Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:37, 28 September 2015

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

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

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

Jesus article

This is the material in question. The lede currently mentions methodological issues, but omits that several scholars have stated the methodology is invalid. The dissent from SPA's involves various illogical arguments.VictoriaGrayson 18:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And your specific request for this noticeboard is ...? If you want to start a Sockpuppet investigation, go to the SPA Investigations page and file a request, which may take a while but provided you have evidence of SPA traits and you are clear and articulate in your response, then you will eventually be able to remove the SPAs and continue on with actual users. Mistaken abbreviation Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC); edited 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

SPA is an abbreviation for single purpose account, not sock. See WP:SPA.VictoriaGrayson 05:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, but the original question remains of what your request is or are you simply asking for neutral editors to chime in? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I am looking for neutral input.VictoriaGrayson 14:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As long as the reference is from an RS and has some sort of WP:weight and WP:notability on the subject matter, it should be included, at least to an extent. To leave out viable (different) points of view is a WP:POV violation, IMHO. Darknipples (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Title Gun show loophole Resolved

Sorry to do this again , but we very much need some impartial editors to help us put this issue to bed, as the article keeps getting tagged over the title. Here are the sections in which it was discussed, going back about a year now. . As you can see, there have been many failed attempts to change, alter, or move the article due to the nature of the (term) "title". Here is the current discussion that was raised regarding "NPOV TITLE" tag. . I'm obviously tired of repeating myself, so I'm hoping some people here can help resolve this. Our article is currently being reviewed for GA status. Thanks for the help. Darknipples (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a list (in progress) of complaints as to why they think the title is in violation.

• 1. It can't be a loophole if that's the system operating as intended.
• 2. Some people objecting to the state of the law does not make it a loophole.
• 3. Misplaced Pages is left with contradictory content.
• 4. The term "loophole" is pejorative
• 5. title violates NPOV by supporting one point of view over the other
• 6. non-descriptive
• 7. the status quo cannot be a loophole by Misplaced Pages's own definition
• 8. used by gun control advocates to promote their position
• 9. inherently biased
• 10. The term "loophole" is inherently loaded language

They have been referred to WP:COMMONTERM, WP:POVTITLE, and WP:POVNAMING, but this hasn't resolved their issues. Darknipples (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me, as an editor who has never edited this article, that the term is very much the common name of the subject, and that per past discussions and WP:POVNAME the name should stay as is, and the POV dispute tag should be removed. The relevant guideline quote is:

When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Misplaced Pages generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Misplaced Pages normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Misplaced Pages might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.

I think this is clear and on-point. DES 12:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV concerns seem reasonable, as a well-known partisan label and POV concern of editors here. Since this is neutrality board, and since NPOV is a core item, I will suggest the NPOV section WP:POVNAMING is the one to apply, not the naming convention article of WP:POVNAME. The difference of note is :

The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed.

As I suggested in January -- state in the article lead the significant point that it is objected to as a partisan labeling, something like the handling a right-wing label Death panels gets. The alternative seems to go further in naming convention to a WP:NDESC descriptive name and make "Gun Show Loophole" a redirect to that title. (Or it continues to sit at POV issue.) Markbassett (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason you're referring to, or why you are commenting only now. This has been up for about 2 weeks now and was just "resolved" yesterday. I will go ahead and invite you two to the current discussion on the Administrative Notice Board, just in case you feel you need to add to the discussion there. LINK to Administrative notice board () Darknipples (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Darknipples The "resolved" seems a bit off - there's nothing for 11 days, and then one input. I responded to that input three days later over the not-NPOV basis mentioned, not to the original 2 weeks ago request, as it does point to a different direction, especially as it has both sides working to consensus. This topic really does not seem to need and evidently is not being helped by noticeboard, it's doing better thru the article TALK pages. Markbassett (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Markbassett "Doing better thru the article TALK pages" how exactly? Darknipples (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Edward E. Kramer

A long-quiescent account, Ziva11, has been massively modifying this article, and it appears to me that these edits are meant to make the subject look less loathsome than the reliable sources warrant. I am on record as not a fan of the subject of this article, and don't want to be accused (justly or otherwise) of letting that affect my judgement. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably this should be at WP:BLPN as there are BLP issues on both sides here. Ziva11's writing is too much like a spirited defense of Kramer, which is not a proper use of Misplaced Pages. However, the previous text was not great either. I'll give one example:

On December 2, 2013 Kramer, in a plea bargaining deal, pled guilty to one charge for each of the three victims, just before his trial was scheduled to start. .

The source does provide this information, but it also reports that Kramer maintains his innocence. That information should be reported too; in fact, I believe that WP:BLP demands it. Zero 04:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• I reverted the changes here only because of unexplained removal of cited information. There is a process for removing facts backed with sources - either challenge the source or replace it directly with something new. A little talk on the talk page would help to decide changes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

All of my changes were properly sourced and referenced with more recent information as per Misplaced Pages guidelines, most from 2014 and 2015. For instance, the last sentence of the introduction was changed from

Kramer is the subject of a long-running legal battle with the Gwinnett County District Attorney and a Superior Court Judge. In 2013, he accepted an Alford Plea to three counts of child molestation, while asserting innocence.

Please note that an Alford plea is not the same thing as pleading guilty, and the Misplaced Pages definition is referenced. Also note the article referenced is the local newspaper, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And when you read the details in the Legal Issues section, there are sourced recent references to legal battle with the Gwinnett County District Attorney and a Superior Court Judge due to documented collusion by theme to deny Kramer a fair trial. This is reality, with references to the actually lawsuits included. How can it be suppressed?

Every change made in the Legal Issues section has been from more recent sources, primarily the local newspaper. Anything removed either had no sources or older sources.

OrangeMike has already acknowledged that he has a bias against the subject Kramer and admitted it may affect his judgment. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard in the section on Edward E. Kramer:

I am on record as not a fan of the subject of this article, and don't want to be accused (justly or otherwise) of letting that affect my judgement. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This bias is evident by the fact that all new properly referenced facts had been removed.

Even Kramer’s own recent website as a reference, not a source, was removed. See http://www.edwardekramer.com/, a purely professional website which does not make any legal claims. Orange Mike is letting his personal opinion affect his editing judgment.

The current legal section ends with

On December 2, 2013 Kramer, in a plea bargaining deal, pled guilty to one charge for each of the three victims, just before his trial was scheduled to start. This is dated Dec 2, 2013.

More detailed, recent, and verifiable information was provided covering 2014 and 2015, yet it was unjustifiably removed. The distinction between an Alford plea and a guilty plea has been glossed over as well. Here are the sourced details. Note, for instance, that the Kramer was the legal guardian of the teen he was supervising, yet this information has also been deleted.

For the sake of accuracy, here is what should replace the current last sentence:

In September 2011, the Gwinnett County DA ordered the Milford, CT Police arrest Kramer for "risk of injury to a child," for supervising a teen which Kramer served as Legal Guardian. The DA provided false testimony both in Georgia and CT, hiding that he had been responsible for the arrest (Georgia DA’s cannot legally demand an arrest). Having violated no law, charges were dismissed and expunged by the CT Courts without trial.

Claiming the closed case against Kramer was never really closed, Porter and Beyers then filed a Governor’s Warrant, citing that he had become a “Fleeing Felon;” sans trial, and was extradited to Georgia in January 2013. On December 2, 2013, Kramer accepted an Alford Plea under the Georgia First Offender Act. He has never been convicted of a crime.

In 2014, Kramer sought to reverse the 2013 plea, after an Open Records Act request revealed emails from DA Porter to Judge Beyers and Sheriff “Butch” Conway documented collusion against Kramer to deny a fair trial. The Georgia State Attorney’s Office Ordered the recusal of both DA Porter and the Gwinnett DA’s Office from the case. All Gwinnett County Judges have recused themselves as well. Actions have been filed against State of CT and Milford, CT, and are ongoing.

Let us look at the second sentence of the Arrests section: The ensuing investigation revealed that Kramer had previously been accused of molestation in 1997 before the alleged victim recanted.

The source paragraph referred to in the blog Creative Loafing Atlanta is: “Only after Kramer had been charged did anyone discover that he'd also been arrested in 1997 for allegedly molesting another member of his underage posse. That boy had recanted his story before the case went to trial and charges were dropped. When Collins dug up the 3-year-old case, she made certain the media and the sci-fi community were updated.”

Note that there is no reference whatsoever to the identity of this nonexistent case. It also states that Kramer was arrested. The Wiki article was he was accused but does not say arrested. In 2013 when Kramer accepted the Alford Plea offered him, it was under Georgia First Offender Act. The Georgia First Offender Act only applies to people who have never been arrested at all. If Kramer had been arrested in 1997, he would never have been able to have been given the Alford Plea under the Georgia First Offender Act.

Therefore, it can be shown that Kramer had not been arrested in 1997 or any time prior to the recent events. Since Collins is not citing any proof whatsoever, her entire accusation against Kramer regarding an alleged crime or arrest in 1997 is completely discredited, and therefore removed. It is both not verifiably sourced and libelous, requiring its removal in accordance with Misplaced Pages standards.

If you go back to my changes that were removed and check, you will see each one was verifiable and properly sourced. Please do not let the biases of an editor who admits to them prevent the truth from being published.

1. ^ Visser, Steve (2015-01-08). "All Gwinnett Superior Courts judges opt out of DragonCon founder's case=The Atlanta Journal-Constitution".
2. ^ http://www.11alive.com/news/article/314570/40/Dragon-Con-co-founder-trial-set-to-begin
3. ^ Visser, Steve (2014-11-14). "DA 'knew' conviction would not end Dragon Con co-founder's court presence". Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
4. "Is a First Offender sentence a conviction?". Georgia Justice Project.
5. "The Open Records Act" (PDF). State of Georgia. State of Georgia. 2015-02-22. Retrieved 2015-09-08.
6. "Kramer v. Connecticut et al". Connecticut District Court. PacerMonitor.com. 2015-02-22. Retrieved 2015-09-08.
7. "Kramer v. Vitti et al". Connecticut District Court. PacerMonitor.com. 2015-08-17. Retrieved 2015-09-08.
8. Scott, Henry (2002-01-30). "The wizard of Dragon*Con stands trial". Creative Loafing Atlanta.
9. "Is a First Offender sentence a conviction?". Georgia Justice Project.

-Ziva11 | Talk 15:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ziva11 I am unable to give attention to this matter in the way you are suggesting. Misplaced Pages's review process is much more brainless than I think you imagine it to be. I have no idea who this person is and no intention of learning more about this case. I want you to know what I am providing - and what @Orangemike: shared also.

• I reverted your content because you insert information without a reference. Misplaced Pages is so robotic and thoughtless that it expects every statement to be backed by a reference, and presumes no understanding whatsoever outside of what is cited.
• You removed information which was backed by a reference. You seem to be arguing that you have insight beyond what was cited, and therefore are using your expertise to identify when cited sources are less reliable than they seem. Misplaced Pages's usual process does not second guess reliable sources. Misplaced Pages only reflects what reliable sources say, until and unless someone makes an argument that certain reputable sources should not be used.
• In general - and excuse me for presuming if this is not the case - you wish to apply personal insight to this article. Misplaced Pages does not work this way, and should only be a summary of what is cited.

If you want to make progress here in the usual way, then I recommend expecting that the Misplaced Pages article will be a summary of the articles cited, and not anything more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No personal insights, or unreferenced information per WP:No Original Research is the second and third point, no? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102 Yes, that is the wiki way to put it. For the second point - I forget what we say about people removing information with citations, other than "do not do it without some reason". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Liberland

Please see the RfC on Talk:Liberland. --Joy (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ephebophilia

Someone is trying to include ephebophilia into pedophilia, please prevent this bias from making the article POV. It is not supported by scientific findings. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

An ephebophile is a pedophile with a thesaurus. Sceptre 09:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, a comic amongst us! The (now blocked) IP user is complaining about sourced info that explains that the general public (and by inference, the media) frequently misuse the word"pedophilia" when the term "ephebophilia" is the correct term to use in certain circumstances. (Actually, the prior comment is an example of just such misuse -- thanks for the demonstration!) In any case, the IP user posted here in the process of edit warring over the article, presumably looking for help. Ultimately, the IP user has been blocked for awhile, which may provide the chance for some deep meditation which will hopefully lead to understanding what the article was actually saying. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina

FYI, an RfC was recently started regarding this person, titled "RfC: Should the lede say that Fiorina cut 30,000 jobs without mentioning that she also created tens of thousands of jobs?". Thus, the RfC raises significant issues about neutrality, so perhaps people here might be interested in participating.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Council of Constance

The Council of Constance 1414-18 was a Papal Council which laid the foundations for the Renaissance Papacies, and so was politically pivotal in the end of feudalism. The question of POV was raised on the thread, but not seriously addressed because the Catholics consider it was a purely religious affair, which it was not. As an academic in the area, I see huge problems with the meme as a result, and would ask you to refer it to a neutral academic specialist for fundamental review. I am not willing to tackle it myself because of the inherent and defended bias, I do not consider it my place to fight your internal battles for you. This one is, however, one you should look at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.154.26 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Herman Edwards biography

I've just read through the Herman Edwards biography. Overall i found it factual and informative in a balanced way. However, the section on his coaching career appears to be severely biased. Some examples:

- His failures are emphasized without even mentioning corresponding successes. For example, Edwards's playoff losses are cited and underscored, whereas his playoff victories (some of them impressive wins) aren't even mentioned. For example, opening-day losses (with KC Chiefs) are cited repeatedly, whereas final-day victories -- meaningful wins that brought the team into the playoffs -- aren't even mentioned. - Edwards's coaching methods are intensely scrutinized, which isn't a problem in itself. But the scrutiny is one-sided, leading to criticism without corresponding appreciation. - Subtle, value-laden terms are used throughout the section, to create an impression of Edwards's lack of competence. A more value-neutral approach would be appropriate.

I take no issue with criticism of Edwards per se. But the editor of this section appears to be on a mission to take Edwards down a few notches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.30.118 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Israeli extremists presented as 'settlers'

In some instances, 'certain' media outlets use the word settlers to describe Israeli extremists. In some other events, there is no concrete data whether the people involved were actually settlers or not. (, , , mixed use. Basically, the word 'settler' is synonymous to 'Israeli/Jewish extremists' for some (biased/partisan) sources.

There is no question most of time, settlers means settlers, but how should it be treated when it means 'extremists'? What if other editors insist on 'settlers' b/c the source uses that word and changing it is OR? Is there a policy for that? WP:LABEL isn't useful b/c settlers is in most cases is an objective description. Settleman (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• All settlers are not extremists, only some.
• All Jewish extremists are not settlers, only some.
• When we refer to both categories simultaneously, we should talk about "extremist settlers" to avoid amalgam.
• When a source mixes both, having in mind WP:BLP, we can use "Jewish extremists" for negative statements ; and "settlers" for neutral. For negative statements, we can also use "extremist settlers" to avoid "settlers" when it is obvious that the sources talk about that category.
• I don't agree with the conclusion that this amalgam is made by biased or partisan sources. Standard, "normal" or "neutral" sources should make the mistake too. That's a natural behaviour. All settlers have settled illegaly in occupied territories per the international law. If not "extremists", they are not white either.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't be saying "extremist settlers" or extremist anything, for that matter, since extremist is a POV label specifically discouraged per WP:LABEL. Instead we can say, where appropriate, that source X accused Group Y of being extremists, though even there, I would be mindful of WP:UNDUE. I'd need to see exact examples in articles to comment more. Valenciano (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Valenciano: Please take a look at Duma arson attack. In the specific article it is even more absurd b/c editors insist on leaving in text based on Al-Jazzera with 'settlers violence' statistics while deleting a comment by Israeli minister of defense who says this does not represent the settlers community. You can see the talk page. Settleman (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: I agree that non-biased sources make the mistake as well but the question is how do we differentiate w/o OR. Settleman (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Valenciano:: we cannot always attribute statement. When we use "wikipedia voice" it is normal to talk about the group of "extremist X" among the "X". (In the article given as an example we talk about people who burnt alive a man.) It would be pov-ed to deal the situation as if this was just an allegation such of them are "accused of being extremist" as it is pov to state all of them are extremist (making an amalgam).

@Settleman:: do you mean how do we manage/use biaised and unbiaised sources or do you mean how can we recognize them among themselves ? Pluto2012 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Extremist is still a POV term in cases where there is a suggestion that the motives are political or part of a wider political conflict. It's best to put this in quotation marks or use other terminology. Valenciano (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: All of the above. How do we ensure NPoV w/o involving too much (necessary) OR by editors. Settleman (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman:: I have answered on a concrete case in the talk page of the Arson attack in comparing the same statement made by a scholar, a chief Rabbi and a Defense Minister. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Valenciano:: Per my understading, this complies with what you suggest: "According to Louis Sell, Slobodan Milošević was a war criminal". According to me, that doesn't comply with NPoV. What is your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Louis Sell, Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, Duke University Press, 2002, chapter 11.

Inequality

I made an edit of the page on Inequality, adding marriage inequality, which I defined as a situation where the law denies same-sex couples their right to marriage. Shortly thereafter, Onel5969 reverted my edit without explanation.

I asked him for his reasons on his talk page, and he said there was an NPOV issue with my edit, but refused to elaborate. I then created a discussion on the article's talk page, but Onel5969 proceeded to ignore me.

I would like to ask the community if anybody thinks there were NPOV issues with my edit, and if so, what were they? Thanks! Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First, I didn't refuse to elaborate, simply did not think it was necessary. Should be pretty easy to figure out. Second, didn't ignore you when you posted on the talk page, didn't know you had. The term marriage inequality can mean different things to different people. To categorically state it means one of those definitions, which is the political viewpoint of a certain group is a definite point of view issue. If you had instead said something along the lines, "M.I. is a term used by some on the political left for a situation where the law denies same-sex couples their right to marriage" that would be perfectly acceptable. Onel5969 23:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

My two cents

• When editors request clarification or elaboration, it is considered polite by many to provide said clarification or elaboration, no matter how "easy to figure out" it in another's eyes.
• In response to the actual request though, would a compromise of title clarification be considered appropriate, i.e. Same-Sex Marriage Equality instead of Marriage Equality? Bear in mind that "Marriage Inequality" also covers discrimination against polygamous relationships and other "fringe" relationships (as defined by stereotypical Western, heteronormative standards).

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drcrazy102 - Completely agree with your first point, unless the other editor is becoming confrontational or uncivil, which was the case here (which I wasn't going to bring up, I try to ignore that type of behavior, but felt it now necessary to do in order to respond to your comment). Regarding your second point - That's exactly my point, however since this is a dab page for "Inequality", would cchanging the title in this instance be inappropriate? Onel5969 13:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: "...didn't ignore you when you posted on the talk page, didn't know you had"—oh, that's strange, because I put the {{ping}} template at the start of the message (just as I'm doing now). It generates a notification for the user pinged, which is pretty hard to miss. The 'political left' thing you propose to include in the definition is a bit vague, because, for example, what's left in the US is right in Europe, and what's right in the US is far right in Europe. And in Russia the two are totally reversed. And still in other countries I bet this left/right dichotomy wouldn't make any sense to anybody at all. "Term used by some" is even more vague. What's that supposed to mean? Of course it's used by some and not used by others. For example, I hate the expression 'hustle and bustle'. Others seem to be in love with it. Information like that is irrelevant to the definition.

How was I becoming "confrontational and uncivil"? Here's the link to our conversation. I asked you, "What other interpretations of the term "marriage inequality" could there be?" You just went silent, responding to others on your talk page and pretending not to notice my message. So, who was being 'uncivil' ‘'?

@Drcrazy102: The thing is, marriage equality is not same-sex marriage equality. It's equality of both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to marry. By the way, we do already have a page on marriage equality, and it erroneously redirects to same-sex marriage. But marriage equality isn't about same-sex marriage. It would make just as much sense to redirect the page to traditional marriage. Marriage equality encompasses both same-sex marriage and traditional marriage.

Speaking of marriage inequality, maybe it would actually be easier for all parties involved if I started an article on it. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

First, the ping template doesn't always work, which is why I use the simpler u (or ul) template, which I've never known to fail. I see that you did indeed ping me on the talk page of the dab page, but no alert ever came through. Per WP:AGF, not responding to you in a quick enough timeframe to suit you is not "ignoring" you. I get a ton of comments on my talk page. Unless it's from someone I have a history with (like the editor who commented just below yours later in the day), or it's an ongoing discussion, I tend to reply once a day to a person. Your subsequent comment when I did not respond to your second comment, in my view, was snarky at best, but definitely not civil. I think at this point let's just call it whatever, and agree to move on. Okay?

I agree that my proposed compromise is vague. I wasn't trying to say that my verbiage should be used, just providing an example. Leave "left" or "right" out of it, say a certain political segment. However, when you are stating categorically that a phrase has a definite meaning, the fact that the definition is only used by a certain segment, and only by some in that segment, those are pretty important qualifiers. Onel5969 14:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, KKK members don't have much use for the term racial equality either, nor do male chauvinists seem to be particularly keen on the term gender equality. Frankly, whatever equality you take, only one side of the debate is going to be using the term—the side that's in favor of it. Should we go through the list of all pages on Equality and amend them saying that neo-nazis, male chauvinists, homophobes, etc. disagree with the use of that term? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Your use of the pejoratives above shows the NPOV issue most clearly. Just because someone doesn't agree with a POV, doesn't mean that they deserve a derogatory term. We're not talking about other equalities but about a specific term. To say the definition of term is that which one side in a debate is clearly NPOV. Onel5969 15:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What pejoratives? Neo-nazi? Male chauvinist? Homophobe? Are these pejorative terms? The Oxford Dictionary of English doesn't mark either of those as pejorative or offensive (but does so with words like 'kike', 'chink', and 'faggot'). I invite you to find one definition from a reputable dictionary that lists homophobe as a pejorative or offensive term: ]. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, the terms are not pejoratives in and of themselves, what I should have said is that your use of the terms as pejoratives to describe those who don't see your POV, clearly shows the NPOV issue. Regardless, this discussion is why I felt it better to disengage from this discussion with you. Which is what I will do now. Onel5969 17:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"I know these words mean something else. However, when you use those words, I choose to believe that you use them in a way that supports my agenda in this discussion."—that's what you were trying to say here, I gather. So, who's biased then?

Hope to hear from people with a more balanced position. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Pfftallofthemaretaken, you say earlier that marriage inequality is more than same-sex couples being able to marry, hence my compromise of labelling the specific marriage inequality. If someone were to start discussing marriage inequality for polygamous couples, I would say to them to label it as polygamous marriage inequality. The preceding word simply changes the meaning of the statement from "marriage that is inequal to the heteronormative marriage arrangement" to "'X' marriage arrangement is inequal to the heteronormative marriage arrangement" hence specifying which non-heteronormative marriage arrangement is being discussed. Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we have separate terms for 'black equality', 'Chinese equality', 'Vietnamese equality', 'Russian equality', 'Arabic equality', etc, etc. Somehow, we're fine with just one term—'racial equality'. Maybe it's because equality is when everyone is equal, and inequality is when some are more equal than others. I would amend my original definition, though, to "a situation where only heterosexual couples can legally marry". Sounds fair? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Pfftallofthemaretaken, because each of those is covered by Racial equality, but you seem to be attempting to make a "shock" example to have people agree with your point of view. As for "sound fair", it is better than your previous definition yes. Am I more than 90% convinced it is the best? No, but it is good enough for now. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

So, maybe we should start a page on Marriage inequality and cover everything related to the topic there? The only shocking thing about my examples is that marriage inequality isn't seen as being as shocking as racial inequality. Now, that is a big POV issue that few people seems to be willing to admit. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not titled Marriage Inequality, no. I disagree on your chosen titling because of WP:COMMONNAME, (which is why the current Marriage Equality redirects BTW). For now, simply clarify the type of marriage inequality issue, ie "same-sex marriage inequality" instead as the page for marriage equality redirects to same sex marriage equality anyway (and then you can even work within "no double redirects"!). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

There is a "special report" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages. It looks to me like an editorial opinion with no particular reason to give it any more weight than the hundreds of similar editorials on both sides of this politically charged issue. Is this a NPOV use of this source? --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It is quoted/referenced in other RS quite a bit - see this article in the Atlantic, and the fact that some major academic works have referenced work by the same author (also published by mother jones) on the same topic. Some of that is listed towards the end of this discussion. So I don't think it can be ruled out as POV just because it's an editorial or just because it's mother jones - but whether or not it's appropriate probably depends on how specifically it's being used in the article (and which article we're talking about). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly POV - but its use is contextualised and far from undue - but that's because it's talking about people who would qualify as WP:FRINGE. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would call it a reliable opinion piece. It can certainly be used... but information taken from it should probably be presented as opinion (ie attributed). Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That's not been done. It took me only a minute of googling to find "pro" views on CFACT and Monckton, so the editor who put in Mother Jones (it was the same editor in almost every case) could easily have found other other significant views. Bias could have been avoided by ignoring Ms Jones's biased opinion, or proportionate representation could have been aided by including opposite biased opinion; neither of these things happened; this is not proper. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether or not this is a reliable source for the context used. Let's see the context used in reference to this source, so we can accurately and objectively answer this question. Koncorde seems to think it is, but the rest of us have no idea. As long as it is attributed and referenced properly, I don't see why it can't be included to a certain extent. Mother Jones' opinion is not entirely irrelevant, but it shouldn't be given undue weight. Darknipples (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

When those "significant" views are WP:FRINGE this is not an equivalence. Looking at the two sources provided by yourself for instance we have an opinion piece by Pat Boone of all people on WorldNetDaily (I'm not aware of him holding a "significant viewpoint" to represent), meanwhile Delingpole is often cited in defence of Monckton (and criticised too). I'm not aware of either of them offering defences of Exxon, the API etc but if there are counterpoints to those then they can be included in the article. However it is not up to an editor of an article to neuter their edits through the chilling requirement of faux NPOV. Koncorde (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Peter, we entirely understand that you wish climate change denialists were supported by real science rather than being denialists. However, they aren't - and to fail to acknowledge that this is denialism would be an abrogation of core policy. Representing sources fairly and proportionately means that we are more inclusive to sources that discuss the mainstream view - and in a situation like this where most of the relevant authors, we are entitled to ignore the more obvious swivel-eyed loons (e.g. Monckton). Guy (Help!) 22:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of the uses fail WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as it obviously (to all except a now-topic-banned editor) an opinion piece. And the question of whether it is a notable opinion should take into account whether MJ has other disputes with the named entities. If it were still notable if it read "an opinion piece in the ultra-left magazine Mother Jones stated that the ultra-right Heritage Foundation ...", then it is probably notable. "This discussion" above seems inconclusive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy is making a false statement about my intent, an insult about a living person who is a subject of a BLP, and a baseless claim that "the mainstream view" has called these people and organizations denialists. No, they're being called that by someone at Mother Jones. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the second time I have had to say this, while describing Moncton as a 'swivel-eyed loon' is generally uncivil, it is entirely accurate. If you wanted a more civil description of him 'A man whose opinions and thoughts have as much in common with reality as pink unicorns'. There is really no situation where Monckton is considered an authority or dissenting opinion on anything. It would be like citing David Icke on the advantages of Republicanism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a couple of problems with the use of this source.

• Posting a reference to an opinion piece that links multiple persons and organizations could be considered guilt by association. We wouldn't include something like "Acme Corporation is on Bleeding Heart Liberal Magazine's list of Most Hated Organizations" if the list also contained the Nazi Party and The Association of Telemarketers And Robocallers.

• What evidence do we have that this ranking of individuals and organizations was objectively determined? What standards were used in determining inclusion or ranking?

• Where are the other reliable sources that reported this particular Mother Jones list? Why, of all the thousands of editorial opinions on this topic, are we giving this one obscure 2009 editorial such undue weight?

• The editor who inserted this into multiple Misplaced Pages articles has been topic banned from the articles, and so far roughly half of the near-identical additions have been removed by other editors.

Previous discussions: Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Top_.22Promulagator_of_Disinformation.22, Talk:FreedomWorks#Climate_change_denial.-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution