" and an attempt to conclude that they represent the wide usage. I can easily prove otherwise. David Jewett, una biografía para la historia de las Malvinas, Manual de historia marítima argentina, Manual de historia naval argentina, Grandes batallas de la historia and Historia argentina: Unitarios y federales (1826-1841) All of them generic sources, unrelated to the dispute. None of them call Jewett a pirate. Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you've proved nothing, claiming that Spanish references don't use an English word is not a convincing argument! The English language sources do, the claim that any source that contradicts you is a mistranslation doesn't stand up. You are trying to present this as a digital situation either he is or isn't. Sorry he was both a privateer AND a pirate, as a result it is appropriate to mention both as the example Henry Morgan shows, who by the way was also never CONVICTED of piracy. You accuse others of "circular argument", you agreed to bring this here for a 3rd opinionm, you got one but you don't like it, so you dispute it with tendentious and spurious argument. Thats the very dictionary definition of arguing in circles. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we mention all significant viewpoints and opinions about a subject... the opinion that Jewett was a pirate is a significant viewpoint... so it the opinion that he was not a pirate. Thus both opinions need to be mentioned. What is at issue is how we should do so. Wikipedia needs to remain neutral on the question of whether he was or was not a pirate... we achieve this neutrality by noting that there is a difference of opinion among sources... and attributing each opinion to those who hold it. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that succinctly summarises the point I have been making. Many thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there any siurces saying he was not a pirate?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No there isn't. He is described both as a Pirate by Portuguese & American sources and by some Argentine sources. In his career he also acted as a Privateer by for Argentina and the USA.

My proposal for the intro:

“

Colonel David Jewett (1772-1842)was an American-born privateer, who served for many different countries. He fought under the American flag in the Quasi-war and the War of 1812. He moved to South America and served the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata during the Argentine War of Independence. Commanding the ship Heroína, he took possesion of the Falkland Islands in 1820. He captured Portuguese and American ships, and was accused of piracy for those actions. He moved then to Brazil, a Portuguese colony which had declared independence, and joined its navy.

”

Is this better? It is a summary of the rest of the article, and address the issue of piracy without labeling. Cambalachero (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The version you opposed is also a neutral summary and does not label. I would oppose this for a number of reasons, including the fact that it omits details of what he was authorised to do. In addition the place for this discussion is the article talk page. Not here. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a big difference in saying "he is a pirate" and "he was accused of piracy of X action". The second is better because it is specific and avoid vague generalizations. Cambalachero (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My point was that omitting his letters of marque authorised action only against Spanish ships is not helpful. Address the point made for a change please. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cambalachero. Blueboar, I would like to draw your attention to two facts:

a) None of the sources presented here call him "a pirate", they limit themselves to remark the so-called piratical acts. We'd be basically doing original research (WP:synthesis) based on secondary sources if we say he was a pirate.

b) The piracy accusation are already included in the article. Would you think they really are so important as to be included in the lede? Or are they being included just to support a POV? --Langus (t) 17:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Langus, what happened to your undertaking to respect a third opinion here? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Are you asking me to remain silent while you keep on repeating yourself? Rest assured I am listening, but if can speak all you want, so can I.

Would you get us a valid source that calls Jewett "a pirate"? To be honest, as if there were not enough reasons already, I'm fearing we might be presenting original research... --Langus (t) 00:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You've had plenty, pretending you haven't is just ridiculous. It clearly isn't WP:OR as it reflects the usage in reliable secondary sources. No I just find the blatant hypocrisy quite breathtaking, you've falsely accused me ad nauseum of ignoring advice on this board, you agreed to respect the opinions here, yet the moment they contradict you, here you are lobbying to have your position validated. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha "lobbying". I am lobbying and you're enlightening people. And Jewett was a pirate.

I must be blind but I cannot find any source explicitly calling Jewett "a pirate". Would you please make a fool out of me and point us to one of them? Or are you going to suspiciously evade the question again, replacing a reply with an ad hominem comment? --Langus (t) 17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No just sources saying he was accused of Poracey, hence my susgestio that se say that he was accused of poracey, is there any sources that explicitly says Jewett was not a pirate? For there to be dispute is has to have been disputd somewhere other then WikipdediaSlatersteven (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I could agree with the accusation being included in the lede, but right now he says he was pirate, in the sense of profession or way of living. It would be difficult to find sources explicitly arguing against that view if we still haven't found not even one source saying he was a pirate. --Langus (t) 20:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

[17] A source referring to Jewett as pirate, first posted by Slatersteven on 28 July 2012. I'm just curious, you made the statement "we still haven't found not even one source saying he was a pirate", when several have been supplied, including one, Destefani, which is Argentine. Further you keep presenting this as an either/or choice between privateer/pirate. It isn't, like many privateers, Jewett was in fact both. This habit of yours of denying that something exists, when its on the same page is most puzzling. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see the problem. That he was a pirate does not mean that his claim for the Falklands was an act of piracy. Note that in his article, Captain Morgan is called a pirate, even though he served both as admiral and governor of Jamaica. TFD (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This is concerning the article War on Women, specifically the misuse of sources in an attempt to make an unqualified statement in Wikipedia's voice that Republican politicians are seeking, or have sought, to "redefine rape". When I found this article yesterday, the offending language was present in both the lead and the body.

Here is a diff of how the article looked before my attempt modify the wording for neutrality: [18]

Here is a diff following 3 incremental changes in an attempt to reconcile the article to factual statements actually found in the sources provided: [19]

These adjustments were quickly reverted. I let the article simmer for a day, and found it this afternoon in this state: [20]

As you can see, the changes I made to the body survived, but the lead does not conform to statements made further down. I made a final attempt at compromise by adding a qualification: [21] The qualification, while a less than optimal solution, should have had the effect of satisfying other editors who think the phrase itself is somehow important. (Evidently, not so: [22])

For background and edification purposes, here is the Talk discussion wherein the problem was initially pointed out and discussed: [23] Note that the reverting editor is having trouble with the concept of an editorial comment appearing in a straight news story, particularly in special interest publications (i.e, Ms. Magazine) or boldly partisan new outlets (i.e., Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo), and also seems to be having trouble grasping that sourcing is a threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee. Also note that I am not asserting bad faith here, merely outlining a need for education.

The crux of my case is that the allegation is based on a specific Congressional proposal, unpopular with liberals, that would have limited Medicaid coverage for a narrowly-defined subset of rape victims (see sources in article). No source says there was an attempt to redefine the word rape, or the crime of rape. Therefore "redefine rape" is an extremist, partisan construct that may or may not be necessary for a Wikipedia reader to understand the article subject matter, but in no case should be stated in Wikipedia's voice as an empirical fact. (There is also some controversy surrounding trans-vaginal ultrasounds, but that involves a Democrat effort to redefine rape, which does not appear to be something that previous editors thought to mention, and does not seem to be a part of this NPOV problem.)

I'm looking for ideas to get this article back on track, short of taking it through DRN. I am not wedded to any edits that I myself have made, only to the proposition that the initial wording should not be allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs)

I share your trepidation about using opinion pieces and/or partisan sources (e.g. Talking Points Memo). Fortunately, better sourcing is available - for example, straight-news pieces from reliable sources such as the Christian Science Monitor and CBS News. I'd suggest simply rewriting the material in question with these, or other, appropriate sources. MastCell ^Talk 03:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem lies in using Wikipedia's voice to document a widely used accusation. That accusation and exact wording (that GOP legislation is "redefining rape") is widely used by critics of the GOP's war on women, and thus is a legitimate subject covered by Wikipedia's aim - "to document the sum of human knowledge". This isn't a minor, unknown, fringe opinion. We don't bury notable controversies, we document them. Sometimes that means attribution is necessary. If this were incontrovertible and undeniable scientific fact, no attribution would be necessary, and we could state it in Wikipedia's voice, but this is political opinion, accusation and interpretation, so the Wikipedian thing to do is to attribute it, because mere deletion would be partisan whitewashing. When we find something we disagree with, it's often easier to just delete it, but it may be even better, in the spirit of NPOV, to find/request a source, or reword it neutrally, even if we totally abhore the idea. Attribution serves this purpose nicely. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, penetrating a woman's vagina without her consent is federally recognised as rape (there's also an argument that the woman, and the doctor, is coerced into the penetration that a transvaginal ultrasound requires, but I'm not sure if that's also rape under the legal definition; it is under the moral definition). Sceptre ^(talk) 04:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and to add insult to injury, in one state (Arizona?), doctors are required to lie to patients who seek abortion, by scaring them with talk of an increased risk of suicide. It's all pretty nasty and violates women's free choice in many ways. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, but what about the the article? Belchfire-TALK 06:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "forcible" rape part it is clearly trying to redefine rape since it decriminalizes (or did anyway) statutory and date rape. It seems obvious that the prose for "redefine" works better then "limits the definition." As well the sources as as much:

• The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape - Mother Jones
• Abortion Rights Activists Decry House Bill They Say Attempts to Redefine Rape - CBS News
• What's Behind The Drive To Redefine Rape In New And Insane Ways? - Huffington Post
• Did bill try to redefine rape? GOP backs down after public outcry. - Christian Science Monitor.

I'm not sure about it for anything else but in that context it is said to be a redefinition. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How about "... and the allegation that some members of the Republican Party are attempting to redefine rape to include only forcible rape"? That makes it clear that it's an allegation (and the fact that some people allege it is easily confirmed, regardless of whether the allegation is true), without Wikipedia 'taking sides' on whether the allegations have merit. Mogism (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, this case highlights the importance of avoiding partisan sourcing, as there seems to be a great deal of confusion - even in this thread - about the facts of the matter. (For example, the dispute did not "criminalize" or "decriminalize" anything; it revolved around Medicaid funding for induced abortion). The Christian Science Monitor piece is actually a very good, dispassionate overview. Here's what happened:

Medicaid (which provides health insurance coverage for the very poorest Americans) is legally barred from covering abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life. As part of an effort to restrict funding options for abortion, the House Republicans proposed to narrow the definition of "rape" to include only "forcible rape". Thus, if a woman became pregnant as a result of statutory rape, or was drugged and raped while unconscious, etc., Medicaid would not cover an abortion. (Since women on Medicaid are unlikely to be able to afford to pay for an abortion out-of-pocket, this restriction would essentially make it impossible for these women to obtain an abortion if they were "non-forcibly" raped). In response to a public outcry from progressive groups, the Republicans removed the "forcible" language.

The issue was framed by the Democrats as part of a Republican "War on Women" (together with Republican efforts to block equal-pay legislation, restrict insurance coverage of contraception, etc.) That political framing may be notable, but it should be clearly characterized as a partisan political narrative, not as uncontested fact. The facts are that the Republicans proposed to narrow the definition of rape for purposes of Medicaid funding, and then withdrew the language in the face of a public outcry. The Democractic narrative is that this was part of a "War on Women"; the Republican narrative was... I dunno, but presumably they had a stated rationale which we could source and convey.

It's not too hard, if we make a distinction between independent vs. partisan sources and facts vs. political narrative. But it's important, because even in this thread there's evidently substantial confusion about the facts of the matter. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the Republican narrative amounted to "Oh, good grief! You people are nuts. Whatever."

MastCell, you prove your own point very well though, by way of demonstration. The bill was in no way, shape or form an effort to "restrict access to abortion"; as was clearly spelled out in all but the most slanted of sources, the bill was an effort to restrict federal funding for abortion, which is pretty much all Congress has the ability to do. (If lack of federal funding equals "restricting access", then I will write my Congressman forthwith, demanding a federally-funded Ferrari Enzo, as I very clearly have a fundamental, God-given right to own one, but the federal government refuses to pay for it. Oh, the injustice!)

Similarly, CartoonDiablo's misconceptions regarding "decriminalization" are, well, mind-blowing. But in the interest of AGF, it's best to assume he read that somewhere and thinks it's true.

Nevertheless, we are not here to discuss H.R. 3, only how to describe the putative War on Women using the sources we have to work with. "Attribution" is the obvious solution, as it allows the phrase "redefine rape" to remain in the article, which is probably neutral since it was place before the public by the media. I have three editors here who seem to endorse attribution, and if I add myself that makes four. I'll let this ride for a bit longer to collect additional thoughts before heading back to the article. Belchfire-TALK 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If a woman is so financially destitute as to qualify for Medicaid, then she is almost certainly unable to afford an abortion out-of-pocket. For these women, restricting Medicaid funding for abortion is equivalent to restricting their access to abortion. Yes, women who are "non-forcibly" raped would still be able to obtain an abortion if they have disposable income - the proposed restriction would have affected only the poorest and most vulnerable subset of the population. Whether that makes it less or more reprehensible is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder.

Funding an abortion for a financially destitute woman who is drugged and raped isn't quite the same as asking for a government-funded Ferrari. That analogy is, hopefully, beneath you.

And yes, I made clear that the bill was focused on federal funding for abortion through Medicaid. The bill would have redefined rape for the purposes of Medicaid funding of abortion services - that's a fact, and does not require in-text attribution, only proper footnoted sourcing. What does require attribution is the idea that the redefinition was part of a Republican "War On Women". MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tried twice to steer this back on course (albeit, I'm as guilty as others of placing a partisan aside). But it bears pointing out in the interest of simple truthfulness that no rapist would have escaped prosecution under H.R. 3. The bill redefined eligibility for abortion coverage, nothing more, and it is nakedly non sequitur to say that changing how we treat crime victims, without altering the criminal statutes, somehow affects how we define a crime. A certain amount of hyperbole is understandable in politics, but beyond a certain point it becomes slanderous, and unhelpful. This issue is a superb example of that. Belchfire-TALK 18:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing here that the bill would change the criminal definition or prosecution of rape, so I'm not sure whom you're addressing. The bill would redefine rape for the purposes of Medicaid coverage of abortion. Again, this all comes back to the need to pick good sources and clearly convey their content. I think we've settled on some reasonable independent, non-partisan reliable sources. Are there remaining issues for discussion here? MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Belchfire: The GOP has been quite open about efforts such as these being intended to restrict and if possible eliminate abortion (and contraception, for that matter), so that's hardly a partisan claim. But of course this wouldn't have changed the criminal code, and hopefully there's no implication that it would have. — kwami (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

MastCell... no, not really. I'm seeing reasonably strong support for inclusion with attribution, which I feel is the best thing for reasons I stated above. Attribution would be neutral if there's no obfuscation involved. Myself, I was going to let this run for 24 hours before heading back to the article, just to give a chance for everybody to weigh-in. I notified every user who touched the article after I did initially, about seven I think, and we haven't heard from everybody yet. Belchfire-TALK 19:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that post, MastCell, I'd be interested if there are enough sources to support the assertion of class warfare; it's a massive charge, so would need to be very well sourced, but it would be interesting nonetheless... Sceptre ^(talk) 01:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

On the off chance that somebody is watching the noticeboard but not the article, I've made my "writing for the enemy" edit. I invite you to take a peek and make a tweak, if needed. Thanks. Belchfire-TALK

This might be in the article but to MastCell, was the "forcible rape" language done for rape in general or specifically in relation to Medicaid?

That aside, it seems pretty universally understood by the sources as a "redefinition" since altering rape language would amount to such. The counter argument could be that they were simply "limiting" what kind of rape counts for it, but virtually no one is claiming that, the overwhelming consensus of the sources is that it's a redefinition. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure your read on the matter is valid for the sources you consume, but not for all sources. Regardless, attribution is clearly the correct solution here, for reasons stated earlier. Moreover, even the freakin' Mother Jones story made it clear that "redefining rape" was a proposition being furthered by specific entities, in this case MoveOn and Emily's List. If Mother Jones isn't willing to say it in their own voice, there isn't much of an argument for Wikipedia to say it in its own voice. Yet, that's what one particular editor wanted. No worries, it's fixed now. Belchfire-TALK 07:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit is an improvement. Let's keep it– Lionel ^(talk) 03:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that attribution should be used, e.g. the CBS source says that " (...) opponents say attempts to redefine rape", and the CSM source says "Critics called it an attempt to redefine rape". Wikipedia should say something similar. --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well let me put it this way, who isn't claiming that it's a redefinition of rape? There are partisan sources claiming it is on one side and no one else claiming otherwise on the other. That aside, Mother Jones is saying so by the title "The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape."

And I don't think its just my experience like Belchfire suggested, no one here has found a source that even says its simply a limit on what kinds of rape are excempted for abortion funding (CSmoniter included). The fact is when there is a controversial political issue and only one side defines it, it's defined by that side. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The short and direct answer to your question is "honest people". And by saying that nobody has refuted the proposition you merely demonstrate what I pointed out before: you aren't getting balanced views during the course of your personal news consumption. You should maybe work on that.

The statement you cite from Mother Jones was contained within an "Editor's Note". I shouldn't have to explain why that isn't usable.

In any event, the solution we arrived at here resolves the issue: Political activist groups Moveon.org and Emily's List charged that this constituted a Republican attempt to "redefine rape." Belchfire-TALK 21:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that but what you might consider an "honest" response based on no sources is not. For instance it would not be "honest" to say the Southern Strategy was simply an attempt to get white votes which civil rights groups and democrats "allege" is done for racist intent. The point is when one side has exclusively defined an issue it becomes the definition which is how we stand clear of things like WP:Fringe.

And if it's just my media consumption then I'd like you or anyone else to find a single reliable source that says it's just a "limit" on abortion access and that this is different from a "redefinition." The fact is you can't have a side for something that doesn't exist especially when there aren't any sources for it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no fringe issue here, and an honest reading of even the Mother Jones piece is sufficient to defeat your claim. And by the way, H.R. 3 did not affect access. Just funding. Belchfire-TALK 19:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What editors feel about the issue shouldn't affect the output. Since reliable sources attribute, so should we. No editor should feel compelled to prove there are people who don't say something since once reliable sources are present, the content of the article is determined but what these sources say. If no reliable sources exist, then the article shouldn't exist either but that isn't the case here. Mother Jones isn't as reliable as CBS in the sense of representing mainstream thinking. --Dailycare (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Frontline (U.S. TV series)#Accusations of bias includes examples of perceived examples of leftist biases in individual reports? But is this properly weighted? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The accusations of bias are all from right-wing think-tanks well outside the mainstream (Cato Institute, the Media Research Center, and the Safe Energy Communication Council. Most of the criticism relates to individual documentaries, not Frontline as a whole. The gist of the criticism is that the opinions of these groups are not adequately represented on Frontline. This section presents a misleading impression that there is legitimate criticism of Frontline. Ironically all the organizations criticizing Frontline themselves openly promote ideological views and are unreliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and have removed this section. It could be rewritten using independent, reliable sources, but a section detailing the complaints of partisan think-tanks isn't a particularly useful addition unless accompanied by actual encyclopedic sources. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

David Irving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of 'historian' to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as 'historical writer' instead. " - "David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition", by Richard J. Evans.[24]

• Question Does Evans' opinion have sufficient weight that we cannot state as a fact that Irving is an historian? Evans was defending Deborah Lipstadt who had made the same observation. Others have made the same observation including the Chief Rabbi of Poland and the Austrian prosecutor who prosecuted Irving for holocaust denial.

• Background Richard J. Evans is the Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University and a fellow of the Royal Historical Society who was knighted for his contributions to the study of history, particularly of the Second World War. The Queen appointed him to the chair on the advice of the Prime Minister after he was recommended by a board of electors. The electors included the Vice-Chancellor (the equivalent of president in US universities), and representatives of the history department and the entire university, as well as external assessors from Oxford, Yale, Harvard and the University of London. He also served as chair of the history faculty and is president of one of the colleges.
  David Irving has written numerous controversial books about the Second World War. He has no academic qualifications, has held no academic post and has written nothing for academic publications. He has pleaded guilty to and been imprisoned for holocaust denial and is barred from entry to many countries, including Germany, Austria, Italy, Canada and Australia.

TFD (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The moment I saw "Those in the know," I think we are dealing with a polemic opinion, as it's short hand for "those who agree with my view". Irving has been widely described as a historian.

his·to·ri·an (h-stôr-n, -str-, -str-)

n.

1. A writer, student, or scholar of history.

2. One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler.

Nothing about qualifications or positions.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be okay to note that he has been described, using attribution, as a "historian", and use RS to document that. Since he's not really a historian, but a revisionist, it would be improper to use Wikipedia's voice to call him a historian, and the weight of the opinions of real historians (that he's not really a "historian") should determine how Wikipedia describes him, IOW Wikipedia should use other terms.

A parallel is the difference between describing an astrologer as an "astronomer". That would be wrong. Astrologers use the terminology of astronomy, just as Irving uses the trappings of history for his creative fictions. Irving isn't a real historian at all. He's a writer of creative historical fiction.-- Brangifer (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Evans and others have opinions which are citable as opinions. One RS source, however, routinely uses the term "historian" [25] The British historian David Irving, who spent 13 months in an Austrian jail .... A court ruled that the British historian David Irving could serve the rest of his sentence at home on probation, An Austrian judge denied a request for bail for the British historian David Irving, A three-judge panel has rejected an appeal by the historian David Irving of a High Court ruling , and so on. Irving is horridly wrong, but that is not the same as making the case that he is not an historian -- many historians over the years have been horridly wrong. We have sources which call Irving an historian, and a person whose opinion is that he is not an historian. Include both. Collect (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So far, there is consensus, I think. The question is if we use the term in Wikipedia's voice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Likely yes - as the opinion otherwise can easily be attributed to the person voicing it. Collect (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what we prefer? We list both opinions with attribution, but take no position ourselves. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If we omit "historian" from the opening paragraph of the lede, and attribute both "historian" and "discredited historian", that's exactly what we are doing. As an aside, are "historians" who, are not just horribly wrong, but intentionally misreport what their sources tell them, still called "historians"? Scientists in other fields who do that are no longer called "scientists" by (other) scientists. Wikipedia editors who do that are called "banned". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the question seems to be whether we can use "discredited[Evans]... historian[NYTimes]..." in Wikipedia's voice. I see no way that the word "historian", with or without appelations, can be used in Wikipedia's voice without violating NPOV. I think not. The only way I can see to give the matter appropriate credit is something like:

• Some[1][2]... call him an historian. Others[3][4] call him a discredited historian, and still others[5][6] say he was never an historian.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, that looks good to me. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That solution is policy compliant, but might in be better if we referred to him by an undisputed term if one is available? "Writer"? Or, if that seems too lenient, "discredited writer on the history of the Second World War"? Formerip (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to note: his history of Hungary 1956 is also reviled; it isn't just his opinions relating to the social history of central Europe or the historiography of PQ-17. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we already answer this question at this noticeboard? I seem to remember having done so. As I have said two times already, having checked sources from mid 20th century Europeanists, and at least one historiographical article / review article on the works in question, Irving is not a member of the community of historians—his scholarship is rejected in detailed criticism of his sourcing, methods, conclusions and fabrications. The Neutral point of view is the view of scholarly experts—scholarly experts consider David Irving to not be a historian. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We did Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#David_Irving and the discussion did touch on these points with a couple of citations, such as to Evans whose work is impeccable in this field. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's back here so soon, that doesn't seem appropriate. In any case, I agree with Fiflefoo. Being called 'historian' by a judge or a journalist doesn't make Irving a historian, it's the judgment of other historians that we should use. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The same sort of question came up regarding David Barton (author), a writer and self-styled historian who has written controversial books about history, with disputed facts pointed out along with serious errors of context. The RfC consensus was "no", that Barton should not be labeled "historian" in the infobox. I don't think Irving should get this honor, either. A historian is a respected scholar, not self-taught and disputed. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the officials' views and editors above that Irving is not qualified to be considered a historian on Wikipedia articles. --Activism1234 16:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Especially that of the judge, who who produced a written judgment 334 pages long detailing Irving's systematic distortion of the historical record of World War II. --Activism1234 16:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. He's a writer of historical fiction. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't seriously going to suggest that be in the lead, but if we can find a reliable source for that statement.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

These two discussions seem very separate and the one on the article talk page needs attention. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can Wiki voice be used to describe rally as antisemitic?

Sources:

• Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood holds anti-Semetic rally, draws thousands at Cairo’s top mosque vowing to ‘one day kill all the Jews’
• Cairo rally: One day we'll kill all Jews
• Muslim Brotherhood activists vow to 'one day kill all Jews' - "the Muslim Brotherhood held a rally ... which turned one of the most venomous anti-Semitic meetings in Egypt in recent times.
• Muslim Brotherhood rally vows to 'kill all Jews'
• ‘ONE DAY WE SHALL KILL ALL THE JEWS’: MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD HOLDS HATEFUL RALLY AT CAIRO MOSQUE

Two sources say rally was antisemitic. Other sources highlight antisemitic content - that speakers referred to "treacherous jews" and the crowd vowed to "kill all Jews". I was told by user Nableezy that i mustnt use the narrative voice as rally wasnt antisemitic but this surprises me so i want third party advice. thank you Crystalfile (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

At issue is a section title in the article Ahmed el-Tayeb. The sources say that a rally was called outside of al-Azhar Mosque to oppose the "Judaization of Jerusalem". El-Tayeb spoke at the rally. None of the sources say that el-Tayeb said anything antisemitic, and from what I can see there is an attempt to smear el-Tayeb by association with things that participants at the rally said, which were, based on the reports, admittedly antisemitic. The original source on the rally, Ynet, does not call the rally itself antisemitic, it says it was an anti-Israel rally. Another source, based off of Ynet, is the Jerusalem Post, which likewise does not call the rally antisemitic. One of the remaining sources is DigitalJournal.com (here) from a Nigerian based "Digital Journalist" calls the rally antisemitic. The last source is the NY Daily News, which likewise is based off of the Ynet source and does call the rally "antisemitic". So, of the two reliable sources that carried the original source's report, one says it was antisemitic. The original source does not say that, and additionally none of the sources say anything about el-Tayeb's comments being antisemitic. This seems to me to be a pretty clear attempt at smearing el-Tayeb by association, and even then the sourcing for such a smear is poor. nableezy - 18:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think this belongs at WP:BLP/N. nableezy - 18:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like general answer whether the rally was antisemitic, and after we can discuss inclusion in article, as you have been confusing these things and mixing together BLP, wiki voice, label etc. You said the rally was not antisemitic - this aspect i want third party on. then we can progress to others! Crystalfile (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Where did I say such a thing? Please do not attribute comments to me that I have not made. At issue is whether Wikipedia's narrative voice can make the claim that you have attributed to it in the biography of this living person. I said no, it cannot make that claim in its narrative voice. nableezy - 18:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Tayeb said, per Ynet:

Spiritual leader Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb charged in his speech that to this day Jews everywhere in the world are seeking to prevent Islamic and Egyptian unit

"In order to build Egypt, we must be one. Politics is insufficient. Faith in Allah is the basis for everything," he said. "The al-Aqsa Mosque is currently under an offensive by the Jews…we shall not allow the Zionists to Judaize al-Quds (Jerusalem.) We are telling Israel and Europe that we shall not allow even one stone to be moved there."

He switched off between "Jews" and "Zionists," using them interchangeably, which is common in the Arab world.

Besides, that doesn't mean the rally isn't anti-Semitic. It just means he participated in one and also gave a conspiracy speech at the rally, in which even more anti-Semitism was voiced. As far as I understand, Crystal is asking whether the rally was anti-Semitic, not what Tayeb said. An attempt to smear Tayeb? Why exactly? What has Tayeb done to him that makes you think that? If you're going to make these assertions, you better be able to back it up. I doubt Crystal even knew who Tayeb was before this... --Activism1234 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is Wikipedia saying, in a section title of a biography of a living person, that this was an antisemitic rally. The only source that says that is the NY Daily News. The original source does not say that, and no source claims that what el-Tayeb said was itself antisemitic. So why exactly should Wikipedia make that claim in the narrative voice when the only source that did so was just regurgitating the original source and adding its own additional spin? And yes, an attempt to smear el-Tayeb. I think that is obvious, as is why this "new" user "randomly" found this page. nableezy - 18:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, these are unfair allegations. Malik Shabazz suggested discussing rally by this article to me - i never "found this page". Secondly i thought that when many sources discuss "kill all jews rally" , this means rally was antisemitic. But i wait for third party to hear what they say.Crystalfile (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• In general, no. We cannot characterize things as antisemitic (or anti-Christian, or bigoted, or offensive, stunningly beautiful, or having Buddha nature) in Wikipedia's own voice, even if they are in fact antisemitic. I haven't read through the sources but if true, an important person's saying let's kill all the Jews is about as antisemitic as it gets, and would surely be reported. Even if true, these are value judgments and not really encyclopedic facts that we should state in Wikipedia's voice. On the other hand if adequately sourced and if it passes NPOV, BLP, WEIGHT, etc., we can report that it was described (by whom?) as anti-semitic. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sad that when people chant about killing all jews, wikipedia does not let me say this is antisemitic. but thank you for ur third party advice.Crystalfile (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In the text of the section, it says The rally was criticized as anti-semitic, with the crowd repeatedly chanting "one day kill all the Jews" and speakers criticizing the "treacherous Jews". nableezy - 19:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• In Wikipedia there is a somewhat subjective continuum of what kind of characterization you can make in Wikipedia's voice and how many and how authoritative the sources that you have are before you can make that characterization in Wikipedia's voice. You can say, "Seven is a prime number," you don't have to say "This mathematician and this textbook say seven is a prime number." You can't say "Eric Clapton is the greatest guitarist of all time," but you can say "Rolling Stone Magazine called Claption 'the greatest guitarist of all time.'" I think Wikidemon's response is perfectly reasonable in putting the characterization of this rally closer to the "Eric Clapton" side of this spectrum and not the "Seven is prime" side, but I know there are other editors who, given enough authoritative characterizations of the rally, would argue for using the narrative voice to describe it. I think the message that el-Tayeb spoke at an anti-Sem.... er, such a rally can be conveyed without having to say it in Wikipedia's voice.

The real problem is that I took a look at the article and el-Tayeb's attendance at this rally is pretty much the only thing in the biography, and that's a problem. I easily found this article that would give el-Tayeb's bio more depth and breadth, and the worries over how to characterize this one rally he attended one day will be less important. Zad68 19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there is a lot that can be added. Ill try to get to it one day. nableezy - 19:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just curious about the opinion of other editors on the tone of the article The Zeitgeist Movement. Thanks for your feedback. -- Avanu (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Some very strange connections being put forward there. What the hell do the Wright brothers have to do with a modern movement about all of the resources in the world held in common? Nada. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikipietime has been making recent edits that I feel violate NPOV. Some examples:

• This edit where he attempts to tie Mormonism to the use of tax shelters; note the lack of edit summary on this change.
• The creation of an article on the Forbes blogger Peter J. Reilly, apparently only so he could be cited in this edit for Son of BOSS. Note the lack of any assertion of notability; [26].
• When questioned, accusing a senior editor, User:Frecklefoot, of being a plant by Congress. He also implied here that he had a hard time removing his biases.
• Uncited quote about Romney's treatment of the press on the Fourth Estate article in this edit.
• Accusing Romney of being a Thurston Howell-like "lazy rich" on a talk page here.
• Nearly all of his recent contributions have been anti-Mormon in some way, either anti-Marriott or anti-Romney.
• His contribution to a page on a Democrat, by contrast, is quite positive, making (again uncited) claims that this particular political figure will be "a significant factor of re-electing Barrack Obama to his second term." No pundits were cited in this contribution.

I'm not quite sure if he is anti-Mormon or just anti-Romney, but it seems from his history of edits that he has failed to adhere to a neutral point of view.

For the record, I'm neither a Mormon nor a Republican, just a long-time editor concerned about this pattern of editing and his unwillingness to change, judging from the following comment on his talk page: [27]. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Mr. Vernon. His edits are all pretty slanted. If he has a hard time removing his biases, perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for him. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Editors, please review these claims being made in detail. There is a conspiracy underway to suppress worthy inclusions into the record. As an example, my article Son of BOSS was moved for deletion by Mr. Vernon immediately and that User:Frecklefoot made the cynical assertion that he was a congressional mole himself. The lack of notability of Peter J. Reilly was naivety, but since I entered as a stub, it seemed worthy of consideration - not rebuking. I contend that I have an anti- bias toward those who would want to leave the record of history incomplete. Failure of citing sources can be rectified or deleted if unsustainable. Perhaps, the real problem here is that there has existed a bias in the other direction. I and am still shocked that this sort of bullying push back by Mr. Vernon and User:Frecklefoot for offering a balance in the record exists. Have I made naive mistakes, admittedly. I continue to learn and strife to make worthy contributions into the record. Wikipietime (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Frecklefoot's comment about being a congressional mole was obviously sarcasm. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, a conspiracy? Really? Editors only need look at the complete lack of overlap between my edits and Frecklefoot's - in fact I haven't had any interaction with him that I recall until this. Also, I never nominated Son of BOSS for deletion; in fact, no one has. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My apology, it was Freckelfoot ,"Unless you can prove this is a real issue with verifiable references, I'm going to move to have this article deleted".... — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Wikipietime (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And he also gave you advice on how to improve the article in the same edit; [28]. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this double sarcasm? Your speaking for Frecklefoot about what his sarcasm is? I am not here to play games and use sarcasm. Stating "His edits are all pretty slanted. If he has a hard time removing his biases, perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for him." about me is offensive. So please show me as a new editor, some respect. I am not a cheerleader for your team, but will conduct myself respectfully and as intelligently as possible given my heritage. Please, return the same. Wikipietime (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The Mariott example is a bit dubious, but with a suitable cite... The others are pretty clearly junk. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Would that include the Son of BOSS article which I created as well? Did you not enjoy Gilligan and Thurston Howell, III? Pretty clearly junk seems a bit brash for honest efforts. Do you not have any helpful criticisms? Wikipietime (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

When adding information to Wikipedia, make sure it is notable, verifiable and presented from a neutral point of view. Looking through your edits, it seems you're doing everything you can to slam Romney (such as the edit you made to the Thurston Howell, III article). Pointing out what he really did that is verifiable is fine. But using sources that are unreliable or biased is not. The Thurston reference on The Rachael Maddow Show is not notable.

The Son of BOSS does look notable enough to merit inclusion. But the original version you created... well, we've been over that ground already. It's been edited by several other editors since then (but mostly by anonymous editors, which I find curious) and it looks much better. As it stands now, it's not a candidate for deletion. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

On the Thurston, Thurston Howell, III issues, That seems perfectly valid to me. I do not get your logic. Suppose, I could care zilch about Mitt Romney and was a Thurston fan; would finding citations of his presence in the media, currently, not be relevant? It seems you are being pro- Romney biased and not letting the chips lie where they fall. This is not personal, at all; only an exercise in logic. I appreciated your mentoring, even if I am an unruly student - maybe. Thurston should stand, as is. This is symbolic issue in my understanding of Wikipedia; a game changer. Why do you not go looking for other citations of Thurston and include that in order to "bury" the Romney reference and fulfill the Thurston's fans needs. Taking no action where one could; also, shows a bias. I think I am stumbling on the notable source issue. Would this be considered notable http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-steinhorn/mitt-romney-business-success_b_1556140.html ? Is there a list or resource for this? It would seem that with the constant criticism of the "main stream media" by many, that a show such as TRMS would be notable. How are our future Historians and kids going to understand these days without you, and maybe me doing our job? I see Mr. Vernon removed the contributions on August 10, 2012. Should this not be cleared up here, prior to this editor taking action? Wikipietime (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This edit attacking an editor on Wikipedia is not helping your case. See WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. Perhaps this is not the place for you, as Frepsilon said earlier. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Another respectful rebuttal, there has been no attack on editors; but, rather a suppression of an aspiring editor who espouses notable and NPOV contributions that you and other like minded editors find pugnacious to your ideology. As a finacial contributor and user of wikipedia, I reject the notion that a few possible "right" leaning editors can squash the momentous growth of those who would further the wikipedia agenda and mission. Frankly, I feel that my case is made or at least well documented and stated. You obviously are not going to permit any form of an entry into Thurston Howell, III based on a bias and protective position you harbor to those whom you might defend. Thurston Howell, IIIembodies the capitalist, Ayn Rand viewpoint held by a segment of our population. The ability to add to the Howell record should not be the prerogative of a sole editor or two. I am getting an understanding of what may be the underlying agenda; having detected my political tilt, discourage, frustrate and eliminate. Wikipietime (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In reviewing my history; Freckles your statement pertaining to Son of BOSS; As it stands now, it's not a candidate for deletion. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC), Are you kidding me? Are you speaking of the entire article? Seems you should be ecstatic that it has been added rather than an attitude like that. How about showing a little appreciation and objectivity.

I have previously asked the question concerning the determination of whether a sources is reliable and unbiased. It was stated my source was unreliable or biased. I have reviewed [[29]] and I do not consider mine disqualified. Is this a determination made by a sole editor? The Thurston reference used was The Rachael Maddow Show which was deemed unfit. Is there a wikipedia page of acceptable or unacceptable sources? From a dodge around this question, I have sinking feeling that there is a degree of subjectivity going on here.

On Thurston Howell, III , the entry, under the heading Other Refernces ; There is also a rap artist called Thirstin Howl III whose stage persona emulates the cash-flush Gilligan's millionaire. In addition, a character in the film Magnolia is named Thurston Howell Does not even have a referenced source and how would this justifiably be considered notable? Would you,talk, be so kind as to elaborate so as I might learn. Wikipietime (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not much of an editor, I only do little things, and the page I am talking about I am definitively NOT an expert on, so do not want to edit. However it is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. I hope some more experienced wikipedia contributors could have a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilful (talk • contribs) 02:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I went ahead and rolled back that edit, and placed a warning on the editor's page. I'll also let that editor know about this discussion. Thank you for reporting this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Go beyond just wow - I looked at a couple of other edits from the same editor. Fairly strong POV - [30]. All see the one talk page post [31]. Not quite a friendly person. Ravensfire (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Dont try to fool yourself, the edits are according to the books all of whom are by renowned author and one by Alexander Gardner own account. Similarly the deletion of Godhra Train Burning rumor that muslim girl was abducted was a sourced content which will be restored again as India Today is a reliable infact among the top most reliable sites.Nitesh kumar nishu (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Great Hymn to the Aten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been on my todo list for some time, and when I saw it being edited earlier this week I began work on it. Unfortunately the editor, Salim e-a ebrahim (talk · contribs), doesn't seem to understand or accept our NPOV policy. Background - Akhenaten has often been said to have changed the religion of Egypt at that time to monotheism. However, this is clearly disputed by a number of Egyptologists and others. This 'hymn' is not a hymn despite its traditional name - there is no evidence that it was ever sung, and at least some more modern writers make this clear. To link it to our article on hymn or to simply claim it to be a hymn in the lead is pov (my wording may need improvement but I was working on that when I was reverted).

This text is quite a long text and not originally broken into stanzas (probably an attempt by earlier Egyptologists to make it look modern) and I'm dubious about the possibility that the excerpt used (which wasn't called an excerpt) originally was cherry picked. Salim's changes[32] remove the word excerpt. They add the word hymn unnecessarily as which looks like an attempt to make a point and certainly has the article stating it is really a hymn. There was a short analysis (sourced to something that didn't back it up) in the section with the excerpt. I removed it as we already have an analysis section and Salim had added text such as "emphatically asserts" in his first edits before I began to edit. His latest edit adds 3 paragraphs of analysis, two of which are not source and all of which I think belong in the analysis section. And no longer calls it an excerpt but just says 'hymn' which is both pov and confusing to the reader who might think it is the whole thing. The analysis section was originally called just 'Analysis' - he changed it to 'Analysis of the hymn' which is again pov.

My version of the lead read:

The Great Hymn to the Aten is the longest form of one of a number of poems written to the sun god Aten and attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten when he revolutionised Egyptian religion and replaced it with Atenism.

His current version reads

The Great Hymn to Aten is the longest form of one of a number of hymns attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten who in his own lifetime attempted to convert ancient Egypt from its centuries of polytheism to monotheistic Atenism with Aten as the only God of the universe.

His edit summary for these changes states "Corrected some oversights i.e. gave the reference to the monotheistic aspect of Atenism. It is not my POV and I have re-inserted the reference which had been removed! - and the hymn itself clearly speaks of it!" What I removed is here[33] and was a reference to something that the hymn "emphatically asserts" that was not actually in the reference. The replacement makes it clear that some scholars do not agree this was monotheism, yet his changes asserted that it was in the lead.

Minor point - he's twice reverted my using of the name of the article in the lead, removing 'the'. Major points - he's twice made the assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Akehenaten changed Egypt's religion to monotheism, despite the fact that the article now makes it clear this is disputed. And calls it unequivocally a hymn (yes, my version says poem and it's clearly not a hymn, but as I said, this bit needs work).

Another minor point is that I removed Akhenaten and Atenism from 'see also' as they are already linked, and he replaced them[34] saying in the edit summary "added the very, very important links to Atenism and Akhanaten - you cannot remove these and then accuse me of a POV of my own - I do not have any POV except what I have read right here on this Wiki - seriously.".

I will point him to this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have done this slightly backward, sorry. I didn't read his talk page. I think there's a problem here about a lack of understanding of our concept of original research, as he says on this talk page, for instance, " it is right there in front of our eyes in the translation.". Clearly a good faith editor struggling a bit with Wikipedia (eg see his commenta about how to revert without having to retype) but I think he needs to see other editors comments, not just mine. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Hi Doug and Mike and everyone: This effort pooped me as a newcomer but now that I am rested a bit I see the exciting challenge that it all is! With a little bit more ability to retrieve past edits like Doug is able to I should be able to save a lot of my time - and not get all flustered as if the world has fallen on top of me! I shall post as much as I can and then stop because there is a power b/out due in 15 minutes. I shall then restart when power returns. Please excuse my typos because I am typing in a hurry to get done - I am based in Karachi, Pakistan at present.

Here is what I wrote to Mike who removed a reference [in brackets]: [Hi Mike: I read your comment, "Undid revision 506805666 by Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) removed WP:OR disguised with 'reference'". It seems you have detected something incorrect in what I did because the reference you deleted was meant only to show that the hymn was translated by the referenced persons and that therefore it was not something created by me out of my imagination in order to assert an opinion [WP:OR (Original Research)] as you felt I had done.

[I have no axes to grind since I am not an Egyptian or a Pharaoh-phile. What I stated is right there in the hymn itself staring us in the face! Clearly, I had nothing to do with the hymn itself since I have no expertise in reading hieroglyphs - and that is why the need of that reference to show that it is a bona fide translation - and you removed it! How does that help bring about a better article? After reading the hymn in translation please let me know whether I have stated something that is not there in the hymn itself. People have even compared it to Psalm 104. Clearly therefore it is to be regarded as a hymn and not even a poem.

[The only thing that really shook me up was that this Pharaoh was living before the coming of Moses and was asserting that there was a "unique/sole God" or "spiritual Presence" on earth.]

Doug also feels that my ref was not proper because the reference to Brewer does not have the exact statement that I have made. But my contention is that I am stating very clearly that it is the hymn that is stating what it is stating and the reference simply identifies the source of the translation. However, since the translation is showing the reference also, I accept that I do not need to give the ref again - and make it seem as if Brewer is stating when it is I who is stating the POV based on the hymn itself.

Next: hymns can lose their music if the tradition does not have the ability to note the musical notations. I have seen that happen to other oral traditions and therefore I do not accept Doug saying there is no proof it was sung. Everywhere in the Wiki the references refer to it as hymn but Doug prefers the couple of authors who say it is only a poem.

I'll stop here now for the time being. Salim e-a ebrahim 11:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim e-a ebrahim (talk • contribs)

I don't think the hymn/poem thing is the biggest problem. I do think that the lead needs to use both words, and that we should try to avoid the article taking sides. Of course, because the traditional name is 'Great Hymn', it is usually referred to as a hymn. A number of Egyptologists do refer to it as poetry, eg Joyce Tyldesley[35], Aidan Dodson[36]("a great work of poetry"), and Toby Wilkinson[37] who endorses the quote that says "one of the most significant and splendid pieces of poetry to survive from the pre-Homeric world". This doesn't preclude it being a hymn, of course. It's been called a poem in our article Aten since it was added to the lead almost 4 years ago and no one has objected. We shouldn't be speculating about whether music was lost, we need reliable sources. If anyone can find any that say it was sung, we can add those. Right now Monsterrat thinks this is not the case - I didn't get into the singing argument in the article, but he wrote "Before looking at the 'hymns'. I want to mention another problem with terminology. To describe the royal eulogies to the Aten as 'hymns' immediately superimposes fields of meaning which confuse understanding of the texts and their purpose. 'Hymns' seems an unsuitable word, because it suggests a congregation of ordinary people singing "All Things Bright and Beautiful' or "Salve Regina'. Nothing whatever is known about how (if at all) these poetic compositions were performed: communal singing is improbable, as the 'hymn' is said to be an adoration (dw3) of the Aten spoken in Akhenaten's words."[38]. We need to be as neutral as possible on this.

RL just called, got to walk the dogs, back later. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is the pov wording in the lead and the unsourced analysis in the section with the excerpt (where there should be no analysis anyway) that is the main problem. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm back finally! Sorry got busy.

1. I made an error earlier when I referred to Brewer. It should be Pritchard where the poem/hymn is found. I agree and accept that I should not use the reference for my POV because the reference is already there after the poem/hymn.

2. Re poem/hymn. I contend that we cannot ask for exacting proof that it was sung or not in its time because we are looking at a very distant past. So we have to look at the authors who say that it was a prayer because it was found where prayers are said rather than poetry - in a tomb. Next, I should want to look at its comparative value in terms of literary and/or religious quality. the literary quality is acceptable to all - no dispute. Could it qualify as a hymn? When there are writers who say it is comparable to the Psalm 104 then that immediately gives me the right to call it a hymn and refer to that writer as my reference. After that I pose this question. Can a Psalm be sung? The answer is yes indeed because we are so used to thinking that a Psalm is always sung. Take the Muslim Quran. On reading it one would be staggered to say how in heavens can this be sung? Yet, the Muslims found a way. I know of certain Sufi groups that has a 5 minute prayer recited daily. I was so astounded that each member was able to sing it in the most beautiful personalized music invented by each of those who sang - all of them different from each other - and for 5 whole minutes for each one of them! So, having experienced that i cannot accept the argument that there is no "proof" that it was sung or not. The Tibetans sing/chant their Book of the Dead and the Hindus also sing/chant their Gita. So why not the egyptians too.

3. Re Cherry-picking: The hymn excerpt has in it the most expressive items/verses that give the picture very easily and quickly as to what the hymn is all about - the same could be done to Psalm 104 in order to show that it is a creation' Psalm. Therefore, I do not agree the cherry-picking argument. The Great Hymn to Aten is a creation hymn. [again here: Since it has even been titled as the "Great Hymn" I contend that Doug is really expressing his own POV too forcefully that it is a poem because as I have said I too have a very strong argument that it is truly a hymn - and since it even has the title of a hymn then Doug should not use his POV over mine because we both have references in terms of authors who call it what they like according to their taste. It certainly is no misunderstanding to call it a hymn - in fact i believe it in the reverse that it is a misunderstanding to call it a poem and thus mislead people into degrading the power and value of such a beautiful creation hymn akin to the Psalm 104.]

4. The title and the lead words could be either way as to include or exclude the "the" in it. Both ways are written in different places in the Wiki. The lead par is as follows: "The Great Hymn to Aten is the longest form of one of a number of hymns attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten who in his own lifetime attempted to convert ancient Egypt from its centuries of polytheism to monotheistic Atenism with Aten as the only God of the universe. The ancient Egyptian view of the universe, a view that was common to all the ancient civilizations, was that of the earth as the center of the universe and a material reality separate from the religious reality of an afterlife." Of this the key sentence that Doug probably objects to is: " . . . a number of hymns attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten who in his own lifetime attempted to convert ancient Egypt from its centuries of polytheism to monotheistic Atenism with Aten as the only God of the universe." If you substitute the "hymn" for "poem" the idea of Atenism as a religion immediately goes down the drain - another argument to call it a hymn. The hymn itself talks about the "Sole God of the universe" and so i am simply re-stating what is already there - in the same way Doug takes sentences and paragraphs to write in support of a POV by quoting from his source. I can easily re-write the lead para with a verse in it to show the same POV and then put a reference where i quote the verse for Pritchard! If you prefer I can do that because as the Wiki says make your POV a fact by some means i.e. try to show that the POV is really derived from a source. Since my initial attempt was rejected as a ploy by Mike to misrepresent the reference then I am willing if you want it like that to insert O sole god, like whom there is no other! // Thou didst create the world according to thy desire // Whilst thou wert alone in the lead para and then give reference to it (the verse) with Pritchard's book as the source so that what i do say becomes very clear to all that this man really and truly tried to convert Egypt into a monotheistic culture so much so that he had to move his capital city from Thebes to a new location because of the hatred and lethal animosity of the priesthood. All this is there in history and there is no POV of mine at all involved in all this! You think I am having a POV because you Doug are very much invested in the idea that Akhenaten was only worshipping the sun-god Ra but calling him Aten - a simple name change. If you remove this idea from your mind and replace it with the idea that this man was a monotheist to whom Aten was a "Supreme Spirit" as you will read about Aten in the Wiki itself then you would have no objection at all. you are objecting because you really and truly believe in spite of what you read in the hymn, that this man was one more idolator the way we have been taught about Egyptian Pharaohs.

5. Having shown in #4 that Aten was not the same as Ra therefore I am not doing any analysis in the intro to the Hymn. in this section i am simply introducing the hymn - not stating any POV of mine whatsoever. I can remove this para: "Atenism has been described by some scholars as the earliest known example of monotheistic thought while others consider it to have been an example ofhenotheism.[2]" into the section of analysis. The first 2 paras do not belong in the analysis because they are not analysing anything - they are simply to bring to the attention of the person reading the hymn that they should pay attention to those critical verses that tell the reader that he is reading about a man with a very different makeup to that of an idolater!!

I do not remember any other point to discuss - so I'll close here. See you tomorrow. It's night here and plse excuse any typos - too tired to review. Salim e-a ebrahim 18:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim e-a ebrahim (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid, based on this last post, that Salim doesn't grasp the "no original research" principle yet, so I've posted something about it on his talk page. On this page I'm addressing the substance of the disagreement.

I really don't think "hymn" and "poem" are such problematic terms. Egyptologists very often use the word "hymn" to refer to this kind of praising-a-god poetry. For instance, Miriam Lichtheim's books on ancient Egyptian literature use the term frequently, and the relevant entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt is titled "Hymns". No one knows if the hymns were sung, but as far as I know, all Egyptologists believe that some of them were either sung or chanted during religious ceremonies. These hymns were not the same as modern Christian hymns, so there is reason not to simply call the Aten text a "hymn" without explanation. Maybe the article should say that Montserrat doesn't like the term "hymn" and explain why, but I think Egyptologists sometimes go too far in saying "don't use this word because it makes you think of the wrong thing". I've seen one say something to the effect of "Egyptian tombs weren't really tombs like we think of them; they were meant as resurrection machines".

Egyptian hymns are also poems, so it seems reasonable to start the article with "The Great Hymn to the Aten is a poem…" but not refuse to use the word "hymn" to refer to it in passing. At some point the article must explain exactly what Egyptian hymns were like, and how they differ from hymns as we generally think of them.

There shouldn't be a section in the article titled "hymn", because the whole article is about the hymn. There should be one section about the analysis of the hymn's meaning; as Dougweller says, there shouldn't be analysis in the section with the poem excerpt. Doing otherwise defeats the purpose of organizing articles into sections. If we use an excerpt (the whole thing is too long to include in an article), the article should say it's an excerpt and not the whole poem.

Atenism and Akhenaten are linked in the article already, so removing them from the "See also" section is not pushing any point of view. It's just following the guidelines at WP:See also.

As for the monotheism issue, there is disagreement between scholars, so the article should cover it, and it should not say definitively that Atenism was monotheistic. I don't know of any arguments on that issue that focus on the text of the hymn specifically, but because the Great Hymn is usually considered the definitive Atenist text, there probably are some. But even if there aren't, the article should still specify that there is doubt about whether Atenism was genuinely monotheistic (as it now does). If it's a significant view in scholarship, it should not be glossed over, regardless of what Salim or anyone else thinks. And, of course, the article should use references to scholarly sources and not other Wikipedia articles.

Are there any significant issues that I've missed in this long discussion? A. Parrot (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

---

I understand what's what better! Thank you Parrot. Doug, you have done an excellent job with the final edit and taught me many things along the way. Thank you for your incredible patience.Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your help is needed on Richard Dawkins' discussion page. A group of editors are pro adding criticism in the article from reliable sources. Another group however, says this is not a good idea at all, and those material should be added to articles like The God Delusion or New Atheism. The problem, however, is that people in the latter articles are also resisting adding criticism to their article. I find this unusually biased to practically ban criticism on the basis of consensus.--216.31.211.11 (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about deletions of cited text such as this in The God Delusion? I agree with the deletion because it was completely unbalanced. It provided a rebuttal to an argument that was never made. Kazemita1 added something about how McGrath disagreed with Dawkins on the subject of suicide bombings, but there was never any information about what Dawkins thinks on the topic, about what point the book argued. It does not matter if there was a fine scholarly cite if the writing is so bad. The deletion was appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this also a bad edit that should have been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.159.2 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

For which the user provided near 10 reliable sources that back his edit but yet turned down by people in the talk page:

• 1 (directly to Dawkins) The author, Terry Eagleton, is known as one of the world's leading literary theorists
• 2
• 3 (directly to Dawkins)
• 4 (directly to Dawkins)
• 5
• 6 (directly to Dawkins)
• 7 (directly to Dawkins)
• 8 (directly to Dawkins)
• 9
• 10

I mean this is really obvious that some folks are religiously preventing any criticism against their popular figure in Wikipedia. --24.94.18.234 (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Eagleton and McGrath seem to be present already in The God Delusion critical reaction section. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 07:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the claims is that a criticism is needed at Richard Dawkins, or perhaps The God Delusion, regarding remarks by Dawkins on suicide bombers in that book. A paper ("The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism") by Robert Pape is used as the scholarly basis for criticisms of Dawkins (the most-attacked comment by Dawkins is "If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers." with Pape's analysis used to conclude that religious belief is not neccessary or sufficient to create suicide bombers (I can't see text in the paper which rejects Dawkins' statement, but there are books by critics of Dawkins whose authors can see that conclusion).

The reason that Pape's paper should not be coatracked into an article on Dawkins or his book is that Pape does not mention Dawkins or his book (the paper finishes with "Conquering countries may disrupt terrorist operations in the short term, but it is important to recognize that occupation of more countries may well increase the number of terrorists coming at us." and seems to be more concerned with the strategy of suicide bombing). My opinion on Pape's paper does not matter, but neither does that of Terry Eagleton who has no qualifications concerning suicide bombing—Eagleton is just another person affronted by Dawkins' views on religion, yet the articles make it clear that there are plenty of those. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion on Pape's paper does not matter as you correctly pointed. However, WP:RSN's verdict on usage of Pape's paper as due criticism against Dawkins does matter. 24.94.18.234 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that the addition could work in The God Delusion in the criticism section (articles on other sundry works are allowed sections including notable criticism of those works' claims). However, Dawkins is more notable for The God Delusion in general rather than that argument specifically, that argument is not the main thesis of the work, and the criticism is not about Dawkins directly (just something he said), so anything about that argument is off-topic in the Dawkins article. And to ease your mind, I think Dawkins is just Pat Robertson with a different team logo, and am not religiously blocking criticism of him. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All right brother. I am going to add it to The God Delusion. Your active support in line with your above mentioned suggestion is appreciated.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

RSN does not give verdicts, it's just a board. They particularly don't comment about due weight as it's not their place. If it's synthesised it doesn't belong in the article, pure and simple. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, hopefully I'm doing this correctly! I've noticed that the article Day of Deceit, on a book by Robert Stinnett, has numerous issues in what would normally be the "summary" section of the article (as I believe is the (at least non-formal) custom for all articles on media). Namely, the summary section is a jumbled mass of shards of actual summary of what the book says, mixed in with criticism and phrases like "Stinnett's claim has proven baseless" stuck in there. I do not know how this can possibly be seen as "summary". Furthermore, as I explained on the talk page, if I wanted to read this book, and went to Wikipedia to find out what the book said, I'd be at a complete loss. I expect we're not supposed to mention names here, so I won't, but it has become impossible to correct this problem due to an edit war that seems to occur whenever anyone attempts to move criticism to the criticism section, and summary to the summary section. Lastly, I'd like to draw attention to one of the main citations used in the article, by a Admiral Richard E. Young. The only actual article that this links to is an unsubstantiated review of the original book on Amazon.com. I don't believe that qualifies as a reliable source. Anyway, thanks for your time. 69.249.211.251 (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

♠The complaints about formatting are disingenuous. This wasn't a "move to a criticisim section", it was deletion of criticism. A claim of desired "balance" has provided veiled implications of ownership & POV. And, as I now see, not so veiled implications. "Edit war" is preposterous. I make no secret of my views of the book, nor will I. Those views are not on the page. I have invited the complaining IP to offer suggestions on the changes. Rather than do so on the talk page there, that IP has instead chosen to come here, evidently in a preemptive effort to silence me, without even waiting for a response to his insulting remarks there.

♠Based on my past experience with these kinds of complaints, I expect it to work. I expect my views to be completely ignored. I expect to draw a block of as much as two weeks, beginning any minute now. And I expect any further edit I make on the page in question to draw a further block as disruptive.

♠Surprise me. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead section of the article is perfectly apt. The rest of the article is not very well laid out; it does not follow the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. The synopsis of the book should be free from criticism. Following that, the refutation of the ideas of the book should give the reader the overwhelming impression that scholars and topic experts have utterly dismissed its research methodology and its conclusion. My post on the talk page lists many of the leading criticisms, and they are not at all kind. This very negative scholarly view of the book should be laid out as clearly as possible in the article, even after rewriting it to conform with the book project structure guideline. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Binksternet. That's precisely what I was talking about (and apparently unable to put in writing). I'll look at the article later this evening and see if I can't shuffle stuff around a bit as per my latest (semi-unsigned) post on the talk page. Also, honestly Trekphiler, stop being so defensive about this. I'm simply suggesting we write an article that confirms to sensible Wikipedia guidelines. If you hate this book that much, then I'm sorry, but that's really got no bearing on the writing of the article.69.249.211.251 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

♠"Defensive"? You start from the proposition I'm biased, accuse me of deliberately trying to introduce POV, & imply ownership. You make the issue about my dislike of the subject instead of the content of the page. And then you try to make out I am in the wrong? I see this, it's no wonder I don't believe I'm never going to get a fair hearing.

♠As far as the changes Bink suggests, I have no problem with that. Your "unable to put in writing" was, it seems, at the heart of the problem. You were too busy making out I was wrong to explain what you actually wanted. Perhaps if you'd tried harder, instead of making about my views on the subject? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No. I started from the preposition that the article did not contain an adequately separate summary and criticism section. I only moved on to note that you revert attempts to fix this after noticing the edit history of the page and the number of comments similar to mine. If you'd actually read what I'd said, you'd notice that no where do I directly claim that you're biased. On the contrary: I say on the talk page repeatedly that I believe you have many valid points, and that you're likely correct. I only mention that you seem to dislike this book because you seem so adamant not to accept any removal of criticism from the summary section. If you look at the edit history of this page, the talk page of the article, and the article itself, you'll notice my original point was that the article was organized badly. It was not an attempt to attack you, and frankly, if you feel that this is merely a personal attack against you, then I'm sorry, but I still stand by my point that the article needs work (which I will attempt to do later). 69.249.211.251 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As one of those who worked on the article before the current burst of activity, I don't see a problem with the current stronger segregation of the summary and the criticism. The lead, as it stands, is accurate: Stinnett's book is cited by all the conspiracy theorists, and rejected by the historians. I think we're done except for the drama. Mangoe (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but we need help.

I have requested the re-opening the Dispute Resolution mechanism for the Misha B article @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38 as the debate about neutrality has really flared up. on User talk:Steven Zhang who closed the original Dispute Resolution based on my suggestion...no one else in the dispute contributed.

or should I go to formal mediation?

WP:NPOV/N is probably your best bet here. Steven Zhang

I make no pretence that I am a fan, I guess the majority articles about (living) people are started and mainly contributed by those who are 'fans', but my contibutions have been done in good faith regards neutrality (as a newbie I have made mistakes...like not spotting blogs) I always take personal criticism and attacks maybe too seriously but I have said I welcome genuine verifiable editing contributions from others, even when they remove my contributions, which can be seen from page history.

Bias about bullying

Biased and promotional

DRN

Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article?

Too much information and way too biased

I would very much welcome a neutral viewpoint from someone not involved in the article.........Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the other editors involved, a few of them have blank talk pages so they may not see the notice....so I have added two notifications to Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article? & Too much information and way too biased

Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We are all biased, I am open and aware about mine (I have seen lots attacks against this artist on many forums) but I have always tried to be neutral, on a number occasions I have asked for evidence based proper citations that support their counter views. I have made mistakes as a newbie, like not spotting always blogs but I am learning. Here are some suggestions as a starting point, folks may contribute others :)

Please could you consider the article in general, based on all possible reliable sources is it reasonably neutral. Whats Missing? Before Misha was 14, she went through a bad period when she both got bullied and bullied back - should this included and the background story? Early life

I added the conspiracy section, because others wanted it. But as it was a false allegation, surely it's better to not even include it. Relevant for the article about that particular series of The X Factor (where it is included), but not for her biographical article. But Folks insisted. However to briefly mention it merely gives the false accusation UNDUE WEIGHT and open to interpretation (espicially considering the exposure the accusations had on prime time TV and the Gutter Press/Gossip Mag/internet circus that followed) if its not covered and supported by verifiable evidence. But does it or my critics comments conflict with BLP as well as NPOV. The X Factor 2011 including the controversy subsection

Why are you even starting this discussion when you are clearly trying to make the article a fansite? Her school bullying history should be included, as it was highly publicized, if other celebrities were bullies at school and it was never publicized as extensively then no need to include it, Misha became notorious for her bullying past, so it is best to include it NEUTRALLY, without malice, nor without saying stuff like 'but she's changed now, so please buy her single', that's what the article stinks of. Also, Tulisa and Perrie Edwards both claimed afterwards that there was aggression from Misha backstage and that it stopped after she was outed. So the fact you keep calling it a false allegation and a conspiracy reeks of biased opinions, Digital Spy is usually a reliable source, and as for UNDUE WEIGHT, which seems to be your favorite words, a brief mention is all people want, the article should cover every aspect of the person in question, without criticizing or promoting them, just because you like her, or work for her record company as has been suggested, doesn't mean you can turn Wikipedia into a fansite, it's the same as a Kristen Stewart fan removing information about her recent affair, simply because it's bad publicity, Wikipedia isn't about self promotion. Reli source (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gossip coloumn in a tabloid news paper. The article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons.

Regards the bully accusation on the TV reality program, The was never any evidence about her bullying on the show, but the UK gutter press etc did make stuff up. The accusation was retracted by the Louis who apologized the very next day on live TV, all potential victims and witnesses (Janet Devlin, Johnny Robinson, the Risk, Frankie Cocozza, Sophie Habibis, Sami Brookes, Gary Barlow, Kelly Rowland and members of the production team denied it, rubbished it, including Little Mix's who said Perrie Edwards said that things had been "blown out of proportion. It was a mountain out of a mole hill that should have just blown over but it just kept creeping up".

Thankfully the bully saga has been removed from her page by a BLP admin, "Accusations" on "reality shows" are not of actual biographical value" it is recorded on the X factor 8 main page

What someone does as a child is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia unless the is exceptional reason. Bryan said 'At school I was bullied & I’d bully people myself, but I’m a different person now' but this was before she took up singing seriously aged 14, as 'my way of understanding myself'. So how old was she, when she got bullied & bullied back 13, 11, 10? about the age when she discovered that not only her father abandoned her but also her mum, to be raised by her wonderful aunt in a tough neighbourhood. “Everyone has a past and people make mistakes – I’m proud to say that I’ve learnt from mine”

If I was from her record company I would not be posting in the middle of the night, the would be a few better pictures and media samples on the page. Hey I should get paid for this. As you are obviously unbiased yourself, you are of course allowed to contribute the page with actual reliable, verifiable pieces that follow BLP rules....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for unfounded personalized accusations against other editors. Wikipedia has many different kinds of editors, with many different backgrounds. Even if an editor is sure she knows the truth, another editor might note that sources point to a different "truth." Thus it makes sense for all editors to admit their own fallibility when they assert that their truth is a neutral point of view. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Wikipedia only reports what those sources say. So if you can find relevant reputable critical sources that does not conflict with BLP contribute them rather than attacking me....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed today a dozen citations and about five quotes from websites and the Uk tabloid press which I now understand are not reliable enough. I shall continue to review all sources and remove any unsuitable ones. I felt like I was being personally attacked on the talk page so I got unnecessarily defensive - this at least partly due to my own personal issues. As I review the article I hope my co-editors will find the article becoming more acceptable.

Artistry sections are quite common on female singers pages, is it wrong to cover the same sort of subjects here like influences and suitable comments about her 'artistic' style. Musical style and influences

And of course the talk page for the arguments....Zoebuggie☺whispers 07:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Links added ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 09:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

removed link to a section not relevant to NPOV discussion...Zoebuggie☺whispers 07:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has extra time, please edit the Zoophilia and the law article for neutrality. This page is built on original research and unsourced content with the attempt of pushing a very non-neutral POV. The article is currently being watched by less than 30 people and I have a history with the one particular editor (who mainly edits that page) in the past to do anything about it without being reverted again, multiple times. If any outside editors are willing to clean up the Zoophilia and the law article up for neutrality and keep an eye on it, that would be very much appreciated!

Thank you, Someone963852 (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The text under discussion is now at Talk:Milton_Hershey_School#Text_of_Controversies68.238.249.142 (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been an expansion in the controversy section, which was mainly executed by a dedicated I.P. user. The expansion was reverted two times on the grounds on defamatory content & undue:weight. The editor still wants it to be expanded in his own way. I have also encouraged him to create account so that effective talk can take place, since the I.P. seems to be a dynamic one. Suggestions are invited. -- доктор прагматик 12:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies as well -- the "material" is a rag-tag repository of defamation and SYNTH, and would ill-fit any Wikipedia article ab initio. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"The expansion was reverted two times"- incorrect. The two editors (apparently following the filter bot which noticed "sex") reverted the whole article, not the section in question. The "two reversions" were to correct their error; article was left with the section removed. "Wants it to be expanded in his own way"- incorrect. The best way would be a proper article where the controversies cited would not be out of place. An alternate way, a separate article, was proposed in the meantime. Other proposals? In Pennsylvania, this is a major subject, and the HIV-sex story made national news. Is everything in the news defamatory? Discussion of content is at Talk:Milton_Hershey_School#undue_weight_to_scandal. Should that discussion be moved here?98.111.146.179 (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Virtually none of the "controversies" other than the HIV case have any substantial connection to the school.
2. Most of the oleo othewise is not even tangentially connected to the school

please explain what you mean98.111.146.179 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Claims are made about living persons which do not meet the WP:BLP requirements.

So figure on 3 lines on the HIV case and end it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Names of convicted thieves or embezzlers from the school might be under Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names, but convictions concerning teacher/student sex, as notorious subject, is coverup unless verifiable information is included. Formal Board of Managers inquiry makes Gurt comments a proper subject. Please specify any non-NPOV tone in that text.98.111.146.179 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Could I get opinions as to the neutrality of the Suetonius on Christians article? There are accusations of undue weight. Thanks. -- spin^control 15:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to be more specific about what issues have been highlighted. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid specifics, but, as per your request, the complaint is that I have been giving too much weight to a minority view, as stated by this comment:

WP:Due requires that the majority view gets more attention. But I saw another touch up and despite the establishment of the majority scholarly view the minority items seem to be overflowing now. The name of Slingerlad appears 11 times (yes, 11 times) in the text of the article, then also in the bibliography. Why are the minority views of a bit player from Hiram college getting attention over the majority scholarly view?

and

Do we have to declare a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the issue of WP:Due as well? And again, the very statement that "Despite Slingerland's analysis, most scholars agree that..." which Doktor spin touched up himself makes it crystal clear that Slingerland is a minority view. So why is he treated like "Caesar Dixon" here? Is he Caesar and no one knows about it yet? Unless good and specific reasons are provided, per WP:Due I will have to trim out these overloaded minority view Slingerland references.

The majority view is claimed through this statement in the lede:

Louis Feldman states that most scholars assume that in the reference Jesus is meant and that the disturbances mentioned were due to the spread of Christianity in Rome.

Slingerland's scholarly articles are used mainly for dating issues.

So, does the article currently give undue weight? I personally am most interested in the general balance of the article. -- spin^control 16:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

How does WP:DUE cash out in a situation in which the majority view cannot be enunciated other than by repeating what supporters of the view say without any actual rationale? I have placed a contrary peer-reviewed scholarly analysis of the situation and an editor wants to dismantle it because of WP:DUE.

This is the section. The second paragraph is the majority view and the third is a contrary view. -- spin^control 18:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I was just about to post here... I would like to establish that the third paragraph is the "minority view" as on this talk page section. But then given that Doktorspin readily stated here in clear terms that the second paragraph gives the majority view, is it not logical that the "contrary view" in the third paragraph would be the minority view? Seems obvious to me. History2007 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

At List of oldest universities in continuous operation, only European universities are included. This is due to, according to users on the talk page, a number of sources that say that the "university" was a uniquely European institution, and that Muslim institutions are "madrassas", not universities. It is true that eminently reliable sources put forward such a view. There are however other reliable sources that do not hold the same view. A number of users are insisting that the page cannot include what those reliable sources say. This has come up here before, here (a discussion that was completely disregarded here) and here. Sources brought for the inclusion of al-Azhar and al-Karaouine are as follows:

• Aslan, Ednan, ed. (2009), Islamic Education in Europe, Wiener islamisch-religionspädagogische Studien, vol. 1, Böhlau Verlag Wien, pp. 220–221, ISBN 9783205783107, The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th centurey the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.
• Goldstone, Jack (2008), Why Europe?: the rise of the West in world history, 1500-1850, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, p. 140, ISBN 9780072848014, Islamic scientists and scholars developed the first universities as centers for scholarship in North Africa and Egypt; the universities of Al-Azhar in Cairo, founded in AD 988, and of Al-Karaouine in Fez (Morocco), founded in 859, are the world's oldest ongoing universities
• Janin, Hunt (2006). The Pursuit of Learning in the Islamic World, 610-2003. McFarland. p. 67. ISBN 9780786429042. Situated in Cairo and formerly also located with the great al-Azhar Mosque, this is the oldest and still the most important Islamic university in the world. Al-Azhar University has taught Islamic law, theology, and Arabic for more than 1,000 years. The first recorded seminar was held in 975, when chief justice Abu El-Hassan sat in the courtyard of the university and, reading from a book on jurisprudence written by his father, instructed students in the intricacies of Shiite law.
• Behrens-Abouseif, Doris (1992). Islamic Architecture in Cairo (2nd ed.). Brill. p. 58. ISBN 978-90-04-09626-4. The first prayers were held in the mosque in 972, and in 989 it acquired the status of a college with the appointment of thirty-five scholars to teach the Isma'ili Shi'a theology to which the Fatimids adhered.

I have argued that the list should include these universities and also include the fact that other scholars do not consider them to have been founded as universities. That has not proven satisfactory to other editors on the talk page. Should the list include universities that reliable sources report as being the oldest continuously run universities in the world if they are not European? nableezy - 17:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

While there are some sources that consider Karaouine the oldest functioning university, they are beneath the caliber and scope of those sources that consider the medieval Christian university to be a European innovation (see here [39]), thus excluding Karaouine from the list. Unfortunately, the problem with the table is that if we were to include Karaouine in the table we would be giving equal weight to the minority viewpoint. On the other hand I am open to some kind of creative solution that includes Karaouine and Al-Azhar somewhere in the article, just not the table. I also note that so far users are aligning 6-1 in favor of the current version of the article. Lastly, I note that Nableezy's interest ends at including only Islamic institutions founded before 1088 (the date of founding of the University of Bologna, seemingly completely uninterested in any Islamic institutions founded after that date. Athenean (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your claim about my interests are both untrue and irrelevant. Kindly refrain from writing bogus assertions of no relevance. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy - 21:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very obvious that the sources quoted in the link are of higher caliber and scope than those quoted by the OP here, and it wouldn't really matter anyway, so long as the sources are not WP:FRINGE and the authors are qualified to have an opinion. The relevant policy is WP:YESPOV.

BTW, here is an additional source: [40]. Formerip (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources in the link I provide are in-depth, scholarly sources that delve into the history and nature of the university. The sources provided by Nableezy and yourself are not. So, yes, there is definitely a difference in caliber. Athenean (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to compare them in detail, so lets just say yours trump mine. However, mine is written by a professor of Education in chapter that deals with the history of the university in a book from an academic publisher. I'd say that's enough to show that there is a difference of opinion about this between experts in the relevant field. Which is not to say that my guy might not have it wrong and yours right. Formerip (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The definition of a university in the List of oldest universities in continuous operation follows the main article university. This defines the Wikipedia:Scope for the list. There is consensus at both the main article and the list among the users about this definition. The two institutions cited by Nableezy were actually madrasas, Muslim mosque schools, and quality sources careful about the terminology also call and discuss them this way. What Nableezy is basically asking is to overthrow a consensus which is based on specialist scholarship just in order to include these two madrasas in the university list (ignoring that for madrasas already exists a List of the oldest madrasahs in continuous operation). This would creates unsurmountable problems with, inter alia, WP:Weight. There is a ton of high quality scholarly material by internationaly recognized historian of the history of the university who go to great pains and into great detail why the university was a unique creation of Christian Europe and why Muslim madrasas were historically and organizationally a very distinct institution. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Several "quality sources" have been provided that specifically say that these two institutions were founded as universities. I am seeking uninvolved comment on whether or not that significant viewpoint should be included as per WP:NPOV. nableezy - 00:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There is increasing mention of the Islamic institutions as universities and I would like to see this view mentioned. However, I think it is still a minority scientific view so in the lede and other short summaries we can treat Bologna et al as first. Today, a madrasa is a very different thing from a university, in Muslim-majority countries too, but in the early middle ages, it wasn't. The Christian institutions were religious schools too, and perhaps were copied from the Islamic pattern. Timbuktu deserves special mention. There were even earlier Buddhist institutions as I recall. It makes for a messier list, but still worth doing. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Itsmejudith that the medieval institutions of learning were more than modern madrassas, but that it's still a minority view that they qualify as "universtities". Another point is that they ceased to function as "university-like" institutions and deterioriated into religious schools while Western institutions blossomed from religious schools into modern universities. While there may some organizational continuity, there really is no university-like continuity between modern Muslim universities founded on the basis of modern madrassas and their medieval predecessors. It would be very deceptive to imply such continuity, and to deny that the primary model for modern Muslim universities is the Western university, not the madrassa, either modern or medieval. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, just for your info, there exists already an overview article for all these other institutions of higher learning: Ancient higher-learning institutions. Can't agree about your opinion of an increasing mentioning. In my survey of expert views and entries in renowned encyclopedia I found the standard position that university were uniquely European in origin to be just as vigorously and elaborately articulated as ever. Most of the sources which happen to call madrasas also "universities" do only so because university has obviously long become the general term for any institution of higher learning in the English language. Their everyday usage of the term is fine, but makes them irrelevant for an encyclopedic definition. The few that bring somewhat more to the table, like Aslan above, still lack any meaningful discussion or reasoning for their opinion; they just assert it.

Dominus Vobisdu, modern madrasas became 'less' than medieval ones in the moment the introduction of the Western model of the university relegated them to a secondary position in the hierachy of learning institutions. Today, as far as I can tell, madrasa might be better addressed as schools. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith: Your comparison of madrassas with medieval universities misses the point that medieval universities emerged as autonomoous organizations of teachers or students, not as foundations of religious institutions. Madrassas are more like early medieval cathedral or monastic schools than like later medieval universities. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Madrasa vs. Jamiah : The problem here, imho, is that some users focused the discussion on the fact that madrasas can't be considered as universities, without doubt! The fact is that Al Karaouine wasn't a madrasa but a jamiah (at least, since the 13th century, see Levy-Provencal) and that its teaching wasn't focused on fiqh but was general. This makes the comparison madrasa/university completely irrelevant then! --Omar-toons (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

1. We have been scrupuously faithful to the sources cited. All reliable source I have cited below use the term "madrasa", not jamia. And this is very likely because
2. quite to the contrary to what you believe, Jamia is actually the modern term for the modern university adopted from the Western world. The Encyclopedia of Islam is quite clear about it, "Djamia", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition, Brill, 2012:

   Although Djamia, in this sense, includes, in popular and semi-official usage, traditional institutions of higher religious education, officially it is restricted to the modern university, established on western models. Thus, Law no. 184 of 1958, organizing the Djamia of the United Arab Republic does not name al-Azhar among these universities. This article will, consequently, deal with “modern” universities. It should be stressed, however, that in Islamic countries higher education had a remarkable tradition in the older institutions of the mosque, the madrasa and other centres of education and learning...The term djamia seems to have come into use towards the middle of the 19th century, and to have been translated from “université” or “university”....The first definite use of djamia in the technical meaning of university appears to have been in the movement of some intellectual leaders and reformers in Egypt in 1906 for the establishment of a d̲j̲āmiʿa miṣriyya.

   Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to point out that this subject was discussed two times before on the NPOVN. These previous discussions can be consulted on:

• WP:NPOVN/Archive 29 (Dec.2011)
• WP:NPOVN/Archive 31 (Jan.-Feb. 2012)

As anyone can easily see, on both discussions most comments were in favor of a "weighting" of the article, but no decision was taken... I hope that it will not be the case (again) this time.

Omar-toons (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Basing on the two previous discussions, I reiterate my proposals for a solution respecting the WP:NPOV policy, since it clearly appears that there is no consensus about which is the oldest university in the world and the European-Christian medieval concept.

My proposals:

• on the article University of Al-Karaouine:
  • The Al Karaouine institution is considered by the UNESCO^(reference), and many historians^(references) as the oldest continuously operating academic degree-granting university in the world. Some historians as al-Jaznai^(reference) and Lévi-Provençal^(reference) consider that it can not be considered as a "University" before the 13th century, when the teaching became general and it started to form philosophers and thinker, including several non-Muslims. However, these views are contested by many other historians who consider that medieval universities in the Islamic world and medieval European universities followed very different historical trajectories until the former were expanded to the later in modern times^(reference), and the certificate delivered in non-European universities deviated in concept and procedure from the medieval doctorate out of which modern university degrees evolved^(reference).
• on the article University of Bologna:
  • The university received a charter from Frederick I Barbarossa in 1158, but in the 19th century, a committee of historians led by Giosuè Carducci traced the founding of the University back to 1088, which would make it the oldest university in the world^(references). This claim is, however, contested by some historians who consider that the oldest continuously operating university in the world is the University of Al-Karaouine in Fez, Morocco^(references).
• on the lists of universities:
  • Adding non-European universities to the List of oldest universities in continuous operation and copying the two paragraphs above for both universities as a note ;
  • Creating a second list: the List of oldest European universities in continuous operation, with a note about the fact that European universities are considered by some historians as the oldest of the world, not only in Europe ;
  • Renaming the article List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation (that was created as a WP:POVFORK in order to eliminate non-European universities from the previous list) as List of oldest universities in continuous operation in the Muslim world, with a note about the fact that the list is contested by the ones who consider that non-European high-degree learning institutions weren't universities.

Omar-toons (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What you are basically proposing is to change the entire definition of the university in order to somehow squeeze in the madrasa as "the oldest universities" in a few articles. If this view is to be accepted by the majoritiy of users, we would have to change not only the lead of these three article, far from it, we would have to change hundreds of articles, beginning with adding the category [[Category:University]] and the infobox university to countless Islamic mosques schools which aren't in fact universities at all.

The point you still do not quite comprehend is that while both university and madrasa can be fully regarded as institutions of higher learning, each has to be judged on its own terms and that a medieval madrasa was never a university (or the other way round). It does not help either that you have been edit-warring (you still do) over multiple Wikipedias for months now in order to enforce your view, ironically even in those versions where you don't even have a minimum command of the language.

To provide some information to users still unfamiliar with the history of the university and the madrasa, I will list here reputable sources from encyclopedia, dictionaries on the Middle Ages and internationally renowned historians of the university. Note that these are nearly all written by individual experts in the field or published in leading publications; they plainly make clear that the standard view is that

1. the university was the institution of higher learning unique to the Christian Middle Ages (medieval university)
2. that the first universities were located in Western Europe
3. that there were no universities in the Muslim world before the onset of modernity (19th-20th centuries)
4. the madrasa was a higher school of Islamic law, with other subjects onl ancillary to it, and as such a very different institution from the university
5. that the Muslim madrasa differed in many important structural, conceptual and cultural ways from the Christian university
6. that the labelling of Al-Karaouine or Al-Azhar as "first universities" is unjustified and misleading for the above reasons

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That you can, with a straight face, accuse others of edit-warring for months now in order to enforce your view is incredible. You, more than any other user, have been edit-warring over this issue on multiple articles. Either stop doing so, or stop with dishonest "who me?" type of replies. nableezy - 19:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And you continue to flat out distort what sources say. The Encyclopedia of African History does not support the novel claim that you continue to attribute to it. Repeated misrepresentations of a source can happen only so many times before it has to be called a willful lie. And that you continue to use a book by a freelance journalist writing about the Taliban for the history of a Moroccan university only underscores who warped your reasoning has been, and continues to be. Compare the line from Taliban: The Unknown Enemy to, I don't know, let's go with these:

• Aslam, Ednan, ed. (2009), Islamic Education in Europe, Wiener islamisch-religionspädagogische Studien, vol. 1, Böhlau Verlag Wien, pp. 220–221, ISBN 9783205783107, The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th centurey the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.
• Goldstone, Jack (2008), Why Europe?: the rise of the West in world history, 1500-1850, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, p. 140, ISBN 9780072848014, Islamic scientists and scholars developed the first universities as centers for scholarship in North Africa and Egypt; the universities of Al-Azhar in Cairo, founded in AD 988, and of Al-Karaouine in Fez (Morocco), founded in 859, are the world's oldest ongoing universities

I really cannot understand why you insist on continuing to distort what sources say even after you have been informed of the distortion. nableezy - 20:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on GPM's and Nableezy's sources above, and Steve McCluskey's reasoning below, it is my distinct impression that among the specialist academic literature, the university is universally considered to have evolved from the medieval European university. While some non-specialist sources tend to describe Karaouine as a university, they are few in number and of lesser scope and depth than the specialist academic literature. Thus, the view that Karaouine is the "world's oldest continuously operating university" is largely a minority view. I think we can all agree on that. In response to Omar-toons draft text, I propose that the madrasas be indeed mentioned in List of oldest universities in continuous operation, but in a separate section at the end of the article, together with the whole madrasa/university issue, but not be included in the table, as this would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Athenean (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is worth pointing of that (Western) Academic sources aren't the be all and end all, we are generally prepared to include non-academic sourced views as well as academic viewpoints. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I know this isn't the place to discuss content, but let me try to address the state of historical understanding of the history of higher education in the Latin speaking West and in the Arabic speaking world.

The history of medieval universities has been studied for at least a century, accompanying an even earlier study of the history of ideas in the Middle Ages. Early in that study, Hastings Rashdall (The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, pp. 17-18, (Oxford: Clarendon Press) ,1895) made the crucial distinction between Universities and their predecessors in cathedral and monastic schools, defining them in terms of their form of organization:

"The University was originally a scholastic Guild whether of Masters or Students. Such Guilds sprang into existence, like other Guilds, without any express authorization of King, Prince, or Prelate. They were spontaneous products of that instinct of association which swept like a great wave over the towns of Europe in the course of the eleventh and twelfth centuries."

As a consequence of this long and detailed examination historians know in great detail when universities were founded, what their origins and precursors were, who taught (and sometimes who studied) at those institutions, and what was taught there. In particular, we have texts that were used for teaching in monastic schools, cathedral schools, and universities. The period from the twelfth century on is not called the era of scholasticism for nothing, it was defined by the development of the universities.

Finally, of course, I must return to Rashdall's definition of the university. The spontaneous origins of the university as a corporate entity provided them a degree of institutional and intellectual autonomy not found when schools were closely patronized by kings, princes, or prelates, and again the battles to maintain that intellectual autonomy has been a recurring element of the history of universities. The Islamic higher educational institutions were, like the European cathedral and monastic schools, were fundamentally religious institutions and had all the limitations (of intellectual control) and benefits (of economic support) that that implied.

The study of scholarship in Islam does not have the depth of the study of medieval universities, but what has emerged is that most scholarship in Islam was not focused on teaching institutions. The texts in the area which I study (the history of astronomy) were produced by scholars who were associated with courts or with religious institutions. See, for example, David King's study of the role of Muwaqqits (religious timekeepers) in Arabic astronomy or the earlier study by Sayili, The Observatory in Islam. Perhaps there is research detailing this kind of deep knowledge of scholarship at Arabic-speaking educational institutions, but it has not been presented in the recurring Wikipedia debates over the University and its origins. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that matches my understanding of the history and viewpoints. I get the basic point being made by the editors who are contesting this issue: "The accepted history of higher education is skewed by and heavily favors Western European ideas and history." That is an accurate and important point. But Wikipedia is not the place to make that point. Right or wrong, it is a minority opinion among the scholars who specialize in this area that the Islamic institutions differed from western universities in significant ways. If that opinion changes then we can and should change our articles accordingly. Until then, the minority view should be represented as such and should definitely not override the majority view. ElKevbo (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is a particular issue and that can easily be handled by wording. The dispute is really about whether we should include the minority viewpoint at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

First, thank you Gun Powder Ma for inviting me to this discussion even though we have disagreed about this topic in the past. Second, my apologies to Gun Powder Ma for insisting that my lead changes to the List of oldest universities in continuous operation would be enough to avoid further discussion, I was clearly incorrect, but I appreciate that they largely still seem to be there, even though we agreed that they could be removed after 6 months if the dispute was still ongoing.

With regards to the actual issue, I was frankly sick and tired of it a year ago, and I don't think my position on that has changed. However this dispute is still ongoing, and has certainly been continuing on and off for at least 18 months, which is a seriously long time, and certainly that makes the dispute fundamentally unhealthy to the project and therefore it does need resolving.

With regards to resolving the dispute I see several possibilities:

1. GunPowderMa accepts that regardless of his interpretation of the academic sources that he will allow some content on non-European institutions of higher learning, if only to give himself an easy life. Something along the lines of Omar-toons' compromise above seems to be a reasonable position to take, although I'm sure there are reasonable changes that can be made to that text.
2. The article title is changed to "List of oldest European universities in continuous operation" with the non-European Universities (which mostly just clutter the list) taken out, and possibly with an alternative article "List of the oldest institutions of higher learning in continuous operation" covering all institutions of higher learning with the current article being a disambiguation page between them and/or redirect and/or with a hat note to disambiguate them.
3. Some form of binding process, e.g. formal mediation and/or a binding RFC are undertaken to resolve the issue with all the participants either agreeing to fully engage with that process and accept the result whatever it may be or to walk away from the dispute and leave it completely.
4. If neither of the above solutions are considered acceptable, I will take the case to the arbitration committee to take their wisdom on what the next best move is. I would expect them not to initially take the case but I'm sure they will suggest a good way forward, and if that isn't followed then we can go back to arbitration and they will take the case.

I would really like to avoid that final option, as I am greatly enjoying not having to engage with arbitration cases, but if the first two aren't undertaken seriously that is the only sensible option left - I don't think at this point that we can leave this unresolved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Of note I think "The study of scholarship in Islam does not have the depth of the study of medieval universities" is probably the key issue as Steve points out above.

I'm also prepared to write some content if that would be helpful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ereaserhead, see my response above to Omar-toons draft text. Basically, I am proposing that Karaouine and Al-Azhar be mentioned in some form in the article, but because the weight of scholarship favors the interpretations that modern universities derive from the medieval european university rather than the Islamic institutions, that they not be included in the table, but rather in a few paragraphs at the end. Athenean (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, but I was happy with the lead changes :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would broadly agree with this approach. It's clear to me that the tables should include only institutions which at the "foundation" date stated met the current definition of university, which itself reflects the clear scholarly consensus on this point. The debate then is about precisely how the minority view should be handled. Personally I believe the current approach, explaining the definitions in the preamble, is sufficient, but I don't have a huge problem with a small expansion of this text, including a specific mention of Al-Karaouine, since there is a minority of sources naming this as the oldest university (the case for specifically including Al-Azhar is less clear) together with any equivalent institutions from other cultural backgrounds. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification: Participants are invited to a discussion about the reliability of two sources often used in the dispute. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead, the general situation is this: We have two main articles university and madrasa and the two related List of oldest universities in continuous operation and List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation. The main articles define the subject for the lists and these definitions show both of them to be very different institutions of higher learning. So each institutions warrants a list of its own. The problem now arises from the wish to import entries from the madrasa list also into the university list.

I think everybody agrees that WP:Due is the core policy here and that this minority view madrasa=university should not be totally ignored. However, you consistently seem to overlook that this view is already covered in university and medieval university. The sentiment of many users now is that due weight turns to undue weight if this claim is included in yet another, the third article on the university, particularly because this is a list which works by different principles.

You will agree that the view that the university was unique to Europe and that the madrasa cannot be regarded as a real university is now better sourced than ever before in the dispute. I have created two dozen lists in WP about different topics and in lists you always go by the standard view as defined in the main article. You cannot give every minority view space in a list because this is not in the nature of lists. Why? Because a clear minority view automatically receives heavy undue weight if it is included on top of the list visually trumping the other, much more legitimate entries. Any additional comments don't matter much because a list is a hierarchical structure, is meant to be a hierarchical structure and works to the mind of the reader as a hierarchical structure.

However, I am not unsympathetic to a footnote in the university list citing the minority view. No big deal. But the red line is definitely the list itself and the reason for this is compliance to our policy of WP:Due weight. The right place for any further discussion of this minority view is the article on the subject itself, Al-Karaouine, not the list. Best Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Gun, I think your comments here seem reasonable. I do however think it is fair to say that given the length of the dispute that there has been at least some unwillingness to compromise, but lets not get into a blame game about whose exact fault it is as that isn't going to be productive.

One possible solution for the list article would be to go for a solution like that used on List of sovereign states where the ambiguous sovereign states are included in a separate list at the bottom on the same page. To me that sounds like a better way forward than having the madrasa's on a separate page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was invited to comment here and was previously involved. I don't think re-hashing more of the same is going to lead to a resolution, we're not to have a discussion for academics, evaluate arguments and then decide. Wikipedia follows not leads. Enough evidence has been brought to show that al-Qarawiyin issue is not at all a fringe view, and the "University is a Christian-European concept" is -today- an absurd view, like saying "pistols are a unique Chrisitan-European concept because modern pistols evolved from some 17th-century European brand, even though some other non-European gun might have operated exactly like a pistol, it doesn't make it so." This argument is even less relevant considering that there are numerous reliable sources out there that consider al-Qarawyin a university, even though they might not count it as the first because of foundation date doubt.

• Saying that "al-Qarawiyin" had no curriculum, institutional structure, degree system etc and was a "Madrasah" is outright ignorant. The place was called a "Jami'" -something very distinct and much bigger than a "madrasah"- and never ever labeled a Madrasah in pre-20th-century history books. Today's Arabic for university is "Jami'a" the feminine from of "Jami'".

Anyway is there an RFC on this? It's the only way out I believe. --Tachfin (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I already mentioned that the discussion is going wrong since some users provided many sources stating that madrasahs weren't universities, but the issue is if Al-Karaouine, which is not a madrasah but a jamiah, while described by some historians as an university, should be mentioned on "the list" or not.

I'd like to point out that many sourced were provided on the previous discussions for Al-Karaouine as the oldest university. (note: When I copied the previous discussions (in an expandable box) Gun reverted it, then I let people interested by this issue go to these discussions and look for these sources)

--Omar-toons (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you should be a bit more optimistic :). I have made a proposal for a solution at Talk:University_of_al-Karaouine#Compromise_proposal - comments are welcome. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

See Gunpowder Ma? I am not the only one who uses Rashdall as a source.  ;)

I have participated in this discussion previously. I'd like to make three notes:

(1) I find the amount of energy spent on this "List of oldest universities in continuous operation" to be surprising, as it is a rather absurd and useless list. It is absurd because there is simply no documentary basis certifying any date before the 13th C. - the assigned start dates are speculative, disputable and elastic. As a chart of university evolution it is useless as it omits universities that were important then but are now defunct and treats periods of suspended operation inconsistently. Consequently, this list can be nothing more than a "fun" list.

For the purposes of scholarly research, there are good reasons for making a list of Medieval universities in Latin Europe - and this is what the more serious List of medieval universities does, and the criteria is laid out there carefully and explicitly. I don't see any reason to replicate that list twice. The unserious, fun "oldest universities" list, without criteria or usefulness, can and ought to be more flexible.

(2) Gun Powder Ma et al. seems to me to be misreading and ascribing more to his sources than they claim. It is important not to forget that the emergence of universities in Latin Europe - the flowering of scholasticism, mentioned earlier - emerged after the "great translation" period, that is, the sudden influx of material from Islamic and Greek worlds in the late 11th/12th C. Scholars have conjectured that not only the books, but the school fomat to study them, may have been imported wholesale from abroad. All GPM's sources are doing is endeavoring to counter that claim, that is, to suggest that the European Studium generale was probably not imported wholesale from Islamic models. They are not claiming that the Islamic model schools cannot be characterized as universities, simply that the European schools seemed to have developed autonomously and distinctively. They are much more limited, cautious and careful in their claims than GPM ascribes to them.

For instance, GPM glides over the fact that these very same authors acknowledge that some elements might have been imported from Islamic models (e.g. colleges organized as nations, academic robes, degrees and titles, and the all-important "license to teach" elsewhere). True the single corporate body and papal charter wasn't there - but the pope doesn't charter Islamic schools (nor the Caliph, for that matter). Islamic universities were organized much more loosely and independently. Rich patrons funded colleges, professors were allowed to teach whatever they wanted. There don't seem to have been any equivalent of papal, royal or parliamentary statutes regulating the relations between colleges or prescribing the curriculum in detail as found in Latin model schools. The degrees from al-Qaraouine weren't bestowed by al-Qaraouine as a single body, but rather signed by the individual professors in it.

These are differences, yes. But how essential? Some may focus on the corporate model - the existence of a chancellor and a controlling, governing body, something Islamic schools tended to lack, as critical. On the other hand, Rashdall identifies the 'jus ubique docendi' as the distintive element of a Studium generale (as opposed to other types of Studia), and this element was present in the Islamic universities.

In my estimation, there is frankly precious little difference between Islamic model schools and Latin model schools, certainly in their earlier stages. With time, Latin universities took on some extra elements that Islamic universities didn't, so they became more distinctive. But keep in mind there were significant differences in organization between Latin universities as well - Paris vs Bologna model, etc. So what you want to identify as "the" distinctive thing of a university is subject to debate.

All of these subtleties, all these cautions and reservations, are ignored by GPM and go unmentioned in this "List of oldest universities in continuous operations". But, of course, because I see this merely as an unserious "fun" list, I don't recommend burdening it with the same hefty details and careful criteria, as found in the List of medieval universities.

(3) The stance I have taken is that Latin universities are apples, Islamic universities are oranges. Apples are different from oranges, yes, but they are both "fruit". So it remains to decide what this is a list of - a list of apples or a list of fruits?

As noted before, I don't care for the "oldest universities" list. As there already exists a "list of apples" (List of Medieval universities), my personal view is this one ought to be made a "list of fruits", and let everyone in on the fun here, and leave the serious scholarly stuff to the more serious lists. The notes, as Omar-Toons has drafted, are sufficient.

What I definitely don't want to see is the marring of individual university pages on the basis of an unserious "fun" list. I don't want to see the al-Karaouine page crippled by GPM, but equally, I don't think it advisable to mar the Bologna page either. For Bologna, I think it sufficient to say "which would make it the oldest Western-style university in the world still in operation", or to just change the wording to make it clear it is only an allegation, and leave out references to al-Karaouine there. That's just asking for a renewal of this debate at a later date.

Walrasiad (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have participated in this discussion before. I believe I tried to find a resolution to a reliable sources dispute, or it may have been NPOV. I occasionally comment on both noticeboards. I don't think I ever went and edited the article itself, although I spent quite a bit of time looking at everyone's sources. I may have commented on a talk page.

I do not have time to read the new comments or re-read the full discussion above but would like to briefly state how matters stood then, and presumably still do.

The editor who brought the issue to the noticeboard was being reverted and patronized rather scathingly when he tried to make his case by other editors who appeared to have some serious academic credentials but to be unclear on the reliable source concept. It is true that some of his sources, Encyclopedia Britannica for example, were high-school level, but they were nonetheless reliable, especially since, as I understood it, all he was trying to prove was the 9th-century founding. I think we all agree that this date, while elastic, precedes the date of Bologna's founding by several centuries. The essence of the opposing position was, again as I understand it, that no school outside of Europe could be described as a university, because the medieval definition of the word had criteria relating to relationships with the Catholic Church.

My own thoughts were these. This narrow definition may in fact be correct. I do not know. But this is not the commonly accepted use of the word, which is as a synonym for "institution of higher learning". Nor can anyone say that schools in north Africa were religious in nature and therefore do not count. Schools in Europe also were religious in nature. The reaction of the Eurocentrists amounted to "don't be silly." Asked for sources to the contrary, someone named Athenian (I think) produced a lists of works with titles like "Universities in Medieval Europe". Naturally these made little to no mention of any institutions elsewhere. I said that in my opinion the scope of these works, no matter how well respected they might be, was too narrow for the purpose for which they were being used. I in turn was also ignored and the discussion at that point was so entangled that hatnotes were being used to keep it straight so there was little hope of enlisting any other uninvolved editors to read it. I spent an evening or two with Google and found quite a few academic works with authors whose credentials could not be questioned that do not use the restrictive definition that some editors are trying to apply to the word university, and others who said that universities began in the Arab world and that the concept came north from there as crusaders returned home to Europe, so I stood by finding. I do not know if this was ever resolved. I suspect not, since this is back on the noticeboards.

I will add that I dislike lists since they tend to oversimplify and thus generate this type of argument. I have seen similar problems on "List of national anthems" for example where some editors were deleting entries for what they considered were not "real" countries. For what it is worth also I will also add that I have no particular ties to north Africa besides an affection for Camus and that I am a Canadian who also has a British passport, so I *sorta* have an allegiance to Europe. Elinruby (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your dislike of lists, and simple deletion of this article would certainly be an elegant solution. Failing that drastic step, it seems to me that the core principle here is that articles of the form "List of X" should always be consistent with the underlying article "X". Thus this list article should reflect the definition at University, which it currently does. This does not, of course, mean that the definition there is in any sense sacrosanct; it could of course be changed. But unless and until it is changed the list should follow it, and so remain broadly as it is.

Proponents of change should start a discussion at Talk:University and make their points there. If the definition at University is changed then the consequences simply flow to the list article, which gets updated as appropriate. I have repeatedly suggested this course, and it is a matter of some regret to me that the proponents of change have as yet shown no interest in it. Unless and until such change occurs, the only proper topic of discussion for the list is how institutions such as al-Karaouine, which do not meet the underlying criteria but perhaps deserve some special treatment, should be handled in the preamble sections; they don't belong in the main lists. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That was the cry at the time, but those efforts were being pretty much ignored then and probably still are now. It's my impression that those who oppose change simply disregard such attempts, thus sparking the appeal for help on the noticeboard that I mentioned, and my own attempt to find a solution, which was also disregarded. But I don't speak for the people trying to make this change -- I just feel, as an outsider, that they are trying much hard than they should have to. I am pretty sure, for example, that UC Berkeley doesn't meet the proposed definition of university either, but 10 out of 10 of the first people who stop on the street anywhere in the world would say it is in fact a university. But I have a lot going on in real life and am not volunteering to edit the University page. I have a different set of silliness to to guard against already over here ;) Elinruby (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been eavesdropping on this debate now and then for longer than I care to recall. I see both sides: the oldest universities carried the Latin name universitas during a period when these were institutions of higher learning distinctly characteristic of Western culture, and therefore a list of oldest universitates should not contain institutions that were not universitates. (Even the state university I attended as an undergraduate had a seal with its name in Latin, though founded in 1837.) If we had a list of Oldest structures continually in use as churches, we would not include synagogues and mosques and Stonehenge, right? However, the wrinkle here is that other continuous institutions of higher learning that were called something else in the era of universitates can now be considered what in English we call "universities."

What the long debate demonstrates is that List of oldest universities in continuous operation has inherent issues of scope, forking (logical distribution of content among articles), and synth (applying definitions that are not necessarily intended to dovetail with each other or in novel ways). The issue as I see it is not "neutrality" or anything to do with POV, but rather defining the topic in a way that provides value to WP readers. Nobody has demonstrated what that might be.

List of oldest universities in continuous operation should be deleted, and any unique information it contains merged into List of medieval universities (which needs to have a date of closing added to the table anyway), University#History, or other articles, including possibly a new article such as List of universities by date of founding (an index that could be broken up on multiple pages by century, and would include institutions that are called "universities" in contemporary colloquial English). And no meaningful information will be lost in the process. The emotions here seem to be attached to some perceived value in being included on the list, which frankly I see as non-informative trivia outside the context of a prose narrative on historical development. It's just not a very useful thing for such intelligent editors to be wasting their time on. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A sensible proposal with one exception: any attempt to create an article along the lines of List of universities by date of founding would simply lead to a repeat of current debates. There's no point killing this issue if you're just going to create an equivalent one. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're no doubt right, but I was thinking that the point of contention appears to lie in the distinction between a universitas and a "university" as a contemporary institution of higher learning that awards degrees that would be recognized (for instance) as credentials by an international employer. An index intended to be comprehensive (rather than establishing priority and a claim to be a universitas) would be less likely to stir passions, and could include institutions not begun as universitates but currently awarding degrees as do universities. The university I attended began as an academy of some sort, and was then a teachers' college before it became a university; its origin is irrelevant to its current status, but its founding date is given as, well, its founding date, not the date it took the name "university". Cynwolfe (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In theory that might work; in practice the page would degenerate into endless arguments over foundation dates. As you suggest many institutions are successors to other institutions, and there would be permanent squabbling over how many steps back in the chain a given university could validly claim. Take a look at Third oldest university in England debate for a flavour of how complicated this gets; for example Queen Mary, University of London incorporates an institution founded (in some sense) in 1123. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have enough war wounds to know you're right. I'm just going to strike that part, so as to stand by the rest of what I said. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)