Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:32, 8 May 2013

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

UNMIK

Hi all,
There has been a slight disagreement over at United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, concerning Kosovo's declaration of independence. Sources generally portray it in a straightforward fashion; the Kosovo assembly declared independence. For instance, &c. However, some editors are keen to phrase it differently; "At a meeting of the Assembly of Kosovo most of its members and other representatives of the people of Kosovo, acting outside the UNMIK's PISG framework (not representing the Assembly or any other of these institutions), ..." which to me looks like weasel wording and synthesis; individually, those words seem true if you make a very selective reading of section IV.B.2 (b) of a court document; the words just go out of their way to avoid saying what the bulk of secondary sources say. It looks like an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the declaration (needless to say, we already have plenty of (sometimes disputed) coverage of the legitimacy). Similar wording has sometimes been added to other articles. What does everyone else think? bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, an error appears in the opening line of the above statement. There is a major disagreement regarding the declaration:

• On 9 April 2012, information disagreeable to editors leaning a certain way materialised, and is sourced
• 13 days later, it is removed by Bobrayner on account of his own interpretation of the document
• Within hours, a second editor restores the sourced information but now produces an additional source
• 25 days later, the original objector takes issue again with the very same summary as when deleting the first
• Sourced information returns immediately followed by one more source
• FOUR MONTHS LATER, the page viewed several times and edited twice since the last revert and both times by administrators, the revision is wiped again. The author no longer claims that the points are not supported by the source, which has now seen two additions since its inception, so we see a claim of "neutrality" problem
• On 6 January 2013, the original editor restores the information citing discussion before restoring sources
• Lost again 20 January 2013 with a claim of synthesis...
• ...not accepted by original author in April, requesting objector to examine source.
• Removed again immediately without ackowledging source, simply claiming 'synthsis' once more
• I as third editor to approve sourced version restore the edit
• Down it goes again with the same summary

The sources presented by Rayner are minor reports that concentrate on the status of the declaration not violating international law, the opposite is not the aim of the text being restored, that is there to explain that - in short - representatives claiming to represent the people who did not represent the Assembly of Kosovo or other institutions made the proclamation. I don't see what the problem is with that, all the above examples prove is that there has the page has been disrupted by one single editor subsisting on false summaries. There's no POV issue there, certainly none that provokes a blanket revert. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem remains; reliable independent sources say no such thing, but editors on one side of enwiki's ongoing Balkan wars are very keen to insert weaselly wording based from an obscure chapter of a legal document. Carefully selecting a phrase which goes against the tone of what multiple reliable sources say. Can't we put an end to this? bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Question: Can this not be phrased something like the Kosovo assembly declared independence. An alternative view is that at a meeting of the Assembly of Kosovo most of its members and other representatives of the people of Kosovo, acting outside the UNMIK's PISG framework (not representing the Assembly or any other of these institutions), ...

This is how I dealt with the conflicting "fact" for the "original recipe" of the Singapore Sling. Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC on BP trial

I've commenced an RfC on a three paragraph subsection of BP that deals with the ongoing trial of the company in Louisiana. Some editors have insisted upon removing one of the three paragraphs, claiming WP:UNDUE. Also at issue is whether this should be a section or subsection. It is currently a subsection. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BP#RfC:_Clean_Air_Act_Trial:_How_much_detail.3F Coretheapple (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Question Would it not be a good idea to provide a diff of the paragraph being removed? This would save a neutral the time and trouble having to trawl through edits on a subject which, by definition, he or she has little interest. Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobic incidents

Can someone take a look at recent edits here (I reverted some earlier)? There are some interesting edit summaries. For instance, - 'racist' was removed although it seems to describe the name-calling. Then we have which adds " However, Muslim separatists such as Boko Haram have been involved in a long and violent campaign against Christianity in Nigeria." and reverts my reversion. When I reverted it I wrote "besides needing good sources, this article is about incidents, not decisions" - which is true. This isn't an article about disputes between Muslims and other groups, but an article about anti-Muslim incidents. Sorry, but I'm to tired to analyse the rest, just want other opinions/eyes. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The name calling is not racist. The Yelwa thing doesn't belong at all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Prima Facie Neutral View is good & is bad. Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

War on Women

The article "war on women" goes to great pains in its intro to limit the topic of the article to uses of the phrase "war on women" to criticize conservative positions. My concern is that defining the topic of the article is an NPOV violation. Several centrist and conservative commentators have written responses saying that the "real war on women" is something else, e.g. sexist attacks on Conservative women , Islamist murders of women who dare to date Westerners ; plenty of other examples on Google. My attempts to add such uses to the article have been deflected with the assertion that my additions were off topic. My concern here is that the topic of the article has been defined in a way that ensures the article is one-sided.

As the phrase "war on women" has been used by all sides in our political debate, it is unfair for supposedly NPOV Misplaced Pages to have an article on the term which defines it solely to the way the term is used by one side.

If you think this is OK, then I have a question for you -- could I create an article on "left-wing hypocrisy?" This is a catchphrase used by Conservatives all the time. By defining my article that way, I could limit it to conservative talking points. Any mention of hypocrisy by anyone who was not left-wing would be off topic.

If the "war on women" article is allowed to stand, this would appear to be permissible.William Jockusch (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

War on Women

I do not see much of an actionable proposal in this report. I just had a very quick look at the article and talk page history, and it appears nothing has happened there for over a week (apart from a couple of reasonable edits). Can the OP provide a diff showing a proposed edit (presumably one that was reverted), or point to a discussion with a precise proposal. Noticeboards are not much use for general discussion, although they are fine to ask for independent opinions—opinions which belong at the article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

William Jockusch has had little success in getting his preferred interpretation into the War on Women article. Six months ago he indicated that he thought the topic should be modified away from the commonly defined topic of "War on Women" (as an anti-Republican political catchphrase used primarily by Democrats), but the consensus has always been to keep the article on a narrow footing, to preserve its focus on the uses of the anti-Republican catchphrase. See the following discussions over the past six months: RfC - Scope of Article, Democratic Party or not?, Links to attack pages, Balance in the Lede, Belligerents in the WoW, Request for comment -- Taliban, War on Conservative Women, Pay gap chart is highlighting an irrelevant statistic, Article should state that the meme is used to attack conservatives and republicans, Kirsten Powers should be included, Pay discrepancy in the Obama White House and Honor killings. William Jockusch is continually trying the patience of editors at that page by repeatedly engaging in discussion about the same issues. What he wants cannot happen; the article is about one topic, not two. It is about an anti-Republican catchphrase, but he wants it to include anti-Democratic endeavors. Binksternet (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Seconding Binksternet - WJ has tried this repeatedly and always had a consensus against his efforts, and I'm not expecting the appeal to NPOVN to go any differently (since it's not as though the article is small and obscure with minimal traffic, such that community consensus might differ from local consensus). The problem isn't neutrality - it's that WJ, because he personally dislikes the chronicling of Republican political initiatives in reliable sources, keeps trying to change the article from a discrete topic into a list of uses of a given phrase, which isn't what Misplaced Pages articles are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• As repeatedly discussed with the OP, this article is about one topic: "a political catchphrase in United States politics, used by some political and social advocates to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that they see as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights". It is not about various issues that various people have called a "war on women". It is not about topics the OP feels are relevant that reliable sources have not said are relevant to this specific topic. If there is another topic using this name that is notable, another article can be established and this article hat noted. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq -- here is a recent diff: . The reason given for deletion was that the use of the phrase "honor killings" in an article entitled "The real War on Women" don't fit under "domestic violence" because it was being used in a way that is different from the topic of the article. Which is true if you define the topic of the article as uses of the phrase "war on women" to attack conservatives or Republicans. I tried a bunch last Fall, with similar results. For example, here I put in some conservative uses of the phrase.. This was rejected because "the lede summarizes the body." So the conservative use of the phrase can't go into the lede because it doesn't summarize the body, and it can't go into the body because the lede says the topic is uses of the phrase to attack conservative and republican initiatives. Hence other uses are off topic. All true, if you define the topic that way. But is defining the topic that way consistent with NPOV? If so, would it be equally fair to have an article where we discuss only the use of a particular phrase to go after Democrats or liberals, and all uses of it in the other direction are off topic? Here is a link to an old state of the article's talk page, with plenty of discussion of exactly that issue.http:William Jockusch (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Above, WJ states that the reason I gave here is that "honor killings" are not part of the topic. I actually noted three problems. The first, failing to log in when editing where the editor has been part of a significant dispute is not at issue here. The second issue is that the edit I reverted cited a source (archived here) that did not so much as mention -- let alone discuss -- honor killings. Then, and only then, I noted that the topic seemed to be another of WJ's efforts to turn an article about an anti-Republican catch phrase into an article about various topics unrelated to it. Yes, various individual conservative commentators have responded to the catchphrase by attempting to point to various issues impacting women in ways that they see as more egregious attacks on women. What we lack is reliable sources discussing these responses. Rather, we have individual responses. Adding these to the article would be similar to picking a politician (Obama, G. W. Bush, whomever) and adding various comments from various commentators, cited to their individual comments. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that you note that there is a lack of RS discussing conservative responses to the phrase, when the article is replete with opinion based references.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Then it is time to change the name of the article. If you want a general title, then you have to include all sides. This phrase is not reserved. Arzel (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's nonsensical, and if you gave it a single moment of thought, you'd realize that too. The fact that "Time" is the name of a Pink Floyd album, a magazine, etc. doesn't prevent us from having the article Time, because WP has articles about topics, not lists of indiscriminate information. (The only difference there is that the "Taliban war on women" or "Democratic war on women" don't have the sources to sustain an article.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "Time" is the name of a Pink Floyd song, not a Pink Floyd album. And it's before my "time" anyway ... Seriously. Limiting the scope of the article in this way effectively concedes ownership of the term "War On Women" to left-wing partisans. Either change the title of the article to explicitly limit it to allegations against Republicans, or expand the scope of the article to include other wars against women by other entities. In particular, compare the Taliban shooting women in the head or stoning them to death for having premarital sex, and Republicans wanting to take away their right to have an abortion as a form of birth control. Objectively, which of these two groups is waging a "war on women" if you can only choose one? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah yes, thank you for the correction (I originally listed a bunch of other things, including albums, but decided I'd made the point with a few examples, and screwed up in trimming my comment). Anyway, the issue is not who "objectively" is waging a war on women, because that way lies original research. The issue is that the article is about a topic (Republican political initiatives), not a phrase ("War on Women" - or "time"). If we want to treat violations of women's rights more generally, we also have other articles for that (see eg. my suggestion to WJ way back when, that he consider working on Taliban treatment of women if he really felt strongly about it, rather than simply feeling strongly about the rightness of Republicans). "War on Women" happens to be the name in common usage for these Republican political initiatives, but it is the initiatives that are the topic, not the combination of words. Does that make sense to you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite appearances, I am certain that the above edit was made in good faith and is not intended as a personal attack. I am certain that Roscelese reviewed my entire edit history before making such an insinuation, and simply failed to notice repeated diffs clarifying various Islamist outrages, including this one against a woman . Additionally I'm sure that Roscelese performed a careful investigation of my personal life, resulting in an evidence-based conclusion that I don't care. Because no one would ever make such an insinuation without checking carefully.William Jockusch (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The rest of your edit history is irrelevant to me (unless it is as disruptive as your editing at War on Women, in which case perhaps it should become relevant to me). I sincerely hope that you have no intention of making your personal life relevant to me, but you wouldn't be the first editor to do so without my permission. As I said both then and just now, if you're actually interested in expanding WP's coverage of other small-w "wars on women", instead of simply diluting its coverage of one that sources most often call by that name, you had the source and nothing was preventing you from adding it to an article like Taliban treatment of women where it might have belonged (unlike War on Women, where what was preventing you were various WP core policies). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume that the word "disruptive" above was actually a good-faith attempt to type "disagreement about what constitutes balance," but a typo caused it to come out wrong. Because progressives have rightly taught us the importance of civility, and civility begins in the heart.William Jockusch (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Only one of those two choices is relevant to US politics, which is what the article is about. Trying to compare the Taliban in Afghanistan with Republicans in the US is synthesis, which has been a recurring problem with the suggestions made by William Jockusch. Your observation that limiting the scope of the article "concedes ownership... to left-wing partisans" says more about your personal stance than about the neutral inclination to keep the article topic from drifting into the weeds. People of all political stripes should be interested in making the War on Women article be as informative and neutral as possible. Trying to polarize the the neutral editors into left- and right-wing partisans is a dead end effort, ultimately unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• And if we need sources to support the contention that notable people allege a Democratic Party war on women, there's this: And this: And this:
• "War on Women" happens to be the name in common usage for these Republican political initiatives ... Common usage among who, pray tell? Democratic political operatives? Talking heads at MSNBC? The superstars of snark at Daily Kos?
• Only one of those two choices is relevant to US politics, which is what the article is about. It is? How is a reader from the UK, Australia, New Zealand or Canada supposed to discern that from the title?
• Trying to compare the Taliban in Afghanistan with Republicans in the US is synthesis ... Not in this case. This is not the American Misplaced Pages, or the Democratic Party Misplaced Pages. This is the English language Misplaced Pages, for anyone in the entire world who can read the English language, including millions who have never even heard of the Democratic Party or its memes.
• Your observation that limiting the scope of the article "concedes ownership... to left-wing partisans" says more about your personal stance ... LOL. I knew someone would go there. I voted for Barack Obama three times: 2004 (I live in Illinois and voted for him for the Senate), 2008 and 2012. You will not find a more loyal Democratic Party voter. But unlike many Misplaced Pages editors who happen to be progressive, I am both able and willing to check my biases at the door, and seek to create truly neutral articles. That's my "personal stance." What's yours?
• I suggest a new title for the article: 'War on Women' meme by Democratic Party (U.S.) It was a very successful meme. The Democrats beat two Republican Senate candidates (Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin) who should have been able to cruise to effortless wins. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest any of you look back at the "disruptive" edit history of William Jockusch. I would hazzard to suggest that he does not have one edit that is not involved in attempting to change articles to reflect the right wing, Fox News POV of the world. 64.134.234.134 (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I might think that this problem could be solved by stating at the beginning that this article is about the American political term, and including a link to Violence against women for those who found themselves on the wrong page? I think that this is the most elegant solution.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. But I believe that approach compounds the inherent cultural bias. By continuing to use the title War on Women, with no further explanation within the title itself, we proclaim to the English speaking world that the Republican Party's desire to limit abortion rights is the most important, most notable type of oppression against women in the entire world. What supreme, towering arrogance when women are being stoned to death elsewhere. Not to mention the many other acts of very real violence against women, such as honor killing and female genital mutilation.

That's not to say that I disapprove of the use of political memes by the Democratic Party. To the contrary, I think they're great. The Republican Party deserves to be smacked on the head with several memes in every election. I'm very proud of our party's memes, and this has been one of the finest. Love it. But I can't allow this bias to affect decisions about Misplaced Pages. Let's concede that in the eyes of much, if not most of the English speaking world, the real war on women is being waged by such people as the Taliban. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are completely wrong about this. There are many articles with similar phrases. See, for example War on Drugs and War on Terror, which refer to specific delimited uses of the phrases in question without any qualifications in the title. The "War on Terror" is the US led campaign against, predominently, Islamists. And that's what the article properly says. Now, of course, there may be many other uses of the phrase, but that's irrelevant. We don't include discussion of opponents of Reign of Terror in Revolutionary France etc etc.
Such political phrases are also often used by the people who are targets of the term ("the real war on terror is against the the USA, which terrorises opponents of western capitalism blah blah"). It may be appropriate to refer to the rhetorical use of such terms by their targets to criticise the phrase, and, in this case, the claim that the "real" war on women is to be found elsewhere is one such tactic. But that's just not what the phrase means when it is used in political rhetoric. It's a feminist term deriving from Faludi's book Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, and it refers specifically to conflicts within Western culture, and the US in particular. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Having been a feminist since the 1960s and heard the phrase many times over the years, I defended the term as not being a neologism in talk noting This book uses the phrase in 1977 saying "No one has depicted the sorrows and cruelties of war on women, children, and ordinary people as Kollwitz did in her art." This 1983 article about interview with Betty Friedan uses the phrase. I never did put these in or other references I could have found and should because I'd like to see the development section expanded. I'd also like to see the past history mentioned in first sentence of lead. Otherwise, it's obviously the phrase has been used a lot in last year or so and that is the most notable time period. But it will remain a notable phrase after this patriarchal nation state and its petty patriarchal parties have been dissolved, so let's not pigeonhole it too much. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the argument is that it is currently pigeonholed. And thanks to Roscelese for making my point. Yes there are several "Time" articles, but they are all differentiated by their aspect of time. For this article to be accurate it must either include all aspects which depict a "War on Women" or be more specific that it is just the Democratic Meme (which is what the article is referring). Arzel (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguations in article titles - like (magazine), (Pink Floyd song), etc. - don't exist to satisfy the whims of biased editors, but rather to disambiguate. If you can demonstrate that "War on Women" is frequently used in reliable sources to refer to something else, presumably enough so that an article or a plausible redirect can be created, then we might be able to talk about disambiguating, but even so, you would need strong proof that the existing topic was not the primary one in order to justify not simply solving that issue with a hatnote. I can't believe I'm still acting as though this person is arguing in good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Who said I made that claim? I simply stated that if your goal is to keep out non-republican WOW's then the title should be more specific. You know it is hard to accept good faith from you regarding being specific. Arzel (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I can't believe I'm still acting as though this person is arguing in good faith. You act that way because Misplaced Pages policy requires you to act that way. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That precisely not the point. It's not a Democratic meme. It's a feminist meme appropriated by the Democratic party to appeal to their voters. And that's pretty much what the article says. It does so in the lede section and the "development of the term" section. If there was another notable and sustained use of the phrase "war on women" to refer to a different specific topic, then, and only then, we would introduce disambiguation in the title: "War on Women (Amazons) is a term used to refer to a mythical war against the female warrior Amazons of ancient Greek legend" etc. The only other uses provided are stray and isolated examples of the phrase in various contexts, or self-conscious Republican appropriations of it in comments specifically on the Democratic and feminist usage. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I see. So it's a feminist meme that's limited to the United States. "Dear Middle East: Misplaced Pages is aware of its cultural bias in favor of the United States, and chooses to do nothing about it because Misplaced Pages likes its cultural bias. If you think that the Taliban and other medieval Middle Eastern cults are waging a war on women, with their stonings and their honor killings and their burkhas and their beatings and their gender segregation and their female genital mutilation, think again. Here's a nice hatnote for you. Run along." Perhaps the proper title is 'War on Women' (feminist meme) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. Your comments are spectacularly obtuse. No-one regularly refers to the practices of the Taliban as "the War on Women". Rather, some Republicans/US Conservatives have said, with reference to the established feminist usage, that what they are doing cannot reasonably be described as a war on women when groups like the Taliban behave as they do. That's clearly part of the discourse on the feminist usage. We don't put bracketed disambiguations in names unless there is a reason why another usage of a phrase, name, or whatever, is well established. Of course one can argue that the critics of the phrase have a valid point, that calling Republican policies a "war on women" is wildly hyperbolic, unfair, silly etc etc. But that's another issue altogether. Paul B (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Liberal's never use it to describe something other than Republicans. </sarc> Arzel (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Try to read more carefully. I wrote "No-one regularly refers to the practices of the Taliban as "the War on Women". It has to be established usage as a term to refer to a definite topic. To repeat, "We don't put bracketed disambiguations in names unless there is a reason why another usage of a phrase, name, or whatever, is well established." This is becoming tiresome. No one is objecting to inclusion of criticism of the term or even of instances of extensions of the usage, which is what this example is. It's not a wholly different meaning (which is why I gave the made-up mythological "war" as an example of when title disambiguation becomes relevant). Paul B (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"No one is objecting to extensions of its usage"? I'd take issue with that statement. In fact, the lede of the article is there precisely to make sure that extensions of its usage are not included.William Jockusch (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant that no-one on this thread is, it seems to me, objecting to that. However, the article shouldn't confuse the reader by implying that "war on women" is a generic phrase applied to lots of different things. We are supposed to be being encyclopedic. The lede summarises the meaning of the term in political discourse. Extensions of the usage of a familar catchphrase are, of course, commonplace. The use of the term as a counter to the specific feminist/Demicrat usage is one thing; the use of it as a generic familar phrase is another, which should, where it is meaningful, be addressed elsewhere in the article. Paul B (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I just came across the following essay, which appears to give a rather clear discussion of what is going on in the WoW article: See in particular the last section on "extreme POV funnels" -- in some extreme cases, a POV funnel might be used to purposely restrict what text sections, or images, are allowed within an article. The situation can be seen as a trap, deliberately intending to restrict the information "allowed" in Misplaced Pages.. That appears be an excellent description of what is going on with this article. Two questions: (1) agree/disagree? (2) In the event that consensus is not reached here, what is the appropriate next step for me to pursue the issue?William Jockusch (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The corollary to "POV funnel" is probably "off-topic forcible insertion tool" which is what your arguments are aiming for. There is not an article on Misplaced Pages called All known instances of the term "War on Women", or else your desired insertions would certainly fit, and would indeed be required. On the other hand, the article which consensus has determined will be called War on Women is a much more limited topic, one which is about the US Republican "War on Women" political catchphrase. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think the title of the article is neutral, no, it would be if it were moved to "War on Women" (US political catchphrase) or similar, but I see that has already been discussed on the article's talk page and rejected and William J was actually the first to oppose the idea, I do not understand why really, it doesn't look like he is really interested in a non-neutral article to me. The other reasons given why it should not have (US political catchphrase) or similar added is because that is only done when it is needed to disambiguate from similarly named articles, and there is no other WP article with that name. I do not think that is a very good reason to be honest, it should at least have "War on Women" put in quotes otherwise it does seem that WP is supporting the accusation that the republicans are waging war on women.Smeat75 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We only disambiguate if the phrase is used in another existing article. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel Shahak "guilt by association"

In this article about deceased writer Israel Shahak at this diff an editor moved a paragraph about the fact that "neo-Nazi or fundamentalist Islamic website"s carry his work from the end of the critical material in the "Reception" section to the beginning. I discussed this at Talk:Israel_Shahak#Context_vs._guilt_by_association as being an obviously POV move but no response from anyone. I don't feel like starting an edit war, since I know he'll just revert it, so though I'd come by for a quickie Neutral opinion. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of innuendo in the article. Saying that someone's writings appear on far right websites implies that the person identified with those views, without providing any source that makes the connection. TFD (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The one source is someone saying their use on those sites is NOT a connection, but of course that doesn't excuse it being in the beginning of the relevant material, as opposed to the end. CarolMooreDC🗽 04:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

why not reduce the information to something like "Shahak's writings are often used by antisemites and antisemitic groups as talking points for x, y, and z." Soosim (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Because that would still be guilt by association. The only reasonable way of having this stuff, is there is any at all, would be like "<some named critic of Shahak> alleges that the fact Shahak is quoted by <named disreputable sources> proves <something>". But that would expose the fact that this is an argument from Shahak's enemies, not an objective fact cited to a reliable source. Two examples that I have mentioned before show how outrageous is the present treatment: (1) Hitler admired England very much; let's see you add that at England. (2) Former Israeli prime-minister Sharett is regularly quoted by the same disreputable web sites as quote Shahak. Try going to Moshe Sharett and insert "Sharett's words have also found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers" (a true fact) and see how long it lasts. Zero 13:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I think using Shahak's co-author's denunciation of these uses is ok - and somewhere else in the article. But using an advocacy group to list the groups and make a guilt by association comment is the problem and I should have caught it long ago. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Newcastle Grammar School

Has been maintained basically as a recruiting brochure and advert since a 2008 dispute on the talk page. Now an edit war has broken out and the school's IT department created an account in order to demand suppression of embarrassing facts. I've blocked the role account, but this thing needs hacking with a machete. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Orangemike, the article does lack neutrality. There are self serving statements such as "Today it is a leading independent school in the Hunter Region", cited to the school's own website. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's so biased nobody in their right mind would believe it, which kinda defeats the purpose I would have thought. There's also some gruesome grammar. Some of it is hard to even comprehend. (Why does this happen so often with school pages?) I'll have a play too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Often, nobody cares but the school's adherents. Thus, you go from saying it serves levels IV-IX in that country's education system, to a listing of every time their ground hockey team won a provincial championship (since the ground hockey team is very proud of this) and a catalog of what musicals their glee club has staged (same reason). --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

School articles should contain mostly information that is sufficiently notable that it has attracted coverage in the media or books. Only basic information should be sourced to the school's website. By providing a link, people who want to know more can go there and find information that is up to date. The bullying section however is written in narrative style. I would prefer that it just summarized what happened. TFD (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul's Lead and History Section

Few editors are trying to minimize and/or eliminate information regarding certain time periods from Istanbul's article. First issue is the lead. There are currently 482 words in the lead. More than half (245 words), 2 entire paragraphs, deal with history. Yet, despite this extensive historical focus, pre-Byzantine history is completely ignored in the lead even though it is notable enough and already included in the rest of the article. Second issue is the history section. Important information is being left out (which is 2 sentences), despite the extensive section, with 2 entire sub-sections. Editors are disregarding what the sources are saying based on their own opinions.

So the issues are following: (1) Adding "Early settlements in the area date back to Neolithic, including ancient Thracian settlements." into the lead and (2) adding back these information into history section. There is also a RFC, Talk:Istanbul#RFC. Cavann (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed here and here as well . There appears to be a consensus that the material is noteworthy enough for the article, but not for the lead nor for the infobox. Cavann refuses to accept this. Athenean (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are relevant discussions, but not exactly the same. Infobox and lead are not same issues. Do not invent fake consensus. Cavann (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The arguments made there are just as valid for the lead. And now I notice yet another user has weighed in against your view. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Indian Armed Forces

I would like to draw the attention of the regular users of this board to the 'criticism' section of this article. I have filed an RfC regarding this section that aims to gain consensus on the validity of this section, particularly in the light of wikipedia policies concerning criticism sections. Generous commentary on that page is invited.Handyunits (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Georges Yatridès

I am serously concerned about two users and there neutrality, but there is also a language barrier, can someone respond to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Men's Rights and Southern Poverty Law Center, (SPLC). Content in lede and a devoted section.

Page: Men's rights movement

Dispute: Southern Poverty Law Center,(SPLC), content in lede and a devoted section.

Question: Are the Southern Poverty Law Center's views on the Men's rights movement any more notable than other any commentators, to the extent they should be cited in the lede and have a de facto section to themselves? It can be argued that since they have taken a partisan stance they are no more notable than any other commentators.

Argument: For a source to be used in the lede or have a section devoted to it alone, it should be significantly notable and the comments significantly satisfy WP:UNDUE. The SPLC may be respected on many matters, but they also have received criticism. The SPLC's reputation has come from dealing with issues no reasonable people could disagree on, eg KKK or Skinheads. The Men's rights movement is a subject reasonable people can disagree on, and the SPLC has taken a strong partisan stance. There is nothing wrong in being partisan, diversity of views are crucial in debate. However, I would argue their reputation does not extend to disputes of this nature. They are no more notable than any other commentators. The sources in question are .

As such I feel the SPLC material in the lede and the Criticism Section should be removed. They are no more notable than any other critics. Additional argument includes:-

(1) Notability

The following quotes from the sources and point illustrate highly partisan language and ignorance of the topic,

• "The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement, is made up of a number of disparate, often overlapping, types of groups and individuals." (The Fathers rights movement and Men's rights movement are not the same.)

• " Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates"

• "The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists..."

• "The aggressively hostile misogynist strategies of so-called Men's Rights and Fathers' Rights Activists are serious enough that the has included these groups in their expose on American hate groups." (Factually incorrect)

• The term "Manosphere" is a pejorative for the Men's rights movement. It is used in the text and also in the URL of one of the sources.

(2) Undue Weight

There are number of violations of WP:UNDUE including

• The commentary refers to the N. America alone.

• Their views are not notability on the subject. (see above)

• A further clarifying article, claims only fringe elements are being addressed, ie see "aimed at the hardline fringe"

• They have not defined or demonstrated Misogyny. Claiming Misogyny is a significant claim. Many would say it is being used a pejorative.

Concluding Remarks: The Men's rights movement page is a very contentious, and at times we need help. This issue is a particular thorn in the side atm and outside commentary would be really appreciated. There have been very extensive attempts at resolving this. CSDarrow (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Move to close this thread per WP:FORUMSHOP. CSDarrow has duplicated the same exact discussion on no less than three pages now, including WP:RSN and Talk:Men's rights movement. At this point, a nice block for CSDarrow would be appreciated from the community whose energy he has wasted. I suggest that CSDarrow step down off of his WP:SOAPBOX and find something more constructive to do with his time. Misplaced Pages isn't part of the manosphere and I ain't no mangina. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The RSN case was with respect to a different matter. ie whose voice is speaking, the named author or the SPLC? Since you where by far the most prolific contributor I am having difficulty in seeing how you could forget that. The issue was an important and entirely different matter. The content in Men's rights movement is clearly going to be similar to this submission. CSDarrow (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Move to close this thread per WP:DEADHORSE. Matter has been discussed to death already. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talked to death indeed and not resolved. You and Viriditas being very strident opponents of my case. If I recall correctly. CSDarrow (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC is a very good source because they make a study of groups and movements such as "Men's rights." Contrary to what you say, the criticism of SPLC comes from the groups they study, which is understandable. The descriptions by the SPLC are essentially the same as one would find in any reliable source, but the advantage of using the SPLC is that they provide greater coverage of these groups. In fact much of the information about them found in newspapers and academic writing will be sourced to the SPLC. TFD (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since this is the first time the SPLC has written about the Men's Rights Movement, I am having difficulty in seeing how your last point can be the case. In fact I'd go further and say essentially everything you have written is untrue. CSDarrow (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Close Forum shopping is never helpful. Enthusiasm is great, but Misplaced Pages should not be used to promote a movement. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Including the SPLC? CSDarrow (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that highlighting the SPLC's criticism of the MRM in the lead strikes me as giving the SPLC's view point UNDUE weight.
Given the amount of controversy the MRM article has engendered here on WP, I would expect to find that the MRM itself has engendered lots and lots of controversy outside of WP. Surely there are other organizations and advocacy groups who have criticized the MRM (criticisms that sould be mentioned in the criticisms section). The lede should be more generic... simply saying that "the MRM has engendered criticism and controversy". The specifics of those criticisms should be left to the "Criticism" section (which would mention the SPLC's criticisms along with those of other groups.) In other words, I agree that we should take the SPLC out of the lede and suggest expanding the criticisms section to include the criticisms of multiple groups. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I support having at least a paragraph dedicated to the SPLC in the article body and a summary of that paragraph in the lead section. The SPLC is known for research, and their recent research on the MRM has revealed that some (but by no means all) MRM groups are involved in hate speech. The specific groups should be named in the article, attributed to SPLC. Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, perhaps you could clarify. So you would support the inclusion of some of the quotations I listed? You feel these are the result of 'research'? If they have 'researchers' it would seem they need to get new ones, they can't distinguish the difference between the Men's rights movement and Fathers rights movement. My sense is anyone involved with research would be left with the impression it had little to do with these articles; other than that of a cursory journalistic nature.

Moreover, you feel 'research' on a subject they have taken a strong partisan stance on is going to be reasonable? The term research to me includes a strong element of objectively. The SPLC has no special reputation or expertise in subjects they have a partisan interest in. Which is the whole point of my submission here. A fact that seems to have elluded you. CSDarrow (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC has a well-deserved reputation for research; their research is cited many times by scholars. I extend this reputation forward to their interest in the MRM until proven otherwise, that is, until some equivalent, respected source contradicts the SPLC's conclusions about hate speech from particular MRM groups. Misplaced Pages (and the scholarly community) does not require a non-partisan stance from the SPLC. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC does not have a reputation for research on legitimately controversial issues, or been cited widely on them. Which considering they conflate the FRM and MRM I am not surprised. It's very nice of you to extend their reputation to other issues, but without supporting logic you are merely using Argument from authority. I doubt "something is true until proven otherwise" even has a Latin name.CSDarrow (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, could you please take a moment to backup your comments with supporting citations? Because at this point, all of the points cited to Goldwag (who does not work for the SPLC but published in their magazine) are supported by multiple sources. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you are just making stuff up when you say they don't have a reputation for research and they have not been cited widely. Clearly they have. Viriditas (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, I am assuming the Goldwag you speak of is the one who doesn't know the difference between the Men's rights movement and Father's rights movement. Or is there another I am unaware of? Could you please clarify. Here is your source . CSDarrow (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I already addressed this point the first time you brought it up in another discussion, so it seems like you have put in your earplugs and you have taken this tendentious forum shopping to the IDHT level of 11. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, you have been doing Misplaced Pages too much, take a rest. Sources can't be edited and have words that aren't there added to them CSDarrow (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Which to me seems fair, if it was not for the fact others wish to incorporate criticism into the text as well. Gathering criticism, of which there is much, into one section to me seems the way to go. This is the way it is done for most politically charged subjects on Misplaced Pages, eg Facism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Feminism, Marxism, Radical_feminism, Putinism, Anarchism, Neoconservatism, Libertarianism, Anti-globalization movement all have separate criticism sections. Strangely Conservatism seems above scrutiny. CSDarrow (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You've repeated this comment several times in multiple discussions. Are any of those articles of GA or FA class? Or are they poorly constructed articles representing sparring POV pushers jockeying for their pet topic? Could you at least find a good or featured article to compare it to here? Criticism sections are not recommended, no matter what Blueboar says, and we try to merge criticism into the body to avoid forking content. Viriditas (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If people are concerned that an expanded "Criticism" section would itself be UNDUE... I would also suggest a "Response to Criticism" section. We would have to be careful to avoid editorial OR (ie keep it to published responses), but it would be appropriate. This has been done in other articles on controversial topics, and if done correctly it can help to bring neutrality to the article. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Which on the face of it seems fair and reasonable. However the sources that are the subject of the criticism, by our are revered Academy, are not considered reliable sources for Wikpedia. Go figure. CSDarrow (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Blueboar's suggestion goes against our best practices, and criticism, whenever possible, should not be set apart in separate sections but merged within the body of articles inline, as part of the major sections. I would be very interested in reviewing a GA or FA article that follows your advice. In general, poorly written articles are characterized by criticism sections, and a response to criticism selection is representative of POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots to read above: Where an article is about a sufficiently large group, and negative information about a subgroup thereof is placed in the article, we run the risk of tarring the superset with claimed attributes of a subset. If we had an article on Gnarphism (hypothetically - I do not think it exists as an article) and we had a group asserting that "10% of Gnarphists were 'mass-murderers'", we would be likely associating "mass-murder" with Gnarphism in the eyes of the reader were we to insert that claim. Doing such a thing on any topic is surely one falling under the NPOV rules. "Some" is way too insufficient for inserting a claim ... "Most" or "almost all" would be more sustainable. Are there articles on Misplaced Pages already doing this sort of paint-brushing of groups or people? Yes. But OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for more to exist. As for "listing groups named by another group" -- that seems "right out" unless balancing material is provided both about the groups listed and the group doing the listing with its criteria explicitly stated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be very easy to find "hate speech" in the writings of some feminists (Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin come to mind). I do not think that would justify having a lede statement that "Aspects of the American feminist movement have been criticized for exhibiting misandrous tendencies". This article is full of this stuff. The lede also has "the MRM is considered a backlash to the feminist movement". Yes, I know the word "backlash" is used within feminism, but it creates an impression of brutality and unthinking violence; phrases such as "reaction against" or "critical response to" would make the same point more neutrally. It also presents this position as unquestioned fact ("is considered"). Then lower down we have "Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom , the United States and India have opposed legislation criminalizing marital rape." Again, the phrasing seems to imply that the whole "men's rights" movement has opposed this. This is like saying "feminists have advocated castrating men" because some of the more far-out ones have made such suggestions. Paul B (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Which of the men's rights groups in the article are known for their pro-feminist, pro-woman positions, where they focus solely on issues facing men without engaging in attacks on women? Can anyone respond to this other than the crickets chirping? The MRM defines itself as against feminism and against women. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this comment supposed to mean something? It's virtually impossible to define a "pro-woman" or, for that matter, an "anti-woman" position (short of arguing that women shouldn't exist). It's next-to nonsensical to argue that men's rights movements are "against women". One wouldn't expect them to be "pro-feminist", but, of course, there is no single "feminism". As I'm sure you are aware, the rhetoric of 'men's rights' mimics feminist language on woman's rights, so it really depends what one understands by feminism. This is a non-question. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul, I hope you are kidding. History is full of women fighting against anti-woman positions, look at Makers: Women Who Make America as only a brief example. Could you point me to the same battle men in the MRM are fighting? No, of course you can't, because the only "battle" these men are fighting are other women. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's nice that you answer your own question to tell yourself you are right. Of course you are wrong. MRM is is a broad term to cover a wide range of movements,. The concept of "anti-woman positions" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Your last sentence does not seem to be even coherent. They are fighting for what they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be their rights, claiming that in some instances women have adavantages over men. We have to rwspect the particularity of thdse argumentsd andlook at the details. It does not help to make asweeping statements. That's the kind of airy dismissal that produces the very frustration of which mwembers of these groups so frequently speak. Paul B (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is now becoming forum shopping, an RSN thread and a talk page thread are all ready open on this, and neither have found in CSDarrow's favour. CSDarrow has asserted that the SPLC is unreliable at the talk page. There is already consensus that the SPLC should not be included in lede. However CSDarrow has attempted to use that as a means to declare the source unreliable (see the talk page thread for all this here). That has backfired and this thread being opened here is of no use to what CS Darrow is ostensibly asking here (i.e should the SPLC be in the lede) that has already been answered. However his attempts to declare the SPLC unreliable have not succeeded and this looks like a case of asking the other parent. A WP:AN thread is open about this. And as such this should be closed--Cailil 21:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A consenus reached Cailil? Well you better tell Viriditas that, when I removed the content from the lede it was rapidly reverted, with the comment:- "No consensus for this edit". I did not see you raise any objections, your silence was in fact deafening. I am gathering addressing the points I have raised here is beneath you. You did not address them in the talk page and you are avoiding them here. I have expressed them in clear and simple language, give it a go Cailil. It would be way more productive than procedural intrigue. Go on Cailil address them, give it a go. I'll be kind I promise you.

The page WP:GOODFAITH also makes good reading. CSDarrow (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow: you have quoted this guideline several times in the last few days. FYI, you might want to read the 4th paragraph of the lede yourself as well as WP:AAGF.Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Slp1 you are right. I have no idea how I could think Cailil was suggesting bad faith on my part. Shame on me. CSDarrow (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Cailil, you obviously are a busy man. Let me help you and we'll do them one at a time

• Does a source that does not know the difference between the Men's rights movement and Father's rights movement deserve special status over other commentators?

Whilst we are at it we might as well do another

• Does a source that concludes " Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates" deserve special status over other commentators?

I'll help you out. I will posit not only does such a source not deserve special status, I'd say it deserves no status at all. Quit the procedural intrigue, answer my questions. CSDarrow (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, did you win the Olympic medal for missing the point? Extremists in the men's rights and father's rights movements are indistinguishable, and that's the focus of Goldwag's expertise. Treating them as one and the same when their response is the same is acceptable. For example, in 2007, sociologist Robert Menzies of Simon Fraser University wrote:

Men's and fathers' groups allege that a prejudicial feminist state has deprived them of the rights to liberty, choice, expressive freedom, a just quality of life, participation in the private sphere, due process, and equal treatment before the law. The administrators and spokesmen for these forums conceive themselves as being collectively embroiled in a common quest to attain justice for men, fathers, and families.

Goldwag's treatment of men's and fathers' groups is accurate and supported by sources like Menzies ("Virtual backlash: Representations of men's 'rights' and feminist 'wrongs' in cyberspace") Your understanding is not. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, you never fail to amaze me. CSDarrow (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that spreading essentially the same conversation to yet another forum is at best tedious and at worst an attempt to get a different answer from others. But let's summarize:

• Notwithstanding CSDarrow's repeated attempts to paint them as unreliable, the Southern Poverty Law Centre has been repeatedly found to be a reliable at RSN discussions in the past and on this very subject.
• Similarly, the SPLC has been extensively quoted by the media and scholarly sources, including these very articles being discussed.. It is clear that the SPLC's publications are considered notable by other secondary sources.
• In my view there was a fairly strong consensus at the talkpage that criticism sections are deprecated (see Misplaced Pages:Criticism#"Criticism" sectionWP:STRUCTURE etc) and that the SPLC material should be integrated into another section (I suggest the "Relation to feminism" section). An additional reasoning for this from my perpective - and here I agree with CSDarrow and others - that having a separate section gives undue weight to this specific criticism.
• There was also, in my view a fairly strong consensus at the talkpage that the material belongs in the article but not necessarily in the lede, and this seems supported here by some editors. The lede could be expanded: it needs to contain a longer summary of the movement's ideals and activities, but a longer and more detailed summary of the various critiques which are sprinkled through the article.

As a bold way forward, I am going to collapse the criticism section and integrate that material elsewhere. CSDarrow, how about you suggest a couple of sentences that in your view fairly summarize all the material critiquing of the MRM currently in the article? Reading writing for the opponent might help. Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So in short move the criticism section into the lede and load it up, and have criticism in the text as well. Presumable due to the SPLC's reliability we'll include that "...some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women." If the SPLC is so reliable then the questions I have asked Cailil, which I have no doubt he won't address, should be easily countered.

This is NPOV not the talk page and the question I have brought here needs to answered before we can restructure. I see you are a member of the elites who can edit the page, how nice. The SPLC commentary in lede still remains despite an apparent consensus for its removal. CSDarrow (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Question to Uninvolved Editors

Should the SPLC material presently in the lede of Men's rights movement be there?

(It would be appreciated and constructive if involved editors stay out of this)

Binkersnet, Concerning refusing my request. You have the right to do as you wish, whether it's right to do it is a different matter.

CSDarrow (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, it should not be in the lede... as I stated above, the lede should be generalized. While it is fine for the lede to say that the Men's rights movement has engendered criticism, it is inappropriate to highlight specific criticisms in the lede. Save the specifics for somewhere later in the article. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, the SPLC should be in the lead section because it is a prominent and respected research group. The article body should be expanded to name specific men's rights groups that have been identified by the SPLC as ones using hate speech. That way the whole MRM is not tainted with the accusations against parts of the MRM.
  (Just so you know, CSDarrow, all discussions on Misplaced Pages are open; they are not restricted to involved or uninvolved editors.) Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• not really, but At least the version I'm seeing now doesn't have a coherent "reaction to/outside analysis" section, and one sentence featuring the SPLC as the sole reaction seems out of place and weirdly undue in both directions. I have to suspect that the liberal establishment of which the SPLC is part has to have more of a reaction than this. It would make more sense to say something more general and comprehensive in the lede and to have a section expanding on this later in the article, in which the SPLC's opinions could be given as examples. Mangoe (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes We need to establish the mainstream view of the movement which happens to be negative. TFD (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We certainly do need a mainstream view, but the SPLC is not a good choice for the sole embodiment of that. They are a party to conflict with these groups, so their neutrality would at least need some endorsement from less plainly involved observers. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually disagree with your analysis here, Mangoe, though not necessarily your conclusion. The SPLC is not an involved party: they are a specialist organization that examines category-based hatred in the US, and one month they chose to put the spotlight on the MRM. Critics are by definition non-neutral: the medical establishment being non-neutral about homeopathy doesn't mean we minimize their views about the matter or state that they are non-mainstream. Having said that, there is a likely a big difference between the medics and the SPLC in terms of whether their views are sufficiently significant enough to need such emphasis in the lead in a global encyclopedia. In this case, and as you recommend, there are other significant critics of the movement, and these should be integrated into a more balanced lead. Slp1 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This Pulitzer Prize and the George Polk Award winner disagrees as does the Christian Science Monitor the most trivial of searches gives massive criticism. The SPLC has no more authority, legal or moral, to designate "hate groups" than does the SPCA, or you, or me. Not even the FBI attempts to designate "hate groups." The SPLC uses the label "hate group"for the sole purpose of agitating its donor base. "Hate group" is a marketing ploy, not a legal category. The web is awash with criticism of the SPLC from solid sources. It's dogged use by some as a respected source is a insulting to the to Misplaced Pages concept. It is the National Enquirer of the Radical Left and Champagne Socialists with big pockets.

CSDarrow (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

They don't need "authority", legal or moral, to be able to gather together scholarly appreciation and kudos, and to be cited over and over again for their research and conclusions. The SPLC has no more authority than Rolling Stone magazine has to name the 100 best record albums (or 100 greatest guitarists, or 100 best singers, etc.) yet people pay attention and comment on the lists. The SPLC is frequently cited for performing valuable research and analysis, and this makes their list of MRM misogynist groups a valid list for our purposes. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, another one of your shallow appeals to authority dripping with puffery. They have no expertise, or any business commenting, on issues that people can legitimately disagree on. This includes the Men Rights Movement. Misogyny is a Weasel word, define it for me Binkersnet. It is no more than a pejorative and their commentary is shallow partisanship. The SPLC is not a legitimate citation for a respectable peer reviewed academic journal, especially the articles used here. The fact you suggest they are is mind boggling; the fact you expect people to explain to you why, is even more mind boggling. CSDarrow (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The FBI does not designate hate groups because hatred and hate speech are not illegal in the U.S. The FBI does use the SPLC's research however because it is responsible for prosecuting hate crimes. TFD (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How do the SPLC define hate speech? CSDarrow (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if the SPLC defines "hate speech". In a recent case the Canadian Supreme Court provides one, "the term “hatred” contained in a legislative hate speech prohibition should be applied objectively to determine whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." More recently, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled the same way, as did the European Human Rights Commission last year. TFD (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, which different is from:- 'You are on the Right and have views that we really really disagree with'. Which is the case with SPLC on a number of their declarations. They have been criticized for exactly this by a number of respectable sources, and is self evidently the case to an objective reader. The KKK is one thing, but they have gone way beyond their brief in recent years. CSDarrow (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The categorization of hate groups in the U.S. coincides with the description of hate speech in other Western democracies's courts. Right-wing groups have also complained about this and the Family Research Council supported the defendant in the Canadian case. TFD (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Misplaced Pages does not try to determine whether the SPLC is correct, only whether their identification of certain MRM groups is worthy of including in the encyclopedia. Is is undue weight? Has anybody else noticed the SPLC listing? I think we have to conclude that yes, the SPLC listing is worthy of inclusion because of the storm of commentary it produced in reaction. Especially noteworthy is the fact that Paul Elam, a famous MRM activist, commented on the issue. Below is a selection of responses that have appeared online. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Intelligence Report Article Provokes Fury Among Men’s Rights Activists", Arthur Goldwag, SPLC
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group ", Radfem News Service
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center considers men's rights groups as hate groups?", question posted on Yahoo! Answers
  • "Clarification: SPLC and AVFM (Not a hate group)", forum thread on Atheism+
  • ""SPLC on "men's rights" hate groups", forum thread on Democratic Underground
  • "Why Reddit's r/MensRights is not a hate group", The Daily Dot
  • "The Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group", Community video uploaded by "Dr. Rivers" to Archive.org
  • "The Southern Poverty Law Center takes on the violent misogyny so pervasive in the Men’s Rights Movement", post on Man Boobz
  • "SPLC linked to anti men’s rights subreddit", A Voice for Men
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center linked to hate activity", A Voice for Men
  • "Are MRA really a hate group?", discussion thread on Skeptics Guide
  • "SPLC names men’s rights activists as hate group", post on MensActivism.org
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Takes Aim at Men’s Rights Websites", Disinformation
  • "Men's Rights Groups named SPLC Hate Group", discussion thread on Google Groups soc.men
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group", Radical Resolution blog
  • "Idiot hunting with the Southern Poverty Law Center", Young Hip and Conservative blog
  • "The Southern Poverty Law Center notices the Men’s Rights Movement", Pharyngula blog
  • "SPLC continues to label org targeted for violence as ‘hate’ group", The Washington Free Beacon
  • "The Good and Evil Sides of Reddit", Jezebel.com
  • "The misogynists’ rights movement: Men’s Rights Activists have no interest in equality", Portland State Vanguard
  • "The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Creepy Mission", The Good Men Project
  • "MRA London delivers, and the shocking implications for the SPLC!", This Is Why MGTOW blog
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Addresses Men's Rights", A Candle in the Dark blog
  • "Poverty Law Center Names Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group", MamaLiberty's weblog
  • "Paul Elam weighs in", Arthur Goldwag's blog
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center, mission creep, men’s rights, feminism…", For the Sake of Science blog
  • "Men’s rights activists named as hate group", Women's Views on News
  • "SPLC: A poverty of integrity", A Voice for Men
  • "r/MensRights Hate Group Tro-lo-lo-lo-lled", Skepchick blog
  • "More on the SPLC", Men's Rights Blog
  • "SPLC Linked To Anti Men’s Rights Subreddit", I Am Against Feminism blog
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men's Rights Activist Movement as Hate Group", Princess Paradox blog
  • "We Are Not A Hate Group", Genderratic blog
  • "Weaselly hypocrisy", Toy Soldiers blog
  • "The Men’s Rights Movement, CAFE & the University of Toronto", Feminist Current
  • "The Southern Poverty Law Center notices the Men’s Rights Movement", discussion forum at James Randi Educational Foundation
  • "SPLC Promotes Eugenics and Hate by Associating with RadFem Hub..", What Men Think of Women blog

Which highlights how effective their disingenuous Hegemonic ploy was. It also further highlights their unreliability as a source on matters of fact or opinion, and their unsuitability for inclusion in the lede. Just as Rush Limbaugh's views should not be in the lede of Feminism, he generates far more reaction than the SPLC. Something along the lines of this might be closer to the mark:-

• The SPLC published articles on the Men's Rights Movement in their edition of "Intelligence Report" entitled "Year in Hate and Extremism 2011". Some of these articles used pejorative references for the Men's Rights Movement, one included references to murderers and pedophiles unrelated to the movement. This led to the wide spread impression that the SPLC had labelled the Men's Rights Movement a Hate Group, including amongst some scholars. This was clarified, months later, as not being the case in part of another article. By now the rumor had acquired traction.

Thanks for the idea, I will add it now. There are few wonderful quotes from one of those articles. If any comments about the Men's Rights Movement by the SPLC are to be included then suitable context has to be added.

CSDarrow (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, I respect the SPLC as a general source, and would generally use it. But on the other hand, I'm really concerned that one of the sources given, a SPLC blog post talking about the reaction to the Intelligence Report, is well known within feminist circles for being an awful transphobic internet troll. Whilst this doesn't degrade the quality of SPLC as a general source, or even as a source on this matter, I would caution editors about systemic biases with the SPLC and using them a sole arbiter of what is a hate group. That said, I don't really believe a man who says that he likes, and I quote, "to look at women that are little fuckmuffins" when he says he isn't a raging misogynist. I'd be opposed to equating these people's criticisms of the SPLC on glorified blogs and forums (several on the spam blacklist) with the research work of the SPLC. Sceptre 21:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also a question of WP:undue. In the article you referred to the SPLC stated they were talking of the 'hardline fringe'. CSDarrow (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

SPLC did not call them a hate group. There is no difference between what the SPLC means by "hate speech" and how it is understood by the European Human Rights Commission and the supreme courts of Canada and Mexico to name a few. And groups like the Family Research Council make the same criticisms about the courts of other countries as they do about the SPLC. And this type of blog is acceptable per WP:NEWSSBLOG. TFD (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Evan Mandery

Originally I posted at the conflict of interest noticeboard (WP:COIN) but without action, so I'm posting here. A COI is mainly an issue of NPOV.

I only want to request that a conflicted-of-interest (COI-affected) article, Evan Mandery, be reviewed for whether it has been sufficiently cleaned up of effects of the COI or COIs to justify deleting the COI template. Other editors have made efforts at editing the article for neutrality.

An editor with an apparent but undisclosed COI edited the article; I notified the editor. I also have a COI for that article; I disclosed my COI. My only edit to the article was to insert the {{COI}} template on a blank line. I've also posted to the article's talk page, including tagging that there is a {{Connected contributor}}.

Other editors have since edited. They have apparently addressed every issue I identified; what may still be pending is discussed there but generally response has been rapid. I am not now proposing a specific edit. (Some copyediting is probably in order but I consider that as outside the scope of this issue.) A question has been raised about whether the most frequent (by far) of these three editors has a COI (I can link to that if you wish) but has not been raised formally or, to my knowledge, to him, and so I think he should be considered free of a COI until shown otherwise, and he has posted that he has no COI.

While the COI template normally may be removed by any editor, since I also have a COI this is an unusual case that I think should be resolved by someone likely to be assuredly neutral of a COI in this article.

Thank you for your assistance. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this on. I'll need a bit of time to get my head around it all though. Manning (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Mark B. Cohen

I just came across this exhaustively detailed article (overly detailed?) about a living Pennsylvania politician (State Legislature). The article has been repeatedly tagged for being non-neutral ... but there has been no real discussion on the talk page as to why it is non-neutral.
A quick glance shows a heavy reliance on primary sources (which may be part of the problem), and there is very little in the way of criticism (which a balanced article about a politician should contain). I have no "proof" but the lack of negative info, the use of primary sources, and the level of detail makes me suspect that the main author might have a COI (a campaign staffer perhaps?).
A review from experienced editors would be appreciated. There is the potential for a very good article here, but it needs some fixing. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Images in Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

A couple of us have slowly been cleaning up this article which originally was overwhelmingly about Palestinian children as mostly being terrorists while emphasizing Israeli children suffering. However, a couple editors insist that besides the two appropriate photos of injured Israeli children in this section, we add this photo of a bloody shoe in this section .

• It's a flickr photo by same individual who did other two photos but, as I've questioned today at Flickr and the Wikicommons talk page "Given that a photograph like this easily could have been manufactured for propaganda purposes, how are we to know it really is blood, blood from the incident or whether or not blood from a child itself?" Even if I get a response it is what it purports, who knows if that is true? Note that photos of injured Palestinian children from Flickr are routinely taken off commons and wikipedia on same grounds. I am only challenging this one.
• Even if somehow proven true, it's still WP:Undue both for graphic content and for being yet a third photograph of an injured Israeli child. (A screen shot from TV of a Palestinian child was found and is in the article now.)

We could use some outside noninvolved/neutral eyes/opinions on this to settle the dispute. Thanks! CarolMooreDC🗽 15:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this whole subject seems rather gruesome and/or tacky but... to continue with a relevant issue.

As a "compromise" I put up this cartoon called "Double Standard" by well known political cartoonist Carlos Latuff showing nearly identical drawings of an injured Israeli (labeled "innocent victims") and an injured Palestinian child (labeled "casualty of war"). I put it in media because it is a media commentary on double standards. It was taken out with the talk page comment: He is clearly an anti-Israel propagandist and adding such a cartoon is not NPOV or constructive at all. And this image doesn’t even refer to media manipulation, but an alleged “Israeli double standard” (when it targets military objectives, unlike her enemies which deliberately target civilians).

Looking around I have found some WP:RS re such double standards I can include somewhere in the article, if not that section. But the question is, is Latuff's cartoon any more biased than an Israeli Flickr page photo by something called http://www.israelnewsphotos.com/ which doesn't even allow one to view its web page and a photo that shows an allegedly bloody shoe allegedly taken at a terrorist incident?

(I have left questions about it at the Wikicommons and Flickr pages.)

The editor is right about there not being an explicit double standard mentioned now but I've since found a couple WPRS on that to put in when I get a chance. If people want to comment now, I won't have to come back here later. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽

WP:UNDUE dispute at Male privilege

There is a section that keeps being removed/restored and is at least as large as the remainder of the article. It certainly qualifies as a WP:CRITICISM section (entitled "against the notion of male privilege"). The main proponent of keeping it in the article (Kyohyi) argues that it is well-sourced, but some of their previous edit summaries and activity lead me to suspect an agenda. They also edit significantly at Men's rights movement where another editor (Rgambord)who tagbombed and removed a great deal of non-WP:CRIT content was an active editor before being subject banned and, judging from his or her user page, leaving.

Below is the section in question. I feel like it probably is more in line with the subject matter at Men's rights movement rather than Male privilege. Certainly some of the voices here should be included, but I feel like its a bit of a WP:COATRACK and most definitely WP:UNDUE but I'm interested in hearing what other editors here have to say.

(another editor, Publicarch seems to agree that this is WP:UNDUE but I think it's wise to get some other opinions on record)

==Against the notion of male privilege==

Men's rights activist Herb Goldberg, claimed in 1976 that "the myth that the male is culturally favoured ...is clung to, despite the fact that every critical statistic in the area of longevity, disease, suicide, crime, accidents, childhood emotional disorders, alcoholism, and drug addiction shows a disproportionately higher male rate." He sees males as "oppressed by the cultural pressures that have denied him his feelings, by the mythology of the woman and the distorted and self destructive way he sees and relates to her, by the urgency for him to 'act like a man' which blocks his ability to respond ... both emotionally and physiologically, and by a generalized self hate that causes him to feel comfortable ... when he lives for joy and for personal growth."

Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly and conservative author Ann Coulter have argued in the course of their campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment that “of all the classes of people who have ever lived, the American woman is the most privileged. We have the most rights and rewards, and the fewest duties.” As examples, they point to the traditionally nonreciprocal obligation on husbands to financially provide for their wives, and women's immunity from conscription into military service.

In The Myth of Male Power, “a debunking of the myth of men as a privileged class” Warren Farrell points to the over-representation of men among groups such as the homeless, suicides, alcoholics, the victims of violent crime and prisoners. Far from being privileged, he argues that policies such as conscription, the women and children first convention and the over-representation of men among the most dangerous and unpleasant occupations illustrate men’s status as "the disposable sex", and states that “if a man feels obligated to take a job he likes less so he can be paid more money that someone else spends while he dies seven years earlier, well, that's not power.”

-- # _ 01:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the continued attacks. Please close this discussion, as it's silly to have two concurrent discussions on NPOV/N and AN/I on an identical issue. Rgambord (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that you have ignored any attempt to actually reach consensus, choosing instead to briefly discuss the problem on the talk page before coming in here to get support, while insulting other editors. You then went to AN/I to attempt to get the article put on probation, without proof of edit warring besides that which you've engaged in, which is a bit of overkill. Do you just immediately assume that it's impossible to reconcile your differences so you need an admin to baby-sit the article? You know as well as I do that I have made every good faith attempt to work together build the article with reliable sources and in an NPOV way, but you've basically resorted to reverting any edits to enforce the poorly written, and heavily biased article that existed previously. When you couldn't get your way on AN/I, you stormed off, and now you've returned presumably to start with the same nonsense. I'd be more than happy to reconcile our differences and work on actually writing the article, instead of constantly arguing. I'm sure you have knowledge on the subject, since you seem so passionate about it. Tone it down a bit, and try to work together please? Tell me, which comes first: your ideology, or your dedication to wikipedia's principles? Rgambord (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine, according to WP:UNDUE "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public.". There are four sources in the section that you wish to remove, there are 12 in total in the the article. How is it that 4 sources in one section creates undue weight? Second, The content that was removed , , and was all a bunch of unsourced content that either was not Verifiable or was a bunch of Original Research. If you believe there is a lot of content out there about this subject which isn't critical of it, I again strongly encourage you to go find it and add it to the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it that references to 1/3 of the sources in the article support 60% of the text? -- # _ 12:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

that doesnt even get into the nature of the sources there, which are not exactly the most scholarly. Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly are not academics, and do not fairly represent academic consensus for, well, anything. Feel free to open up RSN cases about that though, if you disagree. -- # _ 12:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You might have a point if the article were more than thirteen sentences in total. What's needed is more content, and not less. Since Academic consensus isn't an issue in the article I don't know why you're bringing it up here. Misplaced Pages doesn't require Scholarly sources, it requires reliable sources. From looking at the article again, you can probably build upon the sources that are used in the lead section with content in the body. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is original research in addition to undue weight. For example, the paragraph about Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter is original research because the source never actually discusses male privilege. The paragraph about Warren Farrel has similar problems. Editors have picked out examples such as conscription and dangerous jobs but Farrell never actually discusses these things in connection to privilege. The only think he says about privilege is "providing property was a sign of obligation, not privilege" and "Neither sex had rights--both sexes had obligations and expectations and, if they fulfilled those expectations and obligations well, they received status and privileges". The Farrell and Schlafly paragraphs should be removed per WP:OR and WP:UNDUE and replaced by a paragraph stating that men's rights activists such as Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg have disputed that men are privileged relative to women and that some men's rights activists believe that female privilege has become the norm . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• “of all the classes of people who have ever lived, the American woman is the most privileged. We have the most rights and rewards, and the fewest duties.” Perhaps this belongs in Female privilege, or Gender privilege. Unfortunately, neither exists currently. I'm going to hazard a guess that an interview about the book "The myth of male power", in which Farrell gives examples of men being oppressed and expendable is pretty relevant to the topic. MACCHIETTO even ties back everything they discussed in the interview specifically to male privilege, and indeed the content of the book itself. I think you're splitting hairs here. The problem this article has is that a large amount of content was not encyclopedic and had to be removed. Then, all the interested editors left the page, leaving it unbalanced. However, that is not a good justification for removing perfectly good material. It is a wonderful justification for sourcing statements supporting the notion of male privilege, since I know there are plenty out there. I'm happy UTCL is back because she seems very interested in the subject. Everyone, stop bickering. Go find sources. Make a kickass article. Rgambord (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Schlafly source does not mention male privilege and the Farrell source does not support the statements in the article. This is called original research. We cannot include sources that discuss the alleged oppression or "disposability" (see Farrell) of groups of people or power differences rather than "male privilege". If your argument is that we can include sources that do not discuss male privilege then you should restore the content you deleted. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Covering opinions of journalists

At User_talk:Bayshorebabydoll#Houston_Press a Misplaced Pages editor explained her belief that information from a Houston Press article on Bacliff should be excluded from Bacliff, Texas. She argued that "None of the other nearby cities Misplaced Pages articles contain reporter's opinions, not even the Misplaced Pages article on Houston, so then why should Bacliff? Why is it so difficult to stick to the facts?" and "There's a big difference between the Houston Chronicle article on that event and the Houston Press article. The Houston Chronicle artcle reports about it without any of the author's bias that runs throughout the Houston Press article. I have no problem with factual information being included in the Misplaced Pages entry. It was based mostly on opinion and non factual information before which is not what something that strives to emulate an encyclopedia should be." I argued that Misplaced Pages should include opinions as long as they are attributed and dated. She also expressed concern that content could be "out of date" (the article was written in 2008) but I stated it would be okay if it is made clear that it was in 2008.

• These diffs: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3 shows the material from the Houston Press which I attributed and cited.
• The relevant Houston Press article is "Gangsters in Bacliff" - The publication is an alternative weekly owned by Voice Media Group

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You quote Lomax as saying, among other things, "much of is a white ghetto almost as hardcore as the roughest parts of Houston's South Park or Fifth Ward...." NPOV requires that we provide appropriate weight to opinions. The problem here is that we do not know whether Lomax view is what any reasonable observer would hold or he has an axe to grind. The only way to determine that is to find a source that explains the perceptions that reasonable observers hold. A second problem is that Lomax' article is a primary source for his opinions, but articles should be based primarily on secondary sources. So I think it is correct to exclude his opinions. TFD (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

John Nova Lomax does not own the publication Houston Press; he merely writes articles for it. Because it was published, then that means his own opinions would be "secondary source" as they are published by a third party. Misplaced Pages:Primary_source#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources also says "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

In regards to not knowing whether or not he has an axe to grind, I see no evidence that Lomax holds ill will towards the community. I have not found any sources that explicitly state things to the contrary. Bacliff is a town of about 8,000 people within a metropolitan area, so literature about it is more scant than literature about a larger city. I believe that if Lomax writes "And while there are plenty of nice houses and good people in Bacliff, especially along the waterfront, the overall impression of the town is that much of it is a white ghetto almost as hardcore as the roughest parts of Houston's South Park or Fifth Ward." -- and there is no evidence of him being biased against the town, and there is nothing explicitly written to the contrary, then it should be appropriately weighted to put that in. He also says "Stats bear this out" to qualify this viewpoint with statistics.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The question of who publishes a work does not affect whether the work is primary or secondary. If Lomax is observing the town himself, and then making that statement on the basis of those observations, then those statements are a primary source. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That statement comes from both knowledge of statistics (remember he says "Stats bear this out" and cites two statistics related to Bacliff: unemployment rate and the median house price) and personal observations (referring to page 1). And if one tries to make observations by journalists who do not control the publishing of their statements as inadmissible primary source, how are we to use investigative journalism pieces as sources? How are we to record how published sources perceive of a place, person, or event? (I have seen editors add Misplaced Pages:Original research on how a thing or person or place should be perceived) For that matter, in relation to BLP issues, Misplaced Pages:BLP#Avoid_self-published_sources says to avoid self-published sources, so in general on Misplaced Pages to my knowledge self-published sources are treated differently than self-published ones.

The statements removed from the article did not just include statements from the journalist, but also some factual statements (for instance the water was less polluted and there was less shore erosion in the 1950s then there is today, and that the shrimping industry declined in the 1980s) of those statistics (unemployment rate) and statements from interview subjects quoted in the newspaper: "Gator" Miller (a local newspaper publisher), Pam Matranga (a county sheriff), and Jack Nelson (a resident).

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A source may be considered primary for some purposes, while secondary for others. See for example WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This article however combines analysis and straight reporting, and therefore has attributes of both. You ask, "How are we to record how published sources perceive of a place, person, or event?" We get a source that says something like, "the consensus among sociologists is that Bacliff is a white ghetto." Or we look at a textbook called "White Ghettoes" that lists the town. As for investigative journalism, in some cases the mainstream media picks up on them, people comment and the significance is established. That certainly happened with Woodward and Bernstein. In other cases, they are ignored. AFAIK, no one has commented on Lomax's article. TFD (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When I found commentary from the article author I always attributed it to him (see the diffs) - I will check Google Books to see if I can find books talking about Bacliff. In regards to "prominence" of authors, that is a good argument with "larger" subjects (say Barack Obama) where you have to only include the most prominent views. With "smaller" subjects I try to include whatever published material I can find because there just isn't that much material about the subject, or about certain aspects of the subject. Misplaced Pages has many articles on more obscure topics and from my understanding there is less discrimination/exclusion against material when writing about these topics. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns on WP:Undue regarding AIDS Denial and LewRockwell.com

I object to the passage from the wikipedia entry on LewRockwell.com quoted in the paragraph below, mostly created by carolmooredc (she and Srich32977 disagreed with my views on the LewRockwell.com talk page and are invited to comment on this discussion), because it uncritically presents the views of the director of the AIDS Denialist film House of Numbers, and presents Peter Duesberg only as being called a denialist by two persons (as opposed to being widely regarded as such by the scientific community). These statements constitute WP: UNDUE, according to which "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." In other words, when discussing LewRockwell.com's repeatedly publishing AIDS Denialist (as well as evolution-denying) pseudoscience, it should be mentioned that these are "fringe" and pseudo-scientific views that LewRockwell.com has promoted. One solution to this problem that has been proposed is deleting LewRockwell.com's connection to AIDS denialism/fringe science altogether; I reject this since it's significant to the site's content and is detailed pretty extensively in an RS, namely, Seth Kalichman's book Denying AIDS.

The website hosted a 2010 podcast called "Dissent on HIV/AIDS" interviewing Brent Leung, director of the 2009 film House of Numbers regarding the "shaky statistics that drive vast HIV/AIDS funding, and the amazing differences of opinion among top scientists about what it is, and how to treat it." The website has featured articles on the subject by Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass label an "HIV/AIDS denialist. Steeletrap (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A compromise has been proposed at Talk:LewRockwell.com#Fringe topics .E2.80.93 proposed resolution. One of the terms of the compromise is to limit the LRC links to the one official link. Acceptance of this compromise would entail removal of the particular paragraph which OP objects to because it is sourced by a particular LRC article. Also, it would allow use of Kalichman's book to show that one particular person had been a contributor to the LRC website. It would not allow a debate in the LRC article about the merits of Kalichman's book or the topic. – S. Rich (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering the original poster already has a long discussion of this at Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Uncritical_presentation_of_AIDS_Denialists_on_LewRockwell.com_page. One has to close one noticeboard discussion out before one opens another one, and usually if there is no reply at all. Also, it remains a WP:OR issue, as I've said a number of times.

People interested in helping out might come over there or to the proposal Srich32977 made above, so we don't have to rewrite our arguments all over again. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The other debate got crowded out by personal and otherwise off-topic comments (hence the fact that the page you link to is like 3 pages long). The few comments made by editors other than us three (the original disputers) agreed with my position. Let's let debate happen rather than focus on peripheral issues. Steeletrap (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've archived the discussion at WP:FTN as that was an inappropriate venue for the discussion. I suggest that the participants already involved restrict themselves from further comments here, so that we can hear from uninvolved editors on this issue. LK (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering the topic was not moved here only after a long discussion there, and not immediately identified as off topic, we do not want to promote WP:FORUMSHOP. (LATER NOTE: Did see LK mentioned that to the editor on the talk page. Thanks.] Also, I think the real complaint is the WP:OR that the user is trying to insert and the only noticeboard warranted was WP:ORN. Others should not hear only one side of the debate by one individual involved, so below I propose my solution to the problem which is compliant with Misplaced Pages policies. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I see this as undue weight. The source, Denying Aids, mentions that an author published views well outside the mainstream on the Lew Rockwell website but otherwise says nothing about the site. It could be that the site is reprehensible in publishing these views. Or it could be commended for allowing a wide range of views from outside the mainstream in the hope that it will provide greater scrutiny of orthodoxy. By focusing on AIDS denialism, we are arguing for the first interpretation. If we want to address this issue then we need sources that do so. TFD (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Observation from the FT/N peanut gallery: A quick review of LRC, starting from the Denying AIDS links, shows that at least one of LRC's regulars promulgated a goodly number of quack medical claims, including some of the AIDS denialism articles there; he also posted some JFK assassination conspiracy nonsense. He is not the only author of this kind of material on LRC. My personal opinion is therefore that LRC's editorial policy is at best credulous about publishing fringe medical and political material, if not actually endorsing said claims. Now, obviously we cannot state that conclusion on my say-so; but it seems to me that the struggle over the narrow issue of this one source is being used as a substitute all around for research into similar and perhaps broader criticism from other sources which might confirm that my assessment is widely held. For instance, another critic who has been cited in the article writes for the Cato Institute. It's entirely possible that Cato and LRC, both being exponents of libertarian ideas, may well consider each other as rivals within the ideology. This needs to be researched as well. As I said over in the FT/N discussion, I have to think that mainstream public policy and investigative reporting journals and institutions have critical viewpoints to express about LRC, and that these need to see expression in the article. I also feel that if this is addressed, the AIDS denialism issue will sort itself out. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

To make a long story short, here's what is acceptable to say in the Criticism section per WP:RS, WP:BLP, and even WP:NPOV etc with current refs and without engaging in WP:OR:

PROPOSED: Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, authors of Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, has featured articles on the subject of AIDS/HIV by Peter Duesberg, which they label as "HIV/AIDS denialist.

Then it would be permissible to mention the title of and link to an article by each of those mentioned individuals (i.e., it is not cherry picked, because it is introduced by relevant WP:RS material.) CarolMooreDC🗽 18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I still favor the "has sometimes provided a forum" for fringe science and/or AIDS Denial description, but a compromise would indicate that the Kalichman book had accused LRC of publishing several articles (by the three authors mentioned in the book) which (on LRC) advocated AIDS Denial, which is what the book said (as opposed to simply publishing AIDS Denialists who wrote on other matters). If that clarification is made I would be less adamant on the "forum" thing. Steeletrap (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I know you prefer throwing in some WP:OR, but at least we are finally talking about what the sources say (i.e., "which (on LRC) advocated AIDS Denial"), though I would have to double check them. Can we continue this at the talk page? Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not work with you on this on the talk page. Look at the comment you just wrote, alleging that I "prefer throwing in some WP:OR." You are saying that my desire is to violate Misplaced Pages rules; how earth can we have a civil editing conversation? Steeletrap (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

language vs. dialect WP:UNDUE

Intro
There are some problems regarding the description of individual languages from the Dravidian language family. Some experienced users are going hardline with the view of Ethnologue, an essentially primary source, which is very close to the ISO 639 consortium (Ethnologues parent SIL is a major partner). ISO 639 aims to document all languages in the world and sets language codes for them, for example English, you will find this website: 01.sil.org English with various assigned codes. If you click on the "corresponding Ethnologue entry" link, you'll be directed to their Ethnologue page. They have pages for all ISO 639 codes.

ISO 639 has certain definitions of when a language is defined as a language, not a dialect. This definition is however not universally accepted, as no professional linguist appears to use it. Now let's look at the Dravidian languages for a case scenario, the "Maria language".

Maria language
Let's have a look at its entry: Ethnologue Maria
We see following information: Maria has the code and is defined as language. We see our corresponding WP article recognizes Maria as a language as well and cites Ethnologue. So what's wrong?

Nobody of the academic mainstream has ever recognized this as a language. If you make a test run in google books with terms "Maria language" + India + Dravidian, you don't get any useful hits. On the contrary if you type "Maria dialect" you'll get hundreds of useful links.

Question What is the right term for wikipedia in such cases? language or dialect? You can consult User:Taivo, User:Kwamikagami, User:Lfdder who have much more linguistic experience than me, and who constantly revert my edits, which are pro academic consensus rather than ISO 639.-- Dravidian  Hero  23:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If some (mainstream) sources refer to it as a language, and others refer to it as a dialect, we should present both views, rather than 'deciding' for ourselves. This is basic Misplaced Pages policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's 1 vs. 300 though -- Dravidian  Hero  23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify where you are discussing this with Kwamikagami and Lfdder - there doesn't seem to be any discussion at Talk:Maria language, which would seem the logical place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

see Talk:Dravidian_languages#Disputed_tag for full (uncivil) discussion -- Dravidian  Hero  23:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

How about trying a civil discussion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We did at the end of the discussion. Didn't notice?-- Dravidian  Hero  00:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I suggest you carry on discussing. If you have the sources to back up your claims, provide them. So far, the discussion seems to be lacking in such evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just sourced the dialect statement, and it got reverted again: diff with a "funny" edit summary. Why funny? Because the next edit summary is just dumb: diff, as they wanted sources at the discussion. You can imagine my frustration with these editors.-- Dravidian  Hero  01:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What is interesting is that Dravidianhero has selectively ignored the source that he considers to be the most important Dravidian source on this matter: Bhadriraju Krishnamurti (2003). The Dravidian languages. Oxford University Press. p. 25, who states that the Maria Gondi dialect is mutually unintelligible with other Gondi "dialects". Mutual intelligibility is widely considered to be the boundary line between dialect and language. Thus if Dravidianhero's "hero" states that Maria is mutually untintelligible with other Gondi "dialects", then Maria is a separate language. Dravidianhero's basic problem is that he considers one of the main encyclopedic sources used widely in linguistics and respected in field (Ethnologue) to be unreliable simply because it is funded by a Christian organization. His bias is quite clear in many of his posts concerning the reliability of Ethnologue and also ISO 639-3, which is funded by the same source. ISO 639-3 is so widely accepted in the field that linguistics journals are starting to require ISO codes after language names in their publications. Dravidianhero incorrectly states that Ethnologue and ISO 639-3 are "primary" sources. They are not. They are secondary or tertiary sources, not primary ones. And if you read Maria language, it does precisely what you suggest, AndytheGrump--it states both views that Maria is sometimes called a dialect and sometimes called a separate language. And the reason that Dravidianhero is so regularly reverted is that he refuses to listen to anyone else's advice. Another reason why Dravidianhero's edits are often reverted is that, as at Maria language, he uses Google Books as his research tool and simply pulls sentences out of context to prooftext his assertions. Google Books must be used very delicately, not as a source for sentences out of context. --Taivo (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary was not "funny" at all. Instead of citing the single relevant article in the Journal of Dravidian Studies, which you would have done had you not just been prooftexting off Google Books, you cited the entire volume of papers. That's just more evidence that you aren't really sure of what you are doing in those articles, you just have a point to make and aren't listening to anyone else. --Taivo (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethnologue lists languages, which have been genuinely researched and which were not published anywhere else before. Here is the evidence for my statement: Change Request for Wayanad Chetti It doesn't appear to be a clearcut "encyclopedia" as you were trying to tell. But that's not content of this undue problem. If you would be more honest in discussions you would have no point to make. Truth. -- Dravidian  Hero  01:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what that 'change request' is supposed to prove. I do however know that accusing contributors of dishonesty is inadvisable, at minimum. Meanwhile, can you clarify whether you are questioning the validity of Ethnologue as a source? If so, the logical place to ask would be at WP:RSN, though as always, you will have to clarify what it is being used as a source for.AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Change Request adds a new language code to ISO 639, which gets immediately puhlished by Ethnologue with all underlying information. Ethnologue is an SIL publication, and SIL the major partner of ISO 639. The Change Request proves, that ISO 639 gets languages by genuine researchers, not participating in mainstream academic discourse, and as such the reliability as a secondary or tertiary source of Ethnologue, which as Taivo tried to claim to use only mainstream academic sources, is completely falling apart. But all this is not part of my question here. My question is, whether we use the term language (as in Ethnologue) or dialect (as in all mainstream sources, as I think Ethnologue has an absolute minority view on this.-- Dravidian  Hero  02:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And, Dravidianhero, your anti-SIL bias just keeps shining through because you neither understand the process nor are you willing to listen to those of us who do. --Taivo (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, that change request has nothing to do with Ethnologue. It simply illustrates that Dravidianhero really doesn't know what he's talking about or what he's doing. The Change Request he posted is for a change to ISO 639-3, not Ethnologue. He doesn't seem to realize that they are separate entities and have different processes for changing information. But that is Dravidianhero's attitude in all these discussions--that actual linguists don't know what they are talking about and he is the only expert because he can use Google Books to prooftext. --Taivo (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you too try to concentrate on the issue at hand rather than making assertions about other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If your last comment was directed at me, AndyTheGrump, that is the issue at hand. We have tried to explain to Dravidianhero over and over and over again at Talk:Dravidian languages about the linguistic and sourcing issues involved, but he refuses to listen. --Taivo (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the NPOV noticeboard. Dravidianhero appears to be suggesting that articles are lacking neutrality. He is entitled to raise the matter here, as long as he does it in the proper manner. If you have a problem with his behaviour, this isn't the appropriate place to raise it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, AndyTheGrump. But Dravidianhero isn't raising an issue of neutrality here. He's raising the issue that he isn't getting his way at Talk:Dravidian languages. That's not an issue of neutrality. An issue of neutrality would be if X point of view was mentioned, but Y point of view was ignored. That's not the case even in the article which he cited above, Maria language. If you read the first paragraph, it clearly states both the points of view that Maria is a language and Maria is a dialect, although the primary source that Dravidianhero cites for the dialect position clearly states that Maria is not mutually intelligible with other Gondi dialects. So the very article which he wants to use to illustrate non-neutrality, clearly and unequivocally states both positions, even citing the very source that Dravidianhero prefers (even through Dravidianhero does not actually use that source, but only gets quotes off Google Books). --Taivo (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If it was a second mainstream opinion, I would have no problem with that statement. But it's one and only Ethnologue which says this was a language. That's not a second mainstream opinion, it's a lonesome cowboy in the prairie, especially after I exposed the non-mainstreamness of ISO 639. And coming to reverts and neutrality again: diff1 diff2 diff3diff4 lol-- Dravidian  Hero  02:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I give up. It seems to me that there isn't actually a definable neutrality issue here - or at least if there is one, nobody is providing the necessary information to decide whether any specific article has a problem or not. If DravidianHero wishes to raise the reliability of Ethnologue as a source for something specific at WP:RSN, he should do so. If he wishes to raise concerns about the neutrality of a specific article here, he can do so - by providing the necessary evidence to show that the article isn't neutral. Vague assertions about competence or bias are simply beyond the remit of this noticeboard, and it certainly isn't within its remit to judge whether the general opinions of one contributor or another are 'correct'. DravidianHero, you will have to either be more specific, or seek help elsewhere. And as for the diffs you post, they have no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will give a clearcut explanation with all necessary sources as this seems to be required here for a discussion. I will present my work at a later time.-- Dravidian  Hero  03:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

______________________

Articles: Kumarbhag Paharia language, Sauria Paharia language

Dispute: The article is portraying a minority view as majority view. The article itself has been named after this minority view, as well as its cousin Sauria Paharia language. The majority doesn't recognise any "Kumarbhag Paharia language". The language is mostly known by the name "Malto language".
Evidence for Minority view: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Evidence for Majority view: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Attempted Move discussion: Talk:Sauria Paharia language and templates: Sauria_Paharia_language + Kumarbhag Paharia language

Request: Move/merge both articles to the majorily used term Malto language. The names Kumarbhag Paharia language and Sauria Paharia language should be completely avoided per minority evidences.-- Dravidian  Hero  15:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dravidianhero, you clearly don't know how to present any evidence whatsoever, you've just posted links to searches that do not present any factual information. You have presented no analysis of those links; no commentary on individual links; no scholarly differentiation between the links that are baloney, the links that aren't scholarly, and the links that might be valid. In other words, no hard evidence, just your unscientific opinion that counting links counts as evidence. You are clearly no linguist and clearly don't understand what you are being asked for here. Again, having this discussion here is forum shopping since this is still not a question of neutrality. It is a question of Misplaced Pages consensus on what constitutes a reliable source and what your failed move requests. That's not a question of neutrality, as AndyTheGrump tried to explain to you previously. You are not a linguist and you aren't getting your way at Talk:Dravidian languages, so you're looking around Misplaced Pages for any place that might offer you a sympathetic shoulder. --Taivo (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We're not about to assume there's some sort of scientific consensus 'cos of a handful Google search results. The current solution is adequate (and it's how similarly little documented sister languages with conflicting info are usually treated elsewhere on Misplaced Pages). — Lfdder (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dravidianhero, Taivo and Lfdder are entirely correct - we do not rely on counts of results of Google searches to determine article content. If you can't present the necessary evidence in the way that Taivo suggests (which seems an entirely reasonable summary of what is required here), I can see no point whatsoever in continuing the discussion.

One point for Taivo and Lfdder though - it isn't actually a requirement that one be a linguist to contribute to Misplaced Pages articles involving linguistics - what is required is an ability to understand Misplaced Pages policies regarding neutrality, sourcing etc, as with any other article, and an ability to understand the sources themselves to the degree that one can use them appropriately. I'd try to avoid appeals to expertise in your discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say otherwise. In fact, this is what I said: 'And I've no interest in educating you, nor do I assume that that's my place.' Anyway, we've already been thru this with Dravidianhero. — Lfdder (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The current version with Malto language as the main article is much better. It's a good step forward, I wanna thank Lfdder for these edits. Now coming to my presentation of the problem, I didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings and certainly not provoke accusations like forumshopping, etc. I'm feeling emotionally stable and strong without a need of some virtual shoulder. I'm pretty new here and this is my first full fledged NPOV noticeboard experience, as I didn't require this since October 2012. Please don't feel annoyed anymore, Taivo and be more tolerant towards non-linguist editors in wikipedia. Anything I've done was in best faith possible, I should be respected as such.

The results of the various google Search links for academic sources, be it books, scholar, JSTOR are showing not a single academic book or paper citing the terms "Kumarbhag Paharia language" or "Sauria Paharia language", let alone by mainstream Dravidologists, which would be required for a truely neutral article per WP:NPOV: Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. In total contrast to that, we have several useful books and papers, which could be cited to support the term Malto language: 1-a study on "Malto" by Indian government's "Central Institute of Indian Languages" 2-A comparative grammar of the Dravidian languages by mainstream Dravidologist Michail Andronov. Here he acknowledges "a non-literary" language called "Malto 3-Introduction to the "Malto Language" 4-Language diversity endangered, it acknowledges "a Dravidian language called Malto" 5-South Asian Languages: A Syntactic Typology By Kārumūri V. Subbārāo. At WP:UNDUE we see following key statement: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. The current content, however improved from the last version, still violates this very basic principle, as both these "Paharia" terms have found prominent mention with only one source (= a tiny minority). I hope I've kept up with the expactations by senior wikipedians in proving, that the article needs a NPOV cleanup.-- Dravidian  Hero  20:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you understand what we've been telling you yet, Dravidianhero? Google searches or searches of JSTOR without accompanying analysis, commentary, and review are worthless. And your continued assertion that Ethnologue and ISO 639-3 should be ignored is based on your own anti-Christian bias as amply evidenced at Talk:Dravidian languages. It is you, in fact, who are pushing for non-neutrality in refusing to admit that actual linguists do respect those two sources of information and would not, in any respect, consider them to be WP:FRINGE. At Talk:Dravidian languages I presented to you a half dozen well-respected linguistic sources that refer to Ethnologue, but you have chosen to ignore them in favor of your "Google searches". And linguistic journals are starting to require the use of ISO 639-3 codes in their published articles. In addition, US government funding sources require the use of ISO 639-3 codes for linguistic research. You're just on the wrong end of the argument in wanting to exclude all reference to Ethnologue and ISO 639-3 in Misplaced Pages. --Taivo (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Goldberg, Herb (1976). The Hazards of Being Male- surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege. Wellness Institute, Inc. ISBN 1-58741-013-3.
2. ^ Schlafly, Phyllis and Ann Coulter (2003). Feminist Fantasies. Dallas: Spence Publishing Co. ISBN 1-890626-46-5. Retrieved 2008-10-20.
3. Svoboda, J. Steven (12 June 2008). "An Interview with Warren Farrell". Retrieved 2008-10-20.
4. ^ Macchietto, John. "Interview with Warren Farrell". Retrieved 2008-10-20.
5. http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/22/163-dissent-on-hivaids/
6. Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, Springer, 2009, 49–53, 142, 182, ISBN 978-0-387-79475-4
7. Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, Springer Science+Business Media, 2009, 49–53, 142, 182, ISBN 978-0-387-79475-4

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution