Misplaced Pages

Balancing points

I'm guessing that you're busy elsewhere. If not, I just wanted to remind you that you hadn't responded to my question about your edit summary that said "add balancing point per NPOV". By my reading, NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view according to their prominence, but it does not mandate or even mention including "balancing points", nor does it require that all POV be "balanced" with equal amounts of the opposite POV. For example, the article on the geology of the Moon does not include balancing points from the "made of cheese" POV. Anyway, if you have an opportunity I'd be interested to hear from you on this. Otherwise, I hope not to hear about it again.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

This is just a friendly reminder that COI applies to you when you are working on the MUM article. Adding poorly sourced material which is favorable to the university is an example of a POV problem, which is why the WP:COI guideline suggests that people in your position refrains from editing the article directly. If I see further POV edits to the article I'll have to ask that you receive a formal warning, per the ArbCom's decision. There are millions of other articles on Misplaced Pages - it's not necessary for you to edit the MUM article.   Will Beback  talk  11:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies - I had mis-remembered and thought you had added the journal material. I see you haven't edited the article in a long time, which is appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Will. No problem. But I don't think it's appropriate for you to suggest I shouldn't edit the MUM article. Please don't ever again try to constrain which articles I edit. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who would be constraining you. That would be the policies and guidelines, including those reiterated in the recently closed ArbCom case. I'm just reminding you, perhaps unnecessarily as it turns out, that they are still in force. Of course we all have to follow NPOV, V, etc, whether or not we have a conflict of interest. It's just naturally harder when we do which is why there's a special guideline about it. Given the ArbCom case, MUM faculty and other highly involved members of the TM movement need to pay close attention to the policies, especially when there's an issue of adding or keeping positive material, or deleting or arguing against negative material. Accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative is inimical to good editing. Misplaced Pages article should be in-between. (Sorry Johnny Mercer). Do we agree on that?   Will Beback  talk  12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that says that I shouldn't edit any particular article. The Arbcom decision didn't say that I should refrain from editing any articles. It said just the opposite: "For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies." It says that I should take care to follow policy. In fact, I always have. I couldn't agree with you more that it's important to follow the policies and guidelines. I just wish that you would adhere to them more closely. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Contributing to the TM article

I am the anon that made recent contributions to the TM talk page. Thank you for your invitation to pursue my contribution directly in the TM article. However, I don't see what can be accomplished without opposing directly two or three editors of this article who have brought into it their own POV by misusing published materials. Direct fight (i.e. edition without consensus) is not my way and there would be no other way to remove all their personal POVs because there is no way to reason with them. Even if we were a majority of neutral editors, I would not like it. 67.230.155.152 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I was imagining that you might draft something and then post it on the Talk page for discussion. Since the lead is obviously in violation of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, I think we can get consensus to change it. I really appreciate having a fresh pair of eyes looking at the article. You are focusing on some key shortcomings in terms of compliance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. TimidGuy (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you see this last one from http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jmh649:

I think one could say that independent studies have NOT found specific physiological changes compared to relaxation.

This is from a physician! He must know how to read review papers. He simply did not read them carefully, did not trust in good faith that the authors were neutral because their conclusion was positive and perhaps he has some conflicting interests (fundings, personal business, etc.) and beliefs. The explanation is not so important. I can see by looking at the history of the article and its talk page that this is a recurring pattern. This recurring pattern is why I did not believe that we would get a consensus. BTW, I felt that your paragraph was good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.154.243 (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel that my paragraph is good. Please participate in the discussion. We'll focus on Will's suggestions. I think we can get consensus. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The last one from Will Beback

Here he goes

I don't care where in the intro we mention the fees controversy, but we should include it because it's one of the more prominent controversies about the technique. Which we all know because we've discussed this already - remember?

He does not realize that he just admitted that his goal in mentioning the fee was to raise the controversy. He is so attach to his purpose of raising scepticism that he don't get that the role of an editor is only to present POV that are verifiable, noteworthy, etc., not to push our own agenda by mentioning an info that supports it indirectly in an insidious way. He would need to have a citation from a notable source where this controversy is presented, not only the price. Then we would have to agree on the prominence that we can give to this POV. I totally disagree that it deserves to appear in the first paragraph. I am not sure that it even deserves to be in the Intro at all. Of course, many people would like TM to be cheaper. This is not the criteria. The criteria is the prominence that this POV has outside wikipedia amongst the verifiable sources. I don't think that this obvious fact that many people would like TM to be cheaper has received much attention in the media. Moreover, when it appears, the pro-TM view, which is that today every thing that is useful is expensive, is also presented. If it is done right, perhaps a paragraph at the end of the Intro on this subject could be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.25 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're exactly right. I've made a similar point in the past -- that if it's a major controversy, it should be possible to find media reports that focus on this controversy. I've never seen more than a passing comment about the price. To be this prominent in the article, it should have been an ongoing, major controversy, but there's no evidence of that. TimidGuy (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you give up?

I would understand if you decided to give up. It is not easy when you have some editors that rely on a few reviews that were prepared for non typical publishers, such as gvmnt agencies and organizations that are strongly involved in influencing healthcare practices, to conclude that all the studies that have shown the benefits of TM are not reliable, including many meta-analyses that have been published in standard peer-reviewed journals. In other words, they believe that the normal scientific process is biased, but somehow these governmental agencies and special organisations are the only organizations that can bring light in this darkness. Oh well! They believe it so much that they argue that, in accordance to NPOV, we must not present anything else than these special reviews in the Introduction. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Edit. No, I didn't give up. Unlike editors who spend many hours a day in Misplaced Pages, I only have an hour or so every morning before 6:30 am. TimidGuy (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have filed a request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement concerning the recent MUM-related sourcing issue.   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation: TM lead

I will ask for formal mediation for Lead (research content): Transcedental Meditation in the next few days. Would you like to be included as an involved user. I’ll check back on your user page for an answer. Thanks.(olive (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. Does my ban extend to this? TimidGuy (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know TG... I would think not since its not a TM related article. (olive (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

I am not sure either, but I would think Olive is right. In any case, I see that the three of us are not so sure about the rules. I think I will contact User:JamesBWatson. He listed himself as someone willing to help here Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance. He is a mathematician. Also, should we appeal to the last decision using Template:Arbitration_enforcement_appeal before we move ahead with a mediation? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have filed a request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement concerning the recent edit warring. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that under the discretionary sanctions rule I have imposed the sanctions I drafted earler at the AE noticeboard . You are therefore topic-banned from all edits relating to TM topics for two months. In addition, you will be bound to a collective 1RR/24hrs revert limitation together with Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) and Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You take it so easy ... Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Take it as it comes. ;-) TimidGuy (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

TG, I have included your name in a formal request for mediation.. If you would like to be part of this process then you may agree on the project page. (olive (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC))

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Lead: Transcendental Meditation, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

AN/I notice.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which your name was discussed specifically in regard to the behavior of User:Doc James The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility / harassment by User:7mike50007mike5000 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee

Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification

A request for clarification has been filed per Although it may not affect you directly, your name has been mentioned or referenced.(olive (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC))

RFARB

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Springer Science+Business Media

Thanks for your note. You're correct that "Spinger" is a misspelling. In the old days, Misplaced Pages had a simple search engine that couldn't handle misspellings. So folks would create redirects to handle likely errors. This appears to be one of them. Springer has many subsidiaries, and the article has many redirects. The correctly and incorrectly spelled ones are listed here: . I think what you're looking for has already been created.   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor input requested

In trying to get a sense of where editors stand on the TM article split merge situation It would help to have a definitve statement from each editor. This is not as I see it, to determine a change but to determine whether we can agree on this important issue and if we can't to get outside help. Input here: (olive (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Citation tools

Misplaced Pages:Citation tools. Have at it. Let me know if I can help further.   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Also: WP:CITE.   Will Beback  talk  11:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Peremptory deletion

• Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational.

You deleted this cited sentence from Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health without any comment in the edit summary.

• A 1991 article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal says the "company will not disclose the product's exact composition".

I'm sure this was an "innocent error". Please be more attentive.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC regarding Transcendental meditation

A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Integrative Cardiology

Your input would be helpful in this thread, which concerns your editing: Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique#Integrative Cardiology.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc regarding a renaming of Transcendental Meditation movement to Transcendental Meditation

See Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Rfc:_Should_the_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_article_be_renamed Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I will be requesting formal mediation. Please let me know if you wish to be included or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thank you.(olive (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Tendatious

Not a silly thing at all. And not a mistake on my part. I am deliberately using "tendatious" (sometimes I'll spell it "tendacious") rather than "tendentious" - a portmanteau word combining tenacious and tendentious all rolled up into one. Thanks anyway. Fladrif (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Didn't realize you were intentionally using your own coin. I went ahead and changed it at AE, since Rumiton used "tendentious." TimidGuy (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that and making the change. I did not intend to change Rumiton's comment, but only to quote it, as opposed to when I'm using a portmanteau of my own invention. Fladrif (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Very sinsnickety yours (portmanteau of sincerely and persnickety), : ) TimidGuy (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion #5 in the TM article

There is a discussion about the interpretation of suggestion #5 in the TM article. Your input would be appreciated. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Please format the references you add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've italicized the journal names. Anything else need to be fixed? I'm gradually becoming familiar with the template, and hope to soon use that for all of my citations. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Implemented the cite template for the refs I added recently. Thanks for the encouragement. But one thing I don't understand is whether to give the page range for the whole article or to just give the page number for the material that's cited. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Warnborough College

Your comments here would be appreciated. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A question

I asked a question that you might be able to answer, at Talk:Transcendental Meditation research#Meta-analysis of over 100 studies.   Will Beback  talk  18:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Going... Going...   Will Beback  talk  11:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

Thank you for agreeing to participate in mediation in the past. We don't seem to be able to resolve this "bone of contention" on our own. I will be requesting formal mediation on the lead of the TM article, specifically this sentence, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." Please let me know if you wish to be included, or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thanks. (olive (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Confused

I'm confused why you'd add a report on TM research published in the popular media to one article, then in your next edit, a mere four minutes later, remove reference to views of TM research published in the popular media from another article. Do you think we should include discussions of TM research that have appeared in popular media or not?   Will Beback  talk  12:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using popular media as sources for discussion of research. I added the NY Times because there was already material from The Guardian. It seems important to adhere to WP:NPOV -- there are multiple points of view on the topic in the popular media. My preference, of course, would be to delete both. Feel free to reinstate the topic sentence I removed. But it seems odd, since there is now no information on research quality sourced to popular media. TimidGuy (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV would seem to require including the popularly expressed view of TM research. Do you think MEDRS overrides that core policy?   Will Beback  talk  14:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the policy or interpretation of policy, it should be applied consistently throughout the entire range of articles. For me that is the most important point.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello. You made a comment on this thread and I want to be sure that I understood correctly:

• Are you saying that this source should be eliminated per WP:SPS?
• It is another questionable source at the same article: . Is it unreliable too? Please express your opinion on the wp:rs/n thread (Iaaasi (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC))

I'm generally too busy to be on Misplaced Pages other than very early in the morning. Will respond then. TimidGuy (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Franklin coverup hoax

Hello, you seem to be a regular at WP:RSN . I would appreciate your opinion on the reliability of the Bryant source in the following discussion: Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Some TM research article that may be of interest to you

Hello Timid Guy, I know you have a strong interest in TM Research especially its relation to Science. Nova Religio has just published two articles on the role of Science in TM movement. I do not know whether you have access to these article but if you do not shoot me an Email with an Email address and I will forward them to you.

They are

• Roping Outsiders In Kathinka Frøystad; Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 14, No. 4 (May 2011), pp. 77-98
• Transcendental Meditation, Vedic Science and Science Scott Lowe; Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 14, No. 4 (May 2011), pp. 54-76

I would be more active in the TM topic area but Eastern religions have always been one of my weaknesses. Hope these sources are helpful. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 16:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much for the sources and for taking the time to pass them along. TimidGuy (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis at RSN

Hi! I just wanted to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation for your careful analysis and corresponding comments at RSN recently, concerning a thread I've contributed to extensively there. It's really quite generous to be willing to sort through so long a thread, and to comment with the obvious care and understanding of policy that you brought to the discussion. I'd expressed my thanks on that page, already, of course, but your effort and follow up seemed to me to merit a more personal note as well, so thanks! Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Since its been a dead thread for few days I thought you might like to know its been responded to.

  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian National Authority

Hello TimidGuy. Per User talk:EdJohnston#Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority I noticed you recently offered an opinion to two users at WP:RSN who were disagreeing about a source. Optimistically, I'm hoping that you might be willing to give further advice to these users. Unless they get a third party with some common sense who can advise them, I'm afraid that the article could wind up getting fully protected. Would you have an interest in helping, and if so could I suggest to them that they very briefly present their current disagreement on your talk page? If you are too busy, no response to this request is needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sparing some time. I think this might be to do with the other user's objections to some sources I've provided. First there was the statement from Curtis Doebbler that you commented on in the above-linked RS thread, now I think it's an article published by the Palestine News Network. I don't really see what the issue is, since they're not even being used to support a claim—the two entries concerned are marked as being "inconclusive" re their positions (i.e., sources are conflicting). Nightw 18:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I explained the problems with the generalizing source at the noticeboard page - it is dubious from the beginning, and it was later confirmed by official sources that the generalizing claim is incorrect, so I don't see any reason to use such generalizing claim. Also, it's published on partisan website.
2. The PNN source that Night w mentions has multiple flaws - see here and here. Among these - it contains self-contradictions and contradictions with official sources (see linked discussions); its publisher states that it "strive to empower the Palestinian people and their cause"; and also - it doesn't mention Syria/Turkmenistan at all in the text (about the inaccurate map see linked discussions - it's entirely unreliable and contradicting the source itself and other sources) - so it can't be used to support Night w claim.
3. There is the general problem with usage of unofficial sources to support such special nuances such as the difference between "recognition of the State of Palestine - as declared in 1988" and "recognition of a Palestine state - PNA/Palestinian people right to establish such in the 1967 borders, as envisioned in the Oslo Accords" (the PNA has announced its intentions to do so in Sep2011 - - maybe this Sep2011-PNA-declared state will get somehow related to 1988-PNC-declared state SoP - we shall see). The nuance between the two positions is too subtle (see here 09:00, 22 January 2011 comment) - and we should strive to use the official press releases of governments - and quote verbatim what they recognize (e.g. for recognition by Zambia we should preferably get an official Zambian source). IMHO unofficial sources such as journalistic interpretations, blogs, etc. may be also mentioned, but these should be clearly differentiated from official sources (see proposals at sandboxA, sandboxB - these were prepared following discussions with another editor - analitic114). There are many examples where unofficial sources that contradict official sources - this only shows that we should take unofficial sources with great caution - because the nuances here are too subtle - and we should not rely primarily on interpretations, but only on not altered verbatim quotes. Alinor (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This is quite a lot to assimilate. Do I understand correctly that there are two countries at issue? Which are they? And could each of you tell me which category you feel these countries should be placed in? TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. They should both be left where they are: i.e., in the section specifically set up for cases where sources are conflicting and the situation is not clear. This is important especially in these two cases, since a) there is a great deal of contact between them and the Palestinians and, more importantly, b)there are no sources that state they do not recognise Palestine as a state. Nightw 12:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"there is a great deal of contact between them and the Palestinians " - for Syria sources show contact with the PLO, so it should be in that section. But we don't have source showing relations between Syria and SoP. For Turkmenistan we don't have sources for "great deal of contact" - actually the article doesn't have any source. What analitic114 found for Turkmenistan were only a few "congratulations" notes (see here) by PLO-EC chairman and PNA president (and no mention of SoP President - unlike in congratulations send by Abbas to other states). We don't have any source about established diplomatic relations, these congratulations amount to "contact" at most. And there is no "State of Palestine" there.

"there are no sources that state they do not recognise Palestine as a state." - are you saying that we should apply negative logic here and assume that all states recognize SoP and search sources for the opposite? I don't agree. If we don't have a source we should place the country in "no information about the positions of". Alinor (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you not do the opposite? You are not trying to move Syria into that group, you are instead trying to move it into the section for those that do not recognise Palestine and that only have relations with the PNA. Also, "no information about the positions of" is not an accurate description for either, since we have sources stating that they do recognise Palestine, and nothing that immediately contradicts this, so we're not applying "negative logic", we're in fact doing the opposite by taking sources that say they do recognise Palestine and using them cautiously due to absence of any official statement (hence their placement in the unclear section). Nightw 16:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't have sources stating that Syria and Turkemnistan recognize the State of Palestine. Can you give such quote? For Syria we have sources showing that it has PLO relations - that's why it goes into that group. For Turkmenistan we don't have even that. And one more on Syria - they are not accepting Palestinian passports . It would be very odd combination if at the same time Syria has diplomatic relations with SoP or had already recognized it. Alinor (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, two countries - Syria and Turkmenistan. The Doebler source that was dismissed at the noticeboard was used to keep them in the "inconclusive sources about recognition of the State of Palestine" section. For Turkmenistan we don't have any other source, that's why it should be moved to "no information about the position of" section. For Syria we have other sources (including from its official website) showing relations with the PLO, that's why it should be moved to "no recognition of the State of Palestine, but conducting relations with the PLO or PNA" section. That's what I think. Alinor (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So we have multiple sources stating that Syria does recognise the State and no source stating that it doesn't, and you want to move it out of the section which states "sources are conflicting on the position of" to the section for "no recognition of the State of Palestine"? Without a source that directly supports that claim, it's original research. Nightw 16:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So far we don't have any quote stating that Syria recognizes the State of Palestine. Let alone "multiple" sources. Are you still referring to the dismissed Doebler generalizing claim? Alinor (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

So does this correctly summarize your views?

Syria

-Alinor - not recognising -Nightw - conflicting or inconclusive

Turkmenistan

-Alinor - not recognising -Nightw - conflicting or inconclusive

How are recognizing and not recognising defined in this context? The country has explicitly and officially stated that they do or do not recognise the State of Palestine? TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. Recognising and not recognising depends on whether we have a source that states their governments have officially recognised/not recognised. Alinor, however, insists on the actual official documentation as a sourcing requirement, something contrary to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and not currently practised on similar pages (like International recognition of Kosovo), probably due to the lack of accessibility to such sources. Nightw 17:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Recognition of Kosovo is pretty straightforward - a state either recognizes Republic of Kosovo or it doesn't. In contrast, in the case here we have countries recognizing the State of Palestine (as declared in 1988) and countries recognizing "a Palestine state" right to exist/PNA intiative to establish such state (currently it's unrelated to SoP-1988) - see my 06:31, 15 April 2011 comment above. Diplomatic announcements often use obfuscated language, the difference in wording between the two positions is very subtle and as consequence journalistic reports and other unofficial secondary sources make mistakes. On most Misplaced Pages pages secondary sources are preferred - because they allow the content to be distanced from the POV of the primary source (e.g. a company claiming "our product is one of the best" and a secondary source stating "it's good, but there are others that are better"). But in this case the main topic is exactly that - the position (POV) of each state - we have to show what the state official sources say - not how somebody else interprets what they say (as this adds a layer with potential mistakes).

I don't say that we don't use secondary sources - I say that it should be clearly marked what information comes from official sources of each one state and what information comes from unofficial sources. And of course in cases with contradiction between official sources and unofficial sources we take the official ones only. When there is no official source - we rely on the unofficial (marked as such) until we find an official source.

I don't say that we use only "actual official documentation" - we have few full quotes (or even full scans - with signatures of presidents and everything) of the official documents for establishing relations, etc. and these are the best sources in such cases, but I don't say that we should use only such sources. I say that we should use information that's published on the official websites of the states - that's what I mean by "official source" - this includes websites of MFA, President, Government, etc. - press releases about recognition/relations, lists of embassies/ambassadors, press releases about embassies/ambassadors, etc. Alinor (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And in the cases of Syria and Turkmenistan - we have neither official nor unofficial sources stating that they recognize SoP. On the contrary - all circumstantial indications in the sources that we have are that they don't recognize it. Night w, please provide a quote stating that Syria/Turkmenistan recognize the State of Palestine, if you have such to support your claim. Alinor (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. All of the points stated are very helpful. So let's look at each country in turn. Let's start with Syria. Could you provide the links to the evidence? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The only sources that relate to the position of both states in question are Curtis Doebbler, who stated: "The 21 other states of the Arab League , for example, already recognise Palestine as a state. So too do the 56 other member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) ."; and the Palestine News Network, which published an article which claimed that "all but three of Asia's 53 countries—Japan, South Korea, and Israel being the key holdouts" had recognised Palestine. It also attached a map in which both states in question were shown as recognising. Nightw 09:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The generalizing claim that all AL/OIC member states recognize SoP was doubtful from the beginning (AL/OIC as organizations recognize SoP - but we don't know if decisions for SoP acceptance were taken unanimously and even if they were this doesn't mean that each AL/OIC member individually recognizes SoP) and was proven wrong by the Government of Guyana, who recognized SoP in 2011, years after the Doebler generalizing claim. This is discussed at large on the FR of PNA page and at the noticeboard. Not to mention that he doesn't mention Syria or Turkmenistan at all - it's just a generalizing claim. Also, specifically for Syria and Turkmenistan this claim isn't supported (if we don't say simply "is contradicted") by the official Syria source (showing PLO mission instead of SoP embassy) and by source showing non-acceptance of Palestinian passports) and by the official Turkmenistan sources (showing official congratulations notes from PLO/PNA, but not from SoP - unlike Cameroon and others where such documents are on behalf of all three - SoP,PLO,PNA).

For the PNN article see point2 of my 06:31, 15 April 2011 comment above. It's totally unreliable, including the map that among other contradictions colors French Guyana differently from France. This article also doesn't mention Syria and Turkmenistan. There are some vague phrases about 'key holdouts Israel, Japan, South Korea' (are there more, non-key holdouts?) and unknown numbers such as "53 Asian states" (can someone count 53 states in Asia? I can't find that much). The article is full of such contradictions and mistakes (for example it also contradicts Guyana official source). And its publisher does "strive to empower the Palestinian people and their cause".

For other states we find various sources, official and/or unofficial, but for these two - even after much efforts - we can't find anything reliable to support the thesis "Syria/Turkmenistan recognize the State of Palestine" and the official sources we have imply the opposite. Alinor (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I have emailed the Syrian office related to Palestine and asked whether Syria recognizes the State of Palestine. Will be interesting to see if we get a response. Thanks for your comments and explanations. I agree with Alinor that those aren't the best sources. But I don't understand how we can definitively state that Syria doesn't recognize Palestine without having a source that says it directly. It seems like placing Syria in the recognition category implies that such a source exists. It appears that the situation is unclear, with no official statement either way. Maybe the category heading could be "Unclear — no official statement regarding recognition of the State of Palestine available." What do you think? TimidGuy (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a category "no information about the position of" (where Turkmenistan goes - see here), but there are listed states that don't have any relations with PLO, PNA, SoP - for these that we have source showing PLO/PNA relations we place them in "PLO/PNA relations, but no recognition of the State of Palestine". I think Syria should go there unless we have a source stating that it recognizes SoP. Alinor (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, thanks for going to the trouble. The section it's under now is entitled, "Conflicting or inconclusive sources regarding the recognition of the State of Palestine declared in 1988". Is this adequate, or would you suggest something else? Nightw 09:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no source about recognition of SoP remaining (inconclusive or not; and there are no conflicting sources - actually there aren't any sources remaining) - the two you gave above (one of them a new one, not part of the article so far) are unreliable and inadequate to support such claim. So, Syria can't be placed in this section. And the assertion that "we can't place it in 'PLO/PNA relations, but no recognition of SoP'" applies to the other states listed in this section too - for most of them we don't have a negative source "X doesn't recognize SoP". States rarely issue such statements anyway. They issue statements of the positive type - "X recognizes Y" (and then, they go into the "recognizes SoP" sections - for official or unofficial sources). Syria is not different from Eritrea, Belize, Papua New Guinea and others in the section "PLO/PNA relations, but no SoP recognition". Alinor (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm, sorry, I don't have much time today. Thanks for your comments. I took a very brief glance at the Sandbox version, and my quick impression was that it's too involved, and not reader friendly. It feels like there are two many categories, and with the added color coding, it's hard to assimilate. I wish we could do a simple tweak to the existing page, especially since you seem to be agreed on the categorization of every country except for Syria and Turkmenistan. TimidGuy (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with unofficial sources isn't solved in the existing page. Anyway SandboxB has only 1 section more than the existing page - and colors can be easily removed, if needed. You can also check SandboxA which utilizes the existing article sections, but adds colors to distinguish official from unofficial sources. Of course - more suggestions for different arrangements also based on the existing page are welcome. Alinor (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting challenge. I'm starting to feel that part of the difficulty may be that this article is, in a sense, presenting original research, in that it relies on Misplaced Pages editors interpreting sources and making fine distinctions regarding whether it's an official source, whether it's a vague or clear reference, etc. It's an editor's observation that there's no official source, for example, but we shouldn't be making our own observations, right? Another consideration is whether it's appropriate for an editor to distinguish whether a source is official or not. Misplaced Pages policy simply stipulates reliable secondary sources. If a high quality secondary source clearly states that a country recognizes the state of Palestine and presents solid evidence for that, do we, as editors, have a right to deprecate that as unofficial? I'm just sort of brainstorming here, but the problem seems systemic — and therefore prone to dispute. And the solution may be simplification, and Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines may help with that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable unofficial sources are hard to distinguish from unreliable ones in this case (the detail between "a Palestine state" and "the State of Palestine" is too subtle), that's why IMHO it's better to distinguish between official (published on state websites) and unofficial (published elsewhere). This may not be the common arrangement across Misplaced Pages (stating where the source comes from), but it's needed in this particular case IMHO. And after all - there is WP:IAR. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I did some searching on G.books:

• This one discusses the ambition of a "Greater Syria".
• This one discusses Syria's non-acceptance of PA travel documents, which could simply be put down to the fact that Syria doesn't recognise the PNA.
• This one says what we're looking for but it's published in 1990, and this one is speaking retrospectively.

So I'm not sure what to do. Perhaps it's best left in the "conflicting sources" section with a couple of these added, or maybe just wait until September...? Found nothing on Turkmenistan not recognising. Nightw 01:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these. And they highlight another challenge -- knowing whether the information is current. I really admire the work you guys have done and hope that we can resolve this in a way that is satisfactory to both of you and that's in accord with policies and guidelines. And I'm still inclined to think that there's some way we can simplify or name the categories as a solution.TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Night w, the sources you found about Syria state that it doesn't recognize SoP. Why should we place it in "conflicting sources"? There are no conflicting sources - only such that show non-recognition. So it should be in "PLO relations, but no SoP recognition". For Turkmenistan we don't have anything, so it should be in "no information about the position of" (like many other states that we don't have information about).

About the date of the sources - the Syria ministry source (showing a PLO mission and no SoP embassy) is a much more recent one - and doesn't contradict these books showing no SoP recognition.

I think that we can reduce interpretations on our side if we report what the sources say - e.g. to have separate groups for recognition of "a Palestine state" and "the State of Palestine". So, we will avoid making interpretation what this means. See for example here (coloring can be removed/reduced if needed). Alinor (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Have just spent spent some time reading the article and familiarizing myself with the issue. Will be back tomorrow. I don't understand the difference between State of Palestine and Palestinian State. I don't understand why the UNESCO document is the seemingly the source for "official sources." TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Answers: There isn't one, and it isn't. Alinor's workpage is an OR mess, in my opinion. That's why it isn't the article, which is what we should be focusing on. Nightw 03:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the insight that Alinor brings to this, and his understanding of the nuances of diplomacy. I think we can come up with a workable solution. Hope to hear from Alinor. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The UNESCO document is source only for the date - in the other columns you can find the official sources showing "State of Palestine" recognition/relations. Most of them don't include dates, so that's what the UNESCO document is utilized for. In some cases the official sources contradict the UNESCO document (such as giving a different date) - then the official source date is used. The UNESCO document is submitted by a few states on behalf of SoP and if we have an official source from a state listed in UNESCO document as recognizing SoP as of date X, then obviously we should rely on the official source and not on a date given by the few 3rd party states submitting the UNESCO document. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Recognition/relations with the "State of Palestine" as declared in 1988 by the PNC of the PLO means that the state in question accepts PLO-EC (the SoP provisional government) appointed persons as its ambassadors, treats them as "equal" to any other sovereign state ambassador, etc.

Recognition of "a Palestine state" most commonly means that the state in question is supportive of the goal of Palestinian people to establish a state (along 1967 or other borders) in the future, based on the PNA administrative structures. This is also envisioned in the Oslo Accords signed by PLO, Israel, USA, Russia.

There are many indications that in Sep2011 the PLO will take some actions at the UN trying to get some UNGA resolution in support of establishing a PNA-based state. What will be the exact nature of this resolution (and what the enforcement options would be in case Israel objects) is of course unclear yet. Whether this future PNA-based "a Palestine state" will be merged somehow with 1988-declared-SoP is also unclear yet - there are some indications that the PLO will make some internal re-arrangements before Sep2011 - these may be limited to Hamas-Fatah reconciliation inside the PNA or to Hamas joining the PLO or to constitutional SoP-PNA merger. We shall see. Anyway, at this stage recognition of the State of Palestine shows more engagement and commitment than recognition of "a Palestine state" - and I don't agree that we lump these two together by our own decision. We should show what sources say - whether it's about SoP or "a Palestine state" - this should be reflected in the article. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Night w, I don't see any OR in the SandboxB version - acutally it sticks more closely to the sources. The OR is in the interpretation that recognition of SoP as declared in 1988 and recognition of "a Palestine state" in general are the same thing. This is the problem that SandboxB tries to solve. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful, as always. Thanks much. I don't have much time today. Will look at this more tomorrow. Alinor, have you addressed my comment above? -- part of the difficulty may be that this article is, in a sense, presenting original research, in that it relies on Misplaced Pages editors interpreting sources and making fine distinctions regarding whether it's an official source, whether it's a vague or clear reference, etc. It's an editor's observation that there's no official source, for example, but we shouldn't be making our own observations, right? TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, SandboxB doesn't say "there is no official source" - it basically either says "here are official sources about X" or "here are unofficial sources about X" (and this is not 'static' - we constantly update it - yesterday analitic114, an editor who have found many sources so far, found official sources for Benin and Sudan). In addition it doesn't make OR interpretations and reports what the sources say - either "recognition/relations with the State of Palestine" or "recognition of a Palestine state". OR is used in the opposite proposal stipulating (wrongly) that these two have the same meaning. About the 'ambiguous, conflicting or inconclusive' sources - both proposals have such section - you can see that some sources are such - they can't be arranged in any 'clear cut' category - and so that we don't have constant edit wars moving states back and forth - we have a 'middle ground'/'gray zone' section with these. They are not so much and hopefully we will find better sources over time (we have already for some of the states). Alinor (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As always, I appreciate your thoughtful replies and patience with my lack of familiarity with this. I have to admit that the current article seems so much simpler, and easier to assimilate. I find Sandbox B difficult. We can resolve the OR question at the noticeboard. But first, if you'll bear with me, I need more clarification. In the current article does the category "Recognising the State of Palestine ..." also include countries that recognize "a Palestinian State"? Is your motivation, Alinor, to separate these out? If so, why couldn't one simply rename the category "Recognising the State of Palestine or a Palestinian state"? TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging recognition of the "State of Palestine" and "a Palestine state" is wrong, because these are two very different positions. Almost the entire world supports to a high degree the idea of creating "a Palestine state" by the PNA, many have issued official statements about that - actually I don't know a single example of state that doesn't support the PNA initiative to strengthen its institutional capacity so that it can become the administrative foundation of a Palestine state in the future (nominally even Israel supports that - it's envisioned in the Oslo Accords it has signed with the PLO, USA and Russia). The State of Palestine is a different entity - it's not related to the PNA (yet, but maybe soon there will be some SoP-PNA relationship established) - it's a state declared in 1988 that doesn't have control over any territory (besides embassies, etc.) Control over permanently populated territory is considered by some highly important statehood requirement (see here) and lacking it is a defining feature of SoP and any potential future PNA-based-state (assuming that Israel occupation continues). That's why official diplomatic recognition of SoP or official diplomatic relations with SoP shows much higher level of commitment than whatever level of support for future undefined "a Palestine state".

SoP is a currently 'existing' (de jure, without de facto control over territory) specific state - that declared in 1988 by the PNC who also has given the task of performing provisional government functions to the PLO-EC; the PCC has appointed a president of SoP (see here), PLO-EC and the SoP president have established official diplomatic relations with many states around the world in the name of SoP, there are SoP embassies with ambassadors, there are foreign non-resident ambassadors accredited to SoP.

'a Palestine state' is something much different - it doesn't have any practical effects besides increasing the political arguments of PLO/PNA officials and supporting the Palestinian people statehood cause in general. It isn't about a specific state. Recognition of 'a Palestine state' means recognition of the right of the Palestinian people/PLO to establish their own state (e.g. confirmation of Palestinians' right of self-determination, sovereignty and statehood to be eventually achieved when Israel occupation ends). It is expected that the PNA-institutions will be utilized as foundation for this future state (and they get financial and technical support from the UN, EU and many states around the world so that they are prepared to assume this role and so that they have sufficient administrative capacity to perform all state and governmental functions).

Lumping the two concepts together is misleading (SYNTH/OR?). So yes, one of the things I propose is that we somehow note the difference between these two - either by section, by color or otherwise. So that it's clear what sources say for state X - whether it recognizes SoP or 'a Palestine state'. The other thing is the problem with distinguishing between unofficial sources (journalistic/analyst reports, blogs, yellow pages directories, etc.) and official sources (like government websites).

Currently we have three proposals - current article, sandboxA, sandboxB and we can also do a sandboxB-without-colors. In all of these the world states/entities are arranged in a list divided in categories depending on their recognition/relations with the three Palestinian entities - SoP, PLO, PNA.

• There is a group of states/entities about which we don't have any sources. CurrentArticle titles that "The PLO and the PNA have no official relations with the following states and entities, which additionally do not recognise the State of Palestine", but I think nobody will object using the sandboxA/B title "There is no information available pertaining to the official position of the following states and entities" instead.
• All proposals have a "Not recognising the State of Palestine declared in 1988, but conducting official relations with the PLO and PNA" group.

And then we come to the problematic groups. For the remaining states we have various sources about recognition - official/unofficial, explicit/inconclusive&ambiguous, SoP/'a Palestine state' - multiple combinations are possible here (e.g. official ambiguous, unofficial ambiguous, unofficial explicit, official explicit, etc.) - let's see how each of the proposals arranges these:

CurrentArticle - only two sections - separating explicit/inconclusive&ambiguous, but lumping together unofficial and official, SoP and 'a Palestine state'

• Recognising the State of Palestine declared in 1988, or establishing diplomatic relations with it
• Conflicting or inconclusive sources regarding the recognition of the State of Palestine declared in 1988

SandboxA - like CurrentArticle, but adding colors across both groups so that three color types are established (explicit official SoP, official vague SoP or official 'a Palestine state', unofficial regardless of explicit/vague or SoP/'a Palestine state'):

• no official source confirming recognition of the State of Palestine
• official source only with vague reference to recognition of the state
• remaining without coloring - these are the official explicit SoP

SandboxB - three sections according to the colors of SandboxA (colors can remain or be removed):

• Official sources explicit regarding recognition of the State of Palestine declared in 1988, or establishing diplomatic relations with it
• Official, but ambiguous, conflicting or inconclusive sources regarding recognition of the State of Palestine declared in 1988 or recognition of "a Palestinian state"
• Unofficial sources regarding recognition of the State of Palestine declared in 1988 or recognition of "a Palestinian state"

The reasoning for sandboxB third group is that when the source is unofficial it's an interpretation thus the distinction between SoP and 'a Palestine state' is lost, thus all states/entities where we have unofficial sources only are in one group. The middle group is made of states/entities where we have an official source, but with vague wording (ambiguous&inconclusive) about SoP (e.g. mentioning SoP in such a way that it isn't obvious whether they 'recognize' it or 'acknowledge/know' that it was declared, but haven't taken the decision to recognize it yet); in the same group go official statements about recognition of 'a Palestine state' (maybe we should utilize the colors to distinguished these instead of the current sandboxB coloring). The first group is made of the states/entities where we have official source explicit about SoP recognition/relations. Alinor (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Alinor, for your clear, and patient, explanation. I hope to hear Nightw's view. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Content noticeboard

Hi Ocaasi. At RSN Talk you mentioned in passing a content noticeboard. I wasn't aware of that. Could you point me to it? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Content_noticeboard. It's not oft used, and might get merged soon. Cheers, Ocaasi 12:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Goldman 1991 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGoldman1991 (help)