Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VictorD7 (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 31 July 2014 (→Back to Breitbart.com as a reliable news source: Reply.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Andrei Fursov quote at Lyndon LaRouche

LaRouche-related disputes are often messy. LaRouche's group seems to be in perpetual combat with other activist groups on both the left and the right. LaRouche typically accuses his opponents of being fascist or proto-fascist. Some of his nominally leftist opponents in turn call him fascist or proto-fascist, while his nominally rightist opponents call him socialist or communist. There have been edit wars in the past over whether to include these accusations and how much weight to give them. I think that the most reliable characterization of LaRouche comes from a recent article in the New York Times, which describes him as a "controversial activist" whose "views defy simple categorization."

The present dispute, which shows no signs of progress on the talk page (Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Fursov redux), is over the section entitled Allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism, and racism, and specifically over whether to include this rebuttal quote. My view is that the commentator is notable, and his view should be included under NPOV. It may also help mitigate any BLP problems associated with this section. Input from uninvolved editors would be helpful, since the involved editors appear to be deadlocked. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the LaRouche biography is a BLP, with the subject being 91 years old. However, there are hundreds of reliable sources which call the man "controversial" in passing, as does the recent Texas Tribune article republished by NYT. Many other sources describe LaRouche in more detail, describing what things he does that are considered fascist.

The Fursov quote under discussion here is WP:UNDUE emphasis on Fursov's opinion about Western "intellectuals who have called LaRouche a fascist" who he says should not be called intellectuals. This comment fails to rebut any particular statement about LaRouche; it is simply a put-down of other intellectuals, stated in irritation by Fursov. We don't need this quote at all in the LaRouche biography. It would be much better to have some kind of description of why Western intellectuals have called LaRouche a fascist, then possibly a real rebuttal from someone saying why he is not a fascist. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

For those of you who don't know Binksternet, he is one of the involved editors in the dispute, as am I. Input from uninvolved editors would be helpful, since the involved editors appear to be deadlocked. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not more involved than you, Joe; your first interaction with the LaRouche biography was in April 2012, while my first interaction was April 2013. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The question of who does and who doesn't deserve to be called an intellectual is a red herring, whereas Fursov's opinion that "the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics", is directly relevant to the question of LaRouche's alleged fascism and may merit inclusion. Writegeist (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Andrey Fursov has given a speech to the LaRouche-controlled Schiller Institute indicates to me that Fursov may not be a neutral, disinterested party. Accordingly, I oppose use of the quote. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the commentators quoted in the section are neutral, disinterested parties. NPOV doesn't mean the commentators are neutral; it means the article includes all significant viewpoints. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see Writegeist's point. I think that including the portion about the scientific basis, without the slam on the "intellectuals", might be a suitable compromise. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there any objection to that solution? Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is still WP:UNDUE. Fursov is of course very wrong about whether there is scientific basis for calling LaRouche a fascist. Dennis King talks about the issue in 1989's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. Helen Gilbert talks about the issue in 2003's Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Restyled for the New Millennium. Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth write about the issue in On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left, acknowledging King's book and noting the ADL's assessment that LaRouche's National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) is the "closest thing to an American fascist party that we've got." Historian Stanley G. Payne writes in A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 that LaRouche's "NCLC has only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement." In Fascism: Post-war fascisms, edited by Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, a chapter is included by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons: "New Faces for White Nationalism: Reframing Supremacist Narratives". Berlet and Lyons write about LaRouche's fascist tendencies throughout the chapter, labeling LaRouche explicitly as a "neofascist". So you can see that there is truly a scholarly interest in the issue of fascism with regard to LaRouche, with varying degrees concluded. Fursov's empty assertion is hopelessly ineffective. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Stanley Payne is a highly respected historian. The others that you cite are simply opposing activists with no scientific credentials. King and Berlet have been criticized in reliable sources for being extremists and conspiracy theorists, and all of Helen Gilbert's writings are self-published by her organization, the Freedom Socialist Party, which is fringier than LaRouche's group. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons have been published in a scholarly book edited by Roger D. Griffin (Professor of Modern History at Oxford Brookes University, and editor of the Routledge quarterly, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions) and Matthew Feldman (Lecturer in 20th Century History at the University of Northampton and editor of the Routledge quarterly, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions). The writing of Berlet and Lyons is thereby lifted up to become highly reliable. Dennis Tourish serves as Reader in Communication Management at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and Tim Wohlforth is a socialist journalist. Tourish and Wohlforth used the imprint M.E. Sharpe which is an academic publisher. Dennis King and Chip Berlet are acknowledged as the top two of the world's leading experts on LaRouche. If we compare Fursov to this crew Fursov will come out looking foolish for his empty denial of fascism. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Our opinions about who's right and who's wrong, and the effectiveness or otherwise of reliably sourced assertions, are not criteria for inclusion or exclusion. They are irrelevant. Our task is neutral coverage of the opinions—in this instance, opinions from opposing points of view re. the alleged fascism etc. Writegeist (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be the crux of the matter. Binksternet, do you have a response? Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If the general wish expressed here is to help Fursov look the fool by stating his empty assertion in contradiction to Berlet, Lyons, Tourish, Wohlforth, King and others, then let's do it. We can tell the reader that Fursov said "the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics" yet observers A, B and C have found fascist elements x, y, and z within LaRouche's initiatives and organizations. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with citing Payne, who does have scientific credentials. King, Berlet et al. are simply political activists who have been published in books, no different than LaRouche in that regard. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Fursov, but you cannot succeed in shutting out King who is very widely cited on LaRouche, and Berlet whose writings have been approved by respected academics Griffin and Feldman. These guys are not simply political activists—that's a gross misstatement. As I've pointed out to you elsewhere, the Wiesenthal Center considers King and Berlet the top LaRouche experts, joined by the newer expert, enraged mother Erica Duggan, to comprise the top three experts on the LaRouche movment. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the new text I propose to add to the article: In response to King, historian Stanley G. Payne of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement", while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Andrei Fursov has spoken at Larouche's Schiller Institute, where he was described as "Historian, Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences Izborsk Club, Russia." The Izborsk club was deliberately founded on Larouche's 90th birthday. In the speech Fursov says," The environmentalist movement of the ’60s was organized by the Rockefeller Foundation, and it was paving the way for future deindustrialization....The de-population project is financed by the same structures which financed the ecology movement, etc." These are Larouchian views not shared by the mainstream.

Obviously his comments are those of a supporter and have no weight. Whatever background Fursov may have, he was not presenting his views in an academic publication. There is no point mentioning him.

TFD (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that your comment follows directly upon the heels of this one, but no matter. Fursov is a credentialed expert, and his comment was published in a reliable source. The objection that you raise is not based on any Misplaced Pages policy that I am aware of. His point of view clearly differs from yours, but your point of view is also represented in the section under discussion, FWIW. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to use part of a footnote written 20 years ago and you have it out of context. After saying that no neo-fascist group has transformed itself into an organization that could compete for votes, Payne says in a footnote that Larouche's group has come closest. He then refers readers to King's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. So basically he is agreeing with King, whom ironically you reject as a source. King says that Larouche failed to transform his movement into a fascist movement (Ch. 20) That does not mean that he was not a fascist, merely that he was able to achieve "some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement." One of those characteristics was the support of ""leading strata of capitalists and governmental agencies" (LaRouche's words).

PS - what are Fursov's credentials and how does that make him an expert?

TFD (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a translated version of Fursov's bio in the Russian Misplaced Pages. Waalkes (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the text I propose to add to the article: In response to King, historian Stanley G. Payne of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement", while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. Are there any policy-based objections to this text? Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS says that "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions." Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Payne, Stanley G., A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, University of Wisconsin Pres, Jan 1, 1996, p. 512
2. Benedictine, Kyrill, interview with Andrei Fursov, Intellectuals who have called LaRouche a fascist do not deserve to be called intellectuals, Terra-America, April 19, 2012
3. Payne, Stanley G., A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, University of Wisconsin Pres, Jan 1, 1996, p. 512
4. Benedictine, Kyrill, interview with Andrei Fursov, Intellectuals who have called LaRouche a fascist do not deserve to be called intellectuals, Terra-America, April 19, 2012

Agree with TFD above. The quote has no place in the article. WP:CONSENSUS has some of the stupidest writing on any Misplaced Pages policy page, and also is probably the most invoked and abused of Misplaced Pages's policies. You shouldn't be able to bore people into submission.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am asking whether there is a policy-based objection. Whether Fursov is politically a supporter, or an opponent like those writers he is refuting, is irrelevant under WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources. Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, based on the discussion here it appears to me that inclusion would give too much weight to a fringe viewpoint. Gamaliel (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It could be argued that both sides of the debate are fringe viewpoints, since the question of whether LaRouche is a fascist does not come up outside of battles between him and his activist opponents. However, Fursov is not the only commentator to question the theory of King and Berlet. John George and Laird Wilcox write in American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others, p. 292: "Dennis King goes to considerable lengths to paint LaRouche as a neo-Nazi, even engaging in a little conspiracy-mongering of his own." Alexander Cockburn says that Berlet has "made a career out of anathematizing LaRouche." Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've looked over this discussion and the only person who has actually addressed the issue in terms of NPOV (this is the NPOV board, right?) is WriteGeist. Otherwise I'm seeing some POV Quatsch. Waalkes (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Cleveland child abuse scandal

From a cursory scan, I'm not sure this is written from a NPOV, but would like a second opinion, The talk page is worse. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article using reliable sources and a neutral point of view.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV notice on Gary Webb: Was he "vindicated"?

A Misplaced Pages editor started an NPOV inquiry into whether Gary Webb was "vindicated"? Talk:Gary_Webb#Vindicated.3F - The editor argues that the CIA internal report in the 1990s did not vindicate him. The article currently states that Webb was vindicated after the editor of the Los Angeles Times stated that the newspaper's attack on him was faulty and after something another newspaper published in the 2000s (I'll have to look)

This is an important topic so I encourage Wikipedians to give this their attention WhisperToMe (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

An article in Esquire quotes Jess Katz as saying, "Webb was vindicated by a 1998 CIA Inspector General report...." I see no reason why we cannot mention what Katz said, but before we state as a fact that Webb was vindicated we would need to show that that is the consensus among observers in reliable sources. Even if Webb's allegations turned out to be true, it does not necessarily mean that he has been vindicated. It would depend on whether he followed proper journalistic standards. TFD (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ernesto Kreplak

This is a short and simple case. Ernesto Kreplak is a man from Argentina, involved in two political scandals, and the article says so. But some users (User:Tiopappo and some IPs) try several times to remove this information from the article, and leave just a whitewashed version that merely mentions some small pet projects he has. Note that the content being removed is the only content that cites references which are not involved with Kreplak; in fact they are the only references with a proper format (the other content may be found at the external links). As for the references I used, I consider that Clarín and La Nación are reliable: Clarín is a member of the Global Editors Network, and La Nación is Argentina's newspaper of record. I tried to discuss it at Talk:Ernesto Kreplak#Campagnoli, but to no avail: the request to discuss the problem has been ignored, and the removals of content continued. Cambalachero (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have notified all the involved users about this thread, both those who removed the portion of the article and those who restored it or discussed about it. I hope that I did the correct thing. Cambalachero (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

All I made was a grammar and usage edit, so I guess this isn't something I have to worry too much about? I don't think I have anything to offer, so I'm moving along. Baconfry (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Per and . User 1. Removed the {{reflist}} template, which effectively breaks the page's footnotes, and 2. Removed sourced content without any explanation, added his/her signature to the article, and removed a maintenance tag when (I'm guessing) it still implies. Oh, and 3. Mislabelling edits as vandalism. Since it's one of many traits in vandalistic edits, I decided to revert. Scrutiny for my actions? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 13:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Your actions seem fine to me. I have left a conflict of interest query on Tiopappo's page. If they don't answer (as they seem altogether rather unwilling to engage in dialogue), I suppose I'll have to step it up a bit. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

There are several problems with the article, but NPOV does not seem to apply. Basically, the article is about a minor official in the government, who has some involvement in different projects. Because these are Spanish language sources, it is difficult to determine their reliability or how they pertain to the topic. I have remove some non-sourced BLP info and tagged the article for refimprove & notability. I do not think there is anything here, on the NPOVN, to do. – S. Rich (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design

I have serious questions which I have raised on the talk page regarding whether the article adheres to WP:WTW and also about the broader neutrality of the article and also some expressed concerns regarding conduct matters. Additional input there would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the discussion thread about "Words to watch" - what words are in violation of it? Scientists have rejected ID as a scientific theory because it cannot be empirically tested. As an analogy, your house may be haunted with ghosts causing creaking signs at night. But all scientists can do is attempt to rule out various natural causes. TFD (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

John may be referring to Talk:Intelligent design#Thesis and theories and bias which discusses a point he's also raised at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Pseudoscience. He seems to think that the WP:WTW guideline trumps WP:PSTS policy, and for that matter also wants to disregard WP:PSTS policy in order to WP:GEVAL to pseudoscience. . . dave souza, talk 23:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) The second paragraph of the WP:LABEL section of WP:WTW begins, "The prefix pseudo‑ indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable." That raises questions regarding the use of that rather loaded word, and I admit to having not seen that myself until a recent ARCA on chiropractic, prior to which I saw nothing wrong with the word myself. And, FWIW, this also relates to an existing request regarding the use of that word there at WP:ARCA. No one BTW is arguing ID theories aren't woo, but there is a question as to whether the core principle is. And my thanks to Dave for both an apparent prejudicial rush to judgment and attempt at mischaraterization of the concerns of others. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

LABEL of course is a guideline not a policy and significantly it does not mention "pseudo-science." So while editors are not required to follow it, they should have a good reason not to. To me, saying ID is pseudo-science is not helpful, because it assumes readers know what pseudo-science is. So MOS:JARGON may be a consideration. It might be better to say that "scientists consider it pseudo-science because...." In that way we could explain what pseudo-science means and why it is considered pseudo-science. TFD (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to explain what pseudoscience is in the article... Readers can find out what pseudoscience is by reading our article on Pseudoscience... that's what internal links are for. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar Nope, the issue is cites do not support using the label. Creationism has prominent use, but pseudoscience does not and WP:LABEL says "Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally" -- this word just popped in at 13-15 April 2014 by apparently just editors wordsmithing not from it's use outside or some presented logic; see | old talk Markbassett (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure it is appropriate for the OP to be raising essentially the same issue in multiple places such as the ID talk page, an Admin's talk page (of more concern when followed up with this), at NPOVN, plus his comments with these two edits at ARCA. It smacks of forum shopping to me. - Nick Thorne 09:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"General points on linking style" says, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence.... Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper." The link is there in case a reader wants to know more about a term. TFD (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If this comment was directed at me, in each link in my previous post I provided a brief description of each link within the context of the sentence sufficient to understand what was being said. If you want to see the details then follow the link, but the point being made was that this editor has raised the same issue in multiple places. Adding further detail from each link would cloud that substantive issue. - Nick Thorne 22:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of Breitbart.com to defend America: Imagine the World Without Her

The movie, America: Imagine the World Without Her received over wheeling negative reviews by film critics. However, the article has a long quote from Breitbart.com that defends the movie. I think the source is a fringe source and the long quote is WP:UNDUE. Other editors disagree. I would ask for some input into this issue. Thanks in advance. The talk page discussion can be found here. Casprings (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The quote is similar in length to the negative one that precedes it, and total reception to the movie has been overwhelmingly positive, as the extremely rare A+ CinemaScore audience polling shows, along with the strong box office receipts. The negative reviews from about a little over a dozen critics are given first billing in the section, but it would be misleading and a blatant violation of NPOV for us to only give them billing.

The op has failed to build an argument explaining why Breitbart is allegedly "fringe". He's conceded it's a RS for its own opinions, which is what the section is about, and the author in question, conservative Ben Shapiro, is notable enough to have his own Wiki page, unlike the negative reviewer quoted previously, Peter Sobczynski (a self described "left-wing liberal"). Since this is an explicitly political film and the reception has largely broke along party lines, it would be disingenuous for us not to include a statement from each side, particularly when the statement is commenting on the obvious political aspects involved. As I linked to on the Talk Page, Breitbart routinely does film reviews and is ranked #41 globally in news sites by Alexa. VictorD7 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue is one of WEIGHT. Breitbart.com is RS and describing the critic/non-critic as fringe does not help. After all, Rotten Tomatoes aggretates reviews, some of which may be "fringe" themselves. Whatever is put into the section should be in SUMMARYSTYLE and balanced. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would certainly disagree that bretbart.com is RS for anything but its own opinion. However, I do agree that the section should be neutral in wording and look forward to more input into the issue. Thanks for providing your input.Casprings (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That section feels to me like FOX's version of "Fair and Balanced", where instead of just telling the truth, they have two sides argue until the space is filled, then conclude with some sort "We'll just have to agree to disagree" non-answer. If this film was good, according to a majority, the film had a positive reception. If the majority say it sucked, it had a negative reception. Whichever is true deserves the weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

This isn't all that relevant, but a strange thing to read. Sort of relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

The large audiences who gave the film an historically rare A+ rating vastly outnumber the "22" Rotten Tomatoes critics who mostly (but not uniformly) panned it, so by that logic we should give the weight to the former. The section is titled "Reception", not "Rotten Tomatoes reception" or even "Reception by film critics". This is clearly not a normal movie situation. The film is explicitly political so the reaction has been predictable. Most movie critics are liberal and have spent their reviews attacking the film's politics, while conservatives have generally praised it. Censoring one side down the memory hole and pretending people like Sobczynski are somehow the only ones whose opinions matter would be like MSNBC's version of "truth". VictorD7 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A poll will always reflect the population that you poll. It is highly likely that moviegoers that showed up for the opening weekend for "America", were motivated by political views. On the other hand, the movie critics role is to objectively evaluate a film.Casprings (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Did you read Sobczynski's "review"? It was rabidly partisan and overtly political, as his reviews frequently are. Check out his glowing review of Al Gore's flick I linked to above where he talks about his own political bias. The negative reviews are from upset liberals attacking D'Souza's politics. VictorD7 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

His glowing review of Gore's flick was probably more because that was a better film. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Or because he's a leftist hack, like many "critics" are. Either way, it's best to err on allowing the inclusion of both sides in articles covering politically charged films. It would be preposterous to purge all quotes from non liberals discussing an explicitly conservative political movie. VictorD7 (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. But erring at all is bad, especially to perpetuate the Red vs Blue war. The movie's about US politics, but that doesn't mean the critical reception section should be. We don't expect detectives to review detective movies, quirky couples to review date movies or child killers to review Elm Street movies. Not their role. The last guy even says he wouldn't normally dignify a review with a response, so why should we? (My bad, that was Reuters, sort of.) Molen's quote is just trying to appeal to emotion with political bullshit techniques, hoping to drum up fake controversy attendance. Misplaced Pages shouldn't stoop to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

We're discussing Shapiro, not Molen. Molen produced the film (along with others, like Schindler's List). Shapiro actually reviews films from time to time. Either way, there's absolutely nothing in policy that says we should only quote professional movie critics in movie articles, and such articles are peppered with quotes from pundits and others, especially when they're political films. Also, it's not your role to decide whether or not the "Red vs Blue war" should be perpetuated or not. It's certainly not your role to declare the war over and insist that only Blue voices are allowed on Misplaced Pages. VictorD7 (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd thought we were discussing the undue weight in the reception section. Molen contributed to that. And again, I don't believe in Red or Blue people. That kind of shit is why we have a problem here in the first place. I believe movie critics should critique movies, and if I'm insisting anything, it's that they are who we should hear from there, whoever they typically vote for. Might not be policy, but it makes sense to me. Maybe starting a "Political Reaction" section is a good idea. Readers interested in that would know where to find it, and those who aren't wouldn't have to. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

This thread was about Shapiro's quote, not Molen's. Saying you don't believe in red or blue people is awfully convenient when you're simultaneously claiming we should only be hearing from people who happen to almost all be blue. It also ignores the fact that a liberal/conservative divide really exists, as the starkly different reactions to the film underscore. VictorD7 (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It had an overwhelling bad reception among critics. That can be seen at rotten tomatoes. Its cinema score was high, but that is likely due to movie goers who saw the movie were ideologically likely to support the message of the movie. In my opinion, that should have little weight.Casprings (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's very clearly not positive. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong about Shapiro as "RS". As with all of the critics, we get opinion, not factual material. Which critic does one favor? Too often it is the critic that agrees with our own POV. So saying this critic or that critic is fringe is sometimes saying "I like my critic more than your critic". Now some critics, like Ebert and Maltin, have more impact than others. That is a CONTEXTMATTERS type of consideration. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that logic. If you are going to quote someone it should be because the review is somehow notable or it helps highlight the overall consensus. Here, the consensus is the film was bad and we have a long quote that basically says it wasn't. That makes it appear there was some critical debate about the quality of the film. Moreover, the source of the review is ideologically aligned with defending the film. Casprings (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You're repeating a falsehood. You can't just dismiss the fact that audiences gave the film an historically rare A+ CinemaScore rating. Clearly there is not a consensus that the film is bad. You also can't dismiss the audiences as ideologically motivated and ignore the fact that the critics negatively reviewing the movie are overtly liberals. VictorD7 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Audiences often simply see things which are hyped, regardless of politics. Look at the sequels Scary Movie had. They were all popular attractions, and all terrible films. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

And yet only 52 movies received an A+ rating from 1982 to 2011, putting this movie in exclusive company with numerous Academy Best Picture Winners. Movies good enough to earn such a rare audience rating are also generally liked by critics. Clearly the difference this time is political bias, overt in the negative reviews and arguably present among viewers (though I haven't heard about other political docs scoring an A+). Obviously the fair thing to do with this kind of split where critics per se are compromised is for Misplaced Pages to avoid taking sides and neutrally present both sides. VictorD7 (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That article says the scores "serve as a fairly reliable indicator of whether a film will fly or fizzle." That means sell well or not. Has nothing to do with its quality as art. Like the headline says, it matters for box office, not critical reception. And it doesn't jusify quoting some guy ranting about "the left" like they're an actual group. Have any of these voters written down why they liked it? That could be worth something. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

