This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

If a editor uploads photographs of individial who and gives a title that may but the identifiable person life at risk; would this be grounds for deletion?Subha7 (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

which image are you talking about? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. Alternatively, the image might be moved, if it is the title that is the issue and not the image. A lot depends on what is dangerous about the title. The Biographies of Living Persons policy applies to all spaces. See the guide to image deletion for some processes for nominating articles for deletion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Turner

This is nothing more than a character assassination. Only the perceived negative aspects of her time at Emmerdale have been addressed. It isn't a biography in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarajgoodwin (talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong here but I think this is a WP:BOLP issue. Try this other noticeboard.--LexCorp (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a character assassination (the points made appear to be supported, and relate to demonstrated performance, they aren't personal attacks). There is an issue of WP:WEIGHT; the easy solution to that problem is to flesh out the article to include additional information unrelated to the incident in question, or to introduce counter-arguments (which must also be supported with references). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The criticism is not all referenced and is presented in a slanted way. I am going to make some edits and also post a notice on BLPN. Thanks for raising this. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently dealing with an editor who wants to use an opinion piece penned by a Cato Institute member for the National Review to make an unattributed statement of fact in an article, using words that don't even appear in the cited op-ed. This seems to be a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV#A simple formulation and WP:V (and thereby WP:RS), but I would appreciate some outside views on how the issue should be tackled. Please see Talk:Climatic Research Unit#National Review. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

This article should not be classified as a "myth". The word "myth" implies that the story is false. At least the word "theory" implies that the story is plausible. This article is not objective.

Remove the word "myth" from the title, opening description and URL. This is a wide-spread belief that transcends languages and faiths. It ought to be a scholarly treatment of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxh973 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This question has been considered many times on the article's talk page -- most editors believe that Wikipedia should follow the scientific mainstream by classifying these ideas as myths. (There is no contradiction between being a wide-spread belief and being a myth.) Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case, there is no 'wide-spread belief' - the article makes it clear that there are many flood myths or legends, not one belief. Some are about men taming nature gods, for instance. There are some common themes, eg creating order out of chaos, that are not discussed and should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed - this is Okh973's first and only edit - he/she hasn't even bothered to bring this up on the talk page of the article where it really belongs. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved from the talk page

This is an article about a Pagan Roman celebration with a date that coincides with Christmas. The article cites the "Catholic Encyclopedia" often, with no Pagan sources or ancient historical sources.

This seems to be the opposite of neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimeice (talk • contribs)

CE is in the public domain, so it's easy to fill out articles with text from it. But it's terribly out of date and of course it does reflect a Catholic viewpoint. Do you have any suggestions of scholarly sources to use instead? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a user that keeps trying to manipulate the uskok page. Uskoks were 16-17th century Croatian pirates from Senj on the Adriatic, yet this user is repeatedly trying to weasel in a reference that does not even support his statements. He has used various IP addresses as well as his username, and I also suspect he has another username. He refuses to use the discussion page, so mediation is a moot point. I would appreciate help and advice. --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am new and don't know how to add a new subject however This is a legitimate scientific discovery and should be on Wiki. Here is a link to the National Geographic page describing this 10 year old mystery. I for one believe its as legitimate as the other "tale" and should be given equal space. if anything it illustrates the real mindset of those from that time. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-week/4290/Overview13#tab-Videos/07367_00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencers63 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

it is already metioned on the Simon of Peraea page. It does however seem to be a bit fringe.?Slatersteven (talk)

Note: This issues is currently invalid as one of the contributors Redheylin wanted his statements out of the table. I'll pursue this in another way later. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Issue being debated: Whether or not to insert a mugshot (see left) of Osho at the section of the article about his arrest:

• File:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) - Mug shot.jpg
• Caption: Osho's mugshot after he was issued a thirty-five-count indictment in Multnomah County, Oregon on 28 October 1985 for immigration violations, making false statements on his visa application. He agreed to pay $400,000 in fines and was deported from the United States

The insertion of the picture itself (not the caption) is disputed. I'm ok with whatever caption they want to use as long as it summarizes the Arrest section.

I have attempted to summarize the Against arguments but I'm sorry if I missed anything from them. The full debate can be seen here on the article's talk page: Talk:Osho_(Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh)#Mugshot

In the light of the above for/against arguments, do you think its wrong to insert the picture in the arrest section? We would like to hear some more opinions in order to decide consensus. Thank you. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a significant part of the individual's history and biography, and as such I'd say that the photo is indeed highly relevant, and appropriate in the article about the subject. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there are three people that did not support the addition of this booking shot and the talkpage comments are worth a read to assist in formulating an opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've summarized the arguments from both sides and have already linked the talk page (twice) and invited people to take a look there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added notes to the relevant talk page advising user Matt57 that I feel he has misrepresented my remarks on that page and here and that he has failed to assume good faith and to show civility. I trust he will take steps to rectify this. Redheylin (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(1) I've been as civil and nuetral as possible. Could you quote me and tell me where I havent been civil? (2) I've allowed anyone to edit the table above as you can see. Feel free to edit the "against" column of the table in case you thought I didnt put in your views correctly.

It doesnt look like we've had any input on this matter from other editors so maybe we need to do something else like mediation. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt57 As stated above, I have addressed these issues on the relevant talk page and you have failed to respond there. I have pointed out that I am neutral on the matter of this pic and entered in order to mediate and explain why it might be summarily removed, that I object to your using these words of mine as a "case against", particularly in view of the fact that you have alleged bad faith and NNPOV on my part. Please remove my contributions from this page and answer this on the talk page, Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly said I've given anyone permission to edit the table. I dont remember who wrote what so go ahead and delete whatever you like. This section doesnt matter anyway because no other editor has given any input here so maybe the next step (mediation?) is needed. We didnt get any input probably because its obvious to others that the picture should belong there in the section about his arrest. I'll reply the rest on the other talk page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Complainant has not removed info but says he withdraws. I have removed the info myself. Redheylin (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs some eyeballs on it. I did a cleanup of the article today, but I believe there is still much left to be desired. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My first stumble came from the term "Confederate Southern Americans". Is there a definition somewhere for this? I think it really needs to be included. After all, there is no Confederacy to belong to any more, does someone have to be born in the South, descended from ex-Confederates, what? The cited instances where they have defended the display of the Confederate flag help, but there must be something more substantive to the definition other than overt behavior. I hope, anyway. Riverpa (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Both these articles have a section called " no physical contact policy".

I believe the article should stay as it was where it simply stated that there was a no contact rule policy. However, two editors want to add why the other side believes the rule should exist.

At first I was okay with this. But then they wanted to add more and more quotes "against the rule". The problem I have with this is that it becomes biased towards one side. Information is not presented that states why the rule is a poor rule( which the experts from CNN gave plenty of).

The article is a touchy subject( no pun intended)the same as apartheid or slavery would be. However, I don't think we would see coverage of why apartheid was good, now would we? Having a rule telling boys they can't shake hands or girls they can't hug is...?

68.119.67.94 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An Editor keeps adding one side of argument only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comment at Wikipedia:Editor assistance --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One line reads "Hagin chose not to litigate against these reckless and false claims, as would have been his right, as these claims were hearsay meant to damage him apart from a factual basis."

This is clearly biased. The article really needs to be cleaned up.

Philovino (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has come to the Iraq War page and tagged it for neutrality on the grounds that "it makes the US and her allies seem like bad guys." No specific examples of NPOV language or sections, or undue weight have been listed. The editor has admitted to not reading the entire article. I've tried removing the tag until issues are listed, but another editor has replaced it on the grounds that "the neutrality has been disputed." Is there a policy specifying requirements for tagging? It seems to me that while two editors are simply replacing the tag through brute force and without listing any issues for editors wishing to remove the tag to work on, there is no way to get it removed and thus the article is permanently flagged for POV whether or not any issues actually exist. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad you asked: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Best practices in heavily monitored articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What about when no consensus can be reached as to whether or not there is an issue? This example being that exact situation. One editor says "article is POV." I removed the tag and said, "we need specific issues before we tag the article." Another editor said, "because the first editor said the article is POV, there is a NPOV dispute." And then a fourth agreed with me that specific issues were needed to justify the tag. In that case we have 2 for and 2 against the tag. Do we default to tagging or no tagging? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're supposed to explain to the editor why it's not in violation of NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely that's not so, you're suggesting that in the face of such arbitrary and unsupported persistence an editor's response must be to prove a negative. Furthermore, to do so for an article of hundreds of sentences, thoroughness would require proving that negative about every sentence, no? Wouldn't the onus be on the person(s) making the claim of POV in the first place? I'd say more than three solid examples in such a long article. I'm not suggesting the article is not POV, and I've certainly seen Wikipedia articles that are, I'm just being logical here. Abrazame (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)]]

Who said Wikipedia's rules were logical? AFAIK, this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and everyone's views are considered equally valid. If someone says there's a NPOV violation even without merit, then there's a POV dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If an editor doesn't specify exactly what is disputed there is no dispute. The guidelines are clear that it's the responsibility of the person placing the tag to explain why. Everyone's views are not considered equally valid. The statement, 'this is biased' has no validity whatsoever without evidence to support the assertion. People say 'this are biased' all over the place here. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"The guidelines are clear that it's the responsibility of the person placing the tag to explain why". Can you please cite the section of the policy or guideline that says such a thing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DRIVEBY and the template documentation. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to have no requirements for tagging. There would be nothing stopping bad faith editors from tagging any article with impunity. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The BBC describes the Daily Mail as having "Political allegiance: Right-leaning with traditionally conservative values." Does saying this as the "political" aspect of the paper in the newspaper infobox make any imputation of political bias in its stories? One editor asserts "We should be very careful before accusing newspapers of political bias." Many thanks. Collect (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion: I think the problem here is that the word "bias" has a pejorative connotation ("accuse"), whereas those who align themselves with a given opinion may perceive this "bias" as "straightforward common sense". Yet the above BBC description is RS and is balanced in the article by the statement that the Mail itself considers the BBC leftist. I'd say statements such as "pro-fascist in the 1930s" and "anti-EU" accurately and reliably describe opinions that are normally categorised as "right-leaning". It leads us to expect a given slant on the world but is not an "accusation of bias" as regards any particular story, providing one does not say in wiki (as one might say in the world!) "but that's just the Mail" or similar. Obviously, a specific accusation or imputation of bias should only be made in a particular case by referring to a particular authoritative source-critical statement, preferably one dealing with that case. But please note, though I read the policy pages before answering, this statement is only a single opinion of a single humble user, and carries no further authority. To prove it, here's some OR. Last year I stopped by the library to give the local paper the two minutes it deserves. A fellow came to the table and asked "does anyone have the Mail?" After a long silence I said "nobody wants to admit it...." The round of laughter was gratifying and revealing, if inappropriate to the location. Hope this helps! Redheylin (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion: The political field of the Template:Infobox newspaper was created in order to identity newspapers that identified with a political party. Many newspapers were founded as organs for political parties although this has changed over time. Today newspapers are largely independant businesses, with some exceptions including radical publications. Most newspapers claim to be politically independant. While it is appropriate to discuss the political viewpoint of newspapers in their articles, it is not appropriate in the infobox. There is also a question whether the political field refers to editorial policy or news reporting. While the Daily Mail has been disparaged as a "Tory rag", it has in the past supported New Labour and claims no political allegiance. Use of this field has lead to major disputes over the New York Times and Wall Street Journal articles. I notice that this issue has been raised in many fora in the past although I have not participated. Perhaps Collect could provide us with further details because he appears to have participated in many of these discussions. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As I found no such basis in any discussion on the infobox for the assertion that the infobox was for newspapers only identifying with a particular party, and the Daily Mail use specifically does not so assert, I fear you may be inserting your own opinion rather than fact about that template. Indeed, I found no such assertions regarding the origins of that template. As for making personal comments about me, I find such a means of discussion objectionable and would ask you refactor such remarks. Collect (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Conservative" with a small "c" is not a party, neither is "right leaning". Four Deuces, if you have an equally RS source with a different "alignment" description, I'd suggest bringing it forward to the talk page. And you can also campaign to have the field removed, but this is not the right place for that. As things stand the field is standard and correctly filled in. Please contact me if I can help. Redheylin (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Is "Holy Land" a universally accepted term for this territory or Protestantism in the Holy Land is a biased title/article? -- Marawe (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Used by Christians, Jews, Moslems -- seems ok to me. Collect (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the term is sufficiently widespread to be acceptable, though the Systemic Bias/Worldwide view guidelines recommend that the term be explained to the rest of the world (by linking to Holy land). It might have been clever to have avoided it in the title but it's done now. Suggest dreaming up other places readers may look and installing suitable redirects. More bothersome is that the article lacks context and possibly notability (decided minority) and contains only one further statement that is pretty loaded (Muslim mafia) and does not explicitly refer to Protestants. It might have been better to include the info in existing articles. I also note that all the refs are to other Wiki articles, which is unacceptable. The article may be deletable if these things are not corrected. There is already an article Palestinian Christians. Redheylin (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lots of issues here:

1. The article seems to refer to Palestine, not the "Holy Land" at large.
2. All the references are to other WP articles.
3. Seems to overlap an existing article (as Redheylin points out)
4. Meaning of Holy Land is not clear; the article Holy Land states that term is another name for Levant, Canaan, Land of Israel, and Promised Land.

I wouldn't know where to start fixing this one... AFD? T34CH (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD is not necessarily the most appropriate solution. Either stub it right down to the one or two things that aren't referenced to WP, or merge back into Palestinian Christians. If you tag it for merge and start a discussion then some editors may be able to expand it with references. But anyone could just boldly do the merge without a discussion. There must be info out there, e.g. names of churches and their leaders from the international websites of major Protestant denominations and churches. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it up like you suggested, and it looked so pathetic I redirected it to Palestinian Christians. T34CH (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why we are allowed boldly to merge. Someone can break it out of Palestinian Christians again at a later date if more material emerges. I'm sure you made the right decision for now. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

BHRT is the subject of an editing dispute between three editors - myself, Hillinpa (talk · contribs) and Riverpa (talk · contribs). There is extensive discussion of BHRT in many reliable sources, including many position statements by medical organizations, the majority of which are skeptical and critical. There have been repeated accusations of bias on the talk page. Anyone external input would be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you summarise the points of contention, because it's a long article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WLU believes that this article should only address "BHRT", the treatment method using bioidentical hormones that is covered in the popular press, uses compounded hormones, saliva testing, and tries to establish a pre-determined level of hormones in the body. This has been popularized by books written by Suzanne Somers, and is touted on the internet by compounding pharmacies. There is a great deal of skepticism and criticism of this methodology in the medical establishment. Therefore, WLU believes that the article should be entirely critical and skeptical in reference to any mention of bioidentical, notwithstanding the fact that there are many bioidentical hormones used in FDA-approved and regulated prescription drugs, and that there is some (though little) research that indicates that they may be preferable to the more commonly used Conjugated Estrogens. I would prefer that compounded "BHRT" be addressed separately from the FDA-approved bioidentical hormones.

When looking at the article you may want to look at this [1] version, which is what the article was when this posting was put up and I put a POV tag on it. WLU has been trying to make it more neutral ever since then by including references that he would not allow anyone else to cite in the past, by deleting any changes made. Sorry for the state of the article, I know it is hard to read, but most of the improvements I make are soon reverted. Please see the Talk page, too. Riverpa (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources and professional bodies are skeptical of the many claims made for bioidentical hormones. There are a very small number of positive sources (three) that claim scientific research supports the use of BHRT over conventional HRT. Against considerable opposition, I have edited towards featuring the mainstream position of skepticism and criticism. Re-reading the page and reworking the sections, as well as making time to re-read one of the "pro" sources, I have expanded the relatively sparse praise of BHRT today. Hillinpa (talk · contribs) (a single-purpose account on this issue) and Riverpa (talk · contribs) believe the page is unfairly critical. I believe it places due weight on the majority sources. Hillinpa is also of the opinion that the article should cite primary sources dealing with individual bioidentical hormones (progesterone, estriol and estrodiol I believe) to prove they are superior to conventional HRT. I believe this is inappropriate per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS (specifically the the emphasis on secondary sources in the latter) as well as ignoring the implications of the many, many critical review and opinion articles and position statements by the various governing bodies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you go to this cite referenced in the article [2] you will find a fairly comprehensive review of the issue. Cirigliano is a balanced literature review cited in the article. As WLU has indicated, he is the only one making significant changes to the article because he apparently feels he is the only one qualified to do so, without trying to reach any kind of consensus. Riverpa (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested in getting a substantial understanding of the topic should go to the article. There are 44 separate references, of which that article (which I have used extensively and I will point out is three years old and aimed at a popular audience) is one. Many are freely available from the web. The FDA and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ⋅have also released 2009 documents which reiterate past points - BHRT is unduly promoted as a miracle cure, without evidence. I believe what Riverpa wishes is that the article deal with the risks and benefits of specific bioidentical hormones - estriol, progesterone and estradiol - using primary sources to demonstrate their benefits. I have repeatedly pointed out that we are to use secondary sources and the body of literature to determine the overall direction of the page. But at this point I've lost the plot, all I know is that when a statement is challenged, I can usually find several high-quality sources to support it, within less than an hour. I would recommend Chervenak, 2009 (PMID 19766414 or I can e-mail it) as a good and brief review of the skeptical position. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that there are two meanings for "bioidentical hormones". 1) hormones that are created to be or happen to be bioidentical and 2) hormone treatments marketed as bioidentical. Is that right? If so, the article should make that clear early on. Then it should not really go into 1) in much detail, because the detail will be covered anyway in hormone replacement therapy. It should deal with 2), and thus will necessarily reflect the mainstream sceptical view of these treatments. Hope that makes sense. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your view of the current POV of the article? Riverpa (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your view does indeed make sense which is why I have been trying to get some differentiation between the FDA-approved hormones, and the compounded hormones for some time now - I made this RfC [3] but no one commented. One of the previous editors declined to comment because there was so much POV-pushing going on in the article from before I arrived. I made a proposal to put most of the current text of the article under a heading Compounded BHRT, with the addition of another small section to cover the FDA-approved version, but WLU will not cooperate with that request, and won't let me edit the article significantly. In addition to the POV, I consider the article badly structured and in need of copyediting, yet any time I try to improve layout or style, it is soon revised back to what appears to me to be a badly written diatribe against compounded BHRT, without even explaining its basic concepts, much less its more radical concepts, which should be covered in this article. Some of this is indicated in Talk here. [4] You should understand that I am not a proponent of compounded BHRT, I simply think this article is not a good example of a NPOV informative piece, reflects poorly on WP, and is being propagated into the world under WP's aegis. Riverpa (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If the previous editor that declined to comment is User:SandyGeorgia, she does not say who is POV-pushing link, and both this and a previous comment suggests we should be editing according to WP:MEDRS - respecting secondary sources and the general scholarly opinion. The critical sources do not say "compounded BHRT is terrible, but if they just took away compounding and saliva testing everything would be great". There is never a statement in the critical sources that give a blanket endorsement to bioidentical hormones as superior to conventional hormones. There are many to say that BHRT should have the same risks and benefits as conventional HRT, and that CHRT has the benefit of being well-studied and tested. That section of the talk page is actually a pretty good indication of what I would consider to be the inappropriate push that is being made:

1. An insistence that we review individual bioidentical hormones (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)
2. That we use "The evidence for and against estradiol and progesterone" (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH again, as well as WP:MEDRS - specifically that we use secondary sources, which the page is primarily based on)
3. That we should use published reviews to counter statements by three different governing bodies (WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and more than a bit of WP:TRUTH)
4. That we should review evidence for different types of delivery mechanisms for specific risks like breast cancer (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)
5. That we should do the above because it is "the primary issue of concern to women" (WP:SOAP, WP:TRUTH, WP:UNDUE)
6. That the current article is "the majority view of the drug-company funded organizations" (WP:FRINGE, specifically the "conspiracy to silence" line - without specific, reliably-sourced statements that BHRT is being kept down by the drug companies, this objection isn't even worth discussing)
7. That we should not deal with compounding in great detail (Every critical source mentions compounding as a significant part of BRHT, WP:UNDUE)
8. That we should include "pro-compounding" (and apparently pro BHRT) sources (many if not most sources mention that compounding is unnecessary)
9. That somehow the current version doesn't include "high-quality reviews or studies, or statements from prominent organizations" (33 of the current 44 sources are to a peer-reviewed journal article or a statement by an authoritative body).

I see this as both non-negotiable (these changes would place far more emphasis on the clearly minority viewpoint that bioidenticals are superior to conventional hormones) and by using primary sources and ignoring secondary sources and statements by authoritative bodies the edits would lead towards an inappropriate conclusion that there is much merit to bioidenticals. There are lots of sources that deal with bioidentical hormones as a class, so there is no need (and we shouldn't anyway) build the page using primary sources about hormones that are not bioidentical. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and it's clearly verifiable that right now, BHRT is not seen as a good thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WLU, you are going to have to provide some diffs that show that I am asking for or claiming all of those things that you have listed above, because I believe that you have created most of them out of thin air. Riverpa (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And if you can't post the diffs, I think you should strike the comments immediately and consider why you are posting them. Riverpa (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, this is a article about a medical topic, therefore the most reliable sources are articles in the peer-reviewed literature and statements from major medical organisations, such as the CDC, NIH, AMA or NHS. To follow NPOV, editors cannot use their own interpretations of terms or select primary research articles from the literature, instead the article should accurately summarise the mainstream view put forward in secondary sources, preferably review articles written by experts in the field of endocrinology. The article may note a minority view put forward in less-reliable sources, such as the popular press or books published by reputable publishers, but such a summary should not be presented as to give it undue weight versus the majority view among experts in reliable secondary sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim, one of the greater issues we face is whether this is actually happening. Undue weight is certainly one of the trickier areas to navigate on wikipedia, requiring both an open mind, the ability to read and understand sources (subject expertise), and the willingness to let the sources decide the issues. As an experienced editor, I think the above nine points are obviously problematic. Equally obviously - there is disagreement and we are no closer to a permanent consensus version. I would be more concerned about my own edits if it were not for the tremendous ease with which I can find multiple citations to support the statements made. In fact, about the only non-problematic way to edit the page is to use three or four citations to support a single sentence.

Riverpa - the comments I made were based on Hillinpa's initial comments in the section you linked to: thus. It's not about you, it's about the page. At no point did I say "Riverpa is responsible for all these evils", my statement was that the section referred to (by you) was indicative of the problems with the page, and why they were problematic. It was added by Hillinpa in this edit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at those comments I think they do pose a problem, particularly the idea that Wikipedia should classify the topic into sub-sections such as "Pharmacy-Compounded Bioidentical Hormone Therapy" that are novel classifications. If expert reviews do not make such a distinction, neither should we. The core problem seems to be whether or not to classify estradiol and progesterone as part of "Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy". For this, just follow the sources - do expert reviews on bioidentical hormone replacement therapy discuss these compounds as part of this topic? If they do, so do we, if they don't, then neither do we. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim, that is the basis of the entire debate here - as can be seen on the majority of the talk page currently. I contend that the great majority of the sources differentiate between compounded bioidentical hormones, (usually explicitly, in their introductions), and the FDA approved variety, when they usually explain that their articles are about compounded hormones. And as they progress into their content, they usually drop the term compounded. Sources vary. Given that the term 'bioidentical' itself is contentious, FDA used to be quite specific in referring to compounded bioidenticals when they referred to them at all - now they do not ever use the term bioidentical. Cirigliano is consistent in referring to compounded bioidenticals throughout. A consumer oriented column from Mayo Clinic is the only source that does not use the term compounded. So if you pick and choose among sources and quotes, and do not refer to the context of a sentence, you can write the entire article without using the word compounded. I think that this in itself is POV, since most sources differ substantially in their treatment of compounded and manufactured bioidenticals. Given the confusion in terminology (which is well documented in many articles), I have pressed for a consistent usage of the term compounded throughout the article in referring to compounded hormones, to differentiate from the FDA-approved product. If multiple well-qualified sources do not agree, I feel the proper course should be more specificity. I do not know how else to resolve the issue. Riverpa (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Do any sources use the term "manufactured bioidenticals"? I can't find any. In the context of the topic of Bioidentical Hormone Therapy (BHT), the term "bioidenticals" seems to me to be used synonymously with "compounded bioidenticals", in that BHT is usually used to refer to this set of questionable practices. Essentially, BHT seems to be a marketing term. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

They tend to use the term FDA-approved, rather than manufactured. I used the term manufactured because, in reality, the compounded drugs are created from FDA-approved bulk hormones. BHT may have been co-opted as a marketing term for the alternative treatment, but bioidentical has been used in hormone packaging for years, and has come into common use as meaning identical to endogenous hormones, as seen on the NAMS website definition.

Just to give you a bit of background - as the article is currently structured, it primarily refers to a treatment methodology termed "Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy" or BHRT, popularized by Suzanne Sommers in her books, and now by Oprah. I have been advocating that the article reflect the dual use of the term. WLU writes on the Talk page "Bioidentical hormones" as molecules exist and are used, but "bioidentical hormones" as a set of unsupported claims, unnecessary compounding, unclear testing and an unethical marketing concept is what people are pissed off about and what most of the publications are about."

• • Point 1 of NPOV: I do not dispute the preceeding comment, however I still believe, that however marginal, the theory, basis of the treatment, and expected results of compounded BHRT deserve to be coherently explained in the article before they are criticized and condemned.
  • Point 2 of NPOV: However, if you look at the FDA-approved BHRT, there is no condemnation, there is some positive evidence, and I think that needs to be included, too.

WLU basically does not agree with either of these points, and edits the article against them. In order to reasonably include either of these points, the article would need some serious re-writing and re-structuring. I don't think that the content of the article should be guided by the content of best-selling books or what people are pissed off about, I think it should be guided by actual research. Many critical literature reviews were written in response to the popularity of the treatment method that uses compounded BHRT: as WLU says, people were pissed off, but that should not weigh against legitimate scientific inquiry into the bioidentical hormones. Riverpa (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to write about progesterone, estriol or estrodiol, then do so in these specific articles. However, I don't think it would be a good idea to, for example, cite a study on progesterone that doesn't mention bioidentical hormaone replacement therapy in the article on BHRT. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood, though that is kind of hard, given that the "Boothby table" has multiple items that refer only to the individual hormones progesterone, estriol, and testosterone (which is the only mention of testosterone in the entire article, though it used in BHRT compounding as that is the only way it can be dispensed for women, which I think should be mentioned in the article). Does that mean that the refs to individual hormones in the Boothby article need be deleted? Or is is more along the line of, if the reference article addresses compounding, and also individual bioidentical hormones, it it acceptable? Riverpa (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Boothby article is a secondary source aimed at summarizing and evaluating specific claims, made by specific individuals, about specific bioidentical hormones, within the context of the bioidentical hormone debate, in a way that addresses the evidence basis for these specific claims. Again, I'd refer interested readers to the Boothby article itself (e-mail me for a pdf copy). This article looks at whether the claims made for bioidentical hormones as a class are meaningful. That table could be replaced with a blanket statement of "bioidentical hormones are not better than nonbioidentical", but that's a bit to blunt and lacks nuance.

I've removed the testosterone bit, it does stand out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

However, the table and article both lack the Boothby (p 403) finding "Micronized progesterone and pregnane derivatives (Table 2; [23–26]) were not associated with an increased venous thromboembolism risk, whereas norpregnane derivatives (e.g., nomegestrol acetate, uromegestrol acetate; see Table 1; were associated with increased risk of thromboembolism (odds ratio (OR) 3.9; 95% CI 1.5–10.0). Thus, certain progestins are associated with increased cardiovascular risk, whereas pregnane derivatives and micronized progesterone neither increase nor decrease cardiovascular risk in the doses studied.", where the "certain progestins" are non-bioidentical and micronized progesterone is bioidentical (or as Boothby's table specifies, Structurally identical to human endogenous progestin). I don't think you should put in all the negative individual hormone findings and leave out the positive finding from the same reference, that is cherry picking. And I am not trying to get you to remove the testosterone listing, it is considered by some to be an integral part of the whole compounded BHRT treatment, as well as DHEA. I just need to know how these situations should be addressed going forward. Riverpa (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is about the neutrality or lack thereof of the overall page. This is a specific factual claim, and the above statement is more than a little problematic if read in context of the whole article (both Boothby and BHRT). I've replied here, but we should restrict the discussion here to NPOV questions. To address the situations moving forward, a referral to the main source with the full context is the best way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is going to take some time to get into shape, even assuming a reasonable level of co-operation between editors coming to it from very different viewpoints. First it has to start off with a much clearer explanation of what it actually is. I'm very confused by the way "compounding" is used for example. The linked article compounding is not in good shape either. Although I understand that "compounding" means basically processing items together in order to make a pharmaceutical product, I am not getting a clear explanation of whether BHRT is more compounded or differently compounded than conventional HRT. The basic explanation section is not going to be the easiest one to write, because the sources probably assume knowledge that you should not assume on the part of a WP reader. After that, I advise that you agree further subsections without POV-forking. In other words, absorb the criticism section into the rest. So that you go: "it supposedly does this (source), but apparently it doesn't (source)" throughout. (Unless of course there are some agreed points, when you will say "it does this (source, source)". Remember that the purpose of the encyclopedia is neither to promote nor to debunk, and stick to the scientific sources for the science, to news sources if you need news, e.g. about marketing. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

BHRT didn't exist before it started getting promoted as a miracle answer to the Women's Health Initiative study arm that indicated the use of hormone treatment for the relief of the symptoms of menopause increased the risk coronary heart disease, breast cancer, stroke and pulmonary embolism. Bioidentical hormones were siezed as an answer to these claims - advocates thought that the problems were caused by nonhuman hormones, not by hormones period. Bioidenticals were then launched as a whole package with a lot of marketing towards specific points - they're "natural"; they're "safe"; they're better than safe - you'll look younger, feel sexier and live better; and they're "customized" - this is where compounding and saliva testing comes in. Saliva testing is used to estimate levels of hormones in the body and which ones are "deficient" (which assumes an ideal level exists, and that the saliva tests are worthwhile - they aren't). Compounding is used so "customized" formulations can be created (based on tests). This is the main way that BHRT hit the public stage; the Wiley Protocol can be seen as an extreme microcosm of these issues. This whole package was highly criticized (witness the many sources on the page). Some promoters (Holtorf, Schwartz and Moskowitz) published articles (and popular books) saying that because bioidenticals are the same molecules as those produced in the body, they are inherently better; they also attempted to decouple bioidenticals from compounding and saliva testing. Most of the articles explicitly criticize compounding and saliva testing, some refine their criticism to focus on the research behind bioidentical molecules explicitly (and generally say "it's not tested, so there's no reason to think it's more effective than Premarin or other well-researched preparations, and by the way there's nothing to support the crazy claims about being a 20-year-old again). A very small number address claims specific to bioidentical hormones as molecules, not as a therapeutic package. But again, if you read the sources, it all comes down to a general convergence that BHRT isn't a panacea, it's expected to have risks, and there's no research- or results-based reason to believe they're any better than what's available on the market today. The end result is a lot of articles which state that there's no reason to believe the hype about bioidenticals (but nor is there a reason to conclude with certainty that they're bad either). What I think Hillinpa and Riverpa see as lacking on the page is a statement saying "bioidentical hormones stripped of compounding, saliva testing and hype is better". Well, none of the critical articles say that. A few noncritical articles make the claim, but a few critical ones also state that the research is problematic.

Regarding compounding specifically - any drug can be compounded to remove colourants or allergins for instance, or increase a dose, or turn a pill into a lozenge. Generally this is done rarely, by trained pharmacists, in response to specific needs (like allergies or difficulty swallowing), based on a prescription. BHRT took it a step further to say all BHRT should be compounded to "individualize" treatment. Critics responded that it adds to the expense, quality control is lower and there doesn't seem to be a need (or at least the question hasn't been studied). A couple point out that the high doses used can result in problems like endometrial hyperplasia, and when the FDA tested some compounded products they were way off in terms of potency and I think purity.

Compounding and BHRT are strongly conflated; there's justification in both conflating them, and criticizing the conflation because the don't need to be linked. BHRT doesn't need to be compounded, but based on what BHRT has meant in the past, it has been more compounded than CHRT.

I really urge anyone interested to actually review the source material - it's pretty accessible and illustrates the slippery point that was originally raised - is the article NPOV in being mostly critical, or fairly representing the scientific consensus? People criticize creationism for being NPOV, but is it really? That's a hard question to answer since it's not really a scientific issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Judith, I am working on an explanation of BHRT, I have done some work, though more needs to be put in. Here is a link to some text that describes BHRT history and methodology.[5] Please feel free to comment, I have started a section on the Talk page here [6] for that.

And PS, thank you for taking your time and energy to do this.Riverpa (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago I asked at the RS board if this article from this textbook was a RS for this edit. There was no objection, but the issue of attribution was raised.[7] Can I get some input on this before I take it to the talk page: Does the fact that this otherwise mainstream psychologist--educated at mainstream universities, taught at mainstream universities, published in mainstream journals--has one article in a textbook on critical psychology (suggested by the WP article to be anti-mainstream) mean that we need to attribute this source as a critical psychologist? I'm bringing it here first because of the highly contested nature of this article and the speed with which the edit was removed (twice). T34CH (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It was me that raised that, but I'm not an expert on either this psychologist or the field. I'd say that, since he is published in "Critical Psychology", on the face of it I think the attribution would be appropriate. However, if you can bring evidence that he is not, then OK.

From what I do know about this, Critical Psychology, although maybe it can be described as "anti-mainstream", is a generally respected school (ie the fact that the writer is well-qualified and has published in mainstream journals is not evidence against him being a Critical Psychologist). --FormerIP (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else? Does this need to be attributed to a Critical Psychologist? T34CH (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology. --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As one who has edited this article in the past, my own neutrality may be questioned, so I'm requesting a sanity check. To me, this relatively brief text appears to be the last "neutral" or "impartial" version, while this next, much longer version seems to be cruft, highly partial to the SCM POV.

The edit summary makes a point of having multiple sources, but some are cited in a curiously uncheckable way. Example: text "according to the C.I.A. figures" is footnoted "Tim Turner of www.AmericaCanBeFree.com and curent Secretary of State for the newly formed Republic of the United States, Freedom Conference presentation, Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2009, Oakland, CA". Dubious source to cite for "CIA figures"; and where is the text of this presentation? Other cites-in-full include: "Redemption Method Handbook"; "Constitution of the united (deliberate lower case u) States of American" [sic]; "'The Creature from Jekyll Island'"; "'Bank Act'". (Google of course does not care whether "united" is capitalized; and "Bank Act" is just as uselessly vague.)

Would it be over-bold to remove this "sourced" text by simply reverting to that prior version? Would that fall afoul of our respect for references? Is any other forum more appropriate than here to ask? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to Dec 1 version. Riverpa (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Indian Navy page has been reverted by user:Bilcat. The agreed upon term that was in use was decolonization, is it possible to use non-controversial terms other than invasion or liberation in the page? Or why not just use the operations name?Bcs09 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments are solicited here. The article is fortunately referenced almost entirely to linked Google Books, so it should be easy to read the sources and see if they are being properly represented, or in a biased way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved

I've added mostly third party references to Gamma Rho Lambda's article, but I'm confused if I need to remove ALL self-published references (there are 4 of them out of 13). If so, do I remove all content as well that is taken from the organization's website?

Also, I'm confused about the notability issue on the flagging. Is there a way to resolve that now that the dead links and additional resources have been added, or does it just get reviewed in time? I realize this isn't the place to get feedback on that, but I'm not sure where to ask.

I've also created a Talk section for the topic: Talk:Gamma Rho Lambda

Cindy B. (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This article appears to be being used by some people as a tool to attempt to further their own views and opinions. There is an apparent bias towards the "Knox is a poor innocent American girl abroad" view and tendency to derogate the Italian legal system and certain of it's officials. Evidence for this situation can be seen in the article's talk page.

I feel that this article is obviously very emotive for certain sections of society and would benefit from the attentions of editors well versed in projecting a neutral (or at least balanced) point of view. Such a revision would stand a good chance of being respected and accepted by all and prevent any tendency for an edit war to occur. rturus (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article appears unbalanced but would add that this bias is evident in both directions, depending on which section you're reading. There are also a number of factual errors including misrepresentations of some of the cited references that undermine the credibility of the article, on the whole. Given the emotions surrounding this case someone really needs to address this as well as the over-reliance on conflicting news sources rather than official records. -christaltips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christaltips (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The third paragraph on the article dedicated to ferrihydrite is a blatant break of the neutral point of view rules by the editor, Alain Manceau. This paragraph describes his work on this matter and the evidence in its favour is overblown. The final sentence 'A new structural model was proposed in 2007[17], but shown to be incorrect.[18][19][11]' is not at all the case. There is still much debate in the scientific literature on the structure of this phase and the model proposed by Michel et al (ref 17) is seen by many as a viable alternative to the so called 'standard model'. Wikipedia is not the forum for this kind of debate and for the editor to make it sound like the issue is settled is nothing more than propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81Rich (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a current dispute on the Jim Inhofe page which has resulted in full protection of the article. The issues at hand appear to be inherently revolving around WP:NPOV arguments. See the discussion at and around [8].

I believe that the POV template ((POV)) should be placed on this article until such time as the dispute is resolved. What do others think? --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Jim Inhofe#Aviation should be significantly expanded. (Probably not what y'all are arguing about though.) -Atmoz (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For reference, Jim Inhofe, is more than likely up to his armpits in the shit stirring of climategate, so there is likely a connnection between this and the climategate referral above. Isonomia (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The article Frank Chopp, about Washington State's Speaker of the House, is under attack by an editor who insists on inserting extreme POV attacks.

I have tried to restore some semblance of neutrality, but this person keeps putting it back (and accusing me of BEING Frank Chopp, in the body of the article, which is ridiculous). For instance, he continually changes his occupation from "Community Organizer" (Chopp has worked for a Seattle non-profit social services agency for 30 years) to "Developer", which is simply not true. He also continually refers to the Building Industry Association of Washington as "extreme right wing", which also isn't true; they're pro-development, and can certainly be criticized for that, but not in this article! The editor is obsessed with Chopp's position on the Alaska Way Viaduct replacement plan. I don't know how to do more to stop this POV stuff. Help! \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 21:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fnarf999, I have worked on re-writing the article to stop the NPOV problem. However, do understand the BIAW *is* extreme right wing. Please read the BIAW article.  kgrr ^talk 14:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not "extreme right wing". They are extreme pro-development, which is not the same thing. They support both Republicans and Democrats; that's not right-wing. They have never as far as I know taken a position on any of the social-values "hot button" issues, such as abortion rights, same-sex marriage, welfare, health care, drug decriminalization, public display of Christian symbols, ad infinitum. That's not right-wing. They ARE absolutists on the subject of development: anything that helps the construction industry in any way is good, anything that hurts it in any way is bad. That's anti-environmentalist to be sure, but it's not right-wing. If you made a list of positions that qualify as "right wing", they would get a checkmark on exactly ONE of them. They're doing exactly what one would expect them to do: applying special-interest pressure as strongly as they can. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The wedge issues you mention are not the definition of "right wing". Certainly the BIAW gets checkmarks next to economic freedom, property rights, free markets, free trade and full-fledged laissez-faire economics. Where do they stand on political reform? for change or for status quo? They certainly don't want Retro reform or Election reform. Which checkmark do they get for pro / anti union? Anti-union. Taxation policies? Low taxation. A collection of individuals or a society? A collection of individuals, etc, etc. Who are the candidates they are electing? Right wing candidates. Certainly they don't stand behind pro-development Democrats, but fund campaigns of the Republican instead. Certainly builders want to make a good profit on selling a home. But the BIAW is against public schools. Having good schools is essential for good property values. Pro-development or Pro-conservative?  kgrr ^talk 02:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• CreativeSoul7981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - She has also been removing a paragraph from the Semitic article describing how Northern Semites and certain Indo-Europeans (Iranians, Armenians, Kurds) share some genetic similarities that indicates a common ancestry because (as she said in the talk page) "Most Iranians, all Kurds, Armenians, etc. NOT Semitic." In the talk page for the article She brings up that 1 of the 28 professors that is present in only 1 of the 3 studies cited had a completely different paper rejected as justification to remove a section still well sourced by the other two studies. She has yet to bring any sources that tie genetics (what the sourced section is about) with culture (what she has otherwise been using to justify removal of the Semitic para) to the point were cultural studies would trump genetic studies. Also, in the Magi article, she was removing the line "It is, therefore, quite likely that the sacerdotal caste of the Magi was distinct from the Median tribe of the same name" without providing any thing to counter the source it comes from (an Oxford scholar). She claims the sentence is "inflammatory." In the talk page, she did bring in two sources: one was about the three wisemen, included quotes from Marco Polo, and really didn't have anything with the subject (it was about 1500 years too late); the other was a new-age website. In the talk pages, she has also gone on a bit about how she is descended from Iranian Zoroastrians and how Zoroastrianism is related to Christianity (when those have no bearing on the subject). While an editor's ancestry and religion should not be an issue, he refuses to allow certain scholarly findings into the Magi and Semitic article that do not justify her idea of Iranian racial and cultural purity. Removing info that doesn't justify one's personal views on race is not NPOV. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see what you mean. The user challenges one source and it is worth addressing that. I know it was a different article that was the subject of criticism in Nature, but this is highly unusual and may cast a shadow over the scholar's other work. And he was the lead author of the source being questioned. Do you actually need that source? I see two other academic sources supporting the same point. You may want to raise the issue at RSN. On the user's general approach, I think you need to continue to assert, politely but firmly, that we are not interested in her own ethnic origin and we don't want to read long personal outflowings on talk pages. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an issue here regarding the infamous play made during the 1991 World Series between Hrbek & Gant. User User Talk:Marlin1975 (with whom I've having a hard time continuing to assume good faith, as he appears to be following my edits since he lost an argument over on the FOX News Channel article) is claiming that I am attempting to push a particular point of view by insisting that the article reflect the official scoring decision of Major League Baseball, rather than the Atlanta fan decision that Hrbek lifted Gant off the bag. If you look at the edit history, you will see that my edit contained the phrase "controversial play", and gave the sides of the issue, and even his primary reference contains the phrase "And, in what appeared to be a pretty nifty move -- for wrestling -- Hrbek seemed to..." lift Gant, and so on. That source works fine for the official decision as it contains the fact that Coble called him out. His secondary source is an opinion piece on ESPN regarding how good the series was, and has one sentence regarding the issue - but no facts. In order to avoid 3RR I'm bring the issue here.
How should an encyclopedic article portray this issue: As a controversial play but from the point of view of the final decision? Or should it present the view from the point of view of the team that the call went against? To me, that's pretty simple - an encyclopedia goes with the official scoring decision and allows for the fact that it was controversial. Rapier1 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems the reason the incident can even be sourced is that it was controversial, that Gant was called out but (presumably) shouldn't have been. So saying he was called out should not be a problem, and describing the opinion that he shouldn't have been shouldn't be either, especially if that opinion is widespread (can be sourced well). That said, the current wording in the Hrbek article is quite nonencyclopedic. I would drop the "Fans may remember..." phrase, and the commentators' weight analysis altogether. I would much prefer a neutral opinion, sportscasters say, than fan opinion about the call, even if fan opinion can be sourced (think about it, how often do fans think their team got the raw end of a call?) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Half of the REFs for this one say Gant was lifted. These REFs are not from a Atlantas newspaper and/or fan but one is even a NYTIMES piece done the day after the event, and even the commentators at the game saw it the same way. To say it happened like mr jedi likes to phrase it would be inserting his POV which by looking at his edits is very common. --Marlin1975 (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and look here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Minnesota_Twins#Kent_Hrbek Looks like Jedi Rapier1 is trying to get others to jump in here from the Minn. Twins section. Even calling my a Atlanta fan. Kinda funny, guess I should burn my nationals hat and move south. :) It just shows he only wants his POV in there and not the facts that are listed in 50% of the REFs. The 4th REF was not a BLOG/Opinion site as he seems to want to lead to but from a reporter... "Jim Caple is the national baseball writer for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer" --Marlin1975 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I actually let the usergroup that focuses on this area know about the discussion and asked for "any input". That's definately a sign of "inserting POV". Since you are making it a habit of commenting on the editor, as opposed to the edit, I'll point out that you seem to have a history of edit warring, even to the point of being banned at one point. It appears to me that because you lost a single argument you are now focused on following my edits and trying to raise any issue you can. This also appears to be habitual behavior for you. Again, I'm putting in the "point of view" of Major League Baseball. This wasn't an issue where instant replay can decide the call, it's purely judgement by the closest umpire, and that judgement was that Gant would have been out due to forward progress, not that Hrbek pulled him off the bag. If you want to make a page for the "Kent Hrbek - Ron Gant Controversy of the 1991 World Series", that might be a better place to add all this detail. For that matter, it should be edited to show on Ron Gant's page that it "appeared" that Hrbek pulled Gant off the base, not that he "did". The only opinion that matters is Drew Cobel's, he made up his mind 18 years ago, and trying to rewrite history now to indicate otherwise is editing in bad faith, period. Rapier1 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This discussion is so toxic that I think y'all ought to head over to mediation. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. How about it Marlin, would you agree? Rapier1 (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to know what to do when an article has been hijacked by a group of people who are using it to promote their political interests and using numbers to disregard the guidelines of Wikipedia in regards to pov, unverified claims and third party publications.

The tenants of the article Persian people and it's Pov fork Persian speakers of Iran are based on unverified and false claims that are contradictory to third party publications such the CIA Factbook, the UNHCR, the Joshua project and countless other Iranian publications. All sources that contradict this scheme is simply ignored or suppressed,

Some of the unverified claims included:

• “The Persian peoples emerged as an eclectic collection of groups with the Persian language being the main shared legacy”

• “Numerous dialects and regional identities emerged over time”

The main function of the article is to deny, distort and dilute the ethnic designation of the Persian people by making a series of unverified claims and exploiting the fact that the Persian language was used by several different ethnic groups thus diluting the Persian ethnic identity by lumping Tajiks and Hazaras into the article, despite the fact that the aforementioned groups have their own article that refutes the claims that they are Persians.

Persians like several ethnic groups are not an ethno-linguistic group as their native tongue is not used exclusively by them. According to the 2007 report by the Organisatin Internationale de la Francophonie, an estimated 115 million African people speak across 21 Francophone African countries can speak French as either a first or a second language. But no third party publications consider those Africans as ethnically French.

Other factors must be weighed in when considering the collective identity of non-ethnolingustic groups such as culture, heritage and identity.

I have tried to edit the article but the interest group used editing warring and socked puppery to prevent all edits from lasting.

Danz23 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The ongoing debate regarding the title of this article should be reviewed by neutral editors, and a consensus decision reached. It seems (to me) that the story centers on the content of the hacked emails and not the hacking itself. Thus although the term "Climategate" may be suggestive, it is more accurate and far better-known than the current title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmote (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there is absolutely no solid evidence that the emails were hacked, and the only anlysis I've seen is that the emails were probably collected together by the University probably in preparation for an Freedom of Information release - which for some reason did not happen until they were released by person(s) unknown. So even saying "Hacking incident" is very likely to be POV. I just checked an there are 23million google hits for "climategate". Personally, the only way I can find the article is by looking for "climategate" because the present title has no meaning at all, and is not the way I've seen any commentator refer to the scandal - and the whole point about the event is the the scandal in the emails. The mechanism of their delivery is totally almost completely irrelevant to the article. They could have been delivered by flying pig and the basic article would be the same (although I could provide a nice graphic!) Isonomia (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Inonomia is not a neutral person on this subject, and his opinion contradicts current policy and guidelines. As the article FAQ makes clear:

Article names are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality to satisfy Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. The use of "scandal" or "-gate" frequently implies wrongdoing or a particular point of view. Such terms are words to avoid and should not be used in article titles. Climategate is a redirect to this article, so users typing that in the search box will be directed here. You are not prohibited from proposing a rename, but renaming an article requires consensus. Proposals to rename the article to "Climategate" have consistently been rejected in the course of multiple discussions.

Reliable sources support the idea that the term is inherently biased. One source, Time magazine, noted the distinction: "Skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud, refer to the incident as "Climategate," with obvious intimations of scandal and cover-up. Advocates of action on warming call it "Swifthack," a reference to the 2004 character attacks on presidential candidate Senator John Kerry by the group then known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — in other words, an invented scandal propagated by conservatives and the media that does nothing to change the scientific case for climate change."[9] Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the dispute over naming the incident should be covered the same way as any other dispute - by summarizing what reliable sources have to say on the topic. This source actually spends its first paragraph or two talking about dueling names for the incident, and might be a useful starting point. The name of the article itself seems somewhat less important, since I assume redirects are in place and anyone looking for it, by whatever name, will find it. I'd be more interested in a neutral, well-sourced treatment of the dispute over naming the incident. I guess I'd throw out a few additional suggestions, since "hacking" seems to be a bit controversial; you could try "Climatic Research Unit email controversy", for instance... MastCell ^Talk 00:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no real controversy in reliable sources about hacking; it's been described in those or similar terms by the police and the university, and it's being investigated by Scotland Yard's e-crimes (i.e. anti-hacking) unit. A few bloggers and op-ed columnists have speculated about "whistleblowers" but there is no indication of this from anything said by the parties involved - i.e. the police and the university - that this was anything other than a hack. The RealClimate website was also hacked, which has been described in some detail by one of the website's administrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, beyond speculation by some bloggers (and sadly, on Wikipedia, too, though we're supposed to know better than that), there is no suggestion of another explanation of the incident than hacking. To state that use of the word "hacking" is controversial is to ignore what all the reliable sources are saying--as well as what they are not saying. --TS 12:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with TS and ChrisO. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) The use of the term "Climategate" is restricted to a group of people who believe that the e-mails provide evidence that climate change science is a hoax. Since that point of view has not gained wide acceptance, the name "Climategate" is not neutral. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we should stick to the neutral and supported name of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident per CO, TS, TFD, etc. Verbal chat 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not in support of changing the name to Climategate, but I cannot let the above two statements stand unchallenged. It is categorically false to claim that the term is only used by those who think climate change science is a hoax. A simple Google News Search will identify its use in hundred of newspapers, virtually all of which reject the notion of a hoax. Second, it is false to claim that the current title is neutral and supported. There is quite strong disagreement over the inclusion of “hacking” though I’m not one of them, and quite strong disagreement that the title should refer to e-mails, given that a substantial portion of the material was other than e-mails. Various attempts to find better terminology have failed, in large part because no one alternative achieved significant acceptance, but the sheer number of attempts belies the claim that the current title is both neutral and supported. I’m not proposing that anything need be done at this time, but I don’t want the record to erroneously conclude that the lack of a change is because the existing term is neutral and supported.SPhilbrickT 17:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the term "Climategate" is inappropriate for the article and that the term is used only by AGW skeptics, but accept WP policy in the matter. I believe that (after contentious debate) consensus is forming on a new, more neutral, article title. Nightmote (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell's assessment of the situation. We should be following reliable sources in determining the article's title. The simple fact is that overwhelming majority of reliable sources on this topic are focusing on the e-mails, not the initial hacking. As for "Climategate", per WP:AVOID, "-gate" is a word to avoid. "Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy" is probably the best name we can come up with. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Appears to have some substantially non-neutral statements in it, and uses what appears to be editor opinion concerning the organization in the wording of section names and in the use of "counter-balancing" section content. It also makes claims about legality of actions which have not even been the subject of any lawsuit. I marked the worst sections for POV, but this appears to be a difficult case (see the Talk page to see editorial POV).

Examples of section titles: "Anti-union" "Anti-public schools" " Anti-tax on builders" "Anti election reform" "Anti Retro-reform".

Examples of "blancing statements" include "BIAW has put proposals before the Washington State Building Code Council to remove the mandatory statewide fire sprinkler requirement for new homes.[30] On the other hand, the United States Fire Administration in their position paper states that sprinklers should be required: It is the position of the U.S. Fire Administration that all citizens should be protected against death, injury, and property loss resulting from fire in their residence. All homes should be equipped with both smoke alarms and automatic fire sprinklers, and all families should have and practice an emergency escape plan. The USFA fully supports all efforts to reduce the tragic toll of fire losses in this nation, including the proposed changes to the International Residential Code that would require automatic sprinklers in all new residential construction.[31]." "The BIAW is Washington state's biggest lobby against climate change, open space, and other environmental legislation. The group's newsletter has gone so far to equate environmentalists with terrorists." And so forth.

I believe that this article needs strong looking at for POV problems. Collect (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My comment is regarding the article on Al Gore's decision to join the military. There is a quote from The Washington Post that is being taken as fact. If using this quote, you should preface it with, "one controversial view, demonstrated in an opinion article from The Washington Post..."

I take great issue with the assertion that someone volunteering to serve their country in the National Guard or the Reserves is seeking "refuge" from service. This is not only an ignorant statement; it is also insulting to all military veterans. I was active duty but I have many friends who served in the guard and reserves. Many of our troops in the guard and reserves have served bravely in combat, defending our country and deserve our respect. It would appear the author is taking a shot at former President George W. Bush because he chose to serve in the National Guard rather than be drafted, but in attacking Bush the author has insulted all military veterans. I find this extremely offensive.

It may be useful to indicate what article you are referring to. --FormerIP (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

knowing what article would be very helpful in fixing the problem you are referring to, but as a general statemeent you could not be more correct. Attempting to claim that anybody that volunteered for National Guard or Reserve service as "attempting to find refuge from service" is a blatant insult to hundreds of thousands of soldiers. That type of wording has absolutely no place in any civil discourse, much less an encyclopedia. Rapier1 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends, Rapier. It could be in a useful quotation, or be representative of a POV relevant to the article, for example. Also I'm not American, so I don't wish to cause offense. But explain two things: (1) is it the case that some avoided the Vietnam draft by joining the National Guard or Reserves? (2) If so, why is it wrong to call this "taking refuge"? --FormerIP (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) saying that someone joining the guard is "taking refuge" is like saying someone joining the Coast Guard is "taking refuge". You are not "taking refuge" when you volunteer to serve your country. Moving out of the country to avoid being drafted is "taking refuge".

I think, though I'm open to counterarguments, that simply using "avoided Vietnam" vs. "taking refuge" would be accurate and less POV. It's a known that joining the National Guard was a relatively easy way to avoid service in Vietnam (this is no longer the case since the U.S. started using Guardsmen in overseas actions, but it was true at the time when the draft provided sufficient manpower to avoid tapping the Guard). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The section being talked about appears to be Al Gore#Vietnam War and journalism. The phrase "took refuge" is in a sourced quotation, so it wouldn't be correct to alter it. You could rephrase the whole thing, I suppose, but this would probably end up quite awkward, and I think using the actual quote is usually better, because faithfulness is guaranteed. To my mind, if you have two options and you take the one that doesn't involve a high risk of death or serious injury, then "taking refuge" is not an unfair discription. So I don't think there's any NPOV issue here at all. Or, at least, if there is one it should be taken up with the Washington Post rather than WP. --FormerIP (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Context is everything. I was able to find that this was in artile Al Gore It says... "Some took refuge in the National Guard or the reserves, options that might save them from Vietnam. A few resisted, became conscientious objectors or left for Canada." In that context I do not see a problem as its in a place that is talking about Vietnam and is using it in correct context. Now that same line outside of that area I would also say should change, but for this page I think it is fine. --Marlin1975 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To the comment on 16:57, 17 December 2009, nobody has suggested altering the sourced quotation. The problem is the quotation is from an opinion piece about Al Gore. The quotation is not preceded by a statement that this is opinion, so the reader is to take this statement as an agreed upon fact. It is not agreed that joining the National Guard/Reserves during the Vietnam War was “taking refuge”. Actually, this assertion is found incredibly offensive by most Americans who have served in the military. I sincerely request that this quotation be removed, replaced or add a preface to it, i.e. “one opinion regarding Al Gore’s decision is…”

But the quote doesn't offer an opinion about Gore's decision, it just tells us that it was an unsual one for his peer-group. The quote is attributed, so there is no suggestion that it is agreed-upon (assuming there is anything in it to agree or disagree about). --FormerIP (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I question why this entire section is in the article at all. I'm no fan of Al Gore, but is it really necessary to go into such detail as to why or why not he was to go into the military? Seems like undue weight given to a particular episode to me. Simply state that "Like many people of his generation he questioned the validity of the Vietnam war, but eventually chose to serve..."blah blah blah. The same references could be used, and if people want to delve into these issues they are free to read them. Rapier1 (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but that should be discussed on the article talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if uninvolved editors would take a look at Something Awful. This page is about a website, and the page seems to be edited mainly by editors who are members of that website, and who may, perhaps, be hostile to material that does not have a positive POV. I have been criticized at that website, so I probably have a POV of my own, and so it would be good if editors who are neutral could take a look at the page with fresh eyes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it violate WP:NPOV to describe the ROC as a government in exile, rather than noting the complicated debate over sovereignty in terms of the political status of Taiwan? Ngchen (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Its straight forward according to WP:NPOV "describe the ROC as a government in exile" according to whom? And in case there are any conflicting perspectives it needs to say "ROC is not a government in exile" according to...? Regarding governments in exile in general than most often its the best to list by whom the government in exile is recognized and by whom not. Its because only the word "government in exile" refers to an existence of 2 governments where both of them are in a dispute over the legitimacy of the governance of the disputed territory. And WP:NPOV just requires that you describe this dispute, not engage in it.--Termer (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the Female Dominance article, especially the content under "Misconceptions about femdom," is very biased and lacking in inline citations so sources are unclear in the first place. It seems to devote unnecessary amount of attention to the supposed risks of this activity, one of them being dependency on this activity for arousal--which can be said of any specific sexual activity, even "normal" ones. It's not clear how scientifically "abnormal" femdom is because the only thing in the current DSM that matches is Sadism, but that is only considered as a diagnosis if the presence of urges bothers the sufferer or interferes with her/his life. When it comes to male dominance, especially with regards to sex, no one thinks it abnormal in the least. I call bias. Thanks and sorry if I was too wordy this is my first post. '_'; --BunnyCatz (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added NPOV and Unencyclopedic tags. not really my field of expertise, so I don't know what I can do to improve it (save remove some of the more obvious psychologisms). I suspect it will be a hard article to balance: there won't be a lot of middle ground between the people who want to demonize it and the people who want to exalt it. --Ludwigs2 09:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Armond White is being used as an example of an "opposing" critic in multiple film articles. When we have so many film critics to rely upon, I'm curious why White, a critic known for his bizarre, contrarian, and even trollish POV (according to Ebert) is acceptable to use as a typical opposing view. White's views are often extreme and out of step. Shouldn't our opposing critical views best represent the most authoritative opposing views on the subject? In other words, why are we relying on White to represent this view? For example, if most opposing critical views say that a particular film fails because the acting was poor or the directing lacked focus, or the story was weak, why should we rely on White, who will often say something strange like "This film is terrible because the white man feels guilty for his imperialist crimes." Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Using such a person as a source for "opposing views" opens the door for a question as to whether such a single person is though multiple articles thus having undue weight given his opinions. I would suggest that, given his reputation, that his opinions then fall into the "fringe" exception regarding RS. If any other negative opinion about a film, but from a less fringe source, can be found, then substituting the less fringe view would be superior. NPOV only requires that we try to present negative opinions, not that we present fringe ones as dominant. Collect (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, but the problem is complex, because, as a result of these strange, but unique views, it becomes possible to argue for their inclusion! White's film criticism is so "unique" he often generates media coverage. For example, White received a lot of buzz when he tried to give District 9 (2009) a negative reivew, and a mild controversy erupted with Ebert. Now, with Avatar, White is doing it again. By writing off-the-wall reviews, White receives notability, while standard, opposing reviews go unnoticed. So what is happening here is that we are including "fringe" reviews only because they are notable for being...fringe. It's a great marketing concept, but where do we draw the line? How many articles will we have where White represents the opposing, contrarian view, when all we really need is a conventional "negative" review? I don't know the answer to this problem. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dies not require including outre reviews -- just that where negative reviews exist, that a representative negative one be cited. Nor does RS require that fringe sources be granted special status for inclusion. Collect (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but someone can easily argue that it is a significant view that received notable coverage due to its controversy. My point is that this is true of many of White's reviews, and seems to be the only reason for inclusion. The real question then becomes, what kind of review should film articles seek to represent? I suppose this question lies outside the scope of this page. On a similar note, Rex Reed has gotten in trouble due to some strange reviews as well, but do we consider him outre? Where do we draw the line? What is a representative negative review? Can we find one? I'm questioning my own questions, that's all. I don't see any easy answers to this. On the one hand, we can label White as outre, but then what about Reed? Where do you draw the line? Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A review used with regard to a film is included not because the review has attracted attention from others, but only for the opinions expressed in the review. The fact that a review has been covered by others does not increase the value of opinions expressed in it -- the review is not giving facts about an article, but it is only allowed in order to state that a particular person (the reviewer) has a specific opinion, thus notoriety for the reviewer has no reasonable basis for making his review more necessary for any article. I would suggest that the Rottentomatoes usage for its major reviewers provides a clue here. I would use it to locate what appears to be a representative negative review from a major reviewer as a first step (the review is what would be cited -- RT is only a tool to find reviews categorized as positive or negative). Collect (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular editor pushing Armond White's reviews? One could object to his reviews on the grounds they are fringe and possibly self promotional especially if a discernible pattern develops. Other editors should understand. Lambanog (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Perennial critics should be treated as WP:WEIGHT would warrant their opinions. If they are being cited in other third-party sources as representative views, then they can be used. If, however, they are just being included in Wikipedia articles to attain "balance", it should be noted that WP:NPOV is not about "balance". The term "balance" was actually removed from our policy on neutrality some years back. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is ostensibly about a scientific journal, but 2/3 of its content is devoted to a scientific controversy, which seems very coatracky to me. There is disagreement on whether to remove it. --TS 12:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've written most of the article, as I said on the talk page there doesn't appear to be much else to write about this journal other than the controversy surrounding one paper that was published in it and I believe that it is written from a WP:NPOV. It seems absolutely essential for this to be included in the article and for it be neutral I think that as much information needs to be included as possible. I've looked at WP:COATRACK and can't really see how it applies, looking at what is not a coatrack it looks like the present article is at least fairly reasonable. I would of course welcome any further information that could be added about the journal, I've looked myself but can't find anything except for information about this one paper. Just in case no-one noticed this is related to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Smartse (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the article informative and it helped me know more about CR. Yes, it needs filling out with more details to balance the incident described, but to remove it is patently absurd. ► RATEL ◄ 15:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If the scientific controversy merits an article, it might be better to produce an article specifically on that subject. If it doesn't, perhaps a section on Global warming controversy might be merited. I don't think we should remove all reference to this controversy, which resulted in half the editorial board walking out and the publisher eventually repudiating the paper in question. But 2/3 of the article ostensibly about one subject should not be devoted to a single related subject. --TS 15:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The controversial article is already mentioned at Sallie Baliunas#Controversy over the 2003 Climate Research paper. I would shorten the discussion in the CR article and provide a link to the Baliunas article. Meanwhile the article should contain more information about CR. Most publications have had controversies of this nature. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the NPOV noticeboard -- and the article appears reasonably neutral. It is not up to us, but to the editors working on the article, to determine how many words on any given topic in the article, but it does not have a POV problem. Collect (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It most emphatically is up to use to decide how much weight to give to a topic in an article. That is very much why this noticeboard exists. If I wrote a 400-word article about the British Royal Family and included in it a 300-word discussion of the theory that Princess Diana was murdered, tht would be undue weight, and would constitute a violation of the neutral point of view policy, even if the treatment of every single item was absolutely neutral. Weight does matter. --TS 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The better solution would be to add additional information about the journal, not to remove information that some people don't like to see. This incident is obviously quite notable since it resulted in the resignations of several editors. Furthermore the recent incident regarding climategate only make it more notable since a good portion of the controversy surounding that incident are directly related to this incident. Finally, the section appears to be written in a neutral form. Arzel (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The article List of nu metal bands was previously tagged for being heavily derived from a singular source. I've also found that several sources don't back up what the editor who added them claims that they back up. I've repeatedly removed several inclusions which are backed up by misrepresented sources and have sources which state that they are not a part of the genre that is the subject of this list, but the editor who added these bands has repeatedly added them back to the article, claiming that the sources are not misrepresented. One example, an Allmusic review is a clear example of misrepresentation, as it does not actually state that the band reviewed is a part of the genre. Several times, the same citation is used for multiple bands when it only refers to one band, owing to the fact that the person who added these citations did not pay attention to add the chapters that actually referred to the bands in question, or, more likely, did not even look at the sources claimed at all. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

That argument is somewhat let down by the inclusion of the relevant page numbers for the book you're referring to, of course. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As stated, several citations repeat for the wrong chapter in reference to multiple bands when the chapter only refers to one band. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

I am not a wiki-editor, it has taken me a while to grasp the complexities of the rules and systems. From what I have seen today I am unlikely to contribute as I now convinced that there is a systemic problem with WP itself being edited by those who are well resourced and co-ordinated enough to promote a non neutral, mainstream POV.

In this instance[10], there are what I consider to be heavy enough voices in five continents repeating the conflict of interests (Business Standard, The Australian, Times of India (publish his public renouncement of the claim), India Express, China Views, The Telegraph, Canada Free Press) and the fact the conflict is raised this time by Monckton and Fielding appears to be used as a diversionary tactic by these people.

If one takes the time to look a little closer it appears that they are editors with the resources to generate 1000's of (often well considered) edits per month that promote a POV which is clearly aligned with the so called 'normal' views punted by the mainstream media. A identifiable variety of tactics are used to revert and discredit views and if one tactic fails another is used until the required POV is expressed. I cite my edit today, where ChrisO misuses the BLP rule but is rapidly supported by another editor using a different tactic.

Other examples numerous and widespread. On the topic of anthropogenic climate change, the battle to mention the term 'Climate gate' let alone call the article by its more popular title. Again the 'normal' POV is promoted by the misuse and apparent promotion of the term 'hacking' (over the more accurate AND neutral term 'cracking') and please note that 'hacking' is used even whilst there is *no evidence* of actual 'cracking' yet (which most significantly leaves the possibility of the email release being whistle-blowing rather than criminal).

I am most distressed by this this threat to WP neutrality on important current issues and pray that WP can find a way to cure what appears to be a systemic problem. I can only hope that the WP foundation takes note of the tens of thousands of editors who have already left in protest this year due to this problem and that this problem is widely publicised and that as a result WP:Foundation strive to find a rapid solution so that good editors can edit without having to do battle with those that *somehow* have the resources to promote their own agenda.

I am a keen FOSS advocate and love that WP came out of the Free Software meme. I share your vision of access to the sum of human knowledge. However I cannot think of a solution and wonder what you think. 94.168.189.5 (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

that promote a POV which is clearly aligned with the so called 'normal' views punted by the mainstream media. Ehm, it is not POV, for the very definition you gave. Wikipedia does not engage in original research. We are here to report what reliable sources have to say, and for sure most sources are "mainstream media". No wonder therefore that WP is aligned with them, for the simple fact that a big part of our "job" is to report them. Doing that is the best approximation of neutral point of view we can attain. That said, I do not understand what has this to do with "paid editing", which you quote in the title but then never again. --Cyclopia^talk 22:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Without using verifiabal sources then any old toot can be inserted as a fact as long as some one claims to bleive it. But (and if I may engage in exaclty the sort of random 'facting' that would result with out the RS and V rules. The user is accusing his opponents of being paid by organisations to protect their interest here on the project, even though he himself is a paid advocate (its obvious)) That is why we need verifibility, ti stop ramdom and poorley sources (in this case unsourced) accusations being presented as proven (and demontrable) facts.Slatersteven (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not obvious at all. I would retract such pretty serious accusations, and invite also our IP fellow to do the same. --Cyclopia^talk 23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If it appears I was making an accusation rather then demonstrating the issue then I withdraw it. I would also ask that the delted material is restored.Slatersteven (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. Well I have learnt a lot today. My apologies for my Newbie stumblings and lack of clarity. Yes my accusations are serious. So it goes. I understand the need for verifiability, but when the consensus in question turns out to be not so reliable and the media appears to be owned and manipulated then what do you do? Turn to a reliable source of information that does not have a corporate agenda? Something like WikiPedia? I was staying in one of Charles Darwins' house last week, I reckon he had a similar problem. AGW is or was a meme held to be true by the majority. It may be untrue. How does Wikipedia handle the shift of large memes that have been reliably reported by the media for many years?

Enough folk seem to feel similarly to me about WP to be looking elsewhere for neutrality, for instance that the climate gate article is not named as the Climate Gate article [11],[12]. And then there is the strangeness that is the scibaby sock puppet/ agenda based long term editing with an agenda issue, but luckily others are writing summaries of the story so that Newbies like me can get their heads around what is going on! [13].

And somehow the WP that we know, rely on and love has to navigate a way through the arguements and produce useful info. I will continue to watch in fascination and will leave the editing to those who have more skill than me. My fear is that WP is being used as a platform for those with agenda's to promote their meme, and maybe, just maybe one of those memes that is especially well co-ordinated and resourced is from those with a NWO agenda[^{[deprecated source?]} This is what I see with ClimateGate and other topics edited by the Fringe Police[TM]. I understand that many editors have left because of this issue. This is why I am editing now, just to say it would be great if WP were able to find a way to remain truly neutral and not just another platform for corporate mainstream media to educate us. Maybe they are wrong? Maybe there is a better way? Surely WP with its foundation on Free Software and there by promoting concept of sharing freely can find a way to do this? : ) All you neutral, dedicated, erudite folk, keep it up! TY 94.168.189.5 (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are aware that Alex Jones makes money off of people being scared of WP being controlled by some sort of NWO, right? That does mean he isn't a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I say that I was not aware? (nor have I given Alex Jones any money) Thank you for the clarity and humour Ian.thomson. I do feel very stupid citing Alex Jones. Nice one. 94.168.189.5 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

you are making some very serious accusations (You do I assume support the accusations in the sources you have posted?). Can any proof be provided for these accusations?Slatersteven (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption is not neccesarily true. Furthermore seeking 'proof' of paid editors would likely be both unhealthy and non-trivial (for me). Nevertheless that does not mean that the issue should not be considered, perhaps using this subject as an example, perhaps not.

In this example, emails were made public. There is a a fairly large amount of edit warring on WP over a large range of articles relating to many aspects of the subject and how the subject is presented. One such highly active 'revert' editor is referenced in the now public emails [14]. If I assume that 'ass hat' = 'the open letter was trash' then it seems to me that the editor used various tactics in reverting edits e.g [15], which seem to be in the lower four items on Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement [16]. Maybe he was just a bit busy recently? I am not sure if he believes that computer models can have any use in predicting climate change (it seems to me to be well beyond our current technical abilities so efforts to do climate modelling seem to be to be without any rational other than having the funding made available to do it), but I am sure that such modeling was useful to him in earning his keep. I do realise that there is an ongoing issue with working out a sensible way of getting neutral contributions from erudite professionals.

On the more generalised question of this subject area being related to an NWO agenda, perhaps a more respected observer would be John Snow [17]. Is this significant or is it crackpot? I don't know yet, but I would like to be able to trust WP enough to help me make up my mind. Thus the question to my mind is this, What can be done to ensure WP neutrality when non-neutral, potentially paid editors are apparently able to frustrate apparently neutral (voluntary) editors efforts? Will there be a mass resignation (is one already in progress and would the foundation take note if there was)?

Additionally if only mainstream sources are respectable enough to use then does WP continue to only use the corporate media memes where scientific dissent (or otherwise) in not promoted. This is going to be increasingly important if WP is to remain 'free'. Is WP aware of upcoming changes to internet provision, where it would appear that only sanctioned sources will be available to the household user?[18] I can see that this path is well worn by others more erudite than me and I have a lot of reading to do. But these are my initial observations. I will now go and RTFM. Pointers welcome. Sorry for jumping into a big issue. I have no doubt made many Newbie errors and will wait a good while before editing again. But hey, at least I can say that I was bold. : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.189.5 (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

but when the consensus in question turns out to be not so reliable and the media appears to be owned and manipulated then what do you do? - Nothing. Like, absolutely nothing. I mean, you use the verb "appear". If something just "appears" to be manipulated, we cannot be sure of that, and our best bet is using what the media say. We're not here to research for the truth, we're here to collect what other people say in the most neutral way possible. If you have issues with AGW, and you want them to be in Wikipedia, your best approach would be to become a climatologist and publish some academic paper on the issue. We cannot offer anything else. --Cyclopia^talk 09:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious issues in this BLP. Could somebody with some egyptology knowlege give it a once-over. Overly-defensive is not even a strong enough way to describe the language used. I have no clue who the guy is or what level his notability is. It's outside of my specialties. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The excessive linking to the Real Climate blog, supported as a RS by User:William M. Connolley raises the concern of undue weight. In total there are 4 references to Real Climate sources in the article, of which only one is peer reviewed. The other 3 are granted their own section - "Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays" - as the last word in the article and are blog posts. This also leaves the user with the impression that there is a consensus against the subject of the article when, in fact, it is only two authors who collaborate on the RC blog.

Redacted: User:William M. Connolley a core member of the RC blog - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/william-m-connolley/ - I'm not sure I understand how someone can vouch for their own blog in this manner, which is why I brought it up here.

The article does quite well in my reading, without the disputed section, of informing the user of the debatable nature of the subject's work and conclusions.

Arnold.A.D. (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the blog. I *was* a member of the blog [19]. You need to argue this on its merits William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

William, the link - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/william-m-connolley/ - does not make it clear that you have cut ties to the site, at least, not in my reading. As linked on your talk page - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/goodbye-to-all-that/ - I no longer take issue with your association with RC and will happily withdraw that assertion from my complaint if allowed. I do think the link I posted to on RC could be made clear that you are not currently working with that site, it comes up on a cross-reference, your goodbye post does not. I can assure you that this error was made in good faith.

I have updated the title and italicized the redacted section of my original inquiry. I still believe the section in question gives undue weight to the RC blog postings, especially when the same source is already referenced earlier in the article. Arnold.A.D. (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, but with the RC association issue put to bed we might want to consider just moving this over to the discussion page. Your thoughts? Arnold.A.D. (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henrik_Svensmark#Recent_Warming_But_No_Trend_in_Galactic_Cosmic_Rays if you'd like to discuss Arnold.A.D. (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I never got a response on this, but the section in question was removed by another editor and has not been reverted after an extended period so I'm calling this resolved Arnold.A.D. (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

An editor, Wikidemon (talk · contribs), has created Climategate scandal as a POV fork of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. The title of the fork is one that has consistently been rejected on NPOV and BLP grounds, and the content uses disallowed unreliable sources, such as blogs, that were excluded from the parent article. The fork is currently being AFD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climategate scandal. Comments from uninvolved parties would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Now redirected back to original article. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, The English Qabalah page (link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Qabalah) is undergoing repeated vandalism by individuals wishing to monopolize the subject by promoting their own theory. The users causing this problem are "Sticky Parkin" and "Dan" (who may be the same individual). A detailed account of what's happening can be seen from the page's history. For the sake of comprehensiveness, I've added information on other theories which they continually erase to aggrandize their own entries. This has been going on for well over a year, and it is the second complaint on Neutrality that I know of. Many thanks, Yuri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.132.4 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that numerology is all jibberish anyway, it is important that any discussion of English Qabalah include discussion of Aleister Crowley and the Thelemites. They are influential to English understanding of this system of mysticism and their influence has been notable. Sorry but "Dan" appears to be in the right here from revision of most recent edits. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Scandals_of_Najib_Tun_Razak by nature of its title and content is pretty clearly intended to attack the subject and circumvent the policy on Biographies of Living Persons. It was also created when Najib Tun Razak was locked due to edit warring. I strongly feel that the article should be deleted.Monkeyassault (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ros Altmann This article has been tagged by User talk:62.239.159.5 who has added no content and has been repeatedly banned. I welcome criticism of her theories but removed what appears to be an unsubstantiated smear. See talk page. Can I remove the tags? JRPG (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I read through the article and removed the tag. While someone could probably add some criticism of her positions on pensions, etc, the courts have made rulings and that must be respected as the majority opinions. Maybe someone could find some balance by some properly cited expansion on the reasons that the actions are being contested? Riverpa (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Riverpa JRPG (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I found in the Wikipedia article on Stephen C. Meyer a violation of the Wiki NPOV rule. The term "psuedoscientific" was used to describe his concept of intelligent design when "controversial" (the preceding term) would have been enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WVEvergreen (talk • contribs) 13:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ID falls into the "Generally considered pseudoscience" category in the WP:PSCI so there is not violation of the NPOV policy.--LexCorp (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, the University of East Anglia has stated that a number of documents in its possession were recently "stolen" and "illegally obtained" by unknown parties who obtained them by hacking a server.[20] Hundreds of reliable media sources likewise report that the documents were stolen and acquired by hacking.[21] The incident has been described by the police as a "data breach" in which they are investigating "criminal offences".[22]

However, a number of editors are arguing for the inclusion of the term "alleged(ly)", a word to avoid, to qualify "stolen", or to eliminate entirely the terms "stolen", "theft" and "hacking" in relation to this incident. They argue that the documents may have been taken by a "whistleblower" or "insider" and that there is no independent evidence of a theft or hacking, therefore referring to it as such is POV. This viewpoint is, as far as I know, not found anywhere in reliable sources but has been advanced by a number of bloggers. The editors in question have not, however, provided any sourcing of any kind for their viewpoint.

From a NPOV perspective, how should we tackle this? Is it necessary to "balance" reliably sourced statements of fact with unsourced speculation? I would be grateful for advice from uninvolved editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:NPOV states that articles should be written in a neutral tone and all the different views of the reliable sources be treated according to their prominence. As far as I can see there are multiple sources that support the "stolen" edit against non or very few sources that support the "alleged" edit. This means that the "alleged" version cannot even be described as a significant minority view so it does not merit inclusion in the article.--LexCorp (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an NPOV-related RFC going on in talk:israel, that editors on this noticeboard may be interested in (the issue concerns how to express the capital of Israel), see Talk:Israel#Request_for_Comment.2FJerusalem where the issue and related sources are presented. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Currently in AfD/Not a neutrality issue

The article Geibeltbad Pirna looks like it has been written by a company employee (with a very poor knowledge of English, maybe using Google translate or something...) I marked it for NPOV but should it be deleted? There is a similar article on the German Wikipedia.--Lidos (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would mark it for PROD - unless you can find some references to it on Google, it looks like just another swimming pool. JMHO Riverpa (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless more sources come out this does not look like material for an encyclopedia. Ludlom (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really an point of view issue becuase it is all just a list of unsourced facts. I Just marked it for deletion becuase I am not sure if all editors would agree. It's entry is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geibeltbad Pirna --MWOAP (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi.

I'm new to Wikipedia so i hope i'm typing this in the right section. I came across a Wikipedia article entitled "Quackery" and i found it was bit biased,made unfounded claims and wasn't neutral. Wikipedia said that the articles on this site are meant to be neutral in point of view & when somebody creates or edits an article to make it as a neutral point of view. I then edited the article to be more neutral and objective in view by making a few minor changes. I changed the words "quackery" to "alleged quackery" because i didnt feel quackery was neutral as it was assumed but wasn't a proven fact based on evidence. I also removed the references to a site called Quackwatch by a person named Stephen Barret i think, as this website and man has been founded in the court of law to not have an objective,neutral point of view. There was also a definition of the word "Quackery" by this same above man,so i edited that out and replaced it with a more neutral definition by a dictionary because a dictionary would provide a more neutral,objective viewpoint versus an opinion. Also,i edited out a few things where the original article had made claims that a certain organisation or thing had said something but references wern't provided or the links to the references wern't working so readers wouldn't know if this was based in fact.

In general,i only made a few minor changes and tried to make it more balanced and neutral but where any readers would still get the origins of the word,history of the use of the word,how it has been used today in modern society and that there were allegations towards certain techniques or persons a "quackery" but i also made sure to add that these were just allegations and often wernt founded on evidence,so that way the article was more clinical,balanced and neutral rather then coming off as having a non neutral point of view based on personal opinion or emotion instead of neutrality,evidence and factualness.

I then received a message which said along the lines of Welcome to Wikipedia etc but beneath it was a somewhat hostile message which said:

"Vandalism warning regarding your edit at Quackery Information. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Quackery. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. As your edits seem to be directed at removing references to Quackwatch, which is considered a reliable source when used as it is in that article, I suggest you do some reading on the subject:

• Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery
• Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal.

As to the reasons why Quackwatch criticizes alternative medicine, Quackwatch just happens to be right. The criticized methods don't work, as illustrated by the old joke: What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine. Read the following section carefully, especially the part about where the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) (which is pro-alternative medicine!) hasn't found evidence for efficacy after ten years of large studies:

• Relation to evidence-based medicine

Happy reading, and Happy New Year! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This message came as a bit of a shock. Does this person own or work for Wikipedia? Sorry i dont know because im newbie to this site & not sure how it works. I assume he works for Wikipedia because the message came with welcome to Wikipedia at the top. IS this correct or wrong? The message said Vandalism which i was suprised about because i had actually tried to make the article more neutral.I then looked up the Vandalism article which said it meant if someone on purpose tries to make Wikipedia look as if it lacks credibility but if someone tries to edit an article to improve it with genuine intentions,even if the edit is right or wrong,that it then isn't vandalism. I was genuinly trying to make it more neutral so i dont understand why this person in message said i made Vandalism. Also my edit removal of references to Quackwatch wasnt the only thing i edited but i had to do this too because of Court of Law ruling that that site is not objective. The person then made their own personal subjective opinion that the site Quackwatches views are right & gave their personal opinion regarding Alternative Medicine which isnt being neutral & objective if they work for Wikipedia.

Why does Wikipedia state that they want articles to be neutral point of view if they really dont? Does this person that sent the message to me work for Wikipedia? If he does then Wikipedia should state on their articles that they dont want NPOV because by saying they do they are lying if they then will not allow edits that make articles more NPOV.To say they want NPOV then just confuses people.The message also made a subjective opinion which is contradictory if Wikipedia is saying on one hand they want articles to be Neutral Point of View but then on the other hand giving/having non-neutral personal opinions. Can anyone help with this? Thankyou very much Severina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severina123 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Severina - these sorts of dicussions are best held on the talkpage of the pertinent article. You will probably find that all your questions have been asked by previous editors and answered. Ta Shot info (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would question the use of a "vandalism"-warning, though. To answer your other question, nobody "works for" wikipedia, not as "paid employee" that is... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

When large amounts of properly referenced text are deleted, it sets off vandalism alarms. As you are new to Wikipedia, maybe that typical reaction wasn't quite on-target and I apologize. I see that Shot info has requested in his edit summary that you discuss the matter on the talk page of the article so that we don't edit war. You have already tried twice to make that edit and it has been reverted twice. A third time will violate our WP:3RR rule, so please use the talk page to discuss your concerns. In the meantime I will refactor the heading on your talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for your replies. I thought it belonged in this section because the article that i had edited named "Quackery" appeared to be a bit biased and not from NPOV so i thought it belongs in this section to see whether it could be reviewed. From now,regarding my edit & reversals,i will try to discuss it in the talkback section if i can figure out how to use it. UserBrangifer said that my edits were reverted by him twice and that if i attempted to edit again it will be a violation of WP:3RR rule but i feel that my edit were reverted twice unfairly and without basis so how could it be that someone would then be violating a rule if they were to edit again if the reversals of my edits were without fair basis in the first place? Then your being penalised for someones elses mistake for reverting edits that wern't Vandalism. My edits were to try to genuinely make the article more NPOV & i had no personal opinion/bias or intention to vandalise so on what basis was there to reverse my edits? I dont think its implausable to query whether they could have been done from personal bias & subjective opinion & not because of my edits breaking any rules because Brangifer said in his message

"As to the reasons why Quackwatch criticizes alternative medicine, Quackwatch just happens to be right. The criticized methods don't work, as illustrated by the old joke: What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine."

These are showing personal opinions,not NPOV so if theres a possibility that people can revert edits on personal opinions & not on objectivity then it shouldnt say on Wikipedia for people to edit articles to make them more NPOV.

On what basis or rule please have my edits been reverted if they wern't Vandalism?

Wikipedia "Revert" pages say "It should be borne in mind, however, that reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being blocked from editing."

Since my edit was done in good-faith & not Vandalism,why was it reverted twice when Wikipedia revert page advises not to do that?

Wikipedia "Revert" pages also say if the edit was done on good faith but even if the edit was wrong or lacking in some way,to then edit the article again instead of reverting the persons whole edit but why was my whole edit reverted twice when Wikipedia suggested not to do that?

Can anyone please tell me where the section is,where you submit complaint that your edit has been unfairly reversed?

Thankyou very much Severina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.110.50 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Severina. First of all, you are encouraged to sign your own messages. Click on the pencil icon on top of the editing box for that.

That said, I try to answer some of your concerns:

UserBrangifer said that my edits were reverted by him twice [...] Then your being penalised for someones elses mistake for reverting edits that wern't Vandalism. - 3RR is a rule that applies no matter the content/quality of the edits (with some exceptions). Therefore if you push a version for three times, you are violating 3RR, no matter the quality of your edits. If you see that your edits are consistently challenged, the right course of action is going to the article's talk page and begin a discussion there to find a consensus between editors. I am sure you are in good faith and with good intentions, but so is the editor which is reverting your edits. You happen to disagree, and you maybe happen to be doing something not quite right in good faith just because of your inexperience (WP is quite a complex thing these days). So bring your arguments to the talk page of the article, and see what happens there, instead of pushing edits.

I dont think its implausable to query whether they could have been done from personal bias & subjective opinion & not because of my edits breaking any rules because Brangifer said in his message - Problem is, Severina, everyone of us has a subjective opinion. You, me, Brangifer, everyone. NPOV is not a feature of a single editor, it is an ideal objective that strives to be achieved. Your edits are no more NPOV than that of Brangifer, from what I can see. Also, NPOV does not mean "same weight and respect to every conceivable opinion". The article on Earth is not biased just because it says that it is a sphere and dismisses theories of a flat Earth.

On what basis or rule please have my edits been reverted if they wern't Vandalism? - Because maybe they looked like so, because maybe the editor overreacted. We're all humans. Looking at the diffs, your edits appear not vandalism, but they deleted references and changed lots of things in a single edit -both things make a LOT of alarm bells ring in many editors, including me. Again, the only way out of it is that you and Brangifer sit down, take a breath and discuss the matter in the article talk page.

but why was my whole edit reverted twice when Wikipedia suggested not to do that? : Probably because it is a huge edit. It is advisable that you edit articles a bit at a time. Reverting/discussing individual small edits is much easier than reworking a complete redesign of an article done in a single edit.

,where you submit complaint that your edit has been unfairly reversed?: Article talk page.

I hope this helps. --Cyclopia^talk 12:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Severina, I do feel your pain! Wikipedia is a very complex place, with its own social culture, myriad rules and policies, and even more possibilities for misunderstandings and conflicts. There are even situations where there can exist seemingly contradictory policies! It's not easy, and none of us is perfect or understands it all. We're all learning. I'll just comment on a few things here and leave the discussion of the content of your edits for the talk ("Discussion") page at the Quackery article.

For one thing, I only reverted you once, and when you tried again, another editor reverted you. Any time an edit of yours is reversed, you have potentially started what is known as the "BOLD, revert, discuss" cycle (but not always). If there's a potential for serious disagreement, don't repeat the edit, but move on to the next step, which is to discuss it. That cycle has only one cycle. It's not a revolving door. It doesn't contain two "BOLD" parts. Continuing to push the edit is considered edit warring, and pushing even proper edits (we all think our edits are "proper" ;-) can get you blocked. As to my opinions, yes indeed, I do have them, but I don't add them to article content. They appear in edit summaries and on talk pages. Within certain limits, we are allowed to express those opinions in our discussions about why we think certain content or sources should be included.

As to NPOV, it doesn't mean that an article is "neutral" in the sense that it is without biased or conflicting content. On the contrary, articles about controversial subjects, like quackery, alternative medicine, chiropractic, vertebral subluxation, pseudoscience, and religious and political subjects, all must contain the POV and facts related to the subject from all significant angles. Our articles must reflect the situation in the real world. They must not present a subject in only a favorable light. They must not be a sales brochure. Whenever differences of opinion between editors occur, which is quite normal and very frequent, they need to be hammered out through discussion and collaboration on the talk page, not by edit warring. We work by consensus here, not by pushing a POV through repeated attempts to force others to accept an edit. Even when that seems to work, the edit won't last long, and that's not your intention. You want the content you have added to remain and be protected by other editors, including those who have an opposing POV. The content must also be properly sourced and framed in abidance with our content policies. This isn't easy, and as a newbie you'll find that you'll run afoul of other editors. If you keep a good spirit, always assume good faith, and learn to discuss things, you'll find that this can be a very learning environment. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cyclopia and Brangifer for your assistance. Cyclopia,my edits were at least 90% NPOV and i took a very long time to make sure that my edit was that and that the article remained largely the same but with more balance,hard fact & NPOV. Substituting one biased POV for another biased point of view doesnt bring benefit to Wikipedia readers and that is unbalanced information so i tried quite hard to make it NPOV. I disagree that "NPOV does not mean "same weight and respect to every conceivable opinion" If thats the case,then it isn't truly a neutral point of view.There shouldnt be necessarily same respect, but there should be same weight to every conceivable opinion. Of course ,space page permitting. I did read on WikipediaNPOV article page though that Wikipedia holds this same view that you stated but that then means that Wikipedia is biased.On one hand it says dont post biased views/edits,but then on the other hand its saying that a certain view is more worthy of article space then another.Thats a contradiction and misleads and confuses people. Giving same weight,doesnt mean it is then validating or promoting the claims,it just means that it is objective,disinterested and neutral. Its different if Wikipedia was saying give more "popular" "opinion" more priority because of a lack of room(writing) space,that would still be NPOV,but it appears to be giving mixed messages on its NPOV page saying on one hand be disinterested & neutral but on the other hand saying along the lines of "theres certain views we dont want to be covering" which would have to involve some non disinterest & non-neutrality to come to that decision.

Your quote on "The article on Earth is not biased just because it says that it is a sphere and dismisses theories of a flat Earth." to me is not the same thing, because the Earth has been proven to be a sphere & when something becomes proven(if proven without errors)then it becomes a fact & less discussion/space then needs to be given to something that would say otherwise(flat etc).

My edits still shouldnt have been reverted, according to Wikipedia, but i now understand your meant to edit bit by bit.I thought that you were just meant to edit the whole thing in one go and that thats what everyone does.Sorry about that. Also,is there nothing at all that people can do if there articles or edits are reverted unfairly except discuss? I mean,discuss is better,but does everyone discussing willing to have same intention to make the articles NPOV and non-biased? If people arn't fair,then without any appeal rules etc in place,then couldn't hypothetically someone go & revert all the edit articles on this whole site if they didnt like them & as long as others agreed that what they did was right(even if it really wasnt) then nothing could be done about it to appeal wrongful decisions because "majority rules"? If thats the case then Wikipedia could never be objective & balanced,unbiased. I mean it could be if the people here you can have good faith that they will be non-biased & fair but if the people here wern't then it wouldn't be.

Thanks for your kind words Brangifer:) I understand that an article wont be without conflicting content but Wikipedia says the articles arnt meant to be bias and are meant to be disinterested. Everything else you said i agreed with and i agree that an article shouldn't be only presented in a favourable light.At the same time though if something is alleged i think it should say alleged but if something is proven i think it should say proven. For example,and this is really really bad example sorry, if there was a new brand of Exercise bike & lots of people had called it rubbish, I think the article should state 'Exercise bike "XYZ" ,which has been alleged to be rubbish by alot of people, is made by.........etc" instead of the article stating "Rubbish Exercise bike "XYZ" ,is made by..........etc" because the second one is a factual statement but i dont think a factual statement should be made unless it was absolutely proven beyond a shadow of doubt with testing that exercise Bike"XYZ" was rubbish.

i know the articles will be conflicting contents,but if a statement is made without evidence is it ok then to edit this or ask that evidence is provided? Some of the things i edited out or changed i did so because there was no evidence submitted but was just a sweeping statement or bias opinion.

Thansk all for your help. I am going to click the character button at the bottom because i cant find the pen at the top.I hope that is ok. Severina123 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Severina, and thanks for signing (yes, the button at the bottom is perfect).

• Cyclopia,my edits were at least 90% NPOV and i took a very long time to make sure that my edit was that and that the article remained largely the same but with more balance,hard fact & NPOV. - Well, you may believe that they were NPOV, but that you believe them to be that does not mean that they really are. Note, I am not saying that they aren't, I am saying a different thing: that since every human being holds a point of view, you cannot really be sure they were. You can at most say that you tried, but it's really from discussion and compromise with other editors that something akin to NPOV comes out.
• On one hand it says dont post biased views/edits,but then on the other hand its saying that a certain view is more worthy of article space then another.Thats a contradiction and misleads and confuses people.: It may seem contradictory but really it isn't. Let me explain. There are two ways to interpret NPOV. One is the naive one you propose: give every conceivable opinion the same relevance. This has two enormous drawbacks. First, it would require articles to be practically infinite. Second, it would not give a really unbiased information, because the most probable/most relevant opinion would be drowned in a sea of almost irrelevant alternative points of view. The second way of interpret NPOV -and that's the one followed here- is to give due weight, reflecting what the consensus of reliable sources say on the subject. This has the advantages of yielding a finite-size article and of giving an unbiased picture of what the sources have to say on the subject. Which is the best we can do, since we're here to report what sources say, not to engage in original research.
• Also,is there nothing at all that people can do if there articles or edits are reverted unfairly except discuss? - Well, I'd say that discussing is pretty much all. Read WP:DISPUTE for more information, but practically all steps towards dispute resolution involve just more and more discussion with editors and asking for opinions. There is no way to decide what is "unfair" that isn't discussing with editors and following policies and guidelines.
• then couldn't hypothetically someone go & revert all the edit articles on this whole site if they didnt like them & as long as others agreed that what they did was right(even if it really wasnt) then nothing could be done about it to appeal wrongful decisions because "majority rules"? : Exactly, more or less. Wikipedia is based on consensus. When you edit here, you accept that your edits can be challenged, reverted, deleted, whatever. Wikipedia is in a constant state of flux. You cannot expect any of your edits to be set in stone.
• If thats the case then Wikipedia could never be objective & balanced,unbiased. - Severina, leave all hopes of absolute objectivity. Such a thing simply does not exist. We strive for the best approximation.
• but if a statement is made without evidence is it ok then to edit this or ask that evidence is provided? :If for "evidence" you mean reliable sources, you are absolutely right: you have the right to edit or ask for evidence.

Finally, I suggest you to spend some time becoming acquainted with WP policies and guidelines, at least the ones we linked you in this discussion for a start. WP is a really, really complex place these days, and everyone of us does mistakes: the more you read about this, the better. --Cyclopia^talk 21:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cyclopia. Yes, by evidence i mean reliable sources,although my standard for reliable sources might be higher then Wikipedias.I guess it depends on what you term reliable,whether reliable means "reliable" as in their website doesnt breakdown often or reliable as in non-biased,reliable as in they check their facts or any other "measuring stick". I do still feel then Wikipedia isn't then truly NPOV and shoudn't say this as its misleading. I dont think believing in Objective,Neutral journalism is naive,it is ideal, and can be achieved if everyone has commitment to the same ideal and then points out or edits things if they see it is not completely objective but has emotion,unreferened claims/statements of fact or authors opinion added. I understand that nobody may be 100% nonbiased but some people are more non-biased then others i'm aware and we should all strive for everything to always be more balanced. I understand though that NPOV,being only a Wikipedia term,might have a different meaning then the words neutral & non-biases when used generally in the world. I still do think giving the every notion the same weight would give the most unbiased imformation,maybe not the most useful,but still the most unbiased. At the same time,i understand this is easier done with things which can have evidence provided-for example if the article is about Herbicides,then there can be all the angles given equal weight in the article because scientific sources can be given regarding the use of Herbicides,any drawbacks,any alternative options,conflicting opinions etc but with other types of articles-maybe things more cultural or opinion based/general interest etc, i understand that it could be next to impossible to give all sources equal weight as then the article could never be ending.Severina123 (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Thankyou very much

Hi Severina. I think you will find it really interesting to read our policy on verifiability WP:V, our guidelines on reliable sources (no, it isn't about whether a website breaks down frequently) WP:RS, and our neutral point of view policy WP:NPOV. All the policies and guidelines have been worked out together by contributors like ourselves over the years. You can comment on them on their talk pages, and even make changes (but if you make changes that haven't been agreed on the talk page they will probably be changed back again quickly). Nothing here is set in stone; it's all about community discussion and consensus. You might also find it interesting to look up articles on controversial topics not connected with alternative medicine and see how well you think they present the different points of view. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All this consideration for somebody who barges into an article like a bull in a china shop, edit-wars, writes messages that are much longer than they need to be, and just generally wastes a bunch of time for a bunch of editors! Severina, the message you need to hear is to slow down and make small edits until you have learned how to work cooperatively with other editors. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looie496: without disagreeing with your final point, please don't BITE the newbies. --Ludwigs2 18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: For a newbie user Severina123, I think you show significant clue. Have you participated substantially on Wikipedia before? I ask to get a better gauge of your familiarity so that time can be more efficiently devoted to addressing the key points. Lambanog (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Looie, take a couple of deep breaths. Wikipedia is a complex place and certainly not the most user-friendly. The keys for the tank that can destroy years of work by hundreds of editors are handed to every person when they visit for the first time, and personally I feel it's very refreshing to have someone take the time to try to understand the rules and actually ask for help when they get confused. The project needs all the editors it can get, and established users should make it a point to assist rather than consistantly drive the new ones away. Rapier1 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see at a glace that the sources used in the article are sometimes not acceptable, such as this one. The quackwatch site is also completely non-neutral, and should not be used as a source for articles. It seems to be a site dedicated to a particular viewpoint, and run by one individual, which seems to be against policy. Another source does not even currently exist [23] It is also amazing that the article speaks of "quackery" in an historical sense, because it was not quackery at the time, just medicine [24]. Becritical (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Another dead link! The article needs major overhauling [25]. Becritical (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the dead links and replaced the review with a better one from "The Consultant Pharmacist". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be possible to include a history section, because during the 19th century there was an increasing divergence between mainstream medicine and what was then called "snake oil" or perhaps "nostrums". But we need to find out if there is a scholarly history of this. I expect there is at least one, similar to the history of food adulteration that I read recently. I agree that the article needs attention. Questions about sourcing can go to WP:RSN and if a fringe viewpoint is being advocated as if it were mainstream, then post at WP:FTN. Quackwatch has been discussed on one or both of these before - we can search the archives. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course there is need for history, but calling it "quackery" isn't right if it was not called such at the time. It wasn't really quackery then, was it? Becritical (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is whether Beijing Television, a broadcaster which criticised Falun Gong in the late nineties before the persecution of Falun Gong began in 1999, should be noted as a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) mouthpiece, when the article notes its criticism of Falun Gong. A few wordings have been proposed. Here is the dispute in short: [26]. The source is David Ownby, who is probably the top scholar on this subject. I can't find the information I remember reading several years ago, but I seem to recall there being something in the old WP:RS or WP:V about how sources and their background should be identified. In this context, I think it's helpful and important for the reader to understand the context in which things are taking place. The narrative is of media criticism of Falun Gong, the consequent protests, and the escalation of these things until a full-scale persecution in mid-1999. It's been articulated in various sources, see for example, Ethan Gutmann's analysis, that it's significant who was doing the attacking at the time. I'm suggesting that Ownby's explanation of BTV is relevant (I think this is evidenced in the fact that he included it in his explanation, all), and plays a role in allowing the reader to understand the wider context of the issue. So, maybe Ohconfucius will have something more to add to the discussion. I'm looking for a third party to weigh in on whether this information is relevant, or is unwarranted. We can't seem to agree.--Asdfg12345 14:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is written from the point of view of a small group of individuals, Eliezer Yudkowsky et. al., contains original research, and contains a criticism section without any actual criticism of the validity of the concept or its status as fringe science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.204.187 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged it for notability, will look into it later when I can. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am hereby proposing a total purge of the article at "White Skin Privilege" on article-wide POV grounds. One can view the [Talk page] there for a more general idea of why, but here's the rundown as I've come away with it:

There seem to be two editors in particular editing to keep the article decisively weighted throughout in favor of WSP as a 'proven' theory, mostly by recasting the history of racism as one from which white people, by their ethnic "whiteness", automatically benefit — making that history of racism into one of 'white skin privilege' instead. Although I've been asked by administrators not to focus on who the two editors are, it's going to be obvious from the recent history as well as surrounding the unfortunate edit-war I got into with them (self-critically, I resorted to extreme measures that deflated my own reputation and made it so that they could afterwards even remove all POV warning boxes from the article without any contestation, even though those warning boxes had been there since before I'd got there).

One of those two editors' justifications for keeping the article as-is are self-justifying, arguing that since white skin privilege is supposedly a widely accepted theory — supposedly, that is, accepted as compared to other left-wing anti-racist ideologies like class-based multi-racial unity — the opposing view, being class-based multi-racial unity, is "minority", and further than that, "fringe." She shapes the situation so that the inability to find sources that objectively oppose White Skin Privilege naturally must mean that the opposition to WSP is a "fringe" view. But that's fallacious. If I were to ask somebody in an article about God who complained about the lack of views of the significant portion of those who don't believe in God, to prove that there is no God by finding sources that prove that opposition view, and the person was not able to find such articles in places that aren't specifically oriented towards the God question, and that finding those sources would be the only way the opposition view against God would be able to stand in the article, then I could then perhaps claim that the argument against God is a "fringe" argument. That would be a rough approximation of what that editor is doing in the WSP article.

I bring the article here to the NPOV noticeboard because I'd like it if a group of NPOV-sympathetic editors were to go over to the article and either 1) balance it out or 2) purge it and do it over. Because of the fact that these two editors in particular seem to be the only ones really working on the article, they have been able to keep it POV. The article should be worked on much more collectively and democratically than that in order to achieve NPOV status.

You'll notice, when you look at it, not only the tendency to re-cast racism as "white skin privilege" that I have noted, but also, and possibly more importantly, the fact that the "Criticism" section has been relegated to a two-paragraph piece of nothing in the middle of the article that doesn't do anything at all to balance it out — and also that apparently, no opposition viewpoint is allowed in the article's intro paragraph (not even one allowed to remain with (citation needed) next to it for a certain length of time like in other articles of this type).

Finally, if there were any doubt as to the POV intentions of at least one of those two editors, I was accused of having "white people head-up-the-ass syndrome" — if that's not an underhanded intent to keep the article POV, I don't know what is. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

well, I'm going to do a bit of editing there and see what happens. the idea itself is a theme in academic works (though I've never heard that particular name for it, which sounds awfully '1970's activist'). --Ludwigs2 23:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I admire your gentle handling of Marie Paradox, ludwigs (you undoubtedly see her and my brink-of-disaster arguments, which I do now realize was absolutely the wrong method). I just do hope that this report will encourage several more totally new editors besides yourself to come over and make edits. I do hope you agree that the ultimate goal should be a decidedly NPOV or minimally-POV article, which would probably mean attempting at some point to insert critical aspects directly into the article's most visible text elements. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, actually, when you say "If I were to ask somebody in an article about God who complained about the lack of views of the significant portion of those who don't believe in God, to prove that there is no God by finding sources that prove that opposition view, and the person was not able to find such articles in places that aren't specifically oriented towards the God question, and that finding those sources would be the only way the opposition view against God would be able to stand in the article, then I could then perhaps claim that the argument against God is a "fringe" argument. That would be a rough approximation of what that editor is doing in the WSP article." you have it right: Wikipedia follows the sources, so if there are few sources it is automatically a fringe view. That does not mean it should not be covered though. Can you point me to which specific changes you would make in the article? Do you have a sandbox of it? Becritical (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would love to say, Becritical, that I have a sandbox of it, that I could make one, or that I could point to specific line by line or section by section changes I would like to see made, but none of that's the case. However, neither does my inability to draw something up automatically make my argument that the article is unacceptably POV null and void. I can offer at least an approximate basis of changes in format and tone that could lend to a vastly more balanced article than it is currently, although obviously, the sources used in that balancing would themselves have to be sourced.

Do please take a moment to see my outline on the Talk page for exactly how the WSP article specifically and fundamentally violates pretty much all the tenets of Wikipedia's neutrality policy — which is one of its 'pillars' and is irrevocably relevant at all times in all articles that wish to stay on Wikipedia for the long term. Shabazz and Paradox, in their ways, as you can see from the comments they've made over time, have done their bit to try to word-dance around this pillar and also try to exert direct control over the tone of the article by being, basically, the two main people editing it at all times and adopting authoritative language to that end when talking on the Talk page and elsewhere. Such word-dancing doesn't do what Shabazz and Paradox intend it to do, because the POV pillar violations stand on their own, with or without my input on the article. So it is on the basis of that violation, and not ultimately on the basis of my opinions, that it needs a fundamental re-balancing in order to qualify for remaining an article on Wikipedia. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars purports to list the number of Czars appointed by recent President of the United States. "Czar" is a nebulous and informal political term in the USA referring usually to a high-ranking member of the executive branch whose title is long and cumbersome. President Barack Obama has come under criticism (whether fair or not is irrelevant) for his use of czars. It seems this list, which is almost entirely uncited, is meant to demonstrate that he and President George W. Bush used far more czars than previous Presidents. Regardless, it is an unverifiable and controversial issue and it is POV to try to nail it down with these numbers. DougOfDoom ^talk 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

the term has been widely used in newspaper and historical writing since at least Roosevelt. The present list seems very problematic and POV, and I think needs some stricter limits: possibly to the use in academic writing, or multiple sources of differing political views. (I am for example particular bothered by the first item on the list, used in a very expansive way to mean not someone in charge of a broad program, but someone promoting a particular view while in charge of a program--The Nation is not a NPOV source for this, even when I agree with it. and skipping, the very last item, though much less controversial, seems equally dubious. There's some interesting background at this opinion piece, dealing specifically with this Wikipedia article, (though I am certainly not proposing it as a RS.) DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiPeople,

This is my first post, so I hope I'm doing this right.

My comments are about this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hakim_Murad_(militant)

(1) If we're not going to call him a "terrorist", then who can we call a terrorist? (2) The first sentence describes him as an "alleged conspirator"; however, the CNN article cited at the bottom of the page states that he was convicted. The top of the Wikipedia page should state this fact.

The Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid) says that "terrorist" should be avoided. However, it also states that "militant may also reflect a non-neutral point of view". How about changing it to "bombing plotter" or something like that?

Wikipedia says we need to avoid words like "terrorist" because they convey a value judgment (that is, a lack of neutrality). Being so militantly against describing terrorists as such, conveys a value judgment as well.

If one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; then one man's Nazi is another man's German nationalist. Is it an acceptable value judgment to say that Hitler was evil; or must we remain neutral about him as well? Is moral relativism the only acceptable value? We can not escape making moral choices. We can not escape conveying value judgments.

I look forward to the discussion that I hope this post will generate.

Brian in NoVa (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Brian in NoVa

I don't see militant as problematic here, in particular because it is used for disambiguation. If you find reliable sources that call him a terrorist, you can add them (attributed) to the article. To answer the more general point: Are the Nicaraguan Contras terrorists? Or the Sandinistas? What about the Mujahidin? What about them back in the 80s, when both John Rambo and Jame Bond helped them fight the Soviets? Nazis are much clearer to identify, for one because we have a better historical perspective, but also because they self-identified and were members of a formal party. Nazi also is not an inherent value judgement - the negativity associated with the term has been earned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of posting here, you should have started a discussion thread on the article's talk page. The noticeboards are generally used when editors are unable to resolve their differences there and come here to get a wider opinion. I agree that the term terrorist should be avoided for all the reasons stated. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This page of A 30,000 employee corp has some dubious stuff in the history section. A lot of emails from someone guy Adrian Lofton addressed to the CEO casting all sorts of aspersions and soapboxing about them here too. I'm removing them, but more eyes are needed. Link to soapy version [27]. This is the kind of PR disaster waiting to happen that flagged revisions are supposed to prevent, but I'm not holding my breath. Pcap ping 02:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone in this category is an actual Marxist. It is popular among the nationalistic right in India to attach the epithet "Marxist" to anyone noticeably to the left of Genghis Khan. Actual Marxists will of course have no problem with the epithet "Marxist". You will easily recognize actual Marxists by their self-designating as Marxists.

The category is the brain-child of Defender of torch (talk · contribs), a user who is astoundingly fluent in wiki-jargon considering his less than 100 edits. --dab (𒁳) 20:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Within the category, D. D. Kosambi is the only one that can unambiguously be described as a Marxist. The others in the category are all described in their articles as "Marxist" on the basis of one source, added by Defender of torch. That source is Sreedharan, E. (2004). A Textbook of Historiography: 500 BC to AD 2000. Orient Blackswan. It looks perfectly scholarly, but the question is whether it supports the blanket description "Marxist" as currently added. It talks about a "Marxist phase" in Indian history and a "Marxist school", with which it associates these writers. From what I can see in google snippet view it also takes pains to explain the rationale behind this school of historiography, its influences, achievements and limitations, and also distinguishes different kinds of Marxism in different periods. From what I can see, the current reliance on this good source is cherry-picking. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also just found this. --dab (𒁳) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the book (pp 482) "Bipan Chandra is another prominent member of the Marxist school of Indian historians". Does not it mean Chandra is a Marxist historian? --Defender of torch (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No. It means he belongs to a school interpreting history in the tradition of Marx. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does help to disavow Marxism these days, innit? Never mind that Sreedharan quotes Bipan Chandra in full flow: "However, many of them -- and Palme Dutt in particular -- are not able to fully integrate their treatment of the primary anti-imperialist contradiction and the secondary inner contradictions, and tend to counterpose the anti-imperialist struggle to the class struggle or social struggle. They also tend to see the movement as a structured bourgeois movement, if not the bourgeoisie's movement, and miss its open-ended and all class character." Gosh. Walk like a duck and talk like a duck, anyone? rudra (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some "decoding" of modern Indian socio-political jargon is needed here. "Marxist" is an alias for "Leftist". In the Indian context, they are for all practical purposes the same. Erudite discussions of why this should not be so, and indeed is not so in the wider world, completely miss the point, which is labels, not philosophies. Until the '90s, most of the historians under discussion here didn't even mind if they were labelled "Marxist". This was because Marxism had (and amazingly enough still has) enormous cachet in Indian intellectual circles. Since the '90s, when everyone else segued neatly into post-Marxism and similar forms of cover-your-assism, the Indians have been following suit, so these days you might find them getting a bit touchy. But they still do dominate historiography in India. See, for example, this foreword to another book on the subject. rudra (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am having issues with the Sofia Rotaru article. It is written from a fan's POV and he or she keeps reverting every edit that tries to change that. He also has deleted maintenance tags without making any relevant changes. So I think the article in its current form is a disgrace to Wikipedia and someone should take a serious look at it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The article Creation Museum contains the following statement: "In particular, exhibits promote the false claim that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted, and dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark." A select group of users are trying to keep this statement in the article. Is Wikipedia pro-Evolution? As it stands, nearly 2/3 of Americans believe in Creationism, and there is much evidence for it. I'm not trying to say Creation is the truth and Wikipedia should state Evolution is false, but I've always believed the Wikipedia foundation shrived to be neutral on the matter. I'm also not creating this topic to debate Evolution vs. Creation, but simply a question: Is Wikipedia endorsing the Evolution point of view, and saying Creation is false? Is this POV allowed? Should the statement be kept in the article, and in similar articles? Thanks. American Eagle (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources say, and I don't think you will find a reliable source saying that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. How could they possibly have done so? I would be OK with changing the above to something like "the idea, not accepted by scientists, that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted", but it needs to be discussed on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement "the idea, not accepted by scientists" is best in this situation. Krz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.228.153 (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What Americans believe to be true is not a reliable basis for a global encyclopaedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If we go by reliable sources, I'd go with "the absurd idea that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted", maybe with a footnote on cladistics and Aves. This is not even a question of evolution, but of basic geology and paleontology - claiming this as a pro-evolution issue assumes a wrong dichotomy.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said. If Wikipedia existed in the 15th century, we would be having this discussion about the flat Earth theory :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed pro-Evolution, but it has to be because literally no scientists take into account creation in their publications. IOW from a scientific perspective, the debate on creationism ended decades or even 150 years ago, and current debates over creationism are social or political issues and not scientific. However, I do think that the statements included in the creation museum are trying to ridicule creationism. There has been a similar ongoing controversy whether the creation myths article should automatically assume that all creation stories are myths. The pro-Evolution crowd believes that every religious creation account is indeed a myth despite the fact the billions of people believe some of these creation stories to be true. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is definitely pro-evolution, because evolution is scientific fact. The saddening statistic that 40% of the American public deny evolution is because of public ignorance, not a scientific dispute. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no legitimate debate regarding evolution in any vetted scholarly text or legitimate scientific organization. The circumstance illustrates what concerns me most about how Wikipedia operates -- if Wikipedia is governed by consensus, and a frighteningly large multitude of editors believe in delusions that directly contradict all scientific evidence, then isn't Wikipedia necessarily bound to legitimize absurd "theories" by giving them equal voice? The democratization of fact is a dangerous thing... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of these comments are somewhat missing the point. The article in question is about the museum, not about evolution. The museum presents the stories and "legends" of a particular ethnic group (albeit a comparatively large group). I wonder how the above commentators would feel about an article that read "The creation story of the Lakota people presents the false beliefs of a primitive group and has been disproven by the scientific community; in particular, the backward-minded natives promote the idea that..." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite the same thing, since there is no organized political movement pushing for Lakota creation myths to be taught alongside evolution in science class. On the other hand, I don't like the "false claims" wording either - it's intrusive. If people seriously need to be told editorially that dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist, then they are probably a lost cause - or at least beyond persuasion by a Wikipedia article. No one is going to come to the Creation Museum article with an open mind about the question, and then say: "Oh, Wikipedia says it's a false claim... now I get it." MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The wording isn't neutral, and the clear condemnation in science can be well-presented neutrally.- Sinneed 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia also is pro-round earth, pro-gravity, and pro-cell biology. And that's okay with me! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's okay with me as well... As a Christian I have no problem with Wikipedia being "pro-evolution" -- it's a matter of reputable science. However I have a HUGE problem with Wikipedia being "anti-religious". I know I can't stem the tide by posting this comment, but it is obvious to me from reading the replies above, most editors would rather consign belief in religion to a series of "delusions that directly contradict all scientific evidence" (while providing no actual evidence for this incredibly outlandish claim). Evolution does not shake the foundations of religion any more than heliocentrism did in the 16th century... and the sooner we ALL realize that, the sooner reasonable discourse and dialogue can resume. Awayforawhile (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading. Yes, many of the commentators would probably see creationism consigned to the dustbin of history. But, while scientific explanations satisfy many, there is no conflict between science and a sufficiently unobtrusive religion. It's only when a religion make claims about the physical world that science and religion potentially clash. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I would be saddened to see Christianity or ANY honest religion reduced to being "sufficiently unobtrusive"!! God have mercy if we truly start believing our own science is the answer. Awayforawhile (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't neglect context here the way you're doing. I would not go to a physicist or a chemist for advice about a moral dilemma, and I would be appalled by a physicist or chemist who insisted on pushing a mechanical or chemical solution to a moral problem (and yes, I am frequently appalled that way, both by people who think we can solve political problems with better weapons and people who think we can solve personal problems with better drugs). Religion and faith have an important place in our world, IMO, but are not well-designed for telling us about the nature of physical reality. It's religion's job to tell us what we ought to do with the world as we understand it; It is not religion's job to dictate how we should understand the world, and certainly not against all reason. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer is yes, obviously, Wikipedia is pro-evolution in the sense that it's pro-gravity, pro-round earth, and pro-science, and in a way that contrasts with its distinctly ambivalent stance on religion. A general purpose encyclopedia without a strong pro-science stance is about as much use as a chocolate wristwatch, and an encyclopedia with a religious bias would inevitably encounter problems upholding the neutral point of view. --TS 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement labeling dinosaurs and humans coexisting should not be labeled as false, since the article is about the museum. Criticism about said museum I'm sure is present within the article. Ngchen (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. It isn't helpful to include the clause, "the false claim," in this particular article. If it's inflammatory, take it out, as it doesn't add to the article.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe in evolution, I don't believe in a supernatural or divine being, and I don't believe in creation or intelligent design. But the whole article repeats its attacks on creationism in a rather leaden way in every sentence. So (1) there's no need for adding "false" (which has now been removed) and (2) this heavy-handed repetition, while it accurately reflects the utter exasperation of non-creationists and almost all life scientists, will probably drive some uninformed or undecided readers to think (rightly or wrongly) that the museum's sponsors are getting a pretty raw deal here and must have at least some truth on their side. Wikipedia isn't Pravda and shouldn't read like it, say I, because this unremitting fusillade is nothing like what I'd have written in a straight news story (as opposed to an opinion piece) when I was a minor-league reporter and editor. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This has come up on another article where I questioned whether "billion" should be used to denote the short scale version in areas of the world where the long scale version is in use. This manual of style clearly indicates the the short scale version should be used, but I feel this violates WP:WORLDVIEW. The majority of the world uses the long scale format i.e. 1,000,000,000,000 as opposed to the short scale i.e. 1,000,000,000 and I can't help but the feel that the adoption of the short scale format is biased towards the British and American convention. There seems to be no logical argument for adopting the the short scale version other than that's how it's done in Britain and the US. If we were to adopt a true worldview then the usage should depend on what it is relating to. If the numerical subject is US centric then short scale should be used. If French then long scale. If we were to adopt just one particular usage then it should be the long scale format since it is the most common usage. Since the phrase has two numerical equivalents maybe the best way to avoid confusion would be to write it as $1000 million or 1000 million euros since this would make the amount explicitly clear. I don't think it is correct to use a phrase to mean something where that usage is in the minority. Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with the general sentiment, I think the example is misguided. France may use the long scale, but not necessarily when speaking English. I don't think there is significant long scale usage in English anymore - the only English-speaking country with ambiguous use is India, and even there long scale is rare. Since the short scale is nearly universal in the English language, I see no problem in using it on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to a large extent with Stephan Schulz; since this encyclopedia is written in English, only the style used in English speaking countries should influence Wikipedia style. Also, like any publication, Wikipedia has the right to choose its style. In many areas, Wikipedia has decided to follow the style of the English-speaking country most strongly connected to the article, or if there is none, the style picked by the first major contributor. But in the case of style matters that are likely to cause errors, such as short or long scale billion, or the choice of "." or "," as the decimal separator, Wikipedia has every right to pick one and ruthlessly edit any article to force conformance. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Were writing in English what the word means in another language is of no relevance. For better or worse (I say worse) "billion" is generally taken to be a thousand million instead of (the more logical & original) million million in English these days. JIMp _talk·cont 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Schulz, and don't consider India to be English-speaking. It has both a smaller percentage of people able to speak English and a smaller number of native English speakers than Germany, for example. It is the second country by total number of people able to speak English, but it is the second country by total population as well. Among words whose cognates mean different things in most other languages are preservative (meaning "condom" elsewhere), actually (meaning "now" elsewhere), and so on. Do you (Logan) suggest we ban them all? ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict:) This should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) which has discussed a number of similar issues. The question of non-Anglophone readers would be a significant point to bring up there. Another would be the earlier use in England (into the 1960's and well beyond) of milliard (as in French) for a 1,000 million, billion for one million million and trillion for one million times one million million (10¹⁸); in historical articles about Britain (e.g. Battle of the Atlantic, The Great Exhibition, British Empire Exhibition or Festival of Britain), one wouldn't be sure without some indication what a reference to "three billion" meant. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I did post a link to this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Short_scale_billion. I didn't know where the best place would be to have the discussion. Since this is a noticeboard that specifically addresses point of view and gets more traffic I thought I'd get a better range of opinions here. But as you point out while Wikipeida demands that we use the short scale format that isn't indicated to the reader. English is a second language in many countries, and if the reader isn't aware that the short scale format is in use and their own country uses the long scale format then that is a potential source of confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Effectively communicating style conventions that could cause errors in interpretation, especially numerical errors, would require an enhancement to Wikimedia software to provide something akin to a map legend on every page setting forth those conventions. That would be the right solution, if one is required. Using long scale billion would be the wrong solution. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes this can be a viable solution. (Note that, when "billion" is used several times in the same section, I only gave scientific notation on the first occurrence, as I expect the reader to be able to remember what is meant by "billion" at least until the end of the section.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I could live with that, but I daresay if I tried to introduce that notation into articles to clarify the terminology it would simply be reverted and I would be instructed to check the style guide. The question I suppose is Wikipedia there to serve as an encyclopedia just in English speaking countries, or is it there to serve as an encyclopedia anywhere in the world for anyone who can speak English? That takes us to the crux of the matter. If the former you can probably get away with short scale, if the latter then there does need to be some form of clarification for the terminology along the lines as spelt out by User: A._di_M.. Betty Logan (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if they learned it at some point in their school careers, there are many people who don't recognize scientific notation at first glance, so it may need a different gloss in articles that don't expect scientific proficiency (e.g. Solar System or United Kingdom budget.) I agree that when billion appears in a cluster, you should only need to convert/clarify once. (If it appears again in a different section, a second clarification might be advisable.) I went to school in London until 1960 when "billion" still meant a million million unless a U.S. context was explicitly mentioned and explained. While I understand that "billion" has come to mean a thousand million even in the UK (judging by the BBC and The Economist), there's enough uncertainty ("I may now use billion to mean 1,000,000,000 but what does the author of this article mean by it?") that even those who live in Anglophone countries need some kind of indicator. ¶ Again, this really has almost nothing at all to do with WP:Neutral Point of View and just doesn't belong here [especially at a noticeboard about specific violations]; no bias is involved, and it's the kind of bread-and-butter issue that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) deals with every month. When that page discusses the meaning of "gallon", "calorie" or "karat", and how to make its meaning clear to as many different kinds of reader as possible when it appears in an article, neutrality and bias just is not an issue. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has somewhat evolved into a MOS issue, but I brought it to this board originally as a WP:WORLDVIEW issue on what I thought were valid grounds. I did link to it from the MOS page so they aware of this but I thought the issue extended beyond MOS. I still do actually, I don't think it's correct for Wikipedia to designate a particular usage when colloquially and through translations the term has another meaning, but if Wikipedia is resolute in using short scale I would be satisfied with a simple clarification, which obviously is completely an MOS issue. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I went back to the beginning, and now I see what your original issue was/is. That does happen to be another kind of issue that comes up all the time on both WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM, whether to establish a single standard or vary it according to context. If there's no chance of mistake, error or ambiguity, the bias seems to be towards fitting the convention to the context, as with British vs. U.S. spelling (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English) or where to give metric units first, but it's a much trickier question when different systems use the same names, such as "gallon" or "ton", or the same symbols, such as commas and stops to separate thousands and decimals (e.g. 62.123,7814 in a French source.) Even if Wikipedia did establish a universal convention and choose a single meaning, we should still make clear what that convention is. If you wanted to make a case for varying the Manual's current language to account for what you see as different expectations on non-Anglo-American articles, you could certainly do so. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent):I’m also English and old enough to remember when a billion was worth something, so no, it isn’t unambiguous at all. I think in cases of terms like this one which have more than one meaning then an explanation somewhere on the page is essential. A._di_M.’s notion of using (n×10⁹) or (n×10¹²) is good (though I notice some zealot has deleted it again),or we could use billion / billion, maybe. I also find UK and US tons confusing (does the author mean what I think it means?) And it also needs establishing that providing the link/explanation is a good thing, not a bad one. So how do we do that? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I read somewhere the City of London uses the term "yard" to denote a short-scale billion (derived from "milliard" I suppose) to avoid ambiguity; does anyone know if that's so? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There are some POV issues surrounding Avatar. At the moment the critical reception section documents exclusively the US critical reception: Avatar_(2009_film)#Critical_reception An Indian editor (User:Cinosaur) has tried to add some details regarding the controversy the film has caused among Hindus in India, supplying sources from Indias top mainstream newspaper including the Times of India and The Hindu among others.

The other editors are refusing point black to entertain his additions on the stance they are not notable. Personally I think he's getting short shrift and the attitude of some of the editors violate WP:WORLDVIEW. If he can source the controversy through India's top mainstream newspapers then he's established notability as far as I can see. One of the arguments is that Hinduism is a minority religion depsite being the world's third largest religion, and Christian/Muslim/Jewish controversy has been documented on other film articles. It seems to me it is not being considered "notable" by virtue of the fact it is not notable within the United States, but I think this violates WP:WORLDVIEW.

If there is anyone with experience here who wouldn't mind looking into this and could offer an objective opinion I'm sure it would be appreciated by all parties: Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Reception Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to have been a prolong omission of issues on the Poso article, while on the Portal:Indonesia page it states as 'fact' that Indonesia respects its diversity with the motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika or "Unity in Diversity".

Many of the Indonesian related pages strike me as having a propaganda tone. I have added some links to the discussion page, I wish I could find some more positive things about Poso (city) in published works, unfortunately it has been in the media for the pass ten years for very unfortunate activities. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indonesia also seems infers that only people wishing to flay the Republic's seal on their home page should contribute to Indonesian related articles. 122.106.253.39 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of Harvey Whittemore (before deletions...compare with the current Harvey Whittemore) has been questioned. Wholesale deletion of amply-referenced sections of the article has also occurred. In crafting the biography, I used 27 of the most prominent and recent of over 300 reliable sources, every one of which covers the subject himself and/or his business or not-for-profit ventures. The sources include several articles from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times and articles from Nevada's two major newspapers. Where opinions were stated in these sources, I was careful to attribute the opinions. When available, I included statements by the subject himself to give his perspective on controversial issues. I admit to having strong feelings on environmental issues, and the subject of the article has been criticised by environmental groups; however, I have made every attempt to avoid allowing my views to colour the language I used in the article.

I would appreciate an independent look at the biography as originally written. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just pick on one of the claims here. One of the other editors moved this "wholesale deletion" text into the discussion page WP:BLP and WP:Coatrack at 08:06 on 11 January 2010 and requested that the content be discussed and reviewed on these criteria before inclusion. Keepcalmandcarryon's response was to restore them at 16:00 on the same day without discussion.

The issue at hand here is not one of use of WP:RS, it's one of adopting a strong bias (instead of adopting an encyclopaedic and neutral stance) in selecting which sources to reference and the individual extracts from those sources that paint a quite different picture from the body of sources as a whole. Please review some of the discussion page as well as the history time line. I've given one example in the discussion, because you really need to read some of these references as whole to understand what I am talking about.

Also be aware that this article arose as a spin off of the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) article (a medical research institute), which itself was a spin-off of the XMRV article.

A determined editor can pick a subject and get away with major distortion if willing to devote the time and effort, unless other editors are willing to fight and really understand how to prevent the Wikipedia processes being manipulated. I am a UK based IT professional, and I have absolutely no interest or opinion in this Nevada-based businessman (or common interests) other than the fact that he happened to help endow the WPI, the output of which does interest me. I certainly don't have the time or the desire to get into an edit war on this one. Yet I am defending Harvey Whittemore here because the reputation of Wikipedia is important to me and I don't think that the Wikipedia process is doing right by this individual. I've kind of run out of energy with Wikipedia for now, so I will take a editorial break pending a response. -- TerryE (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

Appears on its face to have POV issues. For example:

The BIAW is Washington state's biggest lobby against climate change, open space, and other environmental legislation. The group's newsletter has gone so far to equate environmentalists with terrorists.[33] The BIAW is unlike other business groups in Olympia according to environmental lobbyist Clifford Traisman. "They are to the far right of most business in Washington state," Traisman says. "They believe the free market should rule supreme."[34]

In 2005, the southern resident orcas were designated an endangered species. In 2006, the BIAW along with the Washington Farm Bureau sued the government to remove orcas from the endangered list.[35] The legal challenge was thrown out of U.S. District Court.[36]

In 2007, the group challenged the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that protects threatened and endangered salmon across the West.[37]

In 2008, the BIAW, in their newsletter Building Insight, equate environmentalists with “Nazis and terrorists."[33][38][39]

In 2009, the BIAW has been fighting environmental legislation such as solar water heaters in new homes.[26]

and

The BIAW is generally anti-tax, but in 2005 they lobbied for an excise tax to replace so-called "impact fees" that local governments assess on new construction.[47]

I tried to clean up some of the worst offenses, but suggest other eyse would help a great deal here. Collect (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be a difficult article to get right. There seem currently to be two sets of sources: BIAW itself, and Seattle newspapers. Both these are in principle appropriate. Does BIAW really get as bad a press as this in Seattle? If it does, then all we can do is reflect it and make sure that BIAW's own view is also in there, from its website or statements. (Perhaps they should change their PR consultants, but that's not up to us to say.) If there are also more positive articles in the local press then they should be in there too. One basic thing to do is to reorganise the section on the positions taken up under more neutral headings, and fewer headings. "Anti-union" won't do - what about "Labor policy"? One NPOV tag at the top of the article is more helpful than one on each small section. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the article demographics. Some other editors from as far back as 2006 have expressed concern about US-Centrism on this article

• diff
• diff

The article covers in some detail some of the demographic groups that are found in the United States in this section. However these demographics are not universally applicable all over the world and thus possibly undue weight is given to experiences in the United states. Some of the material is interesting but I have suggested is more appropriate in an article such as Demographics of the United States than a general demographic article. Watergate is not relevant in many parts of the world and so is McCarthyism. There is currently a dispute on how to handle this material and some outside input would be helpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmm.. something I know a little something about. I'll take a look. --Ludwigs2 05:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

moved to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Neutrality_of_company_article. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this article treatment with platelet-rich plasma fixes just about anything. Somebody with some medical beackground probably can better judge about the article's bias than I can. Also comments on talk page. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferdinand Nahimana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please review this article which looks to be written from the perspective of a supporter of Nahimana. A lot of good information, but should be rewritten for WP:NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

few months ago he/she already had waenings, now and again

Revision history of Demonology:

(cur) (prev) 04:05, 9 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Getting rid of redirecting link.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:07, 9 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,706 bytes) (now it is not a redidirect!) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:31, 8 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Removing a link that redirects here.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:55, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) m (21,706 bytes) (orpho) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:53, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,705 bytes) (agree) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 04:46, 7 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (This article isn't about the demonologist class in some games.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:35, 7 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,663 bytes) (Undid revision 336140734 by Gordon Ecker (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 04:28, 6 January 2010 Gordon Ecker (talk | contribs) m (21,632 bytes) (removing from the character classes category) (undo)

the sitation is following:
1. the Demonologist is a character class in D&D
2. Ian.thomson removes any info abot that fact from Demonology and Demonologist articles
which is a kind of vandalizm (Idot (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Hi, might I suggest to use the ((about)) template to indicate that the articles are about real-world religion and to provide links to the D&D articles? Instructions here Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There being a demonologist class in a number of games does not justify that the article about historical demonology be altered (as you have done in the past), nor justify that they have a separate article (which you have repeatedly tried to create with original research and some outright misinformation). Also, it is a lie and nothing more to say that I got any warnings from your actions in the demonologist and demonology articles. Adhering to notability guidelines and trying to ensure the quality of articles is not against POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

While trying to improve the decade articles I've noticed that some editors insist on having lists of the most notable people in each decade. My problem with those lists is that they are not NPOV - they are an ever growing place for the editors to pick their favorite person of each decade. Therefore I believe that the lists of notable persons should be removed from all the decade articles. Even though a discussion on this matter has been taking place lately in the 2000s discussion page, the other editors are only willing to rethink the people section in the 2000s article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. A start would be if it is agreed to use reliable sources listing such people as "people of the decade", and including on the basis of these sources. --Cyclopia^talk 19:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Crossposted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production

An anon has been adding some inflammatory ranty soapboxy language to Logic Pro (e.g., this and this). While perhaps there is an underlying content issue which could be developed, the tone and sourcing is abysmal (and that is putting it charitably). Some eyes would be welcome, even if to develop the content properly, as I do not wish to edit-war even over such an obvious disruption to the article. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a comment to the discussion on the Talk page and I've reverted the IP editor's changes twice, but he seems hell-bent on getting his unsourced rant in the article. He's long since exceeded 3RR. May be time to involve an admin? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Uggh. They added a reasonable source (a webpage by the manufacturer describing the issue — in notably more objective terms) and a dubious one (an online forum thread whose originator coined the disparaging moniker used on the page but whose other responders where considerably more tempered in their assessment). Semiprotection might be a good idea. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing much detail in the apple site. As for the other "reference", it's inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Update I requested semiprotection here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a fortnight, should give time to clean up the page & move the discussion appropriately to the talk page Skier Dude (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor claims that the article is not neutral. At Talk:Nazi Germany#Neutrality, User:Professional Assassin says that "The sources which have been used in this article are mostly from allied countries which is obvious that are not neutral. The current form of article looks like a war time anti-German propaganda". The user has made these edits, some of which I have already reverted. Could other editors please assess the merits of this claim that the article is biased in favour of the Allies, and whether this editor's edits were themselves neutral? Fences&Windows 22:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles should be based on reliable sources. As it turns out most reliable sources for Nazi Germany are written by scholars in Allied countries. However that does not mean that they are biased. I notice though that the article does have a lot of references and external links that are not high quality reliable sources. Better references should be found or the references should be removed, avoid using newspapers and revisionist historians. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

well, looking at that one diff you posted, I'm not sure why it was reverted. the additions seem (superficially at least) to be properly sourced, and the statements made do not seem unreasonable (Hitler was an immensely popular and effective leader in Germany), and the other points seem merely to be requests for clarifications, which aren't particularly objectionable in and of themselves. why was it reverted? --Ludwigs2 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader of Europe if not the whole world, and unemployment was just a thing of the past and German industries were the best and strongest in the world." is certainly questionable statements. The statement makes it sound like Hitler was the most popular leader across the world, which was not true in any sense, unemployment may have been a thing of the past for the average German (though not for for example most Jews and other undesirables), but the methods used is controversial and needs clarification. Also even at this time the industrial sector of the US was already stronger than Germany's. Corruption may have been reduced but it was certainly rife within the Nazi party. As you can see it seems a bit of a stretch to only apply one superficial newspaper citation for this. He also removed this section in the same edit: ""Between 1933 and 1945 more than 3 million Germans had been in concentration camps or prison for political reasons"<ref> Henry Maitles [http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj77/maitles.htm NEVER AGAIN!: A review of David Goldhagen, Hitlers Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust"], further referenced to G Almond, "The German Resistance Movement", Current History 10 (1946), pp409–527.</ref>".--Saddhiyama (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Saddhiyama. The Daily Mail is not an RS for qualitatiave historical analysis and the source is severely misrepresented (I imagine the author would be mortified). The removal of information about concentration camps has no apparent justification. The editor has what I would regard as a worrying (short) history. On the basis of this dif alone: [28], I believe that any NPOV concerns raised by the editor should be ignored. --FormerIP (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The edit inserted statements into the lead that favoured the Nazi government based on a Daily Mail article, an article that didn't even support much of what was inserted. 'Requests for clarification' are not always simple - the image that they want clarification of is annotated in the US government source as being the cremated bodies of anti-Nazi women, pray tell what they need clarified and why? In Gas chamber the same editor wants to state that it was "according to only the Allies and Jewish sources" that the Nazis used gas chambers; the edit serves no purpose other than to introduce doubt, and they are edit warring to keep it in.[29] They also inserted a statement that called the law in Germany against Holocaust denial a 'thought crime', sourced to a Holocaust denier.[30] There's a pattern here. Fences&Windows 01:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference to 3 million political prisoners, while probably correct, is poorly sourced. It's from a book review. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, valid reasons all. Someone might encourage that editor to be a little less combative and a little better sourced, because I don't think he's wholly out in left field, just a bit exaggerated. what I've read on the subject (and it's not my specialty, no) leads me to believe that Hitler was popular in Germany and respected (with a degree of wariness) in the international community, at least prior to the invasion of Poland. And there's no doubt that Germany was technologically two steps ahead of the rest of the world (Allied arms were inferior for the entirety of the war, but the US had a significant advantage in output which negated the differences) This all should be very well sourced - WWII is a topic that a ton of scholars have worked on - so all he has to do is dig a bit and he can find better sourcing. --Ludwigs2 02:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

“there's no doubt that Germany was technologically two steps ahead of the rest of the world”

Que? And this is on a Neutrality noticeboard? Absolute rubbish!

The Germans had a technical advantage in some specific areas; in others they were markedly inferior. And the superiorities were not absolute, they mostly varied throughout WWII. Anything else just buys into the whole Wonder weapon myth.

Are you trolling?Xyl 54 (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Xyl - I understand this is a high-tension topic, but please don't jump on my ass for encouraging discussion and neutrality on the issue, particularly not when you yourself give a qualified restatement of what I said as an established truth. And no, I don't want to hear you justify why your statement was correct - we'll do that on the article talk page if the need arise. My only point was that the view might be extreme and improperly sourced, but it's not inherently a wrong opinion, and if it can be tempered and sourced better it should be considered for inclusion.

P.s. accusing me of trolling after two (2) posts on the topic is way off the deep end. I'd appreciate some acknowledgment that you erred. --Ludwigs2 19:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the technology claim was yours, so if you reckon you can justify it, you can always take it up here.

As for the substantive issue, I agree with Narson (below). Xyl 54 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll thumbs-up to your first point, but I think your second point is counter-productive. content, not editors. --Ludwigs2 17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, it is rather obvious he is a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier using Wikipedia to prove a point. We probably should not humour him. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Gas chamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At Talk:Gas_chamber#Presenting Allied and Jewish claims as facts!, User:Professional Assassin says "It is obvious that those who fought against Germany can not be neutral to present their claims as facts". He has tagged the article as not being neutral a couple of times, and made several edits, presumably intended to balance it. Could the article be checked for neutrality please? Hohum (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is clear-cut Nazi trolling and should be ignored. The article should be reverted to a previous good version. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The artciel says that the letter said evidence" presented at Nuremberg and elsewhere for extermination and gassings in those camps is bogus. The letter (from the source providede) does not says this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

sigh... maybe he just doesn't understand wikipedia. I'll leave a note on his talk page. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am once again querying why we are humouring someone who is clearly here to push his fringe theory in such a disruptive manner. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the same kind of good fatih assumption we would hope for?Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven - well said. --Ludwigs2 19:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for reform of problem editors, but there are a few classes of editors are inherently ill-suited for the wiki short a major personal epiphany. Holocaust deniers are one of those. They are a huge drain on the productivity of our good editors here. Auntie E. (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How can some one have epiphany if we turn round and say "RIGHT THATS IT YOU'VE SAID THE UNSAYABLE AND I'M NOW IGNORING YOU"? We have to give all edds the benifit of the doubt, otehrwise whats to stop a another user saying the same when he disagress with you? We have to assume good faith from everyone, untill their actions become so disruptive that sactions become neccersary, if not then qwhy should any one else assume good faith based on a bad or iill consoderd edit?Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Auntie E.: I understand what you're saying: some people will just never get the wiki-thing. however, I think it's important to let people dig their own graves in that regard. I've personally had way too many editors label me as a this or a that (pugnaciously and unreasonably) to fully trust any argument based is labeling others. If s/he's a pro-Nazi troll, s/he'll prove it without any help from us; if not, then s/he just needs guidance so to look less like one. A reasonable and neutral editor could obviously add a Nazi perspective to an article, so long as that perspective is based in reliable sources and properly balanced with other sourced material - doing so would not make him/her a Nazi-POV-pusher. I'm just not convinced yet which way that cookie crumbles. --Ludwigs2 20:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The article on José Piñera, the brother of the Chilean president-elect, appears to be heavily biased in my view. I do not know enough of Chilean history to falsify the claims or complement them with compromising information. However, it seems highly inappropriate that someone who served on Pinochet's cabinet can present themselves as a guardian of human rights and democracy. Besides, most of the claims concerning Piñera's human-rights record come from his own personal website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.63.185.132 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dimitrije Tucović was a Serbian social democrat, widely know for writing about the war crimes against Albanians. There is one user who constantly removing his quote from the article as "propagandistic". I didn't put this quote into the article but I think it should stay, because it represent Tucović's views.

Please, see page history and Talk:Dimitrije Tucović.

Thanks.--Mladifilozof (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm having issues with the Oldenburg Baby article. Compared to the German version of the article it seems extremely biased towards a pro-life position. For example the article fails to mention the mother's preexisting condition of mental instability and her threat to kill herself should the abortion be denied. It also makes it seem as if the mother killed herself solely because of the events of the failed abortion. Also the time frame given ("the procedure took place less than four hours later") seems highly unlikely, isn't cited anywhere and gives the decision for abortion yet another negative spin. Could someone else look at this and tell me what they think?

I think that the article has a bit more fact than opinion to it. But this definatly needs to be sourced properly. This is one of those cases that could probally be cleared up with references. I will keep watching this & the page. --MWOAP (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No further comments have been made. Closing. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Template talk:Africa topic regarding Somaliland.

As background, following Somalia's descent into anarchy in the early nineties, part of the north of that country declared itself independent as Somaliland. This territory has a functioning government that considers itself to be de jure independent, and claims borders corresponding to those of the former British Somaliland. It is in de facto control of a majority of that territory, but is not recognised by any outside state. Sources are generally available on the talk page, but it has become rather long-winded. Note in particular, however, that it is not argued that Somaliland is a micronation. Either it is an independent state or a state of Somalia.

Mainstream media sources tend to call Somaliland a "self-declared republic", an "unrecognised state" or a "breakaway republic". A lot of the discussion has centred on the Montevideo Convention, but now that we have (non-neutral) sources arguing both sides, this has rather closed down.

User:Middayexpress argues that all sources that support Somaliland independence (and in particular Somaliland government sources) are inherently unreliable on the grounds that many of their authors have a POV and (he argues) have links to the Somaliland government. In the case of the Somaliland government itself, he argues that their view that Somaliland is independent is unreliable because: "[o]f course they will say that it is; that is what their entire campaign for recognition is about." Having dismissed such view, he argues that the view that Somaliland is independent is a tiny minority view that should not be allowed for.

I argue that the fact that the Somaliland government considers itself independent, and that the rest of the world disagrees, is sufficient for WP:NPOV to require that we allow for the notion that the Somaliland government may be right. I argue that this should not mean that Somaliland be listed on a par with Somalia, but that Somaliland should be explicitly marked as is currently done with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, or placed in a separate part of the template.

My questions. In the collective opinion of this noticeboard:

Is the view that Somaliland is independent a "tiny minority" view that need not be included per WP:V?

Should Somaliland be listed on the template, given that such listing would not put it on a par with Somalia and other states that are generally internationally recognised?

Thanks, Pfainuk talk 12:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it's not a tiny minority viewpoint, given that it's the official policy of the territory's government, but it shouldn't be included on the template given the complete lack of outside recognition. An appropriate comparison would be Transnistria, a breakaway territory of Moldova, which lacks any outside recognition and is not listed on Template:Countries of Europe. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually argue that Template:Countries of Europe is fairly seriously biased. It includes Kosovo as an independent state on a par with Serbia, but does not give equivalent status to Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia or Transnistria. The only ways in which Kosovo is distinct are the number of recognitions and the fact the United States and much of the rest of the Western World recognise it - indeed, the template accords exactly with the POV of the governments of most large English-speaking countries. Better to include all six in a separate section, below the list of those that are generally recognised, or to include them in italics with a note saying that entities in italics aren't generally recognised, or are disputed, or somesuch. Pfainuk talk 13:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you want to reopen that particular can of worms! The five territories you mention all have either minimal recognition (by one or two states) or none at all, in the case of Transnistria. There was a long debate about which to include in the template before it was agreed that a state should only be included if it has significant recognition. In fact, Kosovo has slightly more international recognition than the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and it's recognised by all of its neighbours with the exception of Serbia. In the case of Somaliland the answer should be easy - it has zero international recognition and no state in the world recognises its territory as anything other than part of Somalia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia each have four UN member states (Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru), plus Transnistria and one another. How many more do they need, exactly, to have "significant recognition"? Five? Ten? Why would you not say that recognition by a member of the P5 is significant? Why is it not significant that, like Kosovo, they are recognised by all of their neighbours except one?

Do you not think it's biased to definitively accept Kosovo as independent of Serbia, as that template does? Do you not think that appearing to take the US government's POV as fact and reject Serbia's POV out of hand - as we do on that template - is bad for Wikipedia? That it gives the impression of bias? Why should the Transnistrian and Nagorno-Karabkh POVs not be allowed for: why should we prejudge the disputes by declaring them definitively non-existent? No, I don't accept this as a sound reason to reject any of those five, nor as a sound reason to list Kosovo on level terms with Serbia. Pfainuk talk 22:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just telling you what the existing precedent is in this kind of dispute. The precedent suggests that Somaliland should be excluded from the template since it's not regarded by any UN state as independent, nor does it have any status in international law as an independent entity. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, Transnistria is currently recognized by two non-UN members; Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is not on equal par with Somaliland, in this case. Please see the List of states with limited recognition page to gain more knowledge on this subject. Outback the koala (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the subject, thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I was a little confused I guess because above you stated that Transnistria lacks any outside recognition, when it in fact does. Sorry to bring up facts and all that. Cheers! Outback the koala (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll probably go template-fixing after this. We should definitely have a standard for all. I'd advocate sticking with the two Theories, like how its explained on the List of sovereign states page. Night w (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There are articles on two competing definitions of statehood: The Declarative theory of statehood versus the Constitutive theory of statehood. Only the latter cares about counting votes to see how many other countries view it as a country. I think favoring one viewpoint of statehood is problematic. However, states with no/limited/disputed recognition should be footnoted or grouped separately so that readers have a clear understanding of their international recognition.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The article has severe POV issue as it is written from pro-Ayurveda POV and I noticed there is no criticism of a controversial fringe theorist like Chopra. There is a Deepak_Chopra#Reception section which deals mainly with praise and only one paragraph on criticism. Some more criticism should be included in the article in accordance with RS and BLP to present a balanced view. The career section reads like an advertisement by Chopra. And there were severe problem in this version of the lead. I think the lead should mention why Chopra is famous. Everyone knows him as an Ayurvedic thinker, whether he has certificate in endocrinology has nothing to do with his widespread media coverage. And surely he made no contribution in the field of endocrinology, but in the field of Ayurveda for which he is notable. --Defender of torch (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that criticism of Chopra has been published by WP:RS I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the article. I just did a quick scan but didn't come up with anything substantive, however judging by the nature of his work and the length of his career there probably is something to be found. --Dailycare (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The only source cited in the article is the book Aussaresses, Paul [Gen.]. The Battle of the Casbah." Enigma Books, 2006, p.1. ISBN 1929631308.

The author of the book was one of the principals in the battle, and therefore cannot be considered neutral. Unfortunately, I know of no neutral source, but it seems to me that Aussaresses' claim that the fellagha were under the influence of narcotics sounds suspiciously like propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donprius (talk • contribs) 05:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC) --Donprius (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)