Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:27, 20 January 2013

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

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations articles

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

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

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

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

Ecclesiastes (Date and Author)

Overview:Over at the Ecclesiastes page, there is some disagreement over whether to include certain material. One editor is in disagreement with the other parties, over inclusion of a certain point of view; in fact, he has deleted any information that disagrees with a very narrow interpretation.

Background: The issue of the date of Ecclesiastes has been in dispute for at least 150 years. Scholarly opinion has bounced around quite a bit, but essentially there are three views held among Bible scholars. The first is a late view, dating the book to around the 3rd century B.C.E. This view is based on a supposed presence of Hellenistic culture found in the book. It is held by quite a few scholars, with Rudman, of Exeter university being the primary source given in the article. Rudman claims, in his book, that "250 B.C.E. is the consensus date" among scholars, even though the editor who added this, has failed to provide other sources that give this particular date as the "consensus" view. (This is Dispute #1)

The second view, advocated by Seow of Princeton University (and author of the prestigious Anchor/Yale commentary on Ecclesiastes), denies the presence of such Hellenistic culture found in the book, and instead advocates for Persian influence of the 4th to fifth century (330-450, to be exact). The editor in question has removed any mention of this other, equally held view, because it apparently disagrees with his own. Though Seow, Batholomew, Longman, and other authorities deny any consensus, the editor has insisted on quoting this "consensus" view as fact...which, from what I have read, goes against Misplaced Pages's standards (it should be cited as Rudman's opinion for NPOV).

The third view, which is a minority view, has also been completely censored, that of an early date. D.C. Fredricks published his study in 1988, and it has since been noted, critiqued, criticied, and yes, also applauded. Seow himself notes the importance of the work, as does Bartholomew, agreeing with the study in part. That Fredricks view is still held by many, is apparent from the current literature. IVP academic has just published an updated version of his material in the new Apollos Bible Commentary series. His work is frequently cited in peer reviewed publications (Bibliotecha Sacra, April 2012), and others in the field have adopted his views. This would seem to merit inclusion. The editor has even admitted that it is not a "fringe view," yet he refuses to allow any mention of the study, the theory, etc. Instead, his article as it stands, portrays the 250 B.C.E date as if it is held by everyone, when in fact not even a majority of scholars would agree to it.

I would appreciate your review of the article, and of the talk page. The editor in question has been doing a lot of editing lately on this page, and there definitely seems to be bias. Here are the two versions.

Original version: The book takes its name from the Greek ekklesiastes, a translation of the title by which the central figure refers to himself: Koheleth, meaning something like "one who convenes or addresses an assembly". According to Rabbinic tradition he was Solomon in his old age, but for various reasons critical scholars have long rejected this idea. On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE, and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it. The current consensus dates it to the early Hellenistic era, around 250 BCE.

Updated with a NPOV: (Retains the material from the original version about the book's name and the traditional view of Solomon as author, which implies a date; remainder, from "On lingistic grounds...", replaced with the following: Dating of the book of Ecclesiastes is difficult as well. On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE, while the latest possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it. Although some suggest that there is a consensus date of 250 B.C.E., this is still disputed. Essentially the dispute revolves around the degree of Hellenization (influence of Greek culture and thought) that is present in the book. Scholars arguing for an earlier date of 330 B.C.E. to 450 B.C.E., hold that there is a complete lack of Greek influence in the book . Those who argue for a third century date on the other hand, hold that the book was written in a Greek influenced social setting, and believe it shows internal evidence of this fact . A third group of scholars continue to advocate for a date much earlier than 450 B.C.E., up to and including the time of Solomon. D.C. Fredericks in a 1988 study advocated not only an early date, but Solomonic authorship. His work has not gained a high degree of acceptance and has been criticized by many .

Havensdad (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC) {{subst:PiCo-notice}}

I thank Havensdad for informing me of this, and I've made a few minor edits aimed at making it more readable - I don't think they're controversial. I'm too busy right now to reply, but I'll do so within 24 hours. PiCo (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's my response.

Response

First, I don't quite agree with Havensdad's description of the dispute - I don't think it's a POV dispute but rather one about due weight. He wants to include the views of Fredericks, at some length, and I regard that as undue. But let that pass.

I do believe it is a POV issue. Soem scholars, and I believe this includes you, want a stranglehold on a particular position that they hold, and use force/power to exclude all dissenting opinions. I believe this is what you are doing. Further, you refused compromise, when all of the other editors agreed (an administrator, Cerebellum, Athnekos) that because of Fredrick's wide sourcing and use, he should be mentioned. You deleted even a two sentence mention of the view, which noted that it was rejected by most scholars. That's definitely a NPOV issue Havensdad (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Havensdad says there are three views on the date of the book of Ecclesiastes. This is not so: there's only one, really, which is that was composed some time between about 450 and 180 BCE. Havensdad divides this range into two parts, which is sort of ok, as it's true that some scholars say the earlier end of the range (the Persian period) and others the later (the Hellenistic period. Anyway, we have sourced sentences in the article saying this: "On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE,( sourced from Seow|2007|p=944) and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it.(sourced from Fox|2004|p=xiv). Seow actually says that most modern scholars say the post-450 date is right. Seow and Fox are important modern scholars, and I gather that Havensdad doesn't dispute what they say.

This is not reflected in academic literature. Longman notes, actually, MORE than three views, including his own which is unique. Further, Seow DOES NOT say that "most scholars" hold an earlier view. After saying the book COULD NOT have been written later than 330 B.C.E., he notes that "many" scholars hold to a later view.Havensdad (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So it comes down to whether the idea that the book could have been written before about 450 (the exilic/pre-exilic period) has enough supporters to warrant inclusion in our article. Havensdad refers to a scholar named Fredericks, who examined the language of the book (it's written in Hebrew) and decided on that basis that it could be, and probably was, exilic or pre-exilic. That was in 1988, almost a quarter of a century ago. Not surprisingly, scholarship has examined his ideas in the interim. The overwhelming conclusion is that he's wrong. I can cite:

• In a recent (2009) scholarly commentary on Ecclesiastes, Craig Batholomew notes Fredericks' argument but then goes on to list all the other important works that have addressed the question since Fredericks' book. He notes (and I don't want to bore you with names, but these are all important scholars) Lohfink, Seow, and Schoors, the three reaching different conclusions about the date, but all putting it after 450 BC.
• Seow (1997) published an important study of Ecclesiastes which is regarded as the standard work on the book's language. Seow reviewed Fredericks and the entire debate, and concluded that it should be dated to the post-exilic era and no earlier than the 5th century (i.e., he accepts the 450 BC date as the earliest possible, roughly speaking).
• Longman (1998) concluded that "the language of the book is not a certain barometer of date". Batholomew comments that Longman's judgement "remains valid." Note thatt directly contradicts Fredericks, who based his entire argument on the idea that the language of Ecclesiastes could be used to date it - all his argument is based on the language.

In my research for this section of the article I did not come across a single modern scholar (writing in the last 10 years) who would put the book before about 450 BC. On that basis, to mention that date as one supported by modern scholars, even a significant minority, is without evidence; and to mention Fredericks by name, when it seems no modern scholar supports him, is undue weight.

We should also look at what contemporary scholars do actually say about the date:

• Batholomew (1998): "The state of the current debate favors a postexilic date for Ecclesiastes..." (p.53)
• Brown (2011):"Persian loan words, Aramaisms, and late developments in Hebrew forms and syntax all indicate a 3rd or 4th century dating..." (p.8 - note that Brown uses language to date the book - he obviously is not convinced by Fredericks).
• Coogan (2008): "...probably written no earlier than the 4th century BCE..." (p.7)
• Fox (2004): "...clearly postexilic." (p.xiv)
• Gilbert (2009): "...thought to have been written in the postexilic period sometime between the fourth and second centuries BCE..." (p.125)
• Longman (1998): "With few exceptions, most critical scholars date the book late in the history of Israel". (p.9 - I regret it's not available as a google book. Longman makes clear that by "late" he means post-exilic.)
• Rudman (2011): "The current scholarly consensus would make Ecclesiastes a product of the early Hellenistic period, probably around 250 BCE." (p.13)

And they go on and on. Many, many scholars saying postexilic, none saying pre-exilic or exilic. Clearly, Fredericks does not represent a significant body of scholarly opinion, and the inclusion of his name would be undue weight. PiCo (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You assessment is simply wrong. You are cherry picking quotes. Seow doesn't just say that it can't be earlier than the fifth century...he also says it can't be LATER than the 4th century. He puts an OUTSIDE late date, as do all who hold to the Persian view, at around 330 B.C.E., while Rudman and others, hold to a date NO EARLIER than the 3rd century (200's). In other words, according to those holding to a Hellenistic view, the date range is 180-299, while those holding to a Persian view, date the book 330-450. These are two different views.

Additionally, I have noted Fredricks recent publication in IVP Academics Apollos Bible Commetnary (2010), where he addresses the objections to his original study). IVP academic is a prestigious publishing company, used by Seminaries and Universities around the world. When I was working on my Master's Degree in Biblical Studies (with concentrations in Hebrew and Greek, by the way), five of our textbooks were produced by IVP academic. Finally, I have noted that this gentleman's assessment that no other scholar's consider this view possible, is incorrect. Longman notes that Frederick's could be right, though it is unlikely. Other scholars have actually taken Fredrick's view, and I have noted those in our discussion (one from the April 2012 issue of Bibliotecha Sacra, one of THE most prestigious peer reviewed journals in the world of Biblical Studies). Havensdad (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Seow says exactly what I say he says. And from the point of view of Fredericks, it's a single view - post-exilic. I can't find a single recent author who accepts Fredericks' pre-exilic date. It's not cherry-picking, these are books taken from the first few that come up in a search of google books. Frederick's recent article is irrelevant - the point isn't him, it's his views, and how much acceptance they get (or don't get).

I'm not sure what we do now - wait for someone to come along and comment? PiCo (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, sir, Seow does not say what you says he said... quoting from your earlier link,

“These features, together with the fact that there are no Greek loan words (or indisputable Greek ideas), suggests that the book should be probably dated sometime before the Hellenistic period, between 450 and 330 B.C.E., although many scholars date it a century or two later.”

Notice he says "many" scholars disagree with him, not "most." Havensdad (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I said Seow "concluded that it should be dated to the post-exilic era" (that's a cut-and-paste from up above). You say Seow says it "should be probably dated...between 450 and 330 BCE". As the post-exilic era begins in 520 BCE, where exactly do you see a contradiction? PiCo (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK so. I suspect nobody else is commenting about this for the same reason I wasn't -- way way way more than I want to know about this document. But hey, I'm killing time, and I have read the first part of this exchange and perhaps the following thoughts will help. I have not looked at the page itself and hope not to have to ;) However, it seems to me that the model that applies here is writing the controversy. The point here is not to determine the ultimate truth of some scholarly point. Misplaced Pages can't. Remember that ignorant as I am on this topic, which is totally, I can if I wish contribute to this article, so ideally it should be accessible in its language and more to the point here, cover any major theories on the topic that I may have encountered.

Let me start by restating the issue as I understand it. The date of the document is thought by some to be in one range because they see certain traits as resulting from Greek influence, and by others to be in a different range because they see Persian influences in some of the language. Then there is one author who thinks a third thing but he is the only one who thinks it. Is that, in its broad strokes, essentially correct? Please excuse any errors of vocabulary or fact -- trying to suggest a structure that would resolve this.

So why not have like so:

1.lede -- what is Ecclesiastes -- mention here that its date is uncertain

insert if necessary pertinent important non-origin info here in second paragraph

2.Theories of Ecclesiastes origin -- which involves mentioning the date ranges, right?

for this paragraph describe each theory briefly and mention a couple of leading proponents.

the guy with his own theory gets one sentence plus a mention that he does not have much support.

3.Proponents of Hellenic origin -- This is to provide google terms, real discussion later

4.Proponents of Persian origin -- as above

5.Evidence for Hellenic origin -- this is where you make the case for that point of view

6.Evidence for Persian origin -- this is where you make the case for that point of view

7.Controversy -- this is where you quote them talking about the other camp

8.Unless he is really off the wall, make a few remarks about the guy with his own theory here

9. References, Works, etc

Since the heart of the matter appears to be a dispute about undue weight, the beauty of this structure is that you can give each scholar, authority or author 1-3 sentences in sections 3 and 4, which can be as many paragraphs as needed. Items 5 and 6 similarly are likely to require multiple paragraphs and can cover what is known, what is believed, and how this person, that person and the other person have interpreted this.

The rule of thumb is that competing views should be presented and weight given to them in proportion to the amount of support that these views receive from those in the field. This gets interesting in application, but it looks as though at least everyone you guys are quoting is some sort of scholar so at least you don't have to fight about whose opinions to take into account since you are citing scholars to begin with. Elinruby (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing, Elinruby. It is indeed a very dry and obscure subject, and I can't help feeling that my time would be better spent on some healthy outdoor activity, but it's 37 Centigrade outside today.

Yes, it's really a due weight dispute, not a pov dispute. Havensdad and I actually agree on all the facts - most scholars date Ecclesiastes to the post-Exilic age. That's divided into the Persian and the Hellenistic periods, and some scholars favour one, some the other. Fredericks, who is a respected scholar, wrote a book arguing for a pre-Exilic date. That was in 1988, and since then his argument has been examined by many and accepted by none - I can't find a single recent (post-2000) book by a major scholar that agrees with him. So in my view, putting Fredericks in at all would be undue weight. Havensdad wants him in, in the interest, I think of completeness. We've been talking on the article Talk page and I think we're coming to a solution. PiCo (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically that isn't true. J. Stafford Wright, of Cambridge university (Expositors Bible Commentary), has actually advocated for a pre-exilic date, along with Roy B. Zuck of Dallas Theological Seminary, as well as a number of other scholars. Havensdad (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So include him with his own section as above. I have not looked at the article to see if that structure requires a major rewrite, but what I am trying to get at is that you guys can probably agree on who thinks what, right? So if you get all the names down you should be able to get a feel for the numeric weight, e.i. 60-40, 70-30, 50-50 or whatever. Possibly you need another weighting factor to take into account who's an authority or who is whose student, but the idea is to say:

Mr Smith says x

Mr Brown says y

Mr Green says they are both full of it

Mr Purple says they are both half-right

Then, depending on how much of a deep dive this is, you can get into a discussion in the following sections of the pros and cons of the various sides.

A couple of cautions -- it appears to me that you are probably both scholars in this or some related field, so you may need to hear this again. You aren't here to decide which one of these authors is right. This isn't a thesis. However, if you can agree on which are the more mainstream views those should receive greater weight than the others.

I should be able to say "who was that guy who wrote that thing about that book" and be able to find him in your article, possibly along with a mention that this that or the other expert disagrees with his theories.

The other caution, PiCo, is that it doesn't matter how recent the work is, not in history, unless it's really completely discredited. It's not like this is internet technology or computer hardware, where yes, references from pre-2000 are completely obsolete. If people are still citing him with even partial approval he should be in there, possibly along with a notation that he's considered controversial (or whatever).Elinruby (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the essential point remains: in Misplaced Pages we represent majority views, plus significant minority views. There's no definition of how big a "significant" minority is, nor any guidelines on how to establish the popularity of points of view. I try to find scholars who say things like "A majority of scholars..." or similar - that helps avoid cherry-picking. None of the books I've read say that any significant number of scholars accept a pre-exilic date. PiCo (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Then you have not read the right books. Also, if you look for phrases like "a majority of scholars," then you necessarily exclude the "significant minority opinions" that according to Wiki guidelines we should include. I think, at this point, it is also important to note that we are not really talking about a majority vs. minority. If we are talking about the majority opinion among credentialed people in the field of Biblical Studies and ancient Hebrew linguistics, I would posit to you that by far the majority favor a pre-exilic date. Most of these scholars are dismissed out of hand by "critical" scholars, because they have religious convictions, and it is assumed these convictions carry bias (a conclusion that is unfair, in my opinion..both sides are biased). I can list for you a stack of recent commentaries a mile high, by credentialed Ph.D scholars, who advocate for a pre-exilic date. Havensdad (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this is a stupid question, but I am a network geek with no clue about this topic, so bear with me. How many authorities can there be on this? Is it a lot? If not why not summarize them? Significant is going to depend. My vote on this would not count for example. And the text should be about this particular topic. But even then scholars are as liable as nyone else to have mental quirks and prejudices, which was why I suggested starting with trying to agree on who is an authority. I wrote that before I saw Havensdad's comment, which makes me think that you need to settle this before proceeding. For what it is worth I do not think religious beliefs necessarily invalidate an opinion, but they would make me give it greater scrunity... Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, (coming from someone who has a Master's degree in this field), the number of people who want to get into Biblical Studies with an emphasis on ancient Hebrew linguistics, are few and far between. Almost ALL (and I say this having met, studied under, and talked to hundreds of professors)of them fall into one of two camps...they got into the field because they have religious convictions, and want to "prove" the Bible, or they have anti religious convictions and want to "disprove" the Bible (prove and disprove meaning different things to different people). And so you have on one hand, scholars saying things like "it COULD NOT have been written earier than..." which is an absurd statement, since anyone in the field knows that a few Persian loan words does not PROVE anything (since it can be accounted for by later redaction, which Longman notes..). On the other hand, though, you have professors like Michael Eaton writing the Tyndale Bible Commentary (2009), stating honestly that "Our Conclusion must be that the language of Ecclesiastes does not at present provide an adequate resource for dating", while Dr. Robert Hughes, Dr. Carl Laney of the SAME publishing house (2001), states "The book of Ecclesiastes was written somewhere during the last period of Solomon’s reign of forty years (970–931 b.c.). Some have argued for a date as late as 400 b.c. on the basis of the unusual language in the work. But the linguistic arguments for a late date have been undermined by discoveries of fourteenth-century b.c. Ugaritic tablets that show linguistic similarities with Ecclesiastes." Which is not absurd (the Ugaritic Tablets may be an important piece of the puzzle), but is certainly overstated...

So you see, the issue is very convoluted.... Havensdad (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the issue is difficult, the opinions of experts differ. That's why I look to general works from respectable sources (like the Oxford Press, but there are many others), and by scholars who get quoted by other scholars (like Michael Coogan). Fredericks, who wrote the book we've talked about above, falls into that category - he's a respectable scholar (a "reliable source" if you will) and his book is discussed respectfully by other scholars. And although he based his argument entirely on linguistic grounds, that wouldn't matter if other respectable scholars supported a pre-exilic (before 520 BC) date on other grounds. But they don't: Coogan, Enns, Seow and others examine Frederick's ideas and decide against his dating. I think the most we can ad to the article is something like: "Attempts to support a pre-exilic date have not achieved a consensus" (which is a quote from someone I've read), and we could put Fredericks' book in the bibliography. PiCo (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But "respectable sources" is subjective. Is not J. Stafford Wright, of Cambridge University, who also supports a Pre-exilic date on linguistic grounds not "respectable"? Or Dr. Roy B.Zuck? Or, for that matter, Laney and Hughes, who also claim to be dating from a linguistic standpoint, and are published by a reputable publisher? The fact is, when you read Enns and Coogan and some of these others, they are dismissing work by a huge section of the scholarly community when they speak of "consensus." Truthfully an enormous number of scholars (I would say a majority) in the field state plainly that the date cannot be known with certainty. But what you want to do, is paint something that is uncertain, as if it is certain. The fact is, all it would take is a single redaction in the fourth century, that is unknown, to completely invalidate every bit of data we have. Or for something as simple as a Persian amanuensis...any of these things would make all of this wrangling over a few Persian words moot. The last thing we want to do, is to present some type of certainty to the reader, as if the issue is settled. Its not, and probably never will be, as several honest scholars have pointed out. Havensdad (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If the facts are disputed your goal should be to present the various sides of the dispute, not to determine the ultimate truth of the matter. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Very true. I just made an edit on the Ecclesiastes article that I hope Havensdad can accept. Thank you also for your interest - most sane people on Wiki don't want to touch religious articles with a bargepole, you are very brave :) . PiCo (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Any Unix people?

I ran across this issue while doing cleanup in computing -- somebody flagged the article on Unix HAL as biased. I am unix-literate enough to understand the issue but not to solve it.Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

got interrupted while posting this earlier. If anyone wants to look, it's Talk:HAL_(software)#Bias.Elinruby (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. As I said there, yes, HAL is still alive, but as alive as Larry King. Not for long... The tag will come off by itself soon. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Race (human classification)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moshe Friedman - Ongoing

Moshe_Friedman need assistance. There is support for Holocaust denial which lacks sources and facts and would appreciate balanced editors who actually read the sources. Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Interested users should check out Talk:Moshe Friedman, where some of Tellyuer1's proposals have been soundly (if, in some cases, uncivilly) opposed by multiple editors. Users may also want to check out WP:ANEW, where Tellyuer1 faces an active report for edit warring on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, simply stating that an article needs help is unlikely to elicit a lot of assistance. It would be more useful if someone could summarize for us specifically where the disagreement is. TheBlueCanoe 03:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)]]

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

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

Smithfield Foods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biased safety claims in Cannabis (drug)

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

• Forensic Science International

“Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use”

• Journal of Pediatrics

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

• Cancer Research, UK

“Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?”

• Revue Neurologique (French)

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

• Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases

“Cannabis-Related Myocardial Infarction and Cardioembolic Stroke”

• UCLA School of Medicine

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

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

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

• State of California

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

• Center for Effective Drug Abuse Research & Statistics, Drugwatch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stanford: insight into difficulties of marijuana research

Oxford: Challenges of marijuana research

David Nutt on the difficulty of researching illegal drugs

Federal Marijuana Monopoly Challenged

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

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

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

Sadhu Vaswani

The article opens with

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

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

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

Progressive utilization theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the article creator, I won't dignify the "promotional" remark with a response. As for the question of neutrality, which is what this page is about, I would point out the following opening statement at WP:NPOV: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I believe that is what I have done, but I am open to advice, corrections, and additions. For example, obviously, I may not be aware of everything published on the subject by "reliable sources". So if I missed a reliable source, then I am open to the inclusion of such material. Unfortunately, my impression of Bob Rayner - and now Collect - is that, at least in this respect, we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently released Bengali movies NPOV

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

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

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

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

Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp

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

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

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

article needing viewing Mail Online

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

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

Article on Native American Sports Mascots

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral Point of View Review of article Geoffrey Edelsten

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Execution of Rizana Nafeek

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

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

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

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

Race (human classification) 2

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

Article Garadaghly Massacre

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

Carmen Ortiz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos

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

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

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

Kelly Rowland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-invasive ultrasonic removal

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

Company of St. Ursula

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

Bloody Christmas

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

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

Court transcripts as sources

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

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

There are multiple issues here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Derby sex gang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Gilbert 2009, p. 124-125. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGilbert2009 (help)
2. Brown 2011, p. 11. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBrown2011 (help)
3. Fox 2004, p. x. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFox2004 (help)
4. ^ Seow 2007, p. 944. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSeow2007 (help)
5. ^ Fox 2004, p. xiv. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFox2004 (help)
6. ^ Rudman 2001, p. 13. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRudman2001 (help)
7. Bartholomew 2009, p. 54-55. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBartholomew2009 (help)
8. Bartholomew 2009, p. 50-52. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBartholomew2009 (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution