Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:45, 10 March 2015

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

Donetsk People's Republic

I'd like to call attention to the article Donetsk People's Republic. There are 2 NPOV issues that I think need addressing;

1: Respect for the POV tag.

2: The section "Human rights" needs more de-POVifying. (the debate can be found here). It probably qualifies as a WP:CRITICISM section. The main proponent of keeping it in the article is User:Volunteer Marek. (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount and User:KoolerStill seem to agree that this is WP:UNDUE). As has been said in another debate before, "Section totally un-encyclopedic, as its based on unreliable sources..."

Here are some example diffs of the material being added & removed:

• WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- ,

• WP:UNDUE -- ,

• WP:RS --

Like any conflict it cannot be reduced to "good guys" vs "bad guys". The reality is that both parties had committed human rights abuses. Certainly some of the content here should be included, but I feel like its a bit of a WP:BITR and most definitely WP:UNDUE. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus.

This does not appear to be a criticism section, rather a major component of the body of the article. The excesses of the rebels and the support they receive from Russia are very significant to the reliable sources, and likely the concerns of greatest interest to readers of the article. There is no way the section as a whole could be construed as undue. The requirements of NPOV have also generally been fulfilled by appropriately attributing opinions. That's not to say that if someone went through the section with a fine-toothed comb they couldn't find something that needed to be more precisely attributed. If there are concerns about the reliability of sources, the sources should be addressed one-by-one entirely on the basis on reliability alone rather than being conflated with NPOV. It's entirely possible that while the views in the article are not UNDUE, opposing views are not receiving the coverage that they are DUE. They will need to bring their sources and make their edits. Rhoark (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

^ This is spot on. Couldn't have said it better.TheBlueCanoe 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The excesses of the rebels .... Antisemitic flyer 'by Donetsk People's Republic' in Ukraine a hoax (whole section "Allegations of anti-semitism")

The excesses of the pro-Kiev Aidar, Donbass and Dnipro-1 battalions .... Eastern Ukraine: Humanitarian disaster looms as food aid blocked (not mentioned in the article)

Nearly half of the Misplaced Pages 'Donetsk People's Republic' article is devoted to the "excesses of the rebels". Clearly WP:UNDUE & WP:BITR.

For comparison, below are a few examples of Misplaced Pages articles about self-declared states with limited/no recognition:

Somaliland, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Transnistria, State of Palestine, Republic of Serbian Krajina, Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, Biafra, Confederate States of America, Republic of Kosovo

Rebel groups that control territory

Zapatista Army of National Liberation, Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Houthis, Moro National Liberation Front

Tobby72 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you present these sources for discussion on the article talk page. Rhoark (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rhoark, that's exactly what I'll do.

An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus. --- Volunteer Marek recently once again removed neutrality tag. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like it noted that Tobby72, when he began this discussion here, failed to notify me of it, as required per the heading on top. This brings up the question of whether the discussion was started in good faith, or just a back-door attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As to the removal of the tag - the text within the tag itself is NOT policy. It was inserted in there arbitrarily by a grudge holding user with some sour grapes. The WP:NPOV page IS policy. And that is pretty clear on the fact that a) a spurious tag should not be inserted based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, b) the tag needs to be justified on talk page and grounded in policy and c) that yes, it's perfectly fine to remove a spurious tag. We go by NPOV policy here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and now that I thought about it for a second, I recalled that this issue already *has* been discussed on the talk page (if not this noticeboard, see talk page archives) of the article and consensus was against Tobby72. So not only are they failing to notify relevant parties of this discussion, they are also failing to disclose the fact that this has already been discussed (and of course, that the discussion didn't go their way).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tobby72 here. Unfortunately Volunteer Marek has become strongly engaged here and is pushing a very one sided POV here(minor note-I have known and was one of Polish editors who worked with editor VM for years before, until recentre). The claim that there was a discussion is a weak one, there doesn't seem to be any consensus there and besides, consensus might change. At the moment the section was undue because it didn't represent a neutral view, which points to abuses and violations by both sides.Reliable sources like OSCE and Human Rights Watch have noted serious abuses and atrocities committed by Ukrainian side on the territory of DPR and this indeed should be noted in the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

the section was undue because it didn't represent a neutral view, which points to abuses and violations by both sides - this is patently false. The original section discussed violations and abuses by BOTH sides. Another editor pointed out that a lot of the stuff was off topic, basically trying to create a false balance, basically by throwing in some just random anti-Ukrainian stuff unrelated to the subject of the article. So to the extent that there WAS a WP:UNDUE problem, it's that there was unnecessary, off-topic info about Ukrainian violations, whereas these should really be discussed somewhere else. But that's not what Toby (and you) are complaining about. You're complaining that the article includes information based on reliable sources which is pertinent to the topic. Tobby (and presumably, you) want to remove it because it makes the DPR look bad. Too bad. We go with reliable sources, not some Misplaced Pages user's WP:IDONTLIKEIT

And as I keep pointing out. Spurious NPOV tags can and should be removed. What Toby hasn't bothered to do - not this time, not at any previous time this came up - is to explain *what exactly in POV*, as required by policy. Which text is not based on reliable sources? Which text misrepresents sources? Which text is unsourced? Etc. This hasn't and isn't being done. The tag goes, its presence in the article is *itself* a form of POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"The original section discussed violations and abuses by BOTH sides". Which you have removed completely, leaving only alleged abuses by the Republic's forces."Another editor pointed out that a lot of the stuff was off topic, basically trying to create a false balance, basically by throwing in some just random anti-Ukrainian stuff unrelated to the subject of the article"Documented reports about abuses comitted by Ukrainian forces on the territory of Republic made by reliable organizations like OSCE or Human Rights Watch aren't "random anti-Ukrainian" stuff. They are a highly important information by reliable sources which requires coverage in article about the territory they concern.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you restored the original material. By your logic, you should now proceed to remove the NPOV tag, since the original section, which DOES discuss both sides' violations, is in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It would help if everyone could be crystal clear about exactly what kind of change they want in the article. Rhoark (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuing POV-pushing

Blatant POV-pushing being obstinately reintroduced without opposition -- , . -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Making the section less WP:COATRACK seems to be a positive step for neutrality. Rhoark (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing abuses by Ukrainian government forces and pro-Kiev battalions and leaving only separatist side is extremely POV, turning Misplaced Pages into little more than war propaganda machine.

My suggestion is WP:SPLIT -- "... section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles. In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central" -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tobby72.The current attempts to erase all information by one side, leaving just abuses by another are POV pushing and seem to go against WP:NPOV policy.A split and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides seems to be the best course of action.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and there are numerous editors who disagree with this, because the material being added violates WP:COATRACK, is outside the scope of the article, and is a POV attempt to create a false balance. Somehow Toby72 conveniently forgot to notify those editors of this discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over the POV tag

What can be done to prevent such behavior? -- , , , . -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Toby72, can you PLEASE start alerting relevant users to these discussions you're starting? This is required. How are we supposed to discuss issues when you appear to be trying to avoid input from involved parties? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Image at Gun show loophole

Is this image with this caption at Gun show loophole undue?

It has been/is being discussed here: Image for the article.

It was originally added 8 February 2015 with the caption:

"Houston gun show at the George R. Brown Convention Center".

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The photo's caption has no source. WeldNeck (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you think this photo with this caption is undue? What about this photo with the original caption?

As for the source of the second caption, an editor, Faceless Enemy, on the article's talk page said that the photo is of a licensed dealer's stock. Lightbreather (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The photo is clearly of a dealer's table at a gun show. Simply expand and look at the sign on the table. It is not a private seller's table. It is misleading to put up a picture of a dealer's table in the gun show loophole article, as the gun show loophole only pertains to private sellers selling to other private buyers. The gun show loophole does not apply to dealers selling from their store stock. All dealers have to do background checks on all private buyers by Federal Law. It would be much the same as putting up a picture of a retail store, say Walmart, in an article about yard sales by private citizens. Very misleading photograph in this article. The hidden agenda appears to be making the volume of private sales appear as large as gun stores stock that is for sale. The gun show loophole pertains only to occasional secondary market sales, not to retail sales, such as this picture portrays. This picture is intentionally misleading. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel this issue could easily be solved if the editors that object would simply suggest a different image, for the article, that they approve of. Since the image was removed there has been no discussion, and no apparent effort to resolve the problem, and it's been over a week. I reattached the image because I did not see a POV issue, and moreover, this article deserves an image. Darknipples (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Photographs should be illustrative of the topic material. If we were talking of used book sales in your front yard, at a yard sale, would you put a photograph of a local brick and mortar book seller in the article, instead? It would be the same thing. No. Photographs should be illustrative of the topic in question. It wouldn't even help to label the photograph with, "Among the store fronts of towns with licensed book dealers (shown) are found those yards of private sellers. Both may sell books from their private collections to buyers without background checks." This would not make sense, either. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I see a POV issue, and there are plenty of other articles on more notable topics that do not have an image. No image at all is far preferable to one that is misleading. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

All dealers have to do background checks on all private buyers by Federal Law? Even when they sell from their private collection?

But even that's not the point. This is what a gun show looks like. A gun show where dealers and private sellers and dealers selling private collections sell. But as Darknipples asks, what image would you suggest? If we found one of a private seller selling a gun, would you then object because it might imply that he was selling illegally? If we got a hidden-camera image of someone selling illegally, would you object because it might imply that all sellers sell illegally? What image would be better than this one? Lightbreather (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

All dealers have to do background checks on all private buyers by Federal Law when they are selling new guns, whether at a store front, or at a gun show. No exceptions. On the other hand, a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) can sell an occasional firearm from his private collection in the secondary market as a PRIVATE CITIZEN and no background check is required, to sell a used gun. The straw man of a private seller selling illegally is not what the gun show loophole is about. It is about legal commerce between private citizens in the secondary market. A photograph that shows this would be fine. By the way, should we have a picture of Cracker Barrel in this article? You know, the restaurant chain? The reason I ask is that I once bought a firearm in the parking lot of a Cracker Barrel restaurant. But, I would not propose a picture of the restaurant chain for this article, either. It would be misleading. So is a picture of a Federal Firearms Licensee selling store stock at a gun show undue for this article, too. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A photograph that shows this would be fine. A photo of one person selling to another person at a gun show - not Cracker Barrel - but without any signs that might indicate that he's a dealer selling new guns, not guns from his private collection, because he wouldn't sell from his private collection at a gun-show table where he's also selling new guns because he'd only sell new guns there... That's the better photo? Do you have one of those? If not, what would be the next best photo? Or would that be the only acceptable photo? Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that cameras are prohibited at gun shows. There are signs at the entrance specifically banning cameras. Hence, the lack of pictures to choose from. But, no picture is better than an intentionally misleading picture. Another possibility is a picture of a sign that says "Private Seller" on a table beside firearms for sale. These signs are common, and the photograph could be taken outside a gun show, of the same sign used in the gun show, with the same guns that will be sold in the gun show. That would be a possibility. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't the description just be changed to "Display at a Gun Show" rather than the disputed verbiage? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's far preferential. But what is more preferential, if there does not appear to be a consensus that the image properly represents the subject, than why have the image in the first place?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Of all the arguments presented so far against including this image, yours, RightCowLeftCoast, is the best. Lightbreather (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: Are cameras prohibited at ALL gun shows? If so, could you please provide a RS or two for that? And, assuming for now that they are prohibited at all gun shows, how come there are so many to be found, especially this one - which is also the image used in the Gun shows in the United States article? Lightbreather (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That image is definitely not appropriate for the article. It does not depict the subject of the article, and it's very likely to mislead the casual reader into thinking the term "gun show loophole" applies to the many, many guns shown in the picture, but of course that's not the case, as others here have already explained. — Mudwater 12:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The image shows guns at a gun show... not sure how that's misleading EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that it is partisan. Part of the controversial nature of the so-called "Gun Show Loophole" is that it does not really apply to gun shows. It applies in all venues where one private individual sells a firearm to another. Where one side of the debate could say any gun show picture could work, another would say that any such picture is biased. In this situation, no picture is better than any picture at all. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The picture is non-partisan. And the gun show loophole does apply to gun shows - which is the scope of this article. Since 2012, there has been a shift toward UNIVERSAL background checks and the private sale loophole, but that is outside the scope of this article... which is about sales at gun shows... which is what is shown in the picture... a gun show. Lightbreather (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Would any of the pictures here work? 16:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felsic (talk • contribs)

None of them appear to depict a private sale, so I don't think any are appropriate. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

An image depicting "gun show loophole" would have to show a convicted felon or other ineligible person buying a gun from a private party at a gun show, in a state that does not require background checks for gun show sales. It seems unlikely that such an image will become available. But if it's any consolation, many Misplaced Pages articles about important subjects also don't have any images. — Mudwater 15:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is untrue that the image would have to show "a convicted felon or other ineligible person buying a gun from a private party at a gun show, in a state that does not require background checks for gun show sales." (The point of the loophole is that private sellers don't have to run BGCs on ANY buyers, which makes it easier for prohibited persons to buy.) If the objection to the proposed image is that it shows a licensed dealer's display, then what we need is a private seller's display. (Although, another part of the loophole is that licensed dealers can sell from their "private" collection without having to run a check, so honestly, IMO, the proposed image is fine.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be odd if you didn't think the image was fine, considering that you were the one who added it to the article. The image is misleading because although it depicts a table at a gun show, there's nothing to indicate that it depicts a private seller or that it has anything to do with the loophole. A table at a gun show and the gun show loophole are not equivalent and one can't be used to depict the other. I understand that you want to include an image as part of bringing it up to GA - which will be great when it happens - but no image is preferred to a misleading image. Ca2james (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

... considering that you were the one who added it to the article? You make it sound like I forced it in, or snuck it in. There was a whole discussion about it on the gun show loophole talk page. Cullen328 suggested it. Darknipples, Scalhotrod, and I were OK with it, though Scalhotrod suggested a different caption. Lightbreather (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you snuck the image in. I just thought that, since you did add the image, it would have been weird for you to not support its use. That's because it would be odd for any editor to not support inclusion of an image they added. In other words, your support for the image is a given. That's all I meant - there was no subtext intended there. Ca2james (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless an image accurately depicts a salient event to the article in which it is to be used, it ought not be used. In the case at hand, it implies that "individual private sellers" attend shows with several hundred weapons - leading to the implication that they make up most of the sales at gun shows. As it is not an apt depiction of private sales at gun shows, it is equivalent to using an irrelevant cite in any article - it fails. Collect (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. A picture of a registered dealer's stock doesn't properly illustrate Gun show loophole. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, from that perspective there may never be an appropriate image. I'm still having a hard time even dreaming something "neutral" up in my mind's eye that isn't facetious. Maybe the Infobox will have to suffice. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP's MOS..."Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Misplaced Pages project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." The image's caption is written in a way that conveys the intent of the article. The logistics and importance being placed on obtaining an image of a "private sale" at a gun show seems to be somewhat undue, if not impossible, considering that photography is typically not allowed at gun shows. I am willing to attempt to obtain such a photograph myself, however, it would only be a last resort as it takes time and money to do so. My only wish is for a consensus, but some of our editors do not seem willing to compromise despite the context within the caption. Darknipples (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The "context within the caption" doesn't make this image suitable or representative of the gun show loophole. The image shows licensed dealers, not private sellers, and saying that private sellers exist neither identifies them nor represents or describes the loophole. No caption can fix that or make the image work for this article. Moreover, saying that licensed dealers and private sellers may sell guns from their private collections to buyers without background checks actually misrepresents the loophole, which according to the article refers only to private sellers. Finally, articles - even Good Articles like this one - are not required to have images. If no suitable images can be found, an unrepresentative image should not be used just for the sake of having an image. Ca2james (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested this image from Commons as a possible image for this article when the issue came up at the Teahouse. I then then repeated that suggestion on the article talk page. After considering the arguments against its use, I no longer support its use in the article under discussion, given the range of concerns that have been raised. To me, the most important objection is that the dealer illustrated in the image is not a subject of the article, and to use that image would be unfair to that company. I apologize for not stating that I had changed my mind earlier. I dislike the contentiousness that accompanies this topic, for which I consider both sides responsible, and yearn only for the neutral point of view in this and all other controversial articles. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So, it seems the fate is decided for this image. . I guess I will have to obtain an image that encompasses "the needs" of all of these editors that object, at my own expense. It will be of a private sellers inventory. Please feel free to make constructive suggestions in this regard on my TP. Darknipples (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Various articles related to the Falun Gong especially including Epoch Times

A single-purpose pro-FLG user User:Aaabbb11 has been making substantial edits across multiple Falun Gong related articles for the last two months. These include trying to change the perspective on alledged organ harvesting practices to statements of fact, and obfuscating the connection between the Epoch Times and the FLG. I've cautioned this user at the Falun Gong talk page but their edits continue unabated across so many articles that I have neither the time nor the inclination to try and keep a lid on the shifts in neutral point of view. Could some uninvolved editors without an axe to grind in this never-ending conflict please step in? Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an easy way to resolve this issue. Simonm223 should debate or contest the content of the organ harvesting information on the main Falun Gong page Falun_Gong#Organ_harvesting. That page gets plenty of attention and could be used as a guide to other articles with organ harvesting information.Aaabbb11 (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

But that's the thing. A) I don't have the time or interest to debate another Falun Gong partisan, again. B) Seeking consensus shouldn't be a public debate between two figures. Which is why I came to this noticeboard - to ask people who are neutral, as in, uninvolved, to assess the content on the basis of its merits. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It states above "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." Here is the link Talk:Falun Gong

I suggest that people looking at the discussion just look at my last (as yet) unanswered comment made on 19 Feb. Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In mid-January, Aaabbb11 tried to remove from the first sentence the connection between The Epoch Times and Falun Gong with a series of edits capped by this one, but I restored the connection which must be stated prominently. Since then, Aaabbb11 has not touched the first sentence, which shows restraint or improvement. Regarding the coverage of organ harvesting, I have no comment, being uninformed about the issue. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Binksternet that was one of my biggest concerns. The other is the pattern of inserting dubious sources from obvious non-neutral websites as statements of fact on the various organ harvesting sources. That and the fact that all claims regarding Chinese organ transplantation are at least half a decade out of date if not more. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you make comments about the content of articles on Talk:Falun Gong Aaabbb11 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? I have. And I also made comments regarding the articles here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaabbb11 has also kept removing related Wikilinks in Falun Gong without giving valid reasons: . He/She is obviously a SPA using Misplaced Pages for his/her advocacy for Falun Gong. STSC (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Simonm223 has discussed the issue on the Falun Gong talk page and only one editor replied which is why it was brought here. The fact it affects a number of other articles is another reason. It would be helpful however to have links to some of the disputed edits. Otherwise the only way for editors unfamiliar with the subject to come to a conclusion would be to read the articles and the discussion and search for reliable sources to see if they are correctly reflected. TFD (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been following on a couple pages as well. These are pretty representative of the user's edits:

I don't necessarily agree with some of the changes Aaabb11 has made with respect to organ harvesting, but my disagreement is partly based on personal preference/style issues--e.g. by insisting on the importance of certain minor details, editor seems to diverge from WP:Summary style. There are some RS issues as well, but despite his/her use of some primary sources, the material itself is verifiable. For example, in this edit, user references a personal blog. The same fact could easily have been attributed to reliable sources. And as to the Epoch Times, the paper won a Society of Professional Journalists award for investigating reporting on the subject of organ harvesting, so I would not dismiss it out of hand, but I would try to supplement with other RS.

I've also had some issues with the editor linking excessively, but they do actually seem willing to learn and improve. That being the case, I suggest that Aaabbb11 read WP:RS and use higher quality sources. When other editors disagree with a change, try to talk it out (don't just continue making the same edits). It's probably also advisable to edit a broader variety of articles and get more familiar with other editing and conduct policies.

And to be fair, some of the other editors involved also could also do better editing from a neutral point of view (e.g. , and should refrain from needless antagonism.TheBlueCanoe 14:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe reporting unsubstantiated claims by people with connections to conservative think tanks (Gutmann) or by credulous politicians with poor research methods and laughable investigative standards (Kilgour / Mattas) as being unsubstantiated claims is a WP:NPOV issue. In any other article, if somebody posted an essay alleging a genocide for which there is literally no material evidence that'd be probably treated with some skepticism. But because the FLG own a newspaper that repeats their accusations loudly, and have a dedicated and militant group of wikipedians who regularly shift the WP:NPOV balance of articles with single-purpose accounts they get a pass? As for acting antagonistically, I try to assume good faith. But when you've been through the same situation as many times as I have over the FLG articles you get worn out. This is the same stuff, different year. And I'm sick of it. I'm not asking for any assistance any more. I have given up on the Falun Gong, removed it from my watchlist and won't be contributing to the editing or maintenance of those pages any longer. Because I have enough going on in my life that I don't need to be constantly vigilant against these people while simultaneously playing wiki-politics. It's exhausting. I'm sorry for the rant. I'm just very frustrated. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems that your main problem is not with this editor per se, but with the fact that the articles discusses organ harvesting at all. It's an issue that's received substantial coverage, so it's totally appropriate for the article to summarize it by presenting the positions of reliable sources. And of course everything should be cited to reliable sources--I take your point on that, and hopefully Aaabbb11 will also be more mindful to use the best/most authoritative sources. But given your obvious frustration, removing yourself is probably a good idea.TheBlueCanoe 23:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

Page

List of Canadian monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has a lot of opinions expressed as facts, for example, "In 1931 the Canadian Crown emerged as an independent entity from that of the British Crown due to the Statute of Westminster 1931."

While it is not sourced in the article, it appears to come from an opinion expressed by Lord Justice May in ex parte: The Indian Association of Alberta (Court of Appeal of England and Wales, 1981):

1. Although the Crown at one time was one and indivisible, with the development of the Commonwealth this is no longer so. In matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada.

2: Any treaty or other obligations which the Crown had entered into with the Indian peoples of Canada in right of the United Kingdom become the responsibility of the Government of Canada with the attainment of independence, at the latest with the Statute of Westminster, 1931.

The head of the Court, Lord Denning, said that the Canadian Crown became separate in 1926 with the Balfour Declaration, while Lord Justice Kerr said that the Crown had been separate when a Canadian government had been established, which had occured by 1867 with Confederation. The House of Lords, which at the time was the highest court in the U.K., would decide in 2005 in ex parte Quark to accept Kerr's opinion and reject the other two. (Note: both these cases were requests for prorogativeprerogative writs and hence took the form of The Queen vs. the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.)

It would seem that dating the separation of the Crown to 1931 is an opinion based on one interpretation of one judge's opinion that itself is no longer accepted. I would appreciate if other editors could weigh in on this.

TFD (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Canada viewed the BNA act as being central to its history (not counting Newfoundland which was a Colony until 1949). KGVI was His Majesty George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India thus (as Canada was a Dominion) he was King of the Dominion of Canada. Not "King of Great Britain and not separately King of the Dominion of Canada". Just as QV was "Empress of India" not "Queen of Great Britain and through that 'Queen of India'" And she was never "Empress of Great Britain." Kerr's position was the best of the lot as the peers agreed. The royal official site states: As already referenced, The Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 with the passage of the British North America Act, 1867. The constitutional act of 1867 set out executive authority vested in the Sovereign and carried out in her name at the federal level by a Governor General and Privy Council , with legislative powers exercised by a bicameral Parliament made up of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Crown. One of the key features of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 was the separation the Crowns. As a consequence, the Crown of Canada – separate and distinct from that of the United Kingdom and the other Dominions – was defined in statute. Which appears to agree with the title before was as "King of the Dominions" and not as "King of Great Britain" with the Dominions sharing a common king and the only change being that he was now "King of Canada". 1931 did not change the position from "King of Great Britain" to "King of Canada" but rather "King of the Dominion of Canada" to "King of Canada" clearly -- as the House of Lords officially stated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The key point of the Royal Family website is that the division of the Crown was "recognized in statute" in 1931. That does not mean it was divided in 1931, and the "Introductory text" in the Act makes clear that it is recognizing "the declarations and resolutions set forth" in the Balfour Declaration of 1926. The 1926 Declaration merely reported the existing relationship between the King and the various countries.

1867 is of course a good dividing line in the list, but there is no source to say that is when a British Crown became Canadian.

TFD (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Long post on the article talk page with all sorts of sources I had to go through -- do you know how much is contrary to current Misplaced Pages articles? And it is all your fault, Stan! <g>. Collect (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the statement In 1931 the Canadian Crown emerged as an independent entity from that of the British Crown due to the Statute of Westminster 1931 should be sourced in some way. Those cases mentioned above were concerned with Prerogative writs, but does that make any difference? The BM page on Queen of Canada describes the position well enough. In the passage cited from Kerr's judgment in ex p. Quark he was basing his ratio decidendi on 'the situs of rights and obligations of the Crown'. Does that make any difference? Qexigator (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Lords read Kerr's opinion to mean, "The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom." In the case they decided that the queen of SSGI (population nil) was legally a separate person from the queen of the UK, just as the queen of Canada had legally been a separate person from the queen of the UK. I mentioned the form of the actions because Wikiain said they had "all the excitement of Patagonian toothfish" and because ex parte implied that only Quark was heard. TFD (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That date is used through a variety of articles as, on the whole of sources, it seems to be the most supported. Yes, there are sources to support earlier dates, however, the key point here is that all sources support this distinction by 1931. So, some sources may say 1867, and others would refute this. All sources agree that by 1931 this situation existed. And I think that this is the phrasing that should be used (ie not saying that this situation occurred in 1931, but that it by 1931). If someone would like to modify the phrasing to something like 'at least by 1931', or 'was codified into law in 1931' I would see no issue. trackratte (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Codified into law" is misleading, it already was the law and became recognized by statute. No source says the status changed in 1931. As Denning wrote, "at the Imperial Conference of 1926 it was recognized that, as a result of constitutional practice, the Crown was no longer indivisible. Thereafter the Crown was separate and divisible for each self-governing dominion or province or territory." So why have a break in the article between "The English and British Crown (1497–1931)" and The Canadian Crown (1931–present)"? TFD (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there should be sources. They will be added once I or others can find the time. Second, the break is there because all sources can agree that the break existed by that time. Before 1931 there was always debate between editors and contradicting sources. However, if the consensus develops to move it to 1926 or an earlier date I'm not opposed. I'm just looking back to previous debates on this matter on why 1931 ended up being used throughout Misplaced Pages. trackratte (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The HL report gives the names of counsel for Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and for Quark Fishing Limited. Whatever may have been the title when the proceedings commenced, it does not follow that the case was not argued by both parties on appeal, but 'prorogative' must have been a typo. If one looks at Denning above, and various academic and practitioner writers and commentators, the concepts and words representing them were fairly fluid, and depended on the issues being argued or discussed, and when a party's interest turns on such a point it can usually be argued either way. But for the purposes of the article, it suffices to use the year/event commonly accepted, for which the BM website is as good an example as any, though it would also be good to have a Canadian source as well. Qexigator (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not commonly accepted to divide lists of kings and queens into before and after 1931. See "The Kings and Queens of Canada" (Government of Canada website), "Canada’s Monarchy throughout History" (Monarchist League), and even "United Kingdom Monarchs (1603-present)" (BM, the source you use for dividing the list).

In the 1981 case, all that had to be determined was whether the Canadian Crown was separate from the UK Crown in 1981. The specific date at which it became divided was irrelevant to the outcome. In the 2005 case the issue was the specific date at which the crown of an overseas territory became separate and it was decided it became separate when an administration was established. They specifically refer to the 1981 case and endorse the view that this had happened in Canada by 1867.

Due to historical reasons, the form of these cases was the Queen vs. the Secretary of State, but the Queen's side was argued by counsel for the ex parte litigants.

TFD (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the list at 'The Kings and Queens of Canada: The Crown in Canadian History' purporting to make any division and therefore it cannot be looked to for guidance in that respect: it is irrelevant to the point under discussion; ditto, Monarchist League; the BM page does not have a list, divided or otherwise, but describes a change in 1931, which is the substantive point in question.

The ex parte Quark proceedings in the early stage was for judicial review, and in the customary way titled R(Quark Fishing Ltd.) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, and was heard, in the usual way, in the High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court. The fact that the title begins formally with 'Regina' (for certain archaic historical reasons deriving from the prerogative writs) does not mean that for practical purposes the party applying to the court is not the claimant or plaintiff. The title ex parte does not disclose whether or not in the event the other party attended the hearing and was heard in argument by the court. The judgments show that counsel for both parties, Quark and SoS, made submissions at successive stages, including the hearing in the House of Lords. This is not the place to go into further technical detail about the rules of court in such proceedings and the manner in which the case came for hearing before different judges or courts of appeal.

Qexigator (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian government has a list, you need to scroll down the page to see it. Likewise the British Monarchy website has lists for each house. It does not actually say the crown was divided in 1931, but that the legislation recognized the crowns were separate. I do not know if that is true, it is an odd source for constitutional law. I do not see why it is an important date since the law did not separate the crowns but merely recognized it, although it would be 50 years before the courts acknowledged that. Then again the Quebec Act 1774 might have been the first legislation to recognize a separate Canadian crown. The point about Quark is that it is a significant case and has had influence on UK government policy, and invalidates the claim that there was an indivisible crown before independence. TFD (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I had noted and commented that the list there is not divided. I do not know where the crown was divided in 1931 comes from. The point in question is the division, or separate headings, of the List of Canadian monarchs as at 1931. The expression indivisible/divisible crown is problematic, whoever or whenever used, but Kerr LJ's point (mentioned below) about seiizure of assets could be, in any particular case, the one that matters. If there is an editing problem of presentation, due to unresolved uncertainty in external sources, let the subheadings be removed, and the listing be headed 'The English, British and Canadian Crowns (1497- present)', retaining the content of footnote 2. There could then be a question whether to retain the shields and where to place them. Qexigator (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When considering the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, one wonder if the British & Canadian crowns are seperate. I do believe the Act is currently being challenged on its constitutionality. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

They are separate in the sense that the rights and obligations of one are separate from those of the other. So the U.S. government would not seize the accounts of the U.K. government to pay off debts owed by the government of Canada, nor pay money to Canada to satisfy a debt owed to the UK. While that may appear obvious now, in 1981 the Indian Association argued that the UK was responsible for treaties between the Queen and Indian nations. TFD (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

True enough that Kerr, LJ (DT obit.), mentioned above, had been a leading practitioner in the Commercial Court, and would have had a good eye for whose assets were liable for the debts of which realm. Thus, a claim against the Crown of one realm could be made against that Crown's property situated in another realm, both realms having the same person as its monarch. Qexigator (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Project for the New American Century

There is an ongoing dispute on the talk page (and in edit summaries) on this article about whether or not the fact that this article by former British MP Michael Meacher is used as a source and discussed necessitates the inclusion of this lengthy blockquote about September 11 from the article. There are basically three parties to the debate:

- Collect is citing NPOV as a rationale for continually trying to re-insert the quote, on the grounds that "when you cite an article - you can not just quote what you LIKE - you get it all."

- User:Ubikwit claims that Meacher's views about September 11 aren't related or pertinent to his views about the subject of the article (the Project for a New American Century), and that the article can/should discuss the latter without necessarily needing to include or address the former.

- I tried to find a middle ground between these two yesterday but quickly got sucked into the debate. My position is that NPOV dictates we should look to how reliable sources handle Meacher, and that while his views on Sept 11 might well bear discussing, there's no need to quote them in so much length in the article.

Discussion and debate begins here on the talk page, and there's an RFC up here. I'd like to invite anyone/everyone to comment as there seems to be little hope of resolving this dispute without outside help.

This is my first post to a noticeboard like this, please let me know if/how I'm doing it wrong. Thanks!Fyddlestix (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A source is being used which has the subtitle: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination '.

That source is being used for the second paragraph of the article, and ignoring the first paragraph of the article entirely, and the entire rest of the article. The article presents Michael Meacher's conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

Is quite clear that he is presenting his "theory" about 9/11.

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

Appears to show "9/11 conspiracy theory" is the topic of the entire article, that PNAC is a key and iterated part of Meacher's "conspiracy throry" which he promoted repeatedly at Alex Jones (radio host)'s show and website and that presenting the view of a conspiracy theorist as "fact" in any way remotely approaching a position of credibility violates WP:NPOV. Neutral point of view" != "promoting conspiracy theories without telling readers that they are conspiracy theories." WP:FRINGE is clear that we do not give credence to "conspiracy theories" and I assure you Michael Meacher is in the 9/11 conspiracy theorists category, and listed in the template for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice wall of text. I'm sure that people can read the article for themselves, if you just link to it, like this.

It's clear that the article is about the war on terror and its connection to a scheme for global domination, which Meacher sees spelled out in the PNAC report to which he refers, and which academic sources have addressed. Note that the academic sources do not address the broader context of the war on terror.

The article is about PNAC, not the broader context.

Meacher's views are clear, and I don't see how this can possibly be skewed as an NPOV issue. It is simply a question of the material being off-topic, and thus UNDUE. If that is not the case, then I will work up a paraphrase of the article myself to put into the article.

One thing that would certainly not be NPOV is an attempt to portray Meacher as an irrational conspiracy theorist whose views on PNAC and the report are therefore discredited. A number of the points he raises, it should be noted, are still alive. The FBI officer that was rebuffed by the CIA recently issued a long statement that was covered by Newsweek, I believe, maybe it was Time. In any case, the evidence he presents is not irrational or false information--though I don't know the extent to which each point has been verified by collaborating RS. There is a difference between examining evidence that suggests a conspiracy and indulging in speculative theorizing (i.e., "conspiracy theory"). I note that the Misplaced Pages 9/11 conspiracy theories doesn't even mention Coleen Rowley, Ali H. Soufan or Mark Rossini. I don't think their accounts correspond to "conspiracy theory".

So there is an issue related to how any such "conspiracy theory" assertion of the sort Collect wants to insert would be presented in the first place. Even if he's wrong, he does not appear to be acting in an irrational manner. If he were, the Guardian wouldn't have printed the piece, and academics wouldn't be commenting on his statements in the manner that they have (no mention of "conspiracy theory").--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Meacher is a conspiracy theorist. He mentions PNAC multiple times in his conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory is about 9/11 as we have shown. In title, and in multiple sentences in the entire article. For us to say "but this is not abut 9/11" is about as absurd as one can get. WP:NPOV is clear on this - for us to promote this conspiracy theory is wrong. That you persist in saying "this article is only about the war on terror and has no conspiracy theory stuff in it is belied by the very content of the article - which Alex Jones copies on the infowars.com site. And I am glad you think the conspiracy theory is "rational" here. Your main problem is that you want to assert the factual veracity of a member of Parliament - see Guardian "Michael Meacher addresses the fringe crowd." "The crowd whooped and roared, the sun blazed and the years fell away from Meacher. He hopped off the platform like a young firebrand, and was mobbed by grateful campaigners. "This moment is historical," smiled Basílio Martins, a journalist from Portugal. "People need to know about Bilderberg, and now they start to know."" A multitude of conspiracies, alas. Beeb: "Mr Meacher, a minister in Tony Blair's Labour government, said: 'The Bilderberg Group comprises about 130 of the Western world's biggest decision-makers.' He added: 'Of course it's not a conspiracy but, at the same time, 130 of the world's biggest decision-makers don't travel thousands of miles simply for a cosy chat...'" Bilderberg conspiracy anyone?

The Guardian David Aaronovitch says "But watch Meacher build. It's a classic of its kind. "Was this inaction," he asks, "simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority?" This is conspiracy 101. Say something is a fact which isn't. Then ask questions, rising up through incompetence, gradually to mal-intention, and then - abruptly - demand who might be behind it all. Cui Bono, my dear friends?" and "Even so, I do not know what is more depressing: that a former long-serving minister should repeat this bizarre nonsense without checking it; that, yesterday, twice as many readers should be published supporting this garbage as those criticising it; or that one letter should claim that Meacher has simply said what "many have always known". Ugh! To give credibility to this stuff is bad enough, to "know" it is truly scary.." 'Nuff said. Collect (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm only going to respond briefly here as I think my perspective on all of this is already well covered on the article's talk page and in the RFC discussion section. What I will say (again) is that I think it's significant that reliable sources like this one have not dismissed Meacher's views on PNAC as fringe. Abelson doesn't like Meacher's perspective, but he does deem it worthy of discussion. So I think there is a rationale for keeping Meacher in the article, and not totally dismissing his views about PNAC. It's also clear, however, that there's a need to counterbalance his views (again, about PNAC). Collect seems to want to use statements he's made about September 11 to do that, while Ubikwit (as I understand it) doesn't think his views on 9-11 should be mentioned at all. Frankly I could care less either way - what's important to me is that the focus stays on PNAC here (this being, after all, an article about PNAC). My suggested solution all along has been a brief statement of Meacher's views about PNAC, a brief, reliably sourced statement addressing his views on Sept 11, and then moving on to use more reliable and in-depth sources like Abelson to counterbalance Meacher's (and the other critics who are quoted in this section) characterization of PNAC.Fyddlestix (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: In the RfC discussion, @Groupuscule: suggested using a footnote for the material. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

As you say, the article is about PNAC, and that's what it should document regarding Meacher's statements. Anybody that wants to know more about Michael Meacher simply clicks the Wikilink and is transported to his article...--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will reply there as well but for the most part I think I would be fine with the approach they suggest.Fyddlestix (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And yet the article us about 9/11 and he states about 9/11 and PNAC The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint'. Also In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. And note also that Meacher is still a 9/11 theorist as a member of Political Leaders for 911 Truth.

Icing on the conspiracy birthday cake the LaRouche folks: Ever since Lyndon LaRouche first affirmed, early in the morning of 9/11, that the attacks were an "inside job," it has been taboo in Britain to publicly discuss this possibility, especially as Blair's Britain joined in the neo-conservatives' wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, becoming the Cheney-acs' main prop overseas. And although Meacher's polemic narrows the motive of Cheney et al. to an oil grab, his intervention is timely. (LaRouche folks are kings of conspiracy theories). The game is much more dangerous than Meacher has described it. But with publication of his article, the "Reichstag Fire" issue—and crucially, that of the relation between the Cheney's gang's desires and Tony Blair's actions as British Prime Minister—is out in the open. BBC: Former minister Michael Meacher has blamed the Iraq war on the US desire for world domination. Mr Meacher also suggested the Americans might have failed to prevent 11 September as it gave a pretext for military action. noting the BBC viewed Meacher's screed as being about 9/11 specifically. WP:FRINGE stuff utterly. That fact that a conspiracy theorist can attain office is scary. Collect (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to gloss over Meacher's views on September 11, or that I'm somehow promoting his views. Neither of these is the case and I've already repeatedly stated that I'm ok with a well-cited sentence or two discussing those views in the article. I'm also puzzled by your continued reference to WP:FRINGE - if you think Meacher's views on PNAC are fringe, shouldn't you be making the case to have him/his views excised from the article entirely? That would seem to be the appropriate response if it's a fringe position. But instead you seem to want to include more information about him and his views. I just don't see how that makes sense or does the article any good.Fyddlestix (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have pointed out that his views on PNAC are part and parcel of his fringe 9/11 views, that the source being cited makes it clear that it is about his fringe 9/11 views, and that if we do not have readers see that it is about his fringe 9/21 views that we are disserving the readers. I do not know how much clearer I could have made it that Meacher is a 9/11 Truther whose views should not be presented to readers as being "fact" I any way. Is this actually clear now? Collect (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is entirely improper to put the material from a FRINGE conspiracy theorist into this article. I can't imagine that this adds important or probative value to the article. Why not just add Infowars directly? The subtext here is appalling and I do not see it as neutral. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's unfair - I've been clear all along that I'm only advocating discussing Meacher to the extent that reliable secondary sources do. Please check out the suggested compromise wording that I just posted on the article's talk page, you'll see that I am in no way trying to sneak Meacher into the article - in fact, I go out of my way to note that he is a conspiracy theorist and to cite multiple reliable sources which say as much.Fyddlestix (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Woah there, who ever said that we were trying to present Meacher's views as fact? I have advocated nothing of the sort, at any point during this entire discussion. That's such a blatant mischaracterization of my position that I honestly don't know how to interpret it except as a personal attack - much like your earlier edit summary, which baselessly compared me to Alex Jones. Can we all just step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and actually read/consider each other's arguments? Please go read the suggested compromise (redraft) that I just posted and you'll see that I am in no way advocating taking his statements as fact or at face value - in fact, I've gone out of my way to make it clear that his views are suspect, citing multiple reliable sources that label him a conspiracy theorist. You and me aren't nearly as far apart on this as you seem to think, I hope the proposed draft clarifies that. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Meacher's views are mentioned in the reliable source, because it is trying to show that there were a range of different views about the connection between the PNAC and the Middle Eastern policy of the Bush administration lying somewhere in the middle. I think the article fails to present the proper weight of the different views. TFD (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, it can be resolved by including more material that counters the view of PNAC which the critics discussed in this section of the article. But even if we left Meacher out, that view was widespread and popular enough (and discussed in enough reliable sources) that the article still needs to discuss & address it.Fyddlestix (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: It has been made clear on the related BLP/N thread that at no time have Meacher's views been presented as "fact", as per this comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris.

The proposed compromise text is a balanced presentation of the subject matter, situating Meacher's views within the overall context of other reliably sourced statement on the topic.

@The Four Deuces:. Have you seen that text? Please clarify what you mean by "proper weight of the different views". Meacher's basic statement about a blueprint for American domination, in his words, "Pax Americana", have been made by sources in various countries and from across the political spectrum. The title of this one from a German legal journal is interesting, "Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy – The Origins of the current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking", for example, which also states

Leaving aside the lunatic fringe a for a moment, there is large and growing number of commentators who view the present transatlantic tensions as but the work of a small clique of ideologues who took an academically challenged presidency hostage to their radical agenda.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"large and growing number" does not mean most. When you distort the relative weight of sources, it affects the neutrality of the article. TFD (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The specific distortion to which you refer is not clear. Source(s)? Note the statement in the current text

According to Hammond, its recommendations were "exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say, and it is no great revelation that they said it in publicly-available documents prior to September 2001."

and the statement that follows that. "Most is not used in the text, incidentally, "Multiple" is.

If you don't present specific sources with respect to which the POV is not being represented or not being accorded due weight, then you need to present the sources, otherwise the statement seems like a groundless assertion leveled against well-sourced text.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not Hammond agrees with the "large and growing number" of critics who hold this view, it does not make it a majority view. You need to review neutrality policy: all significant views must be presented proportionately. We should not come down on one side or another. TFD (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it reflect the majority POV?

It is obviously the majority viewpoint according to a plethora of RS. You have repeatedly been asked to produce sources to support you're obstructionist statements against the creation of policy compliant content, and that is tendentious.

Either produce sources that backup your POV, or kindly find another article to make pointy, unsupported assertions.

Let me rephrase that, either produce sources that represent a significant view that must be presented proportionately or stop violating WP:TALK by pretending not to hear what other editors are saying to you here.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 01:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your source says "large and growing number." That does not mean "most" ergo I do not need to provide another source to say the same thing as the one you provided. You need to provide one. TFD (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Listing of porn award nominations

I wanted to solicit opinions on whether exhaustive listing of porn awards nominations is appropriate under WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, or WP:BLPSTYLE (if you consider these lists as praise) in a biography. These nominations do not contribute to a subjects notability under WP:PORNBIO and often can not be cited to an independent source from the award givers. I had removed nominations under Cytherea and was reverted. Other examples where the awards nominations section outweigh the rest of the biography considering the underlying sources: Riley Reid,Skin Diamond, Ann Marie Rios, and most of the other recent porn actor pages. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that listing award nominations violates the policies cited above. Clearly, information that does not inherently confer notability on a subject may still belong in an article - in fact such information makes up a majority of most articles. If one award win is sufficient to make a subject notable, certainly other award nominations are deserving of mention. Furthermore I don't see such information as praise, and it seems to me that it gives an indication of other work the person may have done that may be of significance, which goes directly to the point of what the article should be about. The fact that a secondary source may not be available for the award nominations is irrelevant, because a primary source is appropriate for such information. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It does matter in terms of weight under WP:PRIMARY, "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." If you have an article that is dominated by these nominations that can only be supported by the primary sources, it's a problem. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at Ann Marie Rios who I have never heard of and have no interest in. I do not perceive that this article is "dominated" by the nominations. Objective listing of nominations is not praise. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We have entire "List of awards and nominations received by..." articles for many non-porn acts. Kiss, Elizabeth Taylor, The Smashing Pumpkins, the MLB Network, Willie Nelson, Prison Break, and many, many more. Almost all primary sourced. In light of that, it would seem unfair to forbid a lesser mention in pornstar articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:27, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because these are significant awards. Porn awards are not. The budget for every single porn film made in a typical year, probably doesn't come close to the cost of a single Hollywood film, and the trade awards are not covered in any significant sense by independent sources. Come back when the Washington Post and the The Times cover these awards with fornt page pictorial as they routinely do for the Oscars, Golden Globes, Emmys and the like. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Listing of porn awards and nominations is fine. The main concern when using primary sources, is that primary sources often times require interpretation, which is why WP emphasizes reliable secondary sources. So when listing an award, you simply say this actor/actress won "X" award. You can't say, "This actress was the first to win 'X' award" or "This actress won her first reward" when using a primary source unless the source explicitly says that. As long as the information is directly taken from the source and there are no original research interpretations of it, then there shouldn't be any problem.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV treatment of Jesus in the New Testament

The Jesus article has a section called Life and teachings in the New Testament. If it were a secular section, it would not follow the Christian canon. In particular, secular scholars put the Gospel of John in a separate category from the other three Christian gospels, the "synoptics." Additionally, scholars emphasize the differences among the gospels. Instead, the section takes the Christian approach of conflating all four gospels into a single story. This approach is precisely the one that secular scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, warn us against. After months of discussion, no proponent of the current version could name a secular, tertiary, reliable source that treats the topic this way, and, after discussing options, other editors encouraged me to move forward with edits. I started removing references to John, since secular scholars don't consider it to be a meaningful source for the life of Jesus. Then I got reverted. Here's the diff:

There is more than one possible way to fix this page, but certain editors want to preserve the Christian approach to the topic. That's understandable, but not appropriate for WP. I don't much care how the article gets fixed, but I would sure love some support form other editors who say that maintaining a Christian POV isn't right. Thanks in advance. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It follows the Christian canon precisely because of its title: "in the New Testament". StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

St Anselm is one of the Jesus editors who wants to maintain the current treatment, by which the section follows church practice. Secular scholars treat the topic differently. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Although the Q thesis continues to be the dominant solution to the synoptic problem, almost everything about the relationships among the gospels continues to be controversial, and JT's "John doesn't count" is eccentric. It's impossible to present a neutral picture by simply erasing John from the narrative. John needs to appear in the narrative, with of course cautions that only he records some incidents and that his direction is quite different from the other three. Perhaps John could be presented as a separate section, at least up until the passion narrative.

And really it is necessary to present the Christian perspective of a single narrative. It may be incorrect, but people do actually need to know what is taught as well as what scholars have supposed on their own. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well hell no. We are not here to propagate a religious tradition. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The idea of excluding John wasn't my first suggestion. That's how Britannica does it, and we ended up there when an editor who opposed any changes said it was the reliable tertiary source to follow. When he learned that Britannica tells Jesus' story without including John, he dropped out of the discussion on the Talk page. Honestly, I don't care which neutral, reliable, scholarly, tertiary source we emulate, as long as we treat the topic in such a way. Earlier I had proposed treating the sources separately, but editors resisted that idea, and Britannica was the only model that anyone else would point to as a model. That's how we got to excluding John. Another avenue is to put this section under the Christian Views section, and then it can remain "how Christians see Jesus" instead of a biography of Jesus. If we could agree on a neutral source to emulate, that would help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page, Britannica doesn't actually exclude John after all. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The gospels are not a "biography of Jesus", and that's the prevailing position in the Christian scholarly community. Also, looking that the key page in the Britannica text, it doesn't address the "Q" theory at all and therefore ignores the prevailing view that Matthew and Luke appear to ratify Mark because they are thought to be derived from Mark. They ignore the thesis that the synoptics present the ministry of Jesus as if it were a single year because Mark appears to be constructed to be used as a single year lectionary. The principles that they propose for sifting among passages are controversial, if oft-proposed.

The upshot is that using the Britannica article as a template is a bad idea, because its approach is eccentric. There is one line of thinking which basically ignores everything but Mark (including a preference for the shortest ending), but it's just one line. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the upshot seems to be to be a misunderstanding of what "Jesus in the New Testament" means, among other things. First, speaking as a Christian who has looked into the specialist reference works regarding this topic rather regularly over the years, I honestly don't know any reputable Christian academics who consider the gospels "biographical," and, honestly, that idea hasn't even had real support in the academic Christian community for at least 100 years or so. They are considered to be basically "tracts" of the kind we are familiar with today which discuss the life of Jesus, and are, honestly, about as neutral and inherently reliable as those modern tracts. And I think it might be reasonable to realize that, to the best of my knowledge, the Q source has never been included in any versions of the New Testament. Speculation on the internal relationships between the texts of the New Testament are a significant subject, and they are covered (I think and hope anyway, there is a really scary amount of stuff in academic eference sources about this topic) elsewhere. But that is not directly related to the topic of Jesus "in the New Testament" per se. And, the text of the New Testament is clearly pretty much the only material which would be relevant to the subject of the portrayal of Jesus "in the New Testament".

Optimally, I think it would be reasonable for someone to gather a listing of all the articles and subarticles, like the list I started at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles. Finding the relative importance and weight well-regarded reference sources give to the various subtopics is a good idea. And I certainly would welcome seeing someone add something to that page regarding the coverage in Britannica or any other generally well-regarded reference sources. But I think it would be jumping to conclusions about what is and is not the current academic consensus.

By the way, I am aware of some recent work which has seemed to indicate that some academics are giving the Gospel of John a better record for historical reliability than the previous consensus gave it. However, I don't know that this comparatively new idea has gained a lot of academic support yet, and that raises unavoidable WP:WEIGHT questions regarding that material. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

To add another wrinkle, I deny Jonathan Tweet's supposition that the section is written from a distinctly Christian point of view. Rather, it seems to me to be NPOV coverage of a clearly POV source. The section is intended to describe Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament, and while secularists would deny the veracity of many of the claims made in the New Testament, I have yet to be convinced that a simple summary of the New Testament - which is all this section is intending - would sound significantly different if written exclusively by secularists. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Our opinions are all well and good, but as editors let's follow an approach used by a neutral, reliable, scholarly, tertiary source. Earlier we landed on Britannica, but I'm not married to Britannica. I'd be happy with Harris's Understanding the Bible, Theissen's Historical Jesus, or the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. None of them use this format, a format that is devotional rather than scholarly. Mangoe suggested splitting the material up, and that's what most RSs do. This section follows Christian practice instead of scholarly practice, so it's POV. The only opposing editor who ever pointed us to a source pointed us to Britannica. When one side in a dispute wants to follow RSs and the other side is happy to figure out on their own how to cover a topic, which side is probably more in line with WP policy? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I regret to say that I see a rather obvious and rather arbitrary distinction in the above in differentiating between "Christian" and "scholarly" practice. The implication that the former is not the latter is rather completely unsupportable, considering that in most all cases the "scholars" who study the subject of Jesus do so in a Judeo-Christian-Muslim or Abrahamic perspective. Scholars from outside that perspective are not necessarily more "scholarly" than those within it. And, I regret to say, that this sentence, "This section follows Christian practice instead of scholarly practice, so it's POV," is even more POV in itself than the message of it, because the individual making it seems to be placing himself in a position where he as an individual is uniquely qualified to differentiate between sources. I regret to say that the impression I most strongly receive of this thread is that there is an effort by one individual to assert that only a particular perspective he may well find most personally agreeable to him is what should be counted as "neutral," "academic," or "NPOV," and, without clear evidence as per WP:BURDEN that such a personal differentiation between highly regarded academic sources is one that is itself broadly supported in the relevant academic community, and that sort of editing does itself rather clearly qualify as POV pushing. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to clarify, John. It's not really "Christian" versus "scholarly," as I mistakenly said. It's "devotional" versus "scholarly."

There are plenty of Christian scholars doing good scholarly work in this field. As to insisting on a particular treatment, I'm happy to treat this topic any which way, provided it's a way that a mainstream, secular, reliable, tertiary source treats it. I've suggested two or three ways, and it's the other editors who insist on this one, single way. We are here on this board because the people who want to maintain the current formant can't name a source as our model to follow. Every source I find treats the topic differently. In addition, Bart Ehrman specifically calls out the current format as Christian POV: conflating the gospels into one story. So, should we treat this topic one of the ways that RSs treat it? Or should we treat it the way a contingent of editors wants to treat it? Again, your opinion is welcome, but can you show us a source? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

But you're still insisting on "secular" source, and I don't think that is required by WP policy. "Mainstream" (as opposed to fringe): yes. "Reliable": of course. But "secular"? Where do you get that from? StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Two points. One, there is no particular single "Christian" view of Jesus with which Bart Ehrman disagrees. There are a huge variation of views of Jesus within Christianity, and many of them disagree with each other even more than Ehrman disagrees with them. Also, honestly, in his book "Did Jesus Exist" Ehrman seems to disagree even more with the so-called "independent" academics than he might with some Christians. And Ehrman himself is also perhaps more of a "popular" writer than pure academic, which makes it more likely that his works will contain some degree of broadly sensationalist material to give the major media sources something to hook on and discuss. That helps such general works get more sales. In matters like this, the best sources for structuring content are ultimately the recent well-regarded academic reference sources. Such sources, even a lot of those published by Eerdmans, are aimed primarily at the academic libraries market, and they tend to be very, very expensive. Sometimes in the range of one thousand dollars per volume. That being the case, they tend to go out of their way to choose as writers of their articles the individuals who have the highest general regard in their field, from all viewpoints, because if they were to choose a true partisan and his article is clearly partisan, the journals reviewing reference works will note that and maybe not give the idea of purchasing the volume as much support. The Guide to Reference website offers a free subscription for two months, or at least I got one some time ago, and it lists a number of the best reference works out there in religion as determined by their contributors, who tend to be academic or specialist public reference librarians. In controversial topics, our best option is to find what they say and, taking into account any recent developments which might be reflected only in the newer ones or too recent to be in any of them, do our best to structure our own content along the lines they indicate. Having looked at a lot of them, even if I haven't added them to our list of religion reference books, so far as I can tell, what I think you might be calling the "academic Christian" perspective most closely reflects the general academic consensus. There is a huge range of disagreement on these topics, and wide and almost innumerable variant ideas on it, but so far as I have seen most of those ideas have little real support being the few individuals who publish books to support them. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The other thing is that Misplaced Pages does not rely on tertiary sources; it relies on (reliable) secondary sources. But as WP:TERTIARY says, tertiary sources may be helpful for evaluating due weight. Do the question is, is the "Life of Jesus in the New Testament" section undue weight for the Jesus article? StAnselm (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm reverted your change saying that "fixed other edits not part of the John removal." (No idea what that means.) Both of you rely on Encyclopedia Britannica as a source. It is not a good source and furthermore does not support either version. You need to provide sources, otherwise editors have no way of deciding. TFD (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Project for a New American Century

Is in the realm of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Its neutrality is at issue here, as it is almost entirely a series of claims connecting people who signed a document to a deliberate plan seeking 9/11 and designed to get the US into war, as well as promoting biological weapons and "the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group" . It includes naming multiple people multiple times (wikilinking every time) in connection with that.

I consider statements that people are seeking to develop biological weapons, to promote genocide, seeking war,, and deliberately seeking 9/11, to be a "contentious claim of conspiracy" and suggest that it is,indeed, subject to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and invite eyes to look at this article (which nicely uses ALL CAPS a lot when quoting section titles from a pamphlet).

is the latest such edit.

Thanks. Collect (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The only person for whom neutrality is at issue is Collect, who has been trying to remove long-standing, well-sourced consensus material from the article.

It will be readily apparent that there is already a thread on this board open on almost the same topic on onoe individual, British Labor MP Michael Meacher, and 9/11 conspiracy theory.

If you are complaining about the wikilinks on the table, I don't think that's unreasonable, as it is a compiled reference.

You already brought the table issue to BLP/N (and this board is not the correct place for BLP claims), and consensus was against you.

All statements of opinion from RS are attributed, and there is no quote accusing anyone of "deliberately seeking 9/11", an exaggeration which I'm sure was simply a mistake on your part that you're going to correct.

The article is not about Meacher, for exmample, but does contain statements made by him as covered in peer-reviewed secondary sources, and they don't mention the 9/11 conspiracy theory.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need two threads about this article on the same noticeboard? (And another one at BLPN?) Fyddlestix (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just about to say that. When I opened the window, it was here. Should be a subsection of the above one. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, March 2, 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is about linking people to genocide and biological warfare - not the same as above. Ought we link living persons to such accusations? I suggest,alas, that walls of text on the topic including accusations of bad faith seem to make the neutrality problem a tad clearer than such posters would like.

Many key positions in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush were held by PNAC members, including the vice presidency, and a number of other PNAC members served in important advisory roles, is not stated as opinion, and the link between them being PNAC members is SYNTH as shown by the table on that page.

And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. attributed as a quote from PNAC is, alas, totally wrenched from context - and is stated as "fact" here.

In a review of a book on the history of eugenics in the United States, Keller cited the quote as an example of modern-day thinking that continues the tradition of eugenics, saying that the quote proposed "a sort of 'gene bomb'" and accusing the authors of supporting "the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice " is making an exceedingly strong claim about the group - failing to note the person is not mainstream on such a claim at all. Kip Keller, in fact, is a non-notable book reviewer, and not an expert on Eugenics at all. The book is by Edwin Black AFAICT. Opinions of a non-notable person are not notable. Etc. Collect (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The article does definitely need major work, and a lot of points/edits I agree with you more than I agree with Ubikwit, Collect. But both of you are being extremely combative here and you both seem to be more interested in carrying on a pre-existing conflict between the two of you than in improving the article. As you may have noticed, I've stopped even trying to make a substantive contribution to this debate - I don't think a resolution will be possible unless you two can calm down and check whatever baggage you're carrying from previous disputes. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My goal is a readable article consonant with policies and guidelines, encyclopedic and of value to readers. I have no POV regarding this or any article, and if you doubt that in any way please note my edits on Johann Hari and innumerable others. Too many articles have been made POV to an extreme extent - and one clue is when they defame living persons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And believe me, I share those goals. My statement was not meant to disparage your motives or question your credibility - I'm just letting you both know that I think the tone of the discussion and the level of animosity of animosity between you is not helpful and needs to change. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: It's true that I have been dealing with what one admin at an AE thread described as tendentious editing from Collect on other articles related to the neoconservatives, including BLPs, which I've wikilinked on the Talk page. My patience has worn a little thin.

Perhaps you could present your views a little more proactively so we can move this along in a more functionally collaborative manner. I in light of your comments/edits on that point to date, I gather that you agree with me that the article is not and should not be about 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Note that the material that Collect has been deleting from the article is, as you noted with respect to the passage from the lead, long-standing consensus material. That doesn't mean consensus can't change, but the issues at hand here have already gone through a couple of processes, including the BLP thread on the table (consensus against Collect's claims of SYNTH) to which I've linked on the article Talk page, as well as another BLP thread on the quote from Meacher in which you also participated.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Proposal_to_topic_ban_Ubikwit_from_AN is fairly clear, Ubikwit. And when you cite a source which is entirely about a 9/11 conspiracy theory and you figure that as long as you don't use anything but a single quote which does not actually have "9/11" in it, that the article is miraculously healed of being about a 9/11 conspiracy theory - I think I have some Jordan River water to sell you. Collect (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's off-topic to link to such threads here, especially one not even related to this topic. It shows that you are desperate.

Your pushing of the 9/11 angle is not going to get you very far, and has already become disruptive, as far as I'm concerned, with this second NPOV/N thread and already two BLP/N threads. I'll continue to address the issue, but your are continually repeating the same tired arguments because you refuse to listen and refuse to collaborate according to the relevant content policies: RS and NPOV.

The point has already been made several times over that the academics published in peer-reviews secondary sources do not even mention conspiracy theory in conjunction with Meacher's statements on PNAC. I've removed the Guardian citation and Meacher's statements on PNAC are sourced solely to peer-reviewed secondary sources now.

What other conspiracy theories, 9/11 or otherwise, remain in the article?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC over lede in Religious/political article--eyes welcome

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy#RfC:_Should_the_lead_include_accusations_of_demonstrators.3F Prasangika37 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation"

A serious NPOV discussion required here involving users who live in Crimea. This and related articles are easily influenced by propogandas from both sides. in English Misplaced Pages - mostly from pro-regime-in-Kiev side. In Russian Misplaced Pages - from regime-in-Moscow. Viktor Š 22:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. (talk • contribs)

It is unacceptable spin and false equivalency to assign the same weight to reliably sourced news reports and the productions of Kremlin-controlled media. WP:NPOV does not mean WP:GEVAL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What does WP:GEVAL have to do with this? Do you mean that Poroshenko-, Kolomoyskiy- and Akhmetov-controlled media more reliable than "Kremlin"-controlled? Is now GfK Ukraine "Kremlin"-controlled? Is war-party in Washgton's media (like Radio Svoboda) any way more reliable than "Kremlin"-controlled? Is Amanpour any way more reliable than Kiselyov? Certainly not. Plus, there are enogh english-language reliable sources that are just being ignored here. Labeling the acception "annexation" without asking Crimeans who could provide reliable crimean sources does not give Misplaced Pages credit. Viktor Š 22:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Misplaced Pages works. If information is reliably sourced, verifiable, and notable, it cam be included (with due weight and in an encyclopedic tone). There is no obligation to "balance out" this information with unreliable sources, fringe theories, or even "local" sources. Furthermore, your invocation of sources like "Radio Svoboda" is a red herring. The sources for the articles you are protesting are predominantly Western mass media outlets. If you have an issue with them, I suggest you visit the reliable sources noticeboard. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There has already been ample discussion of what are and are not reliable sources on the talk page of the article being questioned, as well on a massive number of related article surrounding recent events in Ukraine. The fact that this user disagrees with consensus and has taken it here is WP:FORUMSHOPPING because s/he doesn't like the consensus. Trying to resurrect the same arguments already rebutted belongs to the relevant articles, not to this noticeboard. I suggest that this section should be closed off as another waste of editor time and energy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I always try to assume good faith, but this torrent of SPAs, IPs (many of them using dynamic or proxy addresses), and other obvious bad-faith actors strains me to do so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I, too, follow WP:AGF and try to discuss and inform... but problematic issues surrounding current affairs in Ukraine has brought in a huge wave of new contributors (both with accounts and IP hoppers) working as SPAs for one POV or the other. It only takes a few interactions and attempts at trying to explain how Misplaced Pages works to ascertain who is NOTHERE. Unfortunate as it may be, this tidal wave has swept away some excellent regulars who've just given up on rolling the boulder uphill. Ultimately, for the sake of editor retention and quality encyclopaedic content, a balance needs to be struck between "that anyone can edit" and where the entire project risks being compromised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This subject has received such extensive coverage in Western media that there is no reason to use sources that do not have the same reliability. That is not to say that there are not problems with Western media present the story, but it represents what is considered mainstream. TFD (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that a considerable number of regular editors are aware of the discrepancies and spend quite a bit of time checking the credentials of 'experts', the context, and eliminating yellow press references as much as is within the scope of our policies. In the long run, and with more academic publications becoming available in the future, the RS content may change. Until such a time, we are obliged to adhere to the mainstream... whatever our extracurricular reading and personally trusted sources may say. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE

THE PROBLEM: is that nobody knows when the Gospel of Matthew was written, as it is undated. Many scholars such as France 2007 p19 believe it was composed around 85CE.  Others state it may have been written as early as 50 CE. See  REF1, REF2, , REF3, REF4, REF5 REF6, REF7  Reference books such as The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, 2010 simply state that scholars have set the time anywhere between 50 and 115.

MAURICE CASEY: who is one of the world's leading Biblical scholars published   Jesus of Nazareth  in 2010. This work came down in favour of the 50-60 CE date.  Then several months ago Casey published Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? 2014 which laid out the the scholarly argument for his position. See pp 93 ff

THE SPECIFIC CHANGE BEING PROPOSED: See Diff 1 Diff 2

DEBATE: GOSPEL OF MATTHEW (talk) - NPOV dispute and edit warring.

CLARIFICATION NEEDED: Is the deletion of the early 50 CE date a violation of WP:NPOV? Also can a number of editors form a "consensus that policies regarding NPOV do not apply" to this article? If so in what circumstances? - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If anything, considering the history of the OP here, the most likely policy and guideline considerations involved here would be WP:TE and WP:POV, and, I suppose some might say WP:NOTHERE might apply as well. NPOV is unfortunately, as I think you have probably been told repeatedly already, not the only rule which we have to follow. WP:NPOV specifically includes the section regarding WP:WEIGHT, and as per that aspect of the policy in question we also have to deal with the matter of how much regard any given academic opinion in a field in which there exist a huge number of academic opinions should receive. I very strongly suggest that you perhaps more thoroughly familiarize yourself with that aspect of the policy. We cannot by definition give prominence to all the minority opinions in a field in which there are a huge number of minority opinions. Nor can we give prominence to the opinions of what are, so far as I can tell, non-notable belief systems whose beliefs are substantially at odds with the prevailing academic opinions and opinions of the more notable belief systems in those specific areas. John Carter (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution