Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Funeral articles, "Reaction" sections

WP is not a memorial site. That applies to regular folk, as described at WP:NOTMEMORIAL. But it also applies to the famous and powerful. WP:NPOV is a core policy, and it requires including all significant points of view. There are a number of "funeral" articles which look fine to me:

• Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan
• Michael Jackson memorial service
• Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales
• State funeral of John F. Kennedy

However there is also a set which include "Reaction" sections:

• Death and funeral of Corazon Aquino#Reaction
• Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg#Reaction

These sections comprise excerpts from condolences and eulogistic comments sent by world dignitaries. I think they're a bad idea. One cannot expect honest assessments of a person in remarks of this kind, so these sections are really just collections of nice quotations about the deceased. We wouldn't allow material like this in a biography. Perhaps they should be moved to Wikiquote and summarized collectively, something like "The subject was praised in comments sent by leaders from around the world, including..." Maybe quote one or two, briefly. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Habsburg one seems to meet notability standards on its own - the Aquino one is more problematic. In neither case, however, does NPOV seem to be an issue, however. Try AfD on the Aquino one and see how it fares, I suppose. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting deleting the articles, only minimizing the "Reaction" sections because they violation NPOV, hence this noticeboard. The sections are basically eulogies for the subjects, and that doesn't seem NPOV. I don't object to articles about the events surrounding the funerals, just these sections.   Will Beback  talk  12:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The sections are ver the top and unencyclopedic. When a head of state or former head of state dies, other heads of state send messages. The most that is needed is a brief "Among those sending condolences were...". Very few funerals need a separate article, only if there is something remarkable about the death or funeral that leads to substantial coverage. Diana, of course, Michael Jackson, of course. The US presidents. Elvis? Churchill? Those sorts of cases, not others. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what's wrong with reporting widely publicized reactions from heads of state and similar, which also seems to be a long standing practice. Also, reaction sections don't have to be merely positive, but that, of course, depends on the reactions. In some cases, many negative reactions can be found as well. As pointed out, this kind of articles are reserved for a very limited number of cases, where there is something special about the death/funeral that leads to substantial coverage (e.g., hundreds or thousands of media reports on the funeral, closing down central Vienna, half of Europe's royals attending etc.). Essentially, it's the same kind of article as Wedding of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Charlene Wittstock in many ways, i.e. an article based on a major (media) event. As long as all significant views reported by reliable sources are included, there is no NPOV problem in my opinion. Mocctur (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The wedding article you cite does not include a similar "reactions" section, which is part we're talking about. If it did include comments from well-wishers then it might have a similar problem. I don't see how this represents a 'long standing practice, since only two articles that I've seen have this kind of eulogy section, and one of them is brand new. Further, many of these comments do not appear to be "widely publicized" at all, and are cited to the websites of the well-wishers, rather than to secondary sources. This complain is not about full coverage of the funeral, just the lengthy list of positive comments. We can wait until the funeral is over, but then I think we need to summarize the comments much more briefly.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The reaction to a funeral is almost sure to run afoul of WP:NPOV. I think the expressed sentiments are almost obligatory and they tend to be gushy and flowery as opposed to concise. While reliably sourced I don't think most of the expressions make for notable quotations, therefore I think an editorial decision should be made to curtail the inclusion of them. Bus stop (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Only two articles"? On the contrary, it's a long standing practice: Even separate articles only containing reactions exist:

• Reaction to the death of Robert Byrd (only positive reactions)
• Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden (mostly containing negative reactions from people opposed to the subject; "crowds gathered spontaneously to celebrate", "this momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001" etc. etc. etc.)
• Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy ("Men and women wept openly")
• International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto (only positive reactions (i.e., not critical of her) as far as I can tell)
• International_reaction_to_the_assassination_of_Anna_Politkovskaya#Official_statements_by_governments

Reaction sections are also common in biographical articles where no separate article on the death exist:

• Tim Russert ("had a love of public service")
• Levy_Mwanawasa#International_reactions
• Salmaan_Taseer#Reactions

And of course, other reaction sections in death/funeral articles exist:

• Death_and_state_funeral_of_Néstor_Kirchner#Reactions

I'm sure many, many more can be found. When the average person dies, there are no reactions from a long list of heads of state and the Pope. Documenting these reactions in the few exceptional cases where the death is a major issue (especially those deaths/funerals worthy of their own articles) is of historical and encyclopedic relevance, and something the readers will find interesting. Removing reactions would require the removal of lots of material in many articles and the deletion of several articles including the Osama bin Laden one with negative reactions and the Benazir Bhutto with positive ones (if neutrality really was an issue (I don't think it is), the Osama bin Laden reactions article would be the really problematic one). Numerous editors have probably spent hundreds of hours writing these articles/sections, based on this being common and accepted practice. ("reaction(s)" seems to be an extremely common heading in articles, so this way of organising articles is very widespread).

The Habsburg article you mention does not only contain completely positive reactions. It also contains reactions from a party (the ruling one) which was extremely critical of the subject for decades (the relationship between the state and the (exiled) subject of the article had even provoked a political crisis in the 60s[1][2]). The article as such also contains criticism of the extensive state involvement in ceremonies. The reaction by the chancellor only emphasises that the subject's life reflects "the great turning points of the Austrian and European history". These somewhat more reconciling, but not overwhelmingly positive, reactions by the Austrian government, are historically significant, which has also been the subject of media commentary. Mocctur (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those additional examples. I am very concerned about the "Reaction" articles. Wikipedia is not a quote farm, so any article or long section that's mostly composed of quotations is inappropriate. If properly sources, those quotations should be moved to Wikiquote.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope = Wikiquote is made up of quotes by author, not quotes by event. Putting these sections over there is a classic case of "round peg into square hole". Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The articles I've seen there include quotes both by and about individuals. These quotes we're talking about aren't about the funerals, they're about the deceased.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

While the reactions only articles mostly consist of quotes, they also include descriptive text. In the death/funeral articles, the quotes do not make up the majority of the text. The material fits in naturally in these articles, and I don't think moving it to Wikiquote, taken out of its original context, would be ideal, neither for the material itself nor for Wikiquote. I also don't think the larger issue of reactions articles, sections and materials is really a matter of neutrality. Mocctur (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC) 

The descriptive text isn't the problem, it's the quotes.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

One sided opinion of Admin and user Sitush and Matthews on the page Kurmi

Admins are not ready to accept any POV and reliable sources other than what is state by the above two users.

One of the admins already accepted that he doesn't know anything about the claim that being OBC means Kurmis are Shurda or not. But still he believes that any edit done by the above users is valid. While so many reliable sources have been cited to show that Kurmis are not Shudra. Still none of the admin believe these sources. Every admin especially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qwyrxian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boing!_said_Zebedee and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SpacemanSpiff

seem to concur with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sitush and User:MatthewVanitas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Please_dont_take_ownership_of_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.139.114.107 (talk • contribs)

Huh, and I treated you so nicely on Talk:Kurmi. But anyone accusing Sitush of ownership is clearly on the wrong end of the NPOV forum. Suggesting archiving of a 45 section long talk page isn't ownership. In fact, suggesting it not be archived is borderline disruptive--navigating that page is painful at best, and impossible at worst. Archiving doesn't erase anything, it just moves old discussions out of the way so that we can stay current on new discussions. Finally...have you ever edited under an account name before? This behavior of giving unwarranted warnings and reverting against consensus sure seems familiar to me...Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this unsubstantiated claim. By nicely you meant you accepted your wrong POV. Where have I reverted? I am putting some material for an organization. If that's what you mean. We must keep wiki as neutral as possible. Why do you think that I committed a grave insult by placing a warning here? Is this WP:NPOV

This admin is openly haressing this user.

Please conduct an investigation on the conduct of the admins mentioned above, along with the users mentioned above.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.139.114.107 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first, a clarification: the above information is partially copied from User Talk:Sitush#Please dont take ownership of articles. My comments listed above were not posted here, they were posted on Sitush's page. Second, those comments were made after the above user (posting under a different IP address) gave a warning a templated warning to Sitush for "ownership" of articles. In a certain sense, this is not a new "problem" for Sitush, basically because Sitush is fighting a fairly lonely battle on a number of different Indian caste pages to try to keep them neutral in the face of numerous users (some of whom have accused Sitush and other users off-wiki of receiving payments of $12,000 a month to slant WP articles) who want to "prove" that their caste is, in fact, descended from royalty, despite what all reliable sources might say. Sitush does an amazing job at this; I haven't worked with him as much, but MattewVanitas seems to be in a similar position. Basically, the above complaint is baseless, the talk pages of these articles are littered with sockpuppets, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and "I know it's true because my grandfather's grandfather said so." Of course, other uninvolved editors are more than welcome to come to Talk:Kurmi (or Talk:Nair, or Talk: Kshatriya, or Talk:Rajput clans, or any of a dozen others that I'm sure Sitush and MatthewVanitas could list) to provide input; maybe we're just totally wrong and the sockfarms are right. Also, if anyone (uninvolved) believes that my comment constitutes harassment, please tell me and I will withdraw or strike those parts which are unacceptable.

Just to be fair, I did make a mistake which the IP mentions at the very beginning, although xe got the actual mistake wrong (basically, I thought the article said, "The Indian gov't thinks X and Y.+ref1+ref2"; actually, what the article said was, "The Indian gov't thinks X; others also think Y.+ref1+ref2") But upon having that pointed out, I apologized and moved forward. Final disclaimer: I am not an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Followup: Perhaps the user who posted here isn't the same as the one who originally posted on Sitush's page; in fact, that user actually later said to me "Our POV is based on how we interpret the facts. You are one of the nicest persons I have met today, both offline and online. So anything you say I will accept it without any issues. To me, above two posts look like an attempt of ownership". I don't know if this is one person, two people, good cop-bad cop...Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I haven't followed this in any detail, there is clearly a problem on this set of articles involving and I agree that Sitush and MatthewVanitas (and you of course) are doing a difficult job to the best of your ability. Whether this can be solved here or will need Admin action I'm not sure. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I really don't think I (or the others) have anything to defend against here - I have sought input from other admins and have so far had pretty much unqualified support for my admin approach to this sorry mess. I'll just leave interested parties to look over the relevant caste article Talk pages and see the near-infinite patience with which Sitush and MatthewVanitas have tried to explain Wikipedia's policies of sourcing and consensus to the legions of caste warriors and their socks, and have painstakingly investigated a large number of sources and explained what they see as reliable and unreliable amongst them - and see the almost non-stop abuse and accusations they have been receiving in return. And if anyone wants to try a sockpuppet investigation on User:174.139.114.107, I'd be surprised if it came up empty -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• There is an element of swarming going on, some of which has been proven to be socking and others that look distinctly like they may be down to offwiki canvassing. There is also some on-wiki canvassing, mainly due to one user sprawling his discussions across umpteen talk pages. Basically, the issue is very simple with regard to the caste status: we have plenty of sources that say, with absolute clarity, that the caste was/is in ritual rank A; and we have been presented with a fair few sources which document attempts by certain members of the caste to claim a higher rank. Both sides are shown in the article. The problem is that the likes of Thisthat2011 want to inflate a claim into a fact but are unable to provide sources to match the clarity of the statements which say otherwise. Since neither myself nor MV are from India or of Indian origin, and since these other contributors have often acknowledged that they are of the Kurmi caste, the issue is perhaps really one of COI. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• It seems possible that the originator of this particular thread is a sock of Prashantv79, regarding whom an SPI has recently closed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ajneesh_Katiyar. This is based on some beans evidence. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• There have been some emails sent to the unblock mailing list too, the content & style of which suggest at the very least meat puppetry. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that my name is called, let me present viewpoint from my side. There are many contradictions on this matter.

In India, the word Shudra is not used anymore in official discourse, it is like a taboo - this understanding is not present on page like Kurmi though the word Shudra is prominent at many places. In fact there are legal cautions but I am not sure how it weighs on Wikipedia, I have been told that it does not, however derogatory a word may be.

Jati, Varna, Caste, etc. form a maze of combinations. Jatis have been mobile over time across Varna & caste, and official depends on poverty levels also other than these, along with political equations, vote-bank-numbers and reservation policy, etc. Moreover a Jati may be recognized as different Varna across different regions. The recognition of Jati/Varna/Caste is rather dynamic more than static. Moreover, the Caste/Jati/Varna combinations could be regarded as general social characteristic of people, not just Hindus.

As per my comments on talk page(not main page, I have edited page once after the matter came up), there are some sources that recognize, as per my understanding, explicit 'Kshatriya' status Socially and Officially. The sources I have presented and are ignored giving unsubstantiated comments like 'swaying' authorities to get Kshatriya recognition etc. which I have objected and requested substance to demonstrate the comment that I am yet to get. As it stands, many editors have given views. The discussion as per me is ongoing. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The legal situation has been explained to Thisthat2011, as s/he acknowledges, & so I have no idea why s/he says "I am not sure how it weighs on Wikipedia".

The sources presented by Thisthat2011 were not ignored at all. They were examined and found to be wanting.

I repeat: the article does discuss claims to the status which Thisthat2011 refers to, and they are reliably cited. This is exactly how NPOV should work.

The continued bleating and cross-posting by Thisthat2011 is tendentious, and it looks like now we are going to see it here as well. S/he has been warned about adopting this stance by several people, not all of whom are the subject of this complaint. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

We have fully agreed with you that caste issues as variable over time/location. The difference is that Sitush and I go through sources attempting to balance out "sometimes called X, sometimes called Y", whereas you find a handful of sources vaguely leaning to X and then demand we strike all mention of Y from the article. And as noted by your "not a legal threat, but I'm just sayin'" comments above (and on my talk page), it's pretty clear that your goal isn't NPOV, but adding Kshatriya and removing Shudra by any means necessary. You have backed blatantly poor references as "I don't see what's wrong with this", and you have consistently attempted to spin things like "one governor declared that Kurmi's weren't a depressed class and should be allowed to join the police force" into "See! Official Indian Government recognition of Kshatriya status."

You also just won't drop the bone on this "sway" thing. When I attempted to summarise, on the Talk page (not in the article) what one source was actually saying, you immediately leapt to sound the alarm and run hither and yon accusing me of WP:SYNTH. This is ridiculous "pot calling the kettle black" and an attempt to smear your opponents as being exactly equal to you in POV.

Sitush and I, and others, are confronting a massive array of caste articles that, to be frank, almost nobody cares about but members of those castes, so they have run roughshod adding every bit of self-glorification humanly possible while ignoring all kinds of very real and intriuging descriptions of caste politics, differing legendary origins, etc. By your actions you are standing in the way of this process of bringing long-overdue NPOV to a notoriously biased portion of Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed TT2011 is also adding content in Kurmi despite the exact refs he's using being rebutted on Talk, so basically disregarding entirely the Talk page to just add changes that have been discounted as compltely inaccurate. For example, he added here: "During colonial times, in 1896, official government recognition was given to Kurmis as Kshtriya." I have told him, multiple times, exactly what the source says, and how it says nothing of the sort, but he has plugged his ears, and attempted to accuse me of WP:SYNTH when I attempt to explain the situation using small words. Anyone curious, check this page and Ctrl-F "1896". That date is mentioned twice, and in neither case says anything resembling the text it is cited to: [3]. TT2011 added several other contentious items that he has not run by the Talk page despite this being a clearly controversial article, including taking "several scholars think they found the Kurmis in the Skandas" to mean "Kurmis are mentioned in Skanda Puranas of Hinduism." This is his usual pattern, to find the most tangential relationship between two things and assign it as fact.

Setting aside his POV inclinations, the larger problem is that he simply refuses to listen to anyone else. He repeatedly referred to cited claims in the article as "unsubstantiated" (it's that what a footnote does?), and when repeatedly told "at the top of the Talk page is a list of Shudra references" he ignored it several times, including asking "Where are the sources say that Kurmis are 'Shudras'". The TOC clearly lists Talk:Kurmi#Reliable_sources_supporting_Kurmi_as_Shudra, and if at Talk:Kurmi you Ctrl-F for "top " (with space after), you'll see the multiple times I told him exactly "at the top of the page is a list of extra sources". Forgive me if I'm a bit vexed at the moment, but this is literally like talking to a child. He simply plugs his ears when there's anything he doesn't want to hear, and ventures boldly forth to make changes based on cites we have again and again and again told him are either unreliable or taken quite out of context, or cited to prove points they simply don't say. This editor has filled up a goodly chunk of Talk:Kurmi with incredibly circular and repetitive posts while ignoring all replies, and then went ahead and added a bunch of improper text anyway, which Sitush and I are now obliged to debunk and remove individually. What more can I say about this editor? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Protected Kurmi for a week, have to go watch tv now. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As can be seen clearly above, MatthewVanitas has been pointing out why social/official recognitions as Kshatriyas to Kurmis should not be considered in the article, though the secondary sources themselves do not indulge in judging/considering/not-considering, etc. The reasons/excuses to not consider Social/Official status are given by the admin, which I think is not something for Wikipedia admins to decide. What I mentioned are facts as were viewed by me, and such things mentioned in reliable sources can not be excluded because 'some admins on Wikipedia give reasons/excuses'. It is not admins/editors job to give reasons/excuses for not including content on Wikipedia for reasons perceived to the admins as 'swaying' authorities, propaganda, etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

TT2011, I have told you this numerous times and yet you ignore me: the source you cite does not indicate social or official recognition of Kurmi as Kshatryia. You are unfairly claiming that the source says XYZ and yet somehow I don't want it going into the article. That is incorrect: we don't want it in the article because you are, yet again, selectively misquoting, reading massive assumptions between the lines, and extrapolating incredibly anecdotal cases to be universal truths. Each time you keep bringing up the same allegations, I bring up the same response, and yet you persist. This is why you've been called "tendentious", and I am coming to agree in a very short period of time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality in regard to IIS and its connection to malware

We have a situation developing Internet Information Services article.

A user insists that according to Google, IIS is hosting twice the number of Malware than Apache server. Me and three other users have contested that this is not a neutral statement. I suggested an alternative version that says:

The fact is that:

1. According to Google...
2. ...in the time of research...
3. ...malware creators preferred to infect or host malware on IIS servers...
4. ...because IIS computers that failed WGA test could not get updates.

However, the involved user (User:DE logics and IPs in range of 117.201.*.*) still does not relent, having even insulted us, calling us "Microsoft fanboys" and "Faithful dogs of Bill Gates".

I previously requested an article protection, but the protection is by now worn off.

I need to know what further action we should take. Fleet Command (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a rather long statement with excuses stuck into it. How about just straightforward sentences. Also you need to stick to verifiable things. Saying malware creators preferred one system to another is practically vacuous and certainly sounds unverifiable as a fact. If written somewhere Does it just mean they attacked one type rather than the other or does it mean one type of site succumbed more than another or does it mean they had actual preferences and somebody has done a survey of malware authors or is it just some blog spouting off attributing things to people who aren't going to say something themselves? Have you got a citation saying that WGA business is the major cause? As to long sentences I'd certainly think explanations should be in separate sentences.

As to name calling you can complain at WP:WQA in the first instance. Attacking editors that way is against WP:CIVILITY. People should address the topic not other editors. Dmcq (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me make it clear:

First, this statement has only one primary source: a Google Blog post. Other sources only quote, paraphrase and exaggerate this source.

Second, this source says exactly what I have written above; no less and no more. However User:DE logics prefers to write: "IIS hosts malware", although, under our protest, he has written

"Google did a study of 80 million domains by examining the server's HTTP response headers and came to the conclusion that, even though (according to Google), usage of IIS servers is 23%, the number of malware [sic] served by these servers is 49%, same as Apache whose usage is 66%. Google suggests the cause of this could be the use of pirated copies of Windows, for which patches against security loopholes [sic] in Microsoft IIS might not be available from Microsoft."

Third, unfortunately, the WGA being the cause has already failed verification: Microsoft supplies security updates to everyone. The Google blog post points to a security update download page on Microsoft.com to supports its "WGA is to blame" assertion. However, that update is available to everyone. The best we can assume is that this whole matter is a dated matter.

Last, I never suggested to write exactly what I listed in the four clauses; it is merely my draft. I told you that I initially dismissed this whole "IIS serves malware" matter. However, I proposed this draft as an alternative resolution that both of us accept. But User:DE Logics doesn't even discuss it. Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally blogs are not allowed on Wikipedia, I think that one probably is okay as being verifiably by an expert in the subject. I notice they don't use the 'prefer' word I was objecting to which is good. I think the statements from Google should however be qualified with the year 2007. Putting your own analysis into the same statement as Google's is just plain wrong. In a separate statement you can then say that Microsoft does allow all security updates even for pirated copies of windows and put in the appropriate citation for that. Put in any much of your own analysis an it will amount to synthesis on your part. We're supposed to be saying what outside people say, if you can find outside sources saying what you want to say that is the way to do things. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Putting your own analysis into the same statement as Google's is just plain wrong." I don't remember having suggested such a thing. My four-clause draft does not contain any statement of my own. But as for the WGA verifiability issue, simply put: Google blog provided a source; per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY, I checked that source. Result: Verification failed. Again, per WP:V, I double-checked with other sources, just in case. Result: Failed again, see these:

• Windows Team Blog
• USA Today
• Tom's Hardware

I said all these to conclude what you just said: Regardless of whether Google's statement was correct in 2007 or not, we have NPOV problem: IIS servers may no longer be hosting 40% of the worlds' malware. These negotiation concerns aside, one of the editors maintains that without a complementary assessment, Google blog cannot be trusted at all as Google is a Microsoft competitor.

But these are all minor concerns. The biggest problem is that our dear User:DE Logics does not hear of changing his statement in any way, not even your suggestion of qualifying it with 2007. Fleet Command (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Leftist politics in the U.S.

American Left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LID and SDS split in 1965 when SDS voted to allow communists (Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially) to vote; afterwords, SDS was taken over and destroyed by Marxist Leninists such as The Weatherman and the Progressive Labor Party.

[Historical note: the Weather Underground, which later became a terrorist organization, emerged within the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and fought for control with the Progressive Labor Party (founded 1876), which was never Leninist.]

Is the phrasing of this text neutral? Another editor has inserted similar text, which in my opinion, compromises neutrality and re-orients the article to events in the 1960s. I would be appreciative if other editors could look at recent changes. TFD (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

[Historical note: Ignore the previous paragraph's falsehood about Progressive Labor Party (United States).]

The (Maoist) Progressive Labor Movement split off (after 1948) from the Communist Party USA: The CPUSA and Maoist sects are Leninist, obviously. The Progressive Labor Movement renamed itself the Progressive Labor Party sometime in the mid 1960s.

Gitlin describes Progressive Labor as Marxist Leninist on page 190. Obviously, T4D doesn't know the first thing about SDS, and apparently cannot be bothered to read Gitlin or the WP article on Progressive Labor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the phrasing of this text neutral? Another editor has inserted similar text, which in my opinion, compromises neutrality and re-orients the article to events in the 1960s. I would be appreciative if other editors could look at recent changes. TFD (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the actual language in the reliable sources? Is "taken over and destroyed" the precise language in the sources used? Is there a precise cite for the statement that some group "was never Leninist"? Collect (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This particular section seems dubious. "Organised conspiratorially", linking to "democratic centralism" is an interpretation. Of course Marxist-Leninists are organised by democratic centralism - that is what should be said. I see some scholarly histories of the Left cited. Is there no good history of SDS? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources provided:

• Todd Gitlin. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (1987) ISBN 0-553-37212-2
• Miller, James. Democracy is in the Streets: From Port Huron to the Siege of Chicago. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0674197251.
• Todd Gitlin later acknowledged that LID Director Tom Kahn, "to his eternal credit", was correct in opposing that deletion, which helped Marxist Leninists to take over SDS: Todd Gitlin, p. 88, in discussion with Irving Howe: Politics and the Intellectual: Conversations with Irving Howe. John Rodden, Ethan Goffman, eds. Purdue University Press 06/30/2010 series: Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies ISBN 13:9781557535511

No page nos. are provided and therefore I do not know what the original text is. I do not have a source that the SLP was not Marxist Leninist, but have not seen sources that they were. Supposedly had then been Leninists they would have joined the CPUSA which Lenin directed his followers to join. TFD (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD mis-states my scholarship. I cited a page reference to Todd Gitlin's The Sixties, linked to Amazon where you can confirm it.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page you provide a reference to p. 387 of Gitlin's book[4] and a link to his book on Amazon.[5] But Amazon does not show p. 387 of the book. However, the entire book can be viewed at the Internet Archive. (Click at "PDF" under "View this book").[6] While page 387 mentions violence by the Weather Underground, it says nothing about their relationship with SDS. The PLP is not even mentioned in the book. TFD (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Gitlin discusses "Progressive Labor" on 16 pages, as shown on Amazon. In particular, according to Amazon, he calls PL a Marxist Leninist group on page 190. He discusses PL and SDS on page 240. Gitlin discusses both Progressive Labor and the Weatherman Underground and the 1969 SDS convention on page 382.

You wasted this noticeboard's time, by running here without discussing anything on the page. You further waste our time by failing to read.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the full text of Gitlin's book online. It is detailed and fascinating but above all it is an intensely personal account. I don't find this a waste of the noticeboard's time. How to do justice to Gitlin's account within a short and dispassionate Wikipedia article is something that requires careful consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a waste of time for T4D to have rushed to this noticeboard without indicating what was his POV/non-neutral concern at the article's talk page, especially after I asked him. (It is a waste of time, assuming that T4D or you know anything about SDS, the way it would waste the mathematics project's time to complain that I had written 1968+2=1970.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD did take the question up on the talk page before coming here. If you will be patient, you should get some input here to help the page. I have some knowledge of the history of Leftist groups in Europe, less in relation to the USA, but enough background to look texts up and understand them. With luck you will get some further views from noticeboard regulars. The gloss "organized conspiratorially" for a link to democratic centralism contains an interpretation not conducive to NPOV. A better wording would be "following the democratic centralist form of organization". But you need at least one good source for any epithet attached to any group. "Marxist-Leninist", for example, is a minefield in that period. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he did not.

He complained about POV/Nonneutrality and lack of references. I provided references and asked him what the problem was. Then he came here.

"Conspiratorially" is a standard NPOV explanation for the totalitarian euphemism "democratic centralism". Sidney Hook was correct when he described the Communist Party USA as a conspiracy in his book, "Freedom yes, conspiracy no" (or similar title). Hook's book had some controversy, but nobody serious objected to his characterization of leadership cadre of the CPUSA as a conspiracy.

Do you have similar problems with discussing right totalitarians as when discussing left totalitarians? ["Nazis committed genocide" "No, that's point of view. The Nazis said they were providing living space for their race, by reducing subhuman populations.... Your saying that Jews and Slavs and Gypsies are humans is POV."!]  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK it might be good here to get a little less confrontational with people who are trying to help. Regarding the "conspiratorial" issue if it is a "standard NPOV explanation for ... democratic centralism" then why don't I see it in the entry on that topic? It would seem from first glance to be one way to describe democratic centralism and perhaps not the most common, and it does sound less than NPOV. Either way though we don't need to describe democratic centralism at all in this other article, we just need to name it and link to it's entry. IMO the conspiratorial part should go.Griswaldo (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, the obvious truth is that that that article, like many on similar topics, is written by communists or anti-anticommunists.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being irritated, but T4D failed to discuss the issues at the page. I have improved the passage, and I'm not going to waste further time, when none of you have followed WP procedure and tried discussing things at the article talk page. This discussion is closed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Procedural note: Kiefer, you have a valid point in saying that there should have been discussion on the article talk page before bringing it here... but we don't close discussions on this page because one editor says so. Now that it is being discussed here, there is no harm in letting it continue here until resolved (is it?). Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted before, I have updated the draft on the talk page, which I had understood was Wikipedia's preferred way to improve content. I shan't participate further in a pointless discussion that has no relation to improving the article or the proposed section in question. You are all welcome to help improve the draft at the talk page of the article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(out) Kiefer.Wolfowitz is using the 1993 version of the book while the on-line version (1987) uses different pagination. Nonetheless I cannot find the specific claims in the on-line version. Even if they were there, the phrasing used violates neutrality.

As anyone can see, there was extensive discussion on the talk page, and it was apparent that it was unproductive. K.F wants to focus the article on the 1960s and present the article from the point of view of the Social Democrats USA, a political group that had several hundred members.

TFD (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD now is violating AGF and making a personal attack based on unsubstantiated speculations about my politics. As I have stated before, the history of my editing on this set of articles is easy to check, and certainly does not come because of adherence to SDUSA, but upon following a request of Carrite, who has stated his past membership in 3 organizations from the old SP. Similarly, I provided a discussion of Solidarity, not because I am a reader of "Against the Current" or a believer that militancy can solve all problems but because of a concern with presenting the most interesting political groups with integrity. I would urge TFD to emulate the intelligence and honesty that Carrite displays.

I have no idea what TFD is babbling about, with his claim that any phrasing violates neutrality. It is time for TFD to specify NPOV violations or be silent.

Why does he object to a paragraph on the leading socialists' roles the Civil Rights movement and the War on Poverty or SDS? Michael Harrington and Gitlin and Sale seem never to have been members of SDUSA, btw. (A basic knowledge of history would prevent such charges.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling one of the three history sections, "Max Shachtman, Civil Rights and the War on Poverty"[7] provides undue emphasis to certain groups, individuals, activities, etc. Your claim that they had more influence then (when they had a membership of approx. 1600) than in 1912, then they owned numerous newspapers, had elected officials and obtained 6% of the vote in a presidential election, is not supported. It also wrongly implies that the socialists were the driving force behind these movements. TFD (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If so, your article originated the over-emphasis on a mythic figure called "Shachtman": I quote what you consider neutral language, which is a bastardized version of the pseudoscholarly history inflicted on the public by the PA chair of SPUSA.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

1. In 1972, the Socialist Party was renamed Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) and now had only 1,600 members [Reverses chronology of Isserman, failing to note that the 1600 comes from the SP (while Harrington's UAW friend counted 1000, according to Isserman)]. Dissidents left to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) in 1973, led by Michael Harrington. The same year another faction of the SPA, including David McReynolds, formed the Socialist Party, USA which continues to run presidential candidates.

1. In the 1960s there was a renewed interest in anarchism, and some anarchist and other left-wing groups developed out of the New Left. Anarchists began using direct action, organizing through affinity groups during anti-nuclear campaigns in the 1970s. In the 1990s, anarchists attempted to organize across North America around Love and Rage, which drew several hundred activists. One successful anarchist movement was Food not Bombs, that distributed free vegetarian meals. Anarchists received significant media coverage for their disruption of the 1999 WTO conference, called the Battle in Seattle, where the Direct Action Network was organized. Most organizations were short-lived and anarchism went into decline following a reaction by the authorities that was increased after the 911 attacks in 2001. However by 1997 anarchist organizations had again begun to proliferate.

   The article discusses anarchism but not civil rights, labor, or the war on poverty.

You are getting your sequences mixed. Harrington supported negotiations with the North Vietnamese, while the Shachtmanites wanted to pursue victory. That was a major cause of his break with that faction, and he later came to support unilateral withdrawal. I have provided two high quality reliable sources to back that up. While Shachtman died in 1972, the faction he led may still be called "Shachtmanites". Providing 1/3 of the history section to a group that had at most 1,600 members, is undue. And labor is mentioned in the article. And as sources state, the Old Left largely irrelevant to the civil rights movement in the 1960s and the "War on Poverty" was led by the Johnson administration. And yes, anarchism is mentioned because there are more anarchists today than members of the SDP. TFD (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Social democratic and socialist groups

1. The main social democratic and socialist groups that emerged from the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation (SP-SDF) after 1972.

   This is the long name, which was never used popularly. All the standard sources refer to it as simply the SP.

Social Democrats USA (SDUSA)

Main article: Social Democrats USA

1. The Shachtmanites, called the Realignment Caucus, in the SP-SDF argued that since organized labor supported the Democratic Party, they should join the Democratic Party and transform it into a left-wing party, with the Republicans becoming a right-wing party. Further, they argued that they should support the War in Vietnam to stop Communist expansion. In 1972, they supported Senator Henry Jackson for the Democratic presidential nomination, and re-named the party Social Democrats USA (SDUSA), dropping the term "socialist". While they retained membership in the Socialist International, they supported Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election and had moved sufficiently right by 1980, that many of their members served in the Reagan administration.
2. Compare this with what I have written, which has been edited in other articles by Carrite. They did not support the Vietnam War, as the NYT reports.

   Busky's book is a pseudoscholarly book, not an academic book: it is not terrible, but it is dull and poorly referenced. Busky was a national officer in SPUSA, editing Hammer and Tong and the time of his death. Busky's book declares his COI, his having been a state chair of the SPUSA in PA since 1978.

Socialist Party USA (SPUSA)

Main article: Socialist Party USA

1. Members of the Debs Caucus opposed supporting the Democrats and began working outside the Socialist Party with antiwar groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society. Many locals of the SD-SDF voted to disaffiliate. They re-organized as the Socialist Party USA (SPUSA) and kept control of the old Debs Caucus paper, the Socialist Tribune, later re-named The Socialist. The SPUSA continued to run local and national candidates, although by 2000 they had only about 1,000 members. In 1972 they supported the presidential campaign of Benjamin Spock of the People's Party. Their 2000 candidate for president was David McReynolds.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Main article: Democratic Socialists of America

Although Michael Harrington, who came to lead the Coalition Caucus, agreed to work within the Democratic Party, he broke with the Shachtmanites over support of the War in Vietnam, urging peace negotiations, although not an immediate withdrawal. He led his caucus out of the SD-SDF to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), which became a member of the Socialist International. Although this group never ran candidates for public office, it became the largest of the three groups emerging from the SD-SDF, attaining a peak membership of as many as 10,000. In 1982, it joined with the New American Movement (NAM), an antiwar group that emerged from the New Left of the 1960s, to form the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Marxist Leninism and SDS

I added references to James Miller's Democracy is in the streets, a history of SDS. Please note that Miller documents the obvious role in Marxist Leninists sects, like the Progressive Labor Party, in destroying SDS, contrary to the confident ignorance stated above.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Analysis

Like many who have been active turning WP articles into propaganda for the SPUSA, TD4 is basing his articles on SPUSA literature. I prefer to use reliable sources, preferably written by honest people of intelligence and academic competence, like Drucker. One of the things that makes Solidarity and Against the Current interesting is that their writers are smart, honest, and hard working---and many of them are courageous in real life.

It is not a minor error to state that Harrington did not call for an immediate pull-out, it is willfull ignorance of the basic facts of the history, one acknowledged from the NYT to Harrington to Drucker. It is not hard to check the sources I gave, but TD4 so far has lacked the curiosity or courage to read others' ideas, swimming cozily "inside the whale".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliance is made on Democratic socialism: a global survey (Praeger Publishers, 2000) by Donald F. Busky, a professor of political science, for history in the late 20th century. Your comment "Busky's book is a pseudoscholarly book, not an academic book" is wrong. If you think the book is inaccurate, then you need to find sources that explain events differently. Notice that the authors used as sources for the article represent a broad range of views, and very few are socialists of any kind. TFD (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your paragraphs, quoted above, are based on Busky, apparently. Do you acknowledge that Busky was a SPUSA official and activist, and that you knew that when you used his book?

Busky's publisher states his rank as " Adjunct Professor of History and Political Science at Camden County College". I am sorry but being an adjunct professor at a community college is such a low academic rank that it raises more questions about his research competence than it credits him. In fact, his book is a joke, that gets basic facts wrong, and not randomly but always to indulge his prejudices as the Napolean of PA socialist puritanism. But I have pointed out his errors before, and you have failed to learn or reply to specific criticisms. Busky/you state that Harrington supported the war and the NYT states Harrington called for an immediate withdrawal. Only one of these can be correct, and you are wrong. It is time for you to grow up and admit your errors.

About NPOV. You seem to think that SPUSA literature counts as a point of view and must be reported on WP. On the contrary, WP has no policy requiring that its article on Jesus Christ report the beliefs of any of the Three Christs of Ypsilanti.

The more important question is why you have allowed yourself to use such a bad source and continue to defend it even when persons have admitted its errors elsewhere on WP. Do you see that my edits to SPUSA and SPA and DSOC and SDUSA have not been reverted? Doesn't that tell you that I may know what I am talking about?

You should be concerned that you may have naively trusted SPUSA's organizational literature and activists, almost as infallible.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

TD4 has failed to retract and apologize for his violations of AGF and NPA, particularly his charging that I wanted to write history from the standpoint of SDUSA.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is about whether or not your edits are neutral. You re-wrote the history section so that half of it was devoted to the SDUSA, and wrote "[their leader] was an extraordinary public speaker and formidable in debate, and his intelligent analysis attracted young socialists... [his] youthful followers were able to bring new vigor into the Party...."[8] You then refer (above) to other U.S, leftists as " (Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially)" and "left totalitarians", then bring up Nazi Germany. At WQA and here you have accused myself and others of a pro-SPUSA bias. TFD (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have noted that another editor had plagiarized the SPUSA's "history" in another article. Several editors have noted their COI as officers (some national) of SPUSA and as long-term activists, one long-toothed (!) and esteemed editor noting participation in the Debs caucus at 1972, and I have noted concern that such sophisticated editors had failed to notice the plagiarism of an SPUSA brochure. In any event, these editors have not reverted my edits to this cluster of articles (mentioning SPUSA), nor have they asked for revision on the article talk pages (which would be well within their rights under WP's COI policy). Your article, perhaps because it had naively trusted Busky, had similar biases. You have not answered the question: Did you read Busky's statement that he was an officer of SPUSA or not?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticisms of the draft. I have edited the draft, and reduced the discussion of Shachtman's role in the Socialist Party. I had tried to explain why the SP had increased its contributions to American politics because of Shachtman, whose role you first highlighted. Would you please look at the latest version of the article, and see whether you still believe that it gives more than 50% of the history to SDUSA? I don't understand this charge. I also don't understand its relevance, even if it were true: the majority of the SP (SDUSA) had 2/3 of the votes at the 1972 convention, and Harrington had the other 1/3. It would be useful to expand the DSOC material to mention Democratic Agenda and the Democratic Party midterm convention of 1978, which criticized Carter's policies, and also to mention DSOC's role in organizing against draft registration. Please expand the material on DSOC using reliable sources.

What is the problem with referring to the Progressive Labor Party as Marxist Leninist? (The Weatherman/national office faction of SDS adopted Marxist Leninist posturing and tactics also, when SDS became a mad-house, at least nationally and at many leading chapters: I do not cite Sale's discussion of "insanity" etc.)

For clarity: On this page, I referred to "left totalitarians", but not on the article page. I asked you why you had a problem describing left totalitarians, and asked whether you had a similar problem with right totalitarians.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Busky. The main criteria for rs is the publisher, which in this case is an academic publishing company that conducts fact-checking. Your reference to the NYT is an example - articles are considered rs because they are in the NYT, we may not even know who the author is. BTW you can read about the convention in The other American by Maurice Isserman, p. 290,[9] which shows that Harrington supported the compromise resolution rather than the one for immediate withdrawal. TFD (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You first mentioned Busky's being a professor of political science, to indicate why his book is not a joke. If you want to backpedal, you could at least acknowledge that you had referred to his qualifications before. It is hard to continue ascribing good faith to you, when you fail to acknowledge any errors or bad arguments, and just keep changing the arguments as your previous arguments are found to be faulty.

Regarding your latest defense of Busky: Busky's publisher is one of the weaker academic presses, if it is even considered an academic press, of course. It is not the U of Chicago or Cambridge or Oxford or Harvard, which are leading publishers of history. Regardless, his book is a joke: We can discuss this with the projects on American history or journals, which have expertise in such matters, if you want to lose again. An honest academic can read one page of Busky and see that it's unprofessional and unreliable---although it is infinitely better than the SPUSA's literature, which has been plagiarized in other WP articles.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Harrington supported other compromises at earlier conventions. He led call for an immediate withdrawal, according to the NYT in December 1972, the only one discussed in the article,because it was the name change convention after which Harrington resigned and founded DSOC and after which the small SPUSA was formed.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of Busky's book is a question better addressed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard than here. It seems to be a normal scholarly book, and if it has a bias towards one political party then that could be addressed by adding material from other sources with a different bias. Anyway, does someone want to post on RSN for further views? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Judith, posting on another noticeboard would be an even greater waste of time because the book is a joke. Have you bothered reading any pages? You are quite wrong about its viewpoint balancing others. WP requires reliable high quality sources, not nonsense by political activists. Please read what T4D wrote above and compare it with the coverage in the present article to see how biased he has been (and apparently still is).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Now posted there. TFD (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

1960s and SDS: Present version of the article

SDS

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) The article has the following paragraph on SDS:

Harrington, Kahn, and Horowitz were officers and staff-persons of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID), which helped to start the New Left Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The three LID officers clashed with the less experienced activists of SDS, like Tom Hayden, when the latter's Port Huron Statement criticized socialist and liberal opposition to communism and criticized the labor movement while promoting students as agents of social change. LID and SDS split in 1965, when SDS voted to remove from its constitution the "exclusion clause" that prohibited membership by communists: The SDS exclusion clause had barred "advocates of or apologists for" "totalitarianism". The clause's removal effectively invited "disciplined cadre" to attempt to "take over or paralyze" SDS, as had occurred to mass organizations in the thirties. Afterwords, Marxism Leninism, particularly the Progressive Labor Party, helped to write "the death sentence" for SDS, which nonetheless had over 100 thousand members at its peak.

DSOC/DSA

18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC): This is the present state of the description on American Left, which uses reliable sources (rather than Busky, whose reliability has been contested here):

Quoting article

Michael Harrington resigned from Social Democrats, USA early in 1973. He rejected the SDUSA (majority Socialist Party) position on the Vietnam War, which demanded an end to bombings and a negotiated peace settlement. Harrington called rather for an immediate cease fire and immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. Even before the December 1972 convention, Michael Harrington had resigned as an Honorary Chairperson of the Socialist Party. In the early spring of 1973, he resigned his membership in SDUSA. That same year, Harrington and his supporters formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). At its start, DSOC had 840 members, of which 2 percent served on its national board; approximately 200 had been members of Social Democrats, USA or its predecessors whose membership was then 1,800, according to a 1973 profile of Harrington.

DSOC became a member of the Socialist International. DSOC supported progressive Democrats, including DSOC member Congressman Ron Dellums, and worked to help network activists in the Democratic Party and in labor unions. It had 10,000 members at its peak of membership, making it the largest democratic-socialist or social-democratic organization in the United States.

In 1982 DSOC established the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) upon merging with the New American Movement, an organization of democratic socialists mostly from the New Left. Its high-profile members included Congressman Major Owens and William Winpisinger, President of the International Association of Machinists.

Closing this discussion?

I trust that this notice can now be closed. (I repeat that the original notice was premature, and would urge TfD to allow talk-pages a reasonable time before coming here again.) 16:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

War of the Pacific

• Article: War of the Pacific
• Evidence of Talk Page Discussion: [10]
• Evidence of notifying other party of this discussion: [11]
• Problem: Disagreement on how the Peru-Bolivia Mutual Defense Treaty should be written in the article's introductory summary. In the following block quote (taken directly from the first paragraph in the article), the bold part is the text in question.

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru. The conflict is also known as the "Saltpeter War", as disputes over mineral-rich territory were the war's prime cause. The conflict originated in a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, but Bolivia and Chile's controversy over ownership of Atacama preceded and laid foundations for the conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia activated its mutual defense treaty with Peru.

War of the Pacific; Discussion:

• My position is that the text in question is correct and should not be removed.
• The user seeking to remove it (User:Keysanger), calls it an "extreme nationalistic Peru-Bolivia POV". However, the text in question is neither "extreme" or "nationalistic".
• User:Keysanger thinks that "defensive alliance" is a term that shows a Peruvian-Bolivian point of view, hence why he calls it "nationalistic".
• History: The Peru-Bolivia alliance was created (also titled) as a mutual defense pact, which would only be activated if either Peru or Bolivia were invaded by a foreign country. Bolivia called for its activation when Chile invaded Antofagasta in February 14, 1879. Peru activated the alliance the day after Chile declared war on both Bolivia and Peru.
• The historical record demonstrates that the Peru-Bolivia pact was a defensive alliance. Regardless of any POV, the plain historical facts speak for themselves.
• Even User:Keysanger admits to this by writing: "I think that every one can read there that the alliance was actually defensive". ([12])
• Therefore, given the evidence and the other user's comment on the matter, I would like for the reviewer of this NPOV case to, basically, agree with me and put a quick end to this really silly matter.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure so please interpret this as me trying to understand the issue. I gather that the other editor's concern is that the wording gives a simplistic impression at the article's outset that Chile was the aggressor and Peru-Bolivia were innocent parties who were attacked. Reading the article, it is more complicated. Is it really important to say this was a defensive alliance in the opening? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I'll respond in bullets since it's easier for me to present the points, and probably also easier for you to read them (if you don't like it, please tell me):

• It seems that the other editor believes that only Peru/Bolivia saw their alliance as defensive. Since Chile viewed the alliance as offensive, he believes that anything disagreeing with it must be "extreme Peru/Bolivia nationalism".
• My goal is to provide (following the summary method established in Wikipedia's Manual of Style) a straight-forward summary of the events, avoiding any long-winded argument on the subject. Regardless of what Peru, Bolivia, or Chile think/thought about the alliance, the historical record clearly has the Peru-Bolivia alliance as a defensive alliance. Not only was the alliance titled, "Mutual Defense Pact", but it also only came into effect after Chile declared war on both Bolivia and Peru.
• Assumptions: I don't like assumptions, and I believe these should not be in the introductory summary. The assumptions are discussed, in detail, in the "Crisis" and "Background" sections of the article. Chile's POV assumes that since they were never mentioned in the secret treaty, and since they were never invited to join the mutual defense pact, that it must have been aimed at them. However, once again based on the historical record at that time: Peru was having border conflicts with Ecuador, and both Bolivia/Peru were having issues with Brazilian colonists in the Amazon region (particularly the area known as "Acre", which both Peru/Bolivia claimed).

I'm not trying to make any of the sides look or sound like victims (I'm pretty sure both sides of the conflict had their interests at stake in some form or another). All I am trying to do is present the summary based on the historical record, not on POV assumptions. Based on the historical record, the Peru-Bolivia alliance was, especifically, a defensive alliance. It is necessary to be exact in order to avoid vague statements which will end up confusing the reader. --MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I think it is obvious that you are not promoting any kind of 'extreme nationalism'. But to be honest I actually find the sentence The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru a bit awkward in any case. Isn't it simpler and just as accurate to say something like Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru or Chile went to war with Bolivia and Peru? It seems if Chileans are going to be offended with the present wording, it's a neat way to just steer clear of the issue and still inform the reader just as well. Or maybe I am missing something? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert on international law, but my understanding is that there does exist a difference between an offensive alliance (in which two or more countries unite to attack a common enemy), and a defensive alliance (in which two countries unite to defend their territory; i.e., mutual defense pacts). My only objective is to avoid vagueness by focusing on the historical record. I feel that if we give way to vagueness for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings, then information in Wikipedia is going to lack veracity. For example, it would be like re-wording The Holocaust or Nanking Massacre article so that it doesn't offend Nazi supporters or the Japanese. Of course, I do not compare both of these issues as on the "same level" or kind as this case with the War of the Pacific; it's just an example. Please do tell me if you feel I'm just being stubborn, or if I may actually have some sort of point? Thank you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure there is a difference between a defense pact and an aggressive alliance, just as there is a difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. North Korea is in reality one of the worst examples of a totalitarian dictatorship and yet the country's formal title is the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'. So it is possible - and I am not saying this is my view but just that it is hypothetically possible - that although Peru/Bolivia described their alliance as a 'defense pact' on paper, it was still in reality something other than a purely defensive alliance. Your sentence could be seen as being contrived to emphasise the words 'defensive alliance' and to have Wikipedia's voice state at the outset that this is a fact. I definitely would change the wording somehow, although I stop short of recommending that you remove 'defensive alliance' until I know more about the subject. Do you have reliable sources that we can look at to see how professional historians describe the conflict? Also I note that the other editor asserts that some professional historians disagree that it was a purely 'defensive alliance'. I guess he is referring to Chilean historians and that you would say these are revisionist histories? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alexh, yes, he has Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. here a list of sources that considered the pact sometimes as offensive or some times as defensive. But he takes only the one side. --Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Keysanger, there are over 40,000 words on that page. Could you help me out by directing me to the exact location of the refs? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, thanks for your time. Of course I want to help in this question. I apologize in advance for my poor English, but, I think, it is enough for such a simple question.

At that time I added 9 sources about the issue defensive-ofensive. (the references are at the bottom of this page).

Extended content

* There are 1 italian, 3 US-american and 5 Chilean reliable sources that confirm that the treaty can be and was interpreted as defensive and/or as offensive or as a menace for Chile: 1) Donald E. Worcester and Wendell G. Schaeffer, "The Growth and Culture of Latin America", New York, Oxford University Press, 1956, 963 pages. Page 706, Relevant Text the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details. 2) Alfred Barnaby Thomas, Profesor of History, University of Alabama,"Latin America, A History", The Macmillian Company, New York, 1956, 800 pages. Page 450, Relevant Text the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details. 3) Charles de Varigny, La Guerra del Pacifico, page 18, here Relevant Text the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. 4) Gonzalo Bulnes, "Chile and Peru, The causes of the War of 1879" page 57 and 58, Relevant Text the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. 5) Diego Barros Arana, "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", parte 1, capitulo III pag. 31, Relevant Text the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. (not in the cited passage) 6) Chilean Magazin "Que Pasa" here Relevant Text the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. 7) Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru. Alejandro Fierro, Chilean Ministry of Foreign affairs, Santiago April 12, 1879 here Relevant Text the treaty is not called defensive or offensive but explain why it is considered a to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations and go into details. 8) The New York Times - Current History (1922) here (page 450) Relevant Text the NYT call the treaty a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile 9) Tommaso Caivano, "Storia de lla guerra d'America fra Chilì, il Perù e la Bolivia", here page 252, Relevant Text Tommasso Caivano (9) doesn't call the treaty offensive, only reproduces Diego Barros Arana's view and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.

At that time MarshalN20 added following sources:

Extended content

I can provide 4 neutral sources stating that the alliance was merely defensive: History of the Latin-American nations By William Spence Robertson: [13] New York Times: "The defensive treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia" (First column).[14] A history of Peru By Clements Robert Markham: "The Chileans used this purely defensive treaty, by which arbitration is provided for before there can be a casus foederis, as a pretext for war."[15] CHILE, PERU AND THE TREATY OF 1929: THE FINAL SETTLEMENT by Ronald Bruce St John: "Peru was honour bound under the terms of an 1873 treaty of defensive alliance to join the conflict on the side of Bolivia."[16]

The agreement was:

Extended content

:Well, it looks like you two are pretty close to an agreement. Maybe one final push and this can be resolved? Gigs (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC) As you like it: The treaty was officially titled defensive. The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it). Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive. So, I think the issue is now cleared. --Keysanger (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Sounds good to me. Thank you Gigs.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Excellent, thank you all for working through this. Gigs (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you Gigs, --Keysanger (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, there are a lot of opinions about defensive v/s offensive and Wikipedia can't do any other thing that consider both, not only the view "the treaty was defensive", it doesn't matter how many sources had found MarshallN20 in the last time.

It is a little bit disappointing to discuss the same thing every year, but I accept MarshalN20 right to defend his ideas and error. I do it sometimes also. Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexh, let me help you. Go to Keysanger's link, click (on the content box) on "Mediation of offensive/defensive issue". Go the section "Moving On". Finally, open up the "extended content" to read the sources provided by Keysanger. Nearly 2 years have passed after that discussion, and over the years I have gotten better at analyzing and gathering sources. These things I note now that back then I did not consider:

1. The first three sources he mentions (from United States authors) only title (name) the treaty as "offensive-defensive", but do not provide any sort of actual historical analysis. In Varigny's (1829-1899) case, a contemporary to the conflict (primary source), his analysis is limited. The treaty's title/name (defensive) is not in question. Therefore, these 3 sources in no way validate the idea that Peru-Bolivia formed an offensive alliance.
2. The following 5 sources are from Chilean authors. I do not contest the Chilean POV, and find it a view that deserves to be included in the article (It is included in the "Crisis" and the "Background" sections). However, upon careful examination of the sources: (1) Historians Diego Barros Arana and Gonzalo Bulnes are primary sources, and their opinion is skewed in favor of Chile (hence the Chilean POV). (2) Alejandro Fierro, Chile's minister, is also a primary source. (3) Chilean Magazine "Que Pasa"...who wrote the article? It's reliability is unknown. (4) New York Times magazine from 1922, primary source from Chilean correspondant F. Nieto del Rio (unknown profession or notability), is completely unreliable.
3. The Italian source, from Thomas Caivanno, merely states that according to Barros Arana, in Chile the Peru-Bolivia alliance is viewed as offensive.

2 years ago I had very little knowledge on how to analyze sources, but now I am confident that all of the sources originally presented by Keysanger only serve little purpose other than to demonstrate a Chilean POV which is already present in the Wikipedia article. Whether Keysanger purposely tried to trick both me and the mediator at that point, I ultimately assume good faith from his part. Furthemore, this Chilean POV is a minority view in the sense that only Chileans seem to agree with it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

---

War of the Pacific; MarshalN20 (Non-Peruvian or Bolivian) Sources:

• Edwin Montefiore Borchard [17], (Opinion on the controversy between Peru and Chile; Page 14 [18]): "On the contrary, whatever inference against Peru may be drawn from the secrecy of the treaty, all the evidence indicates that neither the parties themselves nor those whose adherence was sought considered it anything but a defensive alliance for the maintenance of the status quo. Moreover, it is impossible to doubt the sincerity of Peru's effort to avoid and, if that proved unsuccessful, to terminate, the war between Chile and Bolivia. Int he matter of motive, it seems reasonable to conclude that Peru had nothing to gain from a war against Chile. They were not adjoining countries, had no boundary dispute, and whatever guano and nitrate Chile had obtained through the treaty of 1874 with Bolivia, Peru had so much more that it is not reasonable to suppose that she coveted Chile's. Indeed, so far as I can find, only Orrego Luco, one of the most zealous Chilean protagonists, has imputed such a motive to [Peru]. On the other hand, the same absence of motive cannot be ascribed to Chile, whose policy had since 1842 been directed toward acquiring greater contorl of the nitrate territory."
• William Spence Robertson [19], (History of the Latin-American nations; Page 344-345 [20]): "Peru signed a secret treaty of defensive alliance with Bolivia. The Treaty of Lima provided that the contracting parties were mutually to guarantee their independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity against all foreign aggression, whether of one or more states. In case of acts that tended to deprive a party to this treaty of a portion of her territory, or to induce a party to accept a protectorate, or to lessen the sovereignty of a party, or to alter the government of a party, the alliance was to become effective. Each party expressly retained the right to judge for herself whether or not an offense that might be comitted against her ally should be considered as casus foederis. [...] The allies promised to emply whenever feasible every possible conciliatory measure to prevent a rupture of relations or to end a war."

We already know the Peru, Bolivia, and Chile POV's on the matter. Therefore, I find it appropiate to present the analysis of historians who are not from these countries. If you need any more sources, please do ask.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

---

The nature of "offensive alliances" and "defensive alliances"

Example of a Defensive Alliance treaty aimed at specific countries (Spain and USA), but which does not constitute an offensive alliance:

• Fredrick B. Pike, (The United States and the Andean republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador; Page 124 [21]): "Delegates from Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, New Granada, and Peru convened in 1847 and signed a treaty pledging a defensive alliance mong the five republics should an invasion or overt foreign intervention materialize. The treaty was directed not only against the Flores venture but also against the United States which had alarmed South American states by its war against Mexico."

As this source demonstrates, an alliance treaty aimed at a country does not constitute an "offensive alliance". Defensive alliances have a strict character, different from offensive alliances, as they are forced to only take effect upon the attack of a foreign country. The historical record of the War of the Pacific also demonstrates that neither Peru or Bolivia ever invaded Chile; the whole war was based on Chile invading both Bolivian and Peruvian territory, while both countries simply defended.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks Keysanger & MarshalN20. Here is another take on the war: [22]

Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, friction began to develop over the mineral-rich Bolivian province of Antofagasta and the Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, whose wealth was exploited largely by Chilean enterprises. In 1875 Peru seized Chilean nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and in 1878 a new Bolivian government greatly increased taxes on Chilean business interests. To protect these interests and preempt their threatened expropriation, Chile dispatched a naval squadron headed by the ironclad Blanco Encalada and landed 200 troops at the Bolivian port of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, provoking a declaration of war by Bolivia on March 1, an action reciprocated by Chile on April 5. Peru, which had concluded the secret Treaty of Mutual Defense with Bolivia in 1873, was now also drawn into the conflict (see The Liberal Era, 1861-91 , ch. 1).

I am curious to know whether MarshalN20 & Keysanger feel the above text is both neutral and accurate. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it, especially how it goes back to the Chincha Islands War from the "Background" section. How should we implement it into the introduction? One thing I disagree with: Bolivia didn't declare war on Chile on March 1. Chile didn't declare war on Bolivia either when they invaded Antofagasta. This is why Peru didn't activate the alliance (it could only come into effect if and only if one of the countries was officially declared war upon). The first country to declare war on anyone was Chile, which is what activated the Treaty of Mutual Defense. If Bolivia had declared war on Chile first, then Peru had the right (according to the treaty) to make the treaty void and remain neutral.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 10:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The text isn't neutral because it presume that the secret pact was of defensive character. That is of course posible, but there are reliable sources that demostrate that the pact can be seen as offensive, for example the source 8) of the list in the mediation. The New York Times (Current History (1922), page 450) said about:

Notwithstanding the fact that in 1873 Peru had induced Bolivia to sign a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile, the Peruvian government offered its mediation in the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, the origin of which was nothing more than Peru’s monopolistic nitrate policy, which had instigated Bolivia to disposes Chilean industries. The mediation of Peru was accompanied by three suspicious circumstances: (1) The denial on the part of the mediating minister of the existence of the secret treaty of which Chile had lately become aware; (2) Previous Peruvian demands compatible only with the pretensions of Bolivia; (3) Hurried war preparations of Peru, the Peruvian government meanwhile showing a desire to gain time. These circumstances, with the fact that Bolivia did not manifest the slightest desire to facilitate an amicable adjustment, indicated to Chile that Peru was not working ‘bona fide’, but only with the intentin of strengthening the alliance.

There are at least two sights of the facts, both referenced. Wikipedia has to represent a well balanced version of the history and not a biased interpretations of the facts. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my analysis above, the New York Times source is unreliable as it is not known who is the author, named as "F. Nieto del Rio". All that is known is that he is a Chilean correspondant, which once again demonstrates that your source only presents Chilean POV. You keep demonstrating a desire to impose Chilean POV above all else, and keep trying to trick friendly mediators into agreeing with you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Keysanger, leaving aside the question of possible errors in the detail, I feel there is a subtle but important difference between the wording in our article and the wording by David Shelton that I linked above. In our wording, Wikipedia's voice states that the Peru/Bolivia alliance was "defensive". Shelton doesn't say this. He simply notes that it was called the "Treaty of Mutual Defense" (through use of capitalisation the reader knows he is simply giving the treaty's formal name). He also alerts the reader to the fact that it was a secret treaty, and he provides more context, i.e. some of the acts of provocation which might have led Chile to declare war. His text here remains agnostic on whether or not the alliance was really defensive. So I disagree that it "presumes that the secret pact was of a defensive character". Are you sure you couldn't live with a compromise along these lines? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Keysanger doesn't like any mention of the word "defensive" in association with Peru or Bolivia. In Chile, people get taught that Bolivia declared war upon them (despite this is historically inaccurate), and that "evil Peru" was jealous of Chile and wanted to take them out of the competition. In reality, Bolivia only sent a presidential decree in response to the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta (which in no way or form constitutes a declaration of war), and Peru monopolized all mining industries in Tarapaca/Tacna/Arica (they took over all Peruvian, European, and Chilean private companies) in a desperate attempt to stabilize the economy (not as provocation to Chile).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My view is that the present wording is subtly failing strict neutrality by saying in Wikipedia's voice in the opening that the treaty "was" defensive. That is problematic for two reasons (1) it seems Chileans and otherwise presumably reliable Chilean historians don't agree; and (2) an article lead should fairly summarise the rest of the article and elsewhere in the article it is clearer that there is some debate about the defensive/offensive nature of the treaty. On the other hand I don't myself agree that stating in the opening that Peru was drawn into the conflict after having signed the Treaty of Mutual Defense with Bolivia presumes anything about whether the treaty was really defensive or not, or is a problem for neutrality. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am open to rewording the part as you suggest, without excluding the Treaty of Mutual Defense. This is what I propose for the first 2 paragraphs of the introduction (using your suggestions). I think it's as neutral as it can get:

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru. Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, disputes soon arose over the mineral-rich Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, and the Bolivian province of Antofagasta. Chilean enterprises, which largely exploited the area, saw their interests at stake when Peru nationalized all nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company. The problem primarily focused on Bolivia and Chile due to their controversy over ownership of Atacama, which preceded and laid foundations for their conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but, when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia sought the activation of its Treaty of Mutual Defense with Peru. Disputes further escalated until Chile declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.

This "Saltpeter War" took place over five years in a variety of terrain, including the Atacama Desert and Peru's deserts and mountainous regions. The war's first battle was the Battle of Topáter. For most of the first year the focus was on the naval campaign, as Chile struggled to establish a sea-based resupply corridor for its forces in the world's driest desert. The Peruvian Navy met initial success, but the Chilean Navy prevailed. Afterwards, Chile's land campaign bested the badly equipped Bolivian and Peruvian armies, leading to Bolivia's complete defeat and withdrawal in the Battle of Tacna on May 26, 1880, and the defeat of the Peruvian army after the Battle of Arica on June 7. The land campaign climaxed in 1881, with the Chilean occupation of Lima. The conflict then became a guerrilla war engaging Peruvian army remnants and irregulars. This Campaign of the Breña was fairly successful as a resistance movement, but did not change the war's outcome. After Peru's defeat in the Battle of Huamachuco, Chile and Peru signed the Treaty of Ancón on October 20, 1883. Bolivia signed a truce with Chile in 1884.

What do you think?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a big improvement, and not to mention easier to read and more interesting. I probably would mention that the Peru/Bolivia treaty was a secret treaty. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's great that you like it, but that doesn't resolve the issue as long as Keysanger makes little notion of agreement and promotes further Chile POV pushing ([23] and [24]). What do you suggest be done, or is there something you could do? Thanks.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can help out there. I am Australian so hopefully no one will say I have a bias. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, Hi MarshallN20,

I agree that, regarding the use of "defensive" in the paragraph, MarshalN20's proposal is a good proposal. MarshalN20, would you be so kind to change the wording of the other places that come into consideration? (Yesterday I counted 5 places in the article where the word "defensive" was used to portray the treaty). We also should add the word "secret" in the lede in order to inform the reader about the complicated situation at that time.

We can analyse some issues in the lede, like " Peru entered the affair in 1879 …" and others, at the proper time.

I am sure that a decision by consensus will endure and set the basis for a change for the better in the article. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My agreement to this proposal is under the condition that in no case the reader can be mislead to the assumption that the treaty was a defensive one. If needed there must be said that the treaty was called "of defense" or "defensive", but that it is not the opinion of Wikipedia. --Keysanger (what?) 11:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course my agreement to this proposal is under the condition that this difference between name and adjective must be replicated overall in the article where the treaty is mentioned. Also this agreement is valid and bindig for the page of the treaty Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873. --Keysanger (what?) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

defense/defensive or similar adjectives can't be acepted

Regarding your objections in my talk page, I repeat, the reader in no case should be lead to presume that the treaty was defensive. Your rationale about words are capitalised is not enough because the name is misleading. I propouse to add "so-called" before the name or to add in every case that the treaty has been characterized by historians as an offensive and as an defensive one. This agreement must be replicated to all places in the article where the treaty is mentioned. Also we have to accept the same conditions for the Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873 article. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is that you talk about "misleading" the reader, and yet you "propouse" weasel words. As Alex Harvey suggests, the name "Treaty of Mutual Defense" is a proper name, which to English readers is easily understood as the title of the treaty.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The offensive v defensive controversy should be discussed within the article. Right now it's simply included in the following way:

On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a Treaty of Mutual Defense which guaranteed their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. An additional clause kept the treaty secret. Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence, which led Chilean historiography to conclude that the treaty was aimed against Chile.

It seems good to me, but room for expansion does exist.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal is the old version of the passage. It uses the official name "Defense" but doesn't warn the reader that the treaty is considered offensive by a lot of historians. Moreover it lacks the information that Chile was informed few days before the begin of the war and was for Chile one of the causes of the war.

We must include following items in a solution:

1. It must be clear for the reader the difference between the official name of the treaty and a description of the treaty on the part of Wikipedia.
2. The capital letters are not enough.
3. There must be said that the treaty was secret
4. The reader must be informed that Chile was informed few days before the begin of the war
5. The reader must be informed that the treaty was considered by the Chilean government as one of the causes of the war
6. The consensus decision replicated to all places where the treaty is mentioned
7. Also to the article Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873.
8. The Chilean, Peruvian, Bolivian histography are not the issue.

They are the minimal requirements to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. We can't accept a flubbed article and edit wars for the next 100 years. Best Regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 20:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

All I see is a person claiming the term "Treaty of Mutual Defense" is not good despite three users (Alex, Chiton, and me) have already explained that it is as neutral a term as it can get. What seems to be irritating for this person is that the term "defense" is being used. The proposed "solution" is to use WP:WEASEL terms (i.e., "so-called") wherever possible in all parts which this user deems as non-neutral. This is completely unacceptable.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "secret" part of the treaty, I have found a series of sources which argue against that point. These sources explain that Chile had known of the treaty for plenty of time prior to the conflict, but pretended to not know in order to manipulate Chilean public opinion in favor of war. However, as Alex suggests, it's best to discuss each point without diverting the attention to multiple points at once.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Marshal, I just changed the lead to "secret" before I was aware of this discussion. I've already seen a considerable number of sources saying the treaty was secret so could be perhaps queue this issue until we have resolved the matter of "who declared war on whom and when"? I'll respond to Keysanger's points shortly. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, going step-by-step is a good plan. The sources I have regarding the "secret" part of the treaty won't discard the fact that Bolivia and Peru signed it in secrecy, but it will challenge the concept of whether it was really "secret or not-secret" (similar to how Keysanger argued that, despite the treaty is named "defensive", there is considerable discussion of whether it was "offensive or defensive"). Hence, my point would be to remove the mention of "secret" from the lead (similar to how "offensive" and "defensive" are removed) and only leave the official title "Treaty of the Mutual Defense". The secrecy of the treaty then can be discussed either in the "Crisis" or "Background" sections. But, yes, it's best this is left for after this part of the discussion is over.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Keysanger, I was going to respond but I really feel this thread belongs in the talk page and feel we should be trying to resolve one issue at a time. Also I made a few changes to the article so perhaps you'd like to see if they resolve at least some of your concerns. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a proposal and hope that will find a good echo (sorry, I introduced a new issue, but it can be reverted). We can discuss here or in the talk page of the article, as you like it .--Keysanger (what?) 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Extended content
(References from prior discussion.)

Objections to evolution#Violation of the second law of thermodynamics

My problem is that evolutionists who posted the aledged objection to evolution on @nd law of thermodynamics completely altered the argument and when I made already two versions of modification [25] [26] they are erasing it within minute and do not allow even for NPOV discussion to be raised. I'm convinced that the objection is manipulated to something else than what it really is and thus it is misleading the Wikipedia reader. It is very tricky case: group A, evolutionists, with opinion X, declares that their opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be still ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection.--Stephfo (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Already being discussed here. Please don't forum shop. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will move it there then.--Stephfo (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I still have a Q though, that borad is evaluating the text from other than NPOV perspective. How does it work then if my primary objection against may opponents is that they do alter soemone's else opinion, thus potentially attacking someone's good reputation?--Stephfo (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Catholics for Choice

Apparently I'm one of those people who just has to do everything myself, since even though the burden is on the editors adding this information, I'm the one posting here. Anyway, there are a couple of related issues at Catholics for Choice, some of which could be addressed at other noticeboards individually but which together make up something best addressed at NPOVN. (And yes, before you say so, I think the answers to these questions are obvious, but clearly some of the other editors at this article do not.)

• Is an anti-CFC rant published in Insight on the News, a far-right magazine that happens to be notorious for making things up, a reliable source on CFC's funding?
• Is an organization that calls George Soros a "bigoted pro-abortion mogul" a reliable source on his activities?
• Is it undue to include self-published criticism of CFC by far-right groups like the Catholic League and Catholic News Agency, particularly when we already detail the (also self-published) criticism from the Roman Catholic Church and other criticism published in reliable sources?
• Is it necessary to have the criticism of CFC's funding be over four times as long as the actual information about its funding, particularly when most of said criticism is mostly cited to the worst possible sources, as noted above?

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, no, yes, no. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks

Serious NPOV issues generally, including a list of "fraudulent" Chinese stocks without proper sourcing. Making one last attempt to salvage this before I nominate it for deletion. Constructive input into the page is welcome. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV over SYN?

• Van Tuong Nguyen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dear all, IF possible I'm requesting all to assist in the reviewing the aforementioned article and comment on the discussion page for the difference of "explained" (supported by the source, and an archive of the original source I found) over the word "said" (which isn't supported by any source), the latter is incessantly demanded by an extremely abusive Anon IP editor (2.220.204.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) to replace the former, per WP:SAY. Similarly, I've placed this same request for review on WP:No original research/Noticeboard#NPOV over SYN? in order to give it a fair chance at hearing. Apologies for any disturbance caused, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this argument is bizarre. There is no obligation to use words that sources use. To say that a simple verb like said "isn't supported by any source" is just ridiculous. Biased sources can very easily be reported in a neutral way, unless you decide, arbitrarily and unilaterally, that for some reason you have to use one particular word from the source. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see the IP editor has a point there. Why do you feel the IP is misunderstanding WP:SAY? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

War of the Pacific : Bolivian declaration of war

The current article War of the Pacific states that:

• However, under international law at that time [before the Chilean declaration of war] neither side had actually declared war.

User MarshalN20 asserts that the wording of the current version is correct.

User Keysanger asserts that the wording is biased and pretend to elude the fact that Bolivia declared the war first and refused any negotiation with Chile looking forward to Peru's help.

(For a better understanding of the text: H. Daza was at that time dictator of Bolivia, Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile short before the war)

For this asserts, that there was no Bolivian declaration of war, the User MarshalN20 presents following sources:

Extended content

Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) [27]: "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. [...] Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]." William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 ([28]): "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner." Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 ([29]): "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. [Chile] said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations." Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press."

The user Keysanger means that the wording (however), facts (neither side had actually declared war) and interpretations (under international law) don't show the overwhelming opinion under historians, that is there was a Bolivian declaration of war and Keysanger presents following sources:

Extended content

William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states: Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... "Andean Tragedy", William F. Sater, page 39:Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...' andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ... globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,... Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance. "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ... "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ... "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war. "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...".

Old Discussion in Talk page of the article

There was a long discussion in the talk page, where the parties didn't agree about the issue. You can see the thread here:

Extended content

'== Template:Undue weight == However, under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war.[23][24] It is astonishing that 2 sources are enough to write in the that there was no Bolivian declaration of war. One of the sources (a broken link) is the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon", known not for its scientific art but for his anti-Chilean resentements. I found 15 sources that state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war and such a overwhelming opinion about the Bolivian declaration of war must be included in the text and as the common view of the historians. The no-declaration-of-war theory can also be included but as a rand view. Here the list of sources: William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states: Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... "Andean Tragedy", William F. Sater, page 39:Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...' andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ... globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,... Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance. "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ... "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ... "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war. "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...". Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Bolivia didn't declare war. Even the first source you present states it: "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." "Undue weight" doesn't apply here since even Daza explains that the decree he presented was not a declaration of war.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC) You forget the 14 others, what about that?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC) You can provide 100+ sources on the topic, but the article already presents: The view that Chile saw Daza's decree as a declaration of war. The view that his decree was not a declaration of war. The only new thing you have provided which is important to note is that Daza announced, on March 18, that he did declare war. You can take it to an administrator's forum, but like in the other issue, it will lead you to nothing.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Hi MarshallN20, Keysanger seems to have provided quite a bit of support for his position here. Do you have reliable sources that also state that this decree was not a declaration of war? Generally, in situations like this, it is appropriate to note in the article that there is disagreement in the reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, I do have reliable sources for this matter. First, a quick analysis: William F. Sater is used 3 times in his list, and the source contradicts itself. (P. 39) "Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend". (P. 28) "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Something is incongruent with this source; how is it possible for a decree to not be a declaration of war in Page 28, but then become a declaration of war on Page 39? The Iowa source does not support Keysanger's view as, "On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile", does not translate into "Bolivia declared war on Chile". Please quit trying to trick users with your lists. You have been warned of this plenty of times.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC) My proposal is to consider William F. Sater as a reliable professor of Latin American History at California State University (others [30], [31]). I am convinced that such a source is more reliable than the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon". If you have better sources, please feel free to let us know more. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Sater is one person, not multiple persons. It's illogical to gather 3 sources from the same author and try to pass them off as different; writing: "I found 15 sources". It's also surprising that such a reliable source as Sater contradicts himself within the same book. If Daza is the author of his presidential decree, and Sater explains that Daza stated his decree was not a declaration of war; then how is it possible for a few pages later for Sater to claim the decree was a declaration of war? Sater places himself in a position in which he contrasts with Daza's opinion of his own decree.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC) </nowiki>===MarshalN20 Sources===</nowiki> Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) [32]: "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. [...] Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]." William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 ([33]): "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner." Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 ([34]): "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. [Chile] said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations." Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press." These sources are more than enough to demonstrate that Daza's decree was not a true declaration of war. Not only does Daza explain this, as sourced by Sater, but the information is backed up by historical analysis. On the other hand, the sources presented by Keysanger are merely textual parrots, merely stating that Bolivia declared war without any further analysis. It's important to mention that the article does present Chile's view about Daza's decree. However, Keysanger is trying to use the WP concept of "Undue weight" to present Chile's POV as supreme and leave the analysis of Daza's decree (including Daza's own opinion about his decree) as "minority views".--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Your rationale is broken because you contradict yourself: W.F.Sater, is a source for or not for a Bolivian Declaration of war?. Now you say that he is a source for NO declaration of war. Above you say that he was cited three times. What about the other two?. Do you have also reliable sources?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 21:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I honestly don't understand what it is you are trying to state. I have already provided the necessary amount of sources to discard your "Undue Weight" claim.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Marshal, I am inclined to agree that Keysanger has made a point here, and that it is probably too strong to have Wikipedia assert as a fact that, "under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war". That is an absolute statement. I think the statement should be attributed, i.e. "According to X, ...". When Wikipedia's voice makes an absolute statement, it should be a statement of an uncontested fact. Also I am finding it confusing that Keysanger's sources do indeed say that Bolivia declared war - not just that Chile thought Bolivia declared war. If these historians are wrong, the article doesn't help me to understand why they are wrong. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise? Also (a suggestion to both Keysanger & MarshalN20), having multiple threads open discussing multiple disputes at the same time is probably not ideal. Should we try to resolve this point first? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC) That's not Keysanger's point, but rather your point Alex. Keysanger's point is that there is "Undue Weight" in the article, which is not true. The sources I have provided are from a long timespan (starting from the early 20th century all the way to the 2000's) of different historians from different nationalities (including Daza's own explanation of his decree). Your point, Alex, about the "International law" part and its status as "uncontested fact" is correct. Going back in time, I found this old consensus statement, proposed by me, in which the four users discussing this same issue at that time agreed [35]: How about this for statement: "After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree which demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property. Due to its aggressiveness, the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war. However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC) This discussion reminded me of the existence of this consensus statment. I no idea what happened to it until now: [36]. It turns out that Keysanger massively deleted the consensus statement and sources in order to impose his POV. Strangely enough, he is trying to do the exact same thing at this point, except that now he tries to use the concept of "Undue Weight". I don't believe in history repeating itself, but this sure does seem like a case of Déjà vu. What I plan to do at this point is propose another consensus statement, which may take a few minutes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Marshall's list of 6 sources has severe problems. Atilio Sivirichi, Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán are Peruvian and Valentín Abecia Baldivieso and Ramiro Prudencio Lizon are Bolivian historians. They represent a rand view that see Peru and Bolivia as victims of the Chilean agressor. Tommaso Caivano is an Italian historian and is a primary source (1886). This 5 sources recognize that Bolivia declared a state of war and interpreted by Chile, and the majority of historians, as declaration of war.

The only one neutral historian in MarshalN20's list, is professor of Latin American History at California State University W. F. Sater. Perhaps is that the reason why MarshalN20 has so many problems to understand Sater's passage: "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.". Instead the complete sentence MarshalN20 reads "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." and lose sight of the fact that the other two books of Sater, also given in my list, repeat the same fact: "in March he (Daza) suddenly declared war on Chile" and "Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war". Therefore MarshalN20 presents one of Sater's books as a support for his theory.

Other neutral historians in my list are Dr. Robert L. Scheina, William Jefferson Dennis, Martin Sicker, John L. Rector (professor of history at Western Oregon University), Erik Goldstein (Professor of International Relations and History. (BA, Tufts University; MA, MALD, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; PhD, University of Cambridge, Specialization: Diplomacy, International Relations, British Foreign Policy)([37]), etc.

Of course I plead for a cite of the MarshalN20 view, I think we can show to the reader rand views, but the due weight must be correct. MarshalN20's view is a rand POV even in Perú. Jorge Basadre a famous Peruvian historian tell us about the declaration and why Daza was interested in a early declaration of war (See Jorge Besadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile"):

Extended content

Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia. Esto ocurrió a pesar de que Quiones y Doria Medina acordaron el 5 de marzo las bases para la mediación peruana. La versión chilena fue que Bolivia quiso impedir que Chile se armara. En realidad, Daza buscó la forma de malograr la misión Lavalle. Una vez más la legación peruana en La Paz había fallado porque, según el tratado secreto, un acto de esta especie debía haberse hecho previo acuerdo de las partes. Al no estar declarada la guerra entre Chile y Bolivia, Chile no podía pedir al Perú que se mantuviera neutral. Porque la había declarado Bolivia, la exigencia chilena de neutralidad peruana era inevitable. La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle. La situación que se habí­a ido agravando mes a mes y semana a semana, se complicaba ahora día a dí­a, hora a hora, minuto a minuto. El Perú se veí­a envuelto con rapidez creciente en un conflicto tremendo, sin tiempo casi para presentar la acción conciliatoria propia y sin haber buscado una acción análoga de Argentina, Estados Unidos o las potencias europeas Tranlation by Keysanger: ...on 18 March was the begin of a new phase in Lavalle's mission. This day was received in Santiago from Tacna by post and from Caldera by telegram Daza's decree that notified on 14 March all diplomats about the casus belli against Chile with all efects and consequences, together with other decrees of rupture of relations as long as the war lasted and of expulsion of Chileans and confiscation of his goods. The Chilean version saw that Bolivia ['s declaration of war] aimed to impede the purchase of weapons to Chile. In reality, Daza intended to eliminate Lavalle's mission. Once again the Peruvian legation in La Paz [Bolivia] failed because in accordance with the treaty such act [declaration of war] should have been done in agreement between both [Peru and Bolivia]. As long as no state of war between Chile and Bolivia existed , Chile couldn't require neutrality from Peru. Since Bolivia declared the war on Chile, the Chilean request of Peruvian neutrality was inevitable. The Bolivian declaration of war on Chile was (as stated by Chilean historian Bulnes) a traverse fault through the wheel of Lavalle's handkart. The situation worsened month to month ... (Bold by Keysanger)

As we can read there is nothing in Besadre's "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile" about a lacks of Bolivian declaration of war. Best Regards, Keysanger (what?) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex Harvey is helping us out in the talk page of the article. At this point you're making forks of the discussion, and make a poor job at trying to discard my sources as unreliable when they are all written by reliable historians from different times in history. Thanks.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld

I believe the langauge in this section which deals with host Greg Gutfield's comments violate NPOV policy

"In a September 28, 2010, Rolling Stone article, President Barack Obama made another political attack[75] [76] [77] on Fox News Channel by accusing the cable network of having a "point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle-class."[78] [79] Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld responded to this particular political attack by Obama with his following September 29, 2010 Greg-alogue:[80] [81]

"Okay. So, you're the President of the United States, with both houses under your control. You also have the most fawning press of any president in the History of the Universe. And yet you let FNC get under your skin, because it’s the only network that doesn’t have a 'thrill up its leg'? Obama is like a sports team who owns the Ref, the fans and the field, but refuses to play ball until the kid in the 10th row stops chewing gum."

"And this is why the Crybaby-in-Chief needs us. It provides cover, so Obama can criticize Americans without ever saying 'those Americans.' He can just say Fox News instead. One thing is for sure: If you go after a collection of talking-heads, you're going to get an earful back. And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, taurophobe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.220.21 (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
[75] http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/10/29/11561946-sun.html
[76] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html?pagewanted=all
[77] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html?ref=media
[78] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-in-command-br-the-rolling-stone-interview-20100928?page=2
[79] http://www.aoltv.com/2010/09/29/obama-slams-fox-news-and-greg-gutfeld-slams-him-back-video%20&%20transcript/
[80] http://www.aoltv.com/2010/09/29/obama-slams-fox-news-and-greg-gutfeld-slams-him-back-video%20&%20transcript/
[81] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601642,00.html 9-29-2010 'Greg-alogue' transcript
-footnoted sources added by: --RedEyedCajun (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a blatant NPOV violation but it could use some cleanup. It should simply say "President Barack Obama criticized Fox News Channel..." and "responded to this criticism from Obama with..." instead of "political attacks". The phrases "another" and "this particular" are subtle POV phrases. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Greg Gutfeld, the host of Red Eye, specifically said that he was responding to this particular quote by President Obama in Rolling Stone. That is not a POV - that is a fact and sourced with complete transcript of episode containing the complete Greg-alogue, which is not shown above. The phrases "another political attack" is also not POV because the White House Anita Dunn publicly announced in the New York Times and elsewhere that they would be making many political attacks against Fox News and their on-air personalities from now on in response to what they saw as political attacks by Fox. This is also all fact - not POV and many political attacks soon followed which were all reported as such, including the Rolling Stone Obama quote, even by the New York Times which warned the WH that it was unwise to attack Fox News and their on-air personalities in this way. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well my point also to add would be that this paragraph is also not needed as no other news agency carried the story of any conflict between Obama and Red eye, but yes criticized is an appropriate substitute, if someone could please make these changes as the current author to the page keeps changing these attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.220.21 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a look and it looks obvious that an editor or editors are expressing a POV that Obama has made political attacks, not criticisms, against Fox News. The wording is contrived to reiterate that they were 'political attacks' and about 10 sources have been added to "prove" that Obama has made "blatant political attacks". I'll try to clean it up. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The user IP 118 that wants this change is a long-time banned user known originally as Jackjit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackjit/Archive He libeled the host of Red Eye, Greg Gutfeld, calling him a racist in the Red Eye article without any source, so he is not capable of judging NPOV or having fairness on this Red Eye article. He has a LONG history of shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP using his banned shared/revolving 118 IP address, avoiding his block. He was just recently blocked again after avoiding his block. Over the past months, many other editors have reverted these changes Jackjit/118 wants to the Red Eye article, as well as his other vandalism to the article, so he is not being truthful here saying it is only one editor reverting his changes/vandalism. In fact, many editors across Wiki are reverting his vandalism to Conservative/republican articles. He should not be here shopping around for help (he's supposed to be banned), but especially since I was NOT notified of this discussion here but discovered it on my own by mere chance. I suspected this when user Alexh suddenly showed up out-of-the-blue on Red Eye article deleting the same well-sourced material as Jackjit/118IP.

As to Alex Harvey (talk) false/uninformed accusation that 10 references were added over time, it is only three reliable sources that have always supported the term "another political attack", which is toned down from "war" and "battle" which is used in the two "New York Times" sources and Toronto Sun source. Ten more could have been referenced, but three is plenty to support the language some people might find objectionable. These sources also use the term "attack". WP:NPOV is being followed here because the language used is netural when compared to the reliable sources language, which is much harsher POV and tone toward Obama administration's political war/battle against Fox News and how unwise the Obama administration was to announce a war against Fox. Also, WP:NPOV does allow objectionable language to be used, even if some or many may find it objectionable or more likely WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

I have always been open to some changes to this particular section and have allowed several to remain in the past without challenging them, even though I thought the references fully supported keeping them. It is not fair for one editor (Alexh) to go delete material that has been well sourced without discussing it on the Talk page of the article first, especially since this is a very obvious attempt at shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP and Alex Harvey (talk) willingly took the bait and then stated falehoods here. He obviously did NOT look at the footnotes because if he had, he would have known there were three sources cited supporting the term, not ten as he stated above (addendum: and not 6 either, as he incorrectly stated below --RedEyedCajun (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)). That also proves he did NOT even bother to read the source material to see if it did support the language before he deleted the content (but he did leave many references hanging so a 'bot' wouldn't immediately revert his edits as pure vandalism); therefore, his only real objection is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT! It is false that anything was "contrived" - it was all well-sourced. The term "political attack" is an often used term which describes an attack that is of a "political" nature, which is fully supported by the three references which Alexh didn't bother to read before making his uninformed deletions and forcing his political POV into the article without any discussion.

Please compare my talk page/contributions to Alexh and Jackjit and see who is more capable of compromise, following NPOV and being fair with deletions/helpful edits/adding references/talk. I like debating issues such as this, but the proper place is the Red Eye Talk page where other interested editors, who wanted to keep the language in question and have in the past reverted these same edits by Jackjit/118IP (and now, Alexh), could have commented. Jackjit/118IP knew many there didn't want that material deleted, so he went shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP to get someone else to respond to his deceptive untruths and then make his edits, which is always his MO when he can't get his way by simply deleting well sourced material without discussion. So much for banning a user on Wiki - even one as bad as Jackjit still edits deceptively on Wiki and spreads untruths to get his way. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC) --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Red Eyed Cajun, is it fair to say that this is a pretty strongly worded response? For the record I am Australian with no interest in US politics and no prior knowledge of this subject. One doesn't always need prior knowledge to see that something is biased, and that is the case with the section discussed here. It's true that I didn't actually count the number of sources you've given to justify your wording 'political attacks' and 'blatantly attacking'. So now I have counted and you have 6, 3 on the first wording and 3 on the second. Generally, there are a lot of footnotes "proving" various bits of wording in that article - probably more than I've ever seen actually. The NPOV policy states,

Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.

Actually, if you had ever bothered just once to go read the footnotes and sources, you would know that I did not try to "prove various bits" with footnotes. That is outright false. There are 3 footnotes (not 6 or 10 footnotes like you incorrectly stated above) that show this was 'another political attack' by Obama. The first sentence was a combination of a Rolling Stone Obama quote and another source which used the word "attack", all properly footnoted at the end of the sentence. I'm so sorry if you just don't like properly footnoted content on Wiki, which is Wiki policy. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel that your section is consistent with this policy? Do you feel you have used a disinterested tone? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In 20/20 hindsight, I should not have gone with the word "attack" which the reliable sources used (and thus mislead me). I should have instead replaced "attack" with the term "political comment", i.e. "President Obama made the political comment that Fox News was a destructive force..." That would have been a lot better than the current wording which uses the biased weasel word "criticized" which automatically implies there is something bad that deserves criticism. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody here has complained once about "destructive force" being very pejorative. Yet they delete Gutfeld's response quote of "Crybaby-in-Chief". The section is now in violation of WP:NPOV as long as "destructive force" is allowed without being balanced by Gutfeld's "Crybaby-in-Chief" response for clarity/balance. In an ironic way, by removing Gutfeld's "crybaby" quote, Gutfeld's 'Greg-alogue' response cannot be properly judged in context by the reader. Many on the left might well say Gutfeld's political response to the President's political comments proves Fox's on-air personalities are "destructive forces". Do you really think Gutfeld's response was helpful to Fox News' image? The Huffington Post bloggers didn't think so.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To re-quote NPOV policy: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." And objectionable material you WP:JUSTDONTLIKE is not a reason to delete and eviscerate a section using WP:NPOV as a sledge hammer, because sometimes you lose the very clarity, balance and unbiased content most are seeking to present on Wiki articles. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, Cajun. I've gone through the section and trimmed it. There's no reason for using a pejorative term ("political attack") when a non-perjorative term ("critcise") will suffice. Alex, this list may both amuse and depress you; I've seen far worse than two pairs of three citations on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem at all leaving the edits you made to the article. We shall see if others who disagreed in the past step up now and revert your edits or not. I will let others decide the fate of this section. But I don't think a banned user like Jackjit should be allowed to edit/vandalize this article or others, using WP:FORUMSHOP by asking above "...if someone could please make these changes..." I did NOT think further describing the kind of "attack", which was the word used in many reliable sources, by adding it was an obvious "political" attack was perjorative. It's all political and don't we all know this. I think it was also fair of these same sources to say some of Fox's "attacks" were political in nature and the WH had every right to respond sometimes. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I will offer here what was never offered to the interested editors of the Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld article: I am copying this discussion (minus the banned user Jackjit's comments) and moving it to the Red Eye TALK page, which the NPOV noticeboard policy clearly states was the proper place to discuss such major changes to content of the article. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Coatracking at George Packer?

An editor has removed the following brief text from the George Packer article based upon the claim that it is coatracking:

From 2004 to 2005, Packer contributed $1,000 to Democratic organizations and candidates.

This is sourced to this article by investigative journalist Bill Dedman, where Packer is disussed:

George Packer is The New Yorker's man in Iraq.

The war correspondent for the magazine since 2003 and author of the acclaimed 2005 book "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq," Packer gave $750 to the Democratic National Committee in August 2004, and then $250 in 2005 to Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, an anti-war Democrat who campaigned unsuccessfully for a seat in Congress from Ohio.

In addition to his reported pieces, Packer also writes commentary for the magazine, such as his June 11 piece ruing Bush's "shallow, unreflective character."

"My readers know my views on politics and politicians because I make no secret of them in my comments for The New Yorker and elsewhere," Packer said. "If giving money to a politician prejudiced my ability to think and write honestly, I wouldn't do it. Fortunately, it doesn't."

In addition, an article in The Washington Post also mentions Dedman's reporting about Packer's contributions.

The dispute has been discussed here.

I don't know about "coatrack", but my feeling is that for a biography as brief as this one, it would be a BLP violation and undue weight to include material that arguably puts a question mark over his political neutrality. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

The article concerns the first critical biography of Mormon founder Joseph Smith written by Fawn Brodie in 1945. A recent conflict has arisen between me (a non-Mormon) and all the other current editors (who are Mormons), over whether research by a Mormon geneticist and publicized only by a LDS-owned newspaper and a Mormon apologetic organization should be so labeled. The Mormon editors oppose allowing readers to be aware of these connections. Here's the diff.

Here's a link to the discussion segment. There's more, but this section is probably more than you want to read anyway.--John Foxe (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion

Several editors at this article want the lead sentence to say there is no such thing as abortion after about five months of pregnancy (i.e. when the fetus becomes viable), notwithstanding definitions in reliable sources like the Oxford English Dictionary.[38] So, the lead sentence of the article now recites a narrow medical definition, while excluding all other definitions, and this lead sentence has been installed without talk page consensus regarding how to change the previous lead sentence that existed from 2006 to 2011. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia rather than a strictly medical text, and the subject of this article is not merely medical, but also social, legal, historical, etc. Favoring a narrow technical definition to the 100% exclusion of all broader viewpoints in reliable sources seems contrary to NPOV, and seems to be intended to reduce the scope of the entire article. Any advice?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)