Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shortcuts:
WP:POVN
WP:NPOV/N
WP:NPOVN

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion.

NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise.

Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why.
This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation.

Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Contents


[edit] Edward Jones Investments

The listing has been hijacked by someone inside the company. First they eliminated any controversial history from the company, now a week later they are back writing up a press release. Don't want to get into an edit war with insider, but hoping someone here knows how to control this behaviour.

[edit] StopLoss

The last section of the Stop Loss article about topics in the media is biased. It needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.100.9 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 Mar 2008

[edit] 2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence

Someone has used the "Political background" section to post his own views about the Serbia/Kosovo conflict. It is blatantly not NPOV and must be removed - but I'm not well-researched enough on the topic to know what to replace it with. This abuse has not been noted on the Talk page.

The offending section begins with: "Lets not forget the real reason why Kosovo is now independent" and ends with: "As evidenced by the recognition of Kosovo by top world powers such as the US, UK, France, Germany and Canada, its not hard to see why this region deserved its full independence and recognition." It includes various typographical errors in addition to the non-NPOV content. The section was authored by user:SmartPolitics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.10.216 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 Mar 2008

[edit] ABAP article bias

The "Advantages" part seems to be somewhat bias and not true, e.g. Exception Handling being an advantage over other languages. How come there's no "Disadvantages" chapter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.76.76 (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jihad Watch

There is a dispute over using the category "anti-Islam sentiment" in Jihad Watch. See Talk:Jihad Watch#Category Anti-Islam sentiment, Talk:Jihad Watch#Reminder and Sources and Talk:Jihad Watch#A few questions. There is an RfC filed (Talk:Jihad Watch#Category discussion), but input in the discussion from some NPOV savvy people would be very helpful. Vassyana (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Can someone please have a look at this article. The article is vague in places, and a lot of what is written is clearly based on rumours and myths with little or no factual basis/support. The "Journey to Dehli" section is particularly poor, with no citations, and based on hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwings99 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Family Association

American Family Association: OK, this is a drive-by reporting of an article that has been involved in heavy edit warring. And it is no wonder: the entire article reads like a tract against the organization - half the article is a criticisms section, and the other half still reads like an indicment. Additionally, it is chalk full of sources like this one which have an agenda against the organization. It also includes heavy handed statements like "In response to Hurricane Katrina, the AFA Journal published a controversial article which praised the hurricane's destruction", which, while present in the source, are poorly worded (at best) and not backed up by statements on the opposite side. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a crank organization which makes crank statements, what do you expect? --Dragon695 (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oddly, I was going for #2 of WP:5. I might point out the article is significantly better right now then it was a week ago. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeschooling: Child Abuse

We are having a dispute over the question if there is place for a section on child abuse in the homeschooling article. Two entries related to this have been added at the homeschooling talk page 1 2. As we are more or less stuck on being of opinion that the other party is not neutral, I thought it was wise to ask for a third opinion. Species8473 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I especially liked the comment by the Arizona authorities that changing the education setting does not change the propensity or otherwise for violence and abuse of children. I think in fact it is reasonable on the basis of the current evidence that Species8473 whilst presenting a very limited amount of evidence is also not presenting by any means a balanced or neutral view of the situation. Were that the case then we would need to insert similar, and perhaps far lengthier, discussions of child-abuse in articles relating to the Catholic Church, Day care, Schools and school systems, Seventh Day Adventist groups, Scouts, Girl Guides, sporting groups, well, anywhere children come into contact with adults. --Johnday (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So, who invited you to come over here and say this? And is there some reason you specifically like the words of Kim Fields so much? Your point on other articles with child-abuse sections seems invalid, as they simply have separate articles. For example Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Scouting sex abuse cases. Meanwhile I hope other experienced and active wikipedia editors are willing to look at this. Species8473 (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fact I invited myself. Perhaps I should ask what makes you an expert on the field? And who is Kim Fields? And more to the point, what has she got to do with the argument. What is even more galling about your infantile display is that the citations you give for Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Scouting sex abuse cases do little more than re-enforce my point. Those are separate articles which deal with issues in a way which doesn't cloud the issue. The main article on the Church: Roman Catholic Church doesn't include a specific sub-heading on abuse, sexual or otherwise by male or female religious or by clergy. That is confined to the separate article which you cited. If you wish to create a separate article on child abuse by home schoolers then please do so. Johnday (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you started it, meanwhile I think the best place is in the article itself. Species8473 (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary psychology

Based upon the POV of particular content, User:Memills and several anon accounts have been removing criticism from evolutionary psychology, segregating it into a very small subsection, and forking it out into evolutionary psychology controversy, a violation of NPOV.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] A criticism and merge tag have also been added,[10], [11] suggesting that the information be merged into related sections per the NPOV policy. (See also: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure) These tags have also been removed by Memills.[12], [13] Reliable sources documenting criticism and controversy (for example, [14], [15]) are abundant and should be accurately represented in not only the lead section, but the entire article as necessary. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anniston Eastern Bypass

The brief article on the Anniston Eastern Bypass in northeastern Alabama seems to be presented from a particular point of view, condemming alleged "land-grabs" and demonizing the local newspaper.

Not a big issue, neccesarilly, just one I found today.

[edit] The Rules

We got alerted in Wikipedia:OTRS that The Rules is not really written in an encyclopedic NPOV way and indeed, the article strikes me as making a lot of claims on the book's "message" without backing them up with any sources at all. Would be great if someone could look for some reviews etc. and try to attribute the claims there to a few sources. Thanks! --Mbimmler (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Several refs added. – Zedla (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I've just opened a policy RfC over at Talk:Arrow_Air_Flight_1285#Image about whether a Wikipedian's "artist's impression" of an event constitutes NPOV if there are other interpretations of the event. I opted for a general policy RfC over bringing it up here since there are other policy questions that have been raised as well. Input welcome! --Rlandmann (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morgellons and Morgellons Research Foundation

It is a difficult subject but I believe violations of WP:NPOV, and WP:V have been introduced by recent edits as discussed on the talk page, here and here. I am not going to edit war over it and would appreciate some neutral eyes at the article. Some examples; stay-at-home mother is not an appropriate description of Leitao's electron microscopist and immunohistochemist experience in relation to the topic of the article. "Lab technician" is POV and not supported by sources which state biologist among other terms. "Son's toy microscope", and "he did say that several features of the case" is WP:OR. The use of special formatting to call attention to quoted POV material is not NPOV, and using disclaimers and WP:WTA such as claim, to diminish views held by Morgellons proponents does not fairly represent their viewpoints. Adding material that has nothing to do with Morgellons to add weight to the Role of the internet is also not NPOV. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't reviewed the article and the references carefully, but I want to make a few points. Reference 1 describes her as a stay-at-home mother. The description appears to be accurate, as she does not appear to have been working outside the home at the time. The fact that this disorder was discovered by someone who was not at the time working as a medical researcher is relevant to the evaluation of the "discovery". Her past experience should be made clear in the article. I haven't surveyed the references sufficiently to determine whether "lab technician" is an appropriate term, but I note that it would be an appropriate description for many electron microscopists. Operating complicated laboratory equipment is often the function of lab technicians rather than more senior researchers. The first reference seems to imply that she has a bachelor's degree followed by work experience in the medical field. That is consistent with the education of a lab technician. "Reference 1 describes" and "lab technician" are not necessarily mutually exclusive descriptions.
Reference 1 describes the microscope as an $8 Radio Shack microscope. That is by any reasonable definition a toy. It might be more NPOV however to describe it differently, perhaps "her son's Radio Shack microscope". (I presume sources can be found to support the claim that the $8 toy microscope belonged to her son and not someone else in the family).--Srleffler (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Reference 1 also describes her as a biologist and a medical researcher in various contexts in the article but not a lab technician. I don't believe there is a source it was her son's. Ward20 (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Here [16] Leitao describes herself in 2001 as a "housewife", and describes using her son's Mattel microscope to look for bugs (on their dog). Not really a reputable source though. Herd of Swine (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
recent discussion at the article supported removing her name from the lead. I think that would be highly advisable, regardless of how she is described. It would avoid prejudicing the article one way or another. DGG (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
wp:npov and wp:v lab technician? Was Leitao a lab technician yes she was. If there is a source she proposed and did and published original research and she had a degree more than undergrad then she is not a lab technician. If she had an undergrad and did the research as her job not for a degree, supervised by some one with a phd who planned the project, she was a lab technician. In research science there are PhDs, they are called "biologists" "researchers" "principal investigaters" etc and then there are PhDs who are "postdocs", etc, there are students who are "graduate students" if they got a BS or "undergrad interns" if not and who else is there, lab managers and lab technicians. A lab technician has a undergrad degree sometimes a masters, they do a group of techniques. When you call some body a lab technician it is not insult or POV it is their job title. A lab technician that calls themself a "Biologist" or a "Immunohistochemist" is padding their resume, just how it is, and especially when they were niot a lab tech for years. The POV editor at Morgellons has interest to say Leitao was a "biologist" or some thing when she says she found fibers. She got her undergrad and she says she worked in a research lab for five years before she had kids and was a stay at home mom or housewife, her words. We don't know what lab or labs, we don't know if it was after she got the degree or part during her undergrad, we don't know wether it was ten years or fifteen years or 20 before 2001 she was last time a lab tech. Alls we know it, she was a stay at home mom in 2001. Ok so some people think stay at home mom is so insulting, that is prejudice and POV too, my opinion, but if you want to take it out, go ahead.
wp:v toy microscope? What else is not verified says Ward accusing me, the microscope belonging to her son. The reliable sources for the article tell us the microscopes brand, mattell, the store Radio shack, the price, I think 7.99 or 8.99. It is a toy microscope. If toy is POV then take it out, but you don't buy research equipment at Radio Shack. Two sources say it is her son's. Ward knows that why argue about it. The microscope is important, it is one way Leitao used to decide she was right and all the doctors were wrong. That is very important! It is also a common thing in DP to use a magnifying glass or microscope to analyze supposed bugs or fibers. All very important. Who cares if it was her sons or her daughters or she bought it for herself, it was a toy microscope and it was important.
Take Leitao out of lead? Morgellons was named by Mary Leitao no one disputes it. Morgellons RF was foundedd by Leitao no one disputes. Leito is director of MRF no one disputes it. MRF is still the leading website on the proposed condition, most people who self-diagnose according to the medical literature come in with information from it's website. Without Leitao Morgellons is still called DP or its something else or no one knows about it so why would you take her from lead? She is in about every news article about Morgellons. It is so wrong to not include her in lead. RetroS1mone talk 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the quality of my sources, but this [17] says:
Mary Leitao graduated magna cum laude from the University of Massachusetts with a BS in Biology. She has worked in various capacities for the Harvard School of Public Health, Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.
I bring this up only in the context of the discussion of the word "biologist", as it does not seem like the right word to describe her, based on what RetroS1mone says. It's understandable that a media report could hear she has a BS in biology and then describe her as "biologist", but if that is inaccurate, we ought not propagate it. However, adding "stay-at-home-mom" or "housewife" in the lead seems to introduce a slight element of NPOV, however accurate those terms are. It might be better to have her name unadorned in the lead, and describe her reported background later. Herd of Swine (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's a more reliable source http://www.ilads.org/morgellons.html:
She graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Massachusetts at Boston with a BS in Biology. She has worked at Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center as an Electron Microscopist and an Immunohistochemist.
Herd of Swine (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WWII not starting in 1939 a valid viewpoint?

A user has requested comment on History and Geography.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFChist list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


Hello.

A series of discussions has begun on Talk:World War II about whether authors / historians who claim a differing start date for World War II then 1939 represent, at least, a significant minority or not. A list of many of the non-1939 sources are shown below, any feedback would be appreciated. Oberiko (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Source Author Quote
Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945 Werner Gruhl The case that Japan's 1931, (or 1937 at the latest) major resumption of imperial expansion was the true beginning of World War II can be made based on several factors. These invasions constituted the first major violations of the Washington Conference Treaties and the Kellog-Briand Pact. While Japan was condemned as an aggressor by the League of Nations and the United States, the West's reaction was restrained, due to post-World War I pacifism and the worldwide depression. The lack of a more forceful reaction likely contributed to Italy's decision to invade Abyssinia in 1935 and Germany's decision to attack Poland in 1939, thus expanding World War II from Asia to Europe and Africa. It is thus argued that 1939 was not the true beginning of World War II
Roscoe Pound and Karl Llewellyn: Searching for an American Jurisprudence N. E. H. Hull ...World War II would not begin in Europe, like the first, but in Africa and Asia, with Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Japan's invesiture of China...
The Rise of Modern Japan Linda K. Menton, Noren W. Lush, Eileen H. Tamura, Chance I. Gusukuma The global conflict we call World War II was in fact 'many wars, occurring at different levels and in widely separated places'... For Americans, World War II began in 1941 with the explosive Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But for the Japanese, the war began much earlier-in 1937.
A Companion to the Vietnam War Marilyn Blatt Young, Robert Buzzanco Japan invaded China in 1937, effectively beginning World War II in Asia.
American History the Easy Way William O. Kellogg What became World War II began in Asia in 1937 when Japan invaded China. Actions taken by Germany and Italy during the 1930s led to war in Europe in 1939. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States declared war on Germany and Japan linking the Asian and European wars in what is known as World War II.
Asia in Western and World History: A Guide for Teaching Ainslie T. Embree, Carol Gluck Aggression in Manchuria, 1931, followed by establishment of puppet state and Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations, signals the beginning of the 'fifteen-year war.' The end of multi-lateral diplomacy as Japan decided to 'go it alone' as territorial imperialist in Asia; instigation of all-out war against China in 1937, with atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking and without victory-1937 as the beginning of World War II in Asia.
The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II Iris Chang Americans think of World War II as beginning on December 7, 1941... Europeans date it from September 1, 1939, and the blitzkrieg assault on Poland... Africans see an even earlier beginning, the invasion of Abyssinia by Mussolini in 1935. Yet Asians must trace the war's beginnings all the way back to Japan's first steps toward the military domination of East Asia — the occupation of Manchuria in 1931.
A World at Total War: Global Conflict and the Politics of Destruction, 1937-1945 Roger Chickering, Stig Förster, Bernd Greiner In 1937, when World War II started in the Pacific theater, both Japanese mobilization at home and warfare abroad headed in this direction.
Critical Perspectives on World War II James W. Fiscus World War II started in Europe in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. But World War II had been raging in Asia since 1937 when Japan invaded China.
War and Empire in the Twentieth Century Imanuel Geiss, University of Aberdeen The second Sino-Japanese war started in 1937, and it was really the beginning of World War II, because in the Far East it later merged with the Second World
Causes and Consequences of the Second World War Stewart Ross In contrast, the Second World War was much more complicated. Starting in the Far East in 1937, different conflicts started in different regions at different times. These gradually became absorbed into the global struggle.
The Library of Congress World War II Companion Margaret E. Wagner, David M. Kennedy, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn Some historians date the beginning of World War II to the Japanese incursion in Manchuria in 1931; others cite the full-scale Japanese invasion of the Chinese heartland in 1937 as the war's moment of origin. But Japan's military adventurism had as yet only regional implications. Arguably, Japan might have been appeased, and its provocations confined to one corner of Asia, by some recognition of its stake in China -- noxious as that might have been to recognized norms of international behavior, not to mention to the Chinese.But world war came only when Europe, too, plunged into the maelstrom with Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939. (emphasis mine)
The Dragon's War: Allied Operations and the Fate of China, 1937-1947 Maochun Yu On 7 July 1937, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident ingnited a full-scale war between China and Japan, which, in the opinion of many, marked the real beginning of World War II in Asia
The Origins of the Second World War A. J. P. Taylor Most wars begin raggedly. In the minds of Englishmen 4 August 1914 is unshakably fixed as the date when the first World war began; yet by then France and Germany had been at war for twenty-four hours, Russia and Germany for three days, Serbia and Austria-Hungary for almost a week. The second World war is vaguer still in its opening; the Russians date it from 22 June 1941, the Chinese from November 1937, the Abyssinians [or Ethiopians, as we now would say], I suppose, from October 1935, and the Americans from 7 December 1941. The American date is the most sensible. The war truly became world-wide — much more so than the first World war — only after Pearl Harbor.
The Changing World of Soviet Russia David J. Dallin According to Stalin, the first skirmishes of this second World War began in 1937-38.
Embracing defeat: Japan in the wake of World War II John W. Dower For Americans, World War II began in December 1941 and ended three years and eight months later. Japan's war, in contrast, began with the conquest of Manchuria in 1931 and expanded to all-out war against China in 1937
China: Its History and Culture William Scott Morton The date of the outbreak of World War II varies ... Americans usually reckon it from December 7, 1941, the date of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But for Europeans the war began in 1939, and for the Chinese in 1937.
Research Guide to American Historical Biography Robert Muccigrosso, Suzanne Niemeyer, Walton Beacham In foreign policy he led the nation through the dangerous years of turmoil as the Second World War began in Asia in 1937 and in Europe in 1939
The United States in the world arena: an essay in recent history Walt Whitman Rostow ...On this view, the Second World War began with the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in 1931...
Contemporary China: a reference digest Trans-Pacific News Service The second World War started in 1931 when Japan violated the sovereignty and the administrative and territorial integrity of China...
The Columbia Guide to Asian American History Gary Y. Okihiro World War II began for most Americans when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian Islands. But for many Chinese Americans the war started a decade earlier, when Japan's armies marched into northwestern China in 1931 and into Shanghai the following year.
The long way to freedom James Thomson Shotwell ... a condition which grew worse instead of better until in September 1931 - the very time Japan started World War II in Manchuria...
Gateway to Asia: Sinkiang, Frontier of the Chinese Far West Martin Richard Norins, Institute of Pacific Relations Not until 1931, when Japan began World War II by her invasion of Manchuria, was this remote Sinkiang hinterland at last roughly awakened.
Writers & Company Eleanor Wachtel The Chinese call it World War II; they consider that World War II started in China and that the Chinese helped end the war.
The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge The New York Times Japan occupied Manchuria as a protectorate in 1931-1932 and invaded China in 1937—the start of World War II in Asia. ... With Hitler's invasion of Poland in September, World War II began in Europe. (The Asian phase of World War II had begun two years earlier.)
The War With Japan: The Period of Balance, May 1942-October 1943 H. P. Willmott Europeans date World War II from 1939 to 1945 and, with North Americans, date the Japanese part of the conflict from December 1941 to August 1945. The Japanese official histories date it from September 1931 and the start of the campaign in Manchuria; and, if such a date for the outbreak of the war would not command much sympathy in Western histories, there might well be more then a passing sympathy with any account that sought to establish July 1937, and the beginning of the China war, as the real start of the Second World War.
The Last European War, September 1939/December 1941 John Lukacs THE LAST EUROPEAN WAR began in September 1939. It became the Second World War in December 1941.
The Second World War: An Illustrated History AJP Taylor If a formal declaration of war marks the starting point, the Second World War began in April 1932 when Mao Tse- tung and Chou Teh declared war against Japan
Japanese Army in World War II: Conquest of the Pacific 1941-42 Gordon L. Rottman, Duncan Anderson Japan (Nippon) viewed World War II, which it called the Greater East Asia War (Dai Toa Senso Senkum) as a series of interrelated wars. It had occupied parts of North China in 1931, and the war in China (Shina Jihen) began in earnest in 1937, in which Japan continued its creeping expansion. Conflict with the Soviet Union had occurred on the Siberian border in 1938-1939 in Manchuria, Manchuko, where a puppet state had been established by Japan in 1932. ...
Flags of Our Fathers James Bradley, Ron Powers America went to war in 1941. The Europeans had been fighting since 1939. But for millions of Asians, World War II had begun a decade before, in 1931.
War in Our Time: A Comprehensive and Analytical History in Pictures and Text Harry Brinton Henderson, Herman Charles Morris World War II Began in Manchuria, 1931
Paths to Peace Victor H. Wallace It has often been said, and with much truth, that World War II began in 1931, when Japan found the League powers unwilling to resist its aggression in Manchuria.
A History of the Modern World Robert Roswell Palmer, Joel G. Colton In a sense the Second World War began as early as 1931 with the Japanese seizure of Manchuria.
A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War Williamson Murray, Allan Reed Millett Just when World War II began is a matter of interpretation. Western Europeans and Americans tend to ignore the Japanese incursion into China and to mark the war's beginning with the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939. For Austrians, Czechs, and Slovaks, the war also commenced two years earlier, when the Third Reich used military force to swallow up sovereign nations in Central Europe...
Japanese Economic History, 1930-1960 Janet Hunter, Freda Utley, George Cyril Allen ... If 1937 (when Japan's Second World War began) is taken as the base, ...
Foreign policies of the United States Hollis W. Barber It is by no means out of the realm of reason to state that World War II began in Manchuria in 1931.
Main Currents in American History William Glover Fletcher, United States Army Then the average American slowly began to understand that the second World War broke out in Asia in 1931 and that the Chinese, who refused to bow to the conqueror, had been fighting, for a decade, not only their own battles but those of the Republic of the West.
Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History Spencer Tucker, Priscilla Mary Roberts ...Japanese official histories of World War II begin in September 1931 with the start of the Manchurian Campaign.
When Men Lost Faith in Reason: Reflections on War and Society in the Twentieth Century H. P. Willmott We consider the Second World War in very narrow terms and with precise dates: 1939 and 1945. But Japanese official histories date the Second World War from September 1931 and the conquest of Manchuria. Even if one is inclined to regard July 1937 as a more reasonable starting line, one would not deny that the China Incident was nurtured in Manchuria: ...
The American Military Tradition: From Colonial Times to the Present John Martin Carroll, Colin F. Baxter For Europeans the Second World War is given very precise dates: it began in September 1939... For the United States, this conflict also has very precise dates, but the dates are different from those of Europeans. It began in December 1941... When this war began for Japan, and for China, is quite another matter.
The History of World War II - A Wall Chart John Keegan World War II has a simple story. It is that of the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies by their enemies, eventually to be called the United Nations. The unfolding of the war, however, is by no means simple. It comprised several wars, at least one of which was already in progress when Adolf Hitler invaded Poland on September 1,1939, the date usually chosen to mark the war's beginning in the history books. That war was the one between China and Japan, which had opened in 1937 when Japan captured China's coastal cities; as early as 1931, however, Japan had violated Chinese sovereignty by seizing the northern territory of Manchuria.

Another of the wars comprising World War II stemmed from Italian aggression in Africa. In 1936 Mussolini annexed Ethiopia and then, after the outbreak of general war in Europe, invaded the British colonial territories on Ethiopia's borders. The first of Britain's victories of the Second World War were the defeat of those invasions, the liberation of Ethiopia and the rout of the Italian army in Libya.
British Strategy and Politics During the Phony War: Before the Balloon Went Up Martin Kantor, Nick Smart The German invasion of Poland began on 1 September 1939, and the British government did, along with the French, declare war on Germany two days later. But these events did not makr the start of the Second World War. That conflict began more than two years later in December 1941 when, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and with Mussolini in tow, Hitler declared war on the United States of America.


I think that is quite enough sources from reliable enough sources that it is worth at least a reference as a minority view. The Land (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You could try a survey of the literature, but I'd be surprised in '39 was even the majority view. '37 is certainly the familiar value to me, and demonstratably quoted many times above. It's not remotely 'fringe'. WilyD 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw this discussion elsewhere as well. The sources above seem to me to be notable enough. The current lead of the article, saying that the article broke out earlier in Asia, seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. The traditional date for the starting of the war in Europe seems to be generally not-contested, and can presumably stay the same. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
NONE of the above are global histories of the conflict but are either specialist studies or about other subjects entirely. ALL global histories of the conflict date it 1939-45. For example:

In the text of the article a 1937 startpoint is taken as normative and Sept 1939 is not even marked by the smallest sub-heading. This is seriously misleading to the reader. All my attempts in the article to mark out Sept 1939 as significant have been deleted by Oberiko - who has then put warning notices on my page for my temerity in stating the obvious. Hitler's invasion of Poland is buried in the middle of a section, with no indication that this was important as the beginning of Hitler's war and his scheme of world dominatrion.

The text in the article runs as follows:

Japanese forces during the Battle of WuhanIn mid-1937, following the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Japan began a full invasion of China. The Soviets quickly lent support to China, effectively ending China's prior cooperation with Germany. Starting at Shanghai, the Japanese pushed Chinese forces back, capturing the capital Nanjing in December. In June of 1938 Chinese forces stalled the Japanese advance by flooding the Yellow River. Though this bought time to prepare their defenses at Wuhan, the city was still taken by October.[19] During this time, Japanese and Soviet forces engaged in a minor skirmish at Lake Khasan; in May of 1939, they became involved in a more serious border war.[20]
In Europe, Germany and Italy were becoming bolder. In March 1938, Germany annexed Austria, again provoking little response from other European powers.[21] Encouraged, Hitler began making claims on the Sudetenland; France and Britain conceded these for a promise of no further territorial demands.[22] Germany soon reneged, and in March 1939 fully occupied Czechoslovakia.
Soviet and German officers in PolandAlarmed, and with Hitler making further demands on Danzig, France and Britain guaranteed their support for Polish independence; when Italy conquered Albania in April, the same guarantee was extended to Romania and Greece.[23] The Soviet Union also attempted to ally with France and Britain, but was rebuffed due to western suspicions about Soviet motives and capability.[24] Shortly after the Franco-British pledges to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel; following this, in a move that shocked all other major powers, Germany and the Soviet Union concluded a non-aggression pact, including a secret agreement to split Poland and eastern Europe between them.[25]

[THIS IS WHERE I ATTEMPTED TO PUT A SUB-HEADING ADVERTING TO SIGNIFICANCE OF SEPT 1939]

By the start of September 1939, the Soviets had routed Japanese forces and the Germans invaded Poland. France, Britain, and the countries of the Commonwealth declared war on Germany but lent little support other than a small French attack into the Saarland.[26] In mid-September, after signing an armistice with Japan, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland.[27] By early October, Poland had been divided between Germany and the Soviet Union. During the battle in Poland, Japan launched its first attack against Changsha, a strategically important Chinese city, but was repulsed by early October.

In a previous edit I attempted to put a sub-heading at September 1939 - the point where ALL global histories of World War Two start but was abused by Oberiko on my Talk Page and told I was being disruptive for pointing out the overwhelming conscensus. Oberiko is the owner of the article and has forced his fringe view on everybody, putting the fringe view as normative and relentlessly deleting anything which suggests that September 1939 was at all important. Colin4C (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh. So, the following aren't global?
  • A World at Total War: Global Conflict and the Politics of Destruction, 1937-1945
  • Critical Perspectives on World War II
  • War and Empire in the Twentieth Century
  • Causes and Consequences of the Second World War
  • The Library of Congress World War II Companion
  • The Origins of the Second World War
  • The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge
  • The Second World War: An Illustrated History
In any case, this isn't really a forum for you to give your personal opinions of this material. If you don't think they are neutral, disprove their neutrality according to WP:NPOV guidelines. Thus far, the consensus is that they at represent at least a significant minority. Oberiko (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
None of the books you have listed there is a global history of World War Two giving the dates 1937-45. All global histories of World War Two give the dates 1939-45. I grant you there was conflict and war from 1937, but such conflict is not designated in any global history as World War Two. The latter is almost by definition 1939-45 and is often referred to synonymously as the 1939-45 War. In the article you have presented 1937-45 as the normative dates for the conflict, ignoring the vast consensus that gives 1939-45 as the normative view. You even deleted a tiny sub-heading I put in the article adverting to the significance of 1939 - so not only have you promoted the fringe view as normative you have forbidden (as the presumed owner of the article) any mention in the body of the article of the overwhelming concensus giving significance to the 1939 date. That is POV. Colin4C (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The consensus view of historians on the 1939 date is a common concensus generally:

Putting forward 1937 as either a common concensus or a concensus of historians is just plain wrong. According to the wikipedia the 1937 war was the Second Sino-Japanese War. Except that it wasn't even called a war but an "incident". This "incident" does not, by common and historical consensus mark the beginning of World War Two. To describe it as the concensus view is wrong and POV. Colin4C (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what conversation you've been reading, but no one's arguing that it started in 1937. We're arguing that at least a significant minority believe it began on a date other then 1939. Also, keep in mind your Google results are almost all going to be western sources, which we all agree uses 1939 as the predominant start date. Oberiko (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oberiko - I believe that you are being disingenuous. You have consistently defended the prominence of the 1937 date in the first paragraph of the article. 22:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, because the section is called War breaks out. Not the "Second World War starts", but the generic term war. We simply put when Japanese entered full-scale warfare against the Chinese (start of the SSJW) and when the European War broke out in the same paragraph. This was agreed on quite some time ago with a fairly large number of editors.
Regardless, this discussion is on the significance of the sources, which I believe has been confirmed. Let's keep the discussion on the World War II article itself on the World War II talk page. Oberiko (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No this is the NPOV noticeboard, and you brought the discussion to this page. I contend that you are violating WP:NPOV because you have not demonstrated a prominent adherent that supports you position on thw 1937 date. Jooler (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You can contend what you like. I brought here my sources for discussion to see if they comprised, at least, a significant minority, which seems to be the consensus; nothing more, nothing less. 23:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
More seriously, this display consists largely of the misunderstanding of a rhetorical figure: to make the point that WWII was the result of a continuous build-up of tension, most of these say, as R. R. Palmer does: In a sense the Second World War began as early as 1931... But only in a sense; Palmer does not deny tbat the war itself began in 1939. Other dates in which it began in a sense are 1921, 1914, 1866... The same thing can be said of any major war; the American Revolution began "in a sense" in 1676, with Bacon's Rebellion.
Much of the rest of this is an opinion, attested for several Asian countries, that the Pacific War is as a whole part of WWII, instead of only in part (several of the historian who are quoted above do hold only a part is included). That is a reaxonable claim for those countries, and should be noted in World War II; but even some of its advocates would not use it in writing a history of the whole war.
Beyond that there are the simply misunderstood and misrepresented: "For Americans, WWII did not begin" until America entered the war. As irrelevant as the equally true (and equally false) For Americans, WWI did not begin until 1917..
It is disingenuous to claim that this is "a minority view"; it is disingenuous to cite some of these as denying that "WWII began in 1939" - rather, they assert something else is also true. It is several whole sheafs of different views (1931, 1937, 1941; he seems to have missed 1936 "in a sense"), mostly misrepresented by our advocate here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the volume and variety of sources, many very credible by any standard holds it to be, at least, a minority view. I think it's also falls under WP:OR for you to be saying that a historian is wrong in their opinion. Other then that, I think you're agreeing with me. No one's claiming that 1939 isn't predominantly used by Western sources (and even they are split between Sep 1 and Sep 3), but that a wide multitude of other dates are, quite credibly, also used. Oberiko (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Most of these sources would not dispute that the war did begin September 1939, although they think something needs to be added to that. Almost all of them disagree with each other on what does need to be added. The volume and diversity here defeats Oberiko's argument more than it supports it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It supports that WWII is a complicated affair, and using a single hard fixed point is far from universal. Even Western histories disagree between Sep 1 and Sep 3 1939. And most of the sources would agree that the European War began in '39, but quite clearly disagree that the Second World War did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 01:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we know you disagree; but does anyone else? (Palmer writes, to be exact The Second World War opened with the assault on Poland. 1965 ed, p. 827.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you've been following the discussion, you'll see that several other editors feel the same way, as well as the first commenter's here that these views do represent, at least, a significant minority. Oberiko (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. You could even argue that WWII started in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles:) The standard historiography is that WWII started in 1939 however it's certainly valid to have a section of the article that cites historians who argue that important conflicts that are considered to be part of WWII, such as the Second Sino-Japanese War actually began several years before and, of course, that there are several other conflicts that were important precursors or preludes to WWII such as the Spanish Civil War and the Italian invasion of Abyssinia and of course the Chinese invasion of Manchuria. Certainly there are a number of historians who assert that the Spanish Civil War was really the first conflict of WWII (at least by proxy in the European Theatre) and had the European democracies stopped Franco, Germany would not have been emboldened to act aggressively. Nevertheless, the standard historical consensus is that WWII began in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and the French and British declaration of war on Germany in response. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and 1921 is a variant on Versailles, something to do with German disarmament conventions. I propose to insert a note on the historiography as Perrin suggests. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Majority view isn't under debate. What is is if these sources represent a significant minority. It would appear that most would agree. Oberiko (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Many things appear to Oberiko, including agreement among these sources. But are any of them the case? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I never said that, all I've said is that other dates then 1939 used often enough to warrant inclusion. Oberiko (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, A MEDCAB case has been opened by me. You can look over it at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-13 World War II
"WWII is a complicated affair, and using a single hard fixed point is far from universal" Indeed. The table listed by Oberiko clearly represent a significant minority including some very well-known authors. Sadly the same arguments keep getting repeated over and over; we aren't making much headway here, on the WW2 page, or in the mediation case. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem being that the well-known ones either do not support this themselves (they say others do), or are (like Palmer) being cited disingenuously. The only exception I see is Taylor, whose view is a small minority, but which is not now represented in our article at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is confusing historical rhetoric with the actual timing of an event. Wikipedia, for example, actually began back n Hellenistic Greece, though it was not called so at the time. The ultimate causes of WWII, if one wishes to stretch things far enough, are probably part of the biological evolution of mankind. Stick to the standard terminology, with a section explaining how otherwise it can be seen.DGG (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources for those points of view? Oberiko (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Harvey Mansfield" article

This article pretends to a certain neutrality, but then twice cites one journalist's (Kennicot's) negative critique of Mansfield, and offers another criticism from Greenwald in Salon with no other assessment. These sources accuse Mansfield of holding a "dangerous" point of view (based, in part, apparently, on Mansfield's failure to discuss the current war in Iraq) and of holding "a Machiavellian view of the role of the Executive branch" and "advocating pure lawlessness and tyranny." These are extremely strong charges, presented under the guise of authority, but with virtually no discussion, support or balance.

Then there is this: "He is perhaps most notable for his generally conservative stance on political issues in his writings, often in the minority compared to the outlook of his own as well as other top political science departments..."

Conservatives may well represent a minority of the political science profession (support?), but then this is true for any conservative in any poli sci dept. It also implies that Mansfield in particular has been judged and found wanting by the "top political science departments." These departments are not named, the criteria by which they have been determined to be the top departments are unknown, nor are the particular minority opinions of Mansfield cited, nor are the grounds for those departmental disagreements specified. This statement also suggests that Mansfield is not merely a conservative, but that this is his most notable aspect (not, say, his scholarship).

In all, the article needs re-writing. I didn't want to simply remove whole paragraphs, but I think the article ought to be flagged.

The Kennicott article is perhaps over-cited, but quite on-point. Greenwald writes on his blog, although its hosted at Salon, so we shouldn't include it - the quote adds little to the article anyway. The balance of the article isn't as poor as it could be, though mainstream academic reviews of his work are noticeably thin. (Not that they were any less scathing. I'm thinking of Martha, here.) Solid re-writing really needed, but the weightage less problematic now.
Done some cleanup to the lead and what-not as well, including the problem sentence noted above. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Philosophy

Someone suggested posting here. Could someone help on Talk:Philosophy with explaining WP:NPOV. I'm not asking for any help on the technical details of the subject, just another helping hand to explain what the policy is. The problem is that some of the sources conflict (not very much). I explained WP:NPOV and what is required in such cases (we present alternatives and so forth - I have put a quotations from policy on the talk page). But I am rather getting at end of tether. Thanks in advance! Peter Damian (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)