Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thargor Orlando (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 25 October 2012 (→Single payer polls/chart: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle

At 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, a line in the article saying "it became known as the Lydda death march." and an aka field in the infobox giving Lydda death march have been removed due to, in the words of those removing the material, There are a few sources that mention that term, but saying "it became known as the Lydda death march" is a bit of an exaggeration and that It has not been established by either the quantity or quality or sources that the term deserves the UNDUE emphasis its proponents are trying to put into the article. The sources presented are as follows:

• Chamberlin, Paul (2012), The Global Offensive: The United States, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Making of the Post-Cold War Order, Oxford University Press, p. 16, ISBN 9780199811397: On a visit home in 1948, Habash was caught in the Jewish attack on Lydda and, along with his family, forced to leave the city in the mass expulsion that came to be known as the Lydda Death March.
• Strachan, Hew; Bellamy, Chris; Bicheno, eds. (2001), The Oxford companion to military history, Oxford University Press, p. 64, ISBN 9780198662099 {{citation}}: |editor1-first= missing |editor1-last= (help); Text "Hugh" ignored (help); Text "editor4-first" ignored (help): On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to some 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the Lydda Death March.

One of the users has claimed, at RS/N, that this is not the most common description for the event, though nobody has requested a move to change the article title. Does it violate UNDUE to include the well-sourced material on this event being known as the Lydda death march? nableezy - 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not a full or precise description of the dispute. There are indeed two sources that say "it became known as the Lydda death march". One from 2001 and one from this year (the article contained that sentence when the book was written). Nothing in between and no other sources make that claim, and there are a great number of sources that describe or mention this event (search for example for lydda and expulsion). Only a handful even call it the Lydda death march, not to mention claim it became known as that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)which

Are you serious? Nothing in between and no other sources make that claim? From where exactly did you pull that out? nableezy - 01:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If it was just two sources using the term, that would be one thing. But we have two RS saying specifically that it came to be known as the Lydda death march. It would be undue not to mention this. If you have a source of equivalent quality criticising the term, that has to go in too. If you have historians who avoid the term, you might just say "X, who does not use the term death march, says that...". Itsmejudith (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have practically every other RS of equal and even higher quality that do not use the term. On google books at the moment there are exactly 7 books that use this term and thousands that talk about the event (see this for just one example of possible wording) that don't. The vast majority do not use the term and the statement that "it became known as X" is obviously UNDUE weight to what two scholars out of hundreds say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ypu can't contradict RS with your own ghit count. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

When a reliable source makes a claim, the way to refute it is to find a source that says the claim is wrong. We cannot undertake our own investigations to disprove the claim. TFD (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a common excuse used to try to edit war in content that is known to be incorrect, and the reasoning itself is wrong. Applying light analysis prevented us from publishing several grossly false things about “Innocence of Muslims” that were stated on so-called reliable sources, for example. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  20:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The only way to know that a reliable source is incorrect is to provide another reliable source that contradicts it. It is not our role to second guess the facts. TFD (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jarral

This one has an incredible history, with lots of long unsourced essays accreting, reversions to stubs, etc. At its worst, it's gone over 29,000 characters. At the stub, it's down to something like 929 characters. Please look at the edit history before touching this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and Talk Page to this article

In the article Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford at least two editors, Tom Reedy and Paul B, continually express their POVs, thus distorting the historical image of the person to whom the article is dedicated. They have openly disclosed their bias and even enmity to Edward de Vere on the Talk page to this article. On this Talk page, there were also massive personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery".

In my view, Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the outcome of the solution to the William Shakespeare authorship question. And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy on 9 October 2012 on this same Talk page to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, which probably everybody would call blasphemy. This expression was used by Tom Reedy in connection with Jesus Christ. The use of only this one expression, in my view, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Misplaced Pages. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is for assistance with NPOV questions regarding article content. Other editors can be briefly mentioned, but essentially they are irrelevant as far as this noticeboard is concerned (try somewhere else, perhaps WP:ANI, for issues about editors—but do some homework first). So please state the problem as far as the WP:NPOV policy is concerned: what text in the article is a problem? why? It would be desirable to address any issues raised on the article talk page (that is, if someone has offered a reason to oppose your favored text, there should be a counter argument, focused on the NPOV policy). Keep it brief; elaboration can be added if requested. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the personal attacks issue is being discussed, and may be resolved at ANI. That section also raised the POV issue, and it was suggested that the POV issue be handled here, so I think it may now be possible to concentrate here on the POV issues. (I looked at the non-POV issues, and have no input on the POV issues).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I thereby declare that I had to concentrate on the case on WP:ANI, given the fact that I was a party, who made the complaints, and that I was even severely under criticism because of my, as I see it, justified complaints. That I was upset about the reactions is my private matter. Anyway, it was a very unpleasant situation for me. In fact, as the core of that case is concerned, several participants to the discussion gave me right, but not all participants. User Sphilbrick was very helpful for me to get out of the situation. This other case is now more or less closed. However, I am sorry not to be able to continue with this case here on WP:NPOV simply out of lack of time. So now this particular case may be declared closed. User Johnuniq, you certainly agree that I am free to come back with a similar issue if I deem it appropriate. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Honeywell_Turbo_Technologies and GenArts

In the article about the company Honeywell_Turbo_Technologies I feel that there's a large amount of contents meant to show case the company in a positive light and showing off its product offerings. One example is a fairly long list of race cars utilizing the subject company's turbos, but only the ones that did well. The product sections go on about product features and patents. In this article, and in articles about companies in general, I think that the style of writing places excessive bias in favor of the subject and deviates from neutral and impartial informational page.

Similar, the article GenArts created and extensively edited by User:Corporate Minion who is a self-identified COI editor in my opinion sparkles excess promotional tone. I am talking about liberal use of WP:PEACOCK terms that uplifts the subject. For example "Compared to other visual effects plugins, GenArts is a premium brand," that imparts positive tone like "well known computer scientist..." etc. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: According to his talk page, Corporate Minion, with whom you have had content disputes about promotion, is not "a self-identified COI editor" but "also work heavily in helping companies contribute where they have a WP:COI using Talk pages." There's a big difference. Eric: Esowteric+Talk 09:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ClarifyHe used to have COI edit section on his user page ]. That's how I came up with the statement. What I meant is he is editing pages on behalf of companies. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll see the article use to look like this. I declared a COI on the Talk page and used the {{request edit}} tool. An impartial editor felt it was an improvement and moved it to article-space. Because Cantaloupe has a problem with COI and a confrontational attitude, he is going through all of the articles I have written (even where I have no COI) - in some cases making good neutrality tweaks and others just being malicious or finding ways to be confrontational.

OTOH, I welcome any genuine improvements to the articles and would appreciate if someone was willing to intervene here. I generally don't make direct edits where I have a COI, except for minor stuff, so I am unable to defend the articles against his attacks. However, neither are the articles immune to criticism. If someone in a less confrontational position worked with Cantaloupe and coached him I think improvements could be made both to the articles and to Cantaloupe's style of collaboration and therefore value to Misplaced Pages.

I have removed the list from my user page to avoid being a target for editors like Cantaloupe, but you can see the list of articles where I have helped a company contribute with a COI on Cantaloupe's link and that he has been going through all of them. Cantaloupe has been making vast edits (some good, some malicious) to many of the articles. His tone and editing behavior seems to suggest he is on some campaign against me, but like any Misplaced Pages article, neither are the articles immune to criticism. You can also see from my Talk page that in my opinion Cantaloupe has an aggressive deletionist and anti-marketing editing behavior, often making wholesale deletions to articles on marketing topics and I think there are broader issues that could be resolved with the help of someone patient and willing. Corporate 12:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, what I would like to gather is general wiki consensus on articles written in style of those articles. A lot of product show casing, etc. I think its inappropriate and shows clear bias. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't generally create consensus in the way you're thinking for minor editorial disputes. On the other hand, you may get feedback and a third-opinion.

Misplaced Pages does cover products, often in excruciating detail in dedicated articles depending on the product's notability. I have followed best practice on the Hon Turbo article by creating a short, neutral summary, instead of a long list or promotional advert. In fact, there are dozens of "fan-written" articles on specific Honeywell products.

On the other hand, we could probably tighten "premium brand, with more expensive, but very professional grade products," with "high-end". Corporate 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That kind of comparison is contentious. Can you objectively say that said brand is higher-end than "others"? As for fan-written articles, I'm well aware things that shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages finds its way. If they don't meet the criteria for inclusion, they should be nominated for deletion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality means following what is supported by reliable sources. It does not mean we are not allowed to make any evaluative statements. In fact, many articles have a Reception section that summarizes reviews and many of those are positive or negative, because they reflect independent sources. High-end leads the reader to the natural assumption that it is both of high-quality and that it comes at a high price-tag, which is indeed the facts of the case. However, I like most of your trims here. I thought it was odd you called infobox data spam, so I re-inserted the revenue and employee number data.

Because of your approach here, you are very eager to find fault and aggressive about interpreting policy in overly simplistic ways that are favorable to your campaign against me, but your more thoughtful trims are an improvement. Keep at it. Corporate 12:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, I think (hope) we are working this out on our respective Talk pages. Cantaloupe is making some very good adjustments to remove some puffery and I think (hope) is understanding of my request to be more civil and AGF. I have also apologized for areas, where - despite my best efforts - I may have said something that offended him. In fact, some of his latest edits are quite thorough and good and I welcome the neutrality improvements. Corporate 15:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree Minion and I aren't clashing the same way now, but could someone shed general idea concerning my original question regarding whats considered appropriate amount of inclusion and whats overtly promotional? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That can be a complicated question. Clear peacock like "industry-leading solutions with best-of-breed, out-of-the-box capabilities..." is prolific and an easy delete. I think "well-known" is indeed true on the GenArts article and supported by sources, but we did not need to point it out. It was a good cut.

You might be interested in taking a look at well-written, volunteer-written product pages. For example, Mass Effect 3 has the following in the lead:

Combat system in Mass Effect 3 has been changed and refined. In particular, the cover system has been improved. There are more options for moving around the battlefield and scoring instant melee kills. More conventional grenades are available and an improved artificial intelligence is introduced.

Because it describes a product in detail, does not make it peacock and because it covers a product does not make it advert. However, if it had promotional language like "revolutionary new combat system" we would want to take that out.

As for next steps, it might be a good idea for us to both voluntarily go through dispute resolution to go through the articles that have already become involved.

For the future after that, I might ask that you take a look at WP:Hound. Hound is not a means to settle content disputes, but it is a policy intended to avoid personal attacks, harassing and stalking. While that may not be your intention, it adequately describes what this feels like on my side, seeing that almost all your contribs are directed at me and articles I have edited, in addition to the multiple civility and AGF warnings/problems. Misplaced Pages is a big playground! There are plenty of areas for us to contribute that don't involve confrontation with each other.

After that, I wish you the best of luck and happy editing ;-) Corporate 15:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It just so happens that you somehow found yourself into SEOMoz.org and gasbuddy and you even have SEOMOz on your user page as heavy contribution only after I put it up for deletion. Fan written pages can have unnecessary promotional tone too even though not for the same purpose as hird mouths. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not against the rules to identify an editor making problematic edits, review their contribs and vote on a routine AfD. The SEOmoz AfD in general (not you specifically) looks like a good example of pouncing, confrontation and speculation, where none is needed. It is however against the rules to create a long-term harassment campaign against another editor, especially when it is littered with poor edits, civility and AGF problems. We all want Misplaced Pages to be a welcoming and respectful place, so we should not participate in a way that targets editors. Like I said, it's a big encyclopedia and there's plenty of places to play. Corporate 22:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Nasheed: Cherry picked sources & lacks important events

The article Mohamed Nasheed has used carefully choosen sources to create a specific image of himself. This article needs to reflect the other side of the coin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.148.60 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately what you're making is a subjective claim - unless you can give some specific examples? Give us a hint or at least some place to start. This article is huge. Lexlex (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Shaun Suisham

Yesterday, Shaun Suisham failed a kick that would have given the Steelers a victory against the Tennessee Titans, and at the end the Steelers lost. An anonymous IP edited the page on what I think is a clear example of fan rage, calling Suisham "the weakest, most unreliable player of his generation" and casting doubt on his permanence on the Steelers, without any source at all. I undid the changes, but then a registered user restored them, calling them "reality". What is the proper action to take here, to ensure the page is OK until the dust settles?

Thanks. Not A Superhero (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie

At the Rachel Corrie page a few editors have been deleting information from the lead that has a reliable source (BBC News) and is not (to my knowledge) contradicted by any other source. Also, what has again been reverted/deleted is already included later in this Wiki-article itself. I have previously attempted to initiate discussion but none of the deleting editors has adressed my particular points nor answered my specific questions.

• I had asked for any reliable source to be provided which shows that the description of Rachel Corrie as a 'Peace' activist' to be false or innaccurate.
• I also asked for sources to be presented that demonstrate any activity by the subect of this Biography page which shows she ever acted 'violently' or 'non-peacefully' against anyone in her activities.
• I disengaged to allow the other parties some time, but no answers to my specific points were ever made.

Now an editor has again reverted the information and the cited reliable sources. The editor has not been involved in any discussion. He has reverted by claiming there is no consensus. Therefore I decided to bring this here rather than the dispute resolution board as this consensus argument seems to me to be a way of avoiding the points I have made and the questions I have asked and of skewing the article away from a neutral point of view. The deleting editor in this instance is Jethro B. He has an Israeli Barnstar of National Merit, and is a menber of the Wiki Project Israel. Therefore it appears he might be deleting the information from an allegiance to some sort of Pro-Israeli point of view and thereby not a neutral unbiased viewpoint.

• Diff: by Jethro B
• Diff: by Brewcrewer
• Diff: by Shrike

Here are just a few of the many reliable sources describing her as a 'Peace activist' (there are more on the talk page which have been ignored):

• BBC News lead/intro: "Rachel Corrie, an American ...was a committed peace activist."
• WA Today: " A family's nine-year fight for justice culminates today when a court delivers its verdict in the civil lawsuit against the state of Israel over the killing of the American peace activist, Rachel Corrie, who was crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer."
• The Guardian. Title. " Israeli army bulldozer crushes US peace protester in Gaza Strip." Lead/intro: " Peace campaigner killed as Israeli army destroys homes in Palestinian refugee camp. First sentence: " An Israeli army bulldozer crushed an American peace activist to death in the Gaza Strip..."
• The Daily Telegraph: (photo caption) "American peace activist Rachel Corrie stands infront of an Israeli bulldozer in the Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza strip in 2003"
• Al Jazeera: "Corrie was a committed peace activist even before her arrival in the Gaza Strip in 2002. She arranged peace events in her home town in Washington state and became a volunteer for the ISM."

SUMMARY: It looks to me as though a few editors are editing this page from a point of view that is not neutral, are refusing to discuss their reasons in regard to specific questions and now this claim for consensus seems to be arguing for a non-neutral editing of this article based on numbers. Despite the fact that can be contested (e.g. I myself, Mirokado, Bastun and JonFlaune are in agreement on this inclusion), can a few editors do that: overule reliable sourcing and non-neutrality by claiming consensus?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Labeling her a "peace activist" is a statement of opinion. It can be mentioned with attribution in the body of the article but shouldn't be presented as fact and certainly shouldn't be elevated to the lead, which would be undue and misleading. For every reliable source that ever used that label in reference to Corrie, there are probably at least 50 that didn't.—Biosketch (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources presented are not opinion pieces, they are part of mainstream news organization factual reporting. As such they do not need to be attributed, unless you have a source that directly contradicts the statement - so far none have been produced. As for your undue weight argument, you present no evidence, just an assertion. I find your assertion unconvincing because the term is used by globally recognized media organizations such the BBC, Guardian and Al-Jezeera. As far as I know not a single report contradicting the statement has been produced. Dlv999 (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Dlv999, why are you trying to make it seem as though I called those sources "opinion pieces" when I never called them that? I'll thank you appreciate that I have the capacity to distinguish between news reports and opinion pieces. What you should acknowledge is that there's a difference between objective reporting of facts, i.e. x did y at such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time, and statements of opinion, i.e. x is a brilliant scientist. This is a case of the latter, and it is also a case of taking a characterization appearing only in a small minority of sources and giving it undue weight by generating the illusion that it's an expression common among most sources that reported on the nature of Corrie's activism.—Biosketch (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Biosketch, I did not mean to question your intelligence. But the way I see it is this: on the one hand we have high quality RS describing RC as a peace activist in their factual news reports. In opposition to this we are not seeing alternative sources presented, only the opinion of editors, who don't like the way RS have reported the topic. You again you make the undue weight claim, but again you present no evidence, only your assertion. Here are a number of academic sources and international media reports that have described RC as a "peace activist":

1. Roy, S Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 39, No. 2, Winter 2010, University of California Press) - "focusing on Rachel Corrie, the twenty- three-year-old US peace activist who was run over and killed by an Israeli bulldozer in March 2003"
2. Richardson, J & Barkho L Journalism Studies (Volume 10, Issue 5, 2009, Routledge) - "Two landmark events have characterised the recent violent years of Israeli–Palestinian conflict: the killing of a US peace activist by an Israeli bulldozer as she tried to prevent it from demolishing the home of a Palestinian resident in Gaza"
3. CNN - "From behind a wood and plastic partition, the Israeli soldier who drove a bulldozer that crushed an American peace activist to death testified publicly for the first time Thursday."
4. CBS News- peace activist Rachel Corrie
5. The Age - "The Israeli Defence Force has been absolved of responsibility in the death of an American peace activist, who was crushed to death by a military bulldozer in 2003."
6. Sky News - "This year's winners of the prize also included peace activist Rachel Corrie, killed on the Gaza strip in 2003"
7. the Washington Post - "An Israeli court has ruled that the death of U.S. peace activist Rachel Corrie in 2003 was not Israel's fault and was an accident."
8. Al Arabiya - "A U.N. official Thursday condemned an Israeli court finding that cleared the army of any blame for the death of U.S. peace activist Rachel Corrie as “a defeat for justice and accountability.”"
9. UN News Centre - "Rachel Corrie, an American peace activist, was killed in March 2003 while protesting against the demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah, a city located in southern Gaza."
10. Palestine Chronicle - "On behalf of peace activist Rachel Corrie, her parents Craig and Cindy Corrie today accepted the 2012 LennonOno Grant for Peace presented by Yoko Ono in Reykjavik, Iceland."
11. Reuters - "peace activist Rachel Corrie"
12. Time (magazine) - "American peace activist Rachel Corrie speaks during an interview with MBC Saudi Arabia television on March 14, 2003 in the Rafah refugee camp on the Gaza Strip" Dlv999 (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your participation. To Biosketch, I still don't see how if reliable sources don't "use that label in reference to Corrie" how they would be contradicting ones that did? Whether there are fifty of them or whatever, how do they contradict this description? As yet, no reliable sources have been produced contesting that Rachel Corrie's activism was in anyway anything but peaceful. And as Dlv999 has even further amplified, many sources do. My concern is that by sheer weight of numbers, editors sharing a partisan viewpoint can skew the neutrality of wiki articles. In this case it appears to be editors sharing a pro-Israeli partisan viewpoint. Thus Biosketch, you appear to me to be rather proving my point. Which is, that with out referring to a source disputing her peace activism, you yourself have now become an example of another editor who also has a long track-record of contributions to Misplaced Pages concerning pro-Israeli viewpoints, who is arguing against this description of Ms Corrie, but without referring to any particular wiki policy as grounds for doing so. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• The talk page has an extensive and healthy discussion of this issue. The article is well written and written appropriately for an encyclopedia. It is true that newspapers generally prefer pithy labels that suits their medium. Encyclopedias are better served with straight descriptions. For example, we have an article called Opposition to legal abortion instead of Pro-life. "Pro-life" like "Peace activist" are self-descriptions that become common for brevity. At other times the opposition succeeds in coining a brief moniker like "Star Wars" for Strategic Defense Initiative and Obamacare for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Our encyclopedia, gives priority to the full descriptive phrase rather than the everyday short-cut that journalists prefer. The article as written is better suited for our aspiration as an encyclopedia instead of a news report. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

To Jason from nyc. Another editor Mirokado wrote on the discussion page: "Activist" is rather a broad term and is very often qualified ("civil rights activist", "gay rights activist" and so on). In the context of the IP conflict where violence is so much part of the agenda, this wording becomes important to inform the reader of essential background, provided it is properly sourced, as it is with the BBC reference..."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• We write according to reliable sources, and if several reliable sources say that Ms. Corrie was a peace activist, and no reliable sources dispute that, then on Misplaced Pages Ms. Corrie was a peace activist. nableezy - 15:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• The phrase seems tidy, clear, substantiated and well-sourced. There's nothing unusual or weasel-y about the phrase. And there seem to be no RS objections to it as a description. So it should pass NPOV. I would add that the tendentious objections to every last word in this (Israel-Palestine-related) domain of the encyclopedia only serve to discourage the entry of new, level-headed editors, something which is desperately needed.--Carwil (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Carwil. My only involvement in this whole area, to date, was in relation to the Gaza Flotilla (the second one), where I started a neutral, 5-pillar-compliant article on an Irish ship that was taking part (my interest being I'm Irish). It was challenged, amended, slapped with tags at every point for obvious/not-needed stuff, by tag-teaming editors with a very clear agenda, to the point where, when the ship ended up not taking part due to being damaged/sabotaged, it was nominated for deletion as not notable... Have I been back to the topic since? Just the once, to reinsert referenced material unaccountably being deleted from this article. Will I be back again? Not likely. Bastun 17:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have re-added the reliably sourced description of Rachel as a 'Peace activist'. I have done so as the the consensus at present is 'for' using the reliably sourced and uncontradicted 'Peace Activist' description. Revealingly, those here 'for' its usage cited wiki policy as reasons. Whereas all those 'against' gave reasons purely based upon their own personal opinions. Interesting that. I wonder therefore what to do with the more troubling aspect of this dispute, namely the claim for consensus by a possible tag-team of editors apparently sharing a Pro-Israeli partsisan viewpoint, which appears to be driven by an intent of skewing articles and hounding editors to have that viewpoint predominate. I hope to somehow have that also addressed by concerned editors who value Misplaced Pages as a non-biased information resource. Any suggestions?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest people stop being tribalists ie Muslim tribe, Jewish tribe, freemason tribe etc. Prunesqualor billets_doux 01:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But ... What to do if people do not wish to be less 'tribal' and refuse? What if certain editors' core motivation is largely or specifically to participate here purely from a 'tribal' perspective ? This latest example of non-neutral activity by certain editors on the Rachel Corrie page, done under the claim of 'consensus' over a period of months appears to be just one more example of many, and is why I feel this is perhaps a matter of greater concern than just the Rachel Corrie page? But I'm not sure how to address that concern, or where exactly, or if its already been attempted before.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I hope everyone realizes that you can play this game either way. On Highbeam, "Rachel Corrie" bulldozer gets 160 results, whereas "Rachel Corrie" bulldozer "peace activist" gets 22 results. So the vast majority of RS do not call her a peace activist. Here is The Daily Mail: "AN American pro-Palestinian activist run over by a bulldozer in Gaza...." Kauffner (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you would need to find some reliable sources that state she was not a peace activist, or at least engaged in behaviour directly contradictory to (I quote WP) "proactively advocat diplomatic, non-military resolution of political disputes, usually through nonviolent means". Jpatokal (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You discussing this as if it was a factual question of whether she was a peace activist or not. But this is an issue of tone, emphasis, and neutrality. The article on Bin Laden does not begin, "Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist..." Kauffner (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a factual question of whether or not she has been referred to as a peace activist in multiple reliable sources, and the answer to that is "yes". If you can find an alternative description used in more reliable sources, we're all ears.

And while I hesitate to drag Osama into this, the old saw about one man's terrorist being another's freedom fighter applies to him as well, which makes the label difficult to apply neutrally. In Carrie's case, though, I'm not seeing any sources that seriously allege she was engaging in anything other than non-violent activism that she genuinely thought would advance peace. Jpatokal (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Jpatokal for clearly articulating the point of this notice yet again. To Kauffner you appear not to have read the initial message of this thread, or to not understand it. Please may I ask you to read it again from the top. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Health care articles

• Public opinion on health care reform in the United States
• Single-payer health care
• Public opinion on health care reform in the United States

We have an issue of factual inaccuracy here, as User:Scjessey insists on calling a reputable poll a "push poll" and giving an incorrect portrayal of said poll in article ( ) as well as mischaracterizing the nature of certain polls with User:CartoonDiablo (). Upon request for evidence of Scjessey's claims, he instead claims the factual assertions are "fantasy land comments" () and will not provide even basic documentation for his claim. CartoonDiablo, also, insists on keeping certain sections as a table (), creating a strange situation where the POV of certain ideologies gets undue weight, and is questionable for MOS issues considering the way the articles are structured.

Some assistance on this would be worthwhile. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm calling it a push poll on article talk pages and edit summaries because it is a push poll. It is obvious from the wording, and implicitly obvious because of the skewed result it yielded at the time (almost all other polls in the field have yielded results that are more or less the opposite of this one). I have not referred to it as a push poll in any actual article and I have not removed it from any article. There is no NPOV issue with my editing. In contrast (to use the same original research neutral wording as Thargor does in the article), Thargor Orlando acts as an SPA using Misplaced Pages to push a US-centric, right-wing agenda - something that is more for the auspices of WP:RFC/U than this noticeboard. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is the NPOV pushing, really. It requires no request for comment, just for the editors in question to follow basic policies and stop POV pushing. Rasmussen does not push poll, and few other polls have yielded an opposite result. This is a fact that you're unwilling to concede, which is why we're here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I am not pushing anything except neutrality. You are trying to take certain articles and impose your personal point-of-view upon them. In this particular case, you are inflating the importance of a single poll that asks a question about single-payer healthcare (after a bunch of other questions asking about Occupy Wall Street protests) and attempting to give it equivalence ("in contrast") with the scores of polls that say the complete opposite. That's as pure an example of POV pushing as I've ever seen, and sadly reflects the bulk of your Misplaced Pages contributions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not neutral to mischaracterize a reputable poll as a "push poll," to claim that polls say something they don't. Two questions about Occupy does not make a 9 question poll about it, sorry. You couldn't be more wrong on this, and I look forward to the noticeboard volunteers to look at this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not I am "neutral" (by your definition) on talk pages is irrelevant and of no interest to this noticeboard. All that matters is editing performed in actual articles. In this respect, my actions are beyond question and your own lack of neutrality borders on shocking. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well a few things: there is criticism of Rasmussen's polling methods but not in that particular poll. If we used criticism in general and applied it to the one example I think it would be synth since there is no RS criticizing that poll. Personally I think it probably is skewed since it's the only one with a majority opposed but that's not really a basis for removing or commenting on the poll.

That's not what a push poll is. A push poll is when a poll is used as a guise for efforts to convert somebody. It's not a poll that is handled in a manner that is designed to create a particular result for the poll. North8000 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Single payer polls/chart

That aside, there is another issue in those articles regarding the polling sections. For what seem like obvious POV reasons, North8000 and Thargor Orlando reverted the charts to the earlier prose that they originally disagreed with. I think its obvious the charts were both easier to read and gave more information. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to DRN.

I do not support this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that the DRN has been closed, care to actually try and fix this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked for a third opinion regarding the polls. Just for the sake of reference there are two issues:

1. Are these single-payer polls or polls of "various levels of government involvement in healthcare"?

• As the previous edit points out (diff) there are six sources including the Washington Post and NPR calling them single-payer polls, Thargor's revert was "rv per facts" which "facts" undermine those six sources he did say.

• The source is the questions themselves, which do not ask about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

2. Whether or not to categorize the polls as a table.

• In my opinion it seems clear that giving the orignal source material as well as showing over a dozen polls works better as table than it does in prose. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• The articles are prose, especially the entire one about public opinion. Organizing them this way gives certain points of view undue weight, as well as misstates what the polls say and are given the incorrect insistence that they are "single payer polls." Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post and NPR call them "single-payer polls." Unless you have a good reason as to why what you think the polls are trumps the Reliable sources' definition, this discussion is ridiculous. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What trumps these claims are the actual polls, which do not ask about single payer. "Universal health insurance" is not "single payer" and not understood as such, for example - the Politifact piece in the article makes this expressly clear. Your continued insistence on this is baffling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I want to be clear here: that is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what constitutes a single-payer poll.

The Washington Post, NPR, PNHP, Healthcare-NOW! etc. all consider the polls that are posted to be single-payer polls. If you revert it again it will be reported as an incident of POV pushing because unless your definition outweighs those sources then that is exactly what you're doing. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not my interpretation. This is the language of the polls, something you refuse to address. Stop threatening people and start working to fix the problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So how come six sources say that that language is appropriate? Should we go by The Washington Post or Thargor Orlando? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why the media would misrepresent the polls. We should instead go by what the polls actually say. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In this area, the selection of the wording of the poll determines the result. So the actual wording from the poll should be used. It should not be changed by the editors, including by placing it under a table heading which is such modified wording. North8000 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why editors should impose their POV of what the polls are when the consensus of the sources say they are single-payer polls. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We're trying to stop you from imposing your POV. That's why we brought this discussion here. Thargor Orlando(talk) 00:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

To Thargor, whether or not you seriously believe that to be true I hope you realize you're replacing what The Washington Post and NPR say is a single-payer poll with what you think the poll is. No matter how you frame it, it's pushing a WP:Fringe POV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not what I'm saying, but what the polls actually say. Politifact notes this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Politifact is saying that wording matters, I'd like to hear what you think those six sources as saying. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The "six sources" are not asking about "single payer" but rather about things like "government insurance" or things "like Medicare." You've been told this countless times, and you ignore it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This POV pushing must stop. Thargor is trying to create a false equivalence by suggesting that one poll (conducted by the right-leaning Rasmussen pollster with dubious wording) somehow balances the fistful of polls indicating that Americans overwhelmingly support the adoption of some form of single-payer system (link contains analysis of polling, including trashing the Rasmussen poll). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This comment encapsulates the problem exactly - disparaging a mainstream source in one line, and then outright misstating evidence in the next. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Tenedos and WP:Place

We have a situation here which needs clarifying. In the past two years there have been four failed move request from Tenedos to Bozcaada plus one super-lengthy and -tedious move review. The result was invariably no consensus to move respectively closure endorsed. So keeping Tenedos as article name all the way. This should have settled things, one might think, but unfortunately it did not. Now Bozcaada advocates have been repeatedly substituting Tenedos for Bozcaada in the sections dealing with the island's history after the Ottoman occupation, including the section on its most recent, modern history. In my view, this violates WP:Place; the name used should be "Tenedos" throughout the article:

1. WP:Place specifies: "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." But "Bozcaada" is no widely accepted historic name for any period as "Tenedos" always existed alongside it. Four move discussions have made this plainly clear, so why not accept its outcome?

2. As for the modern section, replacing "Tenedos" with "Bozcaada" even more violates the clear consensus of the move requests: WP:Place requires the article name to conform to current/modern usage. The result of four move discussions was that the current article name is Tenedos. This means that the community believes Tenedos is the term most often used in modern English and since it is most often used in recent times, it is the only choice of words in the section on the island's modern history.

Put differently: It is contradictory to have an article named "Tenedos" on the one hand, but to use "Bozcaada" in its section on the most recent events on the other hand, because if "Bozcaada" were really the most common name, the entire article would have been named "Bozcaada" which it isn't.

Put yet again differently: it follows from WP:Place logically and directly that an article name and the place name used for its modern history must be the same, because WP:Place makes the latter its basis to define the former and if there is ample consensus about the former, and it is here, the latter must comply to the former. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this belong here? It doesn't seem appropriate. I will not fight about any points in the move request. WP:NPOV says: "Editing from a neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." All I have to say is there's a compromise proposal here which adheres to NPOV closely (as well as WP:PLACE and usage in sources). It represents sources (which show a distinct preference for Bozcaada in the modern context) fairly and when it gets fuzzy (the 1455-1923 period), I let go of my personal position, and said "go with article title". NPOV is not served by implying that a "no consensus" outcome means that we ignore usage in sources completely, that would be giving prominence to one name that sources do not use. I think it is quite clear that actually following the sources is better NPOV than using a "no consensus" outcome to assert universal usage in favor of one name. As WP:NPOV says "alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself." If anyone has any advice on how we can make the compromise positions more NPOV, I would take those suggestions very seriously and try to apply them. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I can't see what this has to do with NPOV - other than the likelihood that trying to impose a Greek name on a island that is part of modern Turkey, when all atlases, guidebooks and news reports in 2012 about the modern island use the Turkish name, is probably closer to a breach of NPOV than anything else here. Also we have the very selective citing and interpreting of WP:PLACE - whose provisions about using the "modern name" for article titles was studiously ignored in the RMs referred to. The only reason in fact that the RMs left the page at Tenedos is because of a) the veto effect and b) people successfully running the odd argument that the preponderance of references to the island in history (due to its prominence in classical myth) in Google Books outweighs anything else. The point is that every other provision in PLACE assumes that the page itself is at the modern name. And actually people did not start switching Tenedos to Bozcaada in the modern-context parts of the article - GPM started switching them from Bozcaada to Tenedos, while the broader issues were under discussion, and was reverted but has begun edit-warring over it. N-HH talk/edits 15:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

When I meant "clarifying", I did not have in mind the usual folks which have been hanging around for months on the talk page and who have made their strong opinions abundantly clear, but some fresh insights from uninvolved editors. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Use the modern name or adopt the solution for Istanbul and Constantinople - one article for the modern place and one for the historic one. Make sure there are redirects or easy-to-follow links. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the input Judith, both are great ideas. I think we should use the modern name or split clearly into Tenedos and Bozcaada pages (But both of those are stalled out right now). But, until then, any ideas on how we can we have a good Neutral POV page? A) Use the article title throughout even though it isn't the modern name (but is a prominent name) or B) use the modern name where it is appropriate and the archaic name where it is appropriate? That's really our loggerhead. (GPM says A, N-HH and I say B). Once again thank you so much for your time, you have no idea how appreciated. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers GPM. I was simply querying in what way this was an NPOV issue, if at all, as well as explaining some of the points that were side-stepped in your opening gambit. You're quite happy asserting your right to post on this topic here after all. Having done that, I am more than happy to hear some third party input, and for this thread to focus on that; as is AI, it would appear. N-HH talk/edits 10:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Jaffna hospital massacre

Is "massacre" in the title (rather than "incident"/"event") the right word coming from Misplaced Pages's voice, especially when there are contesting perspective and nothing has been proved so far? Mr T 04:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as a massacre it was. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Darkness Shines, you cannot say that in Misplaced Pages's voice unless these claims were proved in a court of law. With all due respect, you're not an ideal judge of that situation. Any random murder cannot be labelled as "massacre" unless it is formally ascribed to a cruel motive beyond all doubt, since the exact details of that incident is still debatable (the army claims the casualties were collateral damage in a crossfire), the word "massacre" is not appropriate. Mr T 07:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:POVTITLE describes the decision procedure. It's not related to the definitions of words or what has been proven or judged to have taken place. If the title complies with NPOV, sampling a sufficiently large number of reliable sources that discuss the incident should show that "Jaffna hospital massacre" is the most widely used term. If it isn't the most widely used term you will have demonstrated using RS based evidence that it isn't neutral according to Misplaced Pages's rules. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you Sean for your comment, I know. I mean, obviously I don't think that a vast majority of reliable sources refer to the incident as "Massacre" (once we discount the repeated sources). And just to let you know, I was responding to DS's comment.

And even the sources that are cited in the article, are woefully tantamount to opinion pieces, mainstream "news reporting" is what could be more credible. These sort of articles need to be backed by solid sources. Mr T 16:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Armed me enter a hospital and proceed to butcher over 60 unarmed people. Call me old fashioned but that is a massacre. However as you believe I am not an ideal judge of what is or is not a massacre let us use the sources. Paradise Poisoned: Learning About Conflict, Terrorism and Development from Sri Lanka's Civil Wars "Some of the excesses committed by Indian soldiers during the assault on Jaffna, particularly the massacre of doctors, staff and patients in the Jaffna Hospital, were particularly gruesome." Trauma, War, and Violence: Public Mental Health in Socio-Cultural Context "In one telling incident on the traditional Theepavali day, the IPKF entered the Jaffna Hospital and proceeded to massacre over 60 patients and staff despite the absence of militant presence." Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No dear, I didn't say you're "not an ideal judge of what is or is not a massacre", I said you're not equipped with the knowledge of what happened that very day. Army claimed they were fired upon. And I also explicated my lack of reverence for opinion pieces. To back this kind of lofty assertions you need something close to news reports, if there are I would not mind including them in the article. Mr T 09:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yañalif

Hi all, this article has an incompleteness problem:

the discussed writing system was used in dozens of languages in the USSR in 1930s, not just in one language as the article says. Thus, the preamble must be rephrased, and the entire presentation revisited.

Not sure which template to put. Borovi4ok (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You could use {{undue}} and raise your concerns on the article's talk page. De728631 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User ‎75.51.171.155 violating NPOV

I've moved the following from WP:ANI. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Unregistered user ‎75.51.171.155 is violating NPOV and persistently vandalising the article on White Terror (Russia) trying to turn it into a Communist propaganda piece, using clearly biased sources, refusing necessary warning tags, and insisting on pro-Red Terror remarks, thereby demonstrating his biased POV. He clearly thinks that the way to write a Misplaced Pages article is to start with a political position and to search for sources no matter how biased and unreliable to support that pre-determined viewpoint. Is this the right place to report this? cwmacdougall 10:17, 23 October 2012

IP notified. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Based on a report at WP:ANEW and a review of the conduct on the article, I've blocked the IP and a newly registered account for 72 hours for abusing multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias in Ductile iron pipe article

Greetings, I have come to this noticeboard to ask for editors to assist me with addressing bias in the Ductile iron pipe article. After careful review of the current content and recent editing history, I believe that the article's content has become negatively slanted. I am not alone is drawing this conclusion, as other editors have commented on this in the past on the talk page, however I will disclosure that my interest derives from working with the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association. I am here on behalf of this organization, aiming to reduce the bias in the article by working with disinterested editors on talk pages.

So far, I have asked on the article's talk page for help with the content under the heading "Environmental". There I have detailed the issues with the existing content and provided new content drawn from quality sources—primarily peer reviewed journal articles—aiming to give a balanced view of ductile iron pipe's environmental impact. My proposal is to replace the existing biased content with this new content.

Just one editor has commented, but only to say they too noticed a suspicious pattern of editing in the article. Since this noticeboard focuses on issues such as these, I would be grateful if someone here will review my suggestion and offer an impartial opinion. If you can, please reply here: Talk:Ductile_iron_pipe#Bias_in_this_article PiperOne (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested changes are a major improvement and I have implemented them. I'll keep an eye on the page for a while. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan, I have replied on the Ductile iron pipe page, but also wanted to thank you here. It would be most appreciated if you could look over the article in case there are attempts to return the content to its former biased state. There are also other areas of this article that concern me with regards to bias in the content. If I may, I would like to reach out to you again once I am in a position to offer further new content. Thanks, once again. PiperOne (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Maldives Section on 2012 Coup

This section is in serious need of a good editor. There is redundant information and some very biased language. For example, a sentence about the coup describes the new President as " President Waheed appears to be too busy lurching from crisis to crisis led by the nose by his coalition partners and by Nasheed, to bother about a small matter such as an investigation into allegations of a military coup."

I'm too much of a novice and not an expert on the events, so I would appreciate it if someone more bold could attempt to correct this.

Thank you.Perew (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution