Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MelanieN (talk | contribs) at 17:09, 9 June 2016 (→Stanford University article is 100% glowing PR-advertisement). 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.

Islamic State war crimes & POV tag

Article: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

Perceived problems:

• 1) The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Jaysh al-Islam militants have been accused of using civilians and prisoners as human shields. This information has been repeatedly removed by User:My very best wishes and User:Iryna Harpy see diff, diff, diff, diff. – link to discussion: . I think this is violation of WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE.

• 2) The "neutrality dispute" notice reads: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I have placed the notice on the article "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" on May 4 (diff), at which point an edit war began. The neutrality notice was removed by User:Volunteer Marek (diff) and User:Iryna Harpy (diff). It was restored by User:EtienneDolet (diff) and User:Dorpater (diff).

Proposed changes (see diff):

"Civil rights activist told ARA News that "ISIS militants prevent the people of Manbij and Jarablus from leaving their hometowns despite the fierce airstrikes by Russian warplanes". The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Turkish-supported Jaysh al-Islam rebels were accused of using civilian residents of towns, Alawite civilians and captured Syrian soldiers as human shields."

References used in the proposed text:

• "Islamic State digging in in Raqqa, hiding in civilian shadows, amassing human shields". The Japan Times. 18 November 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) – "The fighters are hiding in civilian neighborhoods and preventing anyone from fleeing, activists said. ... Activists from Raqqa say the northern Syrian city’s estimated 350,000 residents are gripped by fear, rattled by powerful Russian and French airstrikes that shake the city daily"

• "ISIS extremists use Syrian civilians as human shields against Russian strikes". ARA News. 24 January 2016. – "ISIS militants prevent the people of Manbij and Jarablus from leaving their hometowns despite the fierce airstrikes by Russian warplanes," civil rights activist Issa al-Raei told ARA News in Manbij. "The ISIS terror group is using those civilians as human shields against the Russian airstrikes," al-Raei said.

• "Russia in Syria: Assad loyalists paraded in cages through Damascus by rebels trying to stop air strikes". The Independent. 3 November 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) – "The militants, one of the most powerful rebel factions operating in the Douma suburb of Damascus, have been videoed driving at least 100 cages around residential areas on pick-up trucks to pressure the government to call off Russian airstrikes, according to the anti-government Shaam news agency. Air strikes have routinely targeted Douma and other neighbourhoods in the Eastern Ghouta region of the country while rebel groups have retaliated by sending rockets in government controlled areas of the city."

• "Syrian rebels use caged hostages as human shields against airstrikes". International Business Times. 3 November 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) – "Hundreds of people believed to be from President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite community have been put in cages and paraded through besieged Damascus suburbs, apparently to deter Syrian and Russian aircraft from further bombing the city of Douma."

Related Articles:

Gaza War (2008–09)#Civilians as human shields

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Human shields

Libyan civil war (2011)#Human shields

Thank you for any help you are able to provide. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• As formulated above or here your text is not about Russian military, but about crimes by ISIS, which belongs to other pages we have. Note that the title of your thread here was "Islamic State war crimes". Yes, exactly, this is about Islamic State war crimes and therefore should be included in appropriate page(s). Simply noticing that "during strikes by Russian aviation people were prevented from leaving their homes by ISIS" in the end of a paragraph somewhere might be OK, but you need a consensus for this on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Throwing together a bunch of SYNTH diffs and casing aspersions about other editors (yet again) is not the same as actually presenting a case for inclusion. Firstly, in the sequence of things, the matter had been discussed and resolved by 17 April: a month prior your slapping the tag on the article in this dedicated talk page section here. Suddenly, unsatisfied with the fact that your content had been rejected as being the WP:SYNTH that it is, you tag the article on 14 May and try to justify it by adding another complaint on the talk page thread a few hours later on 15 May.

Secondly, you've also misrepresented Étienne Dolet's rationale for the POV tag which was over a different issue altogether which was resolved within an hour of discussion on the talk page with his own removal of the tag. If any of these other editors believe this 'human shield' content to be of consequence, why have none of them joined in the discussion on the talk page? The last comment by me was left on the relevant thread on 17 May. No one else has bothered responding. You suddenly picked up on it again on 21 May and have started a thread here because...? There's hardly a lack of editors involved in the article, so there's no justification for using the NPOVN other than your refusing to drop the stick. That's not what the NPOVN is for because there is no ongoing dispute over your proposed SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• the matter has NOT been resolved by 17 April.

• Volunteer Marek removed the POV tag on 2 May (diff) I've restored the neutrality notice on 4 May (diff).

• the POV tag was restored by 3 editors (not counting Étienne Dolet) - me, Dorpater and Dbdb (diff).

• I have started a thread here because... WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE.

• Another unresolved NPOV issue is WP:POVTITLE. See links to discussion - , . -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This thread is about the WP:UNDUE content you want to add about the use of 'human shields' as pertaining to the article in question. It has been made clear to you that this is an ISIS war crimes/human rights issue, not the misunderstood SYNTH you've been trying to get into the article. Per MVBW, "Simply noticing that "during strikes by Russian aviation people were prevented from leaving their homes by ISIS" in the end of a paragraph somewhere might be OK, but you need a consensus for this on article talk page." Instead of discussing this rationally on the talk page, you've thrown various issues into the pot. Please don't use this noticeboard as a general complaints department board about all of things you don't like across articles. The ISIS business has been dealt with: it was not a tactic used specifically as insurance against attacks by the Russian military. Your other content complaints are being discussed on the talk pages of the relevant articles, so prolonging this here is inappropriate. You are explicitly using this board to point your finger at specific editors as being 'culprits'. If that is your belief, it's an issue for the ANI, not for the NPOVN, the RSN, or any boards dealing with content issues. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Toby72, I'm not sure what assistance you're requesting. The matter has been discussed to a stalemate on the talk page, right? In terms of Wiki politics, how can this be moved forward? I'm new here, this question is coming from a naive point of view, I have no idea how such matters go from here.

As to the complaint that your argument is synthetic -- I would begin by asking, why is the information relevant to the article? The obvious answer would be, that the Russians might well have been doing their best to avoid civilian casualties, and ISIS is primarily responsible for any casualties that have occurred, because of their use of human shields. If this is correct, then including the information would not be UNDUE WEIGHT, but rather it's essential for NPOV balance. But, is my argument really synthetic? Have one or more of the sources specifically mentioned this reasoning? If so, that could be cited and quoted, avoiding the charge of SYNTH. It seems to me that this so-called 'synthesis' is as obvious as WP:BLUE, but that's just me.JerryRussell (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Suicide bag

There are multiple POV issues currently being discussed on the talkpage, but I'll start with one: Talk:Suicide bag#Chabot is a euthanasia expert. The statement in question is in the History section of the article. It says, Dutch psychiatrist Boudewijn Chabot, in his 2015 book Dignified Dying, calls the suicide bag with inert gas method "rapid, painless and safe", which is sourced to a self-published book by Chabot. According to Alexbrn, this is an NPOV issue as opposed to RS since the self-published source is reliable source for Chabot's own statements, and the question is if including controversial material from Chabot's self-published work is giving due/undue weight to his POV. Have I given enough context? —PermStrump(talk) 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been involved in some of these discussions sporadically for a few weeks. This suicide method, which originated in the 1990s, is called quick and painless by lots of sources – but only by people who support "right to die" ideas. "Anti-suicide" people (including major media outlets, which closely adhere to guidance from suicide prevention experts when writing about the subject) don't use any potentially positive/attractive words to describe any suicide method, because they're concerned that any positive description will increase the number of deaths.

So the result (to use a different example) is that a right-to-die source will say that jumping off a 200-foot-high (60 m) bridge is quick and certain death, an anti-suicide source will say that it's painful, that lots of people miss the water and land on the rocks near the shore, that nearly all survivors regretted their choices after they leaped, and that making sure you didn't survive will risk the lives of a search and rescue team, and a first-year physics student will tell you that you'll hit the water in three and a half seconds. They're all "correct".

The fundamental disagreement about this information at this article isn't whether Chabot says it, or even whether Chabot is an expert (he certainly meets the minimum requirements at SPS). The fundamental disagreement is really about whether the article should be allowed to contain words that are used regularly by basically all "right to die" advocates when they describe this method, but which are firmly opposed by all "anti-suicide" advocates.

And just in case: I don't think this is a simple case of yelling "NOTCENSORED". This requires some thought. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

To my humble opinion, the edits of User:CFCF and User:Permstrump are deeply disturbing and worrying. Both editors are massively waving with guidelines and essays and the like. When they get too much opposition against one argument, they swiftly move to the next. And in all cases they first start deleting in the article before being forced to the talkpage. To my opinion, both gentlemen are pushing their own opinions. The Banner talk 21:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Iranian diplomats kidnapping (1982)

Some editors have raised concerns that Iranian diplomats kidnapping (1982) has a POV slant. At the very least, it takes some stances on the legitimacy of certain claims, and there are several instances where it uses words to avoid. Could an experienced editor who isn't afraid to wade into the topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict take a look? See this DYK nomination for an idea of what specific concerns were raised. Thanks. ~ Rob 12:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The poor grammar doesn't help; it was likely written by an Iranian who hadn't read WP:NOTAMEMORIAL142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And while we're at it, the title needs to be re-worked and the page for Ahmad Motevaselian needs to be reviewed in the same fashion at the kidnapping article; it reads like an Iranian press report was run through google translate one too many times.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd ALSO like to point out that the article for Ahmad Motevaselian says he was there as the leader of a commando squad, so to say that he was a diplomat in the kidnapping is incredibly dishonest to the point of being propaganda.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

LGBT issue at Catholic school

Multiple users in different places have requested review of information about LGBT issues at a Catholic school. I am asking for comment from the following places -

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Schools
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

The article is Marian High School (Bloomfield Township, Michigan). Not all users have found their way to the talk page, but there are requests for comment from multiple people. Diverse perspectives would be welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Derogatory/Pejorative Cultural Slur Used In Wiki Article.

The following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Caro%E2%80%93Kann_Defence contains a pointless, derogatory, offensive cultural slur that serves no purpose whatsoever other than to belittle the group in question. It in no way serves any instructional, historic, or factual function.

Specifically, the authors/maintainers of the Caro-Kann Defense Wiki page (a chess opening) refer to a certain line that is sometimes played as the "Hillbilly Attack," stating that the line is used by weak players. "Hillbilly Attack" is not an "official" name for the line and the word "hillbilly" is nowhere to be found in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO). "Hillbilly" is a derogatory term. It is not "cute," it is not "harmless," it is an insult directed toward Americans of Southern heritage (whether it is specific to those in Appalachian regions is irrelevant).

The line in question would more accurately - and appropriately - be called the "2.Bc4 Attack" because that is the nomenclature of the move in question. I have edited the page but others insist on keeping the offensive and purposeless pejorative as is. It is nothing more than a derogatory gouge at Southerners, period.

I submit that there is no place in the lexicon of chess - or Misplaced Pages - for spiteful, pointless, derogatory nonsense like this. Other cultures/sub-cultures reserve the right to stand up against bigotry of this type, and my culture is no less worthy of respect than any other.

There is NOTHING UNREASONABLE in asking that the the line in question be referred to by a more accurate and civilized term. No one is going to object to the far more accurate and appropriate "2.Bc4 Attack." E1e10p (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored. There are no "official" names for any chess openings, FIDE has long given up trying to regulate opening names. Rightly or wrongly this is what reliable sources call the opening. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The real question would seem to be whether reliable sources on chess refer to it as the Hillbilly Attack, or at least say that it is sometimes called that. Do they? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

See google book search. John L. Watson is a respected chess author. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I must have played it once—and probably lost with it. Seems to be a sufficiently standard term. I have added the Watson source, and another one. - DVdm (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: ah, I just noticed now that you have removed the mention of "ugly white openings". Ok, it looks like that's a Watson-only term—at least for now. No problem. - DVdm (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding G4S

• Controversies_surrounding_G4S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm bringing this here to get more eyes on this page, and for a discussion on whether a "controversies" page is appropriate. It seems like a well-wirtten and well-sourced article, but I'm not sure if the existence of a "contoversies about company X page" is allowed or desired. PLease use ping in your replies if possible. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Couple of problems, Group 4 have a huge history of corrupt/fradulent practices, ineptitude, scandals etc that have all got major press time. There is an argument there that due to the amount of controversies they have been involved in, it should constitute the majority of the article - but putting them all in the article directly would bloat it. So there are a couple of options, pick a few and argue endlessly on the talk page over which controversies are most notable, or spin it off to a separate article. Generally yes, you wouldnt have a entirely separate page dedicated to controversies, but with some companies its the easier to manage option. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV: Religious Views of Adolph Hitler

I acted exactly in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies, WP:RS and WP:RSOPINION in Religious views of Adolf Hitler, the User:Ian.thomson reverted them. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler&action=history John Smith Doe, The Person (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User completely ignored the blindingly obvious consensus against his suggested changes at Talk:Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.2C_before_and_during_leadership.2C_was_Christian. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What was in the article violated policies of Misplaced Pages. John Smith Doe, The Person (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you are just WP:Wikilawyering. Authoritative academic works are not opinion pieces, and you're censoring citations that support claims that don't fit your well-established bias. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You should read the policies I cited. John Smith Doe, The Person (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have. You should, too. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.", WP:RS/AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith Doe, The Person (talk • contribs) 10:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

And I repeated citations from later on in the article that affirm there's an academic consensus accept that what Hitler said in private (against Christianity) reflects his own beliefs. You've taken those out, damaging the rest of the article. So between you ignoring the talk page consensus, you're now repeating the same argument after the situation has changed and removing cited material that doesn't fit with your established bias. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.", does it DIRECTLY say that in the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith Doe, The Person (talk • contribs) 10:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Source 2 is used because of:

@Ian.thomson: Why did you pick this? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Reading the link to Source 2, it does start out by saying that "one aspect of our understanding of Nazism remains largely uncontested: the belief that ... Nazism itself could not be described as a Christian movement." So that quote doesn't address Hitler's specific religious beliefs at all. But then, author Steigmann-Gall goes on to say that he, for one, isn't buying this 'academic consensus', but that he is going to challenge it by showing that many Nazi Party elite members were, in fact, Christian.

Google books preview of Source 1 is here: I sure can't find any statement about near-unanimous scholarly views on Hitler's religion, neither at the cited p. xiv, nor on any other page by searching for the word 'Christian'.

The Wiki article states: "Steigmann-Gall concluded that Hitler was religious at least in the 1920s and early 1930s, citing him as expressing a belief in God, divine providence, and Jesus as an Aryan opponent of the Jews."

So Steigmann-Gall does argue here that Hitler held Christian views, albeit far from orthodox.

Here is an RS confirming that there is a lively and ongoing scholarly debate on whether Hitler was an unorthodox Christian who believed in an Aryan Christ who was an opponent to the Jews: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/18/3480312.htm JerryRussell (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I admit that, due to trying to fix a broken cell phone at the time, I was rushing to grab what sources were available in the article. I grabbed the source that is used in the article to establish that the table-talks (where Hitler rather plainly refers to Christianity as an outside force) are generally accepted. Steigman-Gall admits that he's arguing against the consensus that the upper echelons of Nazism were either either unrelated or opposed to Christianity, which would establish consensus there. Looking now, that was not good work, but I was trying to shoo away someone who had started off by citing youtube blogs and who argued "Historians or people cherry-picked, aren't immune to errors, fallacies, biases (such as confirmation bias) or prejudice, so carefully examine facts by one's self and not by blindly following what's told or written to you. I prefer empirical evidence." In every other article I've dealt with, users who behave that way generally turn out to be cranks almost foundationally opposed to WP:NOR, who may use small changes to try and snowball their own views.

The ABC.net.au source is a reliable journalistic source and not an academic one. Journalistic sources sometimes engage in WP:GEVAL between popular but unacademic views and academic but unpopular views. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ian, in 2003, Steigmann-Gall set out to challenge the academic consensus which he says existed at the time. So did he succeed? Google Scholar turns up 183 citations to his book, and many reviews. Wiki already has an article on Richard Steigmann-Gall which includes links to reviews. Perusing some of this material, I would say there is no longer any academic consensus, if there ever was one. Based on a random sample, it appears that most reviews and citations agree that Steigmann-Gall showed that the Nazis believed in and promoted something they called 'positive Christianity', as opposed to 'negative Christianity' (by which the Nazis meant any traditional form of Christianity.) To the extent there's any remaining debate,it's whether 'positive Christianity' deserves to be called any form of Christianity. JerryRussell (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Bryce Dejean-Jones

The issue is with the paragraph describing his death. The current wording, insisted upon by User:Pmaster12 and inserted by him, says that Dejean-Jones "entered" the apartment where he was killed and then was attempting to "enter" the bedroom when he was shot. All of the sources describe the act of entering as either "kicking in the front door" or something close to that (rather than, say, opening the door with a key), and say that the resident shot through the bedroom door as Dejean-Jones was kicking at it/trying to break through it. See ,, . It seems to me that the manner of entering is an important aspect of this story and must be mentioned in this article, and that omitting such an important aspect creates a clear WP:WEIGHT problem. The article is currently posted on the main page via ITN, so this matter does need to be addressed quickly. Nsk92 (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, P's clearly a fan who wants to whitewash the situation to make it look like BD-J merely accidentally, innocently walked in and was shot dead unjustly an without reason. The sources clearly state that BD-J deliberately broke down the front door and the bedroom door - only then did the resident shoot him. P's claiming that 'entered' is the same thing as broke doors down and that BD-J just made an innocent error. Deliberately breaking in two doors isn't an accident - whoever's apartment he thought it was. P's also claiming that the method of entry is irrelevant. Jim Michael (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

NO, Jim Michael YOU ARE the individual that cares whether he's innocent or not. I told you numerous times that I could care less but people like you don't surprise me at all. I didn't not want to go this route but you continuing this whining about him smash in something which clear you have a personal feeling about this situation is why you are continuing to complain on how it's written or looks. A daily reader would understand the situation but people like you doesn't surprise me. You are just a brainwashed individual that cares about who's innocent and who's bad which that is irrelevant to this topic. Obvoiusly you Jim Michael have some personal bias about this situation what mess with your judgment. You Jim Michael keep on talking because it shows how ridiculous your getting. I don't understand how it got to this point but I know where I stand. Unfortunately all it takes one to go far. Pmaster12 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, the reader wants the truth, which is that he broke into the apartment, which is where he was shot dead and was why he was shot dead. It's very relevant and is reliably sourced. If you don't care, then stop whitewashing the article. You first claimed he didn't break in. Now you claim it's irrelevant and that entered means the same as broke in. Prior to hearing of his death, I had never heard of him or you, so you can't claim I have something against him or you. I'm not being biased; I'm describing in the article what the sources say happened. You're misleading the readers by making it sound like he didn't do anything wrong, when you know full well that he did. Jim Michael (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Oh, Oh, who says you need know about him to be bias. I never said you need to know about to be bias. You Jim Michael are the only one that I came across that is complaining about the wording when it's many different sources out there. You said he smashed in and over exaggerating this situation which many sources clearly does not say that. You Jim Michael are the one that cares whether he's innocent that why I said that you MUST have a personal bias about this situation. You don't need to know about this subject to have a personal bias. If you didn't have one. I would not have to keep going back and forth here. You Jim Michael complain whether he's innocent which that's irrelevant when you are adding information bout this topic. That's what I'm saying. Only people like you Jim Michael want every chance you get to whine about about innocent or guilt which that should never cross your mind when adding information to a situation especially like this one. I don't care about it you care cause you want to brianwash anybody that speaks about innocent or guilt and that's not your place to decide that. That's why I said you Jim Michael have personal bias about this situation. You started this. I keep telling you numerous times I could care less whether he's innocent or not. So stop bringing that up if you are not bias or have nothing personal about this subject. You are just individual that brainwashed fan that so concern about whether the subject is guilty or not which is why I'm not surprised. Just another fan looking for something to spread your personal feelings about. Pmaster12 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan; I guess you're a fan of his and/or his team, so you want to paint him as perfect. As I previously had never heard of him or his team, I'm in a good position to edit neutrally. I'm improving Misplaced Pages articles. You know that broke in is substantially different from, and more accurate than, entered. It's relevant fact that he broke into an apartment, and because of that was shot dead. Had he not broken in, he would not have been shot. You're the only person trying to cover up what he did by claiming he merely made an innocent mistake. If you don't care, stop whitewashing the article and ranting about it. Other editors agree with me that the relevant facts need to be stated in the article. No editors are agree with you on this matter. If someone kicked your front door in, then kicked your bedroom door in, would you say the intruder entered, or broke in? You'd say he broke in. If someone described him as having entered, you'd correct that person and say that he broke in. Jim Michael (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

See I don't care if editors agree with me or not. You Jim Michael care about being right. I don't care because it's neutral point of view so if you are looking for editors or users to agree with you so you can feel like your good about yourself. That's your thing. I don't care I'm not looking for that. I'm doing my best to put the appropriate information and improving the articles. Not on how it looks or whether he's innocent or not like I said on numerous times that's irrelevant. That's it. So let's get that out. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of his team that's why I said that your argument is kind of getting a little delusional. You bringing famdom just shows me how low you get to try to convince others but yourself that you are obviously looking for something here to gain. Like I said numerous times keep your personal feelings about this situation to yourself because if that's not bias editing. You Jim Michael are the only one here in the discussion that cares about innocence or guilt and trying to measure intent which I've said multiple times now. It's means the same thing just worded differently. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You're not being neutral or appropriate. You're deliberately misrepresenting what happened. Changing broke down the front door to entered it is not the same thing. If you really thought it meant the same thing, then you wouldn't have repeatedly changed it. Jim Michael (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm changing not because of you Jim Michael. I still think it's the same wording just worded differently. I changed it because of my earlier discussion with Nsk92. So I can finally get this subject resolved. Pmaster12 (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You know full well that broke in and entered are not the same thing. If you thought it was the same you wouldn't have repeatedly changed it to entered from broke in. You've only stopped doing that because Nsk and someone else opposed you. They only became involved because you kept whitewashing the article to make it look like BD-J didn't break in. If someone broke in to your apartment/house, would you say to police that the intruder "entered", or would you say that he broke in? Jim Michael (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The police would know what entering means. You Jim Michael know what enter means but you Jim Michael probably have a personal gain. Like I said before you Jim Michael are the only one that cares about the other irrelevant things. You are still trying to brainwash yourself and other editors that you don't understand the word enter means. I know you Jim Michael are smarter than that. I know you have your personal feelings about this situation while editors are the opposite the ones in this discussion. I could care less about the subject being innocent or guilt which that should not be in your mind when you are editing these articles especially something controversial like this if you were not bias. Otherwise you would not still be going on about this subject which to me this is a non issue. Pmaster12 (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You know that entered has a much broader meaning than broke in; most entries don't involve breaking in. Police wouldn't say, and didn't say, that BD-J merely entered. They, like the media, made it crystal clear that he broke in. Had he survived being shot, he'd have been arrested and charged with a crime. You say you don't care, and you think it's a non-issue. In that case, stop ranting about it and do some useful editing elsewhere. All the editors involved in this issue oppose you on this matter. Jim Michael (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me tell you something you are the one is ranting and raving about crime and the wording of this article. YOU Jim Michael ARE the one starting editing warring over something that's really a non-issue. That's what I'm saying. I'm going to tell you this again, hear me clearly cause you really are stretching this. I don't care if editors agree with me or not. You Jim Michael care about being right. I don't care because it's this is neutral point of view so if you are looking for editors or users to agree with you so you can feel like your good about yourself. That's your thing. If that makes you Jim Michael feel good go ahead. This is all about discussion. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

YOU NEED TO STOP ranting about innocence or guilt which that is irrelevant in these sources. YOU go somewhere else with that but don't start editing warring over something that's non issue. It's ok to disagree because that's what this noticeboard is about but turn this a edit war which you started. I'm the wrong editor for that. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You are the only one whining and complaining looking for agreement for your personal gain which that's not what this noticeboard is about it's about getting issues resolved. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You're not being neutral - that's the problem with your editing related to this article. If you think it's a non-issue, leave it alone. There's consensus that the article should say that BD-J broke into the apartment where he was shot dead. Jim Michael (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about me being neutral that's your problem you are trying to measure every editors intend that works your personal gain or feelings about this article because if that wasn't the case you would not be edit warring. My editing it means same just worded differently. You keep on going and going on how this article should make the subject look bad which that should not matter to you at all. Where Previous discussions are you care is how the subject looks in the article and all I said is that argument is irrelevant. That's it and this is resolved. Pmaster12 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Chris Kyle RfC

This might need a mulligan.

The question posted by the RfC is as follows:

How should the current news story regarding the question over Kyle's awards be presented in the article?

• via news reports mirroring The Interceptor, an online unreliable source;
• via the notation in Kyle's autobiography in addition to other reliable sources based on his DD-214.

In addition to the allegations of off-site canvassing, the text of this RfC is pathetic. Can an admin please step in here?142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"

We have been over it many times in the Talk page and getting nowhere, so I am seeking other opinions. At present]is written in the majority view which is to say: "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." (TIs being people who believe they are subject to covert targeting.) This assumes the psychiatric opinion as fact. However, there has been a significant Washington Post article on TIs, Mind Games, which, it seems to me, says that there may be something really happening to these people, that they may not be deluded. I would like to see the EH article incorporate what I see as the opinion of the Washington Post, which for starters would not have written such an article if they thought that TIs were entirely delusional, they would have written an article on a disturbing mass delusion. There are many points made in that article, and the two other similar articles cited, that support the view that, whilst the article should state the psychiatric opinion it should only state it as an opinion, not as a fact. I will go through the points from those three articles one at a time if that is necessary.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Stanford University article is 100% glowing PR-advertisement

When I tried to tag the article for improvements, I was reverted without any fixes. The article on June 7th 2016 reads like an admissions brochure. The article is well-referenced but all of the references point to positive achievements and don't even try to give any kind of a balanced view. There's no mention of how Stanford failed to release the mugshot of its student rapist or any criticism whatsoever.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you ever pause to think you may be coming to that article with an agenda? Every campus has had rapes, many resulting in well publicized cases. Colleges and universities, for the most part, contain mostly material about what they are, their history, faculty, alumni, things that are not inherently negative. Their existence and notability is mostly about things that people would consider positive. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to catalog crimes and other negative incidents associated with places and institutions, but rather to distill the substance out of the reliable sources relevant to the topic. The negative stuff gets put there, like any other content, if it is relevant to the subject's notability, of due weight, well sourced, non-POV, is better described there than other articles, and so on. By the way, drive-by-tagging of prominent, well-watched articles is generally frowned on and usually gets reverted, especially if done by editors new to the article who get disgruntled at one thing or another and have not let a discussion run its course on the page and attempted other content resolution steps first. And especially the Advert tag, which is completely misapplied here. You're just pooping on the article, not making a legitimate claim that the article was written by an advertising agency. Though I do see that you've made some bad faith accusations on the talk page about the editors being Stanford alumni. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The rape case called my attention to the article initially. But this is not about the rape case. But when I read the article, it's entirely positive, no negatives, a glowing brochure, and this can happen when all of the contributors have a vested interest (a conflict of interest, because that happens to be their alma mater. There's no mention of the firing of H. Bruce Franklin, a tenured professor opposed to the Vietnam war. Look at these statements:

"...The university is also one of the top fundraising institutions in the country, becoming the first school to raise more than a billion dollars in a year ... Stanford's academic strength is broad with 40 departments in the three academic schools that have undergraduate students and another four professional schools.... and companies founded by Stanford alumni generate more than $2.7 trillion in annual revenue, equivalent to the 10th-largest economy in the world .... It is also one of the leading producers of members of the United States Congress...." (okay, that is a criticism) ...The Stanford University Libraries (SUL) hold a collection of more than 9.3 million volumes, nearly 300,000 rare or special books, 1.5 million e-books, 2.5 million audiovisual materials, 77,000 serials, nearly 6 million microform holdings, and thousands of other digital resources, making it one of the largest and most diverse academic library systems in the world ...Notably, the Center possesses the largest collection of Rodin works outside of Paris, France ... Stanford has a thriving artistic and musical community ... Stanford is one of the most successful universities in creating companies and licensing its inventions to existing companies; it is often held up as a model for technology transfer..."

How about addressing these points? When I simply point out that contributors who disagree with me happened to be Stanford alumni, and possibly biased, I'm accused of acting in bad faith. What I'm saying is: fix the article for the OBVIOUS flaws; if not, keep the tags on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• To be honest its a bit ridiculous that an article with that large a 'student life' section does not mention what exactly the student lifestyle has landed it in the papers for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Jesus, not even a link to the Stanford Prison Experiments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't tag a relatively non-controversial article as having a non-neutral point of view. Instead, I suggest you actually find sources that cover some of the controversies and tragedies at the school and are covered enough by the media or academia to merit inclusion. If editors then start to revert reliably sourced additions to the article, then we'd have an issue of a violation of neutral point of view. So try actually contributing first, instead of just expecting other editors to make the changes you want.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I will. Until then, it is a brochure and should be tagged as such.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Tomwsulcer keeps insisting that the article contains "no negatives". I provided a partial list of negatives that are already in the article here. More could be added, but it is hardly the whitewash that Tomwsulcer claims. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution