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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Flagging page João de Deus (medium). Large portions of the article, including several paragraphs claiming his faith healing is statistically better than western medicine, is uncited. Article continues with apparent pro-faith healing bias, then ends with cited but aggressively worded anti-faith healing statement: "On the show and in Ms. Casey's article, no rational explanation is provided as to why an untrained and medically unlicensed individual scraping a cornea or inserting foreign objects into the nose would be advisable. There is no medical or scientific reasoning for these procedures." -- 208.71.235.4 ( talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This may be of interest to the people that follow this noticeboard.
Sven Manguard Wha? 06:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
At Exit International there is a concern that by including a billboard picture that was sponsored by the group it "changes the article from a neutral description into a platform of promoting the cause and the organisation". [1] Is it NPOV to include the billboard picture? Jesanj ( talk) 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it's a start. I found a number of good references in lexis/nexis, I think we can flesh out the article and that will help with the layout. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 02:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
There was a recent AfD on the article Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper), which can be found here. The title of the article back then was just Lewontin's fallacy. A couple of users brought up in the discussion that the title of the article should probably be changed, because it could be misconstrued as stating as fact that Lewontin was wrong or other issues in regards to that. Thus, there was a discussion afterwards on the talk page here, where we really didn't get anywhere and seemed to be arguing in circles.
Eventually, to fix the issue, I just boldly moved the title to what it currently is, which is the full title of the scientific paper and even states in parentheses, per common convention, that it is a paper. Thus, the title should be neutral enough, correct? However, the two users I was discussi:::::ng with in the prior stated section stated a Move/Merge discussion and one is stating that the current title is still non-neutral just because it has the name of a scientist and the word fallacy in it, even though that is the exact name of the paper and is clearly stated as being a paper. You can see the diff of the user saying that here.
They seem to be saying that there is no possible way for the article to ever be neutral because it is discussing a paper that considers a response to a paper by another scientist, even though the article has a background section that discusses Lewontin's views and I have stated time and again that the paper that Lewontin wrote should also have an article. But no matter what I say or title options I offer, the response seems to be that the article is non-neutral and that it should be merged into another article, ignoring the AfD.
I would like to request outside opinions on this matter of neutrality. Silver seren C 04:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Silver seren's account above is not correct as stated. There are several omissions:
The request here appears to be an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. It appears to have nothing at all to do with improving the scientific content of this encyclopedia. Mathsci ( talk) 05:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I have some background in medical genetics and I never heard of Lewontin's Fallacy. The underlying science doesn't seem particularly profound. I suppose if the article is to remain it should have the exact title of the scientific paper (that would be NPOV despite the unfortunate eponym), but my preference would certainly be to merge with the author's page. Brmull ( talk) 07:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This article is about Bernard Fellay, a bishop of the SSPX(Society of Saint Pius X). In 1988, against papal authority, Archbishop Lefebvre illicitly and illegally consecrated 4 men as Bishops against Papal authority. Pope John Paul II declared this an unlawful and schismatic act and excommunicated the 4 and the archbishop. In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication on the survivng 4 bishops. Fellay is the current head of the Society. We have sourced statements in the article detailing the excommunication and the lifting and even a nugget from the SSPX followers who insist the pope was wrong, etc. A user, User:Seminarian Matt insists on inserting the word "alleged" into the lede section with regard to the excommunication [6]. I won't revert again, and have tried to engage the author on the talk page who simply accuses me of POV pushing and accuses me of categorizing the bishop as "evil", something I've never done. My sole objection is to the use of "alleged" in the article as it is a weasel word. The Author has a history of this behavior in related articles, I've tried explaining things rationally, but all I get are rants of me being a "modernist". [7] I'll back off from reverting him, but don't think anyone should be given a pass on weasel words like "alleged" when there are sources to back up the excommunication and the lifting of such.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This article appears to have many POV issues which I will try to summarise below:
My attempts to fix many of these problems have mostly been rejected by other editors, so I have been somewhat of a lone voice - hence posting here in the hope of either improving the article or improving my understanding of what is and isn't POV. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 08:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I posted this on the Wikiproject: Neutrality page but apparently that's defunct. A big red X through the page would have stopped me. I posted a help request and it led me here. If someone could tell me what indicator I missed that would have told me to come here right away I'd appreciate it. The issue:
I claim neutrality on the death penalty and indifference on Rick Perry. I do not claim neutrality on the killing of innocent people or those whose convictions don't stand up to the test of reasonable doubt. I claim that a reasonable, independent, outside observer will conclude that there is doubt about the guilt of Cameron_Todd_Willingham and that the current wording of the Rick Perry page section dealing with CTW doesn't reflect NPOV as already wearily worked out on the CTW page. The CTW page is finally NPOV and the Rick Perry page's section on the case is now not, it sugarcoats the issue and tries to gloss over the facts to protect a politician - if the Cameron_Todd_Willingham page is NPOV, then a summary of said on Rick Perry's page should also automatically be NPOV. User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bdell555 improperly removed the NPOV tag on said section as evidenced on http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rick_Perry&action=historysubmit&diff=444791026&oldid=444786454 - as a direct result of the NPOV tag removal, the section spiraled out of control in the edit wars. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham and Cameron_Todd_Willingham for background. Please help either keep the NPOV tag on and lock (?) the disputed section until the edit wars simmer down, or assemble an authoritative NPOV summary of the CTW page on the Rick Perry page (and then protect it?). Cheers. Also, sorry about this section heading, I don't know how to link to a section on a page. For what it's worth, I'm fairly sure the Rick Perry edit wars will cool down once Rick Perry is either in or out as a GOP presidential candidate, so this would be about a 14-month issue at most, but until then the public is best served by a full and free neutral discussion of facts. Pär Larsson ( talk) 15:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
My previous discussion got nowhere, so I will bring it up again: User:Hearfourmewesique keeps on deleting the fact that smooth jazz is descended from jazz, a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. All of the early smooth jazz musicians root their influences to musicians of older styles of jazz, but Hearfourmewesique keeps on editing the smooth jazz article to suit his/her POV. ANDROS1337 TALK 20:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Could we get some additional eyes on the Judith Reisman article? I've worked on it here and there over time, and it seems to me that the article relies too much on her own works and is a bit of a soapbox for her views. Some of the sources may not be reliable, but I figured it would be best to start here to see if anyone else sees any pov problems. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 10:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Claim of 60% of Sedan/ Ethiopia being J1 rather than E Haplogroup are not factual based on papers cited and are contradicted by others.
I realize original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. However, image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. "*etc..." is not a justification of many parts of this image, including referenced assumptions for Central Asia and the Caucasus outside of Dagestan.
The Horn of Africa where the highest densities is shown for J1 depict a density of over 60% in Sudan and Ethiopia.
the paragroup E-M78*. E-V65 and E-V13 were completely absent in the samples analyzed, whereas the other subclades were relatively common. E-V12* accounts for 19.3% and is widely distributed among Sudanese. E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common subclades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups. http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384897/figure/FG1/
http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Members/Lahr/pubs/AHG-65-01.pdf
http://www2.smumn.edu/facpages/~poshea/uasal/DNAWWW/pdfs/Underhill2000.pdf
given in Underhill et al. 2000." Figure 2 relates to a total found, not the specific "Central Asia."
(2); Asia: 3 Japanese IV, V, VII; 2 Han Chinese VII, 1 Taiwan Atayal VII, 1 Taiwan Ami, VII, 2 Cambodian VI, VII; Pakistan: 2 Hunza VI, IX; 2 Pathan VI, VII; 1 Brahui VIII; 1 Baloochi VI; 3 Sindhi III, VI, VIII; Central Asia: 2 Arab IX; 1 Uzbek IX; 1 Kazak V; MidEast: 1 Druze VI; Pacific: 2 New Guinean V, VIII; 2 Bougainville Islanders VIII; 2 Australian VI, X: America: 1 Brazil Surui, 1 Brazil Karatina, 1 Columbian, 1 Mayan all X. We genotyped an additional 1,009 chromosomes, representing 21 geographic regions, by DHPLC for all markers other than those on the terminal branches of the phylogeny. We genotyped the latter only in individuals from the haplogroup to which those markers belonged. This hierarchic genotyping protocol was necessitated by the limited amounts of genomic DNA available for most samples.regions, by DHPLC for all markers other than those on the terminal branches of the phylogeny.
The majority of them are J2[M172]. Those who are not are under M89. The 17 with M89 alone can be J* without being J1.
*There is no mention in the methods in any of the four listed of a retesting of these samples. Since F* is the parent of J*, it is possible, all of the 17 samples claimed to be J1 are J* rather than J1.
*The issue of J1 in the Caucasus is even more evident as they have been mostly F* or G* without the subclade of J. I can go into further issues, but just one inaccuracy in the map statements and depiction should be enough JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 23:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm hoping that some of you can comment on the NPOV situation at August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids especially the title NPOV issues as discussed at the requested move section on the talk page. Right now due to the 1RR rule, I can't readd the NPOV issue template to the article and readers may be misled without this on there. Please advise.-- 98.112.224.106 ( talk) 08:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Discount-licensing.com#ECJ_asked_to_rule_on_re-sale_of_software_licences Chzz ► 04:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Long, unrelated, and likely mistakenly inserted text. -JJ
|
---|
“I agree with earlier editor. Both are respectable scholars. Thus, they should be treated on a balanced view. Lefkowitz article and editor’s resume copy in Wiki are emerging assumptions. This is most obvious by the above editor’s breaking down analysis. The point regarding archaeology and politics (pseudoarchaeology…etc) is an interesting article. However, attributing to the dating results of Liritzis team such a predetermination and unjustified attack is surely not fair and an unlawful possession. If one scholar does not agree with another scholar’s data, she/he should produce independent evidence. The article by the innovator of surface luminescence dating is written in english and his short sentence in Geochronometria (I am convinced having read most relevant papers) refers to inconsistencies of Lefkowitz article. Inconsistencies that one editor above has rightly pinpointed in some detail producing a point per point explanation to respective lemma in wiki. So, the one view is a proof, while the other i.e. Lefkowitz’ views is disagreement based on assumptions, accusations for pseudo archaeology, preconceived fallacies etc. The editor in right to say she was wrong! She is wrong and the editor above explains that. It is these misleading statements that make her a voluntary denouncer. I thus propose a short sentence on Lefkowitz (avoiding hypothetical views without evidence) and on Liritzis (only facts) supplying necessarily the relevant references for both. For example, “Lefkowitz disagrees on hypothetical grounds about this earlier dating results and questions the reliability[ref], while Liritzis and his team has accredited the methodology coined surface luminescence dating [ref] and referred to Lefkowitz view in a series of articles published in Journals with citation.[refs]”, or something like that. The managing editors should focus on the questions below: Lefkowitz disagrees on…. QUEST 1: on what? the methodology? Surely not. It has been explained and references provided. Wrongly it was stated that the methodology was tested on these two pyramidals to determine the reliability of the method. The method had been tested on laboratory work and actual archaeological cases (see above one editor gives bibliography). QUEST 2: On the other pyramids in Greece? The authors do not discuss or attribute to pyramids other buildings, beyond to simple reference, though it is attributed to them. Another editor above has seen this. Why is this? And to which references in English she read this? In fact they wrongly are named by Lefkowitz (and other grey literature) as pyramids, rather the correct term pyramidals. The top is missing and no one knows if there was a top! QUEST 3: She coins this effort and the result as preconceived idea to make it seems old etc etc.? This is incorrect. As fas as I know the authors present the results in a scientific way published in renowned Journals and do not make any comment on this that Lefkowitz accuses them. She probably refers to other works but in the lemma it does not come out correctly. QUEST 4: The lemma refers to Lefkowitz view and quotes 4 times same article of hers [ref.14-17]. Why no mention of Liritzis team passages that refer to her points? Answer: Because no comments of this kind is made in their papers. The wording used by Lefkowitz is utterly wrong and should be removed from Wikipedia lemma otherwise the managing editors back up Lefkowitz as a professional swindler: “ to back up an assumption…..”, “to determine the reliability of the method, as was suggested, ….”, “…structure in Stylidha which is just a long wall etc..”, “recycled stones…”, “other structures mentioned in this research to be pyramids in fact…alleged to be the tomb….”, “in order to confirm a predetermined theory….”. By the way, another hot dating issue concerns the Dragon Houses at Styra, Euboea. These mystery buildings were attributing an old age and more recent by others. The Liritzis team dated this to c.4-5th c BC in a recent aerticle and in a volume edited by Boston Univ known archaeologist D.Keller (see, Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry 2011 vol.11, No.3, online at www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal). This is just a point to exclude pseudoarchaeology dilemmas attributed to internationally recognized scholars”. Finally only one sole reference (an article in a Book by Lefkowitz) does not warrant reliability but instead bias. No other authors back her assumptions. On the other hand the surface luminescence dating has been referred to Liritzis and his team in many publications. This presentation should be changed because soon or later similar confrontations might be backed up by sole misinterpretations against renowned scholarly publications. I kindly urge editors to reconsider this lemma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geokitis ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
Lately, Loki0115 ( talk · contribs) has been raising issues with the content of an article I authored as part of a course on human evolution titled Control of fire by early humans. His issues seem to stem from the fact that he disagrees with the writings of a particular evolutionary biologist who wrote on the subject, who doesn't have many proponents, but the discussion of his writings are still useful for the article. When I checked his contributions, I discovered that Loki0115 has been heavily editing articles concerning the raw foodism movement, which are:
It appears that he has reached some level of opposition on his beliefs on various talk pages, but my main issue is that he has been removing swaths of content that he does not agree with without adding sources to provide the contrary. I came here because I am fairly certain that his actions are not allowable and his most recent edits, along with his extensive editing history, show a clear agenda to push raw food consumption.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
First of all, my "agenda" is not to push raw food consumption per se. I am happy that data is included on things like food-poisoning in raw foods and the like and happily accept that cooking can create benefits/improvements in a number of cases, given certain scientific studies. My main interest in all this is simply to make sure that the scientific data/refs etc. in favour of cooking are as solid as the scientific data/refs backing raw foods. That seems reasonable. I have not solely gone in for deletions either, but also, in the past, added whole new sections to the raw foodism page, among others, even to pages such as the Aajonus Vonderplanitz and raw veganism pages, 2 aspects of raw foodism which I personally am somewhat opposed to, simply for the purposes of adding reliable notable data to wikipedia, even if those 2 pages somewhat conflict with my personal views. Indeed, I have, here and there, deleted pro-raw data provided by other contributors which was seriously dodgy on a scientific level. The reason for my focus on raw-related pages is simply because I happen to be particularly knowledgeable about the subject. I have at times added whole sentences, and occasionally, paragraphs to non-diet-related pages, or edited grammatical mistakes, but don't always feel "expert" enough in those areas.
In the case of Richard Wrangham, the scientist mentioned above, and his book "Catching Fire", my main aim was to show, with provided refs, that the mainstream viewpoint of most other anthropologists was opposed to Wrangham's views. When a particular belief is clearly only held by a minority of scientists, according to online articles, it seems reasonable to make note of that. In the case of the cooking article, as I recall, my main contribution was to state that the mainstream viewpoint of anthropologists as to when cooking got started was c. 250,000 years ago, and provided references. Hardly biased, as that data can easily be found online.
In the case of the "Palaeolithic Diet" page, as I recall, my contribution has been actually very minor. I deleted a Jared Diamond reference to modern hunter-gatherers which as not relevant to the palaeolithic era, and one or two other minor points such as adding an image and the like. But, quite frankly, most of the current article has nothing to do with me, and I only rarely viewed/edited it in the past. Same applies to the "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons" page, which very rarely visit/edit, as I only have specific knowledge re some aspects of those toxins.
Then we go to the particular webpage referenced above by Ryulong, "control of fire by early hominids":-
This all started over a disagreement I had with the wording of the 1st paragraph of the control of fire page. However, despite Ryulong at first objecting to my 2 points made in the link below, he seems now to have corrected the relevant paragraph to make it more accurate and in line with wikipedia policy , so that I have no further problem with it:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Control_of_fire_by_early_humans#Major_Issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans
There is still a problem, though. I added some valid data re the Samu find being the oldest evidence of control of fire by homo erectus people in Hungary from " 350,000 years ago"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samu_(Homo_erectus)
The 350,000 year figure is noteworthy, especially since a vague figure of 300 to 500,000 years is given a little later for acheulian tools of some sort.
, and the point about the Samu location being used by "later versions of homo erectus" is important to add since there were many much older, earlier versions of homo erectus, concerning which use of/control of fire data is sketchy at best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Control_of_fire_by_early_humans&diff=445025392&oldid=445025162 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 ( talk • contribs)
Oh, it seems that Ryulong has reverted back to my previous update re the "350,000" figure and the other "later homo erectus" mention, so there doesn't seem to be a contentious issue here. Loki0115 ( talk) 23:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Loki0115 has continued to remove content that does not follow his basic raw food ideas that have reliable sources as evidenced by his recent edits at Control of fire by early humans ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of Transcendental Meditation research reads as follows:
”Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) beyond relaxation or health education.”
This sentence creates POV because it only tells one side of the story and there are a dozen independent research reviews discussed in the article which do report health benefits. See here. As it is, no one reading the opening section of this article would have any idea that TM has been shown to have any health benefits, when the article is full of scientific findings indicating the contrary.
I have attempted to add the following sentence to the lead:
"Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits associated with TM, compared to health education, relaxation, and other control groups."
The sentence cites six of the research reviews (from 12 total in list above) from the following journals and medical books: Ethnicity and Disease; Pediatrics: American Academy of Pediatrics; an AHRQ-funded systematic review and meta-analysis; Braunwald's Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; and Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine. Discussion of the suitability of these refs here
Most of the studies covered in these reviews were outside the scope of the three reviews cited in the current first sentence that says there are no benefits for TM. For example, the study on metabolic syndrome published by the American Medical Association (AMA) ( here), and cited in Braunwald’s Heart Disease (listed above), came out iafter the Sept 2005 cutoff date for the AHRQ review.
The added sentence would also bring the article in line with WP:LEAD which says the opening paragraph should, "define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."
Shouldn’t the sentence above, which summarizes significant content in the body of the article, be allowed be allowed to stand in the lead? Please give your thoughts and comments. Thank you. Early morning person ( talk) 14:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the 3 meta-analyses (or systematic reviews) currently relied on by the 1st sentence have clear limitations. To back the idea that TM has no health benefits more than relaxation or health ed., it cites three narrowly focused references, two of them on reviews of research on mental conditions:
1) A review of research on anxiety. And this review is further confined to studies of persons with a serious (i.e., formally diagnosed) anxiety disorder. They could only find one study in this category. It excluded many other published studies for this reason.
2) A review of research on ADHD (a hyperactivity disorder). (Another problem with this reference, is that it does not compare TM to either relaxation or health education, and so does obviously does not support the comparison in the 1st sentence)
3) The third reference, the AHRQ-funded review of meditation and health at least focuses directly on health. But it has two major problems as a reference for the 1st sentence:
a) It directly contradicts the first sentence that it is supposed to support! I have actually used it in my list of references that report health benefits for TM (see #3 here). Briefly, it performed a meta-analysis that found a clinically significant improvement in hypertension in TM subjects, compared to relaxation.
b) It (see Health section of TM Research article here) excluded 98 studies recommended by its own peer-review committee, including studies on meditation and adolescent health, meditation and drug abuse, and meditation and life-expectancy, which comprise at least a dozen high-quality, published findings. It also cut off research to Sept 2005, after which some of the major studies I cite were published.
So why this sentence is there in the first place? It is poorly supported by its references, and is actually directly contradicted by one of them. And, back to my earlier point, it does not summarize or even mention the other findings that pervade the article, as required by both WP:Lead and WP:NPOV. Early morning person ( talk) 19:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the pages in question you will notice a group of editors that have been working at trying to add that TM is better than health education / relaxation. A number of them admit to practicing TM themselves. If you look at my concerns regarding the claimed "systematic reviews" one of them does not state it is a systematic review (to which we all agree). And I still do not find the text mentioned in the second. The current version was decided with the help of a RfC [8]. Early morning did indeed add ""Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits associated with TM, compared to health education, relaxation, and other control groups." [9] so I looked at each and every ref and not one supported the stated sentence. So IMO there is no NPOV issue with the lead but there is with the body of the text (more of an issue of WP:DUE than anything) with poorer quality research that supports TM being gradually added over a long period of time rather than just using the best quality evidence. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, I do not understand your statement about "poorer quality research" being in the article in support of health benefits for TM. I just see a lot of top quality reviews, as per MEDRS, reporting peer-reviewed research finding clinically significant health benefits. Early morning person ( talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Splitting off the research section was discussed at several different points since I've been editing. This is the final discussion and agreement after which I created the article as requested [10]( olive ( talk) 20:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC))
Yes the main article is here Transcendental Meditation. I am not able to keep all the rest NPOV as I edit broadly. This is definitely an issue. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes have been trying to keep the "claiming of magical powers" to a minimum but could definitely use some help on this. Wikipedia unfortunately does not seem to take WP:COI seriously. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
A couple of issues with the ideas of putting the section on history first (1) we have an article about the history of TM and this is not it (2) that paragraph reads like a press release of the TM organization (3) independent comments on TM research / science include comments like:
"The problem with most TMO-sponsored research was the predetermined outcome of the studies. Maharishi had already decreed that TM was a universal panacea; the job of researchers was to confirm this unquestioned conclusion. Science was useful only to the extent that it appeared to demonstrate the benefits of TM. Evidence of negative side effects was not reported" "By the mid-1970s TMO-produced scientific studies were coming under increased scrutiny and open attack by reputable scientists.42 It soon became clear that some of the studies’ most dramatic findings could not be replicated. The methodology underlying studies demonstrating the so-called “Maharishi Effect,”43 the power of group meditation to transform all aspects of society, was attacked as invalid. Trained scientists and scholars within the TMO also defected, making public charges of academic misconduct, bias and fraud in TMO research.44"
Vedic astrology,47 architecture, medicine, music, fire sacrifices, gemstone therapy and the like are all promoted as science by the TMO.
The TMO spent a fortune importing an estimated one thousand53young Brahmin “pandits” (trained Vedic scholar-priests), who should more accurately be called pujaris (temple ritual specialists who are not necessarily scholars). Living isolated in a remote, fenced trailer park in the Fairfield area, they increased the number of participants in group meditations while conducting Vedic rituals to help bring the Maharishi Effect to Iowa, the United States and the world.54 Based on the spectacular flooding in Iowa in 2008, the regional methamphetamine trade, and the present state of the economies in the United States and the world, this experiment does not appear to be working http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nr.2011.14.4.54 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Rbhuvaneshbabu has today converted our article on Solestruck, an e-commerce company specialising in footwear to a blatant advertisment. I had left a note on Rbhuvaneshbabu's talk page pointing to our relevant policies, but Rbhuvaneshbabu has continued to add to the article. I reverted to the previous version, but has now Rbhuvaneshbabu restored his/her edit. I'm reluctant to take this straight to AN/I without a second opinion on whether the article should be reverted, deleted as spam, or restored to the earlier stub. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru. The conflict is also known as the "Saltpeter War", as disputes over mineral-rich territory were the war's prime cause. The conflict originated in a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, but Bolivia and Chile's controversy over ownership of Atacama preceded and laid foundations for the conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia activated its mutual defense treaty with Peru.
Extended content
| |
---|---|
|
Extended content
| |
---|---|
|
Extended content
| |
---|---|
|
Alexh, let me help you. Go to Keysanger's link, click (on the content box) on "Mediation of offensive/defensive issue". Go the section "Moving On". Finally, open up the "extended content" to read the sources provided by Keysanger. Nearly 2 years have passed after that discussion, and over the years I have gotten better at analyzing and gathering sources. These things I note now that back then I did not consider:
2 years ago I had very little knowledge on how to analyze sources, but now I am confident that all of the sources originally presented by Keysanger only serve little purpose other than to demonstrate a Chilean POV which is already present in the Wikipedia article. Whether Keysanger purposely tried to trick both me and the mediator at that point, I ultimately assume good faith from his part. Furthemore, this Chilean POV is a minority view in the sense that only Chileans seem to agree with it.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
War of the Pacific; MarshalN20 (Non-Peruvian or Bolivian) Sources:
The nature of "offensive alliances" and "defensive alliances"
Example of a Defensive Alliance treaty aimed at specific countries (Spain and USA), but which does not constitute an offensive alliance:
As this source demonstrates, an alliance treaty aimed at a country does not constitute an "offensive alliance". Defensive alliances have a strict character, different from offensive alliances, as they are forced to only take effect upon the attack of a foreign country. The historical record of the War of the Pacific also demonstrates that neither Peru or Bolivia ever invaded Chile; the whole war was based on Chile invading both Bolivian and Peruvian territory, while both countries simply defended.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, friction began to develop over the mineral-rich Bolivian province of Antofagasta and the Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, whose wealth was exploited largely by Chilean enterprises. In 1875 Peru seized Chilean nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and in 1878 a new Bolivian government greatly increased taxes on Chilean business interests. To protect these interests and preempt their threatened expropriation, Chile dispatched a naval squadron headed by the ironclad Blanco Encalada and landed 200 troops at the Bolivian port of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, provoking a declaration of war by Bolivia on March 1, an action reciprocated by Chile on April 5. Peru, which had concluded the secret Treaty of Mutual Defense with Bolivia in 1873, was now also drawn into the conflict (see The Liberal Era, 1861-91 , ch. 1).
Notwithstanding the fact that in 1873 Peru had induced Bolivia to sign a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile, the Peruvian government offered its mediation in the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, the origin of which was nothing more than Peru’s monopolistic nitrate policy, which had instigated Bolivia to disposes Chilean industries. The mediation of Peru was accompanied by three suspicious circumstances: (1) The denial on the part of the mediating minister of the existence of the secret treaty of which Chile had lately become aware; (2) Previous Peruvian demands compatible only with the pretensions of Bolivia; (3) Hurried war preparations of Peru, the Peruvian government meanwhile showing a desire to gain time. These circumstances, with the fact that Bolivia did not manifest the slightest desire to facilitate an amicable adjustment, indicated to Chile that Peru was not working ‘bona fide’, but only with the intentin of strengthening the alliance.
The War of the Pacific ( Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru. Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, disputes soon arose over the mineral-rich Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, and the Bolivian province of Antofagasta. Chilean enterprises, which largely exploited the area, saw their interests at stake when Peru nationalized all nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company. The problem primarily focused on Bolivia and Chile due to their controversy over ownership of Atacama, which preceded and laid foundations for their conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but, when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia sought the activation of its Treaty of Mutual Defense with Peru. Disputes further escalated until Chile declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.
This " Saltpeter War" took place over five years in a variety of terrain, including the Atacama Desert and Peru's deserts and mountainous regions. The war's first battle was the Battle of Topáter. For most of the first year the focus was on the naval campaign, as Chile struggled to establish a sea-based resupply corridor for its forces in the world's driest desert. The Peruvian Navy met initial success, but the Chilean Navy prevailed. Afterwards, Chile's land campaign bested the badly equipped Bolivian and Peruvian armies, leading to Bolivia's complete defeat and withdrawal in the Battle of Tacna on May 26, 1880, and the defeat of the Peruvian army after the Battle of Arica on June 7. The land campaign climaxed in 1881, with the Chilean occupation of Lima. The conflict then became a guerrilla war engaging Peruvian army remnants and irregulars. This Campaign of the Breña was fairly successful as a resistance movement, but did not change the war's outcome. After Peru's defeat in the Battle of Huamachuco, Chile and Peru signed the Treaty of Ancón on October 20, 1883. Bolivia signed a truce with Chile in 1884.
Hi Alex, Hi MarshallN20,
I agree that, regarding the use of "defensive" in the paragraph, MarshalN20's proposal is a good proposal. MarshalN20, would you be so kind to change the wording of the other places that come into consideration? (Yesterday I counted 5 places in the article where the word "defensive" was used to portray the treaty). We also should add the word "secret" in the lede in order to inform the reader about the complicated situation at that time.
We can analyse some issues in the lede, like " Peru entered the affair in 1879 …" and others, at the proper time.
I am sure that a decision by consensus will endure and set the basis for a change for the better in the article. Best Regards, -- Keysanger ( what?) 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
My agreement to this proposal is under the condition that in no case the reader can be mislead to the assumption that the treaty was a defensive one. If needed there must be said that the treaty was called "of defense" or "defensive", but that it is not the opinion of Wikipedia. -- Keysanger ( what?) 11:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course my agreement to this proposal is under the condition that this difference between name and adjective must be replicated overall in the article where the treaty is mentioned. Also this agreement is valid and bindig for the page of the treaty Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873. -- Keysanger ( what?) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your objections in my talk page, I repeat, the reader in no case should be lead to presume that the treaty was defensive. