Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:54, 23 January 2013

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

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations articles

These two articles talk essentially about the same event: the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and subsequent events. In my opinion, this situation creates a huge potential for POV content forking (I even recall the latter article was created during a hot neutrality dispute). In addition, the idea to separate the story of negotiations from the story of the pact signing is quite artificial, and I see no reason behind that other than POV CFORK. In connection to that I believe it would be more correct to merge these two articles (especially, taking into account that their content essentially coincides).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The only reason to have separate articles is if the negotiations section in the main article had grown so unwieldy as to need its own page. Both articles are pretty substantial, but it does seem to me that a merge should be possible if the editors involved deem it desirable (though it might involve a lot of work). TheBlueCanoe 17:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think these are better separately, as there are multiple viewpoints on the circumstances leading up to the pact. What the pact contained and its consequences are less controversial. (Re-)combining would detract from both. There's ample precedent for splitting as a tool to de-POV content (e.g., Baltic-Soviet relations). There's no need for accusations. That editor Paul Siebert sees no other possibility than POV forking is not a universal opinion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is essentially one article, the "Negotiations" piece is a sub-page of the "Pact" piece, which is quite long. No problems here in terms of structure and the forking question, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Race (human classification)

Race (human classification) has been considerably revised recently. I reverted a major edit which removed cited text and made this statement about the work of Franz Boas: " Boas' study was later found to be fraudulent by Sparks and Jantz.<ref name="Sparks">, Sparks and Jantz, 2002</ref>" It was restored with the edit summary "Fine, fixed that. Added relevant sources. Removed political bias from "Complications and various definitions of the concept"."

The first time I reverted the false Boas claim I pointed to Boas's article and a quote from it. This was simply ignored, but if you read Boas's article you can see that the work by Sparks and Jantz has been challenged, that it's been said that they misrepresented Boas, that their date has been reanalyzed and found to support Boas, and that Boas's work has been reanalyzed and found to be basically correct. Anyone who simply ignores all of this has a pov problem.

The alleged 'political bias' that was removed was material about race as a social construction sourced to the "American Anthropological Association" - why that is called 'political bias' I leave up to others or hopefully the editor who removed to explain.

All of the recent edits need review. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

how recent/how far back? (guess) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

At least the ones made by AlmightySalvatore (talk · contribs). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an entry that keeps on getting deleted here alleging that one study was not done properly. I can't see any reason why this needs to be deleted from here as there's no obvious BLP or other violations. There are some accuations within the summaries. I have no expertise in this area, so I could be missing something, but it seems like a valid opinion is being removed. What's going on? JASpencer (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a certain segment of the population that has an extreme dislike for any scientist that supports the fact that biological human races simply do not exist. The vast majority of scientists know—because the science conclusively shows—that race is a social construct based solely on observed appearance. Most of the articles related to "race" have been skewed in favor of the wildly incorrect biological view that is only supported by an outrageously tiny minority of social scientists. If you edit in this topic area, be prepared for red herrings by the metic shitload with just a dash of fresh cherry picked sources form mainstream science (typically twisted and skewed), and topped with thick layer of fanatical support for fringe social scientists that primarily publish in journals of their own creation and cite each other in a circular manner. For a primary example see Race and intelligence (actually it's IQ not intelligence but good luck expressing that little factual tidbit in any meaningful way or any other mainstream science for that matter). When you see a duck with shovel, you gotta call a spade a spade. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Or a sock, I see this editor is suspected of being a Mikemikev (talk · contribs) sock. Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The American Anthropological Association isn't a credible source. If I recall one of their spokesperson questioned on the existence of significant racial differences stated that - even if racial differences were proven beyond a doubt to exist - it was "more beneficial to society" to sweep them under the rug and pretend they didn't exist. The American Anthropological Association also has stated that anthropology isn't science. Article very related: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html AlmightySalvatore (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"The American Anthropological Association isn't a credible source". Yes it is, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned - please push your ignorant bollocks somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually found the discussion above to be pretty illuminating. Why don't you find a concise way to summarize what you've written here? For example, on the Sparks and Jantz debate, instead of the previous "Boas' study was later found to be fraudulent by Sparks and Jantz," you could write something like "Boas' findings were criticized by Sparks and Jantz , though subsequent reassessments of Boas' data reinforced the validity of his conclusions."

As to the American Anthropological Association and the issue of race as a social construct, maybe a solution is to just attribute different opinions and perspectives more clearly? So, for instance, when something is cited to an anthropologist, you can say as much. TheBlueCanoe 04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The authors of the study that, in effect, implied that Boas practised scientific fraud(Jantz etc.) did actually criticise the new study that supposedly re-proved Boas' claims. Here's an article in which they point out the flaws in that new pro-Boas study:-

http://www.rps.psu.edu/0305/boas.html

excerpt:- Coincidentally, as of this writing, another paper, by anthropologists at the University of Michigan, the University of Florida, and Northwestern University, is scheduled for publication in American Anthropologist; it concludes that Boas correctly interpreted his head-form data. According to Jantz, these present-day anthropologists fail to acknowledge Boas’s error in comparing children with adults. Nor, points out Sparks, do they consider cranial differences between ethnic groups." Of course, whether or not Boas was correct or a fraud is irrelevant, really, and cannot be stated with certainty without tons more evidence. However, according to wikipedia rules, Boas ought at least to have a criticism section wherein this study criticising Boas is mentioned. Otherwise, the article just reads like a hagiography. Vorlon19 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) This article is suffering severely from a lack of NPOV. I rewrote it in userspace here but any attempt I make to make the article neutral is reverted without discussion. I would appreciate some neutral editors looking the article over. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods

Page: Smithfield Foods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Which image of sows is preferred for inclusion at Smithfield Foods#Pregnant sows? Gestation crates 3.jpg, prepared by the animal welfare advocacy group, the Humane Society of the United States, or Gestcrate1.png prepared by the Smithfield Foods. Details of the actions of the Humane Society are described in Smithfield Foods#2010 State Veterinarian Visit. The relevant guideline is Choosing images. There appear to be no copyright issues.

My opinion is that the company's image is preferable, because the the Humane Society image may not be representative. The State Veterninarian inspected the facility and determined that the conditions described by the Humane Society were unfounded. The Humane Society is an advocacy group with no assigned powers of enforcement or prosecution.

It would be helpful as well for other editors to comment on the relative weight and accuracy given to animal welfare issues in the article.

TFD (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You should use the company image per the reasons you have outlined here. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually - likely neither. The HSUS may or may not be representative of all facilities, the company photo is surely not representative assuming the company PR department operates rationally. In such a case, neither image is really going to help the reader, which is the only reason for having images. The NYT , moreover, covers this issue specifically and links directly itself to the HSUS material. The fact that Smithfield fired employees as a result of the HSUS investigation would seem, if anything, to lend credence to the use of the HSUS photos. Collect (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised as this is back here as it had previously appeared to be mostly resolved in this old thread. I agree with Collect in that neither pictures provided by HSUS or Smithfield are necessarily representative. However, I was under the impression that the Gestcrate1.png file was a generic one, not prepared by Smithfield. The one provided by Smithfield was this now deleted file (which shows up as the first hit on this google search thanks to some random caching) which made all the pigs look particularly clean and happy. This was the reason I supported the generic picture as a way of "splitting the difference". a13ean (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD was asked by the Smithfield Foods marketing manager, User:Kkirkham, to remove the current image. TFD, the image you want to replace it with is not a company image.

There's no reason to remove the image in question. It is free, it is reasonably good quality, it is representative of these stalls, it was taken inside Smithfield Foods (KKirkham has confirmed this), it is recent (end of 2010), and it very precisely illustrates the subject matter of the section in which we use it. If Smithfield Foods wants to post a free one of their own alongside it, for comparison's sake – as another editor and I suggested months ago – that's fine.

It's worth noting that Smithfield has been heavily criticized for its use of gestation crates, even by McDonald's and by its own animal-welfare consultant, Temple Grandin, which may be why they're keen that Misplaced Pages downplay it. Here's a timeline of its recent efforts:

• The article used a generic image of a gestation crate for several years.
• In September 2012, the Smithfield Foods rep asked that it be removed. She argued that it was inappropriate because not taken inside Smithfield Foods.
• She suggested that we use a fair-use image from the Smithfield birthing room (not one of a gestation crate) that she obtained from a Smithfield video on YouTube. She wrote in the fair-use rationale (now deleted, bold added):

• "Other images could/should not be used since the article is talking about facilities owned by a particular company, so the article should show equipment/facilities from that company, if possible."

• I asked her to obtain a free image for us, but received no response.
• Because she insisted that we use a Smithfield Foods image, but would not supply a free one, I wrote to the Humane Society of the United States – an animal welfare group that is not opposed to meat eating – to ask if they could supply a free one from inside Smithfield Foods. They sent me several, and I added one that shows two clean pigs, with no bleeding, no dirt, no sores, and where it's clear how much space they have to lie down (which is the subject matter of the section).
• In December Kkirkham then argued that we did not need to use an image taken inside Smithfield, but should use a generic one instead. I reminded her that she had insisted we use a Smithfield one. I suggested again that she obtain a free one from Smithfield to use alongside the one she objects to. She replied, on 20 December: "Changing the photo again is a fairly minor issue to me ..."
• I assumed we would leave it there, but on 2 January she asked TFD to remove the image. (This is one of several occasions on which she has asked editors to remove material for her.)

Again, there is no reason within policy to remove the image, and if Smithfield wants to post one of its own next to it, they're welcome to do so. SlimVirgin 16:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I'm concerned that when you edit this article, you invariably do what Smithfield Foods has asked, and you remove reliable sources too. For example in this edit, you removed a description of the way the pigs are kept, and left only the Smithfield website as a source, but removed two stories from The Washington Post, and one from The Atlantic. You also changed "animal welfare" groups to "animal activist" groups, which is the term Smithfield prefers. Can you say why you're removing independent sources? SlimVirgin 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the discussion was that you were opposed to replacing the image, which is why I posted this discussion thread. I made the requested change to the text five days after the request was made and no one had raised any objections. I see now that the request related to only part of the section. I explained my concern about the reporting of the HSUS investigation at Talk:Smithfield Foods/Archive 1, "The emphasis on these sources gives greater weight to the Humane Society's view, when neutrality requires that greatest weight be provided to the State Veternarian. The proviso of course is that any subsequent expert opinion may supercede the State Veternarian's finding." TFD (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi TFD, my question was why you removed all the independent sources in this edit, and left only the Smithfield website. SlimVirgin 20:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I replaced the section with the requested version and as I said, "I see now that the request related to only part of the section." TFD (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but that means "I made the edit because I made the edit." :) My question is why you removed all the independent sources (W/Post, Atlantic) and left a version based entirely on a Smithfield Foods press release. I don't know what "the request related to only part of the section" means. The reason I ask is that it's not the first time this has happened. SlimVirgin 22:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "it's not the first time this has happened". The only other time I edited this article was 24-25 October, 2011, when I re-wrote the section now called Smithfield Foods#2010 State Veterinarian Visit. Before doing that I set up a discussion thread now at Smithfield Foods#2010 Humane Society investigation on 21 September, 2011. When after more than a month you did not respond I made the edit and since that time you have not commented on or changed the section.

I have explained my recent edit twice already and maybe will be third time lucky. Kkirkham re-wrote a paragraph of the section on gestation crates. Although you opposed changing the image used, I did not see opposition to the change in text. Kkirkham then asked if it could be posted. I waited five days and there was no response at the talk page. I then posted the revised paragraph and set up this discussion thread about the disputed image. In error, I replaced the entire section with the revised paragraph, instead of merely replacing one paragraph.

Or perhaps your question is what I find wrong with the article. I believe that the article should point out problems with animal welfare, treatment of workers, health and safety and environmental impact. However, that should not be the main focus of the article. Also, the wording of much of the article is overly detailed on specific problems and has very little third party assessment of them. It reminds me of anti-abortion writing that shocks readers through gory desriptions. Generally this type of writing is ineffective. It preaches to the converted and alienates undecided readers. It also leaves the impression that the problems described are specific to the company rather than inherent in the industry. Any reader who was persuaded by this article would probably stop eating pork and start eating chicken instead.

TFD (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

All, I am happy to source a photo from Smithfield and get the proper approvals if that is what the group desires. I had issues with the one that I uploaded (I did the fair-use rationale incorrectly), so I gave on on that, but am happy to try again if we'd like. My original insistence that the photo show a Smithfield facility if possible stemmed from the egregiousness of the photo that was previously used in the article and the awful conditions it portrayed that had no connection to a Smithfield facility (it was this (image). It was sourced from Farm Sanctuary (another animal activist/welfare group). While the current image is certainly more appropriate than that previous image, I do still believe that it is more appropriate to show a generic image than an image sourced from an animal activist/welfare group that campaigns against meat companies. I think using a generic image is preferable to showing Smithfield's photo and the HSUS's photo side-by-side as SlimVirgin suggests. Thanks for the additions and feedback of the group here--I appreciate your time. I'm happy to help however folks would like. Kkirkham (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We can't use a non-Smithfield image in the Smithfield article, when we have a free, good-quality image taken inside Smithfield. Misplaced Pages doesn't care who takes images so long as they're free. This is an image showing how much space the pigs have to live on, and the section is about that issue, and how even McDonald's has complained about it. The image is entirely representative and if Smithfield took one itself of one of its gestation crates it would look the same – but if you think not, you're welcome to add one, and juxtapose them in the interests of being extra-neutral. But removing the image to replace it with a non-Smithfield image at the request of Smithfield Foods would be a violation of neutrality. We have already removed two images at your request (the first gestation crate and the CAFO), but it can't continue. SlimVirgin 20:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does it matter who requests the change if a consensus of editors agrees that the change effects a positive outcome on the article and improves its NPOV? I understand Wiki's stance about COI Editing, but not even allowing a request for a change by someone with a COI is not what Wiki is intending with that policy, and seems extreme. Kkirkham (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said we can't remove a free, good-quality image of a Smithfield facility just because Smithfield Foods doesn't like who took it, and replace it with one that isn't of a Smithfield facility and isn't good quality. That makes no editorial sense.

From our perspective, we don't care who took that image, and it's only there because you asked us to remove the first generic image, and insisted we use one that showed a Smithfield facility, but would not supply one. So I had to find one from elsewhere. SlimVirgin 22:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Humane Soc. Photo - They are both free photos; and both show gestation crates; but the HSUS photo has a couple of advantages: (1) it is taken inside a Smithfield facility; and (2) it provides more visual information (size, etc) to the reader. --Noleander (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The original image in the article was NOT a generic photo as you suggest SlimVirgin, but was also supplied by an animal activist/welfare group. Additionally, you yourself suggested the use of the generic photo that TFD, a13ean, and I are suggesting we use. You posted it to the page after this conversation in the old thread on the Smithfield Foods talk page that a13ean referenced, but then changed it again to the current HSUS image without getting any input from the group on the talk page. Here's the text of that conversation.

"If you don't like the current image, we can use another of our generic ones until we obtain a Smithfield one. We have File:Gestation crate pig showing stereotype.JPG, File:Gestation-crates.jpg, File:Gestcrate1.png. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This image is much better, and much more typical of what the stalls look like. Thanks, Kkirkham (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. a13ean (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why was this photo changed again, after we agreed the previous one was good? SV, if you are going to make changes like this while the page's status is disputed, please justify them here on the talk page. Kkirkham (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)" Kkirkham (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

All other things being equal, a photo actually taken at a Smithfield facility should be used over any other photo taken at some unknown facility. Smithfield may have unique crates; or specific conditions. Using a photo of another facility could be very misleading. Unless there is a fatal flaw with the photo taken at the Smithfield facility, it should be used. I presume that (because we are in the NPOV noticeboard) that there is concern that the Smithfield-facility photo is biased somehow? It looks like a normal photo taken under normal conditions. I don't see any NPOV issues. --Noleander (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Biased safety claims in Cannabis (drug)

Recent edits to Cannabis (drug) have added a section on Safety which is strongly biased toward cannabis being a risk-free drug. Emphasis is on a claim that no marijuana related deaths have ever occurred. Yes, there are some sources where the author states no cannabis deaths to report, but using these claims selectively is misleading. Several reliable sources have reported infrequent deaths and also list cannabis smoke as a carcinogen (links to these articles or to abstracts are provided in the deleted history or on the Talk page). Summary:

• Forensic Science International

“Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use”

• Journal of Pediatrics

“Cerebellar Infarction in Adolescent Males Associated with Acute Marijuana Use”

• Cancer Research, UK

“Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?”

• Revue Neurologique (French)

“Cannabis-induced cerebral and myocardial infarction in a young woman”

• Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases

“Cannabis-Related Myocardial Infarction and Cardioembolic Stroke”

• UCLA School of Medicine

“Effects of marijuana on the lung and its immune defenses”

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, DAWN

“Area Profiles of Drug-Related Mortality” (this is a government tertiary source)

• State of California

“Chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” (This is a government tertiary source)

• Center for Effective Drug Abuse Research & Statistics, Drugwatch

“Marijuana-only drug abuse deaths” (This is a tertiary source)

Efforts have been made to resolve this on the article Talk page. A marijuana supporter will not accept published medical journals and government reports that raise any safety concerns about cannabis usage. Misplaced Pages requires a neutral point of view and an unbiased handling of divergent sources. Certainly, cannabis is not as dangerous as several other hard drugs, but that does not result in absolute safety. Misplaced Pages should include both sources that discuss safety and sources that indicate problems. A balanced and neutral view is required.

Additional input and comments are welcome on the Talk page. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide links and clarify which ones are peer-reviewed studies/reports, peer-reviewed literature reviewes, or else? --Cyclopia 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I reworded the phrase on the risk of death. There's a difference between "research failed to prove" and that there's insufficient studies to have conclusive data. The latter is what the source shows. I removed claims about no attributable death. None of the cited references appear to meet WP:MEDRS standard. One source does, but that source does not talk about cannabis. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We could improve the NPOV by talking about levels of "risk", rather than whether it is "safe" or "dangerous". That would allow the audience to draw their own conclusions, with reference to their thresholds. Credibility gap (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note that because marijuana is generally illegal in most of the places from which we would accept sources as being of suitable quality, it's unlikely that we will find much in the way of such sources. It's hard to run a double blind test on an illegal drug. While what I've just written is obviously OR, I hope that others see that it makes sense and that maybe we can come up with some qualifying statement about the lack of decent research. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Some sources some might find useful: PMID 20565525, PMID 22019199, PMID 16832000 and PMID 16054989. These should be WP:MEDRS compliant. Yobol (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, good point. I found a few sources referencing this fact

Stanford: insight into difficulties of marijuana research

Oxford: Challenges of marijuana research

David Nutt on the difficulty of researching illegal drugs

Federal Marijuana Monopoly Challenged

Scientists cite challenge of studying an illegal drug petrarchan47tc 02:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like anything that don't go his/her way, Petrarchan47 reverts it.. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Try to quote the actual sources being used. To enter your version of "summary of PubMed" sources without adding supportive references is not acceptable. petrarchan47tc 03:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadhu Vaswani

The article opens with

Sadhu Vaswani (25 November 1879 – 16 January 1966) born Thanwar Lilaram Vaswani was a saint who aspired to serve suffering humanity rather than attain to mukti, salvation or liberation from the cycle of birth and death. He often said, “I do not ask for mukti. I fain would be born, again and again, if only that I might be of some help to those that suffer and are in pain!” Dadaji, as he was popularly known by thousands of his followers and admirers, could have lived a life of luxury, but he spurned all the riches of the world in order to serve the entire creation. He gave hope to hearts numb with fear and anxiety; he opened up the vision of man to the beauty of God. His was a life of singular simplicity blended with selfless activity.

and continues in the same vein. It has section titles like "A Brilliant Student" and "An Admired Professor" (both describing the subject of the article).

Further, in apparent violation of WP:COI, much of the content was added by User:SadhuVaswani, which, judging by the page, seems to be an account maintained by the Sadhu Vasvani Mission (established by the subject of the article). --59.95.18.216 (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Progressive utilization theory

Hi all,
Could somebody take a look at Progressive utilization theory? I have concerns that it's become a hugely lengthy article which treats fringe views at face value, eulogising the writer/philosopher behind the theory; there are many other related articles, which generally big up the "vast literary heritage of the author" &c. Of course, other editors might disagree with this summary; Abhidevananda asserts that I'm prejudiced and ignorant, and reverts all my edits because they're "vandalism". Maybe one of us is right; maybe neither. This shouldn't become adversarial; could somebody uninvolved have a look at the Progressive utilization theory article, please? bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the prout article has just been protected for a few days; but there are a lot of other articles linked from {{Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar}} which seem to be part of the same walled garden of promotional content... bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Promotional? On Misplaced Pages? The entire article is an advert AFAICT. And should be returned to its more-or-less stable version of 31 October 2012. Collect (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the other editor. That 31 October version has multiple issues, "See also everything", reference issues, misleading information, EL section flood etc. question--Tito Dutta (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the see-also cruft was added on 31 October 2012, I would happily go back to the version immediately before that. It would also be a good idea to trim the epic bibliography and ELs. bobrayner (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Bob would "happily go back" to any previous version of the article that he had eviscerated. But the article today has already been rated by two portals as much better than any previous version of the article on the Quality scale.

As the article creator, I won't dignify the "promotional" remark with a response. As for the question of neutrality, which is what this page is about, I would point out the following opening statement at WP: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 believe that is what I have done, but I am open to advice, corrections, and additions. For example, obviously, I may not be aware of everything published on the subject by "reliable sources". So if I missed a reliable source, then I am open to the inclusion of such material. Unfortunately, my impression of Bob Rayner - and now Collect - is that, at least in this respect, we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, the PROUT article was just protected. The reason for that was yet another attempt by Bob Rayner to make wholesale deletions - deletions of entire sections, which is also what Collect seems to be calling for - in the article and the consequent requests to admins for article protection. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I suggest that the article surrently is entirely an exposition and promotion of a relatively fringe economic Weltanschauung. At best. HighBeam finds 5 articles on the subject. Prout is the world's worst acronym, standing for PROgressive UTilization Theory, which, according to its Web site, worldproutassembly.org, is some sort of theory about progressive utilization. It's also about "nuclear revolution," which is not defined, and there are more references to the "collective" than a Star Trek episode about the BURG (sorry, I meant 'Borg.' Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.) for example. However Sarkar, unlike conventional gums, sought not just to transform the individual but to create the structure of a new society. He offered an alternative theory of social justice, the Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT), an alternative reading of macrohistory (his spiral theory of varna), an alternative global ethics (neo-humanism), and created a range of spiritual associations (Ananda Marga), social movements (his samaj movements) and political parties (the Proutist forum) to help realize his vision of the future. from . In short - no scharly source appears to give any weight at all to this "theory." All of three Questia matches. Including comments like By neo-humanism, the Proutists mean to extend “the humanistic love for all human beings to include love and respect for all creation - plants, animals and even inanimate objects. Neohumanism provides a philosophical basis for building a new era of ecological balance, planetary citizenship and cosmic kinship”, In 1971, Sarkar was accused by a former follower of having conspired to murder some ex-members. Sarkar was arrested and jailed. In 1978, after a retrial, he was found not guilty - but the group he founded was by then crippled. Sorry - the entire topic of "PROUT" is a "new religion" type of topic, from which members of that group well ought to be wary of editing. Collect (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears as though this has been brought up in a number of noticeboards. I would suggest centralizing the discussion on the article's talk page. I previously commented in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#Opinions from uninvolved editors. Location (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick look. At first blush it looks like a new philosophy/religion/social theory where the content and sourcing of the article is just the proponents talking about what they are promoting. I see zero wp:rs coverage of this. And such a flood of self-"sources" obscures whether it has any real secondary wp:rs's by making such a review a Herculean task. May I suggest that the next step be that article proponents point out a few sources that satisfy wp:notability (if they exist) I.E. substantial coverage of this movement by reliable secondary sources. If those can't be produced, I'd suggest AFD'ing the article. If they CAN be produced, then suggest building and sourcing the content mostly from them not from statements/writings by the proponents.

There are a couple of related AfDs at the moment: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell. bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Outrageous statements of Bobrayner: "about what they are promoting" this is one of the outrageous statements of Bobrayner. I was the editor of the two articles above, as usual I'm trying to do my best in WP I give respect and I pretend respect by other users. Bobryner seems to rage against everything I write on WP. It's very difficult to work in WP with such kind of very less constructive and offensive users.--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing against you personally; I have a grudge against unsourced, spammy, promotional, and non-notable content. If that is all you produce, then I have a grudge against all of your work; if that is 1% of what you produce, then I have a grudge against 1% of your work. We must resist the temptation to make disputes personal. if you don't like this content being criticised, then the best course of action is to move on and write other content which meets wikipedia standards in future. bobrayner (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please try to understand you must add secondary reliable sources in these article.

Prevs: 1 2 3, 4, 5 etc... --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's unlikely that reliable independent sources will ever be found for some of the more problematic text, like this or this. It may be possible to get enough good independent sources to show that some of the books/organisations exist, which gets them over the GNG hurdle; but sadly that's not the main problem with this walled garden. bobrayner (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Recently released Bengali movies NPOV

Since I have come here to discuss on another discuss (just above), I better try to get help on another issue too. This issue is being taken issue everywhere for last few months. The best and complete report can be found here. Even after that RPP, Editntice, ANI (again), personally contacting admins (Moonriddengirl, Drmies etc) have been tried. All these newly released Bengali masala (commercial) film articles (specially the box office and reception) section are being written from NPOV, FANPOV etc. Any help/suggestion/contribution/idea/opinion will be highly appreciated (and barntared). --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You'll have a better shot at getting replies and even pertinent replies if you provide examples and state your issue with them. Elinruby (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

made minor fmt changes in the main post to highlight the link! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Apart from what's already been done, I do not have a suggestion. Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp

At Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp, there's a problem with only PR-type promotional material being allowed into the article. See this deletion of a section on litigation and criticism: "06:05, 10 January 2013 Tyrsdomain (talk · contribs) (removed poorly sourced section)" . Six references were deleted. (The company has been involved in some questionable activities, and there's a lawsuit.) Tyrsdomain (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article and all edits from that user since January 2011 have been related to that article. Possible WP:OWN issue. More discussion at Talk:Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp Please take a look. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page with a suggestion. The removed section did have relatively weak sourcing for contentious material, but I found a different reliable source with negative information that seems useful to include in the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That helped. Any other comments? --John Nagle (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

article needing viewing Mail Online

Mail Online is about an online publication. It has a section called "Inaccuracies" (now renamed "Criticism"). I had thought that "criticism" sections were not favoured as a matter of NPOV, and would like eyes on any such section there. The "criticism" edit removed actual information about one of the sources used, and again this is only a matter of seeking eyes about possibly contentious claims having a POV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on this article too, and I agree that it could use some more editors to help determine appropriate weight for various kinds of negative material (and figure out how to phrase them fairly). One of the items (the main subject of the long discussion at Talk:Mail Online#Controversy Section) is also being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Mail Online, so that's probably taken care of, but the talk page from Talk:Mail Online#Zombies on down has some active discussions that aren't as unwieldy but could use more opinions. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Article on Native American Sports Mascots

Native American mascot controversy (mascots) has a number of content and formatting issues which I plan to address, but most of all it is not neural based upon giving appropriate weight to documented academic sources vs. magazines, newspapers, and blogs. These mascots are not controversial in the academic or legal literature that is readily available, for example the APA Recommendation (which is backed up by dozens of research studies) and the US Civil Rights Commission . Last year there was a hearing before the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs which presented the same points; all in favor of eliminating stereotypical mascots. Against this are two public opinion polls of doubtful scientific validity which say essentially that "only" 40% of Native Americans polled are offended. All of the other evidence on the other side is even less worthy, being quotes from team owners and fans (hardly unbiased).

I am sure that as soon as I begin to make my planned changes (which I am working on in a user page) there will be backlash from which I may need to seek protection. I have not contacted any other editors since many are anonymous, and most are making minor changes. I did place a notice on the talk page several days ago, to which there have been no responses. I do not know who set the initial tone of the article or if they are now actively editing.

There is some urgency, since there will be a symposium on the topic at the National Museum of the American Indian on Feb. 7 , and I would like to have the article in good condition by that time. FigureArtist (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

watchlisted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I added it to mine also. Elinruby (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Update (no changes to the article): Two of the three editors that responded to my editing proposal think the current article is NPOV, and the APA and USCRC positions are "extreme" by calling for an immediate ban on Indian names/mascots for non-native schools.FigureArtist (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Review of article Geoffrey Edelsten

Today I made major changes to article Geoffrey Edelsten. It led to reverts by different editors which led to a sockpuppet investigation and an edit war investigation . The neutrality of the article is disputed as the weight of the content is slanted too much toward the subject's criminal activity as opposed to other aspects of his medical career. He was arrested and convicted for hiring someone to beat up a former patient. This is undisputed and in numerous sources. The current article has it mentioned in numerous sections of the article and also hammers the fact that he was deregistered from practicing medicine. Now, from a weight perspective, I believe that I made edits to make the article more neutral. I currently have a copy of the article with the edits that I made in my sandbox. I would request that the sandbox be reviewed and the edits that I made be placed back into the article. If there are changes that others feel need to be made, please do so in my sandbox. My only concern is that the article is written from a neutral point of view. I have covered his convictions, his being kicked out of medicine and his multiple times of trying to get his license back. Not sure what else I can do but would request a review from some unbiased editors who are not involved with the topic, the edit war, or the sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation. I simply ask that editors take a look at what is written and either suggest changes or implement parts or all of the sandbox into the article so that it is weighted properly. Thank you.--NikoVee (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no issue regarding neutrality in the current version of the articles, if anything your proposed version of the article has a positive slant. While not entirely violating WP:NPOV the removal of substancial content(including significant notability basis) and sources from the current article makes it look like PR cleanup job that would be why so many editors responded and reverted your changes. I suggest that you try actually talking with the editors of the article in WP:AGF to make some the changes you want rather than edit warring, calling them sockpuppets and running to notice boards. Gnangarra 10:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Also have no issue with the neutrality of the current article and would agree with Gnangarra's statement. Hughesdarren (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a little snark in that article, but nothing which is not fixable IMO. Collect (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't put my finger on it entirely but I do not endorse the rewrite. Edelsten's notability in part derives from his flamboyance. References to that have been edited out. They could be better written but the solution is not to edit them out. I agree with Gnangarra that the removal of substantial content and sources has removed some of the basis for notability. The present article is by no means excellent but it is more neutal than the rewrite.

Note Misplaced Pages editors and journalists have been attacked and threatened by Edelsten, the subject of the article. My username is included amongst those at http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/perpetrators-of-defamatory-lies .

The challenge that is implicit in this page of Edelsten's is that he does not regard articles in the newspapers as "reliable sources". Hence I think that for example contemporary news footage retrieved through YouTube is important to the article.--Matilda 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Execution of Rizana Nafeek

• Execution of Rizana Nafeek (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs) and
• Boneyard90 (talk · contribs)

Can some seasoned NPOV editors please cast an eye over Execution of Rizana Nafeek, I came across this following a link form WP:ITN/C and at the time was probably the most POV article I had seen in a long time. There are two editors now teaming up to enforce there view on the article. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not teaming up with Boneyard90 (talk · contribs). I haven't come across or heard about him previously. When Two editors are voicing something together is not we are teaming up. Then there is something we find collectively with another editor he is wrong.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't have enough background of this particular subject, but the version that I am looking at does not appear to be terribly problematic. I tagged the article as needing clarification on a couple different assertions that have no specific attribution. (diff) Location (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Race (human classification) 2

Here editor Maunus states "Chinese anthropology is not a part of the mainstream science on race or on human biological variation." Is that correct? BanjoBruce (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC) striking; sock evasion Professor marginalia (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Garadaghly Massacre

The article Garadaghly Massacre is based on 18 references but 16 out of this 18 references are Azerbaijani, which means partisan, sources and some are even dead links. As far as I know this is against Misplaced Pages Neutral point of view. The creator of the article user Angel670 has already been informed about this issue on the talk page but finds the article notable as it is. The article also was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2012 but the result of the discussion was oddly no consensus.--Markus2685 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz

There is a potential for an edit conflict between people who wish to include material about Ortiz's involvement wrt Swartz on an article about her (a biography of a living person), and User:Viriditas who chooses to remove that content wielding BLP and recentism as reasons (there has been at least one previous such action before by another editor, also based on a recentism claim) and Viriditas calling the section "attack content", which I believe is unjustified.

I strongly disagree with Viriditas' removal action and assessment (recentism being the most dubious), but Viriditas has also sent me a template warning for alleged edit-warring after one small (if, perhaps, unfounded) edit, after which I restored the part that I removed, and later it was removed anyway by a much more seasoned editor.

I do not want to revert because of the edit war warning template that I have, but if I did revert, Viriditas would perhaps revert that revert, or use my action as reason to complain about me (given the edit war warning template on my talk page he put there). I consider Viriditas' sending me an edit war warning template aggressive action, because s/he could have chosen not to use a template and engage with me using his/her own letter-writing abilities in my user talk.

Now, I belive there is still very little consensus over whether the removal is proper and the NPOV status regarding the removed content. I think Viriditas is pushing his POV by having removed information about Ortiz' involvement in the case, despite the fact that people are entitled to know what Carmen Ortiz is about, and removing the section removes the necessary elements of notability regarding the article. The Ortiz article already has a section at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Carmen_Ortiz, and there's so far at least one person who agrees with user Viriditas.

I do not know what to do further, because the issue has become rather contentious, since Carmen Ortiz is/was involved in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, but user Viriditas and a few others think this should not be in her article (as seen on BLPN linked above). (Admittedly, Swartz's lawyer has named an assistant attorney who did much of the legwork working and negotiating the case against Swartz.) So there. -Mardus (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add that I placed a Request for Comment tag on the Talk:Carmen Ortiz#Request_for_Comment, which I why I wrote all this here. -Mardus (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Describing the public actions of a public figure does not violate BLP policy

The description does need to be neutral but quoting her public statements about her decision to prosecute Swartz is completely fair game. Elinruby (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos

The neutrality of the article is being called into question on the article's talk page. One user mentioned that it may not have been written in good faith. Can someone look over the article and try to address the negativity this article presents? --BigBabyChips (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• There might be an issue with original synthesis here. I haven't checked the references, but just skimmed the article. If a person murders someone, and some blog claims they're a Juggalo, then it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. You need reliable sources directly connecting the crime with the Juggaloism. If reliable sources have written about Juggalo crime as a "thing," then it's maybe okay in principle. But...
• It would probably be better if this content is summarized in the main article on Juggalos. It's a long article, but is there a way to condense it to get rid of the questionable material? TheBlueCanoe 01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

most of these sources don't approch reliability, and captioning a image "see y'all in hell" is not a neutral point of view, no. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A more neutral version was condensed into Juggalo, but another user who seems to be aimed at slandering Juggalos has been rewriting multiple articles to claim that Juggalo is a gang, which goes against NPOV rules. BigBabyChips (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland

Need help in making the lead section for this article neutral like before (see the difference). User:Music&Co has been treating this article like a personal blog/fansite (rewriting the lead to make the singer look extremely successful and inflating her sales with unreliable sources). — Oz 07:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Oz doesn't converse in constructive way, despite has twice looked for in pacific way to talk to him in the personal talk. Contrarily he doesn't answer, and it acts before a comparison inserting with some tags for disputes. Oz does you take the right to attribute words as "of success" or "of not success" (of thing? of charts? of sales? of criticism? in US? in Uk? In other countries of Europe?) sending forth therefore a judgment I don't objectify; He discredits reliable datas (all verifiable ones with sources inserted in the center of the page and in discography page) concerned sales of albums and peak of chart, that I have replaced his personals and arbitrary adjectives concerning success or failures. He defines style from "blog / fansite" all edit that differs from his style of writes and that doesn't meet his personal point of view. It also results "closed in dialogs" in the edit of other user (as you can be seen in Rowland's "view history" for example)

--Music&Co (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't reply back at your talk page because I've started a discussion at Talk:Kelly Rowland#Lead. And please don't make me look like the bad guy. I'm not the one changing her sales with unreliable sources and treating her articles like fansites. We're not here to promote artists and make their articles look successful. — Oz 20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We result for what we are for and for ours behaviors. You have had the opportunity to talk for 2 times, but you have preferred to open 3 discussions in 3 different places and to insert 2 tags. The unreliable sources of which you refer already concern peak on charts and sales of 2 albums approved in wikipedia from years, and with more reliable sources in lead page and discography. Do you insert opinions about to the success without defining its concept (sale? classification? criticism? countries?) what they result a great deal subjective. Then not to speak of fansite (also this is one opinion of yours) style, and triy to be constructive, without only attaching when something doesn't mirror your personal taste. Music&Co (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but for a minor matter, I think the addition of Mr. Music is just as neutral as the version of Mr. Oz. But it is more informative. The Banner talk 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact I haven't expressed judgments, I have insert more information: the sales of the two first albums, her singles worthy of to be mentioned (3singles from the first album, 2 in the second+ "when love takes over" and 3singles from the third album) and her four principal collaborations (* "Here We Go" top 20 in US, UK, NZ and Gold in US; * "Breathe Gentle" in Italy #1 on Airplay and #2 on Sales, #7 in Netherland, #28 in Europe and #53 in Belgium; * "Invincible" top-5 in UKr&b and NZ, #11 UK mainstream, #13 Ireland, #14 Australia urban, top40 in other 3 international charts, eligible3 for silver in Uk and certied gold in NZ; * "What to Feeling" top ten in 6 international charts and and top-30 in others 5 countrieses). It seems me that can be mentioned as her 4 principal collaborations. Don't seem me to have expressed judgments like "Phenomenal success", "Hit of worldwide fame", or other of similar (this would have been an impartial style like a blog or fansite). I have confined to insert 4 collaborations that I have appraised remarkable to the purpose of her general presentation. Music&Co (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-invasive ultrasonic removal

This article since its beginning has always been written like an advertisement. I don't know enough in the area to fix it myself but if anyone has an interest in a possibly quack form of fat removal, they can improve the article. Gizza 08:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Company of St. Ursula

I am engaged in a dispute over the wording of the newly-created Company of St. Ursula. You'll find the fruitless discussion here. I have unintentionally broken the three-revert rule. Block at your discretion. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloody Christmas

This is about: Bloody Christmas (1963). This article is a POV FORK of the Cypriot intercommunal violence article. It solely implies that one side is to be blamed for the 1963 events and repeats information currently in the Cypriot intercommunal violence just to impose a POV. The event described in Bloody Christmas (1963) is part of the Cypriot intercommunal violence where it is also described. Furthermore, the article takes a single event of the Cypriot intercommunal violence and with phrases such as "is the beginning of a military campaign initiated by Greek Cypriots against minority Turkish Cypriots" and "This is the headpoint of the tension between the Greek Cypriot majority and Turkish Cypriot minority." it arbitrarily implies that one side is to be blamed. A merge into the Cypriot intercommunal violence article would be most suitable move in IMO as it is just an event of the Cypriot intercommunal violence.

Thank you 200.93.208.84 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Court transcripts as sources

In Australian head of state dispute, LJ Holden wishes to use court transcripts which are not referenced by any secondary commentary. Comments by judges during proceedings are being presented as findings of fact, for example an off-hand remark during discussion as to the litigant's ability to pay costs is being used as if it were a considered opinion on the identity of Australia's head of state. Clearly WP:WEIGHT applies here; if no other agency has seen fit to publish commentary, then the remarks are not viewed as important. My approach has been to retain the very one-sided references to the transcripts without comment. The reader may check them for herself - they do not need "interpretation" by Misplaced Pages. There is some discussion here. --Pete (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Court transcriptions can not be used as sources in articles about living persons per Misplaced Pages:BLPPRIMARY#Misuse_of_primary_sources. Especially not if they have not been commented on in secondary sources. I guess that this issue is not BLP related but rather a technical legal issue - in which case it is certainly not any wikipedia editors role to interpret statements by lawyers or judges in ways that have not already been presented in secondary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here:

1. The above statement is incorrect as to the nature of the references. There is only one court transcript referred to in the article - Thorpe v The Commonwealth. The other citations are for court decisions.

2. There is a secondary source for the decisions and the transcript: a book published by a legal scholar, Steven Spadijer. It was removed by the editor above, however, as it was from a self-published source (Lulu), but the text itself is an academic paper. (The author of this paper has been published elsewhere in law journals.) While this point is moot (I accept Misplaced Pages can't have self-published sources) it is not correct to claim there are no secondary sources. There are, they just cannot be cited. As pointed out in the page's discussion, had Spadijer published his academic paper on JSTOR or similar then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

3. None of the references referred to are "interpreted" in anyway. In terms of the court decisions, the main reference that is interpreted (that is presented along with one side of the debate's views) is R v Governor. This decision is cited as there is a secondary source that is able to be used (a book published by Sir David Smith). Naturally, more weight is given to this decision as per WP:WEIGHT. It is extensively used multiple times in the article and referred to both in its primary source (i.e. the normal court decision citation) and the secondary source. In contrast, the references that have been taken issue with are only mentioned once, with only the pertinent statements and individuals making them referred to. The editor above has simply removed these statements and left the case citations. Surely if their is a breach of NPOV rules, then the whole reference should go.

4. As for the court transcript in Thorpe v The Commonwealth, despite what is said by the editor above the cited conversation does directly relate to the article - i.e. who Australia's head of State is. Moreover, it is a statement made by one of Australia's most prominent jurists, Justice Michael Kirby. It is made clear to the reader that this is a transcript and not a court decision, which is further balanced by referencing an essay Justice Kirby wrote before being appointed to the High Court. --LJ Holden 22:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Court decisions are also primary sources. The question of whether a selfpublished source is sufficiently reliable to support inclusion is an editorial content decision to be made at the talkpage. Quoting from a text always includes an amount of interpretation as one statement is interpreted as being of a particular importance, relative to other statements in a text. It seems to me that it should be entirely possible to write an article about this imoportant topic without relying on primary or low quality sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The entire article is essentially a collection of "X said this, Y said that" comments lifted out of the corresponding sources. So, LJ's use of the court documents is not at all out of place on that page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, if someone said something important it will have been reported in secondary sources. If its not reported in secodnary sources that is a hint its probably not important. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, with respect, you're disagreeing with what I didn't say. I said much of the article is simple reports on who a source says Australia's head of state is; a CIA website said it's the Queen, a journalist said it's the governor-general, a government website said it's the governor-general, a prime minister once said it's the Queen, etc., etc. So, if we want to stick to the "there must be a secondary source" criteria, that article is going to be pretty well gutted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would you source any of that to court transcripts? If those claims are being reported in e.g. news media or other secondary sources then there is an a basis for the article. If the article is based on observations that different institutions disagree, and this observaiton has not been previously published then the article is original research.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

None of what I mentioned is sourced to court transcripts. None of it is reported on elsewhere. Perhaps much, maybe all, of the article is OR. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to add into this discussion these primary sources, Mies? Kevin Rudd issued a press release saying that the Governor-General was the head of state, and yes, that is a primary source, but we also have a media report (one of many) commenting on that. We shouldn't go suspending a fundamental wikipolicy for just one article. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In the transcript a lawyer mentions that his client had written letters to various officials and then says he did not know whether the Queen or the Governor General was head of state and the judge replied it was the Queen. Who was head of state was completely irrelevant to the case, is not mentioned in the judgment or in any source that reported the case. It has no weight. TFD (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Then nor does the CIA website, or the Australian government website, or the prime minister's statement, etc. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Suppose you wanted to know who was PM for Australia. Would you look at the Australia government or CIA website or would you search Australian court cases to find an example where a judge replied to a lawyer who did not know who was the PM? This is the type of thing that conspiracy theorists do, except that typically they search for statements that are well outside mainstream views. TFD (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd consider them all valid sources from which to draw the answer to the question. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• As has already been stated - Court transcripts as sources easily and clearly fail Misplaced Pages:BLPPRIMARY#Misuse_of_primary_sources. - My advice for a wiki policy compliant position - Look to report secondary high quality reliable reports - easy really - attempting to use less than that is promotion, bias and opinion - It's not complicated, we are here to report what other reliable secondary sources WP:RS have reported , thats it, we are not here to report and promote primary statements and publications - .Youreallycan 15:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I note the appearance in the article of an IP editor, who is not only expanding the interpretation of primary sources, but adding in the self-published book he mentioned above and a private blog for good measure. As Mies has demonstrated an aptitude for edit-warring, I may have to seek admin attention to get things straightened out. --Pete (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me Pete. You should check where the IP address is registered and where I live before making unfounded accusations. I accept a blog cannot be used in a reference and have never linked to my blog posts on the issue on Misplaced Pages.

As for the issue at hand, the above statement by Youreallycan misses the issue: we're only dealing with one court transcript, which directly deals with the issue the article is about. The others are actual statements from decisions. While I understand the reasons behind the wikipolicy - specifically for preventing conspiracy theories and the like from gaining too much weight - the citations are not at all taken out of context, nor misinterpreted. --LJ Holden 22:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Let me just say that I was not surprised to find that the IP address resolved to Sydney, and that the content had a strong legal bent and a certain spectrum attitude. Remind you of anybody, YouReallyCan? As for whether a court record is a transcript or a ruling, it's still a primary source. I'm not seeing a lot of contrary arguments referencing wikipolicy, just some hand-waving. --Pete (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• - I have been looking at the article content and it is so poor as to be less than worthless to the reader - opinionated shite - absolute worthless to a neutral reader - Youreallycan 17:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be pruned. Toss out anything that is not covered by wikipolicy. Nevertheless, the dispute is a real and notable one, occupying much public attention during the 1998 Constitutional Convention and subsequent Constitutional referendum in 1999. Presumably the issue will rise to prominence again when the next push for a republican change occurs. The Queen, bless her heart, is not immortal, and the republican movement has indicated that they will act as soon as she demonstrates this. Could be tomorrow, could be another thirty years. --Pete (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually YRC, the article should be considered for deletion, as it's making a mountain out of a molehill. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Derby sex gang

I'd appreciate it if somebody would take a look at the new Derby sex gang article, from the perspective of WP:NPOV - it looks far too tabloid and sensationalist to me, and seems overly-concerned with the ethnic background of the offenders. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've started a new talk section Talk:Derby sex gang#Origin and religion of gang members on this issue. I think AndyTheGrump is being too Politically Correct and seeking to downplay the origin and religion of the gang members in this article - which actually ends up being non PC towards the victims. But I've left it as his revert whilst it is discussed. Aarghdvaark (talk)

How the case was covered in the tabloid press should be mentioned because that is what makes the case notable. However, despite having a section called "Analysis", the article merely repeats the tabloid analysis. TFD (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

By "tabloid", are you referring to the BBC, the Telegraph or the Independent? Ankh.Morpork 11:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I am referring to your usual sensationalist muckrakeing, clearly engaged in as part of your relentless efforts to portray Muslims in the worst possible light. Any more questions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The mainstream media did not provide an undue emphasis on the ethnicity and religion of the accused, although they did mention the controversy caused by those who did, for example Jack Straw. The article otoh reads more like a tabloid story. The Telegraph for example mentions that one member of the gang was not Asian, yet that is not mentioned in the article. The story is not that they were Asian but that the case has become a cause for hate mongers. TFD (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The BBC produced a documentary that investigated "the controversial subject of on-street grooming of young girls for sex by Pakistani men in the UK." which featured footage of the Derby gang grooming girls, Channel 4 commissioned a similar documentary, the former home secretary spoke of a "specific problem" within the British Pakistani community, the Children's minister spoke of "Asian communities hampering child sex inquiries", the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre conducted a report into child grooming; this was not simply about far-right exploitation. Ankh.Morpork 18:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

All of that is quite some distance from simply sticking a label into an article that amplifies the anti-immigration lobby's message about the dangers of "Pakistani Muslims". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• @User:The Four Deuces - it is not as you claim the case has become a cause for hate mongers, but that the sexual grooming of young underage girls by Muslim men is a repeat problem in the UK - Muslim sex grooming - Pakistanis - that was what was reported, they were/are a group of Muslims grooming young white girls - a repeat pattern recently in the UK - Youreallycan 17:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Its funny how your otherwise admirable ethical editing principles stop short of working when it comes to painting entire ethnic groups as criminal sex offenders. Standards are good - double standars twice as good.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you a Muslim Pakistani? - I know users are and I understand how its upsetting but it is a repeat pattern - and widely reported in te UK - Youreallycan 18:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you a catholic priest? There are lots of repeat patterns, such as old white men abusing small children. Somehow it is easier to see patterns when they conform to one's prejudices.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course I am not a catholic anything - I am not even white, lol - soz if you are upset that Muslim men have been abusing young girls. Youreallycan 18:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am upset about all abuse against children and adults. But unlike you I realize that no ethnic or religious groups have a patent on such despicable behavior.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You are simply being defensive because you are a Pakistani Muslim - Youreallycan 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

and you are simply being offensive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I need to add this , Maunus removed his comment - but its important to the thread so I leave a diff here - Youreallycan 18:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that it was a mistake to stoop to your level. I wonder when you will realize it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Note. I have had to remove individuals not convicted of sexual offences from the table in the article, per WP:BLP policy - and in talk page discussions it is clear that some are arguing that these individuals are part of the 'sex gang', even though the sources cited do not state this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Note Can I just remind folks in general to be especially careful on such an inflammatory subject to stay polite and on-topic. --John (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that giving unwarranted significance to the religious background of some of the Derby sex gang and writing in such a way to give the impression this applies to all of the gang members (when it doesn't) is an NPOV infringement and should be rectified.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Pov edits on Aafia Siddiqui

I would appreciate another set of eyes on the Aafia Siddiqui page. Codetruth is constantly inserting material that she is innocent, and messes around with refs (removing text without removing accompanying refs, making them point to other things ), as well as changing uses of her last name to "Dr. Aafia’s" (first edit). I rolled back their edits twice , and added warnings about POV to their talk page, but I can't be sure any more.--Auric talk 19:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: Codetruth recently overwrote my earlier comment , using another account(?), CodeTruth.--Auric talk 15:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Auric,

I did not mean to offend you but since i am new to wikipedia i did not know how to respond to your allegation against me that i was the one being biased. So i saw the edit button located near that and so i responded. But, when i just saw the video on how to respond to a user's message, i am hence sending you this message in good faith.

The fact of the matter is that i work in the same region as Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was from and hence, i know for a fact that the United States Government and the Pakistani Intelligence know full well that she is innocent of any terrorism related links and that she was not a source of any threat yet they lock her up so as to cover their own faults.

The one thing i liked about wikipedia was its presumed unbiased-ness however after reading the article on Dr. Aafia i have realized that is not always the case.

And, so i made an account and have become a wikipedia user just like you.

But, what seperates you and me is the fact that you believe anything that the media claims without actually having talked to the ones whose opinions are the most honest with regards to her.

You see, Dr. Aafia is a mother of three and she was KIDNAPPED along with her children, one of whom was only 6 months old, in 2003 and that is well known in Pakistan and to the Pakistani Intelligence and the US Army. She was assaulted, physically abused (which is a terrible thing to do to a lady and that too an MIT graduate who did NOT terrorize anyone or cause harm to even a butterfly) and atleast one her children, who is only 6 months old was brutally killed! And, now she is serving in jail?? For 86 years?? Even though the members of the jury knew she was innocent but had to call her a threat since most of the world's media was closely following the case and so had the ruled in favor of her their 7 years of illegal and wrongful detention of her would be clear to everyone and so the white house pressurized for the decision against her!

Tell me, you are from canada, if this was the allegation made to a canadian mother of three and a PhD holder in neuroscience who was kidnapped along with her children and then SHE is the one sent to jail over CLEARLY false allegations (and that too false allegations of self defense) wouldnt the entire population of Canada rise up in favour of the lady??? And, that is precisely what happened in pakistan, parts of USA and many other countries who then protested against this obvious injustice done to her and her family.

So please, dont confuse everyone and dont take the side of falsehood, by saying she is a terrorist when infact she cannot even hurt a fly! She did not kill anyone or even attempt to kill anyone, but SHE was the one who was raped and kidnapped.

Let the article be unbiased and LET IT STICK TO THE TRUTH.

Best Regards,

Code Truth Codetruth (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Codetruth, I glanced over the edits yesterday when I saw Auric's post and has some concerns with your edits. Your post here confirmed some of those concerns. First, please ease back on the tone. You should generally assume that everyone is here to improve Misplaced Pages, the same as Auric should assume of you. Second, please take a few moments to read through the reliable source article. You made a comment about Auric seeming to trust the media over the people involved and I think that's causing some of the problem here. Ultimately, Misplaced Pages articles must be based on reliable sources, with a strong preference for secondary sources. For articles involving living people (often abbreviated WP:BLP), that's even more true. Primary sources are generally not acceptable in those cases. Our NPOV policy says that articles should reflect what secondary sources say. If most secondary sources say the moon is made of green cheese, that's what the moon article must say. Many of the changes you made reflect your personal view on things which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they didn't have any sources to back them up. That's not acceptable. You must have solid, reliable sources to back your edits. Blogs and advocacy websites are generally not reliable sources. If most media sources are saying one thing, that's what our article must reflect absent other reliable secondary sources. It doesn't matter what we believe or know, it matters what those sources say. Ravensfire (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Codetruth has continued to edit the article since this discussion was initiated. I would recommend that this user to refrain from further edits to the article until the matter can be resolved here. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 18:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I will be taking a look at the primary sources link that you sent. It wont be just to say that secondary sources are more reliable in the sense that primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources, since they can be and have proven to be edited/changed/modified when put in comparison to primary sources.

Also, blogs of those who are the direct relatives of the victim and the ones who have had direct connection to the case are more authentic than lets say what the journalists report since most of the time the journalists write what the department of defense wants them to write especially of such a case where the victim is confused to be the assailant. If wikipedia was to work like a secondary arm of the pentagon then all we would see on wikipedia are loads of biased articles (as if there were not enough already)

I do not intend to doubt the intention of either of you but the fact remains that the articles biased towards hatred need to be modified and i would be glad to help in that. Codetruth (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Others involved in the discussion have edited the article and that too towards a much more unbiased approach. I have tried my best to remain unbiased because this is not just another ordinary article, its an article about a mother of three who was kidnapped along with her children to begin with. Hence, its important not to undermine that part since the truth, as most human rights organizations like amnesty international continue to claim is that she was indeed innocent but framed. So it seems only justified that i be allowed to refine the article since i am the one who is not just in that particular part of the globe where this incident happened but also have credible sources to back all the claims that i make and i shall be providing adequate references for that (God Willing)

I am in full support of resolving this matter quickly yet efficiently. Codetruth (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Codetruth, I understand where your coming from, but Misplaced Pages articles must follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. NPOV is absolutely a core policy but so is making sure that information is sourced to reliable secondary sources. Blogs are rarely considered good sources, especially when dealing with BLP articles (articles about living people). There is some information in the article about concerns and questions that have been raised - see the reaction section. You need to be looking for good secondary sources with additional information that can be added to the article. Parts of the article are a mess (see the background section - it's both background and a second lead!) and some cleanup is needed but that's more to cut down the article some. If the prevaling view in secondary sources is reflected accurately, that's the view that will stay. If the prevailing view isn't accurately reflected, then we need to get that information, correctly sourced, in the article. You're best bet is to work on finding those good, strong secondary sources. Articles and/or books from top publishing houses and magazines that cover the entire situation would be helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes that seems to be the right strategy to make the article truly unbiased. Very well. I will try my best to quote authentic sources from now onwards. Please do forgive if i make some mistakes, because, i am new to Misplaced Pages but i do have a strong passion to support justice. Thankyou for the kind advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codetruth (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Violence against men

Hey.

Reading through some Misplaced Pages articles, as you do, I came across a set of articles in which I believe there may be POV and weight issues; i.e. I think articles related to violence against men may have a slight MRA bias. Specifically:

• Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy is nearly wholly on the side of Sacks and co. This may reflect the debate at the time; I wouldn't know.
• Gendercide has some synthesis issues; for example, "The Bible", not even chapter or verse, is cited several times, and I think the article conflates the indiscriminate killing of men with other massacres in which men were killed.
• I'm concerned that Srebrenica massacre is included in {{Violence against men}}, especially as it was more of an ethnic-based massacre than a gender-based massacre.
• {{Violence against men}} may have irrelevant links.

These are issues I've found from a five-minute look; there may be deeper issues at play (I do remember the article Female privilege at AfD a year or so ago, where an equivalence was argued that didn't exist in sources). Sceptre 19:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

From a quick look at Template:Violence against men, "may have irrelevant links" is an understatement - more than half of the links are irrelevant. The only articles I see linked on there that can be argued to be relevant are Androcide, Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy, Gendercide (in the case where it's males being eliminated), and Masculism which has a section on violence against men. Arguably Stop Abuse For Everyone deserves inclusion since they support abused men in particular, although they also support several other groups. The other links are to articles which either more commonly affect women than men (e.g. domestic violence, rape, sexual violence, sexual slavery, outline of domestic violence) or affect both indiscriminately without targeting at any particular gender (human trafficking, prison rape). As the Srebrenica massacre demonstrates, the mere fact that men are more frequently victims in a particular conflict or type of violence does not imply that violence is targeted at men on the basis of gender. You could argue that some types of violence like prison rape or the Srebrenica massacre predominantly affect men, but this would need to be backed up with third-party reliable sources that specifically discuss the gender imbalance of the violence (as opposed to mere statistics). Surely we're not going to link every single article that involves some kind of violence on the principle that "men could be a target of it." I agree that the Srebrenica massacre is an ethnic genocide, and quite contrary to the men's rights POV, the fact that more men than women were killed in it can be attributed to that culture's patriarchal notions that woman can't fight and must be protected by men. I also find it quite absurd that the link to "Outline of domestic violence" is labelled "Outline of related topics" as though domestic violence were all about violence against men. Dcoetzee 20:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Could anyone expand "MRA bias" for those of us not quite so up-to-date on this area of controversy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

MRAs are men's rights advocates. Sceptre 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36

User:Niteshift36 is repeatedly adding "Juggalos" as a "gang affiliation" on Crips, even though Juggalo is a music fanbase, not a gang. He has repeatedly attacked me for removing this allegation, despite the fact that it very obviously violates WP:NPOV and there is no evidence of any "Juggalo gangs". --BigBabyChips (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

At issue are these sources: . BigBabyChips believes these sources are biased, due to the FBI's refusal to disclose their sources under a FOIA request (lawsuit by the band is apparently pending). Niteshift and I agree these are reliable sources for stating that the FBI, NGIC and several states have called Juggalos a "gang" and have connected the fan group and/or members of the fan group to criminal activity. Please see BigBabyChips edit history for a list of articles this is an issue in. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• The issue, repeatedly ignored, is that there is an NPOV issue regarding description of a music fanbase as a "gang" despite the majority of reputable evidence indicating that it is a music fanbase and not a gang. It is NOT good faith to repeatedly categorize a music fanbase as a gang in spite of evidence. BigBabyChips (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• In this edit summary, Niteshift36 refers to me as a "troll" for asking for factually verifiable information and NPOV writing. BigBabyChips (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The first two links provided by SummerPhD are primary sources, and should probably not be used - though even if they were, the first certainly doesn't support a claim that Juggelos are all involved in criminal activity: "This identity has evolved into a subculture and a life-style for many fans. While the majority of fans exercise their lifestyles in a peaceful manner, a small portion of this group have added a criminal element that has slowly been taking hold in certain states." The second source likewise states only that "many Juggalos subsets exhibit gang-like behavior and engage in criminal activity and violence" - 'many' doesn't mean 'all'. The third one may well be WP:RS - but only for what it says, i.e. that 'a police officer has claimed that "certain members of the Juggalos -- a group of followers of the rap duo Insane Clown Posse" have been involved in illegal gang activity. The source doesn't say that 'the Juggelos' are a gang as such, as far as I can see. On this basis, there are no NPOV issues here at all - the sources simply cannot be cited as asserting that 'Juggelo' is always a 'gang affiliation', and attempting to do so isn't an NPOV issue, it is a misrepresentation of sources.

(BTW, an aside for BigBabyChips - contrary to your statement on Niteshift36's talk page, there is no exception to WP:3RR on NPOV grounds - I suggest you read the policy) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution