Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 40

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

→

NPOV Issues with Historical Biography (SYNTH, Cherrypicking and COI)

I have added a neutrality tag to the opening section of the historical biography of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, based on two examples:

1) The second line of the lead paragraph reads:

"Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate, Oxford was a patron of the arts and noted in his own time as a lyric poet and playwright"

I’ve never seen a historical biography start in such a backhanded way. A quick comparison to some notoriously treacherous nobleman such as Earl of Bothwell, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley or King John reinforces this observance. Even Atilla The Hun and ~~Adolph Hitler~~ Genghis Khan fare better in their opening paragraph, than this poor Eilizbethean earl. Aside from the backhanded nature of the phrase, it also appears to be a combination of WP:ORIGINALSYN AND WP:CHERRYPICKING, as the source actually says

"Much as Oxford's rash, unpredictable nature minimized his success in the world of practical affairs, he deserves recognition not only as a poet but as a nobleman with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments."

When I read someone described as “violent” (the synth part) in the lead of a Wikipedia article, I expect the article to contain a certain amount of blood and gore. In this case, we have a nobleman that, in his youth, killed a single servant. Hardly notable as noblemen go, and certainly not worthy to be a primary character description in the lead of the article.

2) The deletion of material here: [1] followed by the remnants of the section being moved to the very bottom of the article. This was a proper summary of its parent article. Now, I don't know what the section is, or why it's been tacked on to the article in such a poorly edited version.

I believe there is very little question that the most notable thing about this near-forgotten nobleman, is his ranking as the primary alternative authorship candidate for the works of Shakespeare. Whenever he has been mentioned by modern scholars, it is almost always due to this particular notability. Given this unquestionable notability, I am suggesting the authorship section be restored and returned to its prior location, as in this edit [2].

Regarding notability, during his day (Elizabethan England) he was publicly acknowledged as being an excellent courtier poet and playwright, Knights tournament champion (twice), and as a major literary and theatrical patron. Now, while there are many opinions about the man's nature, these are opinions and, I believe, should be noted as such. I am suggesting using this lead: [3], which is similar to the lead that was contained in this article up until a year or two ago, when the article started to fall apart:(references removed, but readily available)

Here is the previous lead, but I'm hatting it to move things along. If anyone else can hat their comments, or provide links to duplicate information, it would be helpful.Smatprt (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an English peer andcourtier of the Elizabethan era. Lauded in his own time as a lyric poet, playwright, sportsman, and patron of the arts, since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for theauthorship of Shakespeare's works.

Oxford was the only son of John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford and Margery Golding. After the death of his father in 1562, he became a ward of Queen Elizabeth and received an excellent education in the household of her principal advisor, Sir William Cecil, with whose daughter he made an unfortunate marriage. Oxford was a champion jouster, travelled widely throughout Italy and France, and is recorded by Stow as having introduced various Italian fashions to the English court.

Oxford was noted for his literary and theatrical patronage, and between 1564 and 1599 some 33 works were dedicated to him by primarily literary authors, including Arthur Golding, John Lyly, Robert Greene and Anthony Munday. Oxford was the patron of at least one acting company, as well as separate companies of musicians, tumblers and performing animals. In 1583 he bought the sublease of the first Blackfriars Theatre and gifted it to the poet-playwright Lyly, who operated under Oxford's patronage.

I have tried to reason on the Talk page [4] but have been told in no uncertain terms to come here. There, I am accused of wanting to delete negative material, and "skew" the article, neither of which are true, nor have they been shown by my actions. Some will try and make all of this about the authorship issue. It's not -it's strictly about notability, weight, and NPOV phrasing. Hopefully we can keep discussion about the edit suggestions, and not the editors. In interest of full disclosure, I received two topic bans for work on similar articles, and have recently returned to editing this artice. I am trying my best to follow the new ArbCom rules regarding dispute resolution for these articles. My opposing editor, User:Tom_Reedy, has a similar conflict of interest in that he has published on the subject and is a well known internet authorship personality. Thus the need for outside guidance. I look forward to your comments.Smatprt (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler? "this poor Eilizbethean earl"? Please. Either you haven't read the introduction to the Hitler page or our values and opinions are so divergent as to render all discussion meaningless. To compare "Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust" to the relatively innocuous sentence you're disputing does not invite serious commentary.

I strongly urge others to read the talk page discussion. There it is explained that the sentence Smatprt objects to is taken from a reference written by an expert on Edward de Vere, Steven May.

It is also evident from that page and from what Smatprt writes above he thinks that since Oxford's main notability today is his candidacy for the True Author of Shakespeare's works, the bio page should be an adjunct to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship to provide mainstream support for a fringe theory. In fact, he has since made a couple of WP:POINT edits that make it very clear that is indeed his intention.

In truth, Oxford was a very minor poet, and a middling patron, although very generous to those he patronized, and the combined contemporary mentions of his "excellence" in poetry and play writing number a grand total of four, so he wasn't all that lauded by his contemporaries.

My idea of WP:WEIGHT is that a Wikipedia article should proportionately reflect biographies written by independent, reliable sources. Every treatment of Oxford I have seen except for the hagiography written by Oxfordian B. M. Ward mentions his character flaws early.

From the introduction to Alan Nelson's Monstrous Adversary (2003), the most complete and scholastic biography we have of Oxford to date:

As 17th Earl of Oxford he was among England's premier noblemen—very few approached being the seventeenth of anything. But he held no office of consequence, not performed a notable deed. He served, it is true, as Lord Great (or High) Chamberlain, but that office was purely ceremonial ….

Oxford neglected to serve others for the simple reason that his first aim in life was to serve himself. Of his estates he wrote to his father-in-law, the famous Lord Burghley:

I haue no help but of myne owne, and mine is made to serve me, and myself not mine.

That is to say: I have no resource but my own properties; they are meant to serve me, I am not meant to serve them.

Feudal rank was theoretically based on the very opposite principle: that noblemen held property first by royal grant and then by inheritance precisely in exchange for service.

[…]

Though lack of service would make Oxford virtually irrelevant to historians of the Elizabethan reign, he remains an object of curiosity for cultural and literary historians. He was a leader of fashion, a court poet of modest ability, and a patron of writers and performers. Additionally he lived a life so privately scandalous and so richly documented that his biography opens up a window of sorts onto secret passages of Elizabethan life and manners. Oxford has also been touted, for the past eighty years, as the author of the poems and plays of William Shakespeare. It has become a matter of urgency to measure the real Oxford against the myth created by partisan apologists … (1).

You can read more of the introduction beginning on page two here.

Additionally, the very first mention of Oxford in Laurence Stone's The Crisis of the Aristocracy (1965) is this on page 172: "The greatest wastrel of them all, the 17th Earl of Oxford, had already dissipated most of his inheritance before his hated first wife died and he could marry again and beget an heir male." On page 234, after a long description of a violent feud between Oxford and Sir Thomas Knyvett, the uncle of a woman who bore his out-of-wedlock child, Stone writes, "Both in the brutality of their tactics and in their immunity from the law, the nearest parallels to the Earl of Oxford and Sir Thomas Knyvett in the London of Queen Elizabeth are Al Capone and Dion O'Banion, Bugs Moran and Johnny Torrio in the Chicago of the 1920's."

In Daphne Pearson's Edward de Vere (1550-1604): The Crisis and Consequences of Wardship (2005), the first mention of Oxford in the introduction is this: "The twelve-year-old Edward de Vere, earl of Oxford since the death of his father exactly one month earlier, was riding to London at the head of 140 horses caparisoned in black and mounted by his entourage all dressed in Oxford livery, with the blue boar badge embroidered on each left shoulder. The future of the young earl, set to spend his wardship in the house of Sir William Cecil in the Strand, appeared assured, yet within thirty years this power had all but vanished, dissipated by the sale of his inherited estates" (1). Later in the introduction she reviews the various biographies of Oxford: "Although he ranked second in the hierarchy of earls, he receives little mention in academic work and, until 2003, there was no academic biography of him. Most references are limited to colourful events in his life and centre on the wasting of his patrimony, his confession of Catholicism, to which the famous tennis-court quarrel with Sir Phillip Sidney was an adjunct, and his feud with Sir Thomas Knyvett" (7).

His DNB entry (also by Nelson) contains this: "Oxford's eccentricities and irregularities of temper grew with his years. (examples given) [...] On 23 March, however, the Yorkshire beauty and queen's maid of honour Anne Vavasour, who had been Oxford's mistress since 1579, gave birth to a son, whereupon he found himself back in the Tower. He recovered his freedom in June, and in December was reconciled with his wife. Domestic tranquillity was shattered again in March 1582, when Oxford fought a duel with Anne Vavasour's uncle Sir Thomas Knyvet. Both men were wounded, the earl more dangerously. Their quarrel continued on and off for a year, with deaths and injuries among retainers on both sides.[...] Oxford was notorious in his own time for his effeminate dress, for his irregular life, and for squandering virtually his entire patrimony on personal extravagance."

And his earlier DNB entry written by Sidney Lee is even worse, with ""While manifesting a natural taste for music and literature, the youth developed a waywardness of temper which led him into every form of extravagance, and into violent quarrels with other members of his guardian's household" as the ultimate sentence in the opening paragraph.

Smatprt seems to think that negative coverage, even if true, equals POV treatment, and above he tries to pass off one sentence of the original source ("Much as Oxford's rash, unpredictable nature minimized his success in the world of practical affairs, he deserves recognition not only as a poet but as a nobleman with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments") as the entire basis of the sentence he objects to in the lede.

But--as he has been told--the source is a range of pages, from page 5 to page 8 inclusive of May's "The Poems of Edward DeVere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford and of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex", Studies in Philology (University of North Carolina Press) 77 Winter 1980. I also provided the exact excerpts that the sentence summarizes:

Upon coming of age in 1571, Oxford was probably regarded with higher expectations that were held for any other young nobleman of the reign. … his future could hardly look more promising …. But waste the old earldom he did in a process that was well underway by January of 1575 when he set out upon an elegant continental tour; during his fifteen months abroad, Edward spent some 4,561 pounds, a sum derived largely from the estates which he insisted that his father-in-law sell for him. …De Vere had run up debts totaling thousands of pounds. Between 1575 and 1586, Oxford divested himself of most of his lands … (page 5)

De Vere's prodigality was but one aspect of a self-indulgent, erratic, often belligerent temperament which undermined his youthful prospects as well as his later ambitions. His tendency toward violence erupted at the age of seventeen when he killed one of his guardian's servants … Oxford so vehemently opposed the betrothal of his sister, Mary, to Peregrine Bertie … that Bertie feared for his life, and the Earl not only quarreled with Sidney … but may have planned his assassination as well. (page 6)

[…] Oxford was noticeably disadvantaged by what Gilbert Talbot termed his 'fyckle hed' …. Oxford rejected his first wife, Anne Cecil, on trumped up charges …. In 1589 he betrayed the friends with whom he had joined in a secret profession of adherence to Catholicism, and when Anne Vavasour … gave birth at court to his illegitimate son he did not merely abandon her but insulted her publicly as well …. These reckless tendencies did not go unnoticed by the Queen …. It is noteworthy that she never appointed Oxford to a position of trust or sole responsibility. ....the Earl often requested military duty, but he never gained command of any sizeable body of troops ….(page 7) He was never entrusted with a diplomatic mission, entertainment of foreign dignitaries, nor office at court on in the government at large…. His pension was an act of charity … [that] was designed to solve an unusual problem, the preservation of a necessary state figure whose irresponsibility precluded a grant which might be farmed out, commuted , or sold.(page 8)"

This is the material that is summed up with the phrase, "Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate ...", which Smatprt believes qualifies as WP:SYNTH and should be deleted from the lede, yet Oxford "recorded by Stow as having introduced various Italian fashions to the English court" should be right up there.

I have elected not to bring in Smatprt's off-Wiki life to this discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

First, we are talking about the opening lines of the article, not something mentioned two paragraphs down. However, I am not insisting that the Stow reference be included, and am not opposed to seeing it deleted from the 2nd paragraph. But that sentence is not why we are here.

And thank you for providing a list of opinions of the Earl's character, but they are just that - opinions, not facts. I could provide equally abundant opinions that characterize his life in completely different ways. It's called cherry picking and neither would be correct to use as a character summation in the opening sentences of a historical biography. And it would not be in the neutral tone required of the article, especially the lead. When such opinions are mentioned, they should be attributed, instead of characterizing their opinions as "scholarly consensus", which is quoted far too much in these articles. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Academic consensus at WP:RS/AC, which "requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view".

And given the context of the time, to characterize this Earl as notably "violent" - without anything more than a very short list of fairly typical Elizabethan entanglements - is simply not defendable. Where are the deaths? Where are the executions? The slaughters? Fact: When he was 17 he killed a drunken servant, and was found not guilty. He made some threats, and had the famous "tennis court" argument (of words). Sorry, but there's just nothing there to warrant such POV wording. Smatprt (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to shut up and let some outside editors comment on this or are you going to drone on ad nauseum as you usually do during these discussions? They have eyes and can do without your constant explanations to try to influence other editors. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Of it is the function of the lede to summarise the content of the article. Smatprt seems to want the lede to be entirely laudatory, or at least to contain no criticism. In fact, as has been pointed out before, this sentence is the only critical comment in all the paragraphs of the lede. It is supported by a quotation from a single source, for sure, but it is in essence a summary of the views of all reliable sources on this topic. The principal modern scholarly writers on Oxford are May (whose words are quoted), Alan Nelson his biographer and Daphne Pearson, who wrote Edward De Vere (1550-1604): The Crisis And Consequences Of Wardship. All these authors are agreed that the earl was prone to violence, spendthrift and volatile. Tom has alsready provided evidence from May and Nelson. Summarising the views of the most authorititive sources is absolutely not cherrypicking. It's what we are supposed to do. Of course negative and positive aspects of a person's life should be presented with proper balance, and that's what the intro does. It has one half sentence of criticism which Oxfordolators are persistently trying to delete.

Daphne Pearson: "It may be the he was not unique (though his profligacy surely was)." "his feeble attempts at power-broking with foriegn powers were destined to be ineffectual because his concerns were always for himself" (p.208) "His volatile personality was no asset. At court his most powerful friend was undoubtedly Lord Burghley, who continued to support the Earl for his daughter's sake, when a lesser man...would have abandoned him to his impecunious state" (p.213) "In the feud with Anne Vavasour's relations...Oxford can be seen as the Italianate courtier demonstrating a final violent fling in imitation of his feudal ancestors". (p.215)

Ironically, the Oxfordian movement started because its founder, Looney, looked up Oxford in the DNB and found a person who fitted his idea of the personality of "Shakespeare". As Oxfordian writer Richard F. Whalen sums up: "The [old] Dictionary of National Biography's entry on Oxford describes him as an aristocrat with a violent and perverse temper, eccentric taste in dress, recklessness in his waste of substance, and genuine taste in music." [5] This was already a familiar view, the National Review in 1858 describing Oxford as the "spendthrift earl" whose "reckless extravagance" led to the loss of his estates. In fact he was known as "the spendthrift" from the 18h century on. So it's somewhat ironic that Oxfordian editors persistently attempt to suppress evidence of the very traits that led to their fringe theory in the first place. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Restating the request

Okay, we've heard from the two primary editors of the article in question, both of whom have conflicts of interest, and both of whom continue to be insulting and make personal attacks. You've heard my concerns, and I have acknowledged my own conflict, although I am not going to be baited in spite of recent attempts [6][7]. We've plainly reached an impasse, as everyone can see. That's why we are here. To obtain the advice of independent editors who don't give a whiff about the authorship, but whose primary charge is solving NPOV disputes.

So to capsulize my request, which may have gotten lost in the above 16 paragraphs:

1) - Does the following wording live up to NPOV guidelines? Is it appropriate for the lead paragraph?

"Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate, Oxford was a patron of the arts and noted in his own time as a lyric poet and playwright, and since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works."

Or should this be reverted to the previous version [8]:

Lauded in his own time as a playwright,[1] lyric poet, sportsman, and patron of the arts,[2] since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Oxford was an important courtier poet,[3] praised as such and as a playwright by George Puttenham and Francis Meres, who included him in a list of the "best for comedy amongst us". Examples of his poetry have been documented, but none of his theatrical works survive.[4]

2) - Should the following summary (now deleted) be eliminated [9], restored or something in between?

Note - These deletions have been going on for years, everything from quotes, to poems, to references, and lots of useful detail in between: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] Many thanks to anyone who can help us resolve this. Smatprt (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I made nothing like a personal attack. Indeed your need to construe yourself as a victim who is constantly being harrassed does not create a good atmosphere for reasonable discussion. Your last sentence is bizarre. Of course deletions have been going on for years. Additions have been going on for years too. That's true of all articles. It is frankly impossible to have a rational discussion when arguments are presented in this way. I very much doubt that any independent editor will be found who will be able to usefully comment on this. All i can say, is that a single sentence cannot be not be identified as POV or vice versa except in the context of the lede over all, but it nevertheless seems clear to me that the first version - balancing positive and negative, is better than the second, which is just gush. Paul B (talk) 21:55, 21March 2013 (UTC)

The first version is opinion, the second is facts. Do you dispute that? You want to delete some of the facts, fine. Happy to discuss. But I fail to see why listing a sequence of mass deletions, made without discussion or consensus, strikes you as bizarre? And neither of you has yet to explain why introducing these opinions in the lead is valid for this article when none of the examples I provided (far more despicable characters) have anything even approaching such a lead-in to their articles. And just to clarify, you think it ok to tell another editor to "shut up"? Smatprt (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is ample documentary evidence of Oxford's temperament from his own time; those judgements from his various biographers weren't made in a vacuum. His violence is well-documented, and as Nelson says, his prodigality was well-known and commented on in his time, and his reckless and erratic behavior was also commented on. He was the one who quit his post in a huff during the Armada when he thought his rank was not sufficient, which was commented on by his commander, and he was the one who quit the field without seeing action in the Anglo-Spanish War. These are all documented facts, not opinion. To describe them for what they are, as May, Pearson, and Nelson do, is not unsupported opinion, it is a description of Oxford made by experts after much research and study.

What is opinion is "he was lauded", unless by lauded you mean every other poet that Puttenham mentioned along with Oxford were "lauded" also. It would be closer to the truth to say "Oxford was among a group of courtier poets who were lauded by Puttenham and Meres". And nowhere that I know was he "lauded" as a sportsman. "He was an important courtier poet" is opinion, also, since neither Puttenham nor Meres used that word to describe him. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Nobody told you to "shut up." You need to learn to read the actual words, not what you think is there. But you've been told that before, more than once. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link[17]. Editors may judge for themselves if "Are you going to shut up...?" is ever suitable for a discussion page. Smatprt (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In the short, 2 1/2-page biography of Oxford in the introduction to the Rollins edition of The Paradise of Dainty Devices(1927), Rollins says this about Oxford in the first paragraph of the bio (second paragraph of the section, the first lists the poems attributed to him in PDD):

"Oxford was an ill-tempered, violent man. He treated his wife with downright cruelty; he insulted Sir Philip Sidney, caused him to be banished from Court, and (at least according to popular rumor) planned to murder him. … Though he squandered his fortune and sold his ancestral estates, Oxford not infrequently extended his patronage to various men of letters, especially to those of the Bohemian type. Lyly dedicated to him Euphues and his England (1580); Spenser addressed a sonnet to him in the Faery Queen(1590); and many minor authors claimed him as their patron."

Compare his similar use of "Though he …" to the lede's sentence under question, "Although he …", both of which act as a balancer to lead into complimentary remarks about Oxford's patronage. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am hatting the following remarks in order to focus the discussion. Please refrain from discussing other editors or making ad hominem statements. (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Tom, are you just going to keep layering on in spite of your own request that we all "s/u" and let new editors leave their comments? Are you not hearing anything? And what is it about your fondness for opinions over facts? "according to popular rumor"? You call that serious scholarship? "he insulted Sydney"? Well, that sounds absolutely horrifying. Did he lock his wife in the tall tall tower, too? (nope -just treated her with "cruelty", whatever that means in context.) I'm surprised you haven't added "There are no records to indicate when he stopped beating his wife"! You do know that he and his wife reconciled, right? Is that in the article lead where you added, as notable, his "unfortunate marriage"? Another error of omission? Please, Tom, just take your own advice and let others comment. You've already added more content than anyone here. Smatprt (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Unlike you, Smatprt, I am adding new information, not constantly browbeating the reader with reiterations of my original comments "just in case they got lost". And IIRC it was an Oxfordian who added the "unfortunate marriage" in an effort to put the best face on it possible. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, the present introduction to the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page is very tendentious. I agree with Smatprt. It was me who raised this question already before. At that time, User Smatprt was possibly still banned. Now he is no more banned, and I am with him to ask for a more NPOV introduction to the said article. The article as a whole does not establish Edward de Vere as the author of the Shakespearean canon. I have already pointed out elsewhere that there is a great number of citizens of this planet, especially in continental Europe, who think exactly this (that he was the true author). Somebody might disagree, but that this perception exists is a fact. So if people who think this way read the page on EO (Edward Oxenford), they are offended by such an introduction. Is it really necessary? User Tom Reedy is a person with great knowledge about SAQ (Shakespeare authorship question). However, sometimes he engages, IMHO, in disseminating on Wikipedia of views which are not NPOV. Maybe he even does not realize this. He also engages in edit wars repeatedly, and mostly he prevails. I don´t say what I think about it. Recently, Tom Reedy deleted two contributions of mine on the talk page of the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford article. In my edits there, I pointed out that Tom Reedy called Edward de Vere "a shit". He used precisely this expression on this said talk page. Was it correct what he did, and I had no right to show what he did? Was this remark an expression, an evidence of Tom Reedy´s adherence to NPOV at all times? For me, this remark has been and still is utterly disrespectful to the historical person of EO. Tom Reedy may characterize Edward de Vere in many ways, but not in this offending way. EO is a person of history, and he does not live any more, since centuries. He can´t defend himself, so people should be allowed to defend his reputation as a man with good and maybe less good qualities. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Jokey remarks on the talk page about people who have been dead for hundreds of years do no contravene any Wikipedia policies. This post and the previous ones are indicative of the problem - an emotional investment in "defending" this long dead person to the extent that reading anything critical about him genuinely seems to upset Oxfordian editors. However, we have to follow what the authoritative sources say. That's what NPOV means, not "being polite". I would ask that involved editors leave this topic alone now at this board. If uninvolved editors wish to comment they have more than enough evidence to address the issue. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is no appropriate explanation or excuse for Tom Reedy´s wording concerning Edward de Vere, Paul B. Tom Reedy makes sometimes "jokes" that really go beyond NPOV or correct editing. There was already one example of such jokes by Tom Reedy in the past, concerning Jesus Christ (also on a talk page). Such jokes are simply not correct on Wikipedia. This applies to all persons of history, I say it again. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from independent editors

This sentence: Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate appears to be editorial point of view, rather than a neutral summary of article content, and in my opinion, it should be completely removed from the lead. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating specifically how it violates WP:NPOV, given that the very first sentence in the policy states that, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it appears to be an accurate reflection of the consensus view of professional historians (other than Shakespeare authorship conspiracist cranks). Guy (Help!) 22:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why dont we just cite "reckless" "unpredictable" and "violent" nature that ruled him out of any responsible governmental or military post? The sources seem to be there in abundance. he appears to have been widely considered a difficult and irresponsible man by his contemporaries. Just heavily cite the para in question. Irondome (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Tom and Irondome: The answer to the two above questions, (and please User:keithbob correct me if I'm wrong), is twofold:

1) There is nothing in the source or the contemporary records that in any way connects the description of "violent", to his not receiving a government or military post. This would be WP:SYN (Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources... If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.).

2) Starting off the article lead with a negative statement is not neutral, period. Even Wikipedia's FA articles on such notoriously violent and despicable individuals as Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot) (note his paragraph 4) and Elizabeth's master spymaster (& torturer) Francis Walsingham, two of Oxford's contemporaries, don't start off their leads discussing how the subject's supposed 'character flaws' led them to their ruin. That's why this sentence is "editorial point of view". User:Tom_Reedy is intent on beginning the article this way and is trying to write the lead to conform with his own POV,

as outlined here [18] where Tom opines:

"Oxford was probably more noted in his own time for being a shit than for being a poet" and "Everyone of his biographers said he was a shit, and that despite being a shit and he was a generous patron of the arts and a minor court poet"

or here: [19] where Tom's

"one definition of "shit" is "A mean or contemptible person," which is the sense I intended. Even most Oxfordians agree that he was such a person when it came to his personal relations"

which sums up Tom's own POV of Oxford's "personal relations", a POV that he has decided is so notable that it must be placed at the head of the article, without one single word allowed to be changed. This is editorial point of view. Also, WP:Weight explains why this kind of preferred placement is not allowed.

Note: I am not adversed to variations of this information being contained in the article. Accusations to anything otherwise are completely unfounded. Smatprt (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for putting words in another editor's (Keithbob) mouth. The entire purpose of coming to these boards is to solicit outside and neutral opinions, not to read and re-read and re-read your opinion, but any time another editor leans the least bit away from your POV you seem to be compelled to reiterate your complaints once more "just in case" they didn't get it right the first time. Oxford was a Grade-A shit, but he was at least interesting and didn't incessantly repeat himself ad nauseum.

The original source, some of whose relevant parts I quoted, are sufficient to rebut your accusation of synthesis. Here they are again (I'll just copy and paste from above):

But--as he has been told--the source is a range of pages, from page 5 to page 8 inclusive of May's "The Poems of Edward DeVere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford and of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex", Studies in Philology (University of North Carolina Press) 77 Winter 1980. I also provided the exact excerpts that the sentence summarizes:

Upon coming of age in 1571, Oxford was probably regarded with higher expectations that were held for any other young nobleman of the reign. … his future could hardly look more promising …. But waste the old earldom he did in a process that was well underway by January of 1575 when he set out upon an elegant continental tour; during his fifteen months abroad, Edward spent some 4,561 pounds, a sum derived largely from the estates which he insisted that his father-in-law sell for him. …De Vere had run up debts totaling thousands of pounds. Between 1575 and 1586, Oxford divested himself of most of his lands … (page 5)

De Vere's prodigality was but one aspect of a self-indulgent, erratic, often belligerent temperament which undermined his youthful prospects as well as his later ambitions. His tendency toward violence erupted at the age of seventeen when he killed one of his guardian's servants … Oxford so vehemently opposed the betrothal of his sister, Mary, to Peregrine Bertie … that Bertie feared for his life, and the Earl not only quarreled with Sidney … but may have planned his assassination as well. (page 6)

[…] Oxford was noticeably disadvantaged by what Gilbert Talbot termed his 'fyckle hed' …. Oxford rejected his first wife, Anne Cecil, on trumped up charges …. In 1589 he betrayed the friends with whom he had joined in a secret profession of adherence to Catholicism, and when Anne Vavasour … gave birth at court to his illegitimate son he did not merely abandon her but insulted her publicly as well …. These reckless tendencies did not go unnoticed by the Queen …. It is noteworthy that she never appointed Oxford to a position of trust or sole responsibility. ....the Earl often requested military duty, but he never gained command of any sizeable body of troops ….(page 7) He was never entrusted with a diplomatic mission, entertainment of foreign dignitaries, nor office at court on in the government at large…. His pension was an act of charity … [that] was designed to solve an unusual problem, the preservation of a necessary state figure whose irresponsibility precluded a grant which might be farmed out, commuted , or sold.(page 8)"

This is the material that is summed up with the phrase, "Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate ...", which Smatprt believes qualifies as WP:SYNTH and should be deleted from the lede....

Now if you can be still long enough we might get some more opinions, but with you crapping up the boards with your hysterics I doubt it. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Tom, there is no need for that. I provided only new information, as you requested:

showing the lack of causation between Oxford's supposed "violence", and any supposed repercussions.
providing two FA historical biographies from Oxford's contemporaries, for comparison.
providing examples of talk page statements that show a POV that is driving the article.
regarding charge of speaking for another editor, I notified him of the comment and asked for any correction.Smatprt (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You want new information? We don't need to figure out how the lead should read or how POV is handled by comparing other biographies; that's all been worked out. Try reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Pay special attention to the second paragraph in the lead. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And thank you for showing once again that none of your sources say that Oxford's "violence" was remotely connected with his lack of appointments, an item you believe is so notable it warrants the opening line of the article. Regarding writing styles, I prefer stay on topic, so please look in the 3rd paragraph of the manual - the part that requires a neutral tone, and once there, please pay particular attention to WP:IMPARTIAL - "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." In many ways, the whole issue boils down to this, doesn't it, gentlemen? Smatprt (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You must have skipped over this part from the original conversation on the Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page:

What characteristics of Oxford does May say "undermined his youthful prospects as well as his later ambitions"?

Answer: his temperament, which consisted of

1. prodigality (which May says caused him to "waste the old earldom" by running up debts and selling his lands so that by 1583 he was described by Burghley as practically bankrupt)

2. self-indulgence

3. erratic (i.e. his "fyckle hed", fickle: Changing frequently, esp. as regards one's loyalties, interests, or affection, or, as May calls them, "reckless tendencies"

4. belligerency

5. tendency toward violence

6. his irresponsibility

His temperament seems to be important to the his biographers, since they nearly all mention it in the first few paragraphs or in the preface. And the tone is as neutral as can be written. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply to User: Irondome (from 16 paragraphs up), I believe leads are not supposed to require heavy sourcing, since they are required to reflect the major content points of the general article itself, which is where supporting details and reference cites are to be found. Smatprt (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed so, and all thse points are eminently citable and should be fully cited - as long as you don't remove them. The evidence is absolutely overwheming that this is the consensus of historians from at least the 18th century on. IMO this discussion is utterly pointless. Smatprt's need to micromanage this thread has created a chilling effect which negates any interest in or useful commentary from other editors. I suggest that this should go to dispute resolution. Paul B (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove citable information? Do you mean this?[[20]]. I removed a personal attack, not a citable point of information.

Or did you mean these [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Oh, that's right. Those aren't my deletions, those were all you guys.

A change of tact, I see. Now, you two claim it's my "chilling effect" and going on "ad nauseam" that has stifled the entire wikipedia community? Really? Don't you think it might have more to do with the walls of text you two have pasted here, even duplicating the same exact whole paragraphs, that might be turning outside editors off? And you won't even hat your duplicate remarks? You realize hatting isn't deleting, right? (There's a little button you push to read what's in the hat-bar.)

And IIRC, I haven't deleted any citable information. That is not my general habit at all. Check my history. Except clear vandalism by the high schoolers, or newbie-errors, I almost always add cite tags. It's what I do. Smatprt (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC) :-)

And seriously - you are actually saying that my chilling effect is so unearthly powerful that it "negates any useful commentary from other editors" of this noticeboard? Or that I can't respond to an editor, but you two can jump right at the very first independent editor here (who happened to disagree with you?)[[28]] The hypocrisy you two maintain is astounding. Smatprt (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think your "walls of text" crowding everybody else out might be one element that negates any useful commentary in that it is certainly not inviting to other neutral editors for any of their comments to be immediately buried beneath yet another "just in case" reiteration if their comments diverge from your viewpoint. These comments of yours directly above are a good example, and once again another call for outside opinions has devolved into a debate, which nearly always happens the three years or so I've interacted with you. Take it to dispute resolution. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Smatprt, this wildly emotional response is part of the problem. You point to diffs of editorial changes that have nothing whatever to do with the issue supposedly being discussed here. This is just blowing smoke, as the saying goes. And yes, this emotionalism does, in my experience, discourage other editors from commenting. This is why I think using the dispute resolution procedure would be more appropriate in this case. The editors there force the debate to remain on topic and about content. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Wildly emotional"? Very amusing. I am not the ones making personal attacks, or repeatedly pasting in duplicate text from this same page. When you make an unfounded accusation, as you did above, I have the right to respond, as I did. And if I'm not mistaken, Tom, you are the majority contributor here, not me. And when taken as a team, you and Paul far outweigh me in edit count, word count and walls of text. Smatprt (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly posted nothing whatever. But you certainly have repeated yourself over and over. I'll leave it to others to decide who is being emotional. I am concerned that your method of debate utterly negates the function of this board. And so now I will now repeat myself. Take this to dispute resolution. It's that way. Paul B (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course I've posted more than you have; it takes a lot more to defend than it does to accuse. Most of my verbiage here has been producing evidence from biographers who confirm Oxford's temperament and its consequences and the placement of that information. What I haven't done is harangue the independent editors who don't agree with me with a wall of text or try to draw a support voter back in the fray after other editors go the other way. Paul's given you the link to dispute resolution; use it. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Tom Reedy has a point in that the sources confirm Oxford was violent etc. The "synthesis" complaint is nothing but a summary of the sources. Our lead sections are supposed to be summaries, so I see nothing wrong. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Binksternet, for responding. Without intending to run you off, or stifle your input, I do have two questions: given WP:Weight, do you believe that these incidents of violence are so notable that they belong in the opening sentence of the lead paragraph, directly following the subject's name and title? Given WP:NPOV, is it proper to begin a sentence with a negative phrase (ie: Although he was horrible person, he did all these notable things...)? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be in favor of any lead section which included the idea that Oxford had a violent temper. I don't have a specific suggestion for the composition of that lead section. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have not read through all the lengthy comments above, but looking at the main point here, I would say that the sentence in dispute belongs in the lead, but not the second sentence, or maybe just not in the first part of the second sentence. It does seem to me that right now the article says the most important thing about Oxford was that he was a horrible person and ruined himself financially. However there are who knows how many people in history who were not nice and spent money that they did not have. It is rather trivial to focus that much on personality. It would even be OK in my opinion to put that sentence the other way around, ie "Although he was a patron of the arts and noted in his own time as a lyric poet and playwright, Oxford had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate. Since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works." I think that would follow the guidelines of WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD better.Smeat75 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Also I think that lining three adjectives up like that is rather over-egging the pudding, more suitable for a personal essay or fiction than an encyclopaedia article, it gives the impression that whoever wrote that has very negative feelings about the subject. From a grammar handbook - ""In short, you cannot go wrong with two adjectives and using three is rare. (Lining up adjectives in a row is called 'enumeration of adjectives'.)""[[29]] I'd say choose two of them, reckless and violent or unpredictable and reckless, for example, but "reckless, unpredictable and violent" is one adjective too many. Smeat75 (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would support the above compromise. It seems sensible. I would suggest dropping "reckless". "Unpredictable" would serve in its place, and the sense of the statement is unaffected IMO. The question is whether to retain "violent". Was Oxford particularly "violent" within the context of the period? Ben Jonson killed a man by his own account in the Spanish Netherlands, and killed Gabriel Spenser in a duel, but I do not see the term "violent" in his lede. Irondome (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That's because his violence didn't have all that much to do overall with his destiny. With Oxford, it was part of his temperament, which affected his life and career in major ways. As May (the source that is being cited to support the sentence, who is echoed by all of Oxford's biographers but one) wrote: "De Vere's prodigality was but one aspect of a self-indulgent, erratic, often belligerent temperament which undermined his youthful prospects as well as his later ambitions. His tendency toward violence ..." (I see May stacked three adjectives. He must not have read that textbook on writing.)Tom Reedy (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree Tom. Elizabeth was surrounded by violent men, Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex even nearly drew his sword on her during the notorious cuffing incident. This didnt stop E continuing to place political trust and confidence in him. With Oxford it was more a combination of his irresponsibility and unpredictable nature, especially in potential political choices of political/court factions which was far more risky to a sovereign. She obviously percieved his unreliability in a general sense. Also May is beginning a new sentence there. May appears more preoccupied with Os self indulgence, belligerence (not necessary physical) and inconsistency. I dont think this violence thing flies really. Irondome (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You do recall how Essex died, don't you? And he had talents Oxford clearly did not. In any case, all the biographers except one (B. M. Ward, an Oxfordian) mention his violent tendencies early (see my original post upstairs) and how they were part of his makeup that led to his downfall at court. And when one sentence begins with "X was but one aspect of Y that ...", the clear expectation is that what is named in the next sentence is yet another aspect of Y. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm not wedded to its position in the sentence or even its place in the lead, but it was an important part of his personality that largely determined his fate, every biographer talks about it in the same context, and it should be in there. What should not be in the lead is a whitewash and a pack of lies about how celebrated he was for his poetry and playwrighting, because he wasn't. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your points are well put and in a sober fashion Tom. Essex was in a different league. Which got him the chop finally. Elizabeth even put O onto an early form of disability pension when she recognised his inadequacies. Rather compassionate for the period. I would not go near a whitewash solution, but a fair synthesis of the two rival paragraphs in question. I do think this obviously very talented and artistic but dysfunctional young sod is rather being hung out to dry. Lets just show a little more balance. His violence is not backed up by facts, apart from the killing of a servant, and, as I have said, this action was unremarkable for the age and contemporary behaviour. I think the term "violence" is being overstated. Just my thoughts. Im uninvolved and love this subject, which I have gained some knowledge in, in recent years.Irondome (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider one half of one sentence of plain-spoken (cited) honesty "being hung out to dry." Have you read the rest of the lead? Here's what I wrote about him in another article, this one about his playing company (which is alas unfinished-hope to get to it this weekend). I've become quite fond of the old earl myself over the years as I've gotten to know the real person, not the tingod Oxfordian version of him. He's what I would call a remarkable second-rater, like the band Luna (1990s American band). Tom Reedy (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Its a sympathetic piece, no issues with your POV. Like the Luna ref. I just think we should substitute "volatile" for "violence". It seems to capture the sense more. He just doesnt seem particularly violent in biographic reality. We may be over-emphasising violence in a sense the sources are trying to clumsily capture, a general belligerance. Im fairly new to the whole debate and am working through the vast fascinating jungle of the Shakesperean authorship. "The reckoning" by C Nicholl and an old book, "The Shakespeare Claimants" by H.N Gibson origially excited me, so I have been increasingly drawn to the subject and more generally the period. Irondome (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question. And I, too, would support a compromise along those lines, assuming notability is established. I also note that the biographer being sourced here, Steven May spends far more time in his study discussing Oxford's patronage and learning. He sums it all up by describing Oxford as:

"a nobleman with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments', whose biography exhibits a 'lifelong devotion to learning."
"Oxford's poems... comprise the earliest substantial alleviation of a dearth of courtier verse throughout the first decade of Elizabeth's rein. He is her first truly prestigious courtier poet"
"Oxford's genuine commitment to learning throughout his career lends a necessary qualification to Stone's conclusion that De Vere simply squandered the more than 70,000 pounds he derived from selling off his patrimony...for which some part of this amount Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences".

Are not these summaries more notable than his supposed "violence", especially given the context of the times? Smatprt (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So May "sums it up" on pages 8, 9, and 14 of an article that begins on page 6 and ends on page 14? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest "unpredictable" and "volatile". They are hardly compliments after all. Irondome (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would agree to such a compromise. Somewhat along those lines, here was an earlier suggestion, where the actual quote (attributed and with a little context) was provided:

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an English peer and courtier of the Elizabethan era. Lauded in his own time as a lyric poet, playwright, sportsman, and patron of the arts, since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works. In the opinion of Stephen May, Oxford's modern editor, "Much as Oxford's rash, unpredictable nature minimized his success in the world of practical affairs, he deserves recognition not only as a poet but as a nobleman with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments. Smatprt (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You've been told already why that won't fly. Oxford was not "lauded" for anything, much less for poetry, playwrighting, and sports. He was praised excessively for his generosity by those he patronised. And the "opinion" of May (which indeed is a fact) happens to be shared by everyone of Oxford's biographers except B. M. Ward, who did in his book what you're trying to do here, and for the same reason. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This will work for me:

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an English peer and courtier of the Elizabethan era. Oxford was a patron of the arts and noted in his own time as a lyric poet and playwright, but he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate.[1] Since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works.

One thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that this article will not be the same a year from now, so nothing is permanent. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the three adjectives seems a bit much. "Unpredictable" sounds good, and I think if you're including "violent" you should reference it. And as someone who is totally unfamiliar with this subject, I would suggest that the bickering here is a bit off-putting. Ashleyleia (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we should chill out on this a bit as an exchange of ideas. Remember you regulars of the entire question, some of us are new here to commenting on the subject :) Cheers.Irondome (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The first version is too harsh, and the second is too oily. Thats the issue to an uninvolved editor. Its a question of getting the right feel in the lede, which doesnt prejudice or prejudge the new readers' attitude to the subject. He was a minor screw up and a court disaster waiting to happen. He also was aparrently genuinely talented. He didnt rapier servants on a daily basis. Emphasising violence in his lede skews it I feel.Irondome (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

We've spent enough time on this. If Paul agrees, I'll go with "reckless and volatile temperament", and in the second phrase of the sentence as I posted above. On reflection I think that it should have gone in the second phrase to begin with. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

SupportIrondome (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Question: If he was a courtier, is it that clear-cut that he never had any court responsibility (government responsibility I buy)? I´m very ignorant on how court worked in that time and place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

He had a hereditary office, Lord Great Chamberlain, with ceremonial duties, which included ostensible jurisdiction over Westminster Hall during a coronation or a trial of his peers (such as the 1601 trials of Essex and Southampton), but as far as any position of responsibility, he was passed over in favor of more suitable members of the aristocracy. Every time he was offered a chance, he blew it. His self-absorption was complete, he had no empathetic ability nor did he ever learn to foresee the likely consequences of his behavior--very much an impetuous, live-in-the-moment person. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

But he is your little brother and you love him? ;-) Anyway, thanks for the answer. If his only court position was an inherited one, I´m satisfied. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

After wading through all of the above, how does this sound?

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an English peer and courtier of the Elizabethan era. Oxford was a patron of the arts, lyric poet and playwright, but he had a mutable disposition which led to the ruin of his estate.[1] Since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works.

Removing adjectives, removing arguments about him directly, removing stuff about not getting jobs, etc. The lede only needs to be a summary - the body of the article can get into how mean he was compared to his countrymen or not. Only one suggestion - no need to kill me as a humble servant <g>. Collect (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Er, "mutable"? I think that's taking euphemism too far. I'm happy with "reckless and volatile". Let's not forget that this is what made him "notable" in the eyes of his contemporaries and commenators over the ages (see A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature and ODNB for pre"Oxfordian" assessments). That's also the pretty-much undisputed view of non-fringe recent commentators. Oxford's wiki-bio is vastly longer and more detailed that that of, for example, the much more historically important Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex (who also wrote competent lyric verses, which are never mentioned in his bio, even though they are detailed in same source we use for Oxford's - Steven May). The only reason for this anomaly is the "Oxford/Shakespeare" partisans. We should be following what mainstream encyclopedias, biographers and historians have consistently stated is principally notable about him: his volatility, extravagance and his cultural interests. Paul B (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Collect does cut out most of the editorializing, that's for sure. It's so clean and neutral, I could actually live with that. The last major argument going on here is: What precisely was the cause of the loss of his estates? To be sure he was greatly to blame, but how do we deal with these conflicting facts:

The source (May) says "Oxford's genuine commitment to learning throughout his career lends a necessary qualification to Stone's conclusion that De Vere simply squandered the more than 70,000 pounds he derived from selling off his patrimony...for which some part of this amount Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences".
The article, 90% of which is sourced to Nelson, including "During his minority as her ward, one third of his estate had already reverted to the Crown, much of which Elizabeth had long since settled on Robert Dudley. Elizabeth demanded a further payment of £3,000 for overseeing the wardship and a further £4,000 for suing his livery.

When we have qualifying statements like this from the same sources, aren't we obliged to mention them. I'm not suggesting adding them into the lead. I'm suggesting that to say his temperament caused his ruin is not even accurate. It appears that of £70,000, 1/3rd was grabbed by the crown, then another £7,000. That's £33,000. Out of £70,000. No temperament to blame. Smatprt (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an English peer and courtier of the Elizabethan era. Oxford was a patron of the arts, lyric poet and playwright. Since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works.

Just the facts. That's about as neutral as it gets. Smatprt (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't just state the facts. We summarise the releavant content of the article as a whole - which includes the views of historians. And, yes, they all say that it was indeed his temperament that caused his ruin (the comparison with Essex, who had relatively little income, but great responsibilities, is pertinent). But really, we shouldn't be trying to argue against what mainstream writers have concluded. Nelson and Pearson detail his finances. We follow what they say in their overall conclusions. We don't start arguing the toss by totting up figures on this board. Clearly Pearson's analysis complicates the issue by pointing to complexities that need to be discussed and that should be properly included. In any case, who says that the "facts" you have listed are the most important ones? The ruination of his estate has been considered a hugely important feature of his generally not very important life by historians for centuries. It's as much of a fact as the rest. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he drank all his money up or gave it all away to missionary nuns in India, the fact is that his heriditary estates declined in good part because of his irresponsible prodigality. Give all your money to a charity instead of paying your mortgage and you're going to get kicked out of your house before long. Other, lesser nobles faced the same issues, because in truth they only held the lands in trust from the crown, yet they did not go under as quickly and as extravagantly as Oxford.

I'm on board, Irondome is on board, and Paul is on board. Let's quit wasting our time here. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And no, Smatprt, this isn't the only issue that you brought up. Quoting from your original post above:

:2) The deletion of material here: [30] followed by the remnants of the section being moved to the very bottom of the article. This was a proper summary of its parent article. Now, I don't know what the section is, or why it's been tacked on to the article in such a poorly edited version.

I suggest you take this to the WP:FRINGE noticeboard. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't going anywhere, so let's just chill a bit, as Irondome said. There are lots of worthy suggestions to consider. Both users Comment and Keithbob, for example, think all the editorial stuff should go, and while I'm inclined to agree, I'm willing to continue working towards a compromise. Smatprt (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested compromise versions

1 (current version - as amended by Tom) Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an English peer and courtier of the Elizabethan era. Oxford was a patron of the arts and noted in his own time as a lyric poet and playwright, but his reckless and volatile temperament precluded him from attaining any courtly or governmental responsibility and led to the dissipation of his estate. Since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works.

2 (suggested by Keithbob, with line removed) Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an English peer and courtier of the Elizabethan era. Oxford was a patron of the arts, lyric poet and playwright and since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works.

3 (suggested by Collect) Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an English peer and courtier of the Elizabethan era. Oxford was a patron of the arts, lyric poet and playwright, but he had a mutable disposition which led to the ruin of his estate.[1] Since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works.

4 (suggested by smatprt) Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an English peer and courtier of the Elizabethan era. Oxford was a patron of the arts and sciences, lyric poet and playwright. Since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works.

The problem remains that there is a valid argument that if anything "led" to Oxford's ruin, it was the massive charges imposed by the crown when he became a ward, and again when he reached adulthood - a situation described by both Nelson and Pearson, as well as Ogburn and Anderson. So now matter how we slice it, trying to determine the true cause of his financial ruin, or assigning it all to his temperament, either approach remains problematic from an NPOV standpoint. Any suggestions from the independent editors? Smatprt (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

So IOW you're asking us to do original research and use non-RS sources, both of which are proscribed by WP policies. That's not what this noticeboard is about, and you're veering the conversation away from its purpose, which was to determine WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT. As a result the sentence has been modified and the POV and weight adjusted accordingly. You have been given several RS sources that state that Oxford's temperament led to his ruin. The sentence I suggested is backed by the sources--just go up a bit and re-read them. If you don't want to accept it, stop screwing around here and take it to dispute resolution.

Neither Ogburn nor Anderson can be used in a mainpage non-fringe article. They can be used in a fringe article in reporting what the fringe theory says. This is a historical biography, not Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

As you know, Ogburn and Anderson are not acceptable sources, nor did they make any discoveries about his financial situation. Yes, Nelson and Pearson give due weight to the importance of wardship. This does not alter the fact that his extravagnace and volatility are given central importance by all non-paretisan writers, a fact that has been amply documented. Your version just oblioterates all mention of one of the historically most notable features of Oxford's life. It is quite properly descrinbed as a whitewash. Paul B (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I know know such thing. I've checked the RS Noticeboard archives and I find no disqualification of either Ogburn or Anderson. As far as I'm aware, we can include facts reported by Ogburn or Anderson, but not their opinions. Same with Nelson, who is extremely partisan in his writing. Their opinions have to be noted as such. But undisputed facts can come from numerous sources. Of course, if you have a link to a RS determination on this, I will stand corrected. Smatprt (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

For the uninitated, please can you provide a brief summary of the issues with Anderson and Ogburn Irondome (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ogburn and Anderson are two Oxfordians who wrote incredibly lengthy books (as fringe theorists are wont to do) promoting Oxford as Shakespeare, based mainly on finding Oxford's putative biography in the Shakespeare works. WP:Fringe#Sourcing_and_attribution is applicable here, as well as the essay on identifying reliable sources, which states "Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used." Smatprt has enough experience at the RS noticeboard ([31] [32] [33]) to know that they are not acceptable references for this article; he is being disingenuous in using a technicality, i.e. since they haven't been specifically ruled on they are reliable on account of their publishing houses. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably immaterial to this particular issue, since all the sources mention the huge charges imposed by the crown on Oxford and other royal wards. FYI - Both Charlton Ogburn and Mark Anderson (writer) are published experts on Oxford (both wrote landmark works in the Authorship debate), but because they are authorship theorists, it has been argued that their entire literary output is therefore not reliable. I have never understood this argument. Smatprt (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That was just a general req for clarification. I dont want to muddy the waters here. So there is agreement in the sources as to Es financial predations on O. From my own still relatively scant knowledge she seems financially ruthless in that respect, and she claimed several aristocratic scalps indirectly by hitting them in the purse. Irondome (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

How many of those whose financial scalp she took received a $1000 annual annuity after being so sheared? Oxford was not one of Elizabeth's enemies. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I never thought or said she was. She was financially ruthless with the aristocracy as a whole. I have stated (somewhere) that her annuity was in effect an early form of disability benefit. She appeared to be wise to O's failings whatever their origin, and attempted to support him. Not the action of an enemy.Irondome (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link to the paragraph in the article that gives some detail, all referenced to Nelson.[34], while Pearson devotes an entire book to it. Page 1 sums it up: [35]. Smatprt (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither Anderson nor Ogburn are "published experts on Oxford". That's a pure untruth. Neither has any expertise whatever in Elizabthan history. In order to be descroibed as published experts they would have to have published in academic journals or with academic publishers. At minimum they should have had positive reviews from such journals. Anderson is a journalist and Ogburn was a miscellaneous writer (and various other things). Neither's books have been taken at all seriously by experts in Elizabethan history or literature. Nelson specifically says that Ogburn's book is completely useless (I don't think he commented on Anderson, who is not even considered worth mentioning by anyone I know of with an interest in the English Renaissance. The book is a complete joke). It's ridiculous that either of these authors are being presented as "experts". It's like describing Graham Hancock as an expert on ancient history. Of course if Smatprt wishes to revisit this issue he knows where the reliable sources board is. Paul B (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, there is no need to accuse anyone of "pure untruth". And no need to revisit an issue that has never approached anything close to a consensus. Again, provide a link to the RS Noticeboard decision or just acknowledge that the issue has never been decided. In any case, one can be an expert without being published in academic journals. Both these researchers have been published by mainstream "independent third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking", as the RS requirement goes. And both have been reviewed at length by "high-quality mainstream publications". This nonsense that only academics are considered RS here on Wikipedia is, well, just that - nonsense.Smatprt (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

When you say something you know to be untrue according to Wikipedia's rules, then "pure untruth" is polite. When you accuse an editor of COI because he is a genuine published expert you are are guilty of wikilawering of the worst kind. The general issue has of course been raised repeatedly at WP:RSN. However, you are free to raise the specific issues of Ogburn or Anderson's books at any time you want. You know perfectly well that they fail WP:RS by miles. To imply otherwise on this board is simply disingenuous. Paul B (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

To return to the point, however... Yes, User:Irondome, there is agreement in the sources as to Es financial predations on O. And I mean the uncontested sources. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome: Oxford eventually gained control of all of his lands, and Elizabeth did not "confiscate" a third of his estate. Read Nelson, pp. 191-4. He cuts to the chase on p. 193: "Given that fiscal restraint was a trait remote from Oxford's character, the story of his life becomes in large part the story of the loss of his lands....By about 1592 Oxford had alienated every landed estate inherited from his father, all the estates received at the hands of the Queen, and a London estate he would purchase in 1589, Fisher's Folly. The very roof over his deathbed was secure only because ownership was retained by his second wife's family." And from 194: "Not only would Oxford make no will at the time of his death in 1604, but his widow would refuse to take out the normal letters of administration--for who would bequeath non-existent property, or who would willingly accept an inheritance whose debts vastly outweighed its assets?" Tom Reedy (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Inching toward consensus, but not yet

We apparently have no consensus yet, and no compromise on this issue. The fact remains that the Ward system and QE1 played a part in Oxford's financial downfall. That is indisputable and sourced to Pearson (and has not been challenged by anyone here). We also have RS Stephen May's qualification (currently being ignored) that his "commitment to learning" and extensive patronage also played a part:

"Oxford's genuine commitment to learning throughout his career lends a necessary qualification to Stone's conclusion that De Vere simply squandered the more than 70,000 pounds he derived from selling off his patrimony...for which some part of this amount Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences".

Given this qualification, which is not being included, how can the bolded part of this sentence remain?:

"Oxford was a patron of the arts and noted in his own time as a lyric poet and playwright, but his reckless and volatile temperament precluded him from attaining any courtly or governmental responsibility and led to the dissipation of his estate

Also note this discussion [[36]], where user:ErrantX, a respected editor and Administrator, noted:

"The badly phrased damnation, along with the red flag of a reference in the lead, suggests a deliberate attempt to smear more than anything else."

Can anyone at this Noticeboard offer any input or put us on a path towards reolution? Smatprt (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In all my above contributions I have certainly critically explored O's personality without any preconceptions, and have gained valuable knowledge from all editors, not least you Smatprt on this area. It would seem he was genuinely talented and artistic, who was recognised in his own time as having what would now be described as "personality disorders" through no fault of his own, and this was sufficiently recognised by E no less, who attempted to provide for him financially, in a modest sense throughout his life, as I understand.. This indicates a perceptive awareness of O's probably medical misfortune. She also, with major members of the court circle in fact arguably protected him from himself by not giving him responsibility. Often Responsibility in the late 16th C. led to the block, and O wouldnt have lasted five minutes in the jungle of contemporary court politics. Literally. There is evidence that he was regarded as being ill- judged in his maturity, especially with regard to positions of power, and there appears to be anecdotal evidence of a "volatile" or at least confrontational temperament. I strongly disagreed with the term "violent" being in the lede. None of this I believe constitutes a smear. He is an interesting and flawed personality, and I think its permissible for WP to cover that aspect of him. I am indeed personally increasingly sympathetic to O. But I dont believe the bolded proposed wording is unfair. I would suggest only "and led partly to the dissipation of his estate" Irondome (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

So now Smatprt is not only trying to reopen an almost-dead discussion, he's canvassing other editors who haven't participated in this discussion in a desperate attempt to change the outcome. The question is so important he has ignored it for almost two weeks, but he must keep the battle front open by dragging it out to keep it from being archived.

The sentence in question now reads, "Oxford was a patron of the arts and noted in his own time as a lyric poet and playwright, but his reckless and volatile temperament precluded him from attaining any courtly or governmental responsibility and led to the dissipation of his estate." It is more than sufficiently referenced with citations from the top experts, but since Smatprt knows that Oxford wrote Shakespeare, their scholarly opinions aren't good enough, so here we are again on another marathon quest to right a great wrong in hopes that the regular editors will succumb to fatigue so that attrition will win what cannot be gained by discussion of policy and guideline. Not one thing has changed in his behavior, he's just moving slower to try to stay under the radar. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Since Smatprt is invoking ErrantX to argue against the sentence as it now stands, let's review the entire sentence.

"The badly phrased damnation, along with the red flag of a reference in the lead, suggests a deliberate attempt to smear more than anything else. If I recall this idiotic dispute, both "sides" are guilty of either hagiography or smear. Which just leaves us a shoddy article and endless arguments over a single sentence in the lead."

Smatprt is being deceptive here (no surprise; see #4 under Discussion), not only because he selectively quoted ErrantX; but also because the comment was made about the original sentence, "Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate, Oxford was a patron of the arts and noted in his own time as a lyric poet and playwright".

ErrantX's comment was in reply to a comment from another editor, Guy: "The example in question is a historical figure, and the judgment of history is as the article says. He was a selfish, venal, decadent man. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of those who wish their preferred Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theory candidate were more credible."

In addition, Smatprt is trying to canvass ErrantX under a false pretense]; he writes on ErrantX's talk page, "You were mentioned here (1). I have been accused in this discussion of putting words in peoples mouths, so I am requesting you look in and verify my quote of your statement. Thanks. Nobody has questioned ErrantX's statement or said that Smatprt is "putting words in his mouth". Smatprt is the editor who brought him up, but he is dishonestly trying to make it appear as if someone else is questioning ErrantX's statement. Why does he want ErrantX's input? Other editors at that discussion also commented, yet they weren't canvassed. Because he perceives him as sympathetic to his cause.

As I stated above, this is just more of the same time-wasting strategy that has been all too evident in dealing with Smatprt. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

ErrantX's comment suggests an off-the-cuff intuitive response without any specific knowledge of the topic. It makes generalisations that are, IMO, hard to sustain: "badly phrased damnation" (what is badly phrased about it?) "along with the red flag of a reference in the lead" (numerous articles have references in the lede. It's only a red flag to the extent that it indicates the statement might disputed by someone); "suggests a deliberate attempt to smear more than anything else" (there is absolutely no evidence of this at all). As we have shown repeatedly, this was the most notable feature of Oxford's life before he became a 'Shakespeare candidate'. He was known as the "spendthrift Earl". It is commented on by virtually every biography, short or long, ever written about him. It has even occasioned detailed studies, notably Pearson's, on the exact circumstances of the ruination. Paul B (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure guys, keep up your personal attacks and go ahead and smear other editors too. It's what you guys do. Canvassing? Hardly. ErrantX commented on this very subject on another page so his comments are relevant. but go ahead, Paul, attack him too. As you pointed out, Tom, no big change was made to the article, just your switching the order of a sentence. And for all your bullying, you can't even follow the simple policy of acknowledging the same "qualification" that exists in the source. While we are at it, another problem with this sentence is "precluded him from attaining any courtly or government responsibility". Any??? Really?According to the article (which your lead is supposed to reflect}:

Oxford was "in March Oxford was to be sent to Scotland as one of the hostages for James's safety."
Oxford "was 'the senior of the twenty-five noblemen' who rendered verdicts at the trials of Essex and Southampton for treason."
"Cecil eventually obtained a position for him under the Earl of Sussex in a Scottish campaign the following spring".
"In August, Oxford attended Paul de Foix, who had come to England to negotiate a marriage between Elizabeth and the Duke of Anjou, the future King Henry III of France."
Oxford refers to "mine office" in a letter dated 1594, writing "My very good Lord. if it please you to remember, that about half a year or there about past, I was a suitor to your lordship, for your favor. that whereas I found sundry abuses, whereby both her majesty, & myself, were in mine office greatly hindered, that it would please your Lordship, that I might find such favor from you, that I might have the same redressed." Since as you keep pointing out, he had no real duties as Lord High Chamberlain other than ceremonial, what office was being hindered? Historians are not sure, but he refers to "his office" twice in this letter. Entire letter here: [[37]]

Now I'm sure Tom and his little gang will say these all meant nothing, there was no office, no duties, rendering a verdict in a treason trial was not a responsibility, being sent to guarantee James' safety was not in important duty, etc. etc. But these duties are referenced in the article, and put the lie to another aspect of Tom's grand sweeping statement that he had no courtly responsibilities. Smatprt (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Tom - first - I've been a bit busy for the last few weeks. also - wikipedia is not nearly the big important thing in my life. I actually have a job and a family to take care of. How I manage my time is really none of your affair. I am a volunteer here. Please remember that. Tom - second - Regarding your misleading accusation above, what I actually said was: "I have been accused in this discussion of putting words in peoples mouths" I didn't say words in Errant's mouth as you mistakenly assert. Here is your earlier accusation that I was referring to:

"Thanks for putting words in another editor's (Keithbob) mouth..." - Tom Reedy [[38]] So please stop misleading Irondome and other editors here. are you ever going to respond to why you refuse to use May's qualification, as per policy? Are you ever going to acknowledge the duties and responsiblities that Oxford did have? Smatprt (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Irondome - Thanks for hanging in there and not being chased off by all the personal attacks. May I express my regrets and all the bs you have to sift thru. Smatprt (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I admit that it very difficult not to make a "personal attack" against you for reasons I would be happy to discuss at length. Your continual self-presentation as a victim of abuse is particularly irksome. However, I've made no personal attack directed at ErrantX. Pursuing vendettas on this board will serve no purpose. It's about a "neutral point of view" regarding articles, not editors. Paul B (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you find it difficult not to make personal attacks. How sad. Glad to hear you say "It's about a "neutral point of view" regarding articles, not editors." Too bad you three can't follow that sentiment. Smatprt (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

On the issue of substance: you list several events in Oxford's life that in your view constitute positions of "courtly or government reponsibility":

1. He was a hostage (how is that a position of reponsibility of any kind?).

2. He was on a jury in a trial the outcome of which was a foregone conclusion. I do not consider that to be a position of "courtly or government" respobnsibility.

3. He was in a military campaign. Again, being a soldier is not "courtly or government" responsibility.

4. He was an attendant to Paul de Foix, a foreign dignitary who was the one who actually had the responsibility and was doing the negotiating. Oxford's "job" was to be polite to him.

5. he uses the phrase "mine office" in a letter. Is this even an argument. It just means "my duties" in a generic sense.

As far as I am concerned these are no more positions of responsibility in a meaningful sense than being asked to hold the queen's fan while she changed her gloves is a position of "courtly" responsibility. This is a misuse of language to remove meaningful material which is factually accurate by a kind of pedantry and linguistic equivocation. It has nothing to do with NPOV as far as I can see. I think this board's time is being wasted. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the sources cited say exactly that: Oxford was never given a position of responsibility, and for good reason, no matter how much OR Smatprt comes up with.

If pointing out Smatprt's dishonest, tendentious and time-wasting editing strategies (of which this discussion is a good example) are personal attacks, then count me as guilty. His techniques shift according to the situation, and coming from two back-to-back year-long topic bans, the only thing that he has changed is his speed of execution. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is now moot (explain that, atheists!) unless some other editor cares to pick up the torch. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I see my comment has caused quite a discussion! First, all I can say is that I am deeply disappointed in everyone here, you've behaved very poorly and should be ashamed. I've been watching this dispute from afar for some time; as a topic I have some knowledge of. It's disappointing because after pages and pages of dispute all we have to show is a not-very-good article.

The fact that you have endlessly debated the phrasing of a lead sentence is one of the biggest "red flags" on Wikipedia. Leads should naturally and clearly evolve out of the article prose, and content disputes should almost always focus on the latter. Arguing over lead sentences is the easy way out, because you can stuff in references and argue over individual words, without actually producing anything of substance.

Take an honest look at the article; do you think it is of good quality?

And this is the problem. Don't get me wrong; I consider smartpt's stance a fringe viewpoint. But I've watched that article flit backwards and forwards between praise and damnation - with little consideration for writing something informative. The talk page is full of endless discussion over editors interpretation, and this is where we end up.

Irondome's comment is encouraging; and I'd agree that his description of Oxford reflects scholarly coverage. Sadly, our article does not. I realise this is a strong comment, but I hope it wakes a few people up from being "in a dispute" to concentrate on why we are here: to write a good article. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I for one am not ashamed, sorry to disappoint, and you offer no other solution about how to deal with these types of problems--about as useful as telling a drug addict to "Just say no." Yeah, it's a shitty article, no doubt. The question is do you want a shitty article with accurate information or do you want a shitty article that reflects the wet dreams of those who fantasize about Oxford? For years anybody with any editorial skills whatsoever shied away from working on that and any related articles because they didn't have the stomach to put up with all the bullshit of dealing with a committed SPA POV editor. The article could be FA quality, and now that the distraction of having to deal with such an editor has been removed, it has a chance to become one. Am I ashamed of being part of whatever it took to clear the way for that possibility to happen? Not a chance. Would that we had more editors with the tenacity to stick it out to the end of the indeterminable Wikipedia processes with tendentious editors. Wikipedia would be better off with more such editors and with fewer finger-waggers ready to jump in after the tough work has been taken care of. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This has been a fascinating engagement for me personally with the current thought on WP about the entire Shakespearean authorship debate, which I will stalk with interest. I must say that O's linkage with the authorship is rather weak to say the least. Give me a Christopher Marlowe spirited-away-and-he-never-really- paid The Reckoning a la Charles Nicholl (author). A masterpiece of popular history that really switched me on to the oddly contemporary nuances of the role of the state interacting with the lower orders, including Marlowe himself, despite his talent. In a sense this weakens the anti-Stratfordians whole case, for it demonstrates the role of the "ordinary man" at the highest levels of state activity and espionage at this period. Indeed early capitalism had arrived, with new money and London merchants financing the new colonies and feeling its political muscle as a class. Shakespeare was just such a man, albeit only in malt hoarding and money-lending at rip off interest rates. The period is almost proto-Thatcherite. Social mobility indeed. It gives great originally researched glimses of the sophistication of the late Tudor police - State fighting an ideological war on all fronts for its very survival against the Catholic Spanish world superpower, and even its communication with and payment of its agents. Give me Marlowe as a candidate anytime :)

I just think that this would be an interesting and useful article to WP users whether or not the candidacy issue is raised. I would argue he is sufficiently notable, and much work has been done on his various characteristics and personalities. I wonder if there is a medical study of his personality out there? It could be a great article, if we stopped fixating about the Shakespeare "thing". Cheers all. Irondome (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've refrained from joining the fray because I'm an interested party, and it might have seemed like ganging up. The problem in these articles is POV defensive nit-picking editing by hero-worshippers. The problem on the talk pages was that the plaintiff has a well-documented strategy of making an absurd article edit, then either on the talk-page or on various noticeboards, engaging in an extenuating war of attrition in order to get a "compromise". The technique is not scholarly but one characteristic of political in-fighting where two positions representing two 'democratically' formed constituencies, are required to thrash out an agreement that allows both parties some leverage and partial satisfaction. Scholarship doesn't however work the way filibustering in the US Congress or Senate does, or the Kabuki tactics of parties to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, where stalemates lead to unhappy mediations and chronic mutual hostility. Observers asked to pitch in and provide neutral advice in such contentious areas step on a minefield if they think that 'mediation' between fringe-lunatic positions and standard secular scholarship requires a balanced weighing of the rights to representation in terms of egalitarian principles. In this case, the RS regard the fringe view as irremediably disturbed, conceptually, and endless negotiations over one word, then another, as we have had here, are pointless exercises in attrition and futility. That article, in any case, has been thoroughly worked over once by Nina Green, who overhauled it from top to bottom with the encouragement, or certainly no bickering bitching edit by edit as her work was in progress, from those of us who otherwise regard anti-Stratfordism as nonsense. What is requires now is a comprehensive reorganization on thematic, not chronological lines, unobstructed by our congenital nitpicker's disruptiveness. Tom and Paul and a few others managed to achieve FA status for the SAQ article, which suffered from the same disruptiveness until the disturbing presence was suspended, and if assisted by a few accomplished editors in a fresh editing environment, could probably achieve the same end with this de Vere article.Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

LAGbook - possible fraudulent articles

LAGbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chidi and Chika Nwaogu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Socialnerd (talk · contribs)
Shidan (talk · contribs) / 99.225.80.88 (talk · contribs)

Editor Shidan claims that much of the content of these articles is fraudulent, and that many of the sources are fraudulent press releases: Talk:LAGbook#Concerns_about_the_claims_and_sources_in_this_article.

Given the past problems we've had with the article, I think this is worth investigating. I'd expect that similar cases like this have occurred, but I can't recall any, so am looking for others' help and recommendations.

I've recommended that Shidan try to verify his claims and that editors examine all the references closely. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the situation more carefully, I'm proposing they be deleted.

I'd really appreciate some comments. This isn't as cut-and-dry as I'd like. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks pretty cut-and-dried to me. Delete. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Association of Gun control with authoritarianism

Please comment at: Talk:Gun_control#RFC:_Section_on_Association_of_Gun_control_with_authoritarianism

Is the section "Associations with authoritarianism" in Gun control neutral? An editor has suggested that:

the section is too long
the section is poorly sourced (e.g. one source is the website of Jews for the Preservation of Firearnms Protection, another source is Lethal Laws: Gun Control is the Key to Genocide-- Documentary Proof that Enforcement of Gun Control Laws Clears the way for Governments to Commit Genocide, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership)
the section exists in order to imply guilt by association about gun control
the section includes extraneous, selective factoids, such as
- an anti-gun control statement made by a non-notable Holocaust survivor, which is in the article in order to "balance" a pro-gun control statement by a notable Holocaust survivor
- various selected studies done by anti-gun control groups which "prove" the association of gun control with authoritarianism (here primarily meaning Nazism).

— goethean 12:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I commented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Watts Up With That

Hello,

I am trying to figure out what the right way to call the opinions of those who run the website Watts Up With That. If you look in the history you'll see that I reverted a user who changed an IP's wording change from "skepticism" to "environmental skepticism" in the text. I thought a discussion should happen since the link is to the environmental skepticism website. I tried talking on the user's page and on the talk page of the article, and hope that this will not turn into a huge controversy because there was a message that the article is under restrictions. Please respond on my new talkpage section of Talk:Watts Up With That Nodnien (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here. I believe that what you did is correct, but perhaps other people have other opinions. I posted on that talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Politically related deaths of Iranians

Recently created, currently unreferenced. I am curious if others think it is possible to have a neutral article with this title. VQuakr (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Properly delimited - of course yes. This does not mean the current assemblage works, though. Posit a "List of politically related assassinations in Iran" which is surely possible, as we have one for "post-apartheid South Africa". Collect (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No, because there would be no agreement over which deaths were "politically motivated." The title itself is euphemistic. Also, it is open to original research. TFD (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel Shahak "guilt by association"

In this article about deceased writer Israel Shahak at this diff an editor moved a paragraph about the fact that "neo-Nazi or fundamentalist Islamic website"s carry his work from the end of the critical material in the "Reception" section to the beginning. I discussed this at Talk:Israel_Shahak#Context_vs._guilt_by_association as being an obviously POV move but no response from anyone. I don't feel like starting an edit war, since I know he'll just revert it, so though I'd come by for a quickie Neutral opinion. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of innuendo in the article. Saying that someone's writings appear on far right websites implies that the person identified with those views, without providing any source that makes the connection. TFD (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The one source is someone saying their use on those sites is NOT a connection, but of course that doesn't excuse it being in the beginning of the relevant material, as opposed to the end. CarolMooreDC🗽 04:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

why not reduce the information to something like "Shahak's writings are often used by antisemites and antisemitic groups as talking points for x, y, and z." Soosim (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Because that would still be guilt by association. The only reasonable way of having this stuff, is there is any at all, would be like "<some named critic of Shahak> alleges that the fact Shahak is quoted by <named disreputable sources> proves <something>". But that would expose the fact that this is an argument from Shahak's enemies, not an objective fact cited to a reliable source. Two examples that I have mentioned before show how outrageous is the present treatment: (1) Hitler admired England very much; let's see you add that at England. (2) Former Israeli prime-minister Sharett is regularly quoted by the same disreputable web sites as quote Shahak. Try going to Moshe Sharett and insert "Sharett's words have also found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers" (a true fact) and see how long it lasts. Zero^talk 13:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I think using Shahak's co-author's denunciation of these uses is ok - and somewhere else in the article. But using an advocacy group to list the groups and make a guilt by association comment is the problem and I should have caught it long ago. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Newcastle Grammar School

Has been maintained basically as a recruiting brochure and advert since a 2008 dispute on the talk page. Now an edit war has broken out and the school's IT department created an account in order to demand suppression of embarrassing facts. I've blocked the role account, but this thing needs hacking with a machete. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Orangemike, the article does lack neutrality. There are self serving statements such as "Today it is a leading independent school in the Hunter Region", cited to the school's own website. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's so biased nobody in their right mind would believe it, which kinda defeats the purpose I would have thought. There's also some gruesome grammar. Some of it is hard to even comprehend. (Why does this happen so often with school pages?) I'll have a play too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Often, nobody cares but the school's adherents. Thus, you go from saying it serves levels IV-IX in that country's education system, to a listing of every time their ground hockey team won a provincial championship (since the ground hockey team is very proud of this) and a catalog of what musicals their glee club has staged (same reason). --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

School articles should contain mostly information that is sufficiently notable that it has attracted coverage in the media or books. Only basic information should be sourced to the school's website. By providing a link, people who want to know more can go there and find information that is up to date. The bullying section however is written in narrative style. I would prefer that it just summarized what happened. TFD (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul's Lead and History Section

Few editors are trying to minimize and/or eliminate information regarding certain time periods from Istanbul's article. First issue is the lead. There are currently 482 words in the lead. More than half (245 words), 2 entire paragraphs, deal with history. Yet, despite this extensive historical focus, pre-Byzantine history is completely ignored in the lead even though it is notable enough and already included in the rest of the article. Second issue is the history section. Important information is being left out (which is 2 sentences), despite the extensive section, with 2 entire sub-sections. Editors are disregarding what the sources are saying based on their own opinions.

So the issues are following: (1) Adding "Early settlements in the area date back to Neolithic, including ancient Thracian settlements." into the lead and (2) adding back these information [39] into history section. There is also a RFC, Talk:Istanbul#RFC. Cavann (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed here [40] and here as well [41]. There appears to be a consensus that the material is noteworthy enough for the article, but not for the lead nor for the infobox. Cavann refuses to accept this. Athenean (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are relevant discussions, but not exactly the same. Infobox and lead are not same issues. Do not invent fake consensus. Cavann (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The arguments made there are just as valid for the lead. And now I notice yet another user has weighed in against your view. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Indian Armed Forces

I would like to draw the attention of the regular users of this board to the 'criticism' section of this article. I have filed an RfC regarding this section that aims to gain consensus on the validity of this section, particularly in the light of wikipedia policies concerning criticism sections. Generous commentary on that page is invited.Handyunits (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Georges Yatridès

I am serously concerned about two users and there neutrality, but there is also a language barrier, can someone respond to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

UNMIK

Hi all,
There has been a slight disagreement over at United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, concerning Kosovo's declaration of independence. Sources generally portray it in a straightforward fashion; the Kosovo assembly declared independence. For instance, [42] [43] [44] [45] &c. However, some editors are keen to phrase it differently; "At a meeting of the Assembly of Kosovo most of its members and other representatives of the people of Kosovo, acting outside the UNMIK's PISG framework (not representing the Assembly or any other of these institutions), ..." which to me looks like weasel wording and synthesis; individually, those words seem true if you make a very selective reading of section IV.B.2 (b) of a court document; the words just go out of their way to avoid saying what the bulk of secondary sources say. It looks like an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the declaration (needless to say, we already have plenty of (sometimes disputed) coverage of the legitimacy). Similar wording has sometimes been added to other articles. What does everyone else think? bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, an error appears in the opening line of the above statement. There is a major disagreement regarding the declaration:

The sources presented by Rayner are minor reports that concentrate on the status of the declaration not violating international law, the opposite is not the aim of the text being restored, that is there to explain that - in short - representatives claiming to represent the people who did not represent the Assembly of Kosovo or other institutions made the proclamation. I don't see what the problem is with that, all the above examples prove is that there has the page has been disrupted by one single editor subsisting on false summaries. There's no POV issue there, certainly none that provokes a blanket revert. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem remains; reliable independent sources say no such thing, but editors on one side of enwiki's ongoing Balkan wars are very keen to insert weaselly wording based from an obscure chapter of a legal document. Carefully selecting a phrase which goes against the tone of what multiple reliable sources say. Can't we put an end to this? bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Question: Can this not be phrased something like the Kosovo assembly declared independence. An alternative view is that at a meeting of the Assembly of Kosovo most of its members and other representatives of the people of Kosovo, acting outside the UNMIK's PISG framework (not representing the Assembly or any other of these institutions), ...

This is how I dealt with the conflicting "fact" for the "original recipe" of the Singapore Sling. Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC on BP trial

I've commenced an RfC on a three paragraph subsection of BP that deals with the ongoing trial of the company in Louisiana. Some editors have insisted upon removing one of the three paragraphs, claiming WP:UNDUE. Also at issue is whether this should be a section or subsection. It is currently a subsection. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BP#RfC:_Clean_Air_Act_Trial:_How_much_detail.3F Coretheapple (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Question Would it not be a good idea to provide a diff of the paragraph being removed? This would save a neutral the time and trouble having to trawl through edits on a subject which, by definition, he or she has little interest. Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobic incidents

Can someone take a look at recent edits here (I reverted some earlier)? There are some interesting edit summaries. For instance, [46] - 'racist' was removed although it seems to describe the name-calling. Then we have [47] which adds " However, Muslim separatists such as Boko Haram have been involved in a long and violent campaign against Christianity in Nigeria." and reverts my reversion. When I reverted it I wrote "besides needing good sources, this article is about incidents, not decisions" - which is true. This isn't an article about disputes between Muslims and other groups, but an article about anti-Muslim incidents. Sorry, but I'm to tired to analyse the rest, just want other opinions/eyes. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The name calling is not racist. The Yelwa thing doesn't belong at all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Prima Facie Neutral View [5] is good & [6] is bad. Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

War on Women

The article "war on women" goes to great pains in its intro to limit the topic of the article to uses of the phrase "war on women" to criticize conservative positions. My concern is that defining the topic of the article is an NPOV violation. Several centrist and conservative commentators have written responses saying that the "real war on women" is something else, e.g. sexist attacks on Conservative women [48], Islamist murders of women who dare to date Westerners [49]; plenty of other examples on Google. My attempts to add such uses to the article have been deflected with the assertion that my additions were off topic. My concern here is that the topic of the article has been defined in a way that ensures the article is one-sided.

As the phrase "war on women" has been used by all sides in our political debate, it is unfair for supposedly NPOV Wikipedia to have an article on the term which defines it solely to the way the term is used by one side.

If you think this is OK, then I have a question for you -- could I create an article on "left-wing hypocrisy?" This is a catchphrase used by Conservatives all the time. By defining my article that way, I could limit it to conservative talking points. Any mention of hypocrisy by anyone who was not left-wing would be off topic.

If the "war on women" article is allowed to stand, this would appear to be permissible.William Jockusch (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

War on Women

I do not see much of an actionable proposal in this report. I just had a very quick look at the article and talk page history, and it appears nothing has happened there for over a week (apart from a couple of reasonable edits). Can the OP provide a diff showing a proposed edit (presumably one that was reverted), or point to a discussion with a precise proposal. Noticeboards are not much use for general discussion, although they are fine to ask for independent opinions—opinions which belong at the article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

William Jockusch has had little success in getting his preferred interpretation into the War on Women article. Six months ago he indicated that he thought the topic should be modified away from the commonly defined topic of "War on Women" (as an anti-Republican political catchphrase used primarily by Democrats), but the consensus has always been to keep the article on a narrow footing, to preserve its focus on the uses of the anti-Republican catchphrase. See the following discussions over the past six months: RfC - Scope of Article, Democratic Party or not?, Links to attack pages, Balance in the Lede, Belligerents in the WoW, Request for comment -- Taliban, War on Conservative Women, Pay gap chart is highlighting an irrelevant statistic, Article should state that the meme is used to attack conservatives and republicans, Kirsten Powers should be included, Pay discrepancy in the Obama White House and Honor killings. William Jockusch is continually trying the patience of editors at that page by repeatedly engaging in discussion about the same issues. What he wants cannot happen; the article is about one topic, not two. It is about an anti-Republican catchphrase, but he wants it to include anti-Democratic endeavors. Binksternet (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Seconding Binksternet - WJ has tried this repeatedly and always had a consensus against his efforts, and I'm not expecting the appeal to NPOVN to go any differently (since it's not as though the article is small and obscure with minimal traffic, such that community consensus might differ from local consensus). The problem isn't neutrality - it's that WJ, because he personally dislikes the chronicling of Republican political initiatives in reliable sources, keeps trying to change the article from a discrete topic into a list of uses of a given phrase, which isn't what Wikipedia articles are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As repeatedly discussed with the OP, this article is about one topic: "a political catchphrase in United States politics, used by some political and social advocates to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that they see as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights". It is not about various issues that various people have called a "war on women". It is not about topics the OP feels are relevant that reliable sources have not said are relevant to this specific topic. If there is another topic using this name that is notable, another article can be established and this article hat noted. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq -- here is a recent diff: [50]. The reason given for deletion was that the use of the phrase "honor killings" in an article entitled "The real War on Women" don't fit under "domestic violence" because it was being used in a way that is different from the topic of the article. [51] Which is true if you define the topic of the article as uses of the phrase "war on women" to attack conservatives or Republicans. I tried a bunch last Fall, with similar results. For example, here I put in some conservative uses of the phrase.[52]. This was rejected because "the lede summarizes the body." So the conservative use of the phrase can't go into the lede because it doesn't summarize the body, and it can't go into the body because the lede says the topic is uses of the phrase to attack conservative and republican initiatives. Hence other uses are off topic. All true, if you define the topic that way. But is defining the topic that way consistent with NPOV? If so, would it be equally fair to have an article where we discuss only the use of a particular phrase to go after Democrats or liberals, and all uses of it in the other direction are off topic? Here is a link to an old state of the article's talk page, with plenty of discussion of exactly that issue.http:[53]William Jockusch (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Above, WJ states that the reason I gave here is that "honor killings" are not part of the topic. I actually noted three problems. The first, failing to log in when editing where the editor has been part of a significant dispute is not at issue here. The second issue is that the edit I reverted cited a source (archived here) that did not so much as mention -- let alone discuss -- honor killings. Then, and only then, I noted that the topic seemed to be another of WJ's efforts to turn an article about an anti-Republican catch phrase into an article about various topics unrelated to it. Yes, various individual conservative commentators have responded to the catchphrase by attempting to point to various issues impacting women in ways that they see as more egregious attacks on women. What we lack is reliable sources discussing these responses. Rather, we have individual responses. Adding these to the article would be similar to picking a politician (Obama, G. W. Bush, whomever) and adding various comments from various commentators, cited to their individual comments. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that you note that there is a lack of RS discussing conservative responses to the phrase, when the article is replete with opinion based references. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Then it is time to change the name of the article. If you want a general title, then you have to include all sides. This phrase is not reserved. Arzel (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's nonsensical, and if you gave it a single moment of thought, you'd realize that too. The fact that "Time" is the name of a Pink Floyd album, a magazine, etc. doesn't prevent us from having the article Time, because WP has articles about topics, not lists of indiscriminate information. (The only difference there is that the "Taliban war on women" or "Democratic war on women" don't have the sources to sustain an article.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "Time" is the name of a Pink Floyd song, not a Pink Floyd album. And it's before my "time" anyway ... Seriously. Limiting the scope of the article in this way effectively concedes ownership of the term "War On Women" to left-wing partisans. Either change the title of the article to explicitly limit it to allegations against Republicans, or expand the scope of the article to include other wars against women by other entities. In particular, compare the Taliban shooting women in the head or stoning them to death for having premarital sex, and Republicans wanting to take away their right to have an abortion as a form of birth control. Objectively, which of these two groups is waging a "war on women" if you can only choose one? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah yes, thank you for the correction (I originally listed a bunch of other things, including albums, but decided I'd made the point with a few examples, and screwed up in trimming my comment). Anyway, the issue is not who "objectively" is waging a war on women, because that way lies original research. The issue is that the article is about a topic (Republican political initiatives), not a phrase ("War on Women" - or "time"). If we want to treat violations of women's rights more generally, we also have other articles for that (see eg. my suggestion to WJ way back when, that he consider working on Taliban treatment of women if he really felt strongly about it, rather than simply feeling strongly about the rightness of Republicans). "War on Women" happens to be the name in common usage for these Republican political initiatives, but it is the initiatives that are the topic, not the combination of words. Does that make sense to you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite appearances, I am certain that the above edit was made in good faith and is not intended as a personal attack. I am certain that Roscelese reviewed my entire edit history before making such an insinuation, and simply failed to notice repeated diffs clarifying various Islamist outrages, including this one against a woman [54]. Additionally I'm sure that Roscelese performed a careful investigation of my personal life, resulting in an evidence-based conclusion that I don't care. Because no one would ever make such an insinuation without checking carefully.William Jockusch (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The rest of your edit history is irrelevant to me (unless it is as disruptive as your editing at War on Women, in which case perhaps it should become relevant to me). I sincerely hope that you have no intention of making your personal life relevant to me, but you wouldn't be the first editor to do so without my permission. As I said both then and just now, if you're actually interested in expanding WP's coverage of other small-w "wars on women", instead of simply diluting its coverage of one that sources most often call by that name, you had the source and nothing was preventing you from adding it to an article like Taliban treatment of women where it might have belonged (unlike War on Women, where what was preventing you were various WP core policies). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume that the word "disruptive" above was actually a good-faith attempt to type "disagreement about what constitutes balance," but a typo caused it to come out wrong. Because progressives have rightly taught us the importance of civility, and civility begins in the heart.William Jockusch (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Only one of those two choices is relevant to US politics, which is what the article is about. Trying to compare the Taliban in Afghanistan with Republicans in the US is synthesis, which has been a recurring problem with the suggestions made by William Jockusch. Your observation that limiting the scope of the article "concedes ownership... to left-wing partisans" says more about your personal stance than about the neutral inclination to keep the article topic from drifting into the weeds. People of all political stripes should be interested in making the War on Women article be as informative and neutral as possible. Trying to polarize the the neutral editors into left- and right-wing partisans is a dead end effort, ultimately unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And if we need sources to support the contention that notable people allege a Democratic Party war on women, there's this: [55] And this: [56] And this: [57]
"War on Women" happens to be the name in common usage for these Republican political initiatives ... Common usage among who, pray tell? Democratic political operatives? Talking heads at MSNBC? The superstars of snark at Daily Kos?
Only one of those two choices is relevant to US politics, which is what the article is about. It is? How is a reader from the UK, Australia, New Zealand or Canada supposed to discern that from the title?
Trying to compare the Taliban in Afghanistan with Republicans in the US is synthesis ... Not in this case. This is not the American Wikipedia, or the Democratic Party Wikipedia. This is the English language Wikipedia, for anyone in the entire world who can read the English language, including millions who have never even heard of the Democratic Party or its memes.
Your observation that limiting the scope of the article "concedes ownership... to left-wing partisans" says more about your personal stance ... LOL. I knew someone would go there. I voted for Barack Obama three times: 2004 (I live in Illinois and voted for him for the Senate), 2008 and 2012. You will not find a more loyal Democratic Party voter. But unlike many Wikipedia editors who happen to be progressive, I am both able and willing to check my biases at the door, and seek to create truly neutral articles. That's my "personal stance." What's yours?
I suggest a new title for the article: 'War on Women' meme by Democratic Party (U.S.) It was a very successful meme. The Democrats beat two Republican Senate candidates (Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin) who should have been able to cruise to effortless wins. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest any of you look back at the "disruptive" edit history of William Jockusch. I would hazzard to suggest that he does not have one edit that is not involved in attempting to change articles to reflect the right wing, Fox News POV of the world. 64.134.234.134 (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I might think that this problem could be solved by stating at the beginning that this article is about the American political term, and including a link to Violence against women for those who found themselves on the wrong page? I think that this is the most elegant solution.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. But I believe that approach compounds the inherent cultural bias. By continuing to use the title War on Women, with no further explanation within the title itself, we proclaim to the English speaking world that the Republican Party's desire to limit abortion rights is the most important, most notable type of oppression against women in the entire world. What supreme, towering arrogance when women are being stoned to death elsewhere. Not to mention the many other acts of very real violence against women, such as honor killing and female genital mutilation.

That's not to say that I disapprove of the use of political memes by the Democratic Party. To the contrary, I think they're great. The Republican Party deserves to be smacked on the head with several memes in every election. I'm very proud of our party's memes, and this has been one of the finest. Love it. But I can't allow this bias to affect decisions about Wikipedia. Let's concede that in the eyes of much, if not most of the English speaking world, the real war on women is being waged by such people as the Taliban. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are completely wrong about this. There are many articles with similar phrases. See, for example War on Drugs and War on Terror, which refer to specific delimited uses of the phrases in question without any qualifications in the title. The "War on Terror" is the US led campaign against, predominently, Islamists. And that's what the article properly says. Now, of course, there may be many other uses of the phrase, but that's irrelevant. We don't include discussion of opponents of Reign of Terror in Revolutionary France etc etc.
Such political phrases are also often used by the people who are targets of the term ("the real war on terror is against the the USA, which terrorises opponents of western capitalism blah blah"). It may be appropriate to refer to the rhetorical use of such terms by their targets to criticise the phrase, and, in this case, the claim that the "real" war on women is to be found elsewhere is one such tactic. But that's just not what the phrase means when it is used in political rhetoric. It's a feminist term deriving from Faludi's book Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, and it refers specifically to conflicts within Western culture, and the US in particular. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Having been a feminist since the 1960s and heard the phrase many times over the years, I defended the term as not being a neologism in talk noting This book uses the phrase in 1977 saying "No one has depicted the sorrows and cruelties of war on women, children, and ordinary people as Kollwitz did in her art." This 1983 article about interview with Betty Friedan uses the phrase. I never did put these in or other references I could have found and should because I'd like to see the development section expanded. I'd also like to see the past history mentioned in first sentence of lead. Otherwise, it's obviously the phrase has been used a lot in last year or so and that is the most notable time period. But it will remain a notable phrase after this patriarchal nation state and its petty patriarchal parties have been dissolved, so let's not pigeonhole it too much.

CarolMooreDC🗽 15:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the argument is that it is currently pigeonholed. And thanks to Roscelese for making my point. Yes there are several "Time" articles, but they are all differentiated by their aspect of time. For this article to be accurate it must either include all aspects which depict a "War on Women" or be more specific that it is just the Democratic Meme (which is what the article is referring). Arzel (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguations in article titles - like (magazine), (Pink Floyd song), etc. - don't exist to satisfy the whims of biased editors, but rather to disambiguate. If you can demonstrate that "War on Women" is frequently used in reliable sources to refer to something else, presumably enough so that an article or a plausible redirect can be created, then we might be able to talk about disambiguating, but even so, you would need strong proof that the existing topic was not the primary one in order to justify not simply solving that issue with a hatnote. I can't believe I'm still acting as though this person is arguing in good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Who said I made that claim? I simply stated that if your goal is to keep out non-republican WOW's then the title should be more specific. You know it is hard to accept good faith from you regarding being specific. Arzel (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm still acting as though this person is arguing in good faith. You act that way because Wikipedia policy requires you to act that way. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That precisely not the point. It's not a Democratic meme. It's a feminist meme appropriated by the Democratic party to appeal to their voters. And that's pretty much what the article says. It does so in the lede section and the "development of the term" section. If there was another notable and sustained use of the phrase "war on women" to refer to a different specific topic, then, and only then, we would introduce disambiguation in the title: "War on Women (Amazons) is a term used to refer to a mythical war against the female warrior Amazons of ancient Greek legend" etc. The only other uses provided are stray and isolated examples of the phrase in various contexts, or self-conscious Republican appropriations of it in comments specifically on the Democratic and feminist usage. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I see. So it's a feminist meme that's limited to the United States. "Dear Middle East: Wikipedia is aware of its cultural bias in favor of the United States, and chooses to do nothing about it because Wikipedia likes its cultural bias. If you think that the Taliban and other medieval Middle Eastern cults are waging a war on women, with their stonings and their honor killings and their burkhas and their beatings and their gender segregation and their female genital mutilation, think again. Here's a nice hatnote for you. Run along." Perhaps the proper title is 'War on Women' (feminist meme) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. Your comments are spectacularly obtuse. No-one regularly refers to the practices of the Taliban as "the War on Women". Rather, some Republicans/US Conservatives have said, with reference to the established feminist usage, that what they are doing cannot reasonably be described as a war on women when groups like the Taliban behave as they do. That's clearly part of the discourse on the feminist usage. We don't put bracketed disambiguations in names unless there is a reason why another usage of a phrase, name, or whatever, is well established. Of course one can argue that the critics of the phrase have a valid point, that calling Republican policies a "war on women" is wildly hyperbolic, unfair, silly etc etc. But that's another issue altogether. Paul B (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Liberal's never use it to describe something other than Republicans. </sarc> Arzel (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Try to read more carefully. I wrote "No-one regularly refers to the practices of the Taliban as "the War on Women". It has to be established usage as a term to refer to a definite topic. To repeat, "We don't put bracketed disambiguations in names unless there is a reason why another usage of a phrase, name, or whatever, is well established." This is becoming tiresome. No one is objecting to inclusion of criticism of the term or even of instances of extensions of the usage, which is what this example is. It's not a wholly different meaning (which is why I gave the made-up mythological "war" as an example of when title disambiguation becomes relevant). Paul B (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"No one is objecting to extensions of its usage"? I'd take issue with that statement. In fact, the lede of the article is there precisely to make sure that extensions of its usage are not included.William Jockusch (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant that no-one on this thread is, it seems to me, objecting to that. However, the article shouldn't confuse the reader by implying that "war on women" is a generic phrase applied to lots of different things. We are supposed to be being encyclopedic. The lede summarises the meaning of the term in political discourse. Extensions of the usage of a familar catchphrase are, of course, commonplace. The use of the term as a counter to the specific feminist/Demicrat usage is one thing; the use of it as a generic familar phrase is another, which should, where it is meaningful, be addressed elsewhere in the article. Paul B (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I just came across the following essay, which appears to give a rather clear discussion of what is going on in the WoW article: [58] See in particular the last section on "extreme POV funnels" -- in some extreme cases, a POV funnel might be used to purposely restrict what text sections, or images, are allowed within an article. The situation can be seen as a trap, deliberately intending to restrict the information "allowed" in Wikipedia.. That appears be an excellent description of what is going on with this article. Two questions: (1) agree/disagree? (2) In the event that consensus is not reached here, what is the appropriate next step for me to pursue the issue?William Jockusch (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The corollary to "POV funnel" is probably "off-topic forcible insertion tool" which is what your arguments are aiming for. There is not an article on Wikipedia called All known instances of the term "War on Women", or else your desired insertions would certainly fit, and would indeed be required. On the other hand, the article which consensus has determined will be called War on Women is a much more limited topic, one which is about the US Republican "War on Women" political catchphrase. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think the title of the article is neutral, no, it would be if it were moved to "War on Women" (US political catchphrase) or similar, but I see that has already been discussed on the article's talk page and rejected [59] and William J was actually the first to oppose the idea, I do not understand why really, it doesn't look like he is really interested in a non-neutral article to me. The other reasons given why it should not have (US political catchphrase) or similar added is because that is only done when it is needed to disambiguate from similarly named articles, and there is no other WP article with that name. I do not think that is a very good reason to be honest, it should at least have "War on Women" put in quotes otherwise it does seem that WP is supporting the accusation that the republicans are waging war on women.Smeat75 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We only disambiguate if the phrase is used in another existing article. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Evan Mandery

Resolved

– Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Originally I posted at the conflict of interest noticeboard (WP:COIN) but without action, so I'm posting here. A COI is mainly an issue of NPOV.

I only want to request that a conflicted-of-interest (COI-affected) article, Evan Mandery, be reviewed for whether it has been sufficiently cleaned up of effects of the COI or COIs to justify deleting the COI template. Other editors have made efforts at editing the article for neutrality.

An editor with an apparent but undisclosed COI edited the article; I notified the editor. I also have a COI for that article; I disclosed my COI. My only edit to the article was to insert the {{COI}} template on a blank line. I've also posted to the article's talk page, including tagging that there is a {{Connected contributor}}.

Other editors have since edited. They have apparently addressed every issue I identified; what may still be pending is discussed there but generally response has been rapid. I am not now proposing a specific edit. (Some copyediting is probably in order but I consider that as outside the scope of this issue.) A question has been raised about whether the most frequent (by far) of these three editors has a COI (I can link to that if you wish) but has not been raised formally or, to my knowledge, to him, and so I think he should be considered free of a COI until shown otherwise, and he has posted that he has no COI.

While the COI template normally may be removed by any editor, since I also have a COI this is an unusual case that I think should be resolved by someone likely to be assuredly neutral of a COI in this article.

Thank you for your assistance. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this on. I'll need a bit of time to get my head around it all though. Manning (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Mark B. Cohen

I just came across this exhaustively detailed article (overly detailed?) about a living Pennsylvania politician (State Legislature). The article has been repeatedly tagged for being non-neutral ... but there has been no real discussion on the talk page as to why it is non-neutral.
A quick glance shows a heavy reliance on primary sources (which may be part of the problem), and there is very little in the way of criticism (which a balanced article about a politician should contain). I have no "proof" but the lack of negative info, the use of primary sources, and the level of detail makes me suspect that the main author might have a COI (a campaign staffer perhaps?).
A review from experienced editors would be appreciated. There is the potential for a very good article here, but it needs some fixing. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE dispute at Male privilege

There is a section that keeps being removed/restored and is at least as large as the remainder of the article. It certainly qualifies as a WP:CRITICISM section (entitled "against the notion of male privilege"). The main proponent of keeping it in the article (Kyohyi) argues that it is well-sourced, but some of their previous edit summaries and activity lead me to suspect an agenda. They also edit significantly at Men's rights movement where another editor (Rgambord)who tagbombed and removed a great deal of non-WP:CRIT content was an active editor before being subject banned and, judging from his or her user page, leaving.

Below is the section in question. I feel like it probably is more in line with the subject matter at Men's rights movement rather than Male privilege. Certainly some of the voices here should be included, but I feel like its a bit of a WP:COATRACK and most definitely WP:UNDUE but I'm interested in hearing what other editors here have to say.

(another editor, Publicarch seems to agree that this is WP:UNDUE but I think it's wise to get some other opinions on record)

==Against the notion of male privilege==
Men's rights activist Herb Goldberg,^[1] claimed in 1976 that "the myth that the male is culturally favoured ...is clung to, despite the fact that every critical statistic in the area of longevity, disease, suicide, crime, accidents, childhood emotional disorders, alcoholism, and drug addiction shows a disproportionately higher male rate." He sees males as "oppressed by the cultural pressures that have denied him his feelings, by the mythology of the woman and the distorted and self destructive way he sees and relates to her, by the urgency for him to 'act like a man' which blocks his ability to respond ... both emotionally and physiologically, and by a generalized self hate that causes him to [not] feel comfortable ... when he lives for joy and for personal growth."
Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly and conservative author Ann Coulter have argued in the course of their campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment that “of all the classes of people who have ever lived, the American woman is the most privileged. We have the most rights and rewards, and the fewest duties.”^[2] As examples, they point to the traditionally nonreciprocal obligation on husbands to financially provide for their wives, and women's immunity from conscription into military service.^[2]
In The Myth of Male Power, “a debunking of the myth of men as a privileged class”^[3] Warren Farrell points to the over-representation of men among groups such as the homeless, suicides, alcoholics, the victims of violent crime and prisoners. Far from being privileged, he argues that policies such as conscription, the women and children first convention and the over-representation of men among the most dangerous and unpleasant occupations illustrate men’s status as "the disposable sex"^[4], and states that “if a man feels obligated to take a job he likes less so he can be paid more money that someone else spends while he dies seven years earlier, well, that's not power.”^[4]

-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the continued attacks. Please close this discussion, as it's silly to have two concurrent discussions on NPOV/N and AN/I on an identical issue. Rgambord (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that you have ignored any attempt to actually reach consensus, choosing instead to briefly discuss the problem on the talk page before coming in here to get support, while insulting other editors. You then went to AN/I to attempt to get the article put on probation, without proof of edit warring besides that which you've engaged in, which is a bit of overkill. Do you just immediately assume that it's impossible to reconcile your differences so you need an admin to baby-sit the article? You know as well as I do that I have made every good faith attempt to work together build the article with reliable sources and in an NPOV way, but you've basically resorted to reverting any edits to enforce the poorly written, and heavily biased article that existed previously. When you couldn't get your way on AN/I, you stormed off, and now you've returned presumably to start with the same nonsense. I'd be more than happy to reconcile our differences and work on actually writing the article, instead of constantly arguing. I'm sure you have knowledge on the subject, since you seem so passionate about it. Tone it down a bit, and try to work together please? Tell me, which comes first: your ideology, or your dedication to wikipedia's principles? Rgambord (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine, according to WP:UNDUE "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.". There are four sources in the section that you wish to remove, there are 12 in total in the the article. How is it that 4 sources in one section creates undue weight? Second, The content that was removed [60], [61], and [62] was all a bunch of unsourced content that either was not Verifiable or was a bunch of Original Research. If you believe there is a lot of content out there about this subject which isn't critical of it, I again strongly encourage you to go find it and add it to the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it that references to 1/3 of the sources in the article support 60% of the text? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 12:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

that doesnt even get into the nature of the sources there, which are not exactly the most scholarly. Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly are not academics, and do not fairly represent academic consensus for, well, anything. Feel free to open up RSN cases about that though, if you disagree. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 12:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You might have a point if the article were more than thirteen sentences in total. What's needed is more content, and not less. Since Academic consensus isn't an issue in the article I don't know why you're bringing it up here. Wikipedia doesn't require Scholarly sources, it requires reliable sources. From looking at the article again, you can probably build upon the sources that are used in the lead section with content in the body. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is original research in addition to undue weight. For example, the paragraph about Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter is original research because the source never actually discusses male privilege. The paragraph about Warren Farrel has similar problems. Editors have picked out examples such as conscription and dangerous jobs but Farrell never actually discusses these things in connection to privilege. The only think he says about privilege is "providing property was a sign of obligation, not privilege" and "Neither sex had rights--both sexes had obligations and expectations and, if they fulfilled those expectations and obligations well, they received status and privileges". The Farrell and Schlafly paragraphs should be removed per WP:OR and WP:UNDUE and replaced by a paragraph stating that men's rights activists such as Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg have disputed that men are privileged relative to women [63] and that some men's rights activists believe that female privilege has become the norm [64]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

“of all the classes of people who have ever lived, the American woman is the most privileged. We have the most rights and rewards, and the fewest duties.” Perhaps this belongs in Female privilege, or Gender privilege. Unfortunately, neither exists currently. I'm going to hazard a guess that an interview about the book "The myth of male power", in which Farrell gives examples of men being oppressed and expendable is pretty relevant to the topic. MACCHIETTO even ties back everything they discussed in the interview specifically to male privilege, and indeed the content of the book itself. I think you're splitting hairs here. The problem this article has is that a large amount of content was not encyclopedic and had to be removed. Then, all the interested editors left the page, leaving it unbalanced. However, that is not a good justification for removing perfectly good material. It is a wonderful justification for sourcing statements supporting the notion of male privilege, since I know there are plenty out there. I'm happy UTCL is back because she seems very interested in the subject. Everyone, stop bickering. Go find sources. Make a kickass article. Rgambord (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Schlafly source does not mention male privilege and the Farrell source does not support the statements in the article. This is called original research. We cannot include sources that discuss the alleged oppression or "disposability" (see Farrell) of groups of people or power differences rather than "male privilege". If your argument is that we can include sources that do not discuss male privilege then you should restore the content you deleted. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

language vs. dialect WP:UNDUE

Intro
There are some problems regarding the description of individual languages from the Dravidian language family. Some experienced users are going hardline with the view of Ethnologue, an essentially primary source, which is very close to the ISO 639 consortium (Ethnologues parent SIL is a major partner). ISO 639 aims to document all languages in the world and sets language codes for them, for example English, you will find this website: 01.sil.org English with various assigned codes. If you click on the "corresponding Ethnologue entry" link, you'll be directed to their Ethnologue page. They have pages for all ISO 639 codes.

ISO 639 has certain definitions of when a language is defined as a language, not a dialect. This definition is however not universally accepted, as no professional linguist appears to use it. Now let's look at the Dravidian languages for a case scenario, the "Maria language".

Maria language
Let's have a look at its entry: Ethnologue Maria
We see following information: Maria has the code [mrr] and is defined as language. We see our corresponding WP article recognizes Maria as a language as well and cites Ethnologue. So what's wrong?

Nobody of the academic mainstream has ever recognized this as a language. If you make a test run in google books with terms "Maria language" + India + Dravidian, you don't get any useful hits. On the contrary if you type "Maria dialect" you'll get hundreds of useful links.

Question What is the right term for wikipedia in such cases? language or dialect? You can consult User:Taivo, User:Kwamikagami, User:Lfdder who have much more linguistic experience than me, and who constantly revert my edits, which are pro academic consensus rather than ISO 639.-- Dravidian Hero 23:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If some (mainstream) sources refer to it as a language, and others refer to it as a dialect, we should present both views, rather than 'deciding' for ourselves. This is basic Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's 1 vs. 300 though -- Dravidian Hero 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify where you are discussing this with Kwamikagami and Lfdder - there doesn't seem to be any discussion at Talk:Maria language, which would seem the logical place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

see Talk:Dravidian_languages#Disputed_tag for full (uncivil) discussion -- Dravidian Hero 23:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

How about trying a civil discussion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We did at the end of the discussion. Didn't notice?-- Dravidian Hero 00:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I suggest you carry on discussing. If you have the sources to back up your claims, provide them. So far, the discussion seems to be lacking in such evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just sourced the dialect statement, and it got reverted again: diff with a "funny" edit summary. Why funny? Because the next edit summary is just dumb: diff, as they wanted sources at the discussion. You can imagine my frustration with these editors.-- Dravidian Hero 01:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What is interesting is that Dravidianhero has selectively ignored the source that he considers to be the most important Dravidian source on this matter: Bhadriraju Krishnamurti (2003). The Dravidian languages. Oxford University Press. p. 25, who states that the Maria Gondi dialect is mutually unintelligible with other Gondi "dialects". Mutual intelligibility is widely considered to be the boundary line between dialect and language. Thus if Dravidianhero's "hero" states that Maria is mutually untintelligible with other Gondi "dialects", then Maria is a separate language. Dravidianhero's basic problem is that he considers one of the main encyclopedic sources used widely in linguistics and respected in field (Ethnologue) to be unreliable simply because it is funded by a Christian organization. His bias is quite clear in many of his posts concerning the reliability of Ethnologue and also ISO 639-3, which is funded by the same source. ISO 639-3 is so widely accepted in the field that linguistics journals are starting to require ISO codes after language names in their publications. Dravidianhero incorrectly states that Ethnologue and ISO 639-3 are "primary" sources. They are not. They are secondary or tertiary sources, not primary ones. And if you read Maria language, it does precisely what you suggest, AndytheGrump--it states both views that Maria is sometimes called a dialect and sometimes called a separate language. And the reason that Dravidianhero is so regularly reverted is that he refuses to listen to anyone else's advice. Another reason why Dravidianhero's edits are often reverted is that, as at Maria language, he uses Google Books as his research tool and simply pulls sentences out of context to prooftext his assertions. Google Books must be used very delicately, not as a source for sentences out of context. --Taivo (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary was not "funny" at all. Instead of citing the single relevant article in the Journal of Dravidian Studies, which you would have done had you not just been prooftexting off Google Books, you cited the entire volume of papers. That's just more evidence that you aren't really sure of what you are doing in those articles, you just have a point to make and aren't listening to anyone else. --Taivo (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethnologue lists languages, which have been genuinely researched and which were not published anywhere else before. Here is the evidence for my statement: Change Request for Wayanad Chetti It doesn't appear to be a clearcut "encyclopedia" as you were trying to tell. But that's not content of this undue problem. If you would be more honest in discussions you would have no point to make. Truth. -- Dravidian Hero 01:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what that 'change request' is supposed to prove. I do however know that accusing contributors of dishonesty is inadvisable, at minimum. Meanwhile, can you clarify whether you are questioning the validity of Ethnologue as a source? If so, the logical place to ask would be at WP:RSN, though as always, you will have to clarify what it is being used as a source for.AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Change Request adds a new language code to ISO 639, which gets immediately puhlished by Ethnologue with all underlying information. Ethnologue is an SIL publication, and SIL the major partner of ISO 639. The Change Request proves, that ISO 639 gets languages by genuine researchers, not participating in mainstream academic discourse, and as such the reliability as a secondary or tertiary source of Ethnologue, which as Taivo tried to claim to use only mainstream academic sources, is completely falling apart. But all this is not part of my question here. My question is, whether we use the term language (as in Ethnologue) or dialect (as in all mainstream sources, as I think Ethnologue has an absolute minority view on this.-- Dravidian Hero 02:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And, Dravidianhero, your anti-SIL bias just keeps shining through because you neither understand the process nor are you willing to listen to those of us who do. --Taivo (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, that change request has nothing to do with Ethnologue. It simply illustrates that Dravidianhero really doesn't know what he's talking about or what he's doing. The Change Request he posted is for a change to ISO 639-3, not Ethnologue. He doesn't seem to realize that they are separate entities and have different processes for changing information. But that is Dravidianhero's attitude in all these discussions--that actual linguists don't know what they are talking about and he is the only expert because he can use Google Books to prooftext. --Taivo (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you too try to concentrate on the issue at hand rather than making assertions about other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If your last comment was directed at me, AndyTheGrump, that is the issue at hand. We have tried to explain to Dravidianhero over and over and over again at Talk:Dravidian languages about the linguistic and sourcing issues involved, but he refuses to listen. --Taivo (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the NPOV noticeboard. Dravidianhero appears to be suggesting that articles are lacking neutrality. He is entitled to raise the matter here, as long as he does it in the proper manner. If you have a problem with his behaviour, this isn't the appropriate place to raise it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, AndyTheGrump. But Dravidianhero isn't raising an issue of neutrality here. He's raising the issue that he isn't getting his way at Talk:Dravidian languages. That's not an issue of neutrality. An issue of neutrality would be if X point of view was mentioned, but Y point of view was ignored. That's not the case even in the article which he cited above, Maria language. If you read the first paragraph, it clearly states both the points of view that Maria is a language and Maria is a dialect, although the primary source that Dravidianhero cites for the dialect position clearly states that Maria is not mutually intelligible with other Gondi dialects. So the very article which he wants to use to illustrate non-neutrality, clearly and unequivocally states both positions, even citing the very source that Dravidianhero prefers (even through Dravidianhero does not actually use that source, but only gets quotes off Google Books). --Taivo (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If it was a second mainstream opinion, I would have no problem with that statement. But it's one and only Ethnologue which says this was a language. That's not a second mainstream opinion, it's a lonesome cowboy in the prairie, especially after I exposed the non-mainstreamness of ISO 639. And coming to reverts and neutrality again: diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 lol-- Dravidian Hero 02:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I give up. It seems to me that there isn't actually a definable neutrality issue here - or at least if there is one, nobody is providing the necessary information to decide whether any specific article has a problem or not. If DravidianHero wishes to raise the reliability of Ethnologue as a source for something specific at WP:RSN, he should do so. If he wishes to raise concerns about the neutrality of a specific article here, he can do so - by providing the necessary evidence to show that the article isn't neutral. Vague assertions about competence or bias are simply beyond the remit of this noticeboard, and it certainly isn't within its remit to judge whether the general opinions of one contributor or another are 'correct'. DravidianHero, you will have to either be more specific, or seek help elsewhere. And as for the diffs you post, they have no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will give a clearcut explanation with all necessary sources as this seems to be required here for a discussion. I will present my work at a later time.-- Dravidian Hero 03:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

______________________

Articles: Kumarbhag Paharia language, Sauria Paharia language

Dispute: The article is portraying a minority view as majority view. The article itself has been named after this minority view, as well as its cousin Sauria Paharia language. The majority doesn't recognise any "Kumarbhag Paharia language". The language is mostly known by the name "Malto language".
Evidence for Minority view: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Evidence for Majority view: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Attempted Move discussion: Talk:Sauria Paharia language and templates: Sauria_Paharia_language + Kumarbhag Paharia language

Request: Move/merge both articles to the majorily used term Malto language. The names Kumarbhag Paharia language and Sauria Paharia language should be completely avoided per minority evidences.-- Dravidian Hero 15:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dravidianhero, you clearly don't know how to present any evidence whatsoever, you've just posted links to searches that do not present any factual information. You have presented no analysis of those links; no commentary on individual links; no scholarly differentiation between the links that are baloney, the links that aren't scholarly, and the links that might be valid. In other words, no hard evidence, just your unscientific opinion that counting links counts as evidence. You are clearly no linguist and clearly don't understand what you are being asked for here. Again, having this discussion here is forum shopping since this is still not a question of neutrality. It is a question of Wikipedia consensus on what constitutes a reliable source and what your failed move requests. That's not a question of neutrality, as AndyTheGrump tried to explain to you previously. You are not a linguist and you aren't getting your way at Talk:Dravidian languages, so you're looking around Wikipedia for any place that might offer you a sympathetic shoulder. --Taivo (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We're not about to assume there's some sort of scientific consensus 'cos of a handful Google search results. The current solution is adequate (and it's how similarly little documented sister languages with conflicting info are usually treated elsewhere on Wikipedia). — Lfdder (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dravidianhero, Taivo and Lfdder are entirely correct - we do not rely on counts of results of Google searches to determine article content. If you can't present the necessary evidence in the way that Taivo suggests (which seems an entirely reasonable summary of what is required here), I can see no point whatsoever in continuing the discussion.

One point for Taivo and Lfdder though - it isn't actually a requirement that one be a linguist to contribute to Wikipedia articles involving linguistics - what is required is an ability to understand Wikipedia policies regarding neutrality, sourcing etc, as with any other article, and an ability to understand the sources themselves to the degree that one can use them appropriately. I'd try to avoid appeals to expertise in your discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say otherwise. In fact, this is what I said: 'And I've no interest in educating you, nor do I assume that that's my place.' Anyway, we've already been thru this with Dravidianhero. — Lfdder (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The current version with Malto language as the main article is much better. It's a good step forward, I wanna thank Lfdder for these edits. Now coming to my presentation of the problem, I didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings and certainly not provoke accusations like forumshopping, etc. I'm feeling emotionally stable and strong without a need of some virtual shoulder. I'm pretty new here and this is my first full fledged NPOV noticeboard experience, as I didn't require this since October 2012. Please don't feel annoyed anymore, Taivo and be more tolerant towards non-linguist editors in wikipedia. Anything I've done was in best faith possible, I should be respected as such.

The results of the various google Search links for academic sources, be it books, scholar, JSTOR are showing not a single academic book or paper citing the terms "Kumarbhag Paharia language" or "Sauria Paharia language", let alone by mainstream Dravidologists, which would be required for a truely neutral article per WP:NPOV: Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. In total contrast to that, we have several useful books and papers, which could be cited to support the term Malto language: 1-a study on "Malto" by Indian government's "Central Institute of Indian Languages" 2-A comparative grammar of the Dravidian languages by mainstream Dravidologist Michail Andronov. Here he acknowledges "a non-literary" language called "Malto 3-Introduction to the "Malto Language" 4-Language diversity endangered, it acknowledges "a Dravidian language called Malto" 5-South Asian Languages: A Syntactic Typology By Kārumūri V. Subbārāo. At WP:UNDUE we see following key statement: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. The current content, however improved from the last version, still violates this very basic principle, as both these "Paharia" terms have found prominent mention with only one source (= a tiny minority). I hope I've kept up with the expactations by senior wikipedians in proving, that the article needs a NPOV cleanup.-- Dravidian Hero 20:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you understand what we've been telling you yet, Dravidianhero? Google searches or searches of JSTOR without accompanying analysis, commentary, and review are worthless. And your continued assertion that Ethnologue and ISO 639-3 should be ignored is based on your own anti-Christian bias as amply evidenced at Talk:Dravidian languages. It is you, in fact, who are pushing for non-neutrality in refusing to admit that actual linguists do respect those two sources of information and would not, in any respect, consider them to be WP:FRINGE. At Talk:Dravidian languages I presented to you a half dozen well-respected linguistic sources that refer to Ethnologue, but you have chosen to ignore them in favor of your "Google searches". And linguistic journals are starting to require the use of ISO 639-3 codes in their published articles. In addition, US government funding sources require the use of ISO 639-3 codes for linguistic research. You're just on the wrong end of the argument in wanting to exclude all reference to Ethnologue and ISO 639-3 in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought I'd take a quick look at these. Your 2nd link identifies these two varieties; however, they also claim that Dhanghar (we have it listed as a dialect of Kurux) and Malpahariya (an Indo-Iranian language, it would seem) are dialects of Malto, no citations. This is indicative of the confusion in literature about Malto. Your third link is a "pre-1923 historical reproduction". 4th one only mentions Malto in passing, no citations. 5th cites 1st. — Lfdder (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dravidianheros argument is spurious. The Ethnologue has its problems but it is very widely used among linguists of all religious observations, and there is no valid reason whatsoever to think that its data are religiously biased. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also here for the unaware reader; when I first met Ethnologue I had initial doubts on the neutrality of Ethnologue, as it's parent is a Christian NGO, but that's not the case since ages. Taivo recycles this again and again in discussions.-- Dravidian Hero 21:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

DravidianHero, can you let us know who you were referring to when you wrote of "the views of tiny minorities" above? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I was refering to the origin and only source of the terms in the discussion: Ethnologue.-- Dravidian Hero 21:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Andy, could we please discuss topic related things here only ?-- Dravidian Hero 21:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

DravidianHero, if you wish to dispute the validity of Ethnologue as a source, do so at WP:RSN. As long as you fail to do so, I can see no reason whatsoever to take your comments regarding its validity as a source as credible. The choice is yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

alright. I'll do it with a limited scope at RSN-- Dravidian Hero 22:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

opened at RSN: Ethnologue appears to be not reliable for Dravidian languages -- Dravidian Hero 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Prison-industrial complex

Prison–industrial complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) desperately needs eyes - material totally unrelated to the conspiracy theory topic are added, and sources which are miles away from being RS are added, and ELs which fail Wikipedia standards are added, "see also"s which are outre are added and polemics about individuals and companies are added, and youtube videos get added -- in a pretty-much knee-jerk manner. Even at its best, the article was a mess -- but some of this stuff is very "off the wall". And NPOV is on its head in it. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfc on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka

I have started a Rfc on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka which is relevant to this noticeboard - "Does this article comply with Wikipedia's core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research?" Please feel free to comment here. Thank you.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Covering opinions of journalists

At User_talk:Bayshorebabydoll#Houston_Press a Wikipedia editor explained her belief that information from a Houston Press article on Bacliff should be excluded from Bacliff, Texas. She argued that "None of the other nearby cities Wikipedia articles contain reporter's opinions, not even the Wikipedia article on Houston, so then why should Bacliff? Why is it so difficult to stick to the facts?" and "There's a big difference between the Houston Chronicle article on that event and the Houston Press article. The Houston Chronicle artcle reports about it without any of the author's bias that runs throughout the Houston Press article. I have no problem with factual information being included in the Wikipedia entry. It was based mostly on opinion and non factual information before which is not what something that strives to emulate an encyclopedia should be." I argued that Wikipedia should include opinions as long as they are attributed and dated. She also expressed concern that content could be "out of date" (the article was written in 2008) but I stated it would be okay if it is made clear that it was in 2008.

These diffs: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3 shows the material from the Houston Press which I attributed and cited.
The relevant Houston Press article is "Gangsters in Bacliff" - The publication is an alternative weekly owned by Voice Media Group

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You quote Lomax as saying, among other things, "much of [the town] is a white ghetto almost as hardcore as the roughest parts of Houston's South Park or Fifth Ward...." NPOV requires that we provide appropriate weight to opinions. The problem here is that we do not know whether Lomax view is what any reasonable observer would hold or he has an axe to grind. The only way to determine that is to find a source that explains the perceptions that reasonable observers hold. A second problem is that Lomax' article is a primary source for his opinions, but articles should be based primarily on secondary sources. So I think it is correct to exclude his opinions. TFD (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

John Nova Lomax does not own the publication Houston Press; he merely writes articles for it. Because it was published, then that means his own opinions would be "secondary source" as they are published by a third party. Wikipedia:Primary_source#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources also says "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

In regards to not knowing whether or not he has an axe to grind, I see no evidence that Lomax holds ill will towards the community. I have not found any sources that explicitly state things to the contrary. Bacliff is a town of about 8,000 people within a metropolitan area, so literature about it is more scant than literature about a larger city. I believe that if Lomax writes "And while there are plenty of nice houses and good people in Bacliff, especially along the waterfront, the overall impression of the town is that much of it is a white ghetto almost as hardcore as the roughest parts of Houston's South Park or Fifth Ward." -- and there is no evidence of him being biased against the town, and there is nothing explicitly written to the contrary, then it should be appropriately weighted to put that in. He also says "Stats bear this out" to qualify this viewpoint with statistics.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The question of who publishes a work does not affect whether the work is primary or secondary. If Lomax is observing the town himself, and then making that statement on the basis of those observations, then those statements are a primary source. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That statement comes from both knowledge of statistics (remember he says "Stats bear this out" and cites two statistics related to Bacliff: unemployment rate and the median house price) and personal observations (referring to page 1). And if one tries to make observations by journalists who do not control the publishing of their statements as inadmissible primary source, how are we to use investigative journalism pieces as sources? How are we to record how published sources perceive of a place, person, or event? (I have seen editors add Wikipedia:Original research on how a thing or person or place should be perceived) For that matter, in relation to BLP issues, Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_self-published_sources says to avoid self-published sources, so in general on Wikipedia to my knowledge self-published sources are treated differently than self-published ones.

The statements removed from the article did not just include statements from the journalist, but also some factual statements (for instance the water was less polluted and there was less shore erosion in the 1950s then there is today, and that the shrimping industry declined in the 1980s) of those statistics (unemployment rate) and statements from interview subjects quoted in the newspaper: "Gator" Miller (a local newspaper publisher), Pam Matranga (a county sheriff), and Jack Nelson (a resident).

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A source may be considered primary for some purposes, while secondary for others. See for example WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This article however combines analysis and straight reporting, and therefore has attributes of both. You ask, "How are we to record how published sources perceive of a place, person, or event?" We get a source that says something like, "the consensus among sociologists is that Bacliff is a white ghetto." Or we look at a textbook called "White Ghettoes" that lists the town. As for investigative journalism, in some cases the mainstream media picks up on them, people comment and the significance is established. That certainly happened with Woodward and Bernstein. In other cases, they are ignored. AFAIK, no one has commented on Lomax's article. TFD (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When I found commentary from the article author I always attributed it to him (see the diffs) - I will check Google Books to see if I can find books talking about Bacliff. In regards to "prominence" of authors, that is a good argument with "larger" subjects (say Barack Obama) where you have to only include the most prominent views. With "smaller" subjects I try to include whatever published material I can find because there just isn't that much material about the subject, or about certain aspects of the subject. Wikipedia has many articles on more obscure topics and from my understanding there is less discrimination/exclusion against material when writing about these topics. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I did a search for books about Bacliff. I haven't found any so far. I searched about White ghettoes and perhaps the closest thing is a book that is talking about decline in middle class America. The closest thing to a White ghetto that is possibly there is articles talking about rural towns. I'll check for journal articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have much luck with journal articles either. Bayshore said she could look at archives in the Galveston County newspaper, which may help WhisperToMe (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns on WP:Undue regarding AIDS Denial and LewRockwell.com

I object to the passage from the wikipedia entry on LewRockwell.com quoted in the paragraph below, mostly created by carolmooredc (she and Srich32977 disagreed with my views on the LewRockwell.com talk page and are invited to comment on this discussion), because it uncritically presents the views of the director of the AIDS Denialist film House of Numbers, and presents Peter Duesberg only as being called a denialist by two persons (as opposed to being widely regarded as such by the scientific community). These statements constitute WP: UNDUE, according to which "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." In other words, when discussing LewRockwell.com's repeatedly publishing AIDS Denialist (as well as evolution-denying) pseudoscience, it should be mentioned that these are "fringe" and pseudo-scientific views that LewRockwell.com has promoted. One solution to this problem that has been proposed is deleting LewRockwell.com's connection to AIDS denialism/fringe science altogether; I reject this since it's significant to the site's content and is detailed pretty extensively in an RS, namely, Seth Kalichman's book Denying AIDS.

The website hosted a 2010 podcast called "Dissent on HIV/AIDS" interviewing Brent Leung, director of the 2009 film House of Numbers regarding the "shaky statistics that drive vast HIV/AIDS funding, and the amazing differences of opinion among top scientists about what it is, and how to treat it."^[5] The website has featured articles on the subject by Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass label an "HIV/AIDS denialist.^[6] Steeletrap (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A compromise has been proposed at Talk:LewRockwell.com#Fringe topics .E2.80.93 proposed resolution. One of the terms of the compromise is to limit the LRC links to the one official link. Acceptance of this compromise would entail removal of the particular paragraph which OP objects to because it is sourced by a particular LRC article. Also, it would allow use of Kalichman's book to show that one particular person had been a contributor to the LRC website. It would not allow a debate in the LRC article about the merits of Kalichman's book or the topic. – S. Rich (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering the original poster already has a long discussion of this at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Uncritical_presentation_of_AIDS_Denialists_on_LewRockwell.com_page. One has to close one noticeboard discussion out before one opens another one, and usually if there is no reply at all. Also, it remains a WP:OR issue, as I've said a number of times.

People interested in helping out might come over there or to the proposal Srich32977 made above, so we don't have to rewrite our arguments all over again. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The other debate got crowded out by personal and otherwise off-topic comments (hence the fact that the page you link to is like 3 pages long). The few comments made by editors other than us three (the original disputers) agreed with my position. Let's let debate happen rather than focus on peripheral issues. Steeletrap (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've archived the discussion at WP:FTN as that was an inappropriate venue for the discussion. I suggest that the participants already involved restrict themselves from further comments here, so that we can hear from uninvolved editors on this issue. LK (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Considering the topic was not moved here only after a long discussion there, and not immediately identified as off topic, we do not want to promote WP:FORUMSHOP. (LATER NOTE: Did see LK mentioned that to the editor on the talk page. Thanks.] Also, I think the real complaint is the WP:OR that the user is trying to insert and the only noticeboard warranted was WP:ORN. Others should not hear only one side of the debate by one individual involved, so below I propose my solution to the problem which is compliant with Wikipedia policies. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I see this as undue weight. The source, Denying Aids, mentions that an author published views well outside the mainstream on the Lew Rockwell website but otherwise says nothing about the site. It could be that the site is reprehensible in publishing these views. Or it could be commended for allowing a wide range of views from outside the mainstream in the hope that it will provide greater scrutiny of orthodoxy. By focusing on AIDS denialism, we are arguing for the first interpretation. If we want to address this issue then we need sources that do so. TFD (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Observation from the FT/N peanut gallery: A quick review of LRC, starting from the Denying AIDS links, shows that at least one of LRC's regulars promulgated a goodly number of quack medical claims, including some of the AIDS denialism articles there; he also posted some JFK assassination conspiracy nonsense. He is not the only author of this kind of material on LRC. My personal opinion is therefore that LRC's editorial policy is at best credulous about publishing fringe medical and political material, if not actually endorsing said claims. Now, obviously we cannot state that conclusion on my say-so; but it seems to me that the struggle over the narrow issue of this one source is being used as a substitute all around for research into similar and perhaps broader criticism from other sources which might confirm that my assessment is widely held. For instance, another critic who has been cited in the article writes for the Cato Institute. It's entirely possible that Cato and LRC, both being exponents of libertarian ideas, may well consider each other as rivals within the ideology. This needs to be researched as well. As I said over in the FT/N discussion, I have to think that mainstream public policy and investigative reporting journals and institutions have critical viewpoints to express about LRC, and that these need to see expression in the article. I also feel that if this is addressed, the AIDS denialism issue will sort itself out. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

To make a long story short, here's what is acceptable to say in the Criticism section per WP:RS, WP:BLP, and even WP:NPOV etc with current refs and without engaging in WP:OR:

PROPOSED: Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, authors of Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, [added late: write that LewRockwell.com] has featured articles on the subject of AIDS/HIV by Peter Duesberg, [and two other individuals the authors mention] which they label as "HIV/AIDS denialist.^[7]

Then it would be permissible to mention the title of and link to an article by each of those mentioned individuals (i.e., it is not cherry picked, because it is introduced by relevant WP:RS material.) CarolMooreDC🗽 18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I still favor the "has sometimes provided a forum" for fringe science and/or AIDS Denial description, but a compromise would indicate that the Kalichman book had accused LRC of publishing several articles (by the three authors mentioned in the book) which (on LRC) advocated AIDS Denial, which is what the book said (as opposed to simply publishing AIDS Denialists who wrote on other matters). If that clarification is made I would be less adamant on the "forum" thing. Steeletrap (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

~~I know you prefer throwing in some WP:OR, but~~ at least we are finally talking about what the sources say (i.e., "which (on LRC) advocated AIDS Denial"), though I would have to double check them. Can we continue this at the talk page? Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not work with you on this on the talk page. Look at the comment you just wrote, alleging that I "prefer throwing in some WP:OR." You are saying that my desire is to violate Wikipedia rules; how earth can we have a civil editing conversation? Steeletrap (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in play here

It has come to my attention that one of the editors involved in this conflict has written a book on a controversial subject, and that this book has received some favorable notice on LRC, and that this editor therefore has an interest in seeing that LRC is not discredited by publicity over the fringe viewpoints which are espoused from time to time on that website. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest which reads: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, incidents may be reported on the conflict of interest noticeboard (WP:COIN), and users may be warned with the {{uw-coi}} user warning template. Vague accusations on noticeboards aren't one of the ways to handle possible COI. Also please note the last sentence of the section: COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to "trump" anything; the information is for others to use as they see fit. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just quoting the policy. It does seem like a bit of an antagonistic phrase. Feel free to discuss it at WP:COI. And my response to you is on my talk page. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, you did more than that, the title of this section (as of this moment, "Conflict of interest in play here" it should be changed) is two unsubstantiated claims that a COI exists and that it is in play here. North8000 (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Nautrality at Narendra Modi

Asking about whether the article on the prominent and controversial Indian Hindu nationalist politican Narendra is currently neutral.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Motijheel shootings

I made some attempt to clean up what I perceived as a NPOV issue at 2013 Motijheel shootings, but I feel that more eyes would be helpful, as a check on myself as much as anything. I will also notify the author who created the article of this discussion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, author of the original Motijheel Massacre article here. Thankyou for including it in the wikipedia. Hovever I do contend that this was a massacre and how when convinced, or when magical wiki criterion are satisfied with that, the deceased will be represented fairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugstar (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific regarding the NPOV issue you are referring to? I cannot tell whether you are referring to a particular section or the entire article. I did notice that while the author has found a good amount of RS, certain statements in the article appear unsourced, and one or more may be sourced by a blog. I think a review of sources is warranted. I aso noticed that the article seems to be expressing a very strong POV that may or may not be reflected in the sources. This is something that should be attended to, and may be accomplished perhaps by simply rephrasing some of the statements. I'd like to know more about your specific concerns before I comment any further. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Further possible sources for this article :[65] [66][67][68] [69]--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Erroneous" views on the Alternative Vote Referendum

A bit of deja vu here. There has been a reversion of the page for Stephen Mosley MP because of "erroneous" opposition to the Alternative Vote (well actually it's whether votes are cast for minor parties are counted once or twice). The debate was had over here. I think it's a violation of NPOV. Am i missing something? JASpencer (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

March Against Monsanto

March Against Monsanto would benefit from a number of outside editors. At issue is the use of newsblog posts to support controversial statements of fact, external links to social media sites, and the relevance of sources on GMO food safety. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeated POV soapboxing

Could someone please explain to User:Steeletrap that repeatedly using either unreliable sources or only primary sources to speculative negatively about the subjects of articles, while never bothering to do the research or add the material that might show that the speculations were anything more than "titutalting" discussion, is WP:POV and WP:Soapbox? S/he gives me an argument when I explain this and yells "personal attack". S/he has ignored other editor's reminders these are not personal attacks. (Can provide more diffs on request, but here's a recent one explaining that.)

Specifically see: Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Traditionalist_views_on_race and Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Retirement_from_UNLV; Talk:Conceived_in_Liberty#Rothbard_on_revisionism. If one finds such info (and research is easy enough), fine, put it in. But repeatedly speculating without doing so is just disruptive soapbox.

User:Steeletrap stated the following just recently on his/her user talk page. (With a number of similar discussions here.)

the "movement"/"Pure Rothbardian Anarchism"/"Ron Paul for President" strain is (as my research indicates) viewed as disreputable even by mainstream libertarians... "movement" libertarianism is little more than a dogmatic cult. "Movement" supporters in this regard are akin to Scientologists, insofar as they not only personally lack evidence for their beliefs, but are incapable of examining data which differ from their ideology and integrating it into their worldview.

On this basis Steeletrap has either tried to AfD articles about Austrian economists or add negative, often mis-stated material, besides the article and user talk page comments. Maybe s/he'll listen to someone else on this. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Request I implore everyone to read through the talk pages carefully before rendering judgment. Citations for all of my substantive claims are there (some are given by other users, and as a noob of one month I still struggle with diffs). Rather than making vague general charges, I would challenge Carol to point to a specific claim on the talk page that is "speculative" and I will show her the documentation, and where it is listed on the talk page; my opinions about the facts are mine, but I am not spreading speculation or falsehoods. (The one undocumented assertion I made was saying "Hoppe managed to win the hearts of the fratboys at UNLV"; this was obviously a joke and certainly not a damaging or defamatory one.)

As to my views on anarchist/Ron Paul libertarianism, I do think it's a cult akin to Scientology, so Carol's right on that. I can't help thinking that. I believe openly and publicly confessing my views is important to contextualizing and judging my article contributions. But I think I can still make good contributions to movement-related pages -- just as Scientology-skeptics can make good contributions to Scientology related pages. I wish this NPOV discussion focused on my actual edits to pages rather than on light and glib talk page remarks. Steeletrap (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note that because perhaps I am too insensitive to personal attacks that the last sentence following the quote above is: Their edits to "movement"-related Wikipedia entries should be viewed the same as Scientologists' edits to pages like L. Ron Hubbard and Lord Xenu.

Obviously she's talking about a number of editors who have edited a bunch of the economists and political thinkers involved in this particular branch. I believe it would be POV Soapbox for me to have to defend myself against such allegations and explain where I agree and disagree with each of these individuals on every issue that comes up or for me to criticize or lambast them for stupid things they've said or written that become part of the article. Perhaps someone also could explain that in policy terms to User:Steeletrap. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, all I was saying is that their biases/loyalties, like those of Scientologists, should be taken account of. I was not saying individual editors should be personally attacked or that their contributions should be dismissed out of hand. The community does that with Scientologists and there is no problem. You (appropriately) do that with me and there is no problem. As to lacking evidence for their beliefs and having an inability to integrate evidence that conflicts with their belief, again, the same is said of Scientologists and religious fundamentalists without people being accused of personal attacks. Also note that the comment was vague and general and not directed to any specific individual. (!)I am being held to a double standard here, simply for honestly expressing my beliefs. Steeletrap (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Charges rejected at previous ANI The charge that I am making speculative or defamatory comments about Hoppe was already made by Carol on an ANI, in which she cited the same talk page material on Hoppe. It was soundly rejected here. She is making basically the same charges and calling them "NPOV" rather than "BLP." (Isn't there a rule against this? I'm a noob but I can't imagine it's OK to just repeatedly make charges.) Steeletrap (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was closed as a content dispute over the first five article edits I mentioned and no one really addressed what to do about NPOV issues. Obviously I didn't format it well and should have just brought this one here sooner. Plus the quote and the "Concieved in Liberty" newer examples and show ongoing problem. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP is what you are looking for Steeletrap. No comment as to if it applies. I will say that I agree with ANI that it is a content dispute that can be solved on the talk page. I also agree that while Carolmooredc's comments do not rise to the level of a 'personal attack', I do feel they are commenting on the editor, and not the edit. Carol, if you have diffs of content that Steeletrap has inserted into the article that show he is not editing in an NPOV manner, or that you think are not abiding by NPOV, please share them. This is not the place to hash out your opinion of Steeletrap. (EC) Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction I have not accused Carol of personal attacks "constantly" throughout the pages she cites. In fact, I never did. I did not accuse her of any more than incivility on the Rothbard page she cites. (On the sections of the Hoppe pages she cites, I don't make any comment at all about her behavior.) Steeletrap (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss article talk page issues regarding NPOV, i.e., if editors can repeatedly discuss material with primary or unreliable sources that probably can NOT be reliably sourced to get in a rumor/guilt by association/opinion/POV that they will not find WP:RS to support in the article, thereby making both the subject of the article and anyone who edits in a way the editor disagrees with look bad. Should I have brought this up without using the example that is the problem?? My apologies if I misunderstood. A general opinion that I could refer another editor to is all I really want and mad at self didn't realize that phrasing it that way would have been good enough. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If steeltrap is personally making Scientology or other comparisons in an article talk page, as an argument in a content dispute, that risks WP:FORUM but is probably not a POV/RS/OR issue. Generally, wide latitude is given in talk discussions as long as there can be a reasonable connection to actually improving or editing the article, or discussing what is/is not appropriate for inclusion. If he is making article edits suggesting similar, and those edits are not backed up by reliable and notable sources making the same claim (and in sufficient quality to make a blanket statement rather than one critic saying so etc), then that would be an issue, but you would need to provide diffs to give people specific examples to be able to form an opinion.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Scientology and other discussions have been in user talk space pages. Article edit issues have been dealt with fairly well.

Being more drawn into editing on Israel-Palestine issue where there is 1RR and the feeling of the constant threat of an arbitration sanction over minor indiscretions, perhaps I'm not as familiar with the more "freewheeling" ways on other articles!

And, of course, if one feels that others are using talk pages to Soapbox on negative stuff for passerbys or to make one's friends and associates happy, one can always a) trash the sources if they deserve it and b) include lots of sections/diffs/quotes/discussion on more positive issues one would like to see but doesn't have energy to enter at that exact moment either.

Or even better, make it clear over and over that constructive editing means just finding sources and entering material first and foremost. (Though dropping by pages you don't have time for and dropping a few good suggestions and refs to improve an article is always good .) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment It seems clear from the links OP cites that Steeletrap is using the talk page -- appropriately -- to engage discussion of prospective content and reliable sources for content before anything is added to the article. This seems to be the opposite of a problem. Rather than being WP:FORUM, Steeletrap is using talk to moot various items of content and solicit comment. Steeletrap states the necessity of properly citing WP:RS sources for such content that may ultimately be added.

That having been said, it also appears that OP is raising its concern about an issue regarding the behavior of Steeletrap rather than regarding the sourcing of content either added or proposed to be added to the article. Unless I am mistaken, that is not the purpose of the NPOV board and to the extent OP wishes to raise that issue, another forum such as ANI would be the place. I'm assuming this is not the same issue concerning Steeletrap that OP already brought to ANI?

As to any NPOV questions, it will be helpful OP if you would provide the diffs and specific statements for each diff, of the NPOV issues on which you are asking for comment here. Thanks . SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Per User:SPECIFICO's request: Since I don’t want to pick on User:Steeletrap, I'll provide specific diffs as examples of SPECIFICO's hostile POV carrying over to disruptive editing on the same article talk pages as Steeletrap.

"Negative comment excerpts off article talk page":

April 21 diff I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute launched its attempt to hijack of this important intellectual tradition. The Mises gang have gone steadily down hill and, aside from providing a useful online archive of reprints, are currently devoted almost exclusively to expanding their own franchise through various means. They are no different in this respect than the vitamin supplement schemes...
April 20 diff: Who says Mises Institute is an institute of and for economists? Almost nobody unaffiliated would say that. In fact it was formed out of a schism within the legitimate Austrian-oriented Cato Institute.
May 28 diff At least the Scientologists make some great movies. Did you see Pulp Fiction? I don't think the Miseans can dance. Unless you count the Bunny Hoppe.

"Negative comment excerpts on article talk page":

May 20 For example, and for whatever reason, Hoppe appears to be despised by many mainstream libertarians.
May 19: We could start by getting all the Mises Institute stuff thinned out, especially the interviews which do not present scholarly discourse. (Regarding using Hoppe interviews)
May 24: Here is a blog by a highly respected Libertarian and Fellow of the Cato Institute, Tom Palmer. Palmer discusses some of Hoppe's recent thought as he has stated it in various venues. (Despite Palmer's self-published blog rants earlier being dismissed as not WP:RS here.)
May 24: Recommending VDARE as a reliable source on Hoppe Reflections upon the Fifth Anniversary of PFS here: 11
May 24: Starts whole new section to investigate: Retirement from UNLV... premature departure from the academic setting
May 24: Srich, don't forget: The von Mises Institute is pretty small potatoes. The University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Business Administration is small potatoes, etc.
User:SPECIFICO also contributed to the new Hoppe article talk page sections listed above which focus on “digging for dirt” while making little attempt to improve the article in more constructive areas. Only a great deal of work by a couple of us has saved the article from being an attack article. It now has a couple WP:Undue sections on minor controversial issues, only one of which made the papers.

I feel that at the very least when they start new attacks on Austrian economists (or economics-related) articles and continue this behavior that this POV should be pointed out to other editors per Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought and Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. It's just hard to assume good faith with this sort of thing going on over multiple articles. (Will link to upon request.) This is just frustrating, time wasting and disruptive. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is off-topic. The thread is about (incorrect) charges that I violate NPOV in my edits. These remarks regarding SPECIFICO ought to be deleted or crossed. Steeletrap (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's about NPOV Soapboxing when it gets out of control. I mentioned you because I didn't have to do as much research. But since SPECIFICO asked for diffs and he has worked so closely with you on so many articles, (you've called each other colleagues and collaborators after all), I decided to look at his diff and found almost equally problematic POV soapboxing... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

– All of this (above and elsewhere) stems from a difficulty in getting along, civility-wise. Each editor has a complaint. (Mine? I'm not having much success in herding these cute little {{kitten}}s where they belong.) Carolmooredc and Steeletrap are banned from commenting on each other's talk page, so comments spill out onto article talk pages and notice boards (and, can you imagine, my talk page). Solution: I suggest a voluntary, mutual WP:IBAN be established. I think the diffs exist to justify to impose one, but what a bother that would be! – S. Rich (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Now this really is off topic. Do that where it is relevant. (Plus SPECIFICO and STEELETRAP often act as a team and it's the four of us who should be IBANed - or maybe banned from all relevant Austrian articles and even economics articles; the two of them now are busy on the John Maynard Keynes talk page.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic? Well, just don't respond. Editors reading the thread will certainly understand. But I think the interaction/antipathy between editors is the real problem. Me? Have I been uncivil or pushed a POV? Still, I'll be the first to volunteer for a 4-way IBAN. Any of you three care to join me? Moreover, I'm happy to comply with the terms of IBAN as far as any one of you goes. – S. Rich (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an NPOVN. If you really think that is the solution, take it whereever that stuff gets taken. But the hostility is started by people who with great hostility announced their intention to work together, to collaborate as "colleagues" to trash a bunch of people... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 11:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Questions about editing errors

OK, I haven't seen any soapboxing in 24 hours. (YEAH!) So feel free to see Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Problems_with_6.2F1.2F13_edits and tell me if I am wrong feeling these are disruptive edits made from an overwhelming POV. Summary of problems: inventing a new school of economics and using linked source that fails verification to do it (later note, that at least was removed, but then editor called for removing the economist infobox!); removing well sourced material as "OR" that doesn't have a link or quote while adding new material that doesn't have a link or a quote; removing short sentence on a journal Rothbard started because the article is "too long"; adding another Rothbard fan quote after complaining there are too many Rothbard fan quotes. Having to correct/talk page/etc. such obvious errors, especially by someone who keeps mentioning they are an academic economist, just seems problematic to me. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Closure

The original charges made here are unfounded, for reasons stated above. Right now, this thread is running riot, with numerous off-topic attempts to raise other issues regarding my alleged misconduct (as well as the alleged misconduct of a user not even mentioned in the original charges). These additional allegations have arisen following the poor reception of the original charges against me (most of which were previously raised by OP in a BLP ANI, where OP's complaints were overwhelmingly rejected). Continually raising new charges in an attempt to indict my character/behavior (and that of another user) is a case of WP:BATTLEGROUND; as such, I ask that a resolution be made on the original complaint as soon as possible. Steeletrap (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)₤

OpposeIt's very frustrating having all these rules vs advocacy, Soapbox, pov pushing, meatpuppeting (which I just realized two editors constantly working in tandem is); not to mention evidence of edits that come out of that mindset and no one besides involved editors will even point out to the editors that that is against policy. If it's OK, please change the policy (or do we even need to?) and soon wikipedia will be rife with little gangs of 2 and 3 and 4 people just barreling through article after article on the same topics replacing positive well sourced material with negative poorly sourced material, or vice versa, to push their POV and not even bother to discuss it at talk pages. The 2-3-4 of them will just keep reinforcing each other's edits. So let's see if there are any editors who have any ideas of what to do about this. Obviously I can't keep going to (the wrong?) noticeboards about it. Constructive suggestions welcome. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Mattel

There appears to be some POV pushing going on at Mattel with langiage like "Mattel also chose to disregard the Facebook community, banning people who chose to speak out about the new game and ensuring that they crushed any rebellion."

I don't want to edit the page because I have a COI (former Mattel employee, still doing consulting work for Mattel, Hasbro and a couple of other toymakers), so could someone else take a look at this? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Looked at this - yeah a very clear case of fans using WP to ~~whine~~ povpush about a game. It appears that User:Ccroberts123 [70] along with 2 IPs (User:122.59.247.174 & User:196.210.176.124) are pushing this. Needs more eyes--Cailil ^talk 13:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact it appears that Ccroberts123 is using wikipedia to spread this info. Action will be required if this continues[71][72]--Cailil ^talk 13:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Oscar López Rivera

This article seems to have fairly anti-US POV, I would like some more experienced and independent editors to review it and see what they think. Neosiber (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Men's Rights and Southern Poverty Law Center, (SPLC). Content in lede and a devoted section.

Page: Men's rights movement

Dispute: Southern Poverty Law Center,(SPLC), content in lede and a devoted section.

Question: Are the Southern Poverty Law Center's views on the Men's rights movement any more notable than other any commentators, to the extent they should be cited in the lede and have a de facto section to themselves? It can be argued that since they have taken a partisan stance they are no more notable than any other commentators.

Argument: For a source to be used in the lede or have a section devoted to it alone, it should be significantly notable and the comments significantly satisfy WP:UNDUE. The SPLC may be respected on many matters, but they also have received criticism. The SPLC's reputation has come from dealing with issues no reasonable people could disagree on, eg KKK or Skinheads. The Men's rights movement is a subject reasonable people can disagree on, and the SPLC has taken a strong partisan stance. There is nothing wrong in being partisan, diversity of views are crucial in debate. However, I would argue their reputation does not extend to disputes of this nature. They are no more notable than any other commentators. The sources in question are [73] [74] [75].

As such I feel the SPLC material in the lede and the Criticism Section [76] should be removed. They are no more notable than any other critics. Additional argument includes:-

(1) Notability

The following quotes from the sources and point illustrate highly partisan language and ignorance of the topic,

"The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement, is made up of a number of disparate, often overlapping, types of groups and individuals." (The Fathers rights movement and Men's rights movement are not the same.)

" Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates"

"The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists..."

"The aggressively hostile misogynist strategies of so-called Men's Rights and Fathers' Rights Activists are serious enough that the [SPLC] has included these groups in their expose on American hate groups." (Factually incorrect)

The term "Manosphere" is a pejorative for the Men's rights movement. It is used in the text and also in the URL of one of the sources.

(2) Undue Weight

There are number of violations of WP:UNDUE including

The commentary refers to the N. America alone.

Their views are not notability on the subject. (see above)

A further clarifying article, claims only fringe elements are being addressed, ie see "aimed at the hardline fringe" [77]

They have not defined or demonstrated Misogyny. Claiming Misogyny is a significant claim. Many would say it is being used a pejorative.

Concluding Remarks: The Men's rights movement page is a very contentious, and at times we need help. This issue is a particular thorn in the side atm and outside commentary would be really appreciated. There have been very extensive attempts at resolving this. CSDarrow (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Move to close this thread per WP:FORUMSHOP. CSDarrow has duplicated the same exact discussion on no less than three pages now, including WP:RSN [78] and Talk:Men's rights movement.[79] At this point, a nice block for CSDarrow would be appreciated from the community whose energy he has wasted. I suggest that CSDarrow step down off of his WP:SOAPBOX and find something more constructive to do with his time. Wikipedia isn't part of the manosphere and I ain't no mangina. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The RSN case was with respect to a different matter. ie whose voice is speaking, the named author or the SPLC? Since you where by far the most prolific contributor I am having difficulty in seeing how you could forget that. The issue was an important and entirely different matter. The content in Men's rights movement is clearly going to be similar to this submission. CSDarrow (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Move to close this thread per WP:DEADHORSE. Matter has been discussed to death already. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talked to death indeed and not resolved. You and Viriditas being very strident opponents of my case. If I recall correctly. CSDarrow (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC is a very good source because they make a study of groups and movements such as "Men's rights." Contrary to what you say, the criticism of SPLC comes from the groups they study, which is understandable. The descriptions by the SPLC are essentially the same as one would find in any reliable source, but the advantage of using the SPLC is that they provide greater coverage of these groups. In fact much of the information about them found in newspapers and academic writing will be sourced to the SPLC. TFD (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since this is the first time the SPLC has written about the Men's Rights Movement, I am having difficulty in seeing how your last point can be the case. In fact I'd go further and say essentially everything you have written is untrue. CSDarrow (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Close Forum shopping is never helpful. Enthusiasm is great, but Wikipedia should not be used to promote a movement. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Including the SPLC? CSDarrow (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that highlighting the SPLC's criticism of the MRM in the lead strikes me as giving the SPLC's view point UNDUE weight.
Given the amount of controversy the MRM article has engendered here on WP, I would expect to find that the MRM itself has engendered lots and lots of controversy outside of WP. Surely there are other organizations and advocacy groups who have criticized the MRM (criticisms that sould be mentioned in the criticisms section). The lede should be more generic... simply saying that "the MRM has engendered criticism and controversy". The specifics of those criticisms should be left to the "Criticism" section (which would mention the SPLC's criticisms along with those of other groups.) In other words, I agree that we should take the SPLC out of the lede and suggest expanding the criticisms section to include the criticisms of multiple groups. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I support having at least a paragraph dedicated to the SPLC in the article body and a summary of that paragraph in the lead section. The SPLC is known for research, and their recent research on the MRM has revealed that some (but by no means all) MRM groups are involved in hate speech. The specific groups should be named in the article, attributed to SPLC. Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, perhaps you could clarify. So you would support the inclusion of some of the quotations I listed? You feel these are the result of 'research'? If they have 'researchers' it would seem they need to get new ones, they can't distinguish the difference between the Men's rights movement and Fathers rights movement. My sense is anyone involved with research would be left with the impression it had little to do with these articles; other than that of a cursory journalistic nature.

Moreover, you feel 'research' on a subject they have taken a strong partisan stance on is going to be reasonable? The term research to me includes a strong element of objectively. The SPLC has no special reputation or expertise in subjects they have a partisan interest in. Which is the whole point of my submission here. A fact that seems to have elluded you. CSDarrow (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC has a well-deserved reputation for research; their research is cited many times by scholars. I extend this reputation forward to their interest in the MRM until proven otherwise, that is, until some equivalent, respected source contradicts the SPLC's conclusions about hate speech from particular MRM groups. Wikipedia (and the scholarly community) does not require a non-partisan stance from the SPLC. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC does not have a reputation for research on legitimately controversial issues, or been cited widely on them. Which considering they conflate the FRM and MRM I am not surprised. It's very nice of you to extend their reputation to other issues, but without supporting logic you are merely using Argument from authority. I doubt "something is true until proven otherwise" even has a Latin name.CSDarrow (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, could you please take a moment to backup your comments with supporting citations? Because at this point, all of the points cited to Goldwag (who does not work for the SPLC but published in their magazine) are supported by multiple sources. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you are just making stuff up when you say they don't have a reputation for research and they have not been cited widely. Clearly they have. Viriditas (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, I am assuming the Goldwag you speak of is the one who doesn't know the difference between the Men's rights movement and Father's rights movement. Or is there another I am unaware of? Could you please clarify. Here is your source [80]. CSDarrow (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I already addressed this point the first time you brought it up in another discussion, so it seems like you have put in your earplugs and you have taken this tendentious forum shopping to the IDHT level of 11. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, you have been doing Wikipedia too much, take a rest. Sources can't be edited and have words that aren't there added to them CSDarrow (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Which to me seems fair, if it was not for the fact others wish to incorporate criticism into the text as well. Gathering criticism, of which there is much, into one section to me seems the way to go. This is the way it is done for most politically charged subjects on Wikipedia, eg Facism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Feminism, Marxism, Radical_feminism, Putinism, Anarchism, Neoconservatism, Libertarianism, Anti-globalization movement all have separate criticism sections. Strangely Conservatism seems above scrutiny. CSDarrow (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- You've repeated this comment several times in multiple discussions. Are any of those articles of GA or FA class? Or are they poorly constructed articles representing sparring POV pushers jockeying for their pet topic? Could you at least find a good or featured article to compare it to here? Criticism sections are not recommended, no matter what Blueboar says, and we try to merge criticism into the body to avoid forking content. Viriditas (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If people are concerned that an expanded "Criticism" section would itself be UNDUE... I would also suggest a "Response to Criticism" section. We would have to be careful to avoid editorial OR (ie keep it to published responses), but it would be appropriate. This has been done in other articles on controversial topics, and if done correctly it can help to bring neutrality to the article. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Which on the face of it seems fair and reasonable. However the sources that are the subject of the criticism, by our are revered Academy, are not considered reliable sources for Wikpedia. Go figure. CSDarrow (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Blueboar's suggestion goes against our best practices, and criticism, whenever possible, should not be set apart in separate sections but merged within the body of articles inline, as part of the major sections. I would be very interested in reviewing a GA or FA article that follows your advice. In general, poorly written articles are characterized by criticism sections, and a response to criticism selection is representative of POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots to read above: Where an article is about a sufficiently large group, and negative information about a subgroup thereof is placed in the article, we run the risk of tarring the superset with claimed attributes of a subset. If we had an article on Gnarphism (hypothetically - I do not think it exists as an article) and we had a group asserting that "10% of Gnarphists were 'mass-murderers'", we would be likely associating "mass-murder" with Gnarphism in the eyes of the reader were we to insert that claim. Doing such a thing on any topic is surely one falling under the NPOV rules. "Some" is way too insufficient for inserting a claim ... "Most" or "almost all" would be more sustainable. Are there articles on Wikipedia already doing this sort of paint-brushing of groups or people? Yes. But OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for more to exist. As for "listing groups named by another group" -- that seems "right out" unless balancing material is provided both about the groups listed and the group doing the listing with its criteria explicitly stated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be very easy to find "hate speech" in the writings of some feminists (Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin come to mind). I do not think that would justify having a lede statement that "Aspects of the American feminist movement have been criticized for exhibiting misandrous tendencies". This article is full of this stuff. The lede also has "the MRM is considered a backlash to the feminist movement". Yes, I know the word "backlash" is used within feminism, but it creates an impression of brutality and unthinking violence; phrases such as "reaction against" or "critical response to" would make the same point more neutrally. It also presents this position as unquestioned fact ("is considered"). Then lower down we have "Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom [77], the United States [60] and India[78] have opposed legislation criminalizing marital rape." Again, the phrasing seems to imply that the whole "men's rights" movement has opposed this. This is like saying "feminists have advocated castrating men" because some of the more far-out ones have made such suggestions. Paul B (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Which of the men's rights groups in the article are known for their pro-feminist, pro-woman positions, where they focus solely on issues facing men without engaging in attacks on women? Can anyone respond to this other than the crickets chirping? The MRM defines itself as against feminism and against women. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this comment supposed to mean something? It's virtually impossible to define a "pro-woman" or, for that matter, an "anti-woman" position (short of arguing that women shouldn't exist). It's next-to nonsensical to argue that men's rights movements are "against women". One wouldn't expect them to be "pro-feminist", but, of course, there is no single "feminism". As I'm sure you are aware, the rhetoric of 'men's rights' mimics feminist language on woman's rights, so it really depends what one understands by feminism. This is a non-question. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul, I hope you are kidding. History is full of women fighting against anti-woman positions, look at Makers: Women Who Make America as only a brief example. Could you point me to the same battle men in the MRM are fighting? No, of course you can't, because the only "battle" these men are fighting are other women. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's nice that you answer your own question to tell yourself you are right. Of course you are wrong. MRM is is a broad term to cover a wide range of movements,. The concept of "anti-woman positions" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Your last sentence does not seem to be even coherent. They are fighting for what they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be their rights, claiming that in some instances women have adavantages over men. We have to rwspect the particularity of thdse argumentsd andlook at the details. It does not help to make asweeping statements. That's the kind of airy dismissal that produces the very frustration of which mwembers of these groups so frequently speak. Paul B (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is now becoming forum shopping, an RSN thread[81] and a talk page thread[82] are all ready open on this, and neither have found in CSDarrow's favour. CSDarrow has asserted that the SPLC is unreliable at the talk page. There is already consensus that the SPLC should not be included in lede. However CSDarrow has attempted to use that as a means to declare the source unreliable (see the talk page thread for all this here). That has backfired and this thread being opened here is of no use to what CS Darrow is ostensibly asking here (i.e should the SPLC be in the lede) that has already been answered. However his attempts to declare the SPLC unreliable have not succeeded and this looks like a case of asking the other parent. A WP:AN thread is open about this. And as such this should be closed--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A consenus reached Cailil? Well you better tell Viriditas that, when I removed the content from the lede it was rapidly reverted, with the comment:- "No consensus for this edit". I did not see you raise any objections, your silence was in fact deafening. I am gathering addressing the points I have raised here is beneath you. You did not address them in the talk page and you are avoiding them here. I have expressed them in clear and simple language, give it a go Cailil. It would be way more productive than procedural intrigue. Go on Cailil address them, give it a go. I'll be kind I promise you.

The page WP:GOODFAITH also makes good reading. CSDarrow (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow: you have quoted this guideline several times in the last few days. FYI, you might want to read the 4th paragraph of the lede yourself as well as WP:AAGF.Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Slp1 you are right. I have no idea how I could think Cailil was suggesting bad faith on my part. Shame on me. CSDarrow (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Cailil, you obviously are a busy man. Let me help you and we'll do them one at a time

Does a source that does not know the difference between the Men's rights movement and Father's rights movement deserve special status over other commentators?

Whilst we are at it we might as well do another

Does a source that concludes " Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates" deserve special status over other commentators?

I'll help you out. I will posit not only does such a source not deserve special status, I'd say it deserves no status at all. Quit the procedural intrigue, answer my questions. CSDarrow (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, did you win the Olympic medal for missing the point? Extremists in the men's rights and father's rights movements are indistinguishable, and that's the focus of Goldwag's expertise. Treating them as one and the same when their response is the same is acceptable. For example, in 2007, sociologist Robert Menzies of Simon Fraser University[83] wrote:

Men's and fathers' groups allege that a prejudicial feminist state has deprived them of the rights to liberty, choice, expressive freedom, a just quality of life, participation in the private sphere, due process, and equal treatment before the law. The administrators and spokesmen for these forums conceive themselves as being collectively embroiled in a common quest to attain justice for men, fathers, and families.[84]

Goldwag's treatment of men's and fathers' groups is accurate and supported by sources like Menzies ("Virtual backlash: Representations of men's 'rights' and feminist 'wrongs' in cyberspace") Your understanding is not. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, you never fail to amaze me. CSDarrow (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that spreading essentially the same conversation to yet another forum is at best tedious and at worst an attempt to get a different answer from others. But let's summarize:

Notwithstanding CSDarrow's repeated attempts to paint them as unreliable, the Southern Poverty Law Centre has been repeatedly found to be a reliable at RSN discussions in the past and on this very subject.
Similarly, the SPLC has been extensively quoted by the media and scholarly sources, [85][86][87][88][89][90] including these very articles being discussed.[91][92][93][94]. It is clear that the SPLC's publications are considered notable by other secondary sources.
In my view there was a fairly strong consensus at the talkpage that criticism sections are deprecated (see Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section WP:STRUCTURE etc) and that the SPLC material should be integrated into another section (I suggest the "Relation to feminism" section). An additional reasoning for this from my perpective - and here I agree with CSDarrow and others - that having a separate section gives undue weight to this specific criticism.
There was also, in my view a fairly strong consensus at the talkpage that the material belongs in the article but not necessarily in the lede, and this seems supported here by some editors. The lede could be expanded: it needs to contain a longer summary of the movement's ideals and activities, but a longer and more detailed summary of the various critiques which are sprinkled through the article.

As a bold way forward, I am going to collapse the criticism section and integrate that material elsewhere. CSDarrow, how about you suggest a couple of sentences that in your view fairly summarize all the material critiquing of the MRM currently in the article? Reading writing for the opponent might help. Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So in short move the criticism section into the lede and load it up, and have criticism in the text as well. Presumable due to the SPLC's reliability we'll include that "...some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women." If the SPLC is so reliable then the questions I have asked Cailil, which I have no doubt he won't address, should be easily countered.

This is NPOV not the talk page and the question I have brought here needs to answered before we can restructure. I see you are a member of the elites who can edit the page, how nice. The SPLC commentary in lede still remains despite an apparent consensus for its removal. CSDarrow (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Question to Uninvolved Editors

Should the SPLC material presently in the lede of Men's rights movement be there?

(It would be appreciated and constructive if involved editors stay out of this)

Binkersnet, Concerning refusing my request. You have the right to do as you wish, whether it's right to do it is a different matter.

CSDarrow (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it should not be in the lede... as I stated above, the lede should be generalized. While it is fine for the lede to say that the Men's rights movement has engendered criticism, it is inappropriate to highlight specific criticisms in the lede. Save the specifics for somewhere later in the article. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the SPLC should be in the lead section because it is a prominent and respected research group. The article body should be expanded to name specific men's rights groups that have been identified by the SPLC as ones using hate speech. That way the whole MRM is not tainted with the accusations against parts of the MRM.
(Just so you know, CSDarrow, all discussions on Wikipedia are open; they are not restricted to involved or uninvolved editors.) Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
not really, but At least the version I'm seeing now doesn't have a coherent "reaction to/outside analysis" section, and one sentence featuring the SPLC as the sole reaction seems out of place and weirdly undue in both directions. I have to suspect that the liberal establishment of which the SPLC is part has to have more of a reaction than this. It would make more sense to say something more general and comprehensive in the lede and to have a section expanding on this later in the article, in which the SPLC's opinions could be given as examples. Mangoe (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes We need to establish the mainstream view of the movement which happens to be negative. TFD (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We certainly do need a mainstream view, but the SPLC is not a good choice for the sole embodiment of that. They are a party to conflict with these groups, so their neutrality would at least need some endorsement from less plainly involved observers. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually disagree with your analysis here, Mangoe, though not necessarily your conclusion. The SPLC is not an involved party: they are a specialist organization that examines category-based hatred in the US, and one month they chose to put the spotlight on the MRM. Critics are by definition non-neutral: the medical establishment being non-neutral about homeopathy doesn't mean we minimize their views about the matter or state that they are non-mainstream. Having said that, there is a likely a big difference between the medics and the SPLC in terms of whether their views are sufficiently significant enough to need such emphasis in the lead in a global encyclopedia. In this case, and as you recommend, there are other significant critics of the movement, and these should be integrated into a more balanced lead. Slp1 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This Pulitzer Prize and the George Polk Award winner disagrees [95] as does the Christian Science Monitor [96] the most trivial of searches gives massive criticism. The SPLC has no more authority, legal or moral, to designate "hate groups" than does the SPCA, or you, or me. Not even the FBI attempts to designate "hate groups." The SPLC uses the label "hate group"for the sole purpose of agitating its donor base. "Hate group" is a marketing ploy, not a legal category. The web is awash with criticism of the SPLC from solid sources. It's dogged use by some as a respected source is a insulting to the to Wikipedia concept. It is the National Enquirer of the Radical Left and Champagne Socialists with big pockets.

CSDarrow (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

They don't need "authority", legal or moral, to be able to gather together scholarly appreciation and kudos, and to be cited over and over again for their research and conclusions. The SPLC has no more authority than Rolling Stone magazine has to name the 100 best record albums (or 100 greatest guitarists, or 100 best singers, etc.) yet people pay attention and comment on the lists. The SPLC is frequently cited for performing valuable research and analysis, and this makes their list of MRM misogynist groups a valid list for our purposes. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, another one of your shallow appeals to authority dripping with puffery. They have no expertise, or any business commenting, on issues that people can legitimately disagree on. This includes the Men Rights Movement. Misogyny is a Weasel word, define it for me Binkersnet. It is no more than a pejorative and their commentary is shallow partisanship. The SPLC is not a legitimate citation for a respectable peer reviewed academic journal, especially the articles used here. The fact you suggest they are is mind boggling; the fact you expect people to explain to you why, is even more mind boggling. CSDarrow (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The FBI does not designate hate groups because hatred and hate speech are not illegal in the U.S. The FBI does use the SPLC's research however because it is responsible for prosecuting hate crimes. TFD (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How do the SPLC define hate speech? CSDarrow (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if the SPLC defines "hate speech". In a recent case the Canadian Supreme Court provides one, "the term “hatred” contained in a legislative hate speech prohibition should be applied objectively to determine whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."[97] More recently, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled the same way, as did the European Human Rights Commission last year.[98] TFD (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, which different is from:- 'You are on the Right and have views that we really really disagree with'. Which is the case with SPLC on a number of their declarations. They have been criticized for exactly this by a number of respectable sources, and is self evidently the case to an objective reader. The KKK is one thing, but they have gone way beyond their brief in recent years. CSDarrow (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The categorization of hate groups in the U.S. coincides with the description of hate speech in other Western democracies's courts. Right-wing groups have also complained about this and the Family Research Council supported the defendant in the Canadian case. TFD (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia does not try to determine whether the SPLC is correct, only whether their identification of certain MRM groups is worthy of including in the encyclopedia. Is is undue weight? Has anybody else noticed the SPLC listing? I think we have to conclude that yes, the SPLC listing is worthy of inclusion because of the storm of commentary it produced in reaction. Especially noteworthy is the fact that Paul Elam, a famous MRM activist, commented on the issue. Below is a selection of responses that have appeared online. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Intelligence Report Article Provokes Fury Among Men’s Rights Activists", Arthur Goldwag, SPLC
- "Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group ", Radfem News Service
- "Southern Poverty Law Center considers men's rights groups as hate groups?", question posted on Yahoo! Answers
- "Clarification: SPLC and AVFM (Not a hate group)", forum thread on Atheism+
- ""SPLC on "men's rights" hate groups", forum thread on Democratic Underground
- "Why Reddit's r/MensRights is not a hate group", The Daily Dot
- "The Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group", Community video uploaded by "Dr. Rivers" to Archive.org
- "The Southern Poverty Law Center takes on the violent misogyny so pervasive in the Men’s Rights Movement", post on Man Boobz
- "SPLC linked to anti men’s rights subreddit", A Voice for Men
- "Southern Poverty Law Center linked to hate activity", A Voice for Men
- "Are MRA really a hate group?", discussion thread on Skeptics Guide
- "SPLC names men’s rights activists as hate group", post on MensActivism.org
- "Southern Poverty Law Center Takes Aim at Men’s Rights Websites", Disinformation
- "Men's Rights Groups named SPLC Hate Group", discussion thread on Google Groups soc.men
- "Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group", Radical Resolution blog
- "Idiot hunting with the Southern Poverty Law Center", Young Hip and Conservative blog
- "The Southern Poverty Law Center notices the Men’s Rights Movement", Pharyngula blog
- "SPLC continues to label org targeted for violence as ‘hate’ group", The Washington Free Beacon
- "The Good and Evil Sides of Reddit", Jezebel.com
- "The misogynists’ rights movement: Men’s Rights Activists have no interest in equality", Portland State Vanguard
- "The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Creepy Mission", The Good Men Project
- "MRA London delivers, and the shocking implications for the SPLC!", This Is Why MGTOW blog
- "Southern Poverty Law Center Addresses Men's Rights", A Candle in the Dark blog
- "Poverty Law Center Names Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group", MamaLiberty's weblog
- "Paul Elam weighs in", Arthur Goldwag's blog
- "Southern Poverty Law Center, mission creep, men’s rights, feminism…", For the Sake of Science blog
- "Men’s rights activists named as hate group", Women's Views on News
- "SPLC: A poverty of integrity", A Voice for Men
- "r/MensRights Hate Group Tro-lo-lo-lo-lled", Skepchick blog
- "More on the SPLC", Men's Rights Blog
- "SPLC Linked To Anti Men’s Rights Subreddit", I Am Against Feminism blog
- "Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men's Rights Activist Movement as Hate Group", Princess Paradox blog
- "We Are Not A Hate Group", Genderratic blog
- "Weaselly hypocrisy", Toy Soldiers blog
- "The Men’s Rights Movement, CAFE & the University of Toronto", Feminist Current
- "The Southern Poverty Law Center notices the Men’s Rights Movement", discussion forum at James Randi Educational Foundation
- "SPLC Promotes Eugenics and Hate by Associating with RadFem Hub..", What Men Think of Women blog

Which highlights how effective their disingenuous Hegemonic ploy was. It also further highlights their unreliability as a source on matters of fact or opinion, and their unsuitability for inclusion in the lede. Just as Rush Limbaugh's views should not be in the lede of Feminism, he generates far more reaction than the SPLC. Something along the lines of this might be closer to the mark:-

The SPLC published articles on the Men's Rights Movement in their edition of "Intelligence Report" entitled "Year in Hate and Extremism 2011". Some of these articles used pejorative references for the Men's Rights Movement, one included references to murderers and pedophiles unrelated to the movement. This led to the wide spread impression that the SPLC had labelled the Men's Rights Movement a Hate Group, including amongst some scholars. This was clarified, months later, as not being the case in part of another article. By now the rumor had acquired traction.

Thanks for the idea, I will add it now. There are few wonderful quotes from one of those articles. If any comments about the Men's Rights Movement by the SPLC are to be included then suitable context has to be added.

CSDarrow (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, I respect the SPLC as a general source, and would generally use it. But on the other hand, I'm really concerned that one of the sources given, a SPLC blog post talking about the reaction to the Intelligence Report, is well known within feminist circles for being an awful transphobic internet troll. Whilst this doesn't degrade the quality of SPLC as a general source, or even as a source on this matter, I would caution editors about systemic biases with the SPLC and using them a sole arbiter of what is a hate group. That said, I don't really believe a man who says that he likes, and I quote, "to look at women that are little fuckmuffins" when he says he isn't a raging misogynist. I'd be opposed to equating these people's criticisms of the SPLC on glorified blogs and forums (several on the spam blacklist) with the research work of the SPLC. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also a question of WP:undue. In the article you referred to the SPLC stated they were talking of the 'hardline fringe'. CSDarrow (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

SPLC did not call them a hate group. There is no difference between what the SPLC means by "hate speech" and how it is understood by the European Human Rights Commission and the supreme courts of Canada and Mexico to name a few. And groups like the Family Research Council make the same criticisms about the courts of other countries as they do about the SPLC. And this type of blog is acceptable per WP:NEWSSBLOG. TFD (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

- Please tell me you did not just call a living person 'an awful transphobic internet troll' and use Rationalwiki as a reference! Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Removal

The SPLC itself has not formally endorsed the label of "hate group." That is misleading. The SPLC published an opinion piece by a blogger. Big difference.

Further, there may be a few members of any political group, including mainstream groups like Democrats or Republicians, who engage in what might be called "hate speech." Cheery-picking a few such quotes to label an entire group, especially without empirical evidence that a majority or even a significant minority engages in "hate speech" (the very definition itself is open to debate) is entirely unjustified and inappropriate. Memills (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Proud Comment I looked at some related Wikipedia articles. The Feminist movement article did not describe feminists as man-hating in its lede. Nor does the Women's Rights article so describe women's rights advocates. I'm sure this does not represent any lack of NPOV on Wikipedia. Rather, the editors of the women's rights articles made a totally NPOV and objective decision that the movements in question have nothing to do with hating men, while the editors of the men's rights movement article made an equally NPOV and objective decision that the Men's rights movement does have something to do with hating women. Furthermore, cherry picking is perfectly justified when applied to a bunch of misogynists. And although it is true that Andrea Dworkin said "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”, she is simply a bad apple and in no way reflects any man-hating among Women's Rights advocates generally. This make me proud to be a Wikipedian.William Jockusch (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

^ Goldberg, Herb (1976). The Hazards of Being Male- surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege. Wellness Institute, Inc. ISBN 1-58741-013-3.
^ ^a ^b Schlafly, Phyllis and Ann Coulter (2003). Feminist Fantasies. Dallas: Spence Publishing Co. ISBN 1-890626-46-5. Retrieved 2008-10-20.
^ Svoboda, J. Steven (12 June 2008). "An Interview with Warren Farrell". Retrieved 2008-10-20.
^ ^a ^b Macchietto, John. "Interview with Warren Farrell". Retrieved 2008-10-20.
^ http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/22/163-dissent-on-hivaids/
^ Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, Springer, 2009, 49–53, 142, 182, ISBN 978-0-387-79475-4
^ Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, Springer Science+Business Media, 2009, 49–53, 142, 182, ISBN 978-0-387-79475-4

[goldberg-1] Goldberg, Herb (1976). The Hazards of Being Male- surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege. Wellness Institute, Inc. ISBN 1-58741-013-3.

[frederica-2] Schlafly, Phyllis and Ann Coulter (2003). Feminist Fantasies. Dallas: Spence Publishing Co. ISBN 1-890626-46-5. Retrieved 2008-10-20.

[3] Svoboda, J. Steven (12 June 2008). "An Interview with Warren Farrell". Retrieved 2008-10-20.

[farrellint-4] Macchietto, John. "Interview with Warren Farrell". Retrieved 2008-10-20.

[5] ttps://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/22/163-dissent-on-hivaids/

[denying-aids-6] Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, Springer, 2009, 49–53, 142, 182, ISBN 978-0-387-79475-4

[7] Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, Springer Science+Business Media, 2009, 49–53, 142, 182, ISBN 978-0-387-79475-4

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]