Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

Skip to TOC
Skip to bottom

Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion. State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]]. Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here. Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question. Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context. It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.	Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)	Shortcut: WP:NPOVN
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use `{{subst:NPOVN-notice}}` to do so.

Additional notes:

Guidance on making articles conform to the neutrality policy can be found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes
If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, use the No original research noticeboard instead. For a review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.
If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.

Click here to start a new discussion

Search this noticeboard & archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

1 Islamic State war crimes & POV tag
2 NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"
3 Use of non-standard nomenclature in infoboxes - WP:UNDUE?
4 Cleveland issues with nicknames in the introduction
5 Relevant RfC about lead section of article on Singapore
6 Universal Windows Platform apps
7 G4S Secure Solutions
8 Earthquake prediction - Van method

Islamic State war crimes & POV tag[edit]

Article: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

Perceived problems:

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

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

Proposed changes (see diff):

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

References used in the proposed text:

"Islamic State digging in in Raqqa, hiding in civilian shadows, amassing human shields". The Japan Times. 18 November 2015. – "The [Islamic State] fighters are hiding in civilian neighborhoods and preventing anyone from fleeing, activists said. ... Activists from Raqqa say the northern Syrian city’s estimated 350,000 residents are gripped by fear, rattled by powerful Russian and French airstrikes that shake the city daily"

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

"Russia in Syria: Assad loyalists paraded in cages through Damascus by rebels trying to stop air strikes". The Independent. 3 November 2015. – "The militants, one of the most powerful rebel factions operating in the Douma suburb of Damascus, have been videoed driving at least 100 cages around residential areas on pick-up trucks to pressure the government to call off Russian airstrikes, according to the anti-government Shaam news agency. Air strikes have routinely targeted Douma and other neighbourhoods in the Eastern Ghouta region of the country while rebel groups have retaliated by sending rockets in government controlled areas of the city."

"Syrian rebels use caged hostages as human shields against airstrikes". International Business Times. 3 November 2015. – "Hundreds of people believed to be from President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite community have been put in cages and paraded through besieged Damascus suburbs, apparently to deter Syrian and Russian aircraft from further bombing the city of Douma."

NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"[edit]

We have been over it many times in the Talk page and getting nowhere, so I am seeking other opinions. At present[[4]]is written in the majority view which is to say: "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." (TIs being people who believe they are subject to covert targeting.) This assumes the psychiatric opinion as fact. However, there has been a significant Washington Post article on TIs, Mind Games, which, it seems to me, says that there may be something really happening to these people, that they may not be deluded. I would like to see the EH article incorporate what I see as the opinion of the Washington Post, which for starters would not have written such an article if they thought that TIs were entirely delusional, they would have written an article on a disturbing mass delusion. There are many points made in that article, and the two other similar articles cited, that support the view that, whilst the article should state the psychiatric opinion it should only state it as an opinion, not as a fact. I will go through the points from those three articles one at a time if that is necessary.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Working through the Mind Games article for instances that support my position that the EH article should be written as an open question as to whether there is real targeting happening, not just delusions, extracts from the first few paragraphs say: "IF HARLAN GIRARD IS CRAZY, HE DOESN'T ACT THE PART. .....At 70, he appears robust and healthy -- not the slightest bit disheveled or unusual-looking. He is also carrying a bag.

Girard's description of himself is matter-of-fact, until he explains what's in the bag: documents he believes prove that the government is attempting to control his mind. He carries that black, weathered bag everywhere he goes. 'Every time I go out, I'm prepared to come home and find everything is stolen,' he says.

The bag aside, Girard appears intelligent and coherent. At a table in front of Dunkin' Donuts inside the train station, Girard opens the bag and pulls out a thick stack of documents, carefully labeled and sorted with yellow sticky notes bearing neat block print. The documents are an authentic-looking mix of news stories, articles culled from military journals and even some declassified national security documents that do seem to show that the U.S. government has attempted to develop weapons that send voices into people's heads.

'It's undeniable that the technology exists,' Girard says, 'but if you go to the police and say, 'I'm hearing voices,' they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation.'"

The Washington Post obviously is of the opinion that Girard might not be crazy and is giving him the space to say that he thinks the government is doing something to him. This surely is saying that the WP is of the opinion that it is an open question not definite evidence of delusions? My first attempt to post the above led to it disappearing on clicking "Save Page" Jed Stuart (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence is too much. Seriously though the article acknowledges the experience of voices etc is real. There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used. (and the second is important - we would need both) Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no real dispute in the WP sense here. We have an WP:SPA editor pushing a WP:FRINGE idea, and everyone else telling this editor to please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart, you may find the page at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP, a polite but inexperienced WP:SPA, has been told many times by experienced editors that this will simply not fly, but unfortunately has failed to understand. I'm afraid that Jed is coming from an In-Universe POV, and the crowbar of understanding is so far simply not working. We need a bigger crowbar, and a very firm foundation for the fulcrum. Guy's essay ought to help, and WP:OUCH may also be pertinent. I, on the other hand, think it may be too late. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Replying to all: I am not an SPA. I have 3 separate areas of interest and experience, however I have only done two edits in WP in the 'electronic harassment' article. Both edits are now gone so I have effectively done none. For now I only have limited time for participation and decided to use it to attempt to get that article NPOV rather than 100% weight to the psychiatric opinion and 0% weight to the claims of TIs. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact in that way is to entirely negate the claims of TIs, which seems inappropriate. I am only attempting to integrate the view of the Washington Post article Mind Games which gives the TI claims a 'might be something in it'. I think those claims should be described as a conspiracy theory (although I would prefer conspiracy belief as they are not seeming to come at it from a theoretical perspective, but more from an attempt to describe weird experiences). To pitch the article as psychiatric opinion vs TI conspiracy theory is not to push a fringe idea as is claimed that I am doing. TIs seem to be always willing to admit that they have no hard evidence but nevertheless their claims are gaining considerable traction in alternative mass media. e.g. Coast to Coast AM, Jessie Ventura. So it seems that Alternative View - TIs Conspiracy Theory, or some such, would be appropriate, and not Fringe Delusion.

The article WP:1AM is interesting, but that has not been the situation for long. There have been many other editors on my side of the debate contributing to the Talk page, and who have given up in frustration at the immovable block of editors insisting that TI claims MUST be described as definitely delusions. My attempts to set up mediation only resulted in a fake mediation which was closed before I had the chance to reply. Yes, I was slow to get back to the mediation, but they should be fully aware by now that I only contribute every 2-3 days.

As to the point by jytdog "There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used." The 'Mind Games' article goes in depth into the question of technology and the possibility that something like an extension of the MKUltra project has been in operation since MKUltra was exposed and closed down. The latter point is consistent with the WP article Project MKUltra section 12 Aftermath [[5]] Jed Stuart (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart It doesn't matter how reasonably well you argue. As stiff as it is, this article (as well as others involving Government crimes) are in the hands of conservative groups, probably a joint of real undercover agents (would you ever believe wikipedia had undercover agents editing it?.. I still have problems believing this but I'm trying to not exclude it) and wannabes trying to "do the work better". Either that, or it's a matter of fact that the vast majority of people cannot accept the chance that Federal agencies are still onto MKUltra and COINTELPRO alike programs. Everyone is entiteld to their opinion and, to quote a good one, "I would give my life to protect your right to have one", but hey.. sources speak clear at loads that Electronic harassment is an open question, not a verified illness. I'm sorry if you feel offended but I really have no personal hate towards any of you thus I don't consider it a personal attack (not to mention I'm doing it for a better wikipedia). This article should be taken to WP:ANI or WP:AE because indeed it is a matter of behavior in a too disputed argument. It's so disputed that even opening a case at WP:MEDCOM would ultimately be justifiable. Specifically WP:Civil POV pushing is what I broadly would invite to look into, but the problem sets immediatly as: how can ANI, AE and MEDCOM be free of "whitewashing agents" looking to basically protect their reputation?

The editors involved in the writing of this article are generally not looking to discuss, they are whether purpotedly or not willfull in coordinating denial over the chance Electronic harassment is an open question which, according to wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it results as such. Yet we have this undercover conservative editors and admins looking after their clerk editing wikipedia reputation, denying vital info that could even alleviate the pain possible victims may be really going through the way it is claimed, which soundss absolutely detestable and repugnant. The way the article is written is unacceptable considering the many sources available. Also every source keeps on being rejected with inconsiderate nonchalance and often bad faith. About bad faith for example, how can you consider alien abductions notable enough to be compiled into such a biased article? How can you compare the chance of State terrorism with that of extraterrestrials abducting humans? Why are you so keen on trying to fool us (editors and especially readers), regular unknown people, simple internet users that never did you any wrong? Let's face it, building 7 could not come down the way we are told. And neither the twins. I must be taking myself too seriously in trying to subvert this specific wikipedia censorship.. but the point I guess, is that I always related to knowledge with pure openness, thus it must hurt to see wikipedia being gamed by a bunch of who knows who nobodies.

However, I'm not here just to shout wishy-washy, I would like to point to the lack of hystorical perspective, mentioned with other words by Jed Stuart in the above comment. There have been many "attempts" to correct the censoring POV of the article throughout the last months/years, but I never came accross anyone mentioning WP:RECENT, a decently important essay. WP:RECENT is spot on firstly because COINTELPRO and MKULTRA are hystorial heavy weighting notable and verified clandestine projects which should be more seriously taken into account, and secondly because fundamentally the whole present bias is based on contemporary years's mainstream news about a modern phenomena revolving around internet communities that show traits of mental illnesses. Nonetheless, various reliable sources indicate the existence of weapons meant to induce mental illnesses thus it really is a gigantic mistake to propose the mental illness theory as fact.

There would be more to discuss about, but it's just too frustrating for anyone to be maliciously outnumbered the way it happens all the time. I guess that's why the degree of incivilty is non-existent on the side of the civil (indeed) pov pushers. What about the pointlessness in WP:SPA accusations? Do you think everyone can dedicate their working day to editing an encyclopedia? Let's resume good ol' Aaron Swartz for a minute:

Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.

On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.

Other encyclopedias work similarly, just on a much smaller scale: a large group of people write articles on topics they know well, while a small staff formats them into a single work. This second group is clearly very important — it’s thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone — but it’s a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia. One imagines the people running Britannica worry more about their contributors than their formatters.

What about that argument about pseudoscience detracting from notability?.. Have a read at what's written at the bottom of this for instance. The point with pseudoscience anyway, is like the one with comparing alien abductions to State terrorism: there are reliable sources citing the existence of these exotic weapons just as we have prove of, at least past, State terrorism (it always shows up after a while for some reason, and it's always about other countries, other cultures, other languages), while on the other hand there are no reliable sources citing the existence of extraterrestrials anywhere close enough to our planet, not to mention the abduction part. I know you will keep on stonewalling anyway, I already came to the understand there's no chance of having a un-POVed debate on this article, thus why am I trying my best to contribute to this article? Probably just because Jed is being treated unfairly. Have a good evening all. 82.59.56.100 (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since mentioning sources, is this one from 2008 relevant in your opinion? Peer reviewed by a University. The author is an academic definitely in good-standing even to date and mainstream nonetheless, Kingsley Dennis. What else is needed to accept Jed's suggestion of writing the Electronic harassment page as an open question? 87.1.117.202 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What would it take for us to conclude that the reality of electronic harassment is an open question?

It would have to actually be an open question, which it is not. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fringe theories and pseudoscience.
Your "reliable source" would have to actually say what you claim it says, which it does not. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#First Monday (journal)

Might I suggest [ https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/ ] as a more appropriate place for your theories? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Continual assertions that it is not an open question followed by directions to those Wikipedia policies that we are fully aware of in this discussion and are interpreting differently, says absolutely nothing. Referring to an article that is in question as to whether it is a reliable source, but which nobody has used in the EH article, is confusing the issue. It is the Washington Post article "Mind Games" which has been cited in the article and which is the basis of my opinion that the article should be written as an open question.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless 87.1.117.202 is you editing while logged out, I wasn't responding to you. 87.1.117.202 referenced the First Monday journal in the post I replied to.

As for Mind Games you have received your answer multiple times, the latest at [ Talk:Electronic harassment#open question that covert targeting could be happening? ]. One comment in that discussion stands out, and I agree with it 100%:

"Jed, you have cited that same quote from the Washington Post article on these Talk pages twice before here and here. Both times, the reasons why it does not justify giving credibility to the fringe theory have been patiently explained to you. You ask over and over again why we can't treat the topic as "an open question", and over and over again it gets explained to you. You repeatedly ask why the article can't balance psychiatrists opinions with delusional people's opinions, and it is repeatedly explained to you why our policies can't permit that. Your account is 4 years old, and your only interest on Wikipedia is this one topic. Although you have been polite about it, even politely asking the same questions over and over again is a form of WP:DISRUPTION."[6]

Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe we are going nowhere because this is a case of collective prolongend whitewashing (censorship), either because of unconscious (you can't accept the chance it could be happening) or conscious (wikipedia is flooded with conservative individuals who purpotedly deny the chance it could be happening) psychological mechanisms. I understand, the anxiety can be terrifying when it comes to these arguments. However, I'm gonna give the debate a chance if you wish, Guy Macon.

1. The first statement is your own opinion lacking corroboration other than pointing to a section of the WP:NPOV policy which states:

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.

Thus the question is: what is the majority viewpoint of scientists? And if there is one: how surpassing is it compared to the minority viewpoint (in order to determine the respective weights, correct?)?

2. So you deny "my reliable source presents the chance of electronic harassment happening"? You are stating it doesn't represent the simple view proposed by Jed Stuart? Then explain to me these quotes from that source which, let me remind you, it is authored by a scientist in good-standing (actually of mainstream media good-standing nonetheless), and peer-reviewed by academics with no bias on supporting conspiratorial claims. I will bold and underline the significant parts:

Increasingly there are indications that the uses of wireless technologies have been developed to target an individual’s biological body, with specific focus upon the neuronal functioning of the brain. In this paper I examine how some of these uses have had detrimental effects, and what this implies for both present and upcoming developments for particular wireless/sensor technologies. I consider whether this is not shifting dangerously towards a psycho–civilised society, where greater emphasis is placed upon social control and pre–emptive strategies. [..] Examples of unplanned attacks on the body’s data–processing capability are well–documented’. He (referring to Military strategist Timothy Thomas) references a Russian military article on the same subject which declared that “‘humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war’ with the mind and body as the focus”. [..] The “data” the body receives from external sources — such as electromagnetic, vortex, or acoustic energy waves — or creates through its own electrical or chemical stimuli can be manipulated or changed just as the data (information) in any hardware system can be altered. [..] Documented and declassified evidence shows that what may have begun as a program in standardized propaganda and psychological warfare has now developed into research on wireless information targeting and ‘psychocivilized’ control practices. To this effect the term ‘psycho–terrorism’ was coined by Anisimov of the Moscow Anti–Psychotronic Center and Anisimov admits to testing such devices as are said to ‘take away a part of the information which is stored in a man’s brain. [..] Although neurotechnologies are likely to be put to therapeutic and medical uses, such as for improving emotional stability and mental clarity, they also open opportunities for intrusive strategies of control and manipulation. [..] Part of this paper has been focused on the dangers of an increasingly wireless world. These dangers may include the potential for invasive technologies, based upon transmitted/received signals and wavelengths, to shift social order towards a psycho–civilized society. By psycho–civilised I mean a society that manages and controls social behaviour predominantly through non–obvious methods of psychological manipulations, yet at a level far beyond that of the ‘normalised’ social manipulations of propaganda and social institutions. What I refer to are the technologised methods of psychological interference and privacy intrusions in the manner of creating a docile and constrained society. [..] What are the moral and ethical implications of using wireless scanning surveillance technologies for evaluating pre–emptive behaviour based on thoughts and intentions alone? Is this not a dangerous path towards psycho–terrorising the social public? As Thomas (1998) reminds us, the mind has no firewall, and is thus vulnerable to viruses, Trojan horses, and spam. It is also vulnerable to hackers, cyber–terrorists, and state surveillance. Whilst this may sound a little too far out, they are reasonable questions to ask if technologies are racing ahead of us in order to better get into our heads. [..] This may herald the coming of a ‘wonderful wireless world’, yet it may also signal unforeseen dangers in protection, privacy, and security of the human biological body within these new relationships.

— Kingsley, Dennis, First Monday (journal) of University of Illinois at Chicago at webaddress

.

What's your answer? Does it present it as an open question? 87.3.90.35 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

My answer (and the answer of at least a dozen other experienced Wikipedia editors who have examined this) is "no". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Guy. Jeh (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Me too. Wikipedia is not the place for this stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And me. Mr. Dennis appears to be commenting from a different reality than the one in which we exist. You need to stoppit Jed, and all the SPA IPs that have magically appeared around this topic since you were told it will never fly. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

To Guy Macon: That is the first time I have quoted that bit from the Mind Games article. The one I was being taken to task about and did end up quoting 3 times due to not being able to get editors to really discuss the issue, was the one where they state their opinion that there could be something in the accusations of covert targeting. I did quote it 3 times in the attempt to get editors to really deal with the issue instead of just repeating assertions and grandstanding as the absolute experts on Wikipedia and I a newbie should piss off or be sent to AE. I have no desire to hit your horse carcass with a stick but surely it is time to bury it.Jed Stuart (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that those wanting to state the psychiatric opinion as fact have put up no arguments to back that, just assertions that I am pushing a fringe view. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact is to contradict the first point made in the NPOV article "Avoid stating opinions as facts" . Perhaps this does not apply to a mainstream well established institution, psychiatry/psychology? In a communist or fascist regime that could easily be the case. However, Wikipedia is a product of liberal democracy and so describing the various is the standard. tolerance of different opinions, pluralism etc That rather than adopting one side of a difference of opinion. So what would it do make the change that I seek. The psychiatric/psychological view would still have most weight, my guess about 80-90%, and the not at all well established view of those who believe that they are subject to intensive covert assaults would get a foot in the door, getting about 10-20% of the weight, just a little "might be" that is all that would be. There is no proof, just a lot of people with compelling anecdotal evidence, enough to get the Washington Post to give a small slice of that considerable attention. It does say something though that my attempts to get this stated appropriately result in such a concerted effort to stop such a little change in the article in order to bring it into line with the Wikipedia policies you lot keep throwing at editors that disagree with you, and don't seem to understand yourselves. Jed Stuart (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough WP:IDHT. I'm done responding. Read the Discretionary Sanctions notice at User talk:Jed Stuart. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have expected more comprehensiveness. Some argumentation. Can you provide those? I think it's very important.. otherwise what's the point in being at this noticeboard nonetheless? This is on even a higher level than a Talk page, thus I suspect we should debate. What you keep on doing is stonewalling mine and Jed's suggestions. But I still have an idea of the why this happens constantly: anxiety towards these unsettling shoking circumstances is the reason, and choosing to be conservative (read as, "in denial") is the safest refuge. I have no idea on what level of your consciousness is happening, I don't know you and I'm not a psychoanalyst. But I can't pretend I don't know there's the seed of psychology here, making a certain form of ethics (the plant) grow, and that it ends producing political results (the fruits) which speciously flow into far-fetched conservative consensus.

Yes, this is about politics, and it looks even Aristotele is on mine and Jed's side, as His philosophical eternal work on politics ends declaring that

the inquiry into ethics necessarily follows into politics

Pretty obvious. Have a good day all, especially Jed though. Note: I'm open to debate majority and minority viewpoints as well as about their weight. But remember you can't write an article on tobacco or alcoholic beverages without giving them hystorical perspective and touching upon production and the harmful health effects. Some things are just too obvious that maybe can slip out of our minds, but they shouldn't. Also, you don't give the same weight to the chance of Political repression via emerging technologies (not pseudoscience) and the chance of being abducted by aliens. 87.6.112.110 (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See [ User talk:87.6.112.110#This IP is a duck ] and [ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit filter? Range block? ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of non-standard nomenclature in infoboxes - WP:UNDUE?[edit]

Resolution reached: Consensus is that no synonyms will be used in the chess infoboxes. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is regarding a content dispute at the chess article. User:Ihardlythinkso wants to include the term "orthochess" as a synonym for chess in the article's infobox. By way of explanation, "orthochess" is used by some to distinguish "orthodox chess" (i.e. chess played by standard rules) from the many chess variants. It is rarely if ever used in standard works on the game of chess; google book search and google ngram confirm this. The word appears to be the invention of one David Pritchard, an expert on chess variants, and appears in David Parlett's Oxford History of Board Games. IHTS is arguing that this single source justifies inclusion in the infobox. My argument is that the term "orthochess" is not widely used or accepted either by chess players or by the general public, and to include the term in the article's infobox is giving it too much prominence, amounting to undue weight. The term is mentioned in the section on chess variants and that is more than enough. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sincere thanks to MaxBrowne for opening this item. The full discussion is here. As far as MaxBrowne's arguments, of course the term is "rarely if ever used in standard works on the game of chess" -- why would a work on chess have any need to use any term other than 'chess'? The term is used in contexts of other varieties of chess to distinctly identify the standard game defined by international chess body (FIDE) rules. When Partlett says in The Oxford History of Board Games "Variously known as International Chess, World Chess, Orthochess, and so on", it seems plain those alternate names would only be used where there might be ambiguity with the standard game. The term "Western chess", which also appears in the article infobox as synonym for 'chess', is the same (would only need to be used in a context where there could be ambiguity), and, MaxBrowne clearly has no problem with that. In fact all of the game name synonyms listed are really only needed or used in that same context. The idea of an encyclopedic article is to provide readers pertinent info. How the game might be referred to in the context of other varieties of chess is part of that info. And sourcing it from The Oxford can't be a better reliable source. ¶ There is no WP requirement on the {{Infobox game}} template 'AKA' (Synonyms) parameter to be "widely used or accepted either by chess players or by the general public" as MaxBrowne states. (How do I know this? Because I am the editor who added the AKA parm to that template! I did so as a parallel to the same parameter which exists in {{Infobox chess opening}} template, and as can be seen by many article examples using both templates and the AKA/Synonyms parm, there's never been the requirement that MaxBrowne states. Rather, the synonyms listed just have to meet verifiability w/ a reliable source. (MaxBrowne specifically got involved to clean up synonyms at article Danvers Opening, and none of those synonyms meet the requirement MaxBrowne has stated above; again, they were acceptable to be included as synonyms by MaxBrowne if they met verifiability/RS requirement.) ¶ As far as the term having "too much prominence" in the infobox, my gosh, it is at the bottom, and the last synonym listed. (To be fair, an editor at one point changed the location of the AKA parameter which I had added, and moved it to the position of first parameter in the template. I moved it back to last place, like in the {{Infobox chess opening}} template, contending that the synonyms list was "nice to know" info, but shouldn't be displayed first, which could distract/obscure the more substantive subject content in the infobox. In other words in that case I would agree w/ MaxBrowne, that info would be in "too much prominence" in the infobox if listed first. At the same time I can also see the logic of the editor who moved the parm to first position, since in articles, MOS policy wants any article name synonyms listed in the lede opening in bold. In the case of game Nine Men's Morris, synonyms are listed in the lede opening according to MOS, but I still think listing them first in the infobox would be ill-advised for reason already stated. In the case of Chess, *none* of the game name synonyms in the infobox are listed in the lede, and I agree with that choice, since again, all those synonyms are in the context of other varieties of chess, whereas when synonyms are not in another context, e.g. Nine Men's Morris or Danvers Opening, they are best listed in the lede per MOS. So this is a bit more complex than first look. For example I'm wondering how MaxBrowne would feel if the infobox synonyms he does accept in the article Chess infobox, are listed per MOS in bold in the Chess article lede? If the answer is that he does not like that, then I would argue, that the entire Chess synonyms list in the infobox, should therefore go away. Bottom line is I think there are two different functions that infobox game name synonyms lists are serving, and current MOS doesn't reflect that, and we shouldn't force a policy onto something new which wasn't envisioned by the policy, unless were're consistent about doing so. And even then it'd be a bad idea, since it squashes useful info to the reader.) Ok, IHTS (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I really would appreciate some uninvolved admin intervention at this point because this guy (sorry to say) is utterly exasperating to deal with. Rather than discuss, he WP:BLUDGEONs with walls of text that are impossible to address point by point, mixed in with plenty of irrelevant ad hominem stuff. He has no consensus to introduce the obscure term "orthochess" into the infobox, giving it undue prominence, and is attempting to get his way by bullying. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Zero credibility. (Please see this history of this editor's ANI complaints, when he was under mutual IBAN which he requested, then dismissed as not applying to himself, because he was "improving" an article and refused to check article history if he was overlaying my edits, and at same time recommending admin action against *me* on that basis! There is lots of bad blood with this editor and lots of WP:DROPTHESTICK needed on his part. For example see Talk:Chess#"Orthochess" for accusations that I'm "lying", and reverts to hats of off-topic thread noise, which he makes a WP:POINTy about, by opening an AN thread which only confused admins. The editor shouldn't accuse of being "exasperating" when he uses WP as WP:BATTLEGROUND for inability to put away past bad blood, and continues to take shots at me, as above. I'm sick of it too, but I don't go around throwing block suggestions in front of admin. I had a tiff once with ~~admin Future Perfect at Sunrise, who's blocked me on occasion~~ admin Bbb23, and when this editor sensed a re-emerged tiff was present, opened an ANI thread on a supposed IBAN violation for an edit that was what, 4 months old!? Clearly user MaxBrowne saved the ammo for his most opportune moment to strike at me. His suggestion above for admin intervention is part & parcel of the same ongoing battleground/bad-blood attitude that dominates his editor conduct re me, and yeah, I'm sick of it, but WP permits it, while I try be professional and ignore as much as I can. I have no interest in another IBAN, this editor had lots of fun tracking my edits and opening ANIs on the slightest excuse under that ban, yet had no intention of abiding by the ban himself, as history shows. So I don't know what he wants to pull in his conduct. Apparently a never-ending retaliation for some perceived long-ago "misdeed". WP supports that kind of shit and it isn't very pleasant to wade thru time & time again.) IHTS (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Western culture regards Chess as a particular game with a particular set of rules governed by an international authority (FIDE—the Fédération Internationale des Echecs). Variously known as International Chess, World Chess, Orthochess, and so on, [...]" (Parlett, David (1999). The Oxford History of Board Games. Oxford University Press Inc. p. 276. ISBN 0-19-212998-8. ) and "The form of chess most people know—which is sometimes referred to as Western chess, orthodox chess, or orthochess—is itself just one of many that have been played throughout history." (Schmittberger, R. Wayne (1992). New Rules for Classic Games. John Wiley & Sons Inc. p. 186. ISBN 978-0471536215. ), from two board games experts, and I'm being accused of "POV/Undue" when incorporating into an important article, and also accused (by user Quale) of incorporating the info because it's "fun" to put my own personal "stamp" on the article", and not because I try to be a serious & conscientious editor. Great. And also from Quale, term "orthochess" is an "abortion". Yeah. IHTS (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

See what I mean? The guy is a bully. Intervention is required. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

First accuse of lying. Now a name-call. IHTS (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a "name-call", an accurate description. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've little to say on the heart of the matter, and didn't read the wall of text above. Even less about the behavioral matter, only pointing out that Ihardlythinkso doesn't seem to have consensus on their side for the time being (so the mainspace content should follow the more apparent consensus until matters are resolved). Just that at first glance this makes me think about flute/Western concert flute situation. The first is often used as a synonym for the second, but in fact covers many more variants. If the current chess article is an article about Western chess and variants (which it apparently is), it would perhaps be better not to list any synonyms that indicate a particular variant (even if that's the most common variant) in the infobox. Otherwise the chess article should only describe "predecessors" and move all non-predecessor variants to a "See also" section. Alternatively make a separate article on the Western ("ortho") variant (compare Western concert flute) and keep the chess article as an overview, treating the Western variant maybe a bit more extensively than lesser known variants, but not from the perspective that chess is a synonym to Western chess (compare flute). Don't know if this line of thought can be helpful to get out of the conundrum? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The analogy falls down because while it is proper to refer to a variety of traditional instruments as "flutes", there is really only one game that should be called "chess". "Xiangqi" rather than "Chinese chess" is the correct name, also "shogi" rather than "Japanese chess". They are fine games which share a common ancestor with chess, but they are not "chess". MaxBrowne (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's Shakuhachi rather than "Japanese flute", etc; "... makes me think of ..." is also not steering for an "analogy", just something I offered as an idea to get out of dug-in positions. If shogi is not a chess variant it should not be in the "Variants" section of the chess article.

I agree with below that the choice of synonyms in the infobox is an editorial decision. This means: there is no "right" or "wrong", so nothing has to be "proven" one way or another. All that is needed is a consensus of editors on whether or not the orthochess synonym is a significant enough synonym to be taken to the infobox. Although WP:WEIGHT is ultimately the policy by which such significance is measured, there is no NPOV policy transgression whatever the consensus develops around (i.e. the decision is "editorial"). So not really something for this noticeboard where all solutions that conform to NPOV are equal. If after the discussion here no consensus is found, maybe consider informal mediation, or initiating an RfC on the topic on the article's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's clear from your above that you obviously don't understand, and didn't make any real attempt to understand, the issue. (So I'm perplexed why you're rendering judgement here, or even authorized to. Wow. ) IHTS (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This sort of ridiculous argument is why I think infoboxs need to go. People arguing over useless filler/clutter. However since you insist - Ultimately, if a reliable source describes it as such, it can go in the article (infobox) - a decision over if it *should* be there is an editorial one. I cant see any argument given the sources provided that would make 'Orthochess' not a neutral descriptor. Unless it was *only* use was by the person who coined the phrase, but that doesnt appear to be the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The term is not used by chess players and does not appear in chess literature; the only publications that use it (and there are very few of them) deal with chess variants and board games in general, and when they do use the term it is only in passing. It is a rare jargon term and putting it in an infobox gives it undue prominence; not neutral in other words. It would be preferable to have no "synonyms" in the infobox. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. IHTS (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we've somehow managed to come to a satisfactory resolution - no "synonyms" in the infobox, not even the standard Asian synonym "international chess". Stick dropped, arms laid down. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleveland issues with nicknames in the introduction[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cleveland , see "Nickname yet Again" section

Basically, there is a contingent that feels "Mistake by/on the Lake" should not be included in the introduction, due to the nickname being old or pejorative. However, other nicknames in the same section, including "Sixth City" and "Metropolis of the Western Reserve", are even more old/outdated, and in the case of Sixth City, currently flat out false (Sixth City refers to the size of the city, of which Cleveland has not been the Sixth City for decades). In my opinion, there are three possible fixes: removing all of these nicknames from the introduction, keeping all of the names, or keeping it as is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=725338342&oldid=725288477 :Keeping all names versus as is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=722056284&diffonly=1 :Line 102 edit would be an example of removing all nicknames from the introduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody1231234 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The above is an inaccurate summary of the extensive debate that has gone on over this issue. I don't see any purpose in discussing the issue here since it has been adequately debated on the article's talk page. The originator was properly given a 3RR warning over his edit warring and needs to address the ACTUAL ISSUES raised in opposition to the addition of the pejorative term in the lede -- it is mentioned IN CONTEXT in the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

How is the "Nickname yet Again" section"an inaccurate summary of the extensive debate that has gone on over this issue"? Was there more debate that has taken place on the issue than was posted there? I've never seen additional debate (besides the new topic "Sixth City" that was recently added. Nobody1231234 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Long-established consensus is that "Mistake by/on the Lake" ~~is not even a "nickname" but rather a derisive term, and as such~~ does not belong in either the Cleveland article's lead or infobox. Similarly, there is general agreement with Tom (North Shoreman)'s view that the term belongs in the article's body, specifically the history section. Relevant discussions dating back to 2006 (all prior to the most recent discussion Nobody1231234 links to) include but are not limited to:

Levdr1lp / talk 07:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Nicknames are often derogatory or derisive. That does not make them not nicknames. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the issue has been discussed extensively. Recurring consensus is ~~that the term is not a "nickname" in this context, and~~ that it does not belong in either the article's lead or infobox. Levdr1lp / talk 08:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have asked for additional input from members of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Cleveland & Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Levdr1lp / talk 08:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well it has been discussed extensively. Badly in the case of the 'remove' camp.

Discussion 1 - Consensus is that MotL is a valid (if not presently used) nickname.

Discussion 2 - Consensus agrees it is a nickname, discussion is about placement given the mention under 'History'

Discussion 3 - Again its clear people agree it is a nickname but discussion is about placement due to its negative connotations. Since the argument devolved into 'well its not nice so it shouldnt be in the list of nicknames' - thats not actually a policy-backed argument and holds little weight given its a far more widely used nickname than most of the others in the list at the time.

Discussion 4 - no mention of MotL

Discussion 5 - Again, discussion basically 'its a negative nickname so I dont like it'. No policy-backed argument for exclusion. Consensus is that it is a valid nickname.

Were any of these formal RFC's weight and validity of arguments are clearly on the side of 'if nicknames are in the infobox, then MotL should be in the infobox'. 'Its negative' is not a valid reason to exclude something. 'It is not well sourced' would be. But as has been proven time and again, it is extremely well sourced and in far greater usage than most of the other nicknames. By any standards your statement "Recurring consensus is that the term is not a "nickname" in this context" is inaccurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I've commented on the most important issue below, but I can't let your bogus claim about sources pass w/o comment. "In far greater usage" implies the present and that is simply not the case. While the term may still occasionally show up, it is very rare that it will show up as saying that MOTL is today an applicable term for the city. In fact, if you go through the archives you will find that most of the references have to do with sports, comedians, or articles saying that Cleveland is no longer the MOTL. Inevitably the term will be resurrected when the GOP formally nominates Trump in Cleveland ("the biggest mistake ever on the lake"), but that doesn't make it a current nickname for the city.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Only in death- I reread the archived discussions, and there is more reference to MotL as a "nickname" than I remember. I have stricken my previous comments accordingly, including the link to the fourth discussion which does not mention MotL (error on my part- past discussions were listed primarily to demonstrate that this is not a new issue as Nobody1231234 claimed). For what it's worth, I don't particularly care where the term is placed in the article, so long as it's somewhere. Levdr1lp / talk 10:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

At best you could make an agument there was no consensus, but the discussions are quite clear. 'Its not nice so we dont want it in the infobox, lead, list' etc really is a low-weight argument. The begrudging acceptance that it should be in the article body is a compromise. Either way it fails neutrality by not giving even the nod towards representing significant differing points of view. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Only in death- You're not wrong. I can really only speak for myself, but I do think it's difficult for members of the Cleveland Wikiproject to accept that the subject we devote so much time and energy to has so often been ridiculed by the national (& sometimes international) media- more so in the 1970s & 80s, but still to this day. Cleveland has both positives and negatives- "Mistake on the Lake" obviously emphasizes the negatives. But coverage dictates content, no matter how unflattering. This isn't easy, but... I think I'm forced to concede that MotL is significantly underrepresented in the Cleveland article. Perhaps some experienced editors, each with a solid reputation for maintaining neutrality, could step in to revise the article regarding MotL. It may be difficult to find such editors among those with ties to the city. Or maybe there are some who are willing. I just know that whoever attempts to step in and change this will likely encounter resistance. Levdr1lp / talk 12:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a hardline opinion on this asnd I'm open to including nicknames in addition to the historical Forest City but I do believe that there should be some requirements:

The names need to be both cited by reliable sources and a commonly used local nickname -- not some flavor-of-the-month thing that some kids on the corner or a musical artist came up with.
We don't need an extensive list of everything but the kitchen sink. A short list of a few nicknames is sufficient. And if we include the derisive MBTL, it needs to be clearly defined contextually and labelled as derogatory.
The entries need to be worded in such a way that it communicates (concisely) a chronology -- such as 'historical nickanmes include... while more modern nicknames are...'

Articles on living things (cities are living things after all)need to reflect that they are constantly in flux. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is placement. This as been discussed in detail in the past but NOBODY and ONLY have neglected to address this. MOTL is included in the body of the article in the context of a decade or two when the term appeared predominantly. The article lede, as presently constituted, has one single sentence about the city's history: "It was founded in 1796 near the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, and became a manufacturing center owing to its location on the lake shore, as well as being connected to numerous canals and railroad lines." The "History" section of the article has 10 paragraphs. It is the task of the folks who want to add the epithet MOTL to the lede to explain why adding this single historical reference, w/o any historical context at all, is consistent with the guidelines established in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. In fact, adding this to the lede as proposed would itself be a violation of NPOV which states, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Folks for inclusion need to explain how it is fair and unbiased to add an outdated epithet covering a small period time to the article's lede.

Indeed, I'm not sure why one of the three paragraphs in the lede is even about nicknames since the subject isn't even discussed in the body of the article. I suggest eliminating the paragraph and leaving the infobox as is. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. One of the options I tried to show in the original posting here was to remove all the nicknames from the intro section, except maybe the most popular one, as it is neutral and there's little reason to have a discussion on various nicknames there. In the infobox, it may make sense to link to an article on nicknames, like Chicago and city articles. Nobody1231234 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying what I meant with the infobox, Chicago has a "(for more, see full list)" link that goes to Chicago's nickname list. Alternatively, Pittsburgh has a link to all nicknames if you click on the nickname in the infobox while Cincinnati just lists an article to nicknames in their "See Also" section. I feel like going with the way Pittsburgh or Chicago handled this makes the most sense for neutrality (as the information is easily accessible from that location).Nobody1231234 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I could support something like the Chicago example. The Cincinnati article has too much separation between the infobox nicknames and the nickname article link in the "See also" section. I also think the group-piping in the Pittsburgh infobox is unclear as it potentially implies there are standalone articles for each of those nicknames when really there aren't. Levdr1lp / talk 02:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevant RfC about lead section of article on Singapore[edit]

Talk:Singapore#RfC about lead section

There is a relevant RfC about the content in the lead section of Singapore. See Talk:Singapore#RfC about lead section. Would appreciate more inputs there. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Universal Windows Platform apps[edit]

Hi! I'm posting here in hopes of getting some feedback from uninvolved editors about the issue I started a discussion about at Talk:Universal_Windows_Platform_apps#NPOV. The article is Universal Windows Platform apps. The dispute seems to lie in that I perceive the tone of the article text in the "Distribution and Licensing" and "Lifecycle" sections as non-neutral, but not everyone does. I'd be very grateful for some more opinions from the community about what the best solution is here. Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 18:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

G4S Secure Solutions[edit]

Omar Mateen, the killer responsible for the murders at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was employed by G4S Secure Solutions. I agree that his employment there probably belongs in the article. One editor has been putting in extensive amounts of information about Mateen, from even before he worked for G4S, and things not really related to the company itself. An example of that would be this diff [7]. I edited a more streamlined version that talked about mostly about things the company was involved in and then put a hatnote to see the bio on Mateen. And example of my version would be this diff: [8]. I haven't posted the complete text here because one version is quite long. In the end, it's my position that the article about the company should be mainly about the company and that most of this material, about Mateen's conduct etc belongs in his bio. Another editor even suggested adding a mention about Mateen showing up as an extra in a movie??? Any opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: In my opinion, the article's section should fairly reflect the prodigious lack of diligence exhibited by Mateen's employer, which got him a firearms carry permit, despite what may have been an intentionally faked psychological clearance (which it characterized as a "clerical error," the actual previous section title, which I changed, of the G4S Secure Solutions section about Mateen), and failed to exercise it as well in his hire, given Mateen's very extensive troubled history. G4S compounded the problem by failing to fire him when his conduct was so publicly aberrant that it caused him to be removed from a critical security position at a courthouse, and simply moved him out of high visibility and limited the extent of his public interaction. It also ignored the import of Mateen being a focus of two separate FBI terrorism investigations within a year, and his chronic racist, violent and homophobic comments, as well as his threats against a frightened co-worker who actually quit his job after G4S ignored his complaints, all of which should have given it pause. It only took action when complaints arose from the contracting agency, the St.Lucie courthouse. I'm not aware of Mateen "showing up as an extra in a movie," but as a G4S Secure Solutions employee he did give a gratitious interview which drew negative public attention in a documentary about the Deepwater Horizon cleanup. G4S failed to uncover extremely pertinent background info when it hired Mateen, for instance regarding his previous violence and arrest, and the circumstances of his remarkable firing from the Florida Department of Corrections just five months before they hired him, G4S claiming it had only verified if he had previously worked there. For reasons of liability, the question that should be put to any employer who had previously fired their applicant, is not soliciting the particulars of the discharge, but "Would you hire this employee again?" That frees a former employer to express a candid opinion without being subject to a frivolous lawsuit. This is basic HR 101, not rocket science. In Niteshift36's haste to delete, my edits correcting serious errors in other sections of the article were reverted, and Niteshift36 made no effort to restore those corrections, nor my edits/deletions for redundant and uninformative verbiage in still another section. This was a very badly written article, before Omar Mateen was on anyone's radar outside that of the myopic corporation. G4S was in the security business but did not display professionalism in its hiring and retention practices, which grossly compromised that internal security, and consequently the public's as well. I believe my edits comported with Wikipedia NPOV policy, but conflicted with possible "graywashing." (For usage of the term, see: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/the-graywashing-of-cia-torture/383633/ ) Activist (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

First off, you can take your conspiracy theory about "graywashing" and stuff that personal attack. Second, your "serious errors" that you corrected weren't that serious at all. Third....look at the stuff you're saying here. "This is basic HR 101", "the question that should be put to any employer..." That's the problem.... you're letting your opinions get in the way. You're playing detective or Geraldo Rivera and engaging in a ton of SYNTH. If an uninvolved person reads your responses, they'll see you have a point to make. I remind you that you actually labelled a section "employee terrorist". What kind of NPOV is that? Again, nobody is trying to keep the info off Wikipedia, just putting it where it belongs. You appear more concerned with "indicting the company" than building a NPOV article. BTW, many employers, including Florida government agencies, won't give details from previous employees. They'll confirm dates of employment and job title but little else. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: The MMPI-2 should not be posted, not because it's "long," but because it is copyrighted. Postings on the Internet (along with a "$3.49" offer for advice on how to cheat on the test), have caused the owner, the University of Minnesota, to bring litigation against infringement of that copyright . Activist (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the MMPI. I'm talking about the extraneous additions. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I made a mistake and admitted it, about the 13 vs 36 hours. You on the other hand, are doubling down. You wrote: I haven't posted the complete test here because one version is quite long. Fascinating. Activist (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That was a typo. I meant "complete TEXT. Since I haven't even mentioned the MMPI anywhere else on Wikipedia, why would you think I suddenly started talking about it here? If you read it in context, "text" makes much more sense than "test." There's no "doubling down" on anything. It's the X and the S being located next to each other. So I'll apologize for the typo that led you to make a ridiculous right turn. BTW, you're idea of "admitting it" is to say "BFD". Way to take ownership.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The key issue here is that we can't make a practice of sabotaging one section of an article until the others advance. Yes, the Mateen issue is unflattering for the company; but someone got together a lot of information about it, in large part because there is a lot handily available to get. If someone wants to put together a list of all their offices and locations and what kind of work the company does until this is just the tail of the dog that it might be, good for them. But if we let people, for whatever reason, take the attitude that you can't write much about anything unflattering to a company until the PR people have finished writing up the flattering bit, that's not a neutral point of view at all. I'm OK with some expansion tags to indicate deficiencies, but not keeping out well-sourced and relevant data.

This data includes Omar Mateen appearing on-duty on film in 2012 in The Big Fix, explaining that "Everybody's just, get out to get paid. They're like hoping for more oil to come out and more people to complain so they'll have jobs. They want more disaster to happen." It includes that his coworker for G4S said that he frequently made homophobic, racist, and sexist comments, and talked about killing people, and harassed him with lots of messages, and left the company because nothing would be done about him; that he made people trying to get into a gated community wait until after he finished his Muslim prayer sessions, that he was hired despite various fights and other issues that may or may not be actionable, etc. Some of this stuff isn't even in the "complete text" being argued about. But it sheds a light on G4S and certainly has affected how people think of them. Wnt (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

How much work someone did isn't the issue, especially when much of that work is SYNTH. Nor is this about material being "unflattering" to the company. It's about relevance and NPOV. The article on the Texas Book Depository is a good example. It has 2 paragraphs about how it related to the Kennedy assassination and gives a hatnote to the article about that event. It doesn't try to retell the story. I'd submit that the Kennedy assassination was a more significant event in history, yet the Depository article handles it correctly. It doesn't spend time talking about Oswald defecting to the Soviet Union or that there was no security at the building. It gives you an idea of the role of the location and tells you where the expanded story can be found. His appearance in the movie is relevant to his bio, but not the company article. My version still says " One former co-worker said that he had complained to company superiors about Mateen’s frequent violent, racist and homophobic tirades. He alleged that G4S had ignored him, but G4S denied having a record of those complaints", so it's not like we're removing his racist and anti-gay remarks or that the company ignored it. I just don't spend 5 sentences on it. "...certainly has affected how people think of them" We're not here to guide how people think of them, nor should we be guided by how people think of them. The N in NPOV stands for neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't deny there is merit in condensing where we can to avoid getting drawn into irrelevant details, so this impulse isn't completely wrong. But there is a difference between the Texas Book Depository, used as nothing more than a vantage point, and a company where someone worked for years and had multiple involvements. We shouldn't cut too close to the quick. Wnt (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The Depository is a pretty good example. The long version is far, far too detailed. That level of detail belongs in the bio. What I find interesting is that the editor most concerned with putting every detail into this article has made relatively few edits to the Mateen bio. Coupled with past edit history on this article...... well, it's just interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see why any information directly related to G4S employment of Mateen should be whitewashed out of the article. XavierItzm (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the article isn't about Mateen. It's about the COMPANY. Nothing is being "whitewashed" (and your claim is lacking in good faith). The article about the COMPANY should tell a brief bit about Mateen and then send readers to the bio of him where you can put every bit of info about his miserable life, because that is supposed to be about him. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction - Van method[edit]

Please have a look at User:J. Johnson 's edits in the article and consult the talk page, his wording and edit summaries. User:J. Johnson is abusive. His comments are far from polite and he is off limits with the content. Have this diff as a reference for his removing of sourced material and consult the talk page for POV pushing by muting sources without real justification. There is also this comment by User:Sitush that points exactly at what is being done there.-- Hlektron77 (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hlektron77's sudden concern here is highly suspect, as his/her sole contributions to the English WP is to twice restore a block of questioned edits at Earthquake prediction.

The background is this. Since 6 May there has been a series of questionable edits at VAN method, and likewise, since 17 May, at the two sections at Earthquake prediction that touch upon the group (and work) known as "VAN" (Earthquake_prediction#Electromagnetic_variations and Earthquake_prediction#1987–1995: Greece (VAN)). As I have noted here and here, these edits consistently removed or muted criticism of VAN (the group, their method, and their claimed predictions), promoted their point of view, and down-played the controversy regarding them.

These questioned edits are entirely from anonymous IP addresses that geolocate to Athens, Greece: first from 195.134.89.153 (and specifically from the University of Athens, home of VAN) and 77.69.86.91, then (since 5 June) from 77.69.80.202. From internal evidence I suspect at least two people are involved; both appear to be closely connected with VAN, and quite evidently too close to be neutral about the subject.

As there is no indication that Hlektron77 has had any prior interest or presence on this wikipedia, but is active on the Greek wikipedia, his sudden eruption here is likely at the instigation of others, not as a disinterested passer-by.

As to the neutrality issues – after all, this is the NPOV noticeboard – I welcome other opinions as to who is "pushing POV". Hopefully without any further personal disparagement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

We have been aware of the inexperienced edits from UOA the person under accusation here mentions, and we have corrected them, trying to keep the line of User:Elriana's suggestions. Please focus on the result.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Those "inexperienced edits" were not corrected, but largely incorporated into your edits, which have continued in the same mode. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The only person on Earth that would abuse the article as a whole in such negativism, VAN method included, is Geller himself, from Tokyo University. We might need a steward's help here.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Contents

Islamic State war crimes & POV tag[edit]

NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"[edit]

Use of non-standard nomenclature in infoboxes - WP:UNDUE?[edit]

Cleveland issues with nicknames in the introduction[edit]

Relevant RfC about lead section of article on Singapore[edit]

Universal Windows Platform apps[edit]

G4S Secure Solutions[edit]

Earthquake prediction - Van method[edit]

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Tools

Print/export

Languages