And an "A+" isn't all that impressive when "a majority of films receive a grade in the A- to B- range." That's just a little better than normal. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Considering most of the negatives are simply those that don't appear to like his politics, that argument is doesn't really hold up. If it is really that bad, then why are there not a lot of viewers writing bad reviews to bring the score down? It is no secret that conservative films are reviewed harshly by critics, while liberal films given gushing praise. An Inconvient Truth is a great example of a film loaded with false statements and yet was given gushing praise. The viewer response was less positive than America. In anycase, it is not undue weight to present the Brietbart response. I am not even sure why this is a fight. Liberals will not go see it anyway, and conservatives will. This is quite clear given the critics responses and the actual viewers. Also, from a statistical point of view, an "A+" is a LOT better. Those scores don't fall on a Uniform Distribution. Arzel (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Politics doesn't seem as big an issue as the poor filmmaking. Ebert.com's review is clear about that. Movies can present an unpopular viewpoint and still present it well. This one seems to fail at that. I don't see anything to suggest the CinemaScore is based on reviews, rather a survey, so that would explain why people aren't trying to bring it down that way. That's a marketing thing, reviews are art things. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

The A+ does not use a random sample and there is every reason to think it is a highly biased sample. Plus most movies get an A and the rating itself is not that well know. Casprings (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Cinescore, which does the polling, appears to do random survey's of movie goers. Of people that saw that movie, most thought it was great. When taken together with all movies, you get a distribution of scores. That distribution follows what one would expect. Most movies in the middle with a few on the extremes. That it recieved a high score relative to all the others is notable. You can not like it, but you can't use your own opinion to disregard it, unless you disregard all of the viewer responses and critics, which are also highly biased and not a random sample. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Would it be considered 'original research' for me to say that my wife and I saw "America, imagine the world without her!" and can (as armchair movie critics) that the music was great, the 'plot' was great (which plot is to show what you would expect if George Washington had 'taken the bullet' rather than 'dodged the bullet'); the camera work is great, the extras were great, real people were 'the actors'; the movie reviews should include these aspects. Instead, they miss the points of the movie. As to Breitbart, you may know there are several websites by the Breitbart team, and we consider them to be excellent, (we also consider FoxNews to be excellent.) It always amazes me that The New York Times is given greater credibility than a source that reports facts and truth. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That there is such a discrepancy between the media critics and the audience is itself notable imo and should be discussed in the article. Yes the A+ rating is likely from a sympathetic audience. That is going to be true of many movies targeted at a niche audience with a controversial viewpoint. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to note a couple of things. The specific reference to breitbart.com is regarding a quote from the producer. The "reception" section is suppose to inform readers about how the film was critically and publicly received and I don't see how Molen's criticism of a review is relevant to the purpose of a section. That quote and information seems more appropriately placed on a page about Molen. The next thing I'd like to note is the use of cinemascore. I don't have a problem with the use of cinemascore, but it should not be given equal weight to what critics say and should be identified and separated as viewer polling. The way the information is presented now, it appears the cinemascore is provided to contradict with the critic's score and that is an example of undue weight. That would be like using the opinions of civilians to contradict historians in an article about the civil war. I think the cinemascore information should be moved to its own paragraph and specifically identified as a survey of moviegoers and other viewer based reviews should also be referenced. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the op was complaining about a quote from Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, a third party observer, that has since been deleted, though I sort of agree with you at least to the extent that including his quote on the political dynamic is more important than tacking on the producer's quote at the end. As for the rest, the section is titled "Reception", not "Reception by critics", and the CinemaScore results cover a lot more people than the dozen or so liberal critics who attacked the movie and are at least as noteworthy. There's absolutely nothing in policy that grants film critics such "expert" status as to make their opinions the only ones that matter, to the exclusion of all others, even when those opinions are compromised by something like political bias as they obviously are here. We aren't dealing with something like history where specialized knowledge matters, much less something involving hard science where expertise really comes into play. We're covering the subjective reception to a film, not the atomic weight of chromium. VictorD7 (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Should say something like "The movie was universally panned by critics, but gained support from some right-wing bloggers." Weight requires us to provide more space to what reviewers said than to what political partisans said. TFD (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Universally panned" may be too much. Perhaps "Generally panned by film critics". "Right-wing bloggers" may be too much. Perhaps "conservative commentators" or "conservative political commentators". As the film is a political documentary, the politics of the critics and commentators can be mentioned so long as SYNTH is avoided. – S. Rich (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that is fair.Casprings (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In any event, the article should follow MOS:FILM#Critical response. – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

From your link: "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited.......To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews.....Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used." And all that's from a section titled "Critical response", not just "Reception" which is the case in this article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly if we're labeling we should be fair. If we're summarizing, then how about "The film received mostly negative reviews from liberal film critics but a strongly positive reception by audiences and conservative commentators?" VictorD7 (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

How do we show that the film critics are liberal? Were there conservative film critics who did reviews? – S. Rich (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The same summarizing editorial judgement we use to label people like Shapiro "conservatives". Reading the negative reviews makes it clear they're liberals because they're mostly attacking D'Souza's conservative politics. I'd support letting the negative reviewer currently quoted, Peter Sobczynski, label himself: "my avowed left-wing liberal credentials".

That fact that one reviewer has liberal views does not undermine the overall response from film critics. Nor does it indicate that his reviews are based on his political views.Casprings (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely you're joking. He's not just one reviewer, but the one whose quote we feature. His review spends most of its paragraphs directly attacking D'Souza's political views, and the review is typical. There's at least as much cause to honestly label such critics "liberal" as there is to use the "conservative" label suggested above for people like Shapiro. VictorD7 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your perceptions of them as liberal and the inclusion of that perception in the article is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You are reading their material and making a judgement on it, then trying to include that judgement on the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not OR or my perception, it's his perception of himself. Excluding his self described political views while using him as the feature quote for a documentary produced by the opposing side is misleading and a violation of NPOV. VictorD7 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy with changing out his quote with another similarly notable reviewer. The point is to get a feel for the overall reception. If you feel that this particular reviewer is not suitable, I don't think it would be an issue to change out the quote.Casprings (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

For example, what about this print review from the Washington Post. Print reviews are better, per MOS:FILM#Critical response.Casprings (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no problem with keeping Sobczynski. Let's just be honest and neutral in how we construct this page. I've said all along that I'm fine with calling Shapiro "conservative" (which he is) if we similarly label someone like Sobczynski "liberal" (which he is, along with the negative reviewers generally). You seem to be trying to contort the article in such a way as to purge any mention of positive reception (or diminish it as much as possible) or hint that a political dynamic is potentially at play, leaving only "film critics" presenting what's supposedly an objective verdict on the film's quality without any political animus whatsoever, and without any acknowledgement of the millions of people and expert commentators who disagree. As the guideline quotes I posted above show, we aren't limited to only including commentary from professional film critics. VictorD7 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I am only trying to make the section meet WP:NPOV and MOS:FILM#Critical response . There is still no evidence that Sobczynski was writing as anything but a film reviewer. Moreover, I again have no problem with changing out the quote with another reviewer. However, what I don't think should be done is to give the impression to the reader that some reviewers like the film and some did not. The fact remains it was universally panned and only defended from highly right wing sources.Casprings (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that Jenkins is a liberal too, and his review largely attacked D'Souza's politics too (if less sophomorically than Sobczynski did). Shapiro is hardly the only commentator observing this dynamic.

I'm trying to make the section meet NPOV standards. Evidence as to Sobczynski's political animus has been presented, but that question isn't relevant. What's relevant is that many people believe such critics are motivated by political bias, making that view (whether you agree with it or not) noteworthy for article mention. So far I'm the only one in this exchange to actually quote from MOS:FILM#Critical response. The page confirmed what I said about us not being required to only cover views from professional film critics. We're allowed to include audience reception (the guidelines specifically endorse CinemaScore) and the page says, "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited". I'll add that you're wrong to say it was "universally panned", as even some professional film critics praised it, and certainly vast audiences defended it via CinemScore polling, not just "highly right wing sources". The panning has come from highly liberal sources. VictorD7 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your classification of "liberal" and "conservative" and attempt to try and discredit critic review scores based on your perceived notion of them being liberal is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. As I replied to you above, it's not OR if sources apply the labels, especially if the reviewer himself does, which is the case here. Only allowing liberal opinions about a conservative movie, while scrubbing any mention that they're liberals, is whitewashing and a blatant WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. I clearly see you and others making judgments and determinations on the contents of critics and labeling them as liberal and conservative. Furthermore, even if they are self identified liberals, the inclusion of that information to try and undermine the veracity of their review is a violation of WP:NPOV. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, excluding it violates NPOV if you're only going to allow commentary from liberals about a conservative film. And I only said we should be fair regarding labels. My comments were in reply to those above suggesting the "conservative" tag. VictorD7 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

They are just critic reviews. Your attempt to try and label them as "liberal", like you did with Jenkins, is the problem here. The aggregate of critics reviews pan this movie and the quote is representative of what critics think about the movie. Trying to undermine their reviews or what they say because of your own political perceptions is a violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, trying to give equal weight to other critics/people whose views clearly don't represent the majority of critics is also a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:Weight. Regarding the "conservative" tag used by others, this does not justify another violation of WP policy. You can't both agree to disregard WP policy by assigning your own original research tags to critics. Both labels should be removed, and that's how you make a neutral article, not by letting both sides disregard the rules.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the guideline quotes I posted showing that we aren't restricted to only presenting professional film critics' opinions? The guidelines specifically endorse including reception from audiences and notable non film critics. This particular article section isn't even titled "Critical reception", but just "Reception". So the majority of pro critics thinking something doesn't mean other views should be excluded. You also appear confused on a few points. The hypothetical labels in Wiki's voice being discussed in this tangent aren't currently in the article, so it would be hard to remove them. And, again, if sources use the label then it's not WP:OR to apply it. It may or may not be appropriate for other reasons, but it's not original research as defined by the policy. Finally, it seems to me that purging half the debate and only allowing one side of the political divide's voice into an article about an explicitly political film, while scrubbing any mention of said voice's political affiliation, is the very definition of POV. Neutrality demands both sides be presented if there's more than one significant view, as there clearly is. We can simply include coverage of both sides without the Wiki voice labels you object to. Whether or not to add them is a slightly different issue. VictorD7 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course we can mention various views. We can say some people think the moon-landing was faked. But we cannot provide undue weight to their opinions. Film critics did not like the movie, some right-wing bloggers did. Mind you, no one could have liked it that much, because the movie only took in $11 million, compared with The Passion of the Christ ($612 million) and the March of the Penguins ($127 million). Incidentally, don't you think calling film critics liberal is redundant? TFD (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

<Insert> It's the 7th highest grossing political documentary of all time and has a solid chance of moving up higher, so please get your facts straight. Political documentaries don't make as much money as regular movies. Also, we're talking about audience CinemaScore grades, not box office receipts. Your own final sentence underscores the absurdity of only citing film critic opinion for an explicitly political documentary. Dismissing mainstream conservative opinion on a matter of subjective opinion by comparing it to something like moon landing conspiracy theories is reprehensible and totally without basis in policy. VictorD7 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you read them? It doesn't mean you get to create undue weight by including quotes from whomever. An example of what that refers to would be a movie like Gravity and supplying a quote from a scientist like Neil deGrasse Tyson that is representative of the scientific community. You could supply a quote from a political pundit, but then that would need to be countered by another opinion from a political pundit from the opposing party. So that would be a balanced approach. However, trying to supply a quote from a politically biased website/political pundit to try and contest what critics think is a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:weight.

"only allowing one side of the political divide's voice into an article". Again, this manifestation of "sides" is a biased assertion and label that you're trying to assign to critics and is a violation of WP:NPOV. What you said about Jenkins is an example of original research. If another publication said Jenkins was is a liberal and you try to include that into the article to discredit Jenkins through WP's voice, then that's a violation of WP:NPOV. This article is not a debate and the "Reception" section should be representative of critic's perception of the film and it's okay to include audience perception so long as they follow the guidelines previously stated and aren't being presented as a counter to critics. They are 2 separate metrics. Trying to divide the article into what "liberals" think versus what "conservatives" think is a false dichotomy and creates a POV presentation of the article. We don't divide science articles into what liberals vs. conservatives think, and there is no reason to do it here.

I've already made my suggestion regarding how the polled audience should be presented and it seems multiple people support it.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

With respect, it doesn't seem like you did read them. The guidelines are explicitly vague and leave room for case to case flexibility. You've failed to cite anything in policy mandating that a reception section should only be representative of professional critics' opinions. The page specifically endorses CinemaScore (and not just if it agrees with critics) and goes out of its way to mention that including notable non critics is allowed. You're trying to treat film critics like scientists. They aren't. They're just people giving their subjective opinions. You're also ignoring the admitted political bias of the critics you're championing. The critics themselves tend to acknowledge the different sides in their reviews. Jenkins isn't in the article, and nothing said about him on a talk page is OR. OR refers to actual article edits.

The article does cover a debate, and WP:NPOV policy mandates that all significant sides be covered to maintain article neutrality. You're trying to silence a major side, which is misleading to readers and a blatant violation of NPOV. Most movies aren't political enough for critic political bias to be much of an issue, but it undeniably is with explicitly political films like this one, particularly since it comes from the ideology the critics oppose. The fact that so many people, including notable societal observers, think that it's an issue makes it an issue meriting coverage in the article. I'll add that multiple people oppose your position here and oppose the notion of only letting a narrow, mostly liberal category comment on conservative films. See? There's a dispute here too, with more than one side. VictorD7 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It's clear you're not reading what I say. I've never argued for the removal of cinemascore, so for you to criticize me for not citing WP policy to make the reception section strictly for critics is fallacious and a strawman argument. Furthermore, the article is not a debate. It's simply a article about a movie. You're attempt to try and undermine critic reception by turning into a liberal vs. conservative debate is a violation of WP:NPOV. The article should reflect what the general critic viewpoint is without POV attempts to undermine, misrepresent, or contest critic's viewpoints by giving undue weight to any other source. This includes trying to present cinemascore in a fashion that contradicts critics or citing some political pundit to try and contradict critics. They can be presented in the "Reception" category, but in their own respective paragraphs so it's clear that they aren't being presented in a debate style or contradictory manner. This is consistent with WP policy. Do you read that? I said they can be included/kept and this is the 3rd time I've said that.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I cited the endorsement of CinemaScore to underscore that the guidelines make it clear that reception isn't just about what professional critics think. Since you acknowledge that, you have no excuse for continuing to make the fallacious "undue weight" argument. Whether you want to call it a "debate" or not there clearly is a stark difference of opinion about the movie and the article should reflect that. I'm not the one making it liberal versus conservative. It's a political documentary commenting on the real life left/right divide, so the political angle of the reaction is relevant. The Shapiro quote in question directly comments on the critical reception, is a widely held view, and is an important part of the topic we're supposed to be covering in the article. VictorD7 (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As I've said numerous times, it's only undue weight when cinemascore or any other quote from some political pundit is presented in a way to try and undermine what critics say. That doesn't mean it should be excluded, just that it needs to be clear that critics panned the movie and cinemascore is not a contradiction to what the general critical reception of the movie is. The undue weight argument is valid, if you're presenting data irrelevant to critical reception as an attempt to discredit, undermine, or refute critical opinion. This is also the 3rd or 4th time I've said this.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

But you provided no basis for your claim. There's certainly nothing in policy excluding criticism of the critics by someone like Shapiro, especially in an unusual, politically charged controversy like this one where there's a lot more to the reception than simply being entertained or not. It's unclear precisely what you're referring to regarding CinemaScore undermining the critics. The guideline page simply lists CinemaScore as one of the legitimate sources for critical reception sections. VictorD7 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have provided basis for the claim in that it's a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:Weight. Using a quote from Shapiro to try and discredit or contradict the majority viewpoint of critics is a violation of undue weight. Here are the specific area:

• Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to...juxtaposition of statements.
• Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
• Misplaced Pages should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view.
• in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public.

This is basically why it's unacceptable to post quotes from Ken Ham trying to discredit wide scientific consensus regarding evolution or the age of the earth on an article about evolution or the age of the earth.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you're conflating different scenarios. The lines you (finally) cited deal with situations where an extreme minority of a particulate, narrowly defined set (people debating whether or not the earth is flat or round, or what the atomic weight of chromium is) should be presented with equal representation (or at all). You're still confusing pro film critics with scientists and ignoring the MOS guidelines I quoted showing that our set in this case isn't just professional film critics (the guidelines explicitly allow non pro critics' views). Beyond that the Shapiro quote wasn't directly contradicting the critics by commenting on the movie itself, but rather the obvious political dynamic at play. There's absolutely nothing in policy prohibiting us from including quotes commenting on the reception itself (including professional film critic political bias), and Shapiro's views aren't fringe. In fact they're extremely widely held and it hasn't even been demonstrated that they're in the minority at all. VictorD7 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not conflating anything. The majority of critics panned the movie. So including a comment from a critic that opposes the majority view is a violation of WP:Weight and if Shapiro isn't commenting on the movie but on critics in general, then it certainly doesn't belong anywhere on the article page due to being irrelevant. You're still attempting to discredit the value of critic's opinion with a quote from Shapiro and that's clearly against WP:NPOV. The majority viewpoint of critics is that the movie is bad and this is documented on multiple aggregate sites. Including a quote from Shapiro to criticize critics for their reception of the film is not relevant to the movie itself and gives undue weight to a minority opinion.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are. The majority of professional film critics panned the movie, the majority of people who viewed the movie gave it an historically high CinemaScore grade, and notable commentators have written about the reception as a phenomenon in and of itself. The article should cover all of that, per MOS guidelines. You've given no policy or even rational reason to justify actively preventing that from happening. Whether critics' negative opinions are "discredited" or not by accurately covering the issue shouldn't be your concern. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not. If anything, you're trying to misuse a part of MOS guidelines to include a quote from a political blogger. He is not notable or an expert in the field of cinema or even politics. I already gave an example using Neil deGrasse Tyson on what that guideline actually refers to. Shapiro's opinion is not representative of the political spectrum and he's certainly not a notable critic, therefore it does not meet the MOS guidelines and including his opinion is a violation of WP:Weight. You even admitted that Shapiro's opinion wasn't a commentary on the film, therefore it has ZERO relevance to the article and, if anything, should be placed on an article about film critics. It's a clear violation of WP:weight as you're trying to include it to present a criticism of critic's reviews. When the majority of critics criticize a film, that's a majority view. Including a quote that criticizes a majority of critics for their reception of the film is a minority viewpoint. I've presented multiple parts of WP policy that prevent the inclusion of such a quote. You're clearly disregarding them and pretending that they don't apply...when they do.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash on all counts. Ben Shapiro is "notable" by definition because he has a Misplaced Pages article about him. None of the negative film reviewers currently quoted in the article have such articles, and therefore aren't notable by definition. That you start off by making such a grossly, factually inaccurate claim invalidates your whole position. Shapiro represents at least half the American political spectrum. In fact Gallup polling shows that conservatives outnumber liberals by about two to one, which is why Democrats run more rhetorically away from their base in general elections than Republicans do (the latter are certainly more likely to call themselves "conservative" than the former are "liberal"), even often echoing (sincerely or not) the type of patriotic themes espoused by people like D'Souza and Shapiro. Regardless, you can't dismiss half the political spectrum as unfit for mention. That's insane and unacceptable POV on your part. As for topical scope, my Talk Page section notes that it's routine for Misplaced Pages articles to cover the noteworthy or controversial aspects of the reception itself, and I list several specific high profile examples. Certainly you've presented nothing in guidelines or policy to prohibit such commentary. The fact that Shapiro's views clearly represent the vast majority of those who have watched the film further refutes your argument. VictorD7 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Resetting the discussion

I have isolated the critics responses into their own section in accordance with MOS:FILM#Critical response. It now has the Rotten Tomatoes & Metacritic data, plus one review from Ebert. The non-movie-critic responses are in a following section. IMO this "new" section will allow for discussion of the film from the political blogger/commentator points of view and avoid the unnecessarily disruptive debate as to whether Hollywood is left, far left or whatever. So, the question can get back to the original theme – to what extent should Breitbart.com and other commentators be placed in the article? – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Back to Breitbart.com as a reliable news source

I strongly object to calling Breitbart.com a 'Conservative blog'. A 'blog' it is not. It has reporters, editors, and source of revenue. "Breitbart.com is a conservative news and opinion website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart,"' says Misplaced Pages editors in Breitbart.com which is a better description. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That also has a pattern of reporting false information and not correcting itself. For example, the Friends of Hamas story. There is little evidence in the past of a system that is trying to accurately report facts, which sets it apart from something like Fox News. There is a difference between a biased source and a source that has repeatedly shown no willingness to get basic facts correct. A biased source can be used to make a good article. It is difficult to use a source such as Breitbart. While I would agree they are WP:RS for their own opinion, one should at least provide the reader with the context of the opinion, if it is used in the article.Casprings (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As a follow up, if Breitbart is WP:RS, then is WND? If so, there is truly no standard at all to be a WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget, Misplaced Pages has a Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Seems the place to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

True. But let's consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS before posting there. In this case we are asking whether UNDUE is at play when we add or remove Breitbart.com. – S. Rich (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I already did it. Discussion can be found here. And yes, context matters. I tried to phrase my question in such a way that it would help in this discussion. That said, if I shouldn't have posted there, I am sorry.I wouldn't have posted if I saw this first.Casprings (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, it is interesting to me that Dinesh D'Souza talks about the media problem in the movie. The point about Breitbart not correcting errors, I cannot speak to, but I would say I never heard of the correction they needed to make that was pointed out in the Slate blog . And the discussion about proportional or undue weight in a Misplaced Pages article reflects the proportion or distortion in say, for example, the 'White Hispanic' reporting of ABC,CBS,NBC,W-Post,NYTimes; as opposed to 'lesser' news outlets, re: George Zimmerman. I recognize that pointing out problems elsewhere does not excuse Breitbart.org but you can probably see my point. Also, what was the Breitbart writer's comment about anyway? It was just his opinion about the movie, as I remember. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart.com is clearly covered by WP:BLOGS. Thus it does not appear to be usable. Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, and the editors of the Misplaced Pages article, ] do not identify the news website as a blog. Please take note. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, a site like Breitbart.com can be used as a reliable source when directly attributed to the author who wrote the material. So if there was a WP page on an editor named John Smith, then we can use an article John Smith wrote for Breitbart.com to attribute something directly to John Smith. It would act as a primary source in this situation. It is not reliable for statements of fact regarding others. This is covered under WP:QS, WP:Newsblog, and WP:Newsorg. The specific article that was in contention also didn't cite any sources. It's clearly an opinion piece, and can't be used as a reliable source to push a fact about any given topic.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as others have mentioned, in this case the author is simply being quoted with attribution for his (very widely held and significant) opinion in a section devoted to opinions anyway. VictorD7 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarason/Nelsondenis248 and Fisher Klingenstein Films/FilmRise

About eight months ago, while randomly looking up movies, I stumbled upon the article for Fisher Klingenstein Films (henceforth FKF). As you can see, the page reads like a news release. At the time, there had been much discussion on the talk page about how bad it was, with the creating editor, Nelsondenis248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), repeatedly insisting on discussion, consensus, etc.

Being a brand-new editor, I thought I'd stretch my muscles by fixing it up. I spent an hour or two working on a trimmed-down version that removed the gobs and gobs of praise that made the page read so biased. As I noted on the talk page, I left one section relatively intact to demonstrate how poorly it was constructed, and suggested that the movie be split into its own page.

Sarason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) proceeded to 'restore' the old version of the article and scolded me on the talk page. I responded by placing a 'news release' tag on the article page and hoping someone else would come along and complete what I had failed. At the time, I was unaware of the existence of noticeboards.

As I was randomly wiki-stalking his contributions page today, I noticed that he'd spent the past week working hard on the page for FilmRise, which he created back in March (two months after the above almost-edit-war). It is the exact same article as the FKF article, but with the name of the company changed and some more recent (and self-promoting) paragraphs added. There's been no attempt to redirect the original page or fix the original problems; the new page still reads like a news release.

Whether you think I'm a moron or actually onto something, thank you so much for reading this, my first NPOV noticeboard post. I'm not sure how to notify Sarason that I've made this post; if there's a relevant template I can place on his usertalk page, please let me know. FekketCantenel (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

After posting and returning to the main noticeboard, I saw the NPOVN-notice instructions. I will post that on his user talk page now. FekketCantenel (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• FekketCantenel, first things first: make sure you are well aware of WP:OUTING. In fact, let me call up an admin or two to see if you've gone too far already: John, Dennis Brown, Bbb23, TParis. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• A couple of things, saying "Nelsondenis248/Sarason knows Alan Klingenstein" isn't quite outing but I suggest reading the link Drmies gave you so you don't take it too far. This is a claim of COI, so WP:COIN seems more appropriate than this board. As far as changing his name, his old name redirects to the new, so there is no problem there. There does seem to be at least a little meat on this bone, as FilmRise and Fisher Klingenstein Films are WAY too similar for both to exist, but I don't have time to fix that issue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not real good at this stuff, so Dennis may be right, but my reading of it is that it should be suppressed. I've taken the necessary steps to see if I'm right. If nothing else, I'll learn something.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't posted anything, before or after this recent edit, that couldn't be found by Googling the user's original username. However, I've removed the link to his online resume and made other revisions indicating only that certain information can be found if you Google his name. If I've missed anything objectionable, please let me know.

I looked around a bit before settling on posting on the NPOV forum, and somehow missed the existence of COIN. If you folks concur that I should repost this there (with any necessary edits to remove too-personal information), I will. FekketCantenel (talk)

I think you should hold off doing anything until all this is resolved and you can be properly advised as to what is acceptable and what is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict) Digging around a bit more, I see how that might be a problem, but will leave it to OS to decide, that is their expertise. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wasn't aware of WP:OUTING and wouldn't have thought posting Google-able information would count, anyway. I'll accept whatever punishment is deemed appropriate for this breach, but also hope the issues I raised can be addressed. FekketCantenel (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Our concern isn't "punishing" you, it is about privacy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Dennis, I left some advice on Fekket's talk page. You or Drmies should feel free to add to it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• OK. Outing removed/redacted. Fekket, not everything that's Googled is valid for posting here.

  Next item. It's clear that there's a ton of non-neutral editing was going on in those articles. I have redirected Fisher Klingenstein Films to FilmRise, without worrying about the editing history: they were basically the same articles, and the edits are preserved in the history of FKF (tell you what--and I hope that John, Dennis Brown, Bbb23, TParis don't mind looking over my shoulder--I'm going to protect that redirect). I've seriously trimmed Alan Klingenstein and Nelson Antonio Denis, and did the same for FilmRise. I pinged you guys again: if you agree with the basic gist of those edits, state it here for the record, so that Fekket and others have something to fall back on later, should disruption erupt. Fekket, so far so good? I'm not going to address the identity and the other links--by editing those articles I think we achieve the result we want as well. Oh, I left an only warning on the talk page of Sarason. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, got to it today. For the record, I agree with the trimming, which was indeed serious. From what I can tell, it removed based on puffery and WP:UNDUE. Made a few copy edits to all three articles. Thanks, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm really happy with all of that! The articles look much better now, and good idea about protecting the redirect. I second the request for approval of your edits, in case this comes up again. There's also always the possibility of bringing it before COIN; I had a question about that on my usertalk page if anyone would like to look. No matter what, I plan to run future reports of this nature past an experienced admin before posting it publicly, until I gain an understanding of WP policy.

Thanks so much, everyone; this has been very educational for me. FekketCantenel (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed FilmRise and Nelson Antonio Denis articles and I endorse the trimming. Protection may have been a bit proactive but it's within discretion and I'm not going to second judge those who got there first without good cause. @FekketCantenel: I think you'll fit in nicely on the project, welcome aboard.--v/r - TP 06:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • The trimming and redirect are fine. We the information, just not all the redundancy and fluff. And I agree with TParis here on the other points, proactive and welcome and all that ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with the foregoing and also suggest raising at WP:COIN. Coretheapple (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

History of Lego

A small and apparently deadlocked disagreement at the Talk:History of Lego#Uncritical timeline - in the article's brief summary of the recent Lego Movie, is it enough to quote an LA Times review round-up describing the film as "a critical and commercial success" as fact, or is that an opinion which should be balanced by quoting a New York Times reviewer who used the phrase "90-minute infomercial"? A sample diff of the disputed line is here. --McGeddon (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A movie review is opinion and not fact. Differing opinions can be mentioned, but it is also important not to give outliers UNDUE WEIGHT. If every review except one says a movie is wonderful... we should not give that one dissenting review undue weight by highlighting it. Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Differing opinions should be mentioned I agree. Undue weight right now is given to the commercial side, see flags for ad. Undue weight depends on the context. The context is an article that consisted of material mostly from primary sources (until I started editing). McGeddon is using your opinion as a judgement to oust this one particular reference. He does not tell you that I compromised to keep both references and mentioning the LA times ref first. Blueboar, if you havent already done so, I encourage you to read the page, and assess the context. The NYT review of the movie actually resonates with what has been going on at Lego over the past 10 years, as I have carved out on the page and it is not giving undue weight.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Order_of_Saint_Lazarus

Stumbled upon this rather suspect article today. The only source that seems reliable (Marcombe's "Leper Knights") only covers the Order up to its dissolution in England in the 1500. A lot of the other sources appear to be first party works by the purported modern descendants of the Order, and/or self published.

Some quick research suggests that there was a fairly obscure Order of Saint Lazarus, which became defunct after the French Revolution. There are also a number of modern "recreations", some of which purport to continuations of the original order. One of the key figures involved appears to have been Robert Gayre, which does not inspire a great deal of confidence. At a bare minimum, I'm inclined to wipe everything post 18th century as unsourced and just mention that a number of modern organizations are named after the original order. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really a good topic for this noticeboard, which is for disputes and has a backlog. (Also, there is no present discussion on the article talk page.) Suggest you WP:BB and make revisions to the article. Or, perhaps, it could benefit from a {{refimprove}} tag. – S. Rich (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Featured Anarcho-capitalism article is being held captive to left-anarchist editors.

Anarcho-capitalist editors are underrepresented among so-called "anarchist" editors, and the latter (more properly "left-anarchists") have been holding the page captive for several months to inclusion of their POV about anarchism "proper". This does not necessarily imply that anarcho-capitalists are a documentable heterodoxy (which would be irrelevant anyway, since anCaps have no desire to be counted among them), nor that there even exists an official definition of "anarchy" (which, even if it were the case, would not apply to an article that is not about anarchism "proper"). The early POV subtly writes off anarcho-capitalism as "illegitimate".

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=607632560&oldid=607397020

Currently there is a NPOV tag gracing the article (which as of now is, I believe, npov)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=616525121&oldid=616514970

and edit protection expired today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=618531990&oldid=616619670

While I have made every effort to resolve the conflict by attempting to clarify the nature of the dispute - not only in the body, but already in the lede - they insist that their definition of "anarchism" is "correct", since various prominent left-anarchists claim the title, and that said POV be included in the lede. My hope is that objectivity ultimately takes precedence over majoritarianism.

While I believe that mention of the conflict among anarchists need not be included in the lede in order to satisfy npov requirements, the following compromise text addresses the issue of definition to the extent possible in a few lines without compromising neutrality:

Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who typically reject private property and market processes, in favor of collective ownership arrangements. In contrast to left-anarchists, who believe that economic relationships tend to be hierarchical, anarcho-capitalists believe that hierarchies can only be flattened in a naturally competitive marketplace to the extent that states and state-sponsored monopolies are abolished. As a result, there is disagreement between anarcho-capitalists and left-anarchists over the nature of "anarchy".

JLMadrigal (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Our friend JLMadrigal has put so much spin on the dispute that the true problem is blurred. JLMadrigal uses the label "Featured article" to lend an air of high respectability to the current version of the article, which is however very, very different from the 2006 FAR version, the version which resulted after a lot of different viewpoints were applied to the article during the 2006 FAR discussion. After the 2006 discussion, the article was eventually taken in hand by ancap adherents who gave it a much more subjective and promotional tone. This discussion started by JLMadrigal should instead have the heading Featured article Anarcho-capitalism has been changed to a subjective in-universe style and is being vigorously defended by adherents of a minor viewpoint.

To anyone who asks nicely I will say that I am a fan of big government—a strong central government—for reasons having to do with historically ugly social problems such as racism, sexism, and economic inequality. So to find myself characterized by JLMadrigal as a "left-anarchist editor" is entertaining if not ridiculous. This shows the degree of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude which has been applied by ancap adherents to the dispute. During the dispute, one such editor was blocked for 36 hours for "personal attacks, incivility and battleground behaviour". None of the mainstream editors was blocked.

Instead of being a battle between ancaps and leftist anarchists, the problem here is one of the article having lost its former objectivity, having lost touch with the mainstream literature. The dispute is between ancap adherents and everybody else in the world, that is, the general mainstream viewpoint. The current dispute is about beginning to restore a mainstream viewpoint, and it is just a start. If ancap adherents are resisting this strongly then we have a real neutrality problem. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

After briefly skimming the talk page for the article, it will become immediately apparent that the disputed text is just as I described it: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anarcho-capitalism JLMadrigal (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is just as worthy of the honor it has received - if not more so today - and continues to evolve. It is exemplary of encyclopedic text. JLMadrigal (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the phrasing of this thread as opened should clear up any confusion as to where the neutrality problems lie here. As noted, "neutrality" does not consist in having a page written to the perspective of adherents of the philosophy it describes (nor of course does it consist in having it written to the views of opponents – which no one is asking for). Instead it consists in having third-party description and analysis in reliable and authoritative sources noted and reflected with due weight, which is all that was being asked for here, in respect of simply one or two sentences, relating to the fundamental definition and classification of the topic. JLMadrigal also conveniently forgets to note that there was an RfC about the disputed text, which closed in favour of including it. Since then, they and "User:Knight of BAAWA" have tried to reignite a tedious edit war and to remove or change that text. People seeking relief really ought to come with clean hands, as they say in the legal world. And, finally, no, the article is not FA worthy. With or without the disputed content, it is badly written, sprawling, confusing, full of badly sourced material etc. After all the absurd fuss over this one sentence, I'm loath to institute another formal process in the form of an official FA review, but I'd happily have an FA reviewer look at it, even informally, and assess whether it is "exemplary of encyclopedic text". Oh, and I'm not an anarchist either. N-HH talk/edits 10:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I am an involved editor who disagrees with JLMadrigal's portrayal of the situation. It appears that there are a few editors on the Anarcho-capitalism page who believe the subject needs to be composed from an anarcho-capitalist POV:

The Talk page is also filled with uncivil remarks toward dissenters:

These same editors have marked content removals—the same content in dispute—as minor edits:

Contrary to JLMadrigal's claim that we "insist that definition of 'anarchism' is 'correct'", it is JLMadrigal who wants additions to be couched in his POV:

When it comes to verifiability, robust secondary sources on anarchism explain that anarcho-capitalism is a relatively recent, US phenomenon that opposes much of traditional anarchist theory (see Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism and Colin Ward's Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction; Daniel Guérin's Anarchism: From Theory to Practice, written in 1970, doesn't even mention anarcho-capitalists). This dispute is not about sources or relevance; it's about anarcho-capitalists wanting a fluff piece in place of an academic encyclopaedia. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And now, we have those same editors reverting inclusion of the disputed material after a RfC was closed in its favor. No discussion, just reverting. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! We should not host a fluff piece as if it were Featured Article quality. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, back to the issue. Discussion of the debate among various anarchist strains IS included in the article. Not advancing it to the lede does not compromise neutrality. Further, a clear definition of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is prerequisite to an understanding of the differences among the schools of thought in question. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The headline of this section is basically correct. The fundamental problem with the (left-)Anarchists here is that they misunderstand, or are intentionally misrepresenting, the root word of "anarcho-capitalism" which is "anarchy" (a society which rejects rulers or governments), not "Anarchism" (the political movement). Anarcho-capitalists advocate anarchy, but do not claim to advocate for the Anarchist movement (which traditionally has been anti-capitalist). As far as I know, there is no AnCap literature that attempts to imply that AnCap is a sub-type of the Anarchist movement, so all this defensiveness from left-Anarchists is unwarranted... its pointless and misplaced to refute something which is not even being proposed. The issues here would clear up if, instead of trying to shoehorn even more anti-capitalist disagreement into an increasingly diluted and unclear article, we clarify the terminology and explain that the only thing AnCaps and Anarchists have in common is the desire for anarchy. Let this article stand on its own two feet and be a clear explanation of the philosophy, without putting tripwires of unfounded disagreement in every section which come off as Anarchists inserting "Nuh-uh!" every few lines. -- Netoholic @ 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

To rectify Netoholic's incorrect statements: 1) the root of both anarcho-capitalism and anarchism is ἀναρχία (anarchia), meaning "without rulers" or "without leaders" and 2) the article states clearly that the founder of anarcho-capitalism believes his philosophy to be the "true anarchism" ("In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." ). — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Its adherents make the claim, and the page as written clearly asserts anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism (ie the political theory/movement, if we're going to get into semantics). Did people miss the huge "Anarchism" template plonked in the lead? Or the first sentence which explicitly says "also referred to a free-market anarchism, market anarchism .." etc? The idea that the page can state all that while ignoring the significant dispute over that classification/description noted in third-party objective sources beggars belief. Also, did people miss the fact that at least two people commenting here, myself included, have explicitly said they are not anarchists? The very fact that this is persistently being cast, by the latter, as a dispute between left-anarchist and right-libertarian editors is part of the problem and says more about those who seem, for some reason, to think that that is what is going on here than it does about those who are in fact arguing for genuine neutrality and objectivity. N-HH talk/edits 10:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Far-left Politics

The article on far-left politics seems to be very biased compared to its inverse. I raised the issue on the talk page, but the involved editors seemed to have preconceived notions of what "real leftism" was and thus didn't include Stalinism and consequences such as religious persecution and Antisemitism. I welcome input on the matter. --monochrome_monitor 16:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution