Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:16, 31 July 2015

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

Reykjavik Excursions Kynnisferðir

If this isn't an ad, I don't know what is. Hartenhof (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... yeah... multiple problems there. It does read like an ad (so at minimum - it needs a major rewrite). There are currently no sources cited (I have tagged it). It also does not (currently) pass WP:ORG. Being one of the larger tour companies operating in Iceland, it should be notable... however, I did a quick search which did not turn up any reliable sources that are independent of the company (Google turns up a few sources that mention it in passing, but don't discuss it in much depth... and a few mirrors of our Misplaced Pages article.) Not willing to nominate it for deletion ... but it definitely needs work. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a paraphrase of their website. The offending content was added in this edit by SPA Johannahreidars. This is what's happened since then. —George8211 / T 17:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has been done to address the issues after the notability and unsourced tags were added on 3 July. I've prodded the article. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC).

Describing The Guardian (newspaper) as being of the centre-left (as fact)

I personally feel that describing The Guardian (newspaper) as simply of the centre-left, as if it were a fact, and without equivocation or qualification, because the newspaper (unofficially) said so, from a single (and now outdated) source (being a quote from an interview of a journalist of the Guardian by another journalist of the Guardian, as a side-story in an article (about themselves; namely, their own election coverage of the United States presidential election, 2004) from the year 2004, as cited in the article ()), violates the requirement to be descriptively neutral. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While the reference may be inadequate, I don't find the term inaccurate. You can find more references here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it bizarre to tag a political alignment as "self-described". Aren't they all by definition? Mezigue (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that self-described is being used to make it clear that it is not some sort of labelling by political opponents.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel that in context, using "self-described" is giving undue weight to that one quote (in that it's elevating that one statement to the lead.) If they described themselves as center-left on the About page of their website or something like that, then it'd be fine; but one quote isn't sufficient to give the self-description that degree of prominence. Whether or not to use the term "center-left" in the lead at all should therefore come down to what other sources have covered it and what they've said; if they're frequently described that way, then it's fine. But I'd avoid "self-described" for the reasons I said -- it gives the impression that this is part of the core definition of themselves in an official self-description, which goes beyond what the sources provided support. --Aquillion (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mezigue that "self-described" is bizarre in this context. Political alignment never is a fact in the sense that the earth revolving round the sun is a fact; there's always an element of fluidity and an element of opinion in it. Insofar as a newspaper's politics is a fact, the fact is defined by its self-description; nothing special about The Guardian in that respect. It seems far-fetched to suppose it might possibly be a label by opponents. Therefore, actually using the word "self-described" gives an odd kind of emphasis — undue weight, as Aquillion says. Why would we want "equivocation" (which Urquhartnite seems to call for) in the description? It isn't equivocal. Besides, "self-described", while technically a neutral, factual word, carries with it a penumbra of shadiness, from being so often used about (what the speaker considers) elusive, untrustworthy people or outfits. Don't use it here; it's bad style. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC).

Illegal vs undocumented

An IP editor and I are having a disagreement about using "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented immigrants" at the article on GEO Group. We can ignore all the OR about whether or not entering the country illegally is a crime or a civil infraction and concentrate on the issue. The paragraph regarding the incident uses 3 sources.

1. 1: . This is a primary source (the company itself) that doesn't actually address the incident being reported on or the individuals involved. It merely provides a company website description of the facility purpose. It doesn't use the term "illegal immigrant", nor does it use the term "undocumented immigrants".
2. 2: . The Sun Sentinel is a reliable third party source. This article specifically addresses the incident at hand. When talking about the specific incident, the source says "In a daring move, two young adults, both illegal immigrants..." Later in the article, it talks about one of the two men "Martinez was one of the two young illegal immigrants...". The source never uses the phrase "undocumented immigrants".
3. 3 . McClatchy is also a reliable third party source. The source uses "undocumented" 5 times and "illegal" 2 times.

First, the objection by the IP was that his change from "illegal" to "undocumented" was on the basis of grammar. Later, it became an argument about the law, now it has become a word count. There are 2 reliable third party sources dealing with the specific incident. Both sources use the phrase "illegal alien", one uses "undocumented" and "illegal". I contend that we go with the third party sources (personal interpretations of the law having no value in this) and both sources use "illegal". The primary source should be disregarded since it doesn't actually address the incident being reported on, nor does it use either term in question. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If both RS news organizations use "illegal", it would seem best to use that term. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree... in the context of that specific incident "illegal" seems to be the correct term. Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If the Misplaced Pages policy is to use the most accurate term, then "illegal" should be used. "Undocumented", while correct, is non-specific, it's like calling a poodle a dog. Saying the animal is a dog is correct, but calling it a poodle is more specific and accurate. There are undocumented aliens who are legal, but this (and most instances) deal with the more specific instance of illegal, undocumented immigrants. Onel5969 04:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that third party sources do actually state "illegal", is there actually a single source to say "undocumented"? It definitely doesn't mean the same thing although the descriptions are practically Siamese twins. Naphtha Termix (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Undocumented is the more neutral term, while illegal is widely regarded as offensive. Per WP:LABEL, one should avoid using biased terms in Misplaced Pages's voice. If biased terms are included, it must be done with attribution. As an illustrative example, if you were citing historical sources that used the term negro, you obviously wouldn't use this term in Misplaced Pages's text just because the reliable sources used it. Whether or not you believe that undocumented immigrants should be called "illegal immigrants," the latter is a contentious term and therefore should be avoided when possible and attributed otherwise. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but to whom can you attribute "illegal" other than the reporters. Naphtha Termix (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If it's necessary to use the word, you can attribute it to the reporters, preferably by name. It's usually not necessary, and you can just replace it by "undocumented" instead, just as you would translate "negro" to "black" if you were using a source written in 1950. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the term illegal is not "widely regarded as offensive". It's true that a certain segment deems it offensive, but that segment is not large. Nor is an accurate term biased. The term is used by both the right and the left in the United States. See this, this, and this (which are just a few examples). The majority of Americans do not find the term offensive, as those examples show. Onel5969 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

In at least the first two sources you provide, PBS and NYT, the news sources have largely stopped using the term "illegal immigrant." You are providing very old news articles that no longer reflect the current practices of the outlets. 74.96.73.144 (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's not our place to re-write history as it was reported. The sources were using them when it happened. We still have an article on the Negro League and the "World Colored Heavyweight Championship", despite not using those terms regularly now and we allow quotes like "The negro had few friends" because that's what was said. Would it make you feel better if we put "illegal immigrant" in quotes? Niteshift36 (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If we're using an exact quote, we should of course use the actual text; however, most of the time, it is better to paraphrase, since we're an encyclopedia and not a collection of quotes, and in that context it is, in fact, our job to rewrite it into our own words (which includes rewriting it according to our policies.) So yes, to answer your specific question, it's acceptable to say "illegal immigrant" in quotes, and generally we should be careful about using it in the article voice (because it is a loaded term per WP:LABEL.) As WP:LABEL says, we can use such value-laden terms when they're universally used by reliable sources, but even then we must use in-text attribution -- we can say "so-and-so called them an illegal immigrant", but we have to be more cautious about using such condemnatory terms in the 'article voice', because their implications might violate WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a need to make it a quote. We simply need to use the term that both sources use, not the term only one source uses and extrapolating it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• However, there are different types of immigration offenses. For example, if you overstay your visa, that's an offense. If you sneak into the country, it's also an offense. Both are illegal (ie, against the law) and could end up having you detained, but one obviously isn't "undocumented". I'd submit that just substituting "undocumented" is tantamount to OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How could it be OR if it is in the source? 74.96.73.144 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was addressing the notion that the two terms are always interchangeable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought this was a dispute about its use in a particular article. If one of the sources uses undocumented, then it's not OR, so why bring that up? 74.96.73.144 (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sammy1339 said: "It's usually not necessary, and you can just replace it by "undocumented" instead, just as you would translate "negro" to "black" if you were using a source written in 1950" He was giving the impression that one word can be a substitute in any case, which is incorrect. Unfortunately, with the way threads get structured, sometimes that isn't always clear. Especially when other editors, respond in between. Does that clear it up for you? Niteshift36 (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36, I would appreciate if you would assume good faith, as per Misplaced Pages guidelines. You seem to be failing to do so with Sammy1339 and the IP user above, and you have certainly failed to do so with your characterization of me above. My justification for making the initial change has always been grammar (although I do see merit in the label argument above). You were the individual who brought up the interpretation of the law, and you were the person who brought up the whole notion of a "word count." Please stop attempting to make any of these seem as if I introduced them, since I did not. Additionally, since your entire objection so far seems to ultimately depend on the fact that only one source previously used "undocumented," I have added an additional source for you. And, since I wasn't really adding the source to please you (until I just came to this noticeboard thread after making my edit), you will also find that it enhances the article by providing an actual account of the one of the two individuals who went into the detention center through an interview on a reliable source (I even went and checked the noticeboard for reliable sources to make sure that there wouldn't be a problem with a source I had not heard about before). I would assume that, with the addition of this source, your objections to the use of the term "undocumented," which is now used in 2 of the 4 sources (indeed, the same amount of sources that use "illegal"), are over. The use of "undocumented" has always been supported by a third-party reliable source, and now it is supported by two reliable sources since the one prior was not enough for you. You're welcome, and I do appreciate you being largely civil, despite some of your unjustified presumptions and assertions about me. 164.82.32.13 (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Nobody who screams about a mistake being a "lie" can lecture me about assuming good faith.. No, I didn't bring up the law thing. You did in the first talk page post when you defined illegal immigration . Just shopping for another source that uses undocumented (and a very partisan advocacy site at that) doesn't solve this. It goes back to acting like it's a word count issue. As you can see, there is support for going with what the source says. The Sun Sentinel and McClatchy both call them illegal aliens. Clearly uninvolved third party sources support it. So let's not pretend that adding an advocacy site shifts this to your POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess your assertion that I "defined illegal immigration" in my post is another "mistake" on your part. I was talking about grammar, and your posted link shows just that. As for Democracy Now, it is a reliable news source. I already checked the noticeboards. I guess your statement that it is a "very partisan advocacy site" is once again another "mistake." Further, I was not "shopping for another source," but providing legitimate information on the first-hand account of the activists, which the page had referenced (another "mistake" on your part). If I had merely wanted to find another source that uses "undocumented," there are plenty of those out there, including ones by local news stations as well as Fox News Latino (interestingly, in reading about what Fox News Latino was, I came across a Geraldo Rivera article on Fox News strongly condemning the use of the words "illegal" and "alien" as offensive and demeaning, of which I was largely unaware, but which I think only supports my grammatical change). Also, your statement that about "what the source says" must be another "mistake" considering there have always been 3 sources, 1 of which uses neither "illegal" or "undocumented" (despite your repeated, "mistaken" attempts to previously claim it did) and another which uses "undocumented" (despite your repeated, "mistaken" attempts to previously claim it was OR). It was never the case that "the source" said "illegal," but rather that 2 of the 3 sources used it (edit: and none used the term "alien," which you "mistakenly" said they both do), including 1 which also used "undocumented." Now there is another source that also uses "undocumented" and provides additional, relevant information. If you need an additional source for some reason, I can certainly post it, since you are the person who has repeatedly been source-counting (despite your repeated, "mistaken" attempts to claim that I have been word counting, which I only did after you "mistakenly" claimed that none of the sources used "undocumented" and it was therefore OR). But regardless of the new source or any further sources, the term "undocumented" has always been in the sources, and so "what the sources" say is largely irrelevant to deciding between the two terms, since the term already has and has always had support in the sources. So if one of the two terms is grammatically incorrect (in addition to offensive), and both terms are used in the sources, then what is your objection to the term? 164.82.32.13 (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• You defined it. Spin it however you want. No, it's not a mistake to call Democracy Now a very partisan site. It is. Notice that I didn't say it failed RS. consensus has been that it is generally reliable (I also know how to search the noticeboards), but being reliable doesn't make a source non-partisan. So no mistake on my part. What I stated was factually correct and within Misplaced Pages policy. Your error was in your assumptions. Once again.....3 sources are there. The primary source (GEO) doesn't address the actual incident, so what terms is uses isn't really relevant. The Sun Sentinel does address the actual incident, uses "illegal" and never uses "undocumented". The McClatchy source uses both. But, oh yeah....that's what I've said during this entire thread. So I guess your error was in failing to comprehend the first post here. Maybe if you spent less time using unnecessary quotes in your passive-aggressive responses, you'd catch that stuff. I do find it interesting that you are making this grammar complaint with no source that says it is grammatically incorrect, yet the editors and reports of the 2 quoted sources seems to find "illegal immigrant" to be perfectly acceptable grammar. They are an actual reliable source, you are not. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You never said "a very partisan site." You said "a very partisan advocacy site." It's not an advocacy site. It's a news site. That is just one of your lies, which I am going to call lies because you continue to repeat them after being corrected, including the fact that you claim I defined "illegal immigration" in my initial post. I'll post several more sources using "undocumented" if that is what you want. Otherwise, please provide what your objection is to using a term that is already used in one of the sources provided? 164.82.32.13 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are you seriously going to fight this battle about what I called your advocacy site? Yes, I called them a partisan advocacy site. I didn't feel that I needed to use the exact quote when speaking about it again. I said it. I stand by it. You can disagree about whether or not it's an advocacy site, but frankly I don't care because it's not relevant. I never tried to claim they weren't a RS. That's just something you imagined. (oh wait, let's call it a "lie" since you seem to love that word) Can we move on now? Now you're back to the "lie" routine? Grow up. Do you see how the grown-ups in this discussion are talking? It doesn't sound like your speeches. My objection to the term had been clearly stated. Other editors have agreed that my point is a valid one. Then we have you....... a grammar "expert" who hasn't shown a reliable source to support his grammar claims... and who has really shown nothing reliable that says the term "illegal immigrant" is wrong. The "threat" of overloading the site with a additional sources just because it uses the term you "personally prefer" (see, I can use random quotation marks too) is really just being WP:POINTy. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What was your objection that you clearly stated? That it was only used in one source instead of two? If it was something more than this mere source-counting, then please let me know because I am not seeing anything else. Additionally, I made no threat about making a point. YOU were the one counting sources and originally claiming OR (even though the term has ALWAYS been in the sources). And here is the other source that you requested providing an explanation of the grammatical problems with "illegal immigrant" (as well as addressing some of the problems of offensiveness), which clearly shows this is not about my "personal preference" but an increasingly accepted interpretation about the proper use of the term: "Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant." So in this case, there is no question that "undocumented" is an appropriate term since it is used in the sources to describe the activists, while the term "illegal" is also used by the sources but has both grammatical and labeling concerns. I suggest that we remove it due to those concerns given that it is already used in a source (and so there are no concerns about it being not an accurate description or OR). I would really appreciate if you would actually provide your objection to the term "undocumented" rather than simply referring to your past "clear" statements, which I apologetically do not find clear. 164.82.32.13 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Here is another article if you desire, primarily focused on the offensiveness issue. 164.82.32.13 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Continuing this with you is pointless. You proved yourself incapable of a civil discussion at the article talk page. I brought the issue here for community input. Thus far, most of the community input doesn't seem to have an issue with using "illegal immigrant". And the AP style is only one of those in use by the media. The AP doesn't make any mention of a grammar concern. In fact, the AP style guide says "Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented." So your own source here disagrees with you. The earlier version of the AP sylebook said "Terms like “undocumented” and “unauthorized” can make a person’s illegal presence in the country appear to be a matter of minor paperwork. Many illegal immigrants aren’t “undocumented” at all; they may have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, plus a U.S. driver’s license, Social Security card or school ID. What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States.". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Some of the discussion above has carried an unnecesarily adversarial tone, but at its core, a valid point is being made: the adjective "illegal", as applied to a person, is increasingly viewed as offensive, or at least undesirable, when a suitable alternative exists. Misplaced Pages's article on Illegal immigration states: "News associations that have discontinued or discourage the use of the adjective "illegal" to describe people include the US Associated Press, UK Press Association, European Journalism Observatory, European Journalism Centre, Association of European Journalists, Australian Press Council, and Australian Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance." The New York Times decided not to "ban" the term but "encourages reporters and editors to 'consider alternatives when appropriate to explain the specific circumstances of the person in question, or to focus on actions.'" On the other hand, "undocumented" is not a clear solution; it tends toward euphemism, and the AP and the NYT both note the imprecision of the term. In general, I think it would be desirable to try to avoid the use of the term "illegal immigrant" in Misplaced Pages's voice when rephrasing or attribution can convey the meaning clearly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Simply use the most applicable term. I'm taking the word of editors above that immigrants can be documented and still illegal, or undocumented and still legal. Neither term should be used without justification from a source. If sources say "illegal" only, there is no justification to euphemistically downgrade that to "undocumented", nor vice versa. If both apply, the choice should be the term most relevant to the context. For example, if the context is work visas or census counting, "undocumented" is more relevant. If its about border controls or deportation, "illegal" is more relevant. Tallying the number of sources using one term or another serves no value. Rhoark (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://blog.ap.org/2013/04/02/illegal-immigrant-no-more/
2. http://www.nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2006/march/immigrationcoverage.shtml
3. Illegal Immigrant no more Associated Press Blog, 2013 April 2
4. Nazhmidinova, Rukhshona. "User Generated Racism: Russia's media and migrants". The European Journalism Observatory. Retrieved 5 May 2014.
5. "How journalism can rid migration of its sour reputation". European Journalism Centre. Retrieved 5 May 2014.
6. "'Asylum seekers', 'illegal immigrants' and entry without a visa". Advisory Guidelines 2011. Australian Press Council. Retrieved 5 May 2014.
7. Romano, Angela. "Missing the Boat? A paper delivered to 'Reporting on Asylum Seekers and Refugees: A Walkley Media Forum' convened by the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance, 19 June 2007" (PDF). Proceedings Reporting on Asylum Seekers and Refugees: A Walkley Media Forum, Regatta Hotel, Brisbane, Australia. Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved 5 May 2014.
8. "The Times Shifts on ‘Illegal Immigrant,’ but Doesn’t Ban the Use", 'The New York Times, April 23, 2012.

• As one of the two contributors to the unnecessarily adversarial tone, and being the one who did not create this thread, I will refrain from commenting further on this issue.164.82.32.13 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Greece

Should our article on Greece - either the lede or the economy section - mention Greece's chronic economic problems? In particular, should it mention that Greece had the world's largest ever sovereign default, in 2012? bobrayner (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, not on lede. Lots of countries have lots of interesting factoids but that is not lede-style information. After all Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEWS Economy section, should go there. Ledes should be kept simple. Naphtha Termix (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have no problem with a balanced presentation in the economy section which should include the various critiques of Greece and the EU over their handling of the economic crisis but putting this at the lead is too recent and would be POV without going into detail as to the multiple causes. As far as the 2012 haircut, it was not a default but a haircut. Δρ.Κ.  20:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well well well! Look who is back on this noticeboard in search of sympathy when he cannot deliver his unequivocally non-neutral point of view in the Balkans. For all persons interested, if you wish to see an example of desperation then just follow the OP's ridiculous reasoning with each of his posts farther up this page, or here. But then this is not the first time our friend has cited policy and guidelines either not having read them or by pretending he doesn't understand it. Just look at this summary on a geographical (not political) article on the world's most hotly contested region - dismissing a rival entity and its support from a significant minority among the international community as "a fantasy" which clearly shows he is not versed in WP:ASSERT. Just do as you are doing and keep all recent news issues off the lede on Greece. In 2004 their national side won the European Championships in football; the year after they won the Eurovision Song Contest and that was on the mouths of millions (quite literally - in and out of Greece) at the time. I can't see sifting through the history that these points were added in the lede. Where other countries have defaulted down the years such as Zimbabwe, I don't see it in their lede either. Perhaps the OP should actually read WP:LEDE rather than pretending he has done so and hoping nobody will do so for himself. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the Kosovo stalking problem is now contaminating discussions about Greece too. This will make it harder to resolve a larger number of neutrality problems. bobrayner (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I am the one that feels stalked since my Outline of Kosovo edits were found within three days. As regards the accusation, I as the individual accused of stalking wish to declare that I have not touched the Greece article or its talk page since this debate began; I wish to add that this is a public noticeboard where uninvolved persons are invited to share views and this is what I have done - as such my conscience is clean both in that I am not stalking, and that I have used this space appropriately. Curiously, it is thanks to bobrayner that this article happens to be on my watchlist. I had no choice after the "Countries in Europe" saga. I believe the collective to maintain the Greece article have done a grand job of making sure there are no neutrality problems to resolve. A good few editors know that what bobrayner refers to as a "neutrality problem" is one that is not drafted as if it appears to be written by his favoured belligerent. Besides, what goes into opening paragraphs is supposed to be the long-term facts, not things we change week by week every time a country is featured as a main headline. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually I am going to revise my last comment. There is indeed a neutrality problem with the Greece lede which is that it admits Republic of Macedonia per its constitutional name rather than Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia which is how Greece recognises it. Obviously there are reasons for why it is presented as ROM and not FYROM across the whole site but the very fact that the editors to oppose mention of the crisis on the first line do not contest this is proof that policies and guidelines are being respected on the article. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I do not understand why does OrangesJuicy mixes his sentiments on bobrayner with the raised question. (His personal choice though.) Personally I believe that bobrayner's question is quite logical, because the economic crisis is arguably the most important momentaneous aspect of Greece. That is what an average Asian, African, American, European, Australian person has heard more about the country in the last years. In that aspect, I believe that many of those readers might be Google-ing "Greece" primarily to hear what is going on 'right now' with the country. As a result, I think Misplaced Pages should react to the demands of the average global visitor and I believe the economic crisis should be positioned highly in the article on Greece, concretely among the leading paragraphs (whether it is lede or second I would not mind). OppositeGradient (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Comments of CU-confirmed blocked sock struck

Here are 85 wonderful things Greece is famous for! Shall we violate WP:LEDE and add them all just to accommodate the economic collapse? Naphtha Termix (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The crisis is complementary to the other traits of the country, while being highly more relevant for a reader than the presented list. OppositeGradient (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Comments of CU-confirmed blocked sock struck

Well look who it isn't!!! Opposite Gradient has followed the trail of bread crumbs and ends up here! To all others, have no concerns about the tone of the edits exchanged between OppositeGradient and me, he and I are old friends (well one month but we know each other as though it were 30 years!).

Dear friend, perhaps you'd like to elaborate on "mixed sentiments" since I do not believe this to be the case. Indeed any question here if regards NPOV is logical, but some editors think it is a day centre where they may weep and gain attention-seeking sympathy from strangers for their misfortunes as editors on matters of a wholly different nature to NPOV. The question here is whether or not to include the Greek debt crisis in the lede - either it belongs or it doesn't. If there had been an NPOV issue then the way forward would have been to discuss which words to use. The observation cited above this post on the crisis being more relevant than those on a presented list are a matter of one's opinion. As regards any editor interested in the crisis, he has the Greek government-debt crisis article and this is linked three times across the Greece page. Furthermore, the Argentina lede contains not a single word of the 1998–2002 Argentine great depression whereby the country had a debt that far outstripped that for Greece, needless to say the default of December 2001, and the subsequent December 2001 riots in Argentina. Those are points for an article, not a lede. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OJ, the pleasure is totally mine! Regarding the topic, we should really think if we would like to have an old-school, static, 18-century style encyclopedia, or if we would like a reader-proactive contemporary corpus of articles. In particular, should we write the articles considering the interests of potential readers? The crisis arguably is the most important current aspect of Greece, because it is what most Greeks talk about, and what most humanoids talk when referring about Greece (in the last years, not last days). If you think Aristotles, etc ... is what people care most right now, then I surrender my position. OppositeGradient (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Comments of CU-confirmed blocked sock struck

We are all in agreement that essential details should be included in the article. Nobody has requested its removal from the page, and one hour ago there were three links to the crisis throughout the article. But to know what goes into the opening lines, it is explained in WP:LEDE, whereas if you read the comments by other editors here and at Talk:Greece, you'll see that WP:RECENT is mentioned. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the recent economic crisis in Greece doesn't belong in the lede section. This is severe recentism. It does belong in the body of the article, given its global significance for the past several years. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note, "OppositeGradient" is a sock of the indef blocked Sulmues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please do not engage him. Athenean (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note:

1. Policy, and uninvolved editors on this noticeboard, support the inclusion of Greece's extraordinary economic failures in our Greece article.
2. Greek editors have systematically removed such content from various pages.
3. Athenean, for example, has removed mentions of Greek economic bungling from our Greece article.
4. Now Athenean accuses OppositeGradient of being a sock, although that seems to be based on the fact that Athenean disagrees with OppositeGradient, as there's no SPI. Pray tell, Athenean, how many accusations of sockpuppetry have you made in the past that got shot down?

I wonder how long it is until this reaches ArbCom? bobrayner (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bobrayner, you're welcome to state your own case as to whether the content belongs in the lead, but OppositeGradient is a sock. I'm just trying to establish who the puppet-master is. There are no WP:ASPERSIONS being cast by Athenean in order to divert attention. The potential disruption is, however, leading editors away from the point of the discussion. Let's just concentrate on the issue at hand as individual editors and judge on the merits of the individual arguments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As a P.S., we've had the same problems on the articles on Russia and Ukraine regarding the Crimean crisis and the war in Donbass. Consensus stands at WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM as the rule of thumb for content. It is unacceptable for a broad-based article dealing with historical, cultural, ethnographic, geophysical and other subsections to be turned into a WP:COATRACK. Any mention of recent events is kept extremely brief in the body of the article, not in the lead, and hatnotes are used for readers looking for current affairs. Feel free to peruse the talk page archives of those articles for the RfC's and consensus discussions. Opting for introducing trojans is the perfect way to attract POV-ers from every side who can't get their 2¢ in on the WP:TITLE related current affairs articles and troll around every other article even vaguely related to the subject matter. Keep the article on topic: it really is that simple. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, thank you Iryna. I also have to note that apart from the ethnic baiting from the usual quarters, I guess Sammy1339 and Oranges Juicy are not considered NPOV or uninvolved enough. That only goes to show that for some people the only good and neutral POV is the POV of people who agree with them. Δρ.Κ.  02:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And just now we have confirmation that both OppositeGradient and another Albanian POVWARRIOR account have been blocked as socks . I realize that some people may be be disappointed by this, but I hope this concludes this discussion, and that we can all move on with building an encyclopedia. Athenean (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us, Athenean. It's saved me having to sink more time into compiling the list of diffs I was going to submit. Let's just strike through OppositeGrandient's contributions to talk pages and get on with it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Following Iryna's thanks, I also thank you Athenean. It's a thankless task going after socks and it gets even more so when people seem to challenge you and doubt your continuing success in uncovering their activities. Keep up the good work regardless. Δρ.Κ.  23:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group

Hi, I came across a article about the Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group and I noticed that it was tagged as being an advert since December 2014. I can see why because the article is missing a lot of things good and bad, such as the recent credit card hack and the celebrity fans campaign. I've made a start on tidying up the article by making a start on the recent incident, replacing the logo to SVG and reorganising the hotels between the current and defunct/sold: I wonder if anyone could help me in cleaning off more of the WP:SOAP? Thanks in advance. --Marianian 01:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made one minor change but you are right, the article can do with quite some work to make it encyclopaedic. Here I changed cities with the countries to make it shorter for one and to reduce to two here, three there outlook. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer".

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Men's rights movement in India: NPOV nightmare?

Can we have some fresh eyes on Men's rights movement in India, please? The article reads almost wholly like a promotion of the men's rights movement in India — everything else is crammed into a brief criticism section at the end, which probably few readers ever reach (it's quite a long article). Having negative views and information ghettoized in a special criticism section is depreceated, see WP:CRITICISM. The criticism needs to be incorporated into the article, in a way such that, for instance, a statement by a "researcher" that "police don't take any action even if the suicide note of a man states that he was tortured by his wife and in-laws, but in case of a woman's suicide her husband's family is taken into custody without investigation" might possibly be put into perspective, or even contradicted by somebody, in place (as opposed to elsewhere in this long article). The overall impression the article purveys is that the major problems affecting men, women and family life in India are false dowry cases, false rape accusations, women demanding exorbitant alimony, and the high suicide rate of married men because they're unable to withstand verbal, emotional, economic and physical abuse from their wives. I don't want to edit it, both because it's not a field I've studied, and because I want to remain uninvolved in case I need to take admin action per the article probation it's under (see Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation). If nobody else wants to edit this article either, with a view to introducing fresh perspectives, I guess we're stuck with it. :-(

I see in the history that many people have made good reverts of the worst material, but much too cautiously IMO, without addressing the basic structure and viewpoint of the text. Kenfyre is basically the only person who has edited the article since December 2014. It's not my intention to criticise him, as he's clearly a careful, competent editor, but he has followed quite closely the pattern that was already there, mainly just adding more court decisions, more men's rights organisations, etc (and, note, also more criticisms in the criticism section). Mere addition of more of the same does little to address the article's structural problems.

I've posted the same criticism on the article talkpage, but I'm putting it here to get some eyes on it, because I don't think the talkpage is widely read. Apart from templates, it has only been edited five times since it was created eight years ago, with a concern from 2007 that "those who are not sympathetic to issues regarding men's rights may try to vandalise this article" still the first thing that meets the eye. Bishonen | talk 17:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC).

I support the suggestions made. I will integrate the "Criticism" section into the main body. However, I may require help in finding more sources regarding criticism of the movement. The current sources on criticism are not many and do not address all the issues mentioned in the article. -Kenfyre (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a bit of a nightmare, isn't it. There are a few specific ways that the article might be improved, not all of which involve the mainstreaming of "criticisms," but rather through use of a more neutral tone and by presenting more varied perspectives on the issues being discussed. For example, it includes the following passage:

"According to Amartya Talukdar, the bill, which introduces the concept of no-fault divorce and marital property is not fair for men. It will put the institution of marriage in jeopardy."

The paragraph in question does not explain what function the proposed marriage law is meant to serve, why it was considered necessary (presumably because women's property rights are in need of protection?), or why Mr. Talukdar considers it unfair. It also states, without clear attribution, that the law would jeopardize the institution of marriage--not a claim that should be made in Misplaced Pages's voice.

The section on false rape accusations is more egregious. It describes how men's rights activists believe that the low rate of rape convictions is attributable to a high prevalence of false rape accusations, and proceeds to selectively cite evidence in support of this hypothesis. As though sexual violence in India is nothing but a myth perpetrated by scorned women. This is where alternative perspectives should be introduced per NPOV.

The article also contains statements like this one: "Child's Right and Family Welfare was formed to demand fairer laws for men, including better child custody and access laws," which amounts to an endorsement of the idea that the existing laws are unfair towards men.

There are bigger problems with the article, of course. It's a chronicle of pretty trivial events and statements and ultimately doesn't really explain the issues with any lucidity. But resolving the above issues could be a start.TheBlueCanoe 23:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd burn the entire article to the ground and start again. Sceptre 18:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I sympathise, User:Sceptre. No improvements have actually been made to the article since I started this thread. User:Kenfyre, you said above that "I will integrate the "Criticism" section into the main body. However, I may require help in finding more sources regarding criticism of the movement." Are you waiting for that help? Have you asked for it at the projects the article is supposedly of interest to? (India, gender studies, men's issues.) Because I don't think sourcing help will appear spontaneously; neither this noticeboard nor the article talkpage see that much traffic. Kenfyre, please don't take my questions personally, as criticism of you; I know very well that you're a volunteer like the rest of us, and hopefully we all sometimes have better things to do than edit Misplaced Pages. But frankly, I think nominating for deletion per WP:TNT might be the way to go here. It should either bring about improvements (hooray) or get the article deleted (also hooray). Well… or else the Indian men's rights activists who have been absent from this discussion, and for a long time also from the article, will appear in numbers to defend status quo (not so much hooray). Pinging a few people in the hope of more input: Sitush, SlimVirgin, EvergreenFir, Johnuniq, Hithladaeus, Floquenbeam, Tony1. What do you think? Is AfD the way to go? TheBlueCanoe, what's your opinion? Bishonen | talk 09:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

I agree with what Bishonen says. In my view, we should ensure that the site's policies and guidelines on balance and verification are applied rigorously. Tony (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Myself, I can see TNT. Finding criticisms of Indian laws in their treatment of women is blindingly easy. That, of course, is more of a "that side/this side" that Misplaced Pages should not endorse, and the problem with the article in general is that it lists grievances and justifies the existence of the phenomenon it purports to report. That's a fundamental problem. The article should be very, very brief, in essence, because NPOV requires that we merely report that such things exist, that they emerged in a polemical environment, and that they may or may not enjoy popular support (this is potentially tendentious, but reliable polling might be available; the Pew Centers, to name one American source, polls in India, although typically not on intra-Indian issues), and then that's it. No, "women cry wolf" and no "no they don't" and no "marriage reforms hurt marriage." That just becomes a compendium of ideology. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Been looking this article over, and I would support a WP:TNT approach. Currently, is a collection of opinions and allegations from Men's rights groups, with no regard to whether those have any basis in reality. Sources from the Indian media aren't much use in determining due weight here, because they simply are reporting every allegation. If we started over, we might have a chance at creating something that is actually about the movement, rather than the statements made by its members. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen: @TheBlueCanoe: @Hithladaeus: @Vanamonde93: @Sceptre: Some of the proposed edits have been implemented. I am still working on it. However, review the current version of the article to examine if a WP:TNT will be necessary or should I continue in this direction. A diff can be examined here. -Kenfyre (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kenfyre:; yes, I still believe so. I am not suggesting that your contributions are worthless; you have made an immense effort to clean it up, especially with respect to referencing. In my opinion, however, the whole direction of the page needs to be changed somewhat, hence the suggestion of WP:TNT. If you strongly feel there is salvageable material there, userfying might be an option. What do others think of that? Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur, both with the idea of TNT and with thanking Kenfyre for doing good work. I think his edits have been helpful. One technique for "preserve and cut" is to make sections into, essentially, compound sentences. E.g. "There are numerous groups affiliated with the cause of 'men's rights' in contemporary India, including one, two, three, and four, which arose in opposition to various legislative actions and changes in culture." It allows for curious readers to follow the footnotes, if they're dying to do so, to see the banner cases for each, but it also makes it clear that a general article on the existence of MRM in India is not intended to be an articulation of their causes nor a platform for explaining their justifications. Given the construction of the article at present, it appears that its "2003-8" breakouts reflect cases rather than actual MR anyway, so even the long form as we have it kind of fails the ostensible point of allowing all that room. Again, I mean no disrespect or aspersions on Kenfyre's edits. He's got a baggy, shaggy beast under hand. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have moved a copy to my userpage. Feel free to WP:TNT. But, this page will still require a constant watch in the future, against vandalism and over-enthusiastic editors. -Kenfyre (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• It is a POV nighmare, no denying that. I'm familiar with the men's rights movement topic area and I've tried to remove some of the blatant OR from the MRM in India page in the past. In my opinion, the page is not salvageable. Most of the content is OR, the rest is repetitions of what is already stated in the Save Indian Family (SIF) and Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) articles (I still don't get why we need to pages for essentially the same thing). As for User:Kenfyre's additions, I'm sorry to say, but the vast majority is OR. Like his two most recent edits , most of the material he adds and the sources he uses do not discuss the men's rights movement in India. Only a handful of the 139 sources actually deal with men's rights activists in India and of those all deal with SIF/SIFF activists. To give a more obvious example, look at the Flase rape cases section that Kenfyre added. It's apparent that only two of the 20 sources in the section mention men's rights groups. The rest is a WP:Coatrack collection of "notable verdicts" (notable how? who says they are?) and news reports of statistics. It's apparent from that and all other sections that the page wants to prove men's rights talking points instead of informing readers what the men's rights movement is, who the activists are, what they do and say. For instance, the article goes out of its way to prove the men's rights claim that false accusations of rape and domestic violence are super common by presenting carefully selected "notable verdicts", opinions, statistics, events, all sourced to news reports. Even if one doesn't object to the in-your-face POV, the amount of OR on that page is staggering. If someone went through the article and removed all material sourced to refs that do not even mention the subject of the article and do not link their information to the MRM in India, the majority of the content would have to go. User:Bishonen, User:Sceptre, User:Hithladaeus, User:Vanamonde93, it may be worth trying AfD but I think that many people will vote keep and improve anyway. The better solution is to remove all original research. Claims by SIFF activists will be all that remains. If we transfer that remaining content to the SIF/SIFF articles, the men's rights movement in India page will be empty. All the content that actually deals with the MRM appears to be about SIF/SIFF and its founder Ram Prakash Chugh anyway (...). Perhaps it's best to redirect to SIF/SIFF. --SonicY (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's a good idea. Redirected to Save Indian Family Foundation. If I'm reverted, I suppose it may be time to think of AfD. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
• The court cases were considered notable because they are related to the topic. There are some instances of courts and legal panels taking cognizance of the issues raised by the activists. For example the "proposed guidelines for joint custody and shared parenting" issued by the Law Commission, is related to CRISP's demands. Some of the cases have set legal precedents in the issues. These should be retained and the rest should be removed. For example, the 2 July 2014 verdict of the Supreme Court stopped arrests in anti-dowry cases. All cases are High Court or Supreme Court cases, any lower level cases have not been included. I don't think the statistics should be removed if they have neutral and reliable citations, for example the suicide statistics are from NCRB. I don't think that the article will be empty if all SIFF and above-suggested material is removed. However, I think we should wait on these suggestions until the NPOV debate on the parent article Men's rights movement is settled. The consensus reached on that article can be applied to this and related articles. -Kenfyre (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources do not state that the verdicts are related to the demands of Indian men's rights organizations. The refs describe the issue and the verdict, without mentioning the MRM in India. „For example, the 2 July 2014 verdict of the Supreme Court stopped arrests in anti-dowry cases“ – that material may be relevant for the Dowry system in India but not the MRM page, unless reliable sources can be found that discuss this verdict with regard to the Indian men's rights movement. For example, if a RS reports that the Save Indian Family Foundation commented on or influenced or was in some other way connected to the verdict, it might make sense to include that. But, per WP:Coatrack, editors must not add any material they personally regard as important or relevant. For instance, if people added any rape case verdict, any rape statistic and any information they consider relevant, the page would quickly become a selective collection of information about rape, masquerading as a page about the MRM in India. I understand that you have worked on the article and contributed a great deal and do not want your additions removed. But the page must describe the MRM in India as it's presented in reliable secondary sources, not argue their case for them by carefully selecting verdicts and stats and events. The place to argue that women are more likely to perpetrate domestic violence is the domestic violence article, not the MRM page. We can say that men's rights activists believe that and the type of statistics and research they cite but we cannot add stuff that we consider important to support them. --SonicY (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for that careful analysis. I support Bishonen's edit that replaced the article with a redirect to Save Indian Family Foundation because the original article was beyond repair as it was littered with phrases like "to handle false cases of dowry and torture" with no source discussing whether it is 1% or 99% of such cases that are "false". Johnuniq (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article had noted that the conviction rate was 15% for dowry cases and 24.2% for rape cases. -Kenfyre (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Lyoness

Hello, the article on Lyoness has a few issues, one of which is Neutral point of view. Regarding NPOV, the controversy section has a few issues:

• The Television subsection of the Controversy section does nothing to maintain a neutral point of view. The person appearing on the television series did not have the approval of Lyoness to make that appearance and his presentation of Lyoness was inaccurate.
• The Income subsection of the Controversy section seems rather irrelevant. What is controversial about accurate numbers? Furthermore, the numbers for earnings are out of date. On Nov 8, 2014 Lyoness restructured itself to make a clear distinction between customers and marketers. Accurate numbers would be for both parties or only marketers. If the author of the section has an issue with such low earnings, then he needs to realize that is no fault of the company and there is no controversy in it.
• The Controversy section opens with a series of warnings. The warnings are antiquated. The section continues citations from a Swiss magazine Beobachter, which seems to be painting a rather phobic view of Lyoness without grounds.
• The Legality section lists outdated and closed cases. The only active case against Lyoness is ACCC vs Lyoness.
• The Internet section opens with a general statement about websites and blogs, when it should be using verified sources and specific statements. The rest of the section about the group who organized as Platform Lyoness should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 10:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted to talk to the wikipedia user OrbitalCannon but he is not responding. However, the other individual and I are having a good discussion on the article's talk page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl (talk • contribs) 11:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for phrasing, "taxpayer money" biased?

I just wanted to get a few opinions on a phrase. The General Motors article currently includes phrases in the bankruptcy section talking about using "taxpayer money" (I think it's 3 variations of this phrase). I think that phrase has a negative bias like a WP:WEASEL word. So first question, do you agree or is it just me? Second, what would be a preferred phrase? I have suggested "government backed" (but that might not be technically correct) or "government funded". I think traditionally when people say it "cost the taxpayers" they are trying to make it personal so the taxpayer feels offended. Thanks for your input.Springee (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The funding of GE shouldn't be relevant at all unless reliable sources specifically make it relevant by using that language. At most, maybe a brief sentence discussing legislation related to GE getting government funding, but it would be unnecessary to characterize everything single thing they do as a venture fueled by "taxpayer money". Obviously if the majority of reliable sources characterize their efforts as "taxpayer money" or some equivalent, then that should be the language used in the article. Neutral point view pertains to our representation of the sources and what they say, not our own whitewashing of sources and their language. So, let's say GE launches a new product and 5 different articles simply discuss the launching of the product, while 1 source puts emphasis on it being funded by taxpayer money, then the article should simply reflect the launching of the product without the emphasis, since the emphasis is not placed in the majority of sources. The minority view/language can be mentioned, but it would be as a passing footnote, not plastered throughout the entire section/article. Hope this helps.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The company is GM (easy mistake to make when reading quickly). If many of the articles are editorials then we shouldn't use those as a source for the language. I believe you have argued in the past that we (based on Misplaced Pages guidelines) should use the most neutral language possible when the meaning is identical. For what it's worth GM in their correspondence with the federal government referred to the money as "federal funds" GM doc to Treasury. Perhaps that is the most neutral term. Alternatively, what about using the phrasing in the Troubled Asset Relief Program article? Springee (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality has to do with how we represent sources on Misplaced Pages, not with what individual editors consider to be "neutral" language. The guidelines do address language, like weasel words, but as a means of recognizing and stopping bias being included into the article BY THE EDITOR, not by the source. The sources can be as biased as they want to be and the responsibility of the editor is to make sure the entire topic is represented appropriately based on the weight of the ideas from those sources. From WP:NPOV " Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." This is what I was speaking to in general, identify how the majority of sources describe it, if they do at all, and the article should represent that. I think this would work better if a specific example of the line you want to change was submitted.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Eleven minutes after first commenting on your issue with the term "taxpayer money" at article talk you posted to NPOVN? Please move this issue to article talk. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Addressed in the talk section. This was a request for general input from the community.Springee (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Our colleagues the regulars at NPOVN don't ask much but they ask us to first try and resolve the issue at article talk, and, if it comes to a NPOVN notice, to provide a link to the previous article talk discussion. You posted at NPOVN minutes after first raising your concern at article talk. Hugh (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is a general though related to an article. In the future which forum would be the best one on in which to ask this question?Springee (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOVN asks us to first try and resolve the issue at article talk. Hugh (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably true. But "taxpayer money" is considerable more inherently biased than "conspiracy theory", which is frequently mentioned here. Besides, bringing up a matter here, rather than in the article talk page, is much better than bringing up a matter here after being expressly rejected on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Probably true" See 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." Hugh (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LABEL we should avoid using value-laden labels. This would appear to be such a case. Yes, some articles have used the "taxpayer dollar" type label but that applies to basically all government spending. Unless that is the standard way Misplaced Pages refers to government spending we should probably stick to more neutral terms (see the TARP reference above as an example). Springee (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I see, so your thought, in jumping to this notice board minutes after raising your concern with the neutrality of the term "taxpayer money" in the article talk of General Motors, was to establish an encyclopedia-wide policy banning the term "taxpayer money," a policy that applies regardless of what reliable sources say and across all possible contexts, and then return to the article and other articles. Understand this noticeboard does not establish policy. To add to a policy, please begin on the policy talk page, thank you. Meanwhile, if a policy banning the term "taxpayer money" is a good idea, it should be a simple matter for you to develop consensus on one article talk page swapping "taxpayer money" for your preferred term. Understand neutrality often depends on context. Hugh (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

HughD, I appreciate that you think I posted this question in the wrong forum. Which forum would be the correct one. Remember, I'm asking as a general question. Springee (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The correct forum for article content issues is the article talk page. Hugh (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the question. If I wanted to ask, in general terms, not in regards to a specific topic, what phrase might be better, where in Wikipeida's various noticeboards etc would you tell me to post the question? I asked in terms of the GM article but I was curious in terms of a wider context and thus I asked here. I hear what you are saying and will be more conscientious of it in the future. Thank you for your input. Springee (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I would guess WT:WTW is the proper venue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the concise, helpful answer. Springee (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

European Spallation Source

Is this terminology correct? --Ysangkok (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(Terminology in question: "This world-leading, next-generation neutron source")

Seems to be more or less what the people building it are describing it as: . If it was a sausage-skin-making machine or something, I'd probably say that such language was inappropriate, but it seems to be justified in this case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The claim can easily be neutralized by removing the promotional language. The source from which it was pulled from is a primary source. Rather than having the section read like an advertisement, my suggestion would be to revert the edit you noted. Meatsgains (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Marriage equality

Is "marriage equality" a suitable term to use on Misplaced Pages in place of "same-sex marriage"? Elizium23 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, even though I would use that term. It's only used by proponents. Same-sex marriage seems neutral. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, the term "marriage equality" can be a bit of an umbrella term since it is about making access to marriage equal to all those that would like to be married, e.g. also allowing polygamous marriage, though it is almost exclusive to the same-sex marriage debate. Same-sex marriage equality or same-sex marriage are the more neutral and specific terms, at least in my eyes.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There's currently a movement to reintroduce the term, after I removed it from many articles under the WP:NPOV policy. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Proposal for "same-sex marriage" as a standard neutral term. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it looks to me like there is a developing consensus to use "same-sex marriage" as the default term, but to permit the term "marriage equality" in specific contexts discussing political campaigns in support of the right of same-sex couples to marry. That sounds pretty reasonable. What's the objection again? MastCell  01:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

United States Department of Homeland Security

Several editors are removing any and all attempts to summarize the main points of the sourced criticism section in the lead section of United States Department of Homeland Security. I am bringing my concerns here so that uninvolved editors can weigh in and attempt to solve the problem. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That paragraph is definitely needed in the lead section or yes, I agree, there is an NPOV issue. A couple of citations won't hurt, but MOS frowns on excessive redundancy in citations as you know. Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Death of Sandra Bland

I've started an RfC at Talk:Death of Sandra Bland#RfC: History of Waller County. Since this is a highly sensitive issue and no doubt a high-profile article, I started the RfC to avoid an edit war and gain consensus. The disagreement is about whether or not including the history of Waller County (racial tension and a case of police brutality) is POV-pushing. Please contribute if you can. Thanks! —Мандичка 😜 04:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry

A dispute has been present on this article since January. Essentially, another editor, User:Chrisuae, and myself have discussed the article along with User:PeeJay2K3, and Chrisuae and I agreed that this edit: is far more comprehensive and more neutral than the article's current form, which PeeJay has implemented himself, ignoring the discussion on the talk page. It should be noted that our edit uses FIFA as the source for the table, and details nine more sources, which give different trophy totals due to a slightly different set of trophies counted in each one. These nine sources include a BBC source, which gives Man Utd the greater total due to inclusion of the Community Shield as a trophy. As you can see by its status section, it is generally considered a minor trophy, hence its omission in the other sources. The more neutral edit also contains the phrase "In the absence of any definitive measure of historical success, both clubs can legitimately claim the to be 'the greatest English football club'."

In comparison, PeeJay's edit only includes three sources, two of which do not back up the statement included in the article: these sources are the BBC article, and both of the clubs' official sites, which list two different sets of trophies. PeeJay has effectively taken the Man Utd source as the reference for the set of trophies, and drawn this set from the Liverpool source. This edit gives the trophy total as 62 to 59, in favour of Man Utd, while our edit gives Liverpool the most trophies, per the FIFA source, but details the other sources and their totals. It should be noted that I am neither a Liverpool or Man Utd fan, while PeeJay, as detailed on his user page, is a Man Utd fan.

Due to the more neutral, comprehensive set of sources and the more neutral language, I think Chrisaue's and my edit should be implemented. PeeJay however, is reverting all attempts to implement it, disregarding the reasoning reached in the discussion. Please offer us some 3rd party guidance on the neutrality of these two edits. Thanks a lot for reading. Autonova (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This is bonkers. You can't just exclude a competition that plenty of reliable sources consider to be legitimate just because of the odd few that don't. The true violation of WP:NPOV here would be to assign arbitrary major/minor status to any of these competitions. – PeeJay 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what we're not doing. We're citing FIFA. We're also citing nine additional sources. What you're doing is citing one source, then two more which don't even support the content in the table. Our edit mentions ten sources, yours three. Ours is more neutral. Autonova (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3, the changes that Autonova and I support are using the world governing body of the sport as the primary reference. You are using a general broadcaster (with rights to broadcast highlights of the Community Shield) to assign arbitrary major/minor status to the competitions. We are also citing the European governing body of football and some other major media outlets and correctly referencing the official sites of the two clubs without cherry-picking from the various tables they present. Not only are we using more sources, we are using more authoritative sources and we are summarising the subtle differences among them in the article. You are accurately using a single non-football source and using it to decide which trophies to include and which to omit (ie: which are mjaor and which are minor). It may be just coincidence that the only source you accurately cite is the only one that presents an arbitrary selection of trophies that create the illusion of superiority for your favourite club, but using only this single source is detrimental to the article in that it omits all dissenting opinion. In the interests of neutrality we must include other sources and prioritize them according to their prominence regardless of our own personal opinions.

RfC update: 2012 Koch-related funding of Americans for Prosperity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. This is an update and a request for wider participation. The request for comment asks for community feedback on a one-sentence addition to the existing "Funding" section of the article Americans for Prosperity that summarizes multiple sources. The proposed content summarizes a key finding of investigative journalism. The main source is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. Your comments are needed. Attention from uninvolved editors with some previous experience with the appropriate application of WP:DUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:COATRACK is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the request for comment question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. This request for comment will probably be closing next week. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

POV pushing at Anti-fascism

User Saint458 has justified this revert of my edit with WP:POV citing also WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTHESIS as well as relying on a single source. User Saint458 and I are really very far from each other, the user reads into my edits that I consider the topic under discussion (Anti-fascism) a "truly evil" term, something that I cannot agree to. I for my part consider my reverted edit to already be motivated on the talk page or the edit summaries as:

• Justified by a single source, since the edit is clearly attributed to that source
• Not WP:UNDUE since the author of the cited source (Norman Davies) is already cited hundreds and hundreds of times on Misplaced Pages (as well as described on Misplaced Pages as "widely regarded as one of the preeminent historians of Central and Eastern European history", topics which are relevant to the edit under discussion).
• Not WP:SYNTHESIS, all parts of the edit are supported by the source.
• Not WP:POV pushing, but rather the opposite that omitting the currently reverted text leaves the article incomplete and unbalanced. As such the contested edit would address for example this request from a different user, as well as this request which has interested three editors.

I wrote my reverted contribution two weeks ago and still think it is justified, with its actual formulations subject to modification if need be. The cited source includes a link to Google books, so anyone should be able to inspect the cited source and suggest changes to the formulations, but in spite of my offer to reformulate the edit no such suggestions have been made so far. One thing that user Saint458 and I agree to is to get an outside opinion. So here I am. Lklundin (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Poorly attributed summary of single source - quotations without providing page numbers and a general lack of context and clarification.
2. Synthesis of content is plain to see in this comment on the talk page where you explained your attempt to illustrate the irreconcilable differences between anti-fascists of different eras - an idea that is clearly not supported by Davies or in the chronik-der-mauer reference.
3. Highlighting the fact that people have requested a history section does not show that your edits were within the confines of WP:NPOV. As I stated on the talk page you've described anti-fascism as a "truly evil" term , and tried to synthesise sources in order to promote your POV.

-Saint458 (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution