Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:29, 15 October 2012

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

Abortion-related question

I'm working on the article Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, about a Chinese woman subjected to a coerced, late-term abortion. The lede includes the sentence "On June 11, Feng's family posted graphic pictures of her dead child online." I'm considering changing 'dead child' to 'aborted fetus,' as it seems more neutral, if less...humane. But I just wanted to inquire whether there is a standard practice here. Would both terms be acceptable, or there a precedent that establishes that one is preferred? Homunculus (duihua) 18:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

We haven't got a standard practice. "Fetus" does not imply that the baby was born alive, as "child" might. It seems a little more neutral. "Dead fetus" maybe, rather than "aborted fetus". The usual approach is "go with what the sources say" but in this case you are unlikely to have a large number of neutral sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable. This article could also use some extra eyes -- it seems to carry an extreme level of detailed information presented as fact, while some of it should probably be treated a bit more tentatively given the sources. a13ean (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Kerry Bentivolio

50.4.162.0 is edit-warring over changing "Describes himself as pro-life"-> "Opposes reproductive freedom". Seems like pretty clear POV to me, and a borderline BLP violation on a politician during election season to boot. Glaucus (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Glaucus continues to insert his personal bias into the article in spite of numerous warnings against it.--35.16.0.174 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've rephrased the wording with this edit to reform the BLP and NPOV concerns. How's that? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded it to include his full position. Rather than worrying about terminological matters like "pro-life" or "reproductive freedom", if we simply report on what his campaign website says, readers can work out exactly what he thinks rather than what the label says. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108.28.53.169

Unarchiving this because the problem is still readily apparent.

Could someone with more energy and patience for it please take a look at Special:Contributions/108.28.53.169? He seems to primarily do NPOV edits. Thanks. —Kerfuffler 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I sampled a handful of the most recent edits and didn't see anything even vaguely troubling. Got specific diffs? —Cupco 01:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This account is almost entirely used to purplify prose; e.g.: . Worse, it's doing so even in cases where it makes no sense and/or is ungrammatical: . This really needs to stop, but the user has not replied to either warnings or a direct statement about the issue on their talk page. Virtually all of their edits have been reverted, only some of them by me. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  21:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a NPOV problem, it's vandalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to calling it that. I just want it to stop! —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think bringing it up on WP:AN/I is the thing to do if it continues. (There hasn't been anything since the 25th). --OpenFuture (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)

The BLP article of Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) has had a neutrality flag on the Controversy section since October 2011. This section comprises roughly half the article length and consists of a string of "news item" subsections listing incidents within Jones' broadcasting career. Jones is a radio "shock jock" and his schtick is to get up the noses of people holding leftist political views. He is blatantly biased. He is also Australia's most popular and influential radio presenter.

Although there have been some recent positive edits, the section as a whole is problematic. I quote from WP:WEIGHT:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

Discussion on the article's neutrality has been ongoing since 2007, and most recently in this discussion initiated a few days ago. Those arguing most strenuously for the preservation and suitability of the section are possibly best described here as possessing noses of the sort which Jones gets up, and I feel that this article is being used as a platform for some private retaliation.

If, for example, a person is ultimately found innocent of a charge, do we need to list each incident? I quote here from the lede:

His on-air conduct has attracted numerous adverse findings from Australia's media regulators, and one on-air incident resulted in Jones being charged with contempt of court, of which he was found guilty of breaching the law but the charge was dismissed.

The basic argument of those pushing for retention is "Well, he's a controversial public figure, paid to generate controversy - duh" but in Misplaced Pages terms, far more controversial figures like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin have no "Criticism and Controversy" section, with such material being a natural part of the overall structure. You cannot get much more controversial than mad dictators responsible for the deaths of millions, so why should this far less notable person have half his biographical article devoted to it?

I find Jones a vigorous opponent of causes I support, abhorrent, a travesty of objective journalism and a pin-up boy for the face of political bias but we do not have to descend to a similar level in our encyclopaedic treatment of him.

I'd like the advice of editors possessing fresh and unbiased eyes. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Pete, your'e forum shopping, having convinced nobody of your point of view on the article's Talk page. And you really must look up Godwin's Law#Corollaries and usage. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Quirk's Exception applies, of course. The talk page thread I commenced was flagged as a precursor to the subject being raised here. It's good to see some solid surgery being performed on the article. It is always good to get more editors involved, and I shall provide some assistance in other threads here to help out other editors seeking fresh eyes. What goes around comes around. --Pete (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Udo Kier, article about the actor

There are lots of mistakes in the English article about Udo Kier, also very subjective point of view, no neutral position. For example, it's written that Udo Kier is German actor while he lives and works both in Germany and America since 1991 so he is German and American/Hollywood actor. Also written that he is "known primarily for his work in horror and exploitation movies". Known for whom, I wonder? For horror fans? He did more than 200 films and only very few among them are horror or "exploitation"(by the way, what is "exploitation movie"? it must be "sex exploitation"what is also not true as he did no more than 5-6 films like that). Udo Kier did many serious films. Then there is very offensive quote by the frontman of music band Korn that contains word "fuck" and so on..Then Udo Kier never said that he is homosexual! Is it possible to add him into the "Gay actors" page?? Then he never was "protege" of Fassbinder, it's an old myth, he was discovered in London by another director and did about 10 films before to work with Fassbinder and they were more friends than collegues, Udo did mostly episodes in his films. Then Udo kier play sonly in episodes in Lars von Trier movies after "Europe" film whicj was in early 90s...and many other mistakes! Unfortunatelly, user called "Joshmaul" didn't accept my editing, almost no one change I did. It looks that there is personal hateness towards Udo kier or probably even homophobic. Please help to edite Udo Kier page correctly! For the moment the text of the page based mostly on one old article/review which has nothing to do with reality and was many times disproved by Udo Kier himself in his interviews. I sent links to many interviews with the actor where he says the true about himself but almost nothing was written and accepted by Joshmaul and almost no change done, even in a movie title which I took from IMDB, now there are lots of mistakes! What to do?? Who is "Joshmaul"? Your official editor? How to write true (based on Kier's resent Interviews and IMDB bio) in Wiki????? The interview about his childhood and work with Paul Morrissey (information was not accepted by your editor)

The interview where he talk true about Fassbinder and their relationships! My edits wasn't accepted!

Another interview whre he tells about Fassbinder and how he (Udo Kier) in real came into cinema, about how he made debut!

Almost nothing was accepted by "Joushmaul", he also can't prove am I represent Udo kier or not, and it's not his business at all. i never says that I'm representative myself, I said that some information was passed by his representatives what is true and also it wass their asking to change the article. I can provided you with 50 other articles and interview with Udo Kier which disproved almost all the information in the English wiki article! Besides the article wrote more as a critique that neutral bio and besides the language of it is very poor and even sound as slang..("He has strarred" instead "he played" or "he was in") and so on. Please help!!! Can people edite anything in Wiki or not??? I'm totally into this theme and subject!

Response to unsigned comment above: I appreciate your concerns for the bio on Udo Kier and I understand that you may be new to Misplaced Pages and may not understand all of its policies and procedures. I also see that English may not be your first language. First it would be good to sign your comments. Second, this noticeboard is for specific questions about a specific issue. You have listed many general issues and for future concerns you will do better to post at WP:BLPN ie the noticeboard for Biographies of Living Persons. The sources you have provided appear to be reliable so I'll have a look at the article and see if I can help. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the deleted content but please be aware that: film titles go in italics not quotations, we use only the last name (Keir), YouTube is generally not an acceptable source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay

Jarral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honeywell_Turbo_Technologies and GenArts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mohamed Nasheed: Cherry picked sources & lacks important events

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

Shaun Suisham

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

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

Rachel Corrie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health care articles

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

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

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

1. cf.[http://www.bizarremag.com/film-and-music/interviews/127/udo_kier.html
2. cf.[http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/11559/1/20-qas-udo-kier
3. cf.[http://daily.greencine.com/archives/008113.html#more

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution