Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:06, 11 November 2014

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

Washington Redskins name controversy

There have previously been two POV tags placed on this article without generating much discussion, even from those that placed them. However recently there was a brief discussion Talk:Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Sneaky_POV_editing_.28FriendlyFred.29 that touched on the basic issue. It began with the usual statement that equal weight was not being given to both sides of the controversy, and when I said that was because one side is represented by academic studies published in books and jeer-reviewed journals, while the other is what team supporters say in newspapers, it was questioned whether the scholarly point of view is neutral. In particular there seems to be an assumption that because the "keep the name" advocates are in the numerical majority, their opinions deserve equal weight alongside "change the name" advocates. Reading the NPOV guidelines, I had always though that scholarship, in particular when there is no controversy within academia, is the definition of neutrality. The relevant disciplines such as sociology and psychology have reached an unequivocal consensus that all Native American imagery in sports is a form of hostile ethnic/racial stereotyping that should be eliminated. This consensus is clearly stated in the resolutions issued by the national professional organizations representing these fields of study. I was not familiar with the issues when I began editing these articles, but I know think that if anything this article and Native American mascot controversy are too careful presenting the "keep the name/mascot" position, implying it has validity in spite of all the academics that say otherwise.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because there is academic scholarship on a subject does not mean it is "accepted academic scholarship". If there are large numbers of people don't agree with the scholarship (such as in this case assuming there are large numbers of people who disagree), it is not neutral to present one side as "right". Instead examine the WP:RS, how to they treat the subjects? Can you find significant viewpoints on both sides in the WP:RS? Then both viewpoints should be represented fairly with an impartial tone as to which is "right". --Obsidi (talk ) 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Obsidi, could you please try to focus more on mainspace contributions to Misplaced Pages rather than wikilawyering about policies and guidelines on talk pages and noticeboards? Per WP:UNDUE, both viewpoints do not have to be represented fairly, as that is a false balance. I get the sense that are you trying to deliberately undermine the NPOV policy in several discussions at this time, and your overall contribution history lends weight to this opinion. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is exactly "false balance". There are no opposing viewpoints within academia, so "fairness" in stating any non-academic POV is giving it undue weight. If any of the arguments made by the general public are specifically address and refuted by scholars, I would be remiss in not including both. Yet the article is already called "biased" on a regular basis. My inclination is to start a new article containing only the scholarship, since I am getting tired of keeping up with the daily repetition of the same oversimplified nonsense in the media on both sides of the "controversy".FriendlyFred (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the examples of false balance "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience" These are all examples of fringe theories, and if a "large numbers of people" agree with the theory (as the original post claimed), then it is not WP:FRINGE. As WP founder Jimmy Wales said: "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it." If you are really claiming it is WP:FRINGE, then you must be saying that no reliable source would think it is true (is that your claim? Because as a factual matter I would disagree, that's not a policy issue.) Otherwise it is just a minority view, which (if it is a minority view) shouldn't get as much space as the majority view, but shouldn't be eliminated entirely. Both should be given in a neutral manner such that both sides can agree that those are the positions of the various sides. That is at the heart of WP:NPOV. (Viriditas can you stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, thanks :).) --Obsidi (talk ) 03:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

PS. You keep claiming things about "no opposing viewpoints within academia" the question is how do WP:RS treat it? Are there no WP:RS which disagree? The balance on Misplaced Pages is based on the balance among WP:RS, not academia. (mind you peer reviewed scientific research is given a very high presumption of validity, but even then we usually like to see some WP:RS comment on the subject, and it is the WP:RS's views that are important). Also if you do wish to make the claim that the other theory is WP:FRINGE find a WP:RS that says that is the scientific consensus as per: WP:RS/AC --Obsidi (talk ) 03:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears that I have not made the problem clear. The facts presented are not themselves controversial, and have both scholarly and mainstream news citations which are all from reliable sources. The problem is placing those facts in context. The reliable sources that are also of the highest quality, being scholarly reviews of the academic literature, define a context in which the facts can only be understood in terms of the sociological concepts of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Social science has reached a consensus that the general practice of using Native American imagery in sports, and in particular the Washington NFL team's usage because the name itself is a slur, is psychologically and socially harmful, and should be stopped. This consensus is represented by the national organizations representing psychologists, sociologists, and school counselors all calling for an end to these practices.

The "other side" of this controversy has no scholarly support and no secondary sources. It only has primary sources: the personal opinions of the team owner and employees, fans, and a handful of conservative writers; all quoted in newspapers, which make unsupported claims:

• That there is no harm, which is contradicted by scientific research.
• They claim to be honoring Native Americans but cannot produce more that a few individual Native Americans willing to accept that honor (two of whom later turn out to be non-Native); while 23 tribes and over 50 Native American organizations have said they are not honored but insulted and want the name changed.

• They point to one public opinion poll that said only 9% of self-identified Native Americans are offended by the name, which is a primary source. There are several scholarly works that point out the flaws in the poll itself and the team's interpretation of its meaning and significance.
• They claim the protection of free speech, but no one is denying the owner the right to use any name he wants, only that as a racial slur it should not be protected by copyright (a legal decision that has already been made) and that it should not be printed in the newspaper or broadcast on the public airwaves as if it were not a slur (an FCC decision that is in the works).
• Public opinion polls do indicate that the majority of the general public agree with the team owner's position. It is unfortunately not an unusual situation for the public and scholarly opinion to disagree. I can only point to the FAQs on talk page of the article on Evolution: when the subject of an article falls within the domain of an academic discipline, the article should reflect the POV of that discipline, and not give undue weight to other points of view even when a majority of the public shares that POV.

It is my understanding that, having done the research and found so many books and articles by academics, I cannot escape the fact that the correct context for the topic of this article is the POV contained in those secondary sources, not the public's POV represented in newspapers.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FriendlyFred on the whole. I would like to see more Native American voices on the topic but i concede that I may have failed to recognize given academics as Native American. I was looking for Native American publishers... but no, surely, people are not trying to say that because there are say half a million Washington football fans, that weighs heavier than academic studies AND the people themselves saying that such images are harmful? Elinruby (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps these sources could be of use: Washington Post, Yahoo News. Both appear to be fairly balanced in their presentation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

John Walsh (U.S. politician) plagiarism scandal

I'm a bit frustrated and I'm seeking advice. John Walsh (U.S. politician) is a US senator from Montana who was alleged by the New York Times to have plagiarized a 14-page paper he wrote in partial satisfaction of his master's degree at the US Army War College in 2007. The War College Review Board investigated and found that the plagiarism was intentional and egregious and imposed their usual sanctions: They revoked his degree and they removed his name from a bronze plaque of his graduating class. The scandal also ended Walsh's reelection campaign.

Several editors have consistently taken conservative positions regarding what could be reported based on WP:BLP. For example, several opposed reporting what the usual sanctions were until they were actually imposed, even though the War College provost had said from the beginning that this is what they do. Now that sanctions have been imposed, several editors still oppose reporting that Walsh's name was removed from the plaque because they consider it "tabloidey" or, citing WP:BALASPS or WP:UNDUE, that too much of the article would then be focused on this incident. A sentence reporting that the NYT found that 2/3 of Walsh's paper was plagiarized was rewritten to say only that "much" of the paper was plagiarized, that editor complaining that adding 1/3 plagiarized without attribution + 1/3 attributed but plagiarized without quotes to get 2/3 was WP:SYNTH and that there could be rounding errors. One editor tried removing all explanation whatsoever of what the extent was of the plagiarism, leaving it impossible to tell from what was left whether it was purely technical infraction or something substantial.

Since most of the objections to any deeper coverage cite balance within a WP:BLP, I've proposed a breakout article, citing WP:Recentism#Article imbalance, where they give the example of Jimmy Savile, which became contentious after the sex abuse story broke. The solution was a separate article, Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. My proposal for a breakout on plagiarism is being met with complaints that this would be a WP:POVFORK and a claim that if the plagiarism can't be written about in more detail in the John Walsh article, it also can't be written about in a separate article either because WP:BALASPS applies to the broad topic (of anything to do with Walsh, apparently). I'm also being told that I must have an "obsession with destroying this individual", that I'm not being "collaborative", that I must have an "undisclosed personal agenda", and that I am simply being WP:POINTY to propose a breakout.

What's troubling is that this feels a whole lot like censorship, that we can't write about a government official because someone doesn't like it. I am not aware of any disagreement over the facts as reported in WP:RS or among any of the editors. I also do not recall anyone claiming that they were deleting anything because they didn't think it was a sufficiently neutral summary of the cited source. There are no alternate POVs floating around that, e.g., maybe he didn't do it or that maybe the War College didn't really remove his name from the plaque or anything else. The facts are clear and they've been reported consistently in dozens if not hundreds of sources. The disagreement is not about the facts of what happened. It is only about which facts to report.

Here's my question: What would you do if you were me? Would you create the breakout article and let anyone who doesn't like it try to take it to AfD? (Let them. It'll be an easy keep.) Do I need consensus before doing this (obviously I do not have one on the article talk page) or can I just WP:BEBOLD? Can you think of any guideline I'd be violating?

You'll find more discussion than you really want to read on Talk:John Walsh (U.S. politician). Msnicki (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This sounds exactly like the situation currently unfolding on Neil deGrasse Tyson and several related articles in regards to Tyson's quote fabrications...even to the point that I attempted a breakout article (something I had done successfully years ago with John Edwards extramarital affair, which began as an allegations article to remove the focus from the primary BLP). BLP is being used as a trump card to cover what are really IDONTLIKEIT complaints, often with a political agenda. The UNDUE complaints even sound the same, I wonder if any of the same editors are involved. Kelly 08:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I browsed the edit histories and didn't happen to spot any matches. I doubt there's much unique about how people will work an agenda by constant trimming, word by word, anything they can.

I learned of the Walsh story when I read it in the Times. It's an amazing real life morality play. I teach at a university and I recently had to report a student for plagiarism. That's about all I can say about the case I was involved in because I'm bound to confidentiality. What I can say is that I had some fascinating discussions with our conduct officer that led to some interesting reading on the policy issues of academic conduct, e.g., the effects of honor codes, etc. I discovered it's an interesting topic.

What's striking about the Walsh story is that all the details are public. And it brought down a senator -- years after it happened! Stanford revoked an MBA from a guy found guilty of insider trading because he'd falsified the transcript he'd supplied with his application. But we only know about that, and only just that much because the documents were unsealed in court. The Walsh scandal is a genuinely more complex, more interesting, more surreal case where all the evidence is out there, thanks to the New York Times.

So far as I know, I have no political conflicts with Walsh. He's a Democrat from Montana, I'm a Democrat in Washington and so on. I've scanned the list of his committee assignments but I don't care about any of them as long as my senator's not stuck there. I don't know anything about Montana politics and I don't care about them either. And why would his politics even matter? I first learned about him when I read the NYT story. As soon as I read the evidence, I knew he was toast right then. No matter what his politics, none of it was going to happen.

With best efforts at self-assessment, I'm simply not aware of any possible conflict of interest. I'm interested in the case solely because I'm interested in the broad topic. If I have any bias beyond that, it's a belief as an American that our founding fathers really got it right with the first amendment. It has to be possible to report negative information about the government and government officials.

I've disclosed all of this on the article talk page but got told that I obviously have "strong feelings" that are bleeding into my edits and my behavior. This by the same editor who insists that when I say that as an instructor, I have a zero tolerance policy regarding academic misconduct that this is an "ideology" and that 1/3 + 1/3 can't be summarized as 2/3. Msnicki (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Kelly, this is quite insulting, a clear one-sided view of the events on another page, where there is zero evidence of fabrication as you claim, and a violation of WP:AGF. I'm surprised anyone is still claiming "fabrication" with no evidence. Please stick to facts instead of characterizatins of other editors. Objective3000 (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Rounding errors? As in, the fraction was more like 5/9, so it was inaccurate to say 2/3? Somebody actually said that with a straight face? As for what I'd do, I think it would be RfC, assuming you can come up with a concise question to be resolved. All you'll get anywhere is a set of comments and opinions, some more educated than others, but RfC has the advantage of being more structured and more binding, I think. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Really. I gave him the entire supporting quote, "About a third of his paper consists of material either identical to or extremely similar to passages in other sources, such as the Carnegie or Harvard papers, and is presented without attribution. Another third is attributed to sources through footnotes, but uses other authors’ exact — or almost exact — language without quotation marks. ...", and the NYT link on the talk page here, even explaining that I had written "roughly two-thirds" and that another editor had trimmed out the "roughly" arguing that everyone knows if you say two-thirds, it's an approximation. But that simply wasn't good enough, obviously.

This 1/3 + 1/3 incident is also a good example how the nibbling process works. Anything to minimize the reporting. In my original citation, I included the quote (as I did for all of my citations.) But in the very next edit two hours later another editor removed every supporting quote, then began to trim still more. Msnicki (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add stress to my last question, asking if anyone might be aware of any guideline I'd be violating if I created a breakout page. I've been here on WP for several years and I've been involved in some contentious debates. But I still have a perfect record. No blocks for any reason. I'd like to keep it that way, so I'm careful. But I'm also not going to back down to threats if I can determine they're empty. I simply don't believe in censorship about the government or government leaders. It won't bother me a bit if other people end up unhappy because I created a breakout page. I would care (a lot!) if that drew a block or other sanction. I'd really love advice. Msnicki (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:POINT. WP:GAME. WP:BATTLE. You suggested creating a breakout article on the talk page and received zero support for the idea. VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've heard your opinion, which is why I'm here seeking others that might be more likely WP:NPOV. Msnicki (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kelly: the editor who started this section failed to notify involved editors in compliance with board rules and WP:CANVASS, and instead of thoroughly investigating you immediately went with violating WP:AGF and jumping to the conclusion that this must be politically motivated. You should probably be less credulous. Regarding the specific question of what language to use to describe the extent of Walsh's plagiarism, the presented source is here. I am indeed of the opinion that in the context of negative BLP content, About a third of his paper consists of material either identical to or extremely similar to passages in other sources, such as the Carnegie or Harvard papers, and is presented without attribution. Another third is attributed to sources through footnotes, but uses other authors’ exact — or almost exact — language without quotation marks. may not be synthesized into "On July 23, 2014, The New York Times alleged that Walsh plagiarized two-thirds of a 14-page strategy research paper...", and replaced "two-thirds" with "much" while the subject is under discussion on the talk page. I have also proposed that "most" might be a better qualitative term. That's it on that particular point - AFAIK, no one has proposed striking the sentence. That such a mundane edit and discussion is making it to a noticeboard is an example of the melodrama and battleground mentality Msnicki has exhibited on the talk page and with their edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Referring to the instructions at the top, I believe I only have a requirement to notify if I've made someone the subject, e.g., because I'm reporting them and seeking some kind of action. But not everything is about you. This time the subject was me. And I wasn't seeking action, I was seeking advice. I wanted to know if creating a breakout page without a consensus which I clearly did not have and would never get could result in sanctions. Msnicki (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Bull. You linked to diffs of my edits. VQuakr (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you'd be sanctioned. I think there'd be a fairly wild and woolly AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm supporting the consensus view which handles this incident in a conservative and balanced manner. However I would also support the creation of which would have many other BLP and BDP subjects. Further detail would be appropriate there. 7 sounds like a good number to start with.Two kinds of pork_Bacon 04:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad you asked! :) We have a List of plagiarism incidents which, for some reason, still omits mention of this one. Msnicki (talk)

It was added somewhere along the way, no great conspiracy here. Move along... Montanabw 05:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone here buy the argument that a breakout article would be a POVFORK? I don't but this seems like the place to ask for other opinions. To be a POVFORK, I think you need two versions, two differing accounts. There are are no differing accounts. He did it. I'm simply proposing to move that one account to the breakout. So I don't think this is a valid complaint. But tell me what you think.

Second, (and maybe I should ask this at BLPN), do you agree or disagree with my takeaway from WP:Recentism#Article imbalance that a breakout would largely answer the BLP objections I'm facing now related to article balance? If the subject of the article is the scandal, of course the whole thing could be about the scandal. And the article could be of whatever length it takes. It's the difference between having an article about the Nazis and pasting that whole thing into the article about Germany. New article, new rules on balance. Someone might take it to AfD, but there, all I have to show is that the subject is notable, that per WP:GNG, there are multiple, reliable independent secondary sources discussing the topic. No problem. Not even if someone wants to insist on sources using that exact phrase. Msnicki (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If it were a big story, major news media, (which I think this qualifies as), and it is tangentially related to the subject of the article, then I would think about a separate page. In this case its so closely related to the subject that I don't think we need a separate page on it. You are free to try, but I doubt the RfD would go well. --Obsidi (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something as tangential to Walsh the person as possible. I really want to focus on the plagiarism incident itself and how it played out through the normally secret process of review. The outline I'm thinking of is something like this. (Obviously, this is not written yet.)

1) The NYT articles that broke the story and the nature of the charges and evidence presented.

2) Initial responses from Walsh, his campaign, the War College and others.

3) Editorials call for his campaign to end and he drops out.

4) The War College investigation.

a) War College protocols and procedures for dealing with charges of misconduct, initial review, full investigation by the review board, rights of the accused, normal sanctions, comparison to the protocols at other schools.

b) Walsh's statements to the board, the board's findings, Walsh's appeal, appeal denied.

c) Findings and sanctions imposed.

5) Reactions and effects on the election.

6) Comparisions to other plagism incidents.

Also, I think you meant AfD, not RfD. If it goes to AfD, I'm confident the page will survive. It's a lot harder to mask IDONTLIKE complaints as valid guidelines-based arguments at AfD than in other kinds of discussions because AfDs are so highly structured. The only question considered at AfD is, are there multiple reliable independent secondary sources to support notability? If so it's a keep. Everything else is pushed off as a content question for the article talk page. You don't get to claim WP:BLP issues so easily. Msnicki (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify a bit more the breakout I'm contemplating, here's my thinking. All that would have to be said that might actually be about Walsh, just to tell the story, would be his name, his position in the Senate, when he attended the War College, what he wrote in his paper, what he has said about the matter that's made it into WP:RS. There's no need to know anything else about him. We don't need to know when he was born, whether he's married and has kids, anything about his military service (except as came up in a gaff by the campaign, obviously), anything about his politics or anything else about him. The interesting story here that I can think can be told within WP:GNG, WP:NPOV and, I hope, WP:BLP guidelines is about everything except Walsh the person. It's the difference between writing about the Miranda decision and Ernesto Miranda. Msnicki (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Outsiders view - The WP:UNDUE issue seems not so much whether we should mention the scandal (from what I can gather, everyone agrees that doing so is appropriate)... rather, the issue is finding the appropriate level of detail to go into when mentioning the scandal. Giving too many details can tip an article (or section) into UNDUE. When writing an article on a relatively recent event (such as a political scandal), and trying to figure out whether to mention some bit of detail... I always like to ask the question: "If I were writing this article 50 years from now, would I bother to include this specific bit of detail?" If the answer to that question is "no" then it is probably UNDUE to mention it now. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If we question ourselves in the future, but answer in the past, we're disregarding change. If we disregard change, whether we change the article or whether Walsh changed enough words stops mattering. If nothing matters, nobody minds. Since people mind this now, it must matter now. If it matters now, we should change the article now. If it doesn't matter later, we'll let it be later. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Msnicki, it is good seeing you and I hope you are well. When I first noticed your request in this thread, I came to examine the circumstances that placed you under a modified editing cycle. Since you appear to have volunteered your own burden, I'll simply defer to your good sense and resolve. I'd nevertheless like to say that I wouldn't be glad about looking away from one of our best policy instruments. And, as is inferred, I would otherwise be one saying yes when you asked if bold editing would be appropriate. In parting I'd like to say: VQuakr's caution against WP:POINT, WP:GAME, and WP:BATTLE, leaves me perplexed; for I haven't seen an inkling from Msnicki throughout this entire thread that would justify such a crass admonition. It's certainly not a good time to be playing around. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@John Cline: in the post to which I replied above: "It won't bother me a bit if other people end up unhappy because I created a breakout page. I would care (a lot!) if that drew a block or other sanction." on the article talk page: "Someone might take me to WP:ANI but I don't think that'll get them anywhere. I'll take the chance." Seven editors, none of which to my knowledge have any reason to "protect" the subject of the BLP, have expressed concerns that expanding the coverage of the plagiarism scandal could be undue. Consensus can change (and those seven other editors are by no means a monolith), and we have multiple processes in place to allow that discussion to continue productively. However, Msnicki's proposal to do whatever it takes (as long as they think it will not be onerous enough to draw sanction) to work around the other editors is precisely what the links I posted above are about. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Been offline a couple days. Here's the scoop: Msnicki has been trying to put undue weight on this issue since it broke, first with having a full section header within the article and now by trying to create a POV fork. A basically decent man and combat veteran has had his career destroyed because he did some copy and paste on a term paper. This was a bad thing, yes, and I happen to be an adjunct instructor (in addition to my day job) at a college myself (and have been a high school teacher before that) so I am familiar with the problem of plagiarism, but a little perspective is in order: He didn't murder someone, he didn't commit a crime, he didn't cheat on his wife, etc. He was getting a degree during a difficult time in his life and he made a mistake that has now basically cost him his entire career and reputation. The incident is mentioned, it's mentioned in context, and at this point I think it's really time to drop the stick and quit trying to bounce the rubble. I've also been quite appalled as Msnicki's personalized attacks (notably at me) and accusations that refuse to assume good faith. Let's close this matter and move on now. Montanabw 21:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Curiously enough, plagiarism is a major problem in academia, and where a Master's thesis (which is not just a "term paper" as far as academics are concerned) is extensively a product of plagiarism, it is a major issue. I would also point out that plagiarism by a Misplaced Pages editor can result in that editor being banned from Misplaced Pages - and we do not produce Master's theses. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree in part. If the paper is 14 pages, it's unlikely to be a full masters thesis, however - those tend to run an order of magnitude longer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't identified you earlier, but now that you're here: Montanabw is the unnamed editor mentioned earlier who removed all the quotes from my citations and threatened to take me to a "drama board" for pursuing a breakout page, prompting my decision to seek advice here. Msnicki (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And I was dead on correct in doing so. You just. don't. get. it. But carry on now... Montanabw 05:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose a breakout article. We have here an appointed U.S. Senator who will serve less than one year due to this scandal. The plagiarism is mentioned in the lead, and in the body of the article. Reading the article, there is no doubt that his misconduct ended his career. That is due weight. He will always be a minor figure in U.S. Senate history, because of his misconduct. Writing a lengthy article about the misconduct gives undue weight to this unfortunate aspect of his life. If we are to expand biographical coverage of this person, it should be an expanded biography of his whole life, not just this misconduct. Spinout articles do not eliminate BLP concerns, and they do not eliminate concerns about this encyclopedia placing undue weight on negative aspects of a person's career. His story as a political figure seems to be over. This internal debate should end as well. Drop the stick. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion having died down, I would like to summarize my own takeaways and ask if anyone cares to make additional remarks. There doesn't seem to be much (any?) enthusiasm for a complaint that a breakout page would be a WP:POVSPLIT. I'm convinced the subject meets WP:GNG and that the outcome at AfD would be keep (meaning I'm comfortable with debating that question if it gets there.) I didn't hear anyone arguing that creating a breakout page might violate any of our guidelines in such a way as to subject me to any sort of sanctions on the "drama boards" as one editor phrased it.

I regard the BLP question as still open but I think there are better forums that one. I understand the argument, as I believe it's stated (but correct me, please) that it's all BLP, meaning that if you can't have that much detail in the bio itself, you can't do it in a breakout, either. I think that view is wrong, based on WP:GNG, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:Recentism#Article imbalance. What I plan to do is flesh out my article idea in my user space (oof! once this quarter ends!) as I described to another editor here, then seek additional feedback at WP:BLPN and elsewhere when I'm a little further along on the idea. Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. Msnicki (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, one reason to make a "break out" article would be WP:SIZERULE, WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. If the article in question is too long (over 100K), a sub-article specifically about the plagiarism scandal maybe one possibility. If the plagiarism scandal itself meets WP:GNG or WP:EVENT, it doesn't matter what others think, be bold and create it; see if survives an AfD attempt, worse that can happen is that the article is made into a redirect into the biography article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Riothero

There is a potential serious non-neutral point of view with a User:Riothero. There is nothing wrong with anyone having opposing views, in fact I welcome them. But, I stumbled upon the page Riothero.com which led me to view the site by the same name, www.riothero.com, which is a news blog. This site has a very strong pro-Chavez, leftist bias. I have no problem with an editor being leftist or pro-Chavez, but when they are a possibly paid web journalist, I think there is an issue. User:Riothero has the same slant as the site and is involved in the same topics. If someone, as a profession, is writing about these topics, I believe there is potential for an issue with neutrality. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the correct page to discuss editor conduct, but to discuss specific articles. There is nothing wrong with editors having opinions, only if it affects their editing. And the editor's blog (if it actually is) does not appear to be paid for by the Venezuelan government. If the editor makes any money from it (which is unlikely), it does not create a conflict.

I suggest closing this thread, leaving DaltonCastle free to re-post it to an appropriate board.

TFD (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Riothero's opinion dramatically affects his editing. Where would the correct page be to discuss this?--ZiaLater (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that the correct place to raise the issue would be our Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard... (but make sure you read WP:COI first) Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The last time I took a case like this to COIN (admittedly it involved a nationalist from a different continent), I was told we must prove a connection between the wikipedia account and the real-world ranter's identity. Not only is that against policy, it also does nothing to help with the on-wiki problem: NPOV violations across several pages. That problem is something we should fix, and this noticeboard would be a great place to fix it. bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Um...lets see... we have a User named "Riothero", pushing a website named www.riothero.com... seems like a COI connection to me. Or am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that's a concern. However, the name alone is harmless; the actual damage to wikipedia is the whitewashing of a dozen articles on Venezuelan politics. bobrayner (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bob with the whitewashing. The majority of his edits involve deleting work.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all the points listed above. Should I also bring this issue up at the COI? However, I am concerd, as Bobrayner has stated, that the COI will demand proof that the writer at riothero.com is the same as User:Riothero and that this person receives payment. Although that would be concrete evidence, it would be difficult for me to find without any CheckUser rights. Suggestions on where to go? DaltonCastle (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It says at the top of this page, "This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy." It then says to post the article name and edit differences. So this is the wrong board. Blueboar, my understanding is that it is not an issue about an editor pushing a website. The issue is whether an editor who has a blog about Venezuela has ipso facto a conflict of interest when editing articles about Venezuela. I see no conflict whatsoever. Whether or not that editor is editing in a biased way is a separate issue. But the editor posting this thread has presented no evidence of that. TFD (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I did find this on Misplaced Pages:COI: - "Reliably-sourced, notable material written in a neutral point of view should not be deleted from articles with the intent of protecting the political interests of a party, agency, or government." Riothero's hundreds of edits seem to be COI according to the article. In a BBC article, WP also defines COI editing as "contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."BBC COI is not a strictly enforced policy, but the disruptive editing has to be mentioned somewhere.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Again you need to show that the editor his promoting his interests rather than his opinions, otherwise no conflict of interest exists. A conflict exists btw regardless of whether the editor is promoting his interests. It exists because of the (usually) financial relationship between an editor and his employer. Do you have any evidence that the editor is employed by any of the people, governments or organizations that are subjects of these articles? You obviously have an opinion on Venezuela. Do you think you have a COI? TFD (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I do since I am not paid by anyone and do this voluntarily with a new interest in economics and such, adding information from the news to suitable articles. Riothero hardly adds information to WP and the majority of his edits involve deleting contributions. However, I do understand the difficulty of pinpointing a certain violation. Riothero's edits are more of a nuisance to be dealt with than anything else. Thanks for the clarification TFD!--ZiaLater (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of project / portal names.

There is a general discussion at WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force about the naming of WikiProjects / Portals. In particular the fact that there is a pornography portal but no anti-pornography portal. (If the pornography portal is meant to be neutral should it be renamed the pornography debates portal?) Comments welcome here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll put forward the intended helpful question of is the intent to change WP:Naming or is it to elicit a single-article title/content guidance ? Markbassett (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Could anyone please check the "Contexte" section of the article "Opération Colère de Dieu"

I have been trying to modify the section "Contexte" in the article because it doesn't sound neutral to me, and my modifications are being cancelled by user . In the end I only limited the modification to one word "membres" instead of "terroristes" while including an explanation for the reason I changed it (having a more neutral article), and still the modification was cancelled. I tried discussing it with the user who refused to discuss or allow me to reply. Please find the discussion under this link: by searching for the below title . I believe that using more moderate words is one of Misplaced Pages's fundamentals as mentioned under the below link . Thank you for checking. Maya KHOURY 15:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayakhoury1 (talk • contribs)

References

1. Opération Colère de Dieu
2. https://fr.wikipedia.org/Utilisateur:Enrevseluj
3. https://fr.wikipedia.org/Utilisateur:Enrevseluj
4. https://fr.wikipedia.org/Discussion_utilisateur:Enrevseluj
5. Changement de la modification d'un mot dans l'article "Operation Colere de Dieu"
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol

The article you refer to is in the French-language Misplaced Pages, and thus is outside the scope of this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Maya KHOURY 08:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC) : Could you please recommend who I can refer to in order to answer my complaint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayakhoury1 (talk • contribs)

You'll need to find this equivalent noticeboard in the French Misplaced Pages. If all else fails, go to your user talk page on fr.wikipedia.org and add the {{Aidez moi}} template there, explaining what you need. They can point you in the right direction. (That's their equivalent of our {{Help me}} template.) —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RT (TV Network)...neutral feedback desperately needed!

A full-scale edit war has been taking place on the RT network page for about a month, though there is a history of (suppressed) conflict over the neutrality of the lede that goes back quite a ways further. The issue at present is whether the lede is the proper place for charges of "propaganda" against this network to be lodged, and most particularly whether the claims that it has been "accused of disinformation" are substantiated and reliable, and likewise belong in the lede. Here is the paragraph in the lede that is the source of the dispute:

"RT has been accused of providing disinformation and commentary favorable to Russian foreign policy. News reporters, former Russian officials, and former RT reporters have called RT a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. The network itself states that RT offers a Russian perspective on global events."

Recognizing that four of the five sources purporting to support the "disinformation" do no such thing, and the the fifth only reports that a single US State Department employee blogged something to this effect last April, I attempted several times to delete this part of the sentence, giving my full reasoning on the talk page. In each case, my edit was undone by one of the editors named below without any effort by any of them to show HOW these references relate to "disinformation" accusations. They certainly all relate to the perceived bias of the network by the authors involved, but "disinformation," which word is linked to its Misplaced Pages definition, involves the willful dissemination of information known to be false, and four of these "references" do not make allegations of this. The quantity of references does not supply the want of quality here.

Ymblanter, an editor with admin privileges (though not for this page in particular), once accused me of edit warring, and when I reminded him that my editorial attempts never crossed the WP threshold of 3 per day, posted an "incident" on the admin page, suggesting that I was "wikilawyering." In order to avoid further such abusive treatment, I took a different tack and inserted the following sentence before the last one in the paragraph, in order to create at least the appearance of some even-handedness:

" Others disagree; media analyst and author Edward S. Hermann argues that "to be at all credible to English-speaking audiences, RT has to lean over backwards to avoid straight out pro-Russian propaganda, but it welcomes Western experts like Stephen Cohen and Ray McGovern who barely make it to The New York Times or US television."[25}" https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RT_%28TV_network%29&oldid=630451692

This was soon reverted by Volunteer Marek, the most aggressive of the disruptive editors, and not for the last time. I responded to his claim that the source was "non-notable" by linking it to the Misplaced Pages page of the author, Edward S Herman. Then, out of the blue, an editor not previously involved in this fracas, My very best wishes, reverts my constructive edit, claiming that the source of the interview with E. Herman is "fringe." https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RT_%28TV_network%29&diff=631062896&oldid=631033208 These editors seem almost to be tag-teaming in this effort to preserve a very negative, one-sided tone in this lede, and with similarly lame reasoning given (if any). Then Iryna Harpy reverts the NPOV tag dutifully placed on the article page by another editor.https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RT_(TV_network)&oldid=630743454 And on and on...

The following editors were previously named in the mediation request because of their support for this tendentious editing:

37.214.122.178 Volunteer Marek Sidelight12 Galassi Capitalismojo Ymblanter NE Ent

Not one of them would agree to participate in the mediation, save Ymblanter, who agreed only to be involved on the question of maintaining the allegation of "propaganda" in the lede (which he supports). Because these editors would not agree to the mediation, the request was rejected by the MC. It should be noted that two other editors, Spotter 1 and The Four Deuces, who are not among the disruptors, did agree to participate in the mediation.

I am personally feeling overwhelmed by the lack of any authoritative effort to negotiate neutrality in this lede. In my view, this entire page needs a makeover to include all the relevant criticism of RT in a "Controversy" section (this suggestion by another editor, but I have offered to implement it if consensus can be garnered), but response to this approach has been, predictably, negative from the above sources, who prefer to use the lede to advertise their shared disdain of RT.

The tendentiousness resulting from this editorial gangsterism is overwhelming all efforts to restore neutrality to this lede. Input from neutral observers is urgently requested! Kenfree (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read between the lines, then what the above wall of text basically says is that this single purpose account, along with another one, Spotter1 (or whatever his current username is), has been edit warring against close to a dozen of different editors. Bottom line, there is no consensus for either the changes proposed by this user, no consensus to include the tag, *and* consensus that the present lede is fine.

Or let me put it another way. Kenfree complaints that The following editors were previously named in the mediation request because of their support for this tendentious editing:" and then goes on to list seven different editors, all but one long term, established and experienced editors. He failed to include a few more that have been "tendentiously editing" to support consensus. Volunteer Marek  22:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the quality of Marek's argument here, which reduces (as usual) to ad hominems, and does not address a single one of the issues raised, helps neutral observers appreciate what I've been dealing with on a regular basis. Though it's no doubt true that there are other editors who could be cited (in the past) for supporting this tendentious approach, there are also others (from the past) who could be cited who objected to it. My list includes those only that I encountered in my direct experience, in the timeframe stated. Kenfree (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out that almost ten different editors disagree with you and your crusade, is not "ad hominem". It's just pointing out a relevant fact. Neither is criticism of your action an adhominem. Volunteer Marek  00:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(Mis)characterizing me as a "single purpose account" is simply an attempt to shoot the messenger, to discredit me without addressing a single issue I've raised (except to declare that everything is just as you like it, which we already know), just as your insistence on entering your personal POV into the lede, about "disinformation" and the like, serves to discredit RT. Your latest post here uses the loaded term "crusade" -- rhetorical suasion again -- but not a word about the issues: can you, for instance, explain how the provided references support in any way the claim that RT has been accused of "disinformation?" And can you, for a change, answer the question without resort to further name-calling??? Kenfree (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, once something has been explained a dozen times, by almost a dozen different editors, and you and your buddy Spotter1 still refuse to get, it becomes a stupid waste of time repeating it once again. It's classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT combined with a good bit of edit warring and some forum shopping (hence, we're here now).

But ok. One. Last. Time.

You state above: "Recognizing that four of the five sources purporting to support the "disinformation" do no such thing"

This is nonsense.

The first source states: "Russia Today has been described by Konstantin Preobrazhensky (...) as “a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation” designed to mislead foreign audiences about Russian intentions. ". I guess the word "disinformation" is not exactly the same as "misinformation" which is how you apparently justify your above assertion. That's bad faith. Worse, it's being dishonest.

The second source... is titled "Disinformation: ‘Pravda’ May Be Gone, but Now There’s ‘Russia Today’". Well, it's true the word "disinformation" does not appear otherwise in the text. So, according to you this source does not support the notion of "disinformation".

The third source I guess is the one that you claim is only "reports that a single State Department employee blogged" this "disinformation" business. As it happens this "single State Department employee" is the former managing editor of Time Magazine. We're not talking about some janitor who empties the trashcans as you're trying to imply.

The fourth source says "But as the Ukraine crisis continues to unfold, (Putin's) particular brand of disinformation is coming into clear focus.". And then "Outlets like RT are “devoted to this effort to propagandize and to distort” the truth, (Kerry) said". And then "At his Friday press conference with German chancellor Angela Merkel, President Obama groused about Putin’s disinformation. ". And according to you this doesn't support the notion that it's "disinformation".

The fifth source is titled "How Russia Is Revolutionizing Information Warfare". It says " The new Russia doesn’t just deal in the petty disinformation, forgeries, lies, leaks, and cyber-sabotage usually associated with information warfare." RT TV is mentioned as part of this strategy. So this one maybe actually doesn't say it directly, but hey, it's the fifth source given, and it's also impossible to say that the source is being misrepresented.

Enough. Volunteer Marek  01:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Enough of your "he/she said experts" WP:ASSERT/WP:YESPOV. From "ABC, CNN, Aljazeera..." to "BBC" and "CCTV" are all candidates for a propaganda lede. When I confronted you and Ymblanter with just one page that collects many examples of disinformation, fabrications etc. primarily from "western" media organizations your reaction was deafening silence. Ymblanter cynically replied to me that I should "try" to put a propaganda part into the lede of a mentioned news organization. Just for maintaining the "opinipedia" structural coherence such claims should be put under the section "criticism". I know there was a consensus for that and this sums up the article (sadly it sums up the biased opinions and claims in the article) but it is still not a NPOV. I very much doubt this will satisfy your "inquisition" like approach (almost like a catholic priest who says there is no reliable bishop who is quotable on that - so argument must be false)(where are the facts?) to an opposing view no matter how well supported by evidence.Spotter 1 (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please go to the RS noticeboard, get consensus there that CNN is a propaganda outlet, and then come back.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My reasoning is multi dimensional. 1. An encyclopedia should not be a log for opinions regardless if deemed (by RSN) reliable or not. 2. To put in an assessment into the lede as if it was a fact and could be an appropriate summary of RT's operations is disingenuous at best. 3. If you have reliable claims put them into the right category like every other analogue article (f.e. CCTV). 4. There is a implicit accusations/answer script throughout the entire article. 5. Most important of all: At least from my perspective all information disseminating entities are TOOLS (I will not try to push a propaganda intro into every journo outlets' article; they are by definition). Therefore there is nothing further from the truth than telling me I'd like the RF's media. There are many points about the reporting that could be criticized - on a statement per statement basis. Again if something is true it has to be recognizable as such through evidence. Truth, as in accordance with fact or reality, should be the objective.Spotter 1 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to Marek's defenses (above) of the five current citations behind the claim of "disinformation: Marek, the word "disinformation" in this objectionable sentence in the lede, as you MUST know, is linked to the Misplaced Pages definition of "disinformation." Before I respond to your defenses, I think it important to review this with you, as you seem to have forgotten it. Here is the Misplaced Pages definition: "Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth." Please try to remember this throughout my responses. Presumably we can both agree on this definition for authority, since it is linked in the statement in the lede.

"The first source states: "Russia Today has been described by Konstantin Preobrazhensky (...) as “a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation” designed to mislead foreign audiences about Russian intentions. ". I guess the word "disinformation" is not exactly the same as "misinformation" which is how you apparently justify your above assertion. That's bad faith. Worse, it's being dishonest."

"Misinformation" and "disinformation" are not at all the same thing, but don't take my word for it. On that Misplaced Pages definition (of "disinformation") page, one of the very first statements is: "Not to be confused with Misinformation." Did you happen to notice that? Well, which of us is really showing "bad faith" then???

"The second source... is titled "Disinformation: ‘Pravda’ May Be Gone, but Now There’s ‘Russia Today’". Well, it's true the word "disinformation" does not appear otherwise in the text. So, according to you this source does not support the notion of "disinformation"."

That is correct, because no where in the article does its author make the slightest accusation that RT is practicing disinformation, or intentionally spreading information known to RT to be false as if it were true, so what difference does the title make? "Disinformation" is a rather "sexy" term, and people throw it around all the time (like you and certain other editors are wont to do) without understanding its actual meaning, but if these authors meant to accuse RT of disinfo, well, they had their whole article to do it and they failed completely. There is not one instance of "disinformation" even referred to.

"The third source I guess is the one that you claim is only "reports that a single State Department employee blogged" this "disinformation" business. As it happens this "single State Department employee" is the former managing editor of Time Magazine. We're not talking about some janitor who empties the trashcans as you're trying to imply."

LOL, nope, I implied nothing of the sort. I stated that a single employee blogged, and whether he was the former managing editor of Time or just the janitor, it is still only one employee, and that was my whole statement.

"The fourth source says "But as the Ukraine crisis continues to unfold, (Putin's) particular brand of disinformation is coming into clear focus.". And then "Outlets like RT are “devoted to this effort to propagandize and to distort” the truth, (Kerry) said". And then "At his Friday press conference with German chancellor Angela Merkel, President Obama groused about Putin’s disinformation. ". And according to you this doesn't support the notion that it's "disinformation"."

How could it? Is Vladimir Putin RT? No doubt you think so, but let's try this another way: say that a Russian official had accused Obama of disinformation, would you argue that therefore this represents an accusation that Voice of America is guilty of disinformation? This kind of puerile argumentation is really appalling...I'm amazed that you think any intelligent reader would buy it. The other quote you adduce does not specifically allege "disinformation" as defined by Misplaced Pages.

"The fifth source is titled "How Russia Is Revolutionizing Information Warfare". It says " The new Russia doesn’t just deal in the petty disinformation, forgeries, lies, leaks, and cyber-sabotage usually associated with information warfare." RT TV is mentioned as part of this strategy. So this one maybe actually doesn't say it directly, but hey, it's the fifth source given, and it's also impossible to say that the source is being misrepresented."

It not only doesn't say it directly, but like the other three sources above, it doesn't mention it AT ALL. So how can it be used as a citation allegation that RT has been "accused of disinformation?"

So, in sum, all of the citations together distill down to a single US State Department employee blogging, last April, that RT engages in "disinformation" (without providing any specific facts to back up the allegation, we should note). And for this reason the lede of this Misplaced Pages must make room for this spurious claim that RT is "accused of disinformation" (a very serious libel if untrue, by the way)? Kenfree (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfree (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Disinformation

Like I already said. When something has been pointed out a dozen times, and one, maybe two, editors insist on just NOT GETTING IT, it becomes a very stupid way to spend one's time repeating the same explanation over and over again. Quit wasting people's time. Volunteer Marek  22:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

NOT GETTING IT is misused by you in the way that you are deflecting any challenge with it. You get challenged and after you fail to make a convincing argument you pack out NOT GETTING IT. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT/WP:OWNER seems to be your approach and you just cannot see WP:CCC/WP:TALKEDABOUTIT.Spotter 1 (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that people should not be removing POV tags when there are disputes under active discussion, as user:Volunteer Marek has done. This is clearly a hotly disputed issue by multiple users, and as such, removing the POV tag only serves to further fuel the warring and create additional tensions. We should be concerned with resolving the issue, not pretending it's resolved by superficial means. Please see Template:POV#When_to_remove. LokiiT (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, LokiiT, I see you're back again. Anyway, no, if there is no reason for a POV tag except some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT then the tag doesn't get to stay, it gets removed. it's possible, as you are probably well aware, to generate "artificial controversy" about anything under the sun. And there's always one or two people who have some wacky ideas and who will be upset that Misplaced Pages articles don't provide "enough space" to their wacky ideas. Too bad. The criteria for whether a POV tag belongs or not is whether the article follows reliable sources. And as has been pointed out by about a dozen different editors, it does. Volunteer Marek  22:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek is conveniently ignoring WP:ASSERT,WP:CONTROVERSY,WP:OWNER and WP:NPOV!. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is ridiculous in light of the points made. There are at least the following issues with the article all of which can be found on the talk page (and article page): 1. An encyclopedia should not be a log for opinions regardless if deemed (by RSN) reliable or not. 2. To put in an assessment into the lede as if it was a fact and could be an appropriate summary of RT's operations is disingenuous at best. 3. If you have reliable claims put them into the right category like every other analogue article (f.e. CCTV). 4. There is a implicit accusations/answer script throughout the entire article. 5. Most important of all: At least from my perspective all information disseminating entities are TOOLS (I will not try to push a propaganda intro into every journo outlets' article; they are by definition). Therefore there is nothing further from the truth than telling me I'd like the RF's media. There are many points about the reporting that could be criticized - on a statement per statement basis. Again if something is true it has to be recognizable as such through evidence. Truth, as in accordance with fact or reality, should be the objective.Spotter 1 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that an RfC at talk is the proper way to resolve this. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that only the RSN needs to be consulted in order to ascertain that, this year alone, RT has been a sinkhole for literally months of editor time and energy. I don't see the value in indulging two new editors who are engaging in tendentious editing practices. Whether Spotter 1 and Kenfree realise it or not (I'm going for the former as being most likely as they've been instructed at length about policy and guidelines, but choose not to WP:LISTEN), they have harassed and tried to wear down a number of editors on personal talk pages, the RT article talk page, and have generally acted as a WP:TAGTEAM in order to keep the POV issue falsely afloat with WP:WALLSOFTEXT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The above statement by Ms. Harpy (on whose exceptionally well chosen moniker I must sincerely compliment her) is a textbook example of rhetorical abuse. Fluency in WP lingo, in Ms. Harpy's hands, becomes a weaponized argot with which to assault editors who breach her idea of political correctness. She hurls her WP-esque code words asglittering generalities, precluding any need to provide particulars that might substantiate her wild accusations (and note the similarity here to the actual issue at stake on the RT Network page, as detailed above). Far be it for Ms. Harpy to lower herself to provide any references or documentations to support her daisy-chain of ad hominems...no, she's got the jargon down pat, so listen up: she's the maestro...the master of WP discourse. Providing particulars, responding to actual CONTENT issues identified...that's real work...fitting only for the hoi polloi. Kenfree (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Before you continue with your critique of my techniques, I will refer you to my response to Spotter 1's same accusation on my talk page (where the both of you have spent an inordinate amount of time) -
Would you consider Der Spiegel an RS? How about this, this, Reporters Without Borders per this. Perhaps you consider The Independent to be corrupt, Western ideologues in their criticism here. Perhaps PRWatch is more to your taste here. Alternatively, here's a long and insightful look into RT by Oliver Bullough for the New Statesman. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not surprise me in the slightest that you arrogate to yourself the right to determine someone else's appropriate amount of time to spend on the talk page in editorial discussion. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of Misplaced Pages's egalitarian philosophy would find your latest put down repugnant. The sources you cite may be reputable sources, as you claim, but what have they to do with the current discussion? Does any of them say anything in particular accusing RT of practicing "disinformation" (as defined by Misplaced Pages)? Then they are just so many red herrings. How about showing us, if you can, how the currently appended refs support the claim (in the lede no less) that RT is (credibly) accused of disinformation. Maybe you'll succeed where Marek has failed so miserably (see above). Kenfree (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a train wreck. Spotter clearly doesn't understand or agree with the fact that Misplaced Pages articles can have opinions - if they are presented according to our guidelines and policies and are reliable sources. Spotter also says "Truth, as in accordance with fact or reality, should be the objective." That's an obvious oversimplication and not an objective of Misplaced Pages anyway. One person's 'truth' can be another person's lie in contexts like this. User:Kenfree, you complaina about ad hominem and happily make personal attacks against other editors. Your comment on libel comes close to being a violation of WP:NLT, perhaps you need to clear that up. I can't see this board being able to solve/stop the problems on the article. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, this looks more like a case of editor behaviour that should be discussed at WP:ANI. Alexbrn 10:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Spotter1 is clearly a sock. Editors in good standing do not forget their passwords after two days of editing, and they do not start their Misplaced Pages career with walls of text in highly controversial areas. Kenfree was not editing for two years before jumping on RT, though I give them a benefit of doubt and consider them as a pretty new editor in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I took Kenfree to ANI recently, no result. Not really surprising, yesterday I had a lot of difficulties at ANI to get an (unrelated) quacking sock blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There you go again. That's an obvious oversimplication this says it all, lol. Not even a minimal standard is achievable. Go on defend your opinipedia that is degenerating into a political tool!.Spotter 1 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I see one glaring issue with the quoted lead WP:BOMBARD, please see WP:CITEBUNDLE to improve appearance of the lead. That being said, please see WP:LEAD, the first sentence is to define the scope of the article. The entire lead section is suppose to summarize the content of the article. As the lead section is suppose to summarize the rest of the article, one rule of thumb that I have heard thrown about is after the first sentence (or paragraph if necessary) defines the subject, there should be about one sentence per section of the body of the article. This helps provide a summary of the article to a reader who doesn't want to delve into the body. Therefore, if there, in regards to the question of content (not editor actions), is a section about RT being called a propaganda outlet, than it should be included somewhere in the lead section. It should be neutrally worded and well sourced. From a casual glance it appears to be well sourced in the lead, and if there is not a section about the statement, there appears to be sufficient reliable sources to create one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your point about the evident "bombardment" and failure to bundle citations in this dreadful sentence is certainly constructive, however, you seem to have entirely missed the point about the difference between accusations of "being a propaganda outlet" (though this is a loaded term), for which there are several sources, and being accused of practicing "disinformation," for which there is only one source (out of the five appended) that even mentions such an accusation, and this by a US State Department employee who, after all, is paid to make such accusations (and who provides no proof) . And no, there is NOT a section on RT "disinformation," so please respond to the question raised in the first place, as to whether such a poorly sourced opinion therefore belongs in the lede (or anywhere else, without some neutral balancing, which was attempted by me and reverted as usual by the disruptive editors in question). Kenfree (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"being accused of practicing "disinformation," for which there is only one source (out of the five appended)". Will. You. Please. Stop. Lying. I already pointed out in DETAIL how at least four of the five sources say directly that it practices "disinformation" ("misinformation" if you want to be pedantic), and the last one says it indirectly, right above. As in, earlier in this thread. And then in another half a dozen instances previously. This is a really really obnoxious way to waste other people's time. I do not appreciate it. Misplaced Pages does not appreciate it. It's dishonest. Stop. Quit it. Desist. Just repeating something over and over again does NOT make it true when there's obvious evidence laying right there on the table that it's false. Volunteer Marek  04:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You either failed to read my detailed responses (above) debunking each of your bogus claims, or you are choosing to ignore them. In either case, your response is (characteristically) unconstructive. Neutral observers will hopefully take the time to see for themselves whether these sources have any relevance to the "accused of disinformation" allegation. Kenfree (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

For RightCowLeftCoast's edification, this POV pushing from Kenfree and Spotter 1 is why the article has escalated to suffering from WP:BOMBARD and the inability by other editors to move ahead and clean up the article in order for it to adhere to the fundamentals of a good article. If there weren't such a sinkhole of editor energy and time, there'd be energy and time to clear it up. They (and others recently attracted by current affairs) have created a catch 22 situation where it's virtually impossible to stay on top of vandalism and POV pushing on a multitude of articles surrounding the events in Ukraine alone. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ms.Harpy, ever true to her well-chosen moniker, delights in innuendo. The question here is about the content of the lede of this article, and whether it satisfies Misplaced Pages's NPOV requirement, and all she can do is issue more and more personal attacks on the editors who wish the question examined. For shame! Not one word from her on the subject at hand: exactly how do the currently appended citations verify the allegation that RT is accused of "disinformation?" Nor will we hear anything of relevance from her on this, because these citations are off the mark, as previously demonstrated. Kenfree (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it "POV pushing" to want to remove accusations of disinformation and propaganda from the lead? It isn't neutral to add stuff like this in the lead just as it wouldn't be neutral to say something like "RT is a highly acclaimed and immensely popular source of information on Ukraine's politics." The users just want to remove opinionated stuff from the lead. Read "Media bias in the United States" and "CNN#Controversy", etc. Why doesn't the lead section of the CNN article say something like "This is common practice for CNN to report selectively, repetitively, and falsely in order to sway public opinion in favor of direct American aggression in the Middle East. CNN's journalistic ethics are systematically degraded." Similarly to other articles that don't say stuff like this in the lead and have special "Controversy" sections for this instead, the RT article must too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is sufficient reliable sources that mention the point of view that the subject of this discussion, RT, is viewed as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. For instance there are these sources (out of many out there) here:

• Arutunyan, Anna (1 September 2009). The Media In Russia. McGraw-Hill International. p. 137. ISBN 978-0-335-22889-8.
• Philip Seib (2008). The Al Jazeera Effect: How the New Global Media Are Reshaping World Politics. Potomac Books, Inc. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-61234-002-9.
• John Maxwell Hamilton; Regina G. Lawrence (13 September 2013). Foreign Correspondence. Taylor & Francis. p. 131. ISBN 978-1-135-73883-9.
• Nancy Snow; Philip M. Taylor (1 November 2008). The Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. Routledge. pp. 309–310. ISBN 978-1-135-92689-2.
• Mickey Huff; Andy Lee Roth; Project Censored (21 October 2014). Censored 2015: Inspiring We the People; The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2013- 2014. Seven Stories Press. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-60980-566-1.

As I stated prior, if there is not content in the body of the article, the sentence in question in this discussion should not be there until a section of criticism about this is created per WP:LEAD; however, a neutrally worded criticism section that is well referenced (which as shown above is entirely possible) can easily be created, using references already in the article and the references I have provided, and the sentence in the lead in question retained.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Western media is not a reliable source during this practically new Cold War. Read the Russian press, it's much better and much more neutral.
the sentence in the lead in question retained — I don't get it. You are talking about neutrality and you want to keep the sentence saying "RT has been accused of providing disinformation" which is the apotheosis of how you should not write a neutral article. This sentence is so clearly an attack on the subject of the article. It's just so obvious that someone who wrote this hates RT and wants readers to hate it. Something like this is simply inacceptable in the lead. (By the way... I looked at the introduction of the article about "Mein Kampf", and it just states bare facts... Strange...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

well, the Western media are essentially the only reliable sources which we have. Russian TV which shows a border crossing between Belarus and Poland with a giant queue and commenting that these are Ukrainian refugees waiting to enter Russia is not. I do not see how it is negotiable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea about the particular incident (link?),
but it was probably just like when a British newspaper called The Times used a photo of an armed soldier in Kashmir to illustrate an article about the Ukrainian elections and the description said, "More than five million people could not vote as they were in territories held by pro-Russian separatists" . And I can't see how it is not negotiable. You just stated your personal (and emotional) opinion. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"The Western media is not a reliable source during this practically new Cold War" - feel free to float that proposal at WP:RSN. Also, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "neutral" means. "Neutral" does NOT mean "no critical statements are allowed". "Neutral" means it accurately reflects reliable sources. Which does here. Western or not. Volunteer Marek  23:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've read through the sources so I could contribute to resolving this dispute, and I agree with VolunteerMarek. The sources say what he says they say. They do not say what the OP says they say. I have no prior involvement with the RT page, or with any of the editors in this dispute. So I hope I am sufficiently "neutral" to satisfy the objectors. Djcheburashka (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL, you're about as "neutral" as a fox in a henhouse. Stating that A is right and B is wrong is not constructive. If the citations in question really do demonstrate that RT is accused of "disinformation" then you could, as Volunteer Marek has abjectly failed to do, show us WHERE in these citations this relevant information is to be found. But saying that it's there without any quotes from these sources only demonstrates your obvious partisanship. Kenfree (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources that say RT gives false information. Perhaps there is objection to the word 'disinformation', since by precise definition, it can imply it is done deliberately, yet the sources do say misinformation, and other ways of saying pushes false information. It is harder to prove why something is done, while the sources appear to believe this.

As for the Department of State and John Kerry, we say, people have accused or people say This rather than, so and so is This (for neutrality, avoid Misplaced Pages's voice). This is documented by CSPAN, Business Insider, (two reliable third-party sources) along with the primary sources of Department of State and the blog. The reason for using the source of Business Insider was, because it was the latest that included the whole ordeal (from spoken word to the blog). There are a few other completely different sources that say it propagates false information. I propose dropping the word disinformation and replacing it with false information. Also, to leave RT shows commentary favorable to Russia and foreign policy in the lead, with the mention of propaganda. My concern was removing the statement of the mention of it propagates or publishes false information from a section lead or lead. - Sidelight12 00:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The term "disinformation" does not just "imply" that false information is knowingly propagated as true, this what the term MEANS. Therefore, unless someone wishes to propose (and demonstrate) that this is what RT is doing, then the term is not only inaccurate but libelous. Mutatis mutandis, the same can be said for the term "spreads false information," where the implication that this is being done deliberately is unmistakable. Demonstrating intent is all-important when using terms like these to characterize actions. It is not a side issue. Kenfree (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This dispute has been going on for 11 days. Does anyone but the OP disagree that there is a consensus now? Djcheburashka (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC

I disagree. Cause any allegations and accusations by political opponents shouldn't be in the lead and should be moved into a special section. Misplaced Pages is intended as a politically neutral website and what we see here is an attempt to use it for propaganda. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Djcheburashka|Djcheburashka demonstrates total ignorance of the term "consensus" by asking such a foolish question. How can there be consensus when there is open debate by several parties on both sides? Even if there was only one party disagreeing, there would still not be "consensus," only majority agreement. Please STOP ABUSING THIS TERM! Thanks! Kenfree (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of reliable sources agree that RT is a propaganda tool, it should be in the lede. You are free to think that all western sources are biased, and Russian TV is neutral, but this has to go through the reliable source noticeboard first.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources do not say that RT is a propaganda tool. You have not demonstrated that. What can be demonstrated is that CERTAIN WESTERN sources characterize it thusly, but other sources, even Western sources, disagree. Of course, when I tried to list one of the latter in this controversial section in order to provide some balance, you and/or another editor who disagree with you deleted it. So for you, the only "reliable" sources are those who, like you, dismiss RT as a propaganda tool, whereas those who disagree are, ipso facto, unreliable. But that, Ymblanter, is not NPOV. That is your prejudice showing. Someone with administrative privileges should show more care to protect neutrality, and be less concerned with having a personal POV insinuated in the lede of this page. Kenfree (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It is really unfortunately that you continue disruption even after it became clear that the majority disagree with you. Please drop the stick. We are wasting too much time for you, and you are risking getting blocked sooner that you could expect.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Could somebody please have a look at above mentioned article? I myself have given up on it and the semi-protection does not seem to do its job anymore. A certain group of editors seem to be on the beat way to white-wash the article and delete sources and reference with, at best, dubious reasons. Cheers. Yet again it is more like an advertisement – again.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Catflap08: Can you be more specific as to what sources are not problematic in your view and how the article is being adversely changed? I, JethroBT 19:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Its simply that for weeks sources and references are being deleted please also notice the edit by user: Ubikwit who seems to try to keep some issues at bay. Just look at the article’s history. I myself am no more willing to edit this article unless it follows the set guidelines.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I am seeing a considerable amount of verified content being deleted and then restored (1, 2), as well as a good bit of discussion on the talk page. Questions about sources should be taken to WP:RSN. I only see one comment on the talk page by the above editor, but many comments by User:Daveler16; this causes me some concern.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

David Lisak and False Accusations of Rape

The pages for False accusation of rape and David Lisak appear to have serious NPOV problems.

In the false-accusation-of-rape literature, there are two conflicting streams of view. One holds that an accusation of rape is "false" if it is incorrect and considers the ultimate fate of each accusation. Studies in this category generally find the false-accusation rate to be around 40%. There is a second stream holding that an accusation is "false" if and only if (a) the accusation is fully investigated, and (b) it can be proven that the accusation was intentionally false and made for malicious reasons. Both streams have weaknesses. The first stream, for example, has difficulty identifying accusers who were dissuaded from pressing accusations by improper police behavior. The second, treats any accusation in which the accuser recants, or in which investigators find there is insufficient evidence to support an accusation, as "true." The first problem is plainly a methodological one. Regarding the second, it seems to me rather absurd to treat a recanted allegation as a "truthful" one.

For comparison, its a clearly ascertainable fact that between 25 and 50% of criminal prosecutions end with the defendant found *not* guilty of the offense charged, either at trial or because the charge is abandoned.

I've attempted to engage this on the talk page, however another editor, Roscelese, refuses to respond other than to say "the literature says x or y." That is false. As I pointed out to her, most of the literature cited in the article actually disagrees with her; she's selected one of the "streams", declared it correct, and claims that all literature in the other stream has been "discredited."

In fact, many of the references on the page grossly mischaracterize their sources. The editor reverts any changes to the page, including corrections to the source misstatements.

In particular she points as evidence to the work of David Lisak as evidencing that "the literature" says one thing or another. Mr. Lisak is a leading partisan of a viewpoint. His own page describes him as a clinical psychologist, and a retired former professor who consults for judicial and prosecutors' organizations.

This is incorrect. Mr. Lisak, who has never (in any verifiable way) practiced as a psychologist was briefly a junior professor at a university. The purported "judicial" and prosecutors' organizations, are actually a lobbying group (not part of the judiciary) and a now-defunct group dedicated to providing expert witnesses for prosecutions. In a rather amusing form of resume padding, each organization is listed on his page multiple times using different descriptors to make it appear there are more organizations. Mr. Lisak's actual career, according to his own page, is as a public speaker, consultant, and professional trainer -- not as a researcher or law enforcement professional or member of the judiciary.

The editor also insists on rejecting any changes to *that* page, and again refuses to discuss any of this on the article talk pages.

I don't think wiki should take a side in the dispute. There are two views, both of which have things to be said for them, and both of which can be fairly presented. I'm requesting that the articles take an NPOV stamp, and that a neutral editor come to mediate.

Djcheburashka (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Djcheburashka, reviewing the changes you have recently attempted to incorporate into the article, shows the changes you are suggesting seem non-NPOV, and against talk page consensus. Suggesting that lack of conviction makes the accusation "false" seems problematic. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a problem whether to classify an accusation as "true" or "false" when it has not been proven either way. That is my point. There are views on both sides, and the wiki should not privilege one view over the others. Notably, right now, the viewpoint expressed says that when an allegation is made and then recanted by the accuser, it should be counted as a "true accusation" (or in some cases excluded) when calculating the percentage that are false. That is indefensible. It's like trying to count what percentage of people are living or dead, but deciding to ignore anyone located underground because they won't respond to survey questions. The wiki should note the controversy, not take a side. Djcheburashka (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be attempting to create a dichotomy where none exists. Rape accusations cannot be neatly classified as "true" accusations or "false" accusations. If a court of law fails to find a person accused of rape guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, this doesn't make the original accusation false. I didn't see anything in the article about recanted accusations being labeled "true", but It would seem once an accusation is recanted, there is no longer an accusation at all. Honestly, I think even having the article False accusation of rape seems problematic and unnecessary, it's not like we have the article False accusation of burglary.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat The dispute over definitions doesn't come from me. Its in the literature. That the page does not explain what definition of "false" it is using is part of the problem. (Actually the article is inconsistent and misstates its own definition.)

Lisak and Rumney are explicit that allegations are labelled as "true" or excluded unless it was proven that the allegation was malicious. The article quotes their numbers, but says it is counting from a universe of "rape complaints made to the police," not the smaller universe used to generate those numbers.

The FBI study defines "unfounded" to exclude any allegation where the police found insufficient evidence to justify a investigation, where the complainant recanted, and so on. These aren't coded as "true," just excluded from the study at all. The FBI is reporting about a classification used by police to explain why they are closing investigations that had already been opened and substantially proceeded. The article presents this in a misleading fashion.

The other non-government studies listed on the page use (basically) the definition "false if not true," and many treat recanted allegations and allegations that were abandoned for lack of evidence as "false." The page misstates those studies' conclusions (or in some cases follows the conclusion with a statement that the study is "discredited," citing to Lisak or Rumney).

Deeper explanation: The source of much of this confusion is Rumney's study. Rumney's project was to examine other studies, identify what criteria they used for "false," and then recode recanted, abandoned, non-crime, and unproven allegations as "true." This is explicit in Rumney's piece. If the original study said "60% was false, half of which were recantations" Rumney would say "that study said 60% false, but following my definition its only 30% false." The wiki page repeats the recoded numbers and mis-attributes them to the original studies without explaining that the definitions were changed.

"True" and "false," these are common words with simple definitions, and there is a dichotomy. The definition used by Lisak, Rumeny, and the article matches the definition of the English word "lie," not the word "false." A statement of fact can be false without being a lie. Indeed, the bulk of the literature on the rape-accusation subject uses this plain meaning, with the exception of Lisak, Rumney, the article, and a very small number of others.

Are there allegations where we don't know if they were "true" or "false?" Absolutely -- and the literature notes this. The article misrepresents it, misstating the results of a slew of studies, and redefining "false" in a non-English way following a very small minority of the literature.

Djcheburashka (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Just one more thing: about "false accusations of burglary" --- I suppose we don't have a page because no-one cares. If we did, the issue here would be a lot starker. Those of us with criminal justice experience know that at least 40%, probably far more, crime reports initially made to the police turn out to be false. Police reports are not unbiased samples. People complain to the police (or a judge or lawyer) because they want the person to do something to someone else for them. Many, if not close-to-all, initial reports involve people who "massage" their stories a bit this-way-or-that, then they get caught in the lie, which is one reason few complaints get past the initial police interview. Many others, particularly fraud, assault, robbery, and yes even burglary, are either mistaken or malicious. It would be shocking if there was a crime (rape) where the false-reporting rate is so much lower.

Djcheburashka (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Djcheburashka has mostly made my point for me, so I'll be brief: the scholarly literature doesn't support his claim that any rape accusation that fails to secure a conviction is "false", and if he disagrees, he should become an influential social scientist, rather than trying to use Misplaced Pages to impose his own personal interpretations of the literature. He should also stop making up things about authors he doesn't want to believe (Lisak "not a researcher", what nonsense). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The scholarly literature *does not* say what she says it says. More than half of it disagrees. She refuses to respond to citations, or provide any analysis. Just the conclusion that she disagrees because "the sources say..."

As for Mr. Lisak, he was a researcher 20 years ago, when he was a junior professor. That is no longer the case. He is not affiliated with any research institution, and has not done any original research in quite a long time. He says he is a public speaker, professional trainer, and consultant. The wiki page makes claims about him that *HE* does not claim, including qualifications that either never existed, or are exaggerated. Again, I provided sources for this. The editor just reverts the page and says "not right," but doesn't either provide any countering-source, or any argument, or any explanation.

This is a classic example of an NPOV problem. Djcheburashka (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I also notice that there are numerous complaints, warnings, sanctions, and sanction violations already on Roscelese's page concerning bias and POV in connection with women's-rights issues. This appears to be just another in a long line. Djcheburashka (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

She's now tried to remove the NPOV warning from one page, without first obtaining a consensus, and had a friend of hers remove it from the other page, again without gaining consensus. This is a user with prior warnings for canvassing as well. Djcheburashka (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone neutral going to become involved in this? So far its just me and the people who wrote the prior version of the page. If we're going to fix this, one way or the other, neutral editors have to become involved. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like you are a newbie with lots of warnings, who is making false accusations against another editor. This is a spurious complaint. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ironic ...talk about 'false allegations.' Would you like to identify them? I haven't seen any.

The lede of the false allegations article is contradicted by the data in the body of the article (check out the figures in the table). The article POV tag is thus entirely appropriate.

Djcheburashka (talk), I admire your respect for facts. An encyclopedia, above all else, should be factually accurate. But that isn't the bottom line at Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, WP is ruled by the 'consensus' of those editors who just happen to be interested in a particular topic during a limited window of time. Whether they are motivated to create a factual article, or one that just supports a POV, is largely irrelevant. Both groups will be using the same WP catch-phrases and policies in a bizarre Orwellian dance that can make soap operas seem under-acted. The drama starts on the Talk page, then just continues here with a slightly larger cast.

The only way I have found that works to counter WP disputes about facts and accuracy is to request a neutral third party review WP:THIRDOPINION. The chances are a bit higher of finding a truly neutral reviewer since it (hopefully) bypasses those editors who are less concerned about accuracy than the particular ax they have to grind. Memills (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Memills, I have no idea why you think editing this article wouldn't violate your topic ban. I hope you're not proposing yourself as a neutral third opinion. As it happens, a number of users who weren't previously involved have also rejected Dj's agenda-motivated editing, and honestly, by supporting him you're only making him look worse. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Is that a joke? I don't have the agenda here. In 24-hours Roscelese you've violated the rules on reaching consensus before article changes; on POV; on ownership of articles; you've started 3 edit wars; you improperly reverted POV warnings; and you've refused to follow the POV consensus process. Going through your page, there are innumerable complaints that you have been engaged in biased and abusive editing. I've looked at some of those, and it seems to me that you have.

Please stop commenting -- and stop threatening people who do -- so that actual neutrals can participate.

Djcheburashka (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

One possible tell of POV editor is when they simply delete, rather than respond to, critical comments on their talk page. Again and again. Memills (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Digital Citizens Alliance

The page Digital Citizens Alliance appears to exist primarily as an attack page. I attempted to make edits, but they were largely reverted by the article's creator, User:Deku-shrub. This page needs some attention from uninvolved editors so that it can come into compliance with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policies. Schematica (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at this so I could help contribute to the resolution as a neutral. I agree with Schematica -- the page appears to be an advertisement for its subject. I suggest deleting the page, since the organization does not seem noticeable beyond its own PR. I have never looked at this page before, and have no prior contact with the editors at issue, so I hope I am sufficiently "neutral" to satisfy those involved. I will help restore Schematica's edits, or vote for deletion of the page, if the POV dispute is settled that way. Djcheburashka (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word cult

Does it violate NPOV to use the word "cult" in the lead? Keep in mind that the word "cult" is clearly in quotation marks, as it is a quote. Please see this revision.VictoriaGrayson 19:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's a quote from a reliable source with due weight, about the only improvement I can think of would be to include more of the quote for context ("a cult on the basis of its organisational form"). Although I could be wrong. Creativity (religion), Heaven's Gate (religious group), The Manson Family, Peoples Temple, and Branch Davidians doesn't use the word cult in their intros (if at all), and they're the sort of groups anyone can call a cult without argument. It is used in the intros for Aum Shinrikyo, Church of Scientology, Family International, House of Yahweh, International House of Prayer, and Raëlism. My gut feeling is that if an academic and non-sectarian source uses the word, and it's due weight, it's fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary.com says a cult is:

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

That fits most religions, and I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The source is an interview with a Tibeologist (not a cult expert) who says, "The NKT can be described typologically as a cult on the basis of its organisational form, its excessive group pressure and blind obedience to its founder." I do not think that source has sufficient weight for inclusion. You need to show that books about cults routinely classify it as a cult. It is possible to find sources that describe any organization as a cult, and has been mentioned, all religions meet the definition provided.

This may be a case where someone Googled the group + "cult".

TFD (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Cult" is a word used by adherents of larger, older religions to describe smaller, newer religious groups in a derogatory manner. For a serious encyclopaedia, it's a pretty useless word really. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the lede can say that some people consider it to be a cult, with a citation to one such source? I agree that its hard to draw a fine line between cults and non-cults, but I don't think we want to ban the word "cult" entirely from the wiki, or require that it only be used after the publication of multiple books on cults. Djcheburashka (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both TFD and HiLo48. 1) We would need scholarly, peer-reviewed sources that classify the religion as a cult, not in the 'small religion' sense but in the derogatory sense, which is what is generally interpreted now 2) The term is a WP:W2W and should be used carefully--perhaps, if argued for properly, cited within the article later on and duly appropriated, but not in the lead 3) While it is a good word and useful when it just refers to small religious groups (the cult of christianity in the late 100s, for example), when it refers to them in a derogatory manner it ceases functioning effectively. 4) It already says "New Religious Movement" which most people consider the best scholarly terminology for this sort of situation. 5) The lead should be a summary of the article, and anything on this topic is basically non-existent within the article and if its present, its very minor Prasangika37 (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out by other editors, Prasangika37 has possible COI's regarding the New Kadampa Tradition. I agree with Djcheburashka and Ian Thomson.VictoriaGrayson 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Scientology article is a good example of an article that uses the word "cult" in its lead, and where its adherents object to the term, but nonetheless it stays. The folks seeking "peer reviewed sources" that the group IS a cult are missing the point; the issue is if some outside entities view it as a cult, and, indeed, third party sources note this allegation. The Independent notes a "cult of Shugden" here. Robert Thurman, Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism at Columbia University and co-founder and President of Tibet House US calls them a cult here. There has been an extensive BBC documentary on the topic. (came out about 15 years ago, not much has changed) See here. At 8:00 in the video, there are images from a demonstration where protestrors are carrying signs saying, in effect, "don't call us a cult." —clearly the allegation is there. At 16:00, there is further discussion of the nature of the group and its properties (which parallel the description of a cult), at 17:05 or so, a person interviewed states they have a "rather fanatic mentality"; and at 17:45, another interviewee describes it as a "cult group." In my view, the BBC is a reliable source for a statement such as "some claim it's a cult." Obviously, some do. The lead doesn't say NKT IS a cult, jsut that some say it is. To my view this is fine; WP:RS is met, there is no undue weight and the article also contains the views of the NKT in rebutting this allegation. I say keep it. Montanabw 00:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my earlier post described that phenomenon - "Cult" is a word used by adherents of larger, older religions to describe smaller, newer religious groups in a derogatory manner. For a serious encyclopaedia, it's a pretty useless word really. We shouldn't be using it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you going by Misplaced Pages policy or personal opinion? You are a well known user....VictoriaGrayson 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That post adds nothing to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, frankly, neither does your position that appears to be "all religions are cults, so what's the difference?" There is a pretty significant difference that is well-described by a lot of mainstream scholars, including those who themselves are not religious. Montanabw 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with using the term as suggested in WP:LABEL. But no matter how many people use term, we need a source that says they use the term. Then we can assess the weight of that opinion when mentioning it. TFD (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the article has a source, and more can be added. Will that do? Montanabw 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Do you mean the source from the term 'cult' ? The source, I think, is an interview with a 'Tibetologist'(what does that even mean? How does one become a Tibetologist and how does that make you RS? Not sure.) with no evident degree in Buddhism etc. in an interview on a site that is devoted to criticizng the NKT. Prasangika37 (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean a source that uses the term, but a source that comments on the use of the term. For example if a scholarly book on cults says that they are generally described as a cult, we can say that. We can accept that the author is familiar with all the literature, while we are not, and can make a judgment about the use of the term to describe the group. While the Tibetologist is for what he said, the issue is what weight to assign it. I would suggest very little, because he is an expert on Tibetology. That does not mean he is wrong, of course. The same thing if he were to discuss medical science. TFD (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Scientology is a bad example in comparing it. There are countless scholars and well reputed people documenting clear examples of their cult-like behavior. This is far different than the New Kadampa Tradition. Using three total examples comparing to the countless articles, both scholarly and just general news (ala the Independent), that never mention things like this while talking about the New Kadampa Tradition, is a good reason why its just a fringe view and doesn't add anything that "New Religious Movement" sufficiently does. Can anyone give an example of how it does? Also a 15 year old documentary about a 25 year old religious movement isn't incredibly helpful. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Scientology has been around decades longer, so there is more scholarship on it. Are you saying that the BBC is not a reliable source? Particularly when, as far as I can tell, the positions taken by the NKT have not changed one whit in those 15 years? Montanabw 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Cult-like going ons of the last 15 years? I don't know of anything that really fits that description, especially when you compare to the groups like Scientologists..Mormons etc also have far more damning evidence from what I can observe. From your studying of the NKT what was 'cult like' 15 years ago that is the same now? Prasangika37 (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopedia example Melton's Encyclopedia Of Religion . Chrysides "Exploring New Religions", Carol Matthews "New Religions", Donald Lopez "Prisoners of Shangri-la", David Kay "British Buddhism". Nigel Scottlands "A Pocket Guide to Sects and New Religions",John Powers "A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism". And so on. They don't include this view even as a brief criticism. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Thurman most recently asked people to hack members of the New Kadampa Tradition as documented here so...thats that. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The absence of a statement does not imply that it does not exist; that is poor logic. We have several reliable sources that state that "some" people regard NKT as a cult, and the organization itself most certainly doth protest too much on the topic. Two of the three sites that Prasangika37 uses that can be accessed online that support his/her position are generally parroting the NKT position. One is an encyclopedia of religions, at best a neutrally-worded tertiary source, these generally use material provided to them by the organizations they discuss; the Guide to Buddhism refers to NKT as a "fundamentalist" group, but the entire work only appears to use the word "cult" in a historic context. It must also be pointed out that the "arebuddhistsracist" site is anonymous, has a fringe tone, seems obsessed with Thurman and also parrots some of the positions of the Chinese Government, which is believed to provide funding to some of these Shugden groups. @VictoriaGrayson: ( Montanabw 23:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)) has raised concerns that Prasangika37 has a COI as to NKT or a related group, and I have come to suspect that this is so, this user's arguments and behavior closely mirror that of the people in NKT interviewed by the BBC, as well has behavior I have seen in other movements that have a "cult-like" aspect to them. Montanabw 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

CFynn first mentioned those COI concerns. See the archives of the Dorje Shugden Controversy article.VictoriaGrayson 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ad Hominem is incredibly tiring.. Honestly it just takes away from the legitimate concern the other users involved here have. Address the points at hand here and stop taking away from the discussion. If you want plenty of reliable source on criticism that provides another POV, look at Al jazeera, France24, and SwissTV, all very reliable news networks. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2008/09/200893014344405483.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMvBXYRzAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Per3ePLsEcw Prasangika37 (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The film shows a fake monk and a camera crew trying to fight people. Yes we know Dolgyal worshipers are violent people already.VictoriaGrayson 02:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations

• International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EditorASC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article has weak sourcing, and has a lot of statements that could reasonably be argued to lack proper NPOV. However, the editor who has started editing it massively is the editor of a publication which has a strong anti-union editorial stance see this page, and thus seems to me to lack the requisite NPOV himself. In full disclosure: although I work part-time at an airport, I am not a member of any aviation-related union; but I am a union activist in an unrelated union, and thus am not the best disputant in this matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at this only in connection with this project, and have no prior knowledge of the page or either editor. I have no views about the role of airline unions in flight safety -- I haven't spent a minute thinking about it in my life.

Having looked at the editor's background, I agree there's a risk here. EditorASC maintains, as an expression of his free-expression and political views, a vehemently anti-aviation-union personal website. The risk seems acute here, because the website attempts to portray itself as the work of a broader organization, but appears to be the work of a single individual made to promote his personal views.

I've also looked at the changes themselves, though. They do not appear to be massive as described, but portions of two paragraphs. It seems to me that about half, perhaps more, of the removed material is NPOV-promotional stuff; but the other half is neutral stuff, like membership numbers, where the more appropriate action would be to try to determine if there's a source.

Perhaps the two of you could try to discuss individual changes on the talk page before they're made and see if you can come to consensus? Djcheburashka (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Weak sourcing?" What a laugh! It has been a NON-sourced article for over 7 years now. This tag has been on it for that long:

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)"

I don't think I have ever seen a Wiki article that is so full of OR, POV, weasel words and looks like it was composed by an advertising agency for IFALPA, than this one. It has stood that long as a blantant violation of the Wiki rules, especially this one:

"Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, as well as articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Misplaced Pages is not for:

"Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions." ]

Orange Mike resorts to the usual non-relevant arguments I get when I delete material that is in clear violation of Misplaced Pages editing rules.

I explained on the Talk Page, exactly why I was beginning to delete the unsourced, POV, OR and other violating statements in this article.]

I would say that after 7 years of remaining there with NO WP:RS sources at all, it was high time some Wiki editor took the bull by the horns and began removing all the unsourced POV, OR statements. I further explained on the talk page, that I would not object to anyone restoring new statements to the article, Provided they complied with the Wiki rules for WP:RS and the appropriate cites, that would properly support the statements made, were posted at the same time. We have waited for SEVEN YEARS to get someone to provide proper, factual statements about that organization, along with the required inline citations. That is far too long. Compliance should begin now, not another 7 years from now.

As to the injecting of a page from my website into this discussion, that is a red herring argument and wholly irrelevant because I have never placed a link in any Wiki article that leads to my web-sight, nor have I ever inserted any of the material from my website into Wiki articles.

Whenever I delete, revise or add new material to Wiki articles, I always do so while referencing the Wiki rules for editing pages. If I am to be criticized now, by this other editor, then let him put forth arguments as to how his wholesale reverting of my edits DO comply with Wiki rules, while my deletes of the unsourced, blatant POV and OR statements did not. And, maybe also have him explain why I have done wrong by responding to the tag at the beginning of the article, that says:

"Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

EditorASC (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The IFALPA (which I'd never heard of 12 hours ago...) is clearly noteable. That's why you care about the content of the page. There are clearly issues with the page. They should be fixed. I think some of your edits went further than they needed to or should of.

The reason your website matters (to me) is that you're manifestly very, very partisan. You 'really' care about airline unions. You care so much you've been maintaining a website dedicated to the subject of the effect of airline unions on flight safety for some seven years. If Bill Clinton showed up to edit Newt Gingrich's page, I'd say "we should keep an eye on that." If Newt Gingrich showed up to edit Bill Clinton's page, I'd say the same thing. It just means I spent the time to go through the edits and make an independent judgment.

I'm also surprised you're so upset about what I said. He raised the issue that your edits were massive and NPOV. I looked and said they aren't so large, some are good, others went too far, and you guys should try harder to build consensus before edit-warring.

Can't you take a step back, cool down, chill-out, and maybe try to build consensus on the talk page? Djcheburashka (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is addressed to editor Djcheburashka:

I will respond to your comments on your talk page and your comments on this NPOV Noticeboard page, point-by-point, to avoid the kind of confusion that your glittering-generality-phrase responses have added to this discussion.:

From your talk page: “Dude -- In the first place please sign your comments.”

My response: Please do not address me as “Dude!” That is an insulting Moniker, especially coming from someone I have never met. That kind of tactic amounts to a subtle form of insulting personal attack, which conveys to me that you are NOT starting out by assuming good faith on my part.

If your job here is to try to help resolve a dispute about what edits are appropriate on a given page, then you should be bending over backward to ensure your own comments and apparent attitude do not reflect a predominate bias on your part, especially since your Wiki User page proclaims you are a member of an anti-bias Wiki project.

FYI, I DID sign my post on your page. You failed to read that post all the way to its end, where you will find my tildes signature. You intervened in the middle of my post with your reply, before I had finished my post. I think that kind of haste, combined with your use of an insulting Moniker, tells something about how biased you really are.

From your talk page: “It appears that you posted a lengthy argument on the talk page, someone objected, and then immediately after you made your edits. Some of those edits seem good, but some go to far.”

My response: That is not an accurate summation of what actually occurred at the IFALPA page and its corresponding Talk Page. Here is what ACTUALLY occurred.

I first read the IFALPA page and noted the tag at the top which stated the following: ”This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)“

That tag had been there for over 7 years!!! Can anyone argue that length of time was far more than necessary, to give interested editors adequate time to respond and revise the many POV and OR statements to those which could be supported with appropriate WP:RS citations? No rational person would indulge in such an absurd argument.

Before I began deleting POV, OR statements, which often contained weasel words, I posted a lengthy explanation on the Talk Page, of why I was going to begin deleting statements which were clearly in violation of Wiki editing rules. NO ONE RESPONDED! THAT is one of the important facts which you have refused to acknowledge. The response that Orange Mike eventually posted (which refused to discuss any of the valid reasons I gave) was posted only AFTER I had made the actual deletes and after his

Thus, I began deleting statements, one by one, that were not in compliance with the editing rules of WP: VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:OR:

“All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.” And, “This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.”

“The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.” Additionally, from the NOR Noticeboard page: “"Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Misplaced Pages.”

What part of those very explicit Wiki rules of editing do you NOT understand?

I gave those rules as the reason I made those deletes, both in the edit summaries of EACH delete, AND in my lengthy additional explanation on the appropriate Talk Page. I did NOT use any part of my website, nor any argument contained in my website as justification for any of the deletes I made!! Therefore, it was wholly inappropriate for editor Orange Mike and for you too, to make reference to my website as some sort of justification for Orange Mike to do a wholesale, massive revert of all my appropriate deletions, that were done solely on the basis of Misplaced Pages rules of editing.

Both you and Orange Mike have refused to respond to the legitimate Wiki editing rule reasons that I gave, for my deletes on the IFALPA revision history page and the Talk Page. Instead, you both have resorted to a type of personal attack, that tries to overrule all those fundamental Wiki rules of editing with your own wholly inappropriate attempt to justify Orange Mike's wholesale, massive revert (without giving any reason in the edit summary for that revert) by speculating about how I MIGHT, AT SOME FUTURE TIME, make Wiki edits that are not in conformance with Wiki editing rules.

In short, you are relying on your own biases to overrule all the Wiki rules that are NOT NEGOTIABLE, according to the Misplaced Pages statements which spell out those rules! I acted as any dutiful Wiki editor should: I deleted statements that had been in clear violation of those wiki editing rules, for over SEVEN YEARS.

Both of you have refused to respond to and discuss those legitimate reasons I gave as justification for those deletes. That makes any attempt to arrive at consensus impossible, as you have so noted to anther poster on your own talk page, If you two continue to refuse to discus the relevant issues of violating Wiki editing rules, then achieving consensus is impossible.

From your talk page: “You are also manifestly partisan on the issue.”

My response: That statement is false. Where have I said anything, in explaining the reasons for my deletes, that could be honestly described as “partisan?” Show it to me and quote me EXACTLY, if you can find any such partisan statement.

Tell me, Editor Djcheburashka, why is it you consider me to be too partisan, but you do not consider those who are quite obviously union members and very supportive of the forced membership labor union view, as partisans too?

Why do you not view them as ineligible to contribute to this kind of a Wiki article, as you seem to think I am ineligible -- because I support free and voluntary unionism? Why is that?

Did you bother to see how this article was formed in the first place – by labor union members that are using Misplaced Pages as their own Spam page? Or is the truth that you are as biased and as partisan as they are? It is OK for them to willfully violate the very clear, explicit and non-negotiable editing rules of Misplaced Pages -- apparently because you favor their support for involuntary, forced unionism, while I am to be denied equal access while I scrupulously observe the Wiki editing rules as I make my edits to articles, just because I support voluntary unionism?

From your talk page: “I therefore suggested that the two of you go back to the talk page and try to build consensus.”

My response: How can I do that, if you and Orange Mike adamantly refuse to discuss the actual, valid issues that I have raised on the IFALPA Talk Page? That continuing refusal precludes any possibility of consensus if you do not recognize the Wiki editing rules as being non-negotiable, as those rules themselves state.

I have taken considerable time to state my positions on that Talk Page, and my reasons given for the deletes are wholly compatible with the statements on Wiki editing rules: “This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.”

What part of that clear and concise Wiki Editing policy, do you NOT understand?

Orange Mike, by contrast, did not give any reason at all for his wholesale, massive revert of all my careful deletions. Why do you not discuss his violation of Wiki editing rules, by that unexplained revert back to content that has been in violation of Wiki editing rules? Why do you not condem that action as being evidence of HIS refusal to try and achieve consensus?

Frankly, I think your refusal to discuss his inappropriate revert, constitutes good evidence of your own personal bias, AND your refusal to constrain that bias as you purport to claim you are trying to be helpful in this dispute.

Your comment on the NPOV Noticeboard page: “The reason your website matters (to me) is that you're manifestly very, very partisan. You 'really' care about airline unions. You care so much you've been maintaining a website dedicated to the subject of the effect of airline unions on flight safety for some seven years.”

So what? How is that any different in principle from the people who created this IFALPA page? They too care very much about airline unions, that are non-voluntary in nature and they use this Wiki Spam page to keep telling us how much those unions have been the major factor in the growth of airline safety, even though they are unwilling/unable to document that via WP:RS sources outside of their own publications. That is OK for them to be very partisan THAT way, even though they have been continually violating Wiki editing rules, but it is not OK for me to insist they conform with the same NON-NEGOTIABLE Wiki editing rules which bind all the rest of us?

If you would take the time, you will see that they have copied, word-for-word from THEIR PARTISAN WEBSITE, to create this page, yet I have NEVER done that, i.e., I haven't copied anything from my website to Misplaced Pages, while editing any article. How is it then, that you charge ME with being PARTISAN, but you don't see them as being partisan?

Your comment on the NPOV Noticeboard page: “you guys should try harder to build consensus before edit-warring.”

My response: There has been no edit-warring on my part. I made a series of well-thought-out-deletes, taking considerable time to explain why I was doing that. But, Orange Mike quickly did a massive revert of all that work, in just a few seconds and without giving any reason at all in his edit summary.

I view that as a possible first step in a willingness to try to suck me into an edit war, but I am not biting on that bait. I prefer to take my time and pursue this on a rational basis, in tune with the rules and policies of Misplaced Pages.

Somehow, I do not think I am entitled to special dispensation from the rules, while you and Orange Mike seem think you are. If that isn't accurate, then why are you both afraid to discuss the actual issues about their violations of Wiki rules for over seven years? Why do you keep trying to avoid that kind of discussion -- which is essential to the process of trying to reach any kind of rational consensus, which does not violate Wiki editing rules? EditorASC (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution