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

Jill Stein, again.

Should Jill Stein be allowed to have a Political positions page as the rest of the candidates do, and if so, is there currently undue weight given to her "political positions" (many of which originally written by editors opposed to them) on her biography page? This is the question for which a request for comment has been opened here. As stated before by other editors, this page urgently needs "more eyes". SashiRolls (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @SashiRolls: my impression, after reading through over half of the "political positions" section of her bio, is that it's not unduly hostile to her. There are a few places where the tone, or sentence construction, could be tweaked (e.g. her stance on housing not including specific policy recommendations could be written more neutrally), but I don't view the sections I read as terrible. Furthermore, I would agree with some editors on the talk page that her political positions are probably best kept in her bio, and not spun into a new article. -Darouet (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

War of 1812 - Representing Both Results of view in the Infobox

The War of 1812 is (unfortunately) notorious for arguments about who won it. Canadians (who are aware of the war at least) generally say they won it, Americans say they won it or it was a stalemate. While more historians say it was a stalemate, a body of mainly British Historians tend to say it was a British victory, American Historians tend to say it was a stalemate, or a US victory. There are books written to support both views. People have been arguing about who won it for 100 years, and probably will for another 1000.

So on the War of 1812 page, after some discussion it was decided to include both viewpoints in the infobox, rather like the results in Battle_of_Ia_Drang, also a conflict where both sides think they won the conflict. Unfortunately, the Canadian/British centric result was later removed, leaving the US centric result only. I have attempted to put it back in via the talk page, and attempted to start a mediation to return the Canadian/British view so that IMHO the article meets NPOV...but with no luck. Most of the active Wikipedians on the page are from the US and support the US centric view that Canada/Britain didn't win the war, and that it was a stalemate.

In summary, it concerns me that we have a US centric historical viewpoint, argued by US historians and supported by US wikipedians on this page, with the removal of a Canadian/British viewpoint, mainly supported by British Historians. My suggestion would be to have it like the Battle of Ia Drang. This was a battle between Vietnamese forces and US forces, who both argue they won it from their own perspectives, and the infobox indicates the result is disputed. In the war of 1812's case, the result is disputed to indicate the two national opinions on either side of the border, and the difference of opinions between British Historians and US historians.

Lengthy discussion here. [[1]] Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The war was between the U.S. and the UK. Canada had not yet been formed although there were two colonies with Canada in their name. The view that the U.S. persued the war in order to annex Upper Canada, and that the Canadian militia defeated them, was a myth promoted by colonial officials in the 19th century that has remained in popular consciousness. However, modern historians of the war have rejected the annexation thesis and see other reasons the U.S. went to war including alleged impressment of American sailors and British arming of native Indians. All U.S. demands were met by the UK, some before the war began, although it had nothing to do with the war. Views of history are not divided according to the nationality of historians but according to what is generally accepted by historians and what is not. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It does not mean balancing popular views in different countries. TFD (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

TFD. I'm sorry but I have to disagree, ... in this case, the views of history *are* divided according to the nationality of historians - I wouldn't be here debating this if it wasn't the case. Generally British Historians that have an opinion on the War of 1812 will say that Canadians/British won, US Historians (except for a few like Donald Hickey) will mostly say that it was a stalemate, or that in fact the US won (sometimes based on Naval victories), and Canadian Historians seem to be a bit more split, but probably with a lean to Canada winning, not so sure. You probably should read this, it discusses the split between nationality of Historians and their opinions of who won the war. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)http://www.essaysinhistory.com/content/dubious-victories-refighting-war-1812

Would you please provide a cite for your claim that "Canadians generally say they won it"? The article cites a survey (Boswell 2009) that indicates that 37% of Canadians believed this, less than a majority. --Noren (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well this study says that 37% of Canadians think they won, 8% think the US won, and 14% think it was a tie. The rest didn't know. So certainly out of the people *that had an opinion*, the majority of Canadians think they won the war. If you translate that into a percentage of people that were aware of the war and offered an opinion, 62% of Canadians think they won the war, 13% think the US won, and 23% think it was a tie. https://acs-aec.ca/pdf/polls/12604640589505%20%282%29.pdf Additionally, they recently erected a statue showing them as the victors, so clearly someone in Canada thinks they won! :-)... http://i.cbc.ca/1.2203869.1382590258!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_300/coupland-monument-250.jpg Also, as per the article, a "February 2012 poll found that in a list of items that could be used to define Canadians' identity, the fact that Canada successfully repelled an American invasion in the War of 1812 places second (25%), only behind the fact that Canada has universal health care (53%)" Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Deathlibrarian, TFD: is there a link in the talk page archives where we can review a list of historians and their comments on the war's outcome? That would help to evaluate: right now on the talk page I don't see that presentation of sources. -Darouet (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If you really want to know more I'd recommend the 2009 mediation. See for example [2] this proposal by Deathlibrarian, which includes a paragraph that begins: "In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. "--Noren (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Darouet, actually what Noren indicates there is incorrect and in fact, that should be changed on the page. American, British and Canadian historians do not all agree on the results of the war. This article below is probably a nice summary of historian's opinions, while it is a review of two opposing works, it also covers a range of views by historians, and generally shows the national patterns. It is also recent, so it takes into account some articles written after the bicentenary. "While British historians have shown a tendency to ignore the conflict, it is unfair to say they have forgotten the war altogether. Several British scholars have indeed studied their country’s second clash with the United States, and concluded that it was a triumphant one for John Bull. American historians, however, take umbrage at the suggestion that they “think” they won; the war, these scholars contend, can indeed be regarded as an American victory, at least in a limited sense. The explosion of literature for the war’s bicentennial has only exacerbated these trends, and two of the most recent works offer excellent examples of the ongoing fight over who can claim victory in the War of 1812." http://www.essaysinhistory.com/content/dubious-victories-refighting-war-1812 Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

DarouetJust a question, is it normal to put a NPOV tag on an article, while it is undergoing a bias investigation??? Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverts on Category:Violence against men

Category:Violence against men.

• James J. Lambden (talk · contribs)

• Arkon (talk · contribs)

Someone else deal with them, please.

jps (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Changed the heading to something less...strange. Arkon (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - let's stick to something neutral -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted) jps (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd really rather not take this to AN/I, but if you can't constrain yourself from casting aspersions about myself and others, I'm not seeing much choice at this point. Arkon (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Aspersions removed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't take him to ANI yet, but it looks like this is heading in that direction, with the incivility and casting aspersions. I think that we can all agree that Arkon's version makes more sense. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Something should be done. jps reverted me with the edit-summary "Revert alt right POV-pusher" This follows an earlier threat (or personal attack if we're being generous) against me which multiple editors cautioned him not to repeat, prior to his last block. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough to take him to ANI, though. The last personal attack was fairly mild. It's a bit uncivil, but not quite worthy of ANI. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Incivility aside it's not a valid revert rationale. It's disruptive editing in an article under discretionary sanctions. I don't particularly care whether he's blocked or warned or not but I would like the disruptive editing to stop. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, if there are 10 rather unfriendly comments before there is some agreement about the section heading, this might be hard to handle at WP:NPOVN. Can you (all, or at least most) try to turn down the screw one or two turns, and try actively to write text not only in good faith, but also with an eye on how they might be perceived by a person already not in the most benevolent state of mind? Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that was quick. This follows this conversation where the user tried to remove the cat from the Domestic Violence article. My final response was to take it up with the cat if you don't think it should explicitly include domestic violence. Of course I didn't mean unilaterally change the language; I meant to gain consensus there, but I suppose I could have been more clear in that given their block log. TimothyJosephWood 22:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment here: Category talk:Violence against men#Which version is better?. jps (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Is mentioning "Han Chinese" in an article Han Taiwanese a violation of NPOV

A edit of mine has been reverted multiple times by User:Lysimachi who says that it violates WP:NPOV. There was a previous Dispute resolution case on this Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_141#Talk:Han_Taiwanese.23Lead_sentence_WikiLink but the status is unresolved. According to User:Lysimachi, saying that "Han Taiwanese" are ethnically "Han Chinese" violates WP:UNDUE (Diff). The term "Han Chinese" is used in multiple sources and I don't see why we should not mention it at all in this article. The term "Chinese" is an ethnic term and differentiates the Taiwanese of Han Chinese descent from those of Aboriginal descent. I'm struggling to understand where is the NPOV violation here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC Notice: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles

A RFC posted at Project Automobiles is discussing two similar article edits:

• Should the Chevrolet Caprice article mention in the body or via a see also link the Beltway_sniper_attacks's use of a Chevrolet Caprice? (specific addition in question: [[3]]).
• Should the Ford Ford F-650 medium duty truck article include a mention in the body of the text or via a see also link the Oklahoma City bombing? (specific addition in question: [[4]]).

Springee (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Gamergate controversy draft article

Please participate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft. Rhoark (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Race (human categorization)

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

---

This article states in the first sentence that race in humans is a "social construct".

Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics.

The same article states that this means that it is arbitrarily applied to humans for political reasons, and is not valid according to any standards of biology. While it is true that that appears to be a consensus view in American sociology, it drops off from a majority to minority to fringe view in American anthropology, American biology, international anthropology, and international biology. Numerous sources including surveys of experts have demonstrated this, contemporary scholars whatever their position agree there is no consensus. Many of these sources are on the talk page, I can reference them on request.

There is no question that some race classifications can be an arbitrary social construct (eg. one drop rule, Asians), but mixed views on whether other race classifications can be biologically valid (usually overall genetic or phenetic similarity or inferred shared ancestry). So we should put in both views ie. biological or social construct.

At the moment their appears to be a tagteam operating on the article to maintain the American sociology POV status quo: User:Maunus, User:EvergreenFir. Stonewalling tactics are apparent. Editors are told to "seek consensus". No amount of demonstration will be accepted. Biological race is "fringe" a priori. Multiple sources to the contrary are simply ignored. Several non regular editors have dropped by to question the POV.[5][6][7][8] This team is always around to revert and ignore.

Maunus has deployed a subject changing tactic of offering an entire article rewrite rather than admit one word change in the lead.[9] There is no hope of any agreement on his article rewrite, which is biased towards a view which was not even consensus in 90s American sociology, if he cannot change one word based on international surveys. This is a stonewalling tactic.

Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Among biologists, there is considerable skepticism as to whether race has any utility or meaning when describing human beings. Lynn Jorde and Stephen Wooding have a good review of this in Nature: "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'" (vol. 36, no. 11, p. 528, 2004). Forty years of genetic research have demonstrated that humans are highly homogeneous genetically when compared to other species: we have less population substructure because all human contemporary human populations dispersed from small, mixed populations in Africa 100-200kya. While there is some utility in referring to classically defined "races" when making decisions about medical risk, this is problematic since these categories have very poor predictive power compared to genotyping.

The talk page is daunting for someone not already deeply involved, but my impression is twofold. First, the article's "biological classification" could be more clearly written, and updated to include some of the endless data produced on human variation in the last ten years.

Second, I do not believe Tiny Dancer 48 that your suggestions are meant to or can result in improving the "biological classification" section of Race (human categorization). I do not see you coming to the talk page with specific, concrete examples from recent literature on human genetic diversity. Your earliest contributions to the talk page [10][11] are scientifically confused (e.g. confounding descriptions of allelic differences between human populations with DNA base pair similarities between humans and chimpanzees) and politically confusing (e.g. reference to Marxists buying wikipedia to peddle their anti-racist agenda). -Darouet (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Your earliest contributions to the talk page [12][13] are scientifically confused (e.g. confounding descriptions of allelic differences between human populations with DNA base pair similarities between humans and chimpanzees)"

When you say "allelic differences" versus "DNA base pair similarities", you're just trying to use big words for the same thing right? My comment referred to "genetic variation". Is there some relevant difference here or just semantics? My reference is Update to Long and Kittles's "Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races":

"Earlier in this decade, Rick Kittles and I took an unusually critical look at FST (Long and Kittles 2003). We analyzed a unique data set composed of short tandem repeat (STR) allele frequencies for eight loci genotyped in both humans and chimpanzees (Deka et al. 1995). These data made it possible to see how FST played out when no one could dispute taxonomic and genetic significance. The answer surprised us. FST was pretty close to the canonical 0.15 shown so many times for human populations. In our analysis, FST was 0.12 for humans, but for humans and chimpanzees together, FST rose only to 0.18."

What's yours?

Is this "this guy is stupid at science" point you're trying to make exactly relevant? Surely it's an issue of sources for whether race can be biological. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not using two different "big words" to describe the same thing. You wrote to SMcCandlish that "humans and chimps share most of their genetic variation" in reply to his comment about population haplogroup frequencies, and implied that his comment was so stupid, you could hardly bring yourself to read further. Despite your incredulity SMcC is correct: modern geneticists are interested in population substructure, and to the extent they write about "race," it's to compare modern scientific findings with anachronistic concepts. Your invocation of base pair similarity between chimps and humans when describing similarities or differences in population allele frequencies suggests you're confusing SNPs and alleles.

The source you cite above doesn't help your cause, since Long and Kittles are definitive that "race" is a poor metric of human relatedness and genetic diversity:

"Now, with more genetic data and more populations sampled, we are able to revisit the race problem with greater accuracy. Recently, my colleagues and I have tested the usefulness of race as a way to describe genetic differences among populations by contrasting the results of racial classification with those from generalized hierarchical models (Long et al. 2009). Race fails!"

Human genetic diversity is a fascinating topic, but "race" is not a measure by which modern biologists study it. -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You simply assert that "population substructure" is different from "race" (which is from the past). It isn't. I'm not confusing anything. SMcCandlish attempted the "single gene" gambit. Race is based on overall similarity. Long and Kittles reference a debunked African diversity measure, which doesn't impugn a similarity based concept even if it existed. All of this is irrelevant. You have one source matching your POV. I have many which don't. So there is no consensus. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"The entire idea of "the Three Races" is genetically ignorant. The underlying truth is really haplogroups and their interrelation." SMcCandlish

I think the problem here is that haplogroups aren't race, they're, uh, haplogroups. SMcCandlish's personal definition of race isn't really something we need to discuss. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"Haplogroups," allele frequencies, etc are how geneticists describe populations today - they don't use the term race. All the sources you list describe the end of the use of race in biology and anthropology. In every case, the quotes are either highly ambivalent, or describing an antithesis against which their article argues. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide sources showing that geneticists today describe populations by haplogroups? That's a purely academic exercise for the purposes of this thread, given all the sources I've provided demonstrating the continued use of the race concept. But still, I'm curious. Haplogroup = race now. Sources?

My sources are not ambivalent. That's a gratuitous lie. And those that argue from a "social construct" POV still accept they do not have a consensus. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

About a third of your sources dont actually espouse the view you claim they espouse but unequivocally support Darouets point -namely that geneticists today do not work with races but with populations, haplogroups and other much more finegrained ways to describe and analyze human genetic variation, the other third are outdated by several decades, and the last third are handpicked quotes from a small flock of "race realist" scholars connected to the alt-right.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nah, you're just making stuff up. Race is "not fine grained" but "population" is. Explain the difference to us? Go through my sources and say which ones fit into your "dismissal" categories. Strkalj? Leroi? This is becoming ridiculous. You just have this cheap dishonest rhetoric rather than an honest appraisal of sources. "Out of date far right sources". It's a lie. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Taking note that it says "Race as a social construct" rather than "Race is a social construct" I don't see a problem. Other significant views on race are represented in the same paragraph. Given that the most common usage of the word tends to be in the sense that is a social construct, and race as a biological concept is not particularly informative or predictive, I don't see a problem with the current weighting overall. It does seem odd that the concept of haplogroup is treated mainly in a U.S.-centric subsection. Rhoark (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You're simply asserting how common views are. This is exactly the problem. Whether race can be biological is a question for biologists. Surveys say a majority think it is. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the article doesn't say it can't be biological. As for what most people or sources are talking about when they say, "race" - that is not biological. All significant views are represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias in the article. Rhoark (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does, right in the first sentence. "Social construct" is defined in the article as biologically invalid. Your assertions about "most people", whoever they are, are made up, unreferenced, and of no value. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, when discussing "race as a social construct" it is not biological. When discussing race as a biological property, which the article does also do, then its biological. As for what I think is the more common use is quite relevant, because I'm an editor contributing my say to the consensus about WP:DUE weight. That's what this noticeboard is for. Rhoark (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It would help a lot if you could explain why you think that, with references. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

For note, Tiny Dancer was originally engaging in significant WP:OR by listing a ton of old primary sources which talk about race as biological (e.g., Darwin, Dawkin, Mayr). AFAIK, the stance that race is biological (as opposed to being based on biological characteristics) is not widely held. The American Medical Association, for example, says race is a cultural construct in their manual of style ([14]). I admit being INVOLVED here, but frankly I think this user is trying quite hard to push their POV and has dismissed the current definition, Wikipedia, and its edits as "cultural Marxists" and dismissed the American Anthropological Association as "a stacked leftist executive board with no membership voting". Since they just got off their block for edit warring, they came here to further push the issue. I'm curious what uninvolved others think, but am skeptical of Tiny Dancer's motives here. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push my POV. My POV is that some systems of race are valid biological concepts, and others are arbitrary social constructs. I'm happy to include the view (very common among American sociologists) that race is only social. You are trying to push your POV. In addition to those "old primary sources" (from top biologists up to 2014), we have American and international surveys from Strkalj, Cartmill, Lieberman, any number of secondary statements that your POV is not consensus, ie. Anemone, Goodman, Tishkoff. Your link above doesn't carry much weight. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you link some of these sources, or at least point out where they're linked (beyond "on the talk page")? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Tiny Dancer, I'm not the one using conspiracy theorist terms like "cultural Marxist" or dismissing an entire professional academic organization. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

So your argument is "my opponent once used the term cultural Marxist"? That suffices to dismiss all of my sources and for you to edit in an unsupported view? Why are you even saying this? I didn't dismiss the 1998 AAA executive board (not the organization), I said it wasn't the only authority. People add much more weight to that source than it deserves, such as American sociologists. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

My point is that you have a strong POV and, in my view, you're pushing it hard. Others here should know that context. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I do have a POV, and so do you. But you're the only one pushing your POV in the face of sources. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Strkalj, The Status of the Race Concept in Contemporary Biological Anthropology: A Review, 2007

ABSTRACT The race concept dominated the study of human biological variation for centuries. Prior to, and especially after, the Second World War, a number of anthropologists questioned the scientific value of the concept, initiating a debate over ‘the existence of human races’. Research suggests that the debate has still not been resolved, as significant differences exist among anthropologists from different countries and regions of the world. In some places the concept of race seems to be falling out of favour (e.g., the USA and Western Europe), while in others it is generally accepted (e.g., China and Eastern Europe). The reasons for these differences are many and complex. They are of a scientific, ideological and professional nature. Furthermore, it would appear that chance, especially in smaller countries, plays a significant role in the attitudes of biological anthropologists towards the race concept.

Text from "Biological definitions" section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Biological definitions "There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races." Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology." Ernst Mayr The race concept arose in the context of Linnaen taxonomy, which was based on phenotypic resemblance, to describe intraspecific lineages defined genealogically, or by descent. Kant: "What is a race? The word is not to be found in any systematic description of nature [Linnaen taxonomy], so presumably the thing itself is nowhere to be found in nature. The concept which this expression designates is, however, surely well established in the reason of every observer of nature who supposes a self-peculiar feature in different animals produced from interbreeding, that is to say, a union of cause that does not lie in the concept of its species but was certainly placed originally in the lineal stem stock of the species itself. The fact that the word race does not appear in the description of nature (but instead, in its place, the word variety) cannot keep an observer of nature from finding it necessary from the viewpoint of natural history." (On the Use of Teleological Principles in Philosophy) Darwin: "Grant all races of man descended from one race; grant that all structure of each race of man were perfectly known – grant that a perfect table of descent of each race was perfectly known – grant all this, & then do you not think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if allocated by structure alone. Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races & their pedigrees would go together." (Darwin, letter 204) However, descent based phylogenetics was subsumed in the 20th century due to concerns that it was possible for organisms with different descent to be genetically more similar, rendering descent based classification less informative. Mayr: "In phylogeny, where thousands and millions of generations are involved, thousands and millions of occasions for a change in gene frequencies owing to mutation, recombination, and selection, it is no longer legitimate to express relationship in terms of genealogy. The amount of genotypic similarity now becomes the dominant consideration for a biologist … When a biologist speaks of phylogenetic relationship, he means relationship in gene content rather than cladistic genealogy." Modern biological definitions of race thus tend to use overall genetic similarity as the criterion: Hulse (1962): “Races are breeding populations which can be readily distinguished from one another on genetic grounds alone. They are not types, as are a few of the so-called races within the European population, such as Nordics and Alpines. It is the breeding population into which one was born which determines one’s race, not one’s personal characteristics.” Dobzhansky (1970): “A race is a Mendelian population, not a single genotype; it consists of individuals who differ genetically among themselves … This is not to deny that a racial classification should ideally take cognizance of all genetically variable traits, oligogenic as well as polygenic." Hartl and Clark (1997): "In population genetics, a race is a group of organisms in a species that are genetically more similar to each other than they are to the members of other such groups. Populations that have undergone some degree of genetic differentiation as measured by, for example, Fst, therefore qualify as races." Dawkins (2004): "But that doesn’t mean that race is of “virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.” This is Edwards’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." Leroi (2005): "Populations that share by descent a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else." Coyne (2014). “To a biologist, races are simply genetically differentiated populations, and human populations are genetically differentiated. Although it’s a subjective exercise to say how many races there are, human genetic differentiation seems to cluster largely by continent, as you’d expect if that differentiation evolved in allopatry (geographic isolation).”

Yudell, M., Roberts, D., DeSalle, R., & Tishkoff, S. (2016). Taking race out of human genetics

"In the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the early 2000s, genome pioneers and social scientists alike called for an end to the use of race as a variable in genetic research (1, 2). Unfortunately, by some measures, the use of race as a biological category has increased in the postgenomic age"

Cartmill 1998

"In summary, the role played by racial taxonomy in the study of modern human variation has apparently changed little or not at all over the course of the past 30 years. In the 1990s, as in the 1960s, most researchers studying human variation do not make use of the concept of race in gather- ing and analyzing their data; however, a consistently large minority continue to do so."

Anemone 2011 (Referenced for first sentence!)

"Another anthropologist who is a staunch opponent of the concept of biological race is not nearly as optimistic as Lieberman concerning the demise of the race concept in anthropology. Alan Goodman (1997b:222) ..."

The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus. 2004 Lieberman L1, Kaszycka KA, Martinez Fuentes AJ, Yablonsky L, Kirk RC, Strkalj G, Wang Q, Sun L.

Abstract. Race, once the central concept in physical anthropology worldwide, now varies in the degree of support it receives in different regions. We present the currently available information on the status of the concept in the United States, the Spanish language areas, Poland, Europe, Russia, and China. Rejection of race ranges from high to low with the highest rejection occurring among anthropologists in the United States (and Canada). Rejection of race is moderate in Europe, sizeable in Poland and Cuba, and lowest in Russia and China. A discussion on the scientific and contextual reasons influencing these variations is presented. The tension between scientific evidence and social influences varies from region to region. The methods used in the studies reported here included questionnaires and content analysis. Response rates to questionnaires were often around 50 percent (with exception of the Polish studies). We discuss reasons for the low rates. Although a uniform method of data gathering is desirable, it may not suit scientists working in different traditions of theory and research. We conclude that it is once again timely to discuss the race concept in international meetings where all scientific and political changes occurring throughout the world in recent past decades are taken into account.

Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute these views by Mayr and Dobzhansky about biological populations on page Race (biology). Darwin - no, that was before development of modern population genetics. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of the thread. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would actually support some your edits (such as that), but judging from these discussions, you seem to be incapable of reaching WP:Consensus with others on these issues. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that a contrary tactic is to go through all of the other guy's edits and pick one so you can say "this edit is stupid, this guy is stupid", rather than actually address the issue under discussion, usually because they can't address it, so resort to cheap tactics. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No one except you said "this guy is stupid". To the contrary, I agree with you on certain subject issues, however no one will help you if you are not capable of working collaboratively with others in this environment. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"Well, I would actually support some your edits (such as that)"

If you read the OP this entire issue is about changing the first sentence to reflect academic opinion. Some such as the guy below want to divert the discussion to whether I'm competent to discuss genetics. I'm sure I am, but this dispute is simply to identify the academic position and edit the first sentence accordingly. The rest will follow. It's quite bizarre I'm being accused of "not collaborating" when editors here can't address a simple and relevant article improvement question, and launch all manner of dubious personal attacks against me. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

But of course this edit (which I support) must be supplemented by other changes to satisfy participants who want to tell that race can be either a social or a biological concept, which is true. Overall, this paragraph was not bad at all, as some participants above explained. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Closure request

I move that we close this thread. When this discussion began I had no prior interaction with Tiny Dancer, but it has become apparent they are totally uninterested in the science of human genetics. This whole discussion is a monumental waste of time and looks like a WP:TROJAN horse for far-right politics. -Darouet (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous ad hominem tactics and a failure to discuss the sources. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

United Kingdom European Union referendum, 2016 (Sources which claim that Referendum not legally-binding may be questionable; pro-Remain bias)

The claim that the results of the Referendum of the United Kingdom on the Membership of the United Kingdom in the European Union (2016), are "not legally binding", is tainted, or, is put into doubt by the fact that it was NEVER actually widely made (and was certainly never made on THIS article, here, on Wikipedia, and cited) BEFORE the (provisional) final results were announced and confirmed by the national chief Returning Officer from the Electoral Commission, in Manchester, based in one of the premises of Manchester City Council, sometime on June the 24th..

One of the last "clean" versions of the article, and the last version dated June the 23rd..

When a ""non-binding" claim" source (conveniently dated June the 24th., AFTER the all-UK national provisional final results) started to get specifically reinstated, on the same date.

This question is in fact not first raised by me, but by Peter Lilley MP (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Conservative), who said (Hansard: House of Commons; 5 September 2016; Volume 614), by his speech in the debate (regarding the e-Petition Number 131215; relating to EU referendum rules ),

"The final argument I want to deal with is that the referendum was only advisory. I debated daily with remainers—sometimes three times a day—but not once did a remain opponent say to the audience, “Oh by the way, this referendum is just advisory. If you give us the wrong advice we will ignore the result and remain in the EU anyway or perhaps call another referendum or vote against application of article 50 and the referendum result until we get the right result.” Did any Opposition Member say that to an audience and can they give me chapter and verse of them saying that they would treat the result as advisory and ignore it if they did not like it? Not one of them did. Now they are pretending that the whole thing was advisory. I forget which hon. Member said that was made clear during the debate.

"On the contrary, the then Foreign Secretary, who introduced the Referendum Bill, said that it was giving the decision to the British people. When launching the campaign, the Prime Minister said:

""This is a straight democratic decision—staying in or leaving—and no Government can ignore that. Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper. For a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would be not just wrong, but undemocratic."—(Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 24.)

"It was spelled out at the beginning of the referendum debate and again and again during it that this was a decisive choice for the British people. If we ignore that choice now and treat the British people with contempt, we will undermine their respect for democracy and prove how little faith we have in it."
Hansard transcripts
Recordings of proceedings in audio and video, or Audio-only
Recordings of proceedings (Audio-only)

David Lammy MP (Tottenham) (Labour) had indeed, on the same debate, cited the Briefing Paper issued by the House of Commons Library. He, however, erred, in that he either omitted by oversight, or he conveniently, for his own purpose, deliberately ignored and omitted the disclaimer, at the end of the document, which clearly states, at the end (Page 33 of 33 pages according to the Printers), that,

"Disclaimer - This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any time without prior notice."
Bill documents — European Union Referendum Act 2015 (2015 c. 36)
European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16 (Briefing Paper) (Number 07212, 3 June 2015) (summary)
(in full) (.PDF)
(cached) (Google)

Essentially, the cited Brief Paper cannot be used or otherwise cited as an acceptable or reliable legal advice.

The article is otherwise generally written in a (rather strong) pro-Remain bias, especially the disproportionate use of pro-Remain publications (especially The Guardian and The Independent). -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This post is a rehash of these comments on the article talk page, which were removed by BethNaught on the grounds of WP:SOAPBOX. After they were re-added, I also removed them, citing much the same reason. See also these comments, which were made after the user was asked not to make such posts, and which allege me to be in the pay of either the Labour Party or one or more trade unions. I'd like to state for the record that neither of those claims is true.

According to our article about endorsements during the referendum campaign, only a handful of newspapers supported the Leave campaign. Of these, only The Telegraph and The Sunday Times would be regarded as reliable sources. There are far more sources regarded as reliable that supported the Remain campaign, so the odds are there are more likely to be a greater number of Remain-supporting newspapers used in any one article. Whether or not the referendum is legally binding is a topic that has been discussed in the media; the general consensus seems to be that it is not, though it is more than likely morally binding. The government could choose to ignore the result, but such a decision would probably be to its detriment. If the leave supporting newspapers choose not to report this story (i.e., that the referendum is not legally binding), or to advocate a different theory, then all we can do in the article is make note of that view.

I hate to be blunt, but this is just someone else with an axe to grind having a whine because they believe Wikipedia is ignoring the truth. Sadly this is an emotive topic that has exposed a great divide in the UK, with many on the winning side failing to be magnanimous in victory, and many on the losing side refusing to accept defeat. The rest of us wonder if the world's gone just that little bit crazy. This is Paul (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This is all missing the point, no referendum in the UK can be binding as Parliament is sovereign, and no act of one parliament can bind another. This means that no matter what one parliament does, it can be undone by the next, meaning a referendum can be held in one parliament but ignored by the next, or the legislation repealed. the description can be seen here

Precisely. Here's an instance where parliament did that. This is Paul (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The creator of this post appears to have breached WP:FORUMSHOP since they started an identical discussion thread here. Others have commented there. This is Paul (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport

Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just removed an unsourced section about conspiracy theories, but another section that attempts to collate such conspiracy theories remains. I feel as though this whole discussion is basically a coatrack especially because the most reliable sources basically conclude that no one in government knew anything about the use of this airport as a drug trafficking drop point. Help on this article would be greatly appreciated.

jps (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do something about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

The way that this article is edited is extremely biased in its favor of one race over the other, and considering the fact that these are incredibly divisive subjects in the country as well as the fact that subjects when worded this way can sway the minds of people in one direction versus the other, politically, morally, among other ways, this is dangerous. I'm asking that something be done about this because even people in the Talk section of this page are incredibly racist, someone suggested that black people supposedly rape white people exactly 100 times more than the other way around, and were being extremely heated in their wording, and this is not only incorrect but reinforcing stereotypes that are at an all time high in scrutiny in the united states. Under the "see also" section was a link to a book by a conservative author titled "White Girl Bleed A Lot," which is an incredibly racist title and also the book is clearly stated under reception to have been largely biased and warped, and should not be something that is a springboard from a supposedly unbiased article. There is no doubt in my mind that the people editing these pages have ulterior motives. I beg that something be done about this, and articles like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.33.129 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, what? White Girl Bleed a Lot is not linked anywhere on that page. Rather, it is listed in Category:Race and crime in the United States, which it belongs in. And whatever racism might exist on the talk page is irrelevant to whether the article is NPOV - the rape statistic was a drive by comment from one anonymous editor, and it did not make it into the article in any form. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Potential undue weight and other NPOV violations in John A. McDougall article's lead

There is currently an ongoing dispute in the talkpage of the John A. McDougall article about a particular claim therein, specifically about whether the McDougall Plan is a "fad diet" (among other claims) and—more importantly—whether the source cited to support that claims are adequate. The claims, from the lead, are as follows:

McDougall's diet—The McDougall Plan—has been categorized as a fad diet that carries some disadvantages, such as a boring food choice and the risk of feeling hungry.

The claims are again stated in John A. McDougall § McDougall Plan criticism as follows:

McDougall's namesake diet, The McDougall Plan, has been categorized as a fad diet with possible disadvantages including a boring food choice, flatulence, and the risk of feeling hungry.

This issue is relevant to WP:NPOV because the claims and their accompanying source (assuming it's upheld) are, in my opinion, being given undue weight to achieve a false balance by being included in the lead. Moreover, I would question whether the claim is itself consistent with WP:NPOV, particularly WP:ASSERT and WP:WikiVoice, given how it is being stated as an unqualified fact despite it clearly being the opinions of the authors of the source. At the very least, these claims and accompanying source should be removed from the article lead and qualified as being the opinions of the authors, assuming the claims and source are even upheld. This is my opinion, at least, and I invite further input on this matter.

For the record, I have also submitted reports on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, which can be found here and here, respectively. Alexbrn has also submitted a report to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which can be found here. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to discuss the same issue at four different noticeboards? Surely that's just going to spread the discussion all over the place and make it more difficult to achieve a consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah...no idea what possessed op to make multiple simultaneous posts. Happy to have the conversation, if we can figure out where exactly we're having it. TimothyJosephWood 21:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I assumed the conversation would be had on the talkpage, where it belongs. I see no reason to split up the discussion across these four three noticeboards, either, but I assumed editors would simply check the original talkpage discussion and join in there while limiting replies at the noticeboard posts to specific inquiries and disputes about those specific claims. Like I said immediately below, this seemed like the best course of action. If it wasn't, then I'll be sure to not do this again. If necessary, either I or an administrator can close some or all of the noticeboard posts. Their function was really to alert editors and not to initiate separate discussions, anyway, so I'd be fine with that. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, right now there already appears to be no consensus, though some of the other editors would like to believe so. Since this issue is complicated and related to multiple Wikipedia policies, I decided that I might as well request input from a broad range of editors to establish consensus. I couldn't find any policy or guideline prohibiting or discouraging requests on multiple noticeboards about the same issue, so I saw no reason not to do so. I'd rather this issue be resolved, and consensus be reached, quickly and without much controversy, so I have zero intention in trying to delay or impede either by submitting multiple noticeboard reports. If it's a bad idea to do so, then I'll be sure to not do so in the future. Sorry about that. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV says represent all the views expressed in reliable sources in proportion to their preponderance. The source given, the sixth edition of an apparently broad and neutral source, is perfectly qualified to give an assessment that can be stated as fact. If there are other views given in equally reliable sources then they have to be balanced. But you can't talk about balance with just one source because (perhaps) you disagree with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This source may qualify as a reliable source in general, but what about being a reliable source for this particular claim? Like it states at the WP:RSN: Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y". Moreover, this claim appears to be a minority view because I cannot find any other reliable sources, at least not of that type, which classifies the McDougall Plan as a "fad diet". Given that it's such a minority view, wouldn't that alone mean that it's inclusion in the lead is undue, if not simply not notable enough to even be included at all? I am concerned that the inclusion of this source is unbalanced because it treats the claim as an accepted fact despite being a relatively minor and obscure view of the authors, though perhaps I was mistaken on the applicability of that specific policy. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Minority among whom? Are the other sources equally qualified? Do they state anything that can be interpreted as contradicting this assessment? NPOV has to be interpreted as consensus among sources of equal quality. If a medical/health professional says one thing and a popular magazine says another, the professional source takes much higher priority. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• The source is good, so we follow it. Posting this on four noticeboards when it was already at WP:FT/N is a disruptive stunt. Alexbrn (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I consider it fair and not a disruptive stunt. I am glad the editor posted to this forum, which is where i saw it. FT/N is a noticeboard of it's own sort, very different from this one. Please, let's not call the editor's motivations to be a "disruptive stunt" unless you know that's their intention by some means (i don't know how you would know that). SageRad (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• we get these advocates for Diet X, who show up at our article about Diet X, and argue relentlessly that their favorite diet cannot - just cannot - be a fad diet even though it is well sourced. What they cannot see is that they are wasting everyone's time with their WP:ADVOCACY. The POV problem is with the OP, who is tendentiously (please read that link Nøkkenbuer) pounding on this dead horse. All the hallmarks. Look at this wall of text: Talk:John_A._McDougall#.22Fad_diet.22_claim_revisited and the forum shopping they have acknowledged. No support for their position, only opposition everywhere. There is a reason for that Nøkkenbuer -- look in the mirror, and open your ears. The POV problem here, is the one you are creating. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Is someone claiming that a diet named "The McDougall Plan" is not a fad diet? It's a diet, it's a fad. Neutral point of view does not mean that an article should adopt the stance of those promoting their diets. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)