Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 35

X Japan

Closed discussion

Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran

Closed discussion

Circumcision

Closed discussion

Roman Polanski

Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The section called the "sexual assault case" starts by saying that Polanski was arrested for sexual assault on 13-year-old Samantha Greimer. It then talks at length about the defense case, but it never includes any description at all about what Polanski was accused of, which one would expect if they came to Wikipedia to read about him. The only information comes in a separate article on the case, which there is a link to. What allegedly happened during the assault is described at length there.

I've tried to include some accurate description of what Polanski was accused of. I wrote a few sentences at first, and that was removed. Then I added just one sentence, with a briefer description, and that was removed. I'd explained beforehand in the talk section why it doesn't seem NPOV not to include even a small description of what Polanski was accused of in his article.

I also think it's concerning that no sort of mention is made of this case in the first paragraph about Polanski. I went to About.com's article about him, and it was referred to there.

I also attempted to add a short paragraph on actress Charlotte Lewis' allegations against Polanski, which is mentioned in her Wikipedia bio, and that was removed. I did mention in what I wrote on "talk" that the account could just be balanced with information casting doubt on her claim.

And I've experienced trouble posting external links on the Polanski page, so I was wondering if it was some problem I just couldn't figure out, or if external links need some approval from someone on the Polanski page. I tried inserting links to Geimer's testimony and some other articles, including a long one from the LA Times on Geimer's testimony, but I kept getting error messages.

I have seen from reading some sections here that the other editors involved in the dispute should be notified, and I'm not quite sure how to do that, but I'll see if I can figure it out. I did post about this yesterday on one editor's page but didn't get a response.

Psalm84 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Roman Polanski}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I did refer both to the talk page where I wrote about why I believe the Polanski page should include at least a short description of what he was accused of, and I also did write about it on the user talk page of Wikiwatcher1.

  • How do you think we can help?

In offering other opinions and guidance.


Psalm84 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Roman Polanski discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

(Comment from uninvolved editor) All I see is one posting on the talk page after you edit warred that has yet to be responded to. Hearing no reasoned objections, I intend to close this in 24 hours from 16:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC) with the rationalle of "Not yet finished with talk page". Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I edit-warred. I've only edited a little here and never had any problem. I added the passage about the alleged assault, and it was removed by Wikiwatcher1 for the reason, "trim interview minutia portion." I restored the passage with a short explanation, "fixed misspelling and want to add about previous edit - it's not NPOV not to have at least a small description on this page of the assault - see "talk" page entry on how the article was unbalanced without it."
Not including just a brief description from Samantha Geimer on what she says happened (saying "she told Larry King," rather than saying, "this is definitely what happened") seemed not to be NPOV, and it seemed balanced to include it, too. There are numerous small details in the "sexual assault case" section that could be considered unnecessary to the basic story, such as about 4 quotes from Geimer herself which are positive towards Polanski, and a lot of detailed description about the actions of the judge and prosecutor.
After restoring that page, I started to write about something different, the allegations against Polanski made by Charlotte Lewis. I posted that and it was removed by The Magnificent Clean-keeper, for the reason "allegations of criminal behaviour by one person is a cross BLP vio." I did write on the talk page that I couldn't find what a "cross BLP violation" was, and that doubts about Lewis' account could be added too..
I also saw that my reposting of the passage about the assault and had been removed a second time, this time by The Magnificent Clean-keeper, who said, "Adding one side but not the other is not balanced and undue detail for this bio. See talk." I did see the talk section and replied to that editor's comment.
Then, responding to the idea that a small description of what Polanski allegedly did would be unbalanced, I later added two sentences. One included the brief account and another Polanski's denial of Geimer's account. I wrote: "Added two sentences about the sexual assault and Polanski's denial, which I discussed in "talk." If they are removed, I request for it to be discussed in talk or conflict resolution."
Those sentences were removed, too, by Wikiwatcher1, for the reason, "Excessive minutia with non-neutral placement." I then left a comment on the editor's talk page, and also included what I'd written on Polanski's talk page. I did see that Wikiwatcher1 removed what I wrote there, for "remove duplicated discussion," but I didn't get any response.
That's why I decided to bring the dispute here, because it seems like without other opinions this issue won't be resolved. And I believe the help pages say to bring any disputes here first to get other people's opinions. Psalm84 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to just add, too, that I posted four times and the changes were undone each time. I did explain my reasons and also respond to the objections of the editors and tried to rewrite the passage according to their concerns. I would like to know what the next course of action should be, since I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia. Psalm84 (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
You said it yourself, "posted four times and the changes were undone each time". There does not appear to exisist consensus to add the content currently. Furthermore because the subject is a living person the extra guards of WP:BLP are a non-negotiable requirement, especially when talking about negative events associated with the subject. You may not have crossed the bright line of 3RR, but your multiple edits gave me the impression that you were trying to get the content added by sheer brute force of changes which is really frowned upon. Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The question as I see it is whether or not the "sexual assault case" section of the Roman Polanski page should accurately reflect and summarize the situation and the account on the separate "Roman Polanski sexual abuse case." For one example, the separate page covers the concern that the assault was not just simply statutory rape but also that there were questions about her consent in a non-age-related way, as she said she repeatedly told him no and asked to be taken home. The section on the main Polanski page doesn't convey any sense of that at all. So it's a matter of NPOV encyclopedia accuracy and consistency in the encyclopedia. The rest of the account on the Polanski page talks a lot about how the judge and prosecutor handled the case, including the question about why the judge changed his mind, and people seeking information should be given a more accurate picture of what the judicial system had to consider in making its decisions.
"Furthermore because the subject is a living person the extra guards of WP:BLP are a non-negotiable requirement, especially when talking about negative events associated with the subject."
The content is already discussed in far greater detail on the Roman Polanski sex abuse case page.
"your multiple edits gave me the impression that you were trying to get the content added by sheer brute force"
I wasn't merely reversing what people had undone. I did that only once, but I responded to that specific concern stated, about "excessive minutiae for a bio," by reducing the account given by Geimer from about 4 or 5 sentences to one, so I believed that I'd fixed the problem. I mistakenly wrote in the edit explanation that I added a few sentences when I only added one:
"On 11 March 1977, Polanski, then 43 years old, was arrested for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer during a photo shoot for French Vogue magazine. Geimer told Larry King in 2003 that Polanski stopped a friend from accompanying her to the shoot, and when she realized his intentions, she feigned illness and repeatedly refused his advances, only giving in to him out of fear and the hope she'd soon be able to go home."
The edit was reversed again, though, by the same editor, the reason being "trim interview minutia portion." At this point since I'd added only one sentence of brief summary I felt I had to address the issue of the importance of giving people coming to the page some information about the alleged assault. I reversed that edit and explained why on the talk page, that not explaining on the Polanski page itself a little bit behind the circumstances of him being charged with sexual abuse of a 13 year-old girl isn't good practice.
That edit was reversed by a second editor, who said it was one-sided. I replied to him and again modified what I wrote, taking into account the editor's concern. I added a denial by Polanski of Geimer's account. I also wanted to add that he claimed a blackmail scheme in his autobiography, but I had difficulty adding any links to the page. I believed I'd addressed the editor's concern, but the edit was reversed again, and I didn't undo it, but decided it needed to be talked about.
Around the same time I added info on Charlotte Lewis' accusations against Polanski, but when it was removed, I didn't reverse it either. I did address it on the talk page. Psalm84 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I also want to show here what was the final version of the paragraph I modified, if it hasn't been looked at:
"On 11 March 1977, Polanski, then 43 years old, was arrested for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer during a photo shoot for French Vogue magazine. Geimer told Larry King in 2003 that she'd had reservations about going on the shoot, and when she realized Polanski's intentions, she feigned illness and initially refused his advances. Polanski denied her version of events.[67] He was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape,[65][68] and pled not guilty to all charges.[69]" Psalm84 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
On the face of it (before digging into the history) the above looks a lot like adding a neutrally worded description of what he was accused of. Of course there is probably more to it than that. Rather than just invoking consensus, could someone explain the reasoning behind not describing what Polanski was accused of? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to propose re-adding that particular edit. I'll do that if I don't hear anything else to the contrary before tomorrow. I believe I addressed that the objections I received to the edits that I made I responded to by modifying my entry, and that some brief description of what Polanski was accused of is needed for people to understand what all the parties involved were dealing with. Psalm84 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
One other thing I'd like to point out. I took a look at the news coverage of the case at the time and it was widely reported what Polanski was charged with. This is from a UPI story after he pleaded not guilty: "Polanski was indicted by a grand jury March 24 on six felony counts of furnishing a drug to a minor, rape by use of drugs, sex perversion and sodomy, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xSYsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EMcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3812,2506376&dq=polanski+indicted+polanski-was-indicted-by-a-grand-jury-march-24&hl=en
To properly inform Wikipedia readers about the sexual assault case, it would seem necessary to give them an accurate sense of what everyone involved, including the legal system and the public, was aware of and had to consider at that time. So the account in the sexual assault case section would need to reflect that. Psalm84 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been trying to modify the passage in order to give an accurate idea of what the situation was back then, but I think listing the charges against Polanski, as they are on the separate page on the sexual abuse case, should be considered. This is one possible paragraph:
"On 11 March 1977, Polanski, then 43 years old, was arrested for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer during a photo shoot for French Vogue magazine. Geimer told Larry King in 2003 that she'd had reservations about going on the shoot, during which she was given champagne and part of a Quaalude by Polanski, and when she realized his intentions, she'd feigned illness and initially refused his advances. Polanski denied her version of events.[67] He was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape by use of drugs, sodomy, and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor,[65][68] and pled not guilty to all charges.[69]" Psalm84 (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The new edit I posted was removed by Wikiwatcher1, despite the fact that

I've received no reply to what I wrote in the comment box on my latest edit, in which I said to see the RP talk page and this page. There's been no reply here to another editor who asked for a reason not to mention what Polanski was accused of in his bio. And on this page yesterday I said that I would be adding this passage today and asked to hear about any objections.
I've also received no reply on the Polanski talk page from Wikiwatcher1 on what I wrote in response to his claims against my edits on this issue.

The new edit I posted today is this:

"On 11 March 1977, Polanski, then 43 years old, was arrested for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer during a photo shoot for French Vogue magazine. Geimer told Larry King in 2003 that she'd had reservations about going on the shoot, during which she was given champagne and part of a Quaalude by Polanski, and when she realized his intentions, she'd feigned illness and initially refused his advances.[67][68]
Polanski was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape by use of drugs, sodomy, and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[65][69] He denied Geimer's version of events and pled not guilty to all charges.[68]"

The reason wikiwatcher1 gave for undoing the edit is this: "Per talk - handpicked isolated interview snippets."

I don't see that argued on the talk page, but in any case, there are dozens of news sources that could be cited which provide those same facts as part of the basic background on what allegedly happened that day. And there are also many news sources that quote the same information from Geimer's grand jury testimony, so it would be very easy to change the cited sources.

Wikiwatcher1 also doesn't give a reason for undoing the whole edit, which also included some of the specific charges against Polanski. That information didn't come from the interview but no reason is given for taking that information out, either.

I think the issue that needs to be addressed here is the question about including what Polanski was accused of in his bio. That seems to be the issue, which is brought up in an exchange that I had with Wikiwatcher1:

"While the article may not be as satisfying to the few readers who's first and only desire is to read minutia about the sexual assault, there is no "larger bias" and nothing to imply it."
Again, "satisfaction" isn't the issue, in the same way that having a criminal trial in a sexual assault case isn't and shouldn't be about sexual gratification to anyone. It's about proper encyclopedia practices that accurately inform readers, including properly summarizing situations.

Because of not receiving replies on this page and the talk page, and that the reasons for undoing the edits don't seem to be what's at issue, I thought it best to bring up the latest dispute here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talkcontribs) 22:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV

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.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

A group of users is working together to remove almost all critical information from the Obama article. This is in stark contrast to the articles about Republican Presidents. The contrast is dramatic; see my hatted post on the talk page, which I have duplicated here: [1]

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Lengthy, voluminous discussions on the talk page

  • How do you think we can help?

Not sure, but it is not appropriate that a majority of users from one end of the political spectrum keep the article in such an outlandishly biased state. It is not just one or two users. The reverts of criticism are spread among many people, which allows each individual user to avoid getting into an edit war. But the cumulative effect is a tremendously biased article. I don't know if Wikipedia has a means of dealing with this type of situation. If not, it is likely to become a long-term problem. If NPOV is intended as a serious policy on Wikipedia, there needs to be a way to maintain it in the article about the President of the United States. There are some sub-issues which you might be able to resolve: (1) should the article have an NPOV tag?, and (2) Is global NPOV an appropriate topic for discussion on the talk page or not.

William Jockusch (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Comment Since my name is above I'll make a comment. On my involvement with that page, it's very limited. My only recent talk page involvement has been to oppose one proposed addition (FYI not by WJ) that was close to unanimously rejected, as well as a couple posts that were an attempt to tone down some discussion that was getting heated. Overall with political articles regardless of party I try to be consistant with my opinions in applying the standard, does this belong in an encyclopedia, or a political blog. I have looked at the talk page, and IMHO some of William Jockusch's proposals have some merit, others I disagree with. Always though, even with the theoreticals I agree with, the devils in the detail of wording & sourcing which I haven't studied. That's really all I have except to say that I'm pretty sure I'm not the problem, and I'm not sure how big a part I can be to the solution.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • The Obama article is a perennial target for POV-pushing advocacy, every few months a quote-unquote "new user" shows up with just the right amount of semi-believable "I'm new here" acts, declaring massive NPOV problems with the article because it does not contain various sundry criticism past and present. This will end up as these things invariably do; someone will connect the "William Jockusch" account to a past, famous sockmaster (BryanFromPalatine, ChildOfMidnight, Joehazelton, and the like) and block it, or it will be blocked simply for doing the same thing as many, many other blocked and banned users have done over the years. Sooner or later, it will boil down to that end. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment "Not sure, but it is not appropriate that a majority of users from one end of the political spectrum keep the article in such an outlandishly biased state. It is not just one or two users." pretty much says it all, with its use of hyperbole (outlandishly biased state) and the opposite of WP:AGF (users from one end of the political spectrum). I'm not an American, have little interest in their political games, but do think one editor shouldn't be allowed to slap a NPOV tag on a FA just because he's not getting his way on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 16:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • This is not a viable or legitimate dispute. It's a baseless accusation of bad faith against the community from an editor ostensibly new to the Obama article, making the same claims and amidst some of the same misbehavior that lead to article probation, arbcom, etc. We've been through this drill before. An aggrieved editor believes that the biography of Obama ought to be slanted to reflect more poorly on the subject, for no purpose other than that American politics demands an equal portrayal of all participants. They accuse the rest of the community of misbehavior, instead of acknowledging that they simply don't have a consensus or an actionable encyclopedic purpose / proposal. In the background, sock accounts of banned users are cheering them on and organizing attacks on legitimate editors they begrudge. Please, let's not throw countless productive hours down the waste bin humoring this again. I'm not going to waste my time participating in a rehash of old discussions, but a single editor with an acknowledged POV agenda doesn't get to slap a POV tag on a high traffic featured article like that. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm assuming the main reason why I am listed above is because I gave a hint that it's no use putting a POV tag on an FA. Apart from that, I think I made 2 comments on the talkpage. I just wanna remind William that this POV-tagging really isn't a good idea. Other than that, he's free to keep arguing his point on the talkpage... Of course, there'll be a lot of people arguing against him. He's gotta get used to that... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed a post by P2d4b8z2 (talk · contribs) a sock of User:Grundle2600 from the editor's talk page. Grundle's sock has been posting to a number of editor's talk pages as well as to the Obama talk page. An IP, suspected of being a sock, (and obviously not new [7] has been doing the same. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
That IP has a different operator. Grundle for all his persistence is always good natured and rarely wikilawyers. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that IP is suspected of being a sock of someone else. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is not a dispute. This is an example of tendentiousness by one person who evidently wishes to use Wikipedia to further an agenda. Faced with an overwhelming lack of support for his proposals, he slapped an NPOV tag onto a featured article as a badge of shame. Since that hasn't worked, he has apparently resorted to wikilawyering. That being said, I'm happy to see that this apparent new user had no difficulty in finding and making use of DRN. It shows that the system is working. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - Just to clarify my earlier comment about William Jockusch apparently editing with an agenda, it is clear from William's off-wiki activity that he is interested in portraying Obama in a negative light. Since he freely contributes under his own name both on-wiki and off, it would not be a violation of WP:OUTING to note his efforts in this regard: App, Videos. I think this puts the "dispute" in a proper context. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment - Just to clarify, I am absolutely a political opponent of Obama. I have never tried to hide that fact. However, that does not change the fact that this article is not NPOV. Surely an article about a President should mention the main critiques of his policies, as is done with Reagan and both Bushes. If this article summarized the main criticisms of Obama, as the Reagan/Bush articles do for those Presidents, there would be no need for this dispute. Not birtherism, allegedly being a secret Muslim, or other nonsense, but the mainstream criticisms of his economic policies that are actually true. Stuff like "these deficits are unsustainable and a threat to the economy" or "the President has not pushed Congress to pass a budget". Does the fact that such a concern is brought forward by a political opponent somehow make it invalid? Do the deficits somehow become less unsustainable because of attacks on the person who is bringing up the issue? Does the lack of a budget somehow become less of a red flag, merely because the person bringing it up is an Administration critic?William Jockusch (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Totally agree with Scjessey comment above. Several people worked on the charts in economic block, making adjustments and trying to comply with requests. It is official statistics from Bureau of Labor Statistics and it illustrates what said in the block. Other presidents have economic charts too. However, some people only be satisfied if the article provides only negative information about US president, so they are promoting their political agenda by trying to remove truthful, verifiable and reliable information from the article. Innab (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The way this discussion is going pretty much mirrors what has been happening in talk -- multiple false accusations against me, while trying to evade/ignore/obsucre fact-based discussion of the central issue, which is, to repeat, Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV, as conclusively demonstrated on my user page. Whoever is evaluating this, expect to see the pattern continue. I hope you are able to get past the nonsense to see the essential point. Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Multiple false accusations" like what, exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
William, it is certainly possible to see a pattern of multiple people forming a cabal to launch accusations against you, and that it is all part of a bigger conspiracy. That is indeed one way of looking at it. Or — the other way of looking at this is that it could be... that you're simply wrong. Could be. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm one of the editors listed and I've already provided detailed reasons on the article's talk page as to why I believed the complaining editor's proposed edits are/were not appropriate. At this point I believe it's obvious this editor is looking to make changes to reflect a very specific point of view offered up by President Obama's political adversaries. They seem to be under the misguided impression that any News source that doesn't parrot Fox News election year talking points is somehow "left-wing" and any editors who object to such inclusions must also somehow be "politically motivated" (however, I believe a glance at the talk page should reveal which editor has clearly declared their political motivations). The discussion on the talk page has gone on and on and I've honestly grown tired of the whole thing. I can't speak for the other editors involved, but it's been my impression over the last couple of days that I'm not the only one who has grown weary and has simply "checked out". I mean, yes, we should have a calm and cordial discussion, but there comes a point when an editor begins trying other editors' patience. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment It seems a statement of the glaringly obvious that the article isn't NPOV - it's a political BLP POV of a player in an election. POV of a political BLP depends on how assiduously it's protected (Palin's article in 2008 was a sublime example); and as a campaign heats up and battleground mentality sets in, energetic wikilawyering can render NPOV all but impossible (not pointing at anyone named here, I haven't waded through the edit history). So JW it's probably best for your blood pressure if you accept the stinging realities of these hornets' nests. Take Obama off your watchlist until after November and return with your changes when the dust has settled. Note: bringing your dispute here unfortunately makes you, and not the issue, the centre of attention (a perennial drawback of the noticeboards). Question: can we expect to see you campaigning also for NPOV in Obama's opponents' BLPs? Writegeist (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oustide observation I'm afraid I don't see this as an NPOV issue. Wikipedia articles are not for cataloguing instances of praise for and criticism of their subjects, but for reporting the important events which have occured in relation to those subjects, and doing so in a way which is pleasant to read. I don't see large sections of the article devoted to either praise or criticism, and since there isn't much praise or much criticism, I would consider the article to be a good example of how NPOV should work: report what happened, and let other venues, like blogs and whatnot, report on what we should feel about it. The Obama article doesn't appear to be a big problem. If the OP is trying to shoehorn criticism into the article, and is being met with widespread opposition, it is quite likely that it doesn't belong there, because that's not what Wikipedia articles are for. --Jayron32 18:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Jayron. That's basically been my exact point all along. This editor isn't looking to add "criticism" from all viewpoints, but rather, only rhetoric from Obama's political opponents on the far right. It should be noted that this is not the article about his presidency, but his biography. Now, if a specific notable widespread criticism prompted Obama to change his policy on a given issue, then I might be willing to consider its inclusion, however, in most instances, I do not believe his biography is the appropriate place for hashing out all political "criticisms" of his policies. Particularly not in an article about a politician currently running for re-election (the criticisms cited in the Reagan and Bush articles this editor keeps repeatedly referencing have the benefit of historical hindsight, and aren't being altered with the motivation of distorting their bios with the intent of influencing an upcoming election) Simply injecting Fox News talking points into the article would be a move away from NPOV, not towards it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment The content William Jockusch persistently wants added to the article is precisely the sort of content Obama's political opponents would want in the article, not with the goal of improving Wikipedia, but with the obvious intention of damaging Obama's election chances. I see exactly the same sort of thing happening at the Romney article and am firmly opposing such additions there too. It's possible that William Jokusch's motives are as pure as the driven snow. I cannot read his mind, so I can never tell. But, given the election cycle in process, no additions of this kind should even be countenanced. These two men have had articles for years. For new "dirt" of the kind that appeals to political mud-slingers to be added to either article in the next six months is completely inappropriate. Locking both articles completely would be a more NPOV thing to do than adding trivial, historical, undue, political, POV crap right now. I don't support either approach, but let's make this a great encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for American political campaigning. HiLo48 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor - As an American well to the left of Obama (and who would find accusations that this Eisenhower Republican is a "socialist" hilarious, if they weren't so tragically absurd), I avoid this article assiduously. However it is clear that by "not NPOV" Jockusch means "is not full of trivialities, half-truths and downright lies brought up by Obama haters". There are already articles on birtherism and the like; but that is not good enough for Jockusch (whether a legit new editor or just the latest Obama-bashing sockpuppet), since they also don't take the hatemongers' word for this stuff. WP:V and WP:RS are not optional; they are at the heart of what we do. NPOV does not mean "equal time for loonies", despite the misunderstanding by present-day news media about what "balanced reporting" actually means; see WP:FRINGE. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I do think some of the rhetoric against WJ is a bit over the top. For example, on the talk page he suggests adding a sentence on the Supreme Court case regarding Health Care Reform. Now that may not belong it the bio, it may be more suited for a sub article on the reform bill itself, but it's also a far cry from "birtherism". I haven't read all his comments, but I haven't seen him drifting into what I would consider fringe.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, maybe "birtherism" wasn't the best example, but the gist of Orange Mike's post brings up one of my other points. Obama also has numerous criticisms from the far-left, so one editor's quest to begin adding only the "opinions" of the far-right does not represent a NPOV. And again, even if we included criticisms of Obama from all sides (left, right, center, independent, international, etc, etc), I don't believe his bio is the appropriate place for hashing all of this out. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Cube, you may (or might ;-) have noticed that the sentence on the supreme court is in - added by WJ, and polished by me. So much for the conspiracy... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor I am a non-political editor who has never looked at any president's Wikipedia page before today.

First, I would note that the claims are not mutually exclusive. It could very well be that both "one end of the political spectrum keeps the article in an outlandishly biased state" and "an aggrieved editor believes that the biography of Obama ought to be slanted to reflect more poorly on the subject" are true. Or not.

To do a quick sanity check, I listed from memory four controversies / criticisms associated with each president listed. All were quite notable. Do we mention them? Here is my list with "Y" or "N" showing whether the articles mention those criticisms:

Reagan:
iran contra Y
astrologer N
debate briefing papers N
star wars / sdi Y

Bush:
torture Y
national guard / military service Y
wiretapping / warrantless surveillance Y
Katrina Y

Obama:
Health care Y
birth certificate N
Solyndra N
reverend Wright N

It seems to me that some of those should have been mentioned. Perhaps not a long section, but at least a sentence and a wikilink. The debate paper scandal was widely reported. but Ronald Reagan makes no reference to Debategate. Likewise, Barack Obama makes no mention of the Solyndra loan controversy. On the other hand, I cannot find a Bush scandal not mentioned in George W. Bush. Does this add up to a systemic bias? Maybe, but no smoking gun. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Guy Macon, I like your approach. May I add some related questions? In historical terms, whose deficits are worse, Reagan's or Obama's? Yet, which President gets more deficit-related criticism in their article -- Reagan or Obama? Same questions for typical criticisms of their economic policy from the opposing POV.William Jockusch (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that is threefold, first, presidents don't actually spend money, so it isn't Reagan's deficit or Obama's deficit, but rather Congresses' deficit. Second, deficits are affected by recessions and by booking economies. Lastly, it probably makes a big difference what the last president left you with.
I don't know what the answer is for bias in president articles. Consensus works poorly because you can get a bunch of pro-president-X or anti-president-Y editors who drive out those who don't agree. And the sources are hard to evaluate; is scandal X really notable or was it just a thing the opponents made into a hue deal for political gain? That's why,other than an occasional comment on a noticeboard, I stick with the engineering articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Much of this was covered on the talk page. Including the benefit of hindsight for historians and biographers to determine what was notable in a given presidency and what was simply political opponent's mud-slinging at a candidate who is currently up for re-election. The "birth certificate" controversy has been widely debunked by every respectable news source as being nothing more than a desperate hoax. The article is a bio for Barack Obama, not of Reverend Wright. Similarly, the Reagan article is not a bio about Nancy Reagan and consequently doesn't really need to include his wife's fixation on astrology, etc.. Citing "controversies" cherry-picked by one editor doesn't really prove anything as far as I'm concerned. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The "four controversies" approach is just not a realistic one. It all boils down to WP:WEIGHT. For example, under Bush we had illegal wars, torture and Katrina. Can these be reasonably compared with Solyndra, the birther nonsense or Jeremiah Wright? Of course not. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, if the comparisons listed above are supposed to be a "sanity check" then somebody book me a padded room. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of sanity testing. The point of a sanity test is to rule out certain classes of obviously false results, not to catch every possible error. In this case, it was testing the basic assertion made in the dispute overview at the top of this discussion:
"A group of users is working together to remove almost all critical information from the Obama article. This is in stark contrast to the articles about Republican Presidents. The contrast is dramatic...".
If that assertion was accurate, I would have expected the Reagan and Bush entries to have four "Y"s and the Obama entry to have four "N"s for pretty much any random mix of criticisms that made it into the newspapers, and for other editors to get the same result for any 12 topics they chose from memory. That's the beauty of a sanity test: because it is testing for huge errors, smaller sources of inaccuracy can be ignored.
Perhaps the following analogy will help you to understand the basic concept of sanity testing: imagine that I claimed that my woodchipper can tear apart far more things than my paper shredder can. As a sanity check, you could select four items at random. (looks around) OK, I just selected a paperback book, a desk lamp, a plastic ruler and a water bottle. If, as a sanity check, I tried feeding them into both machines and the woodchipper choked on all four while the paper shredder munched all four, then the assertion would have failed the sanity test. There is no need to take into account the fact that my paper shredder can probably handle that ruler or that the desk lamp might jam my woodchipper. Poor choices of test items don't make the sanity test not work as long as they are randomly selected. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2012 (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.

École nationale de l'aviation civile

Closed discussion

Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution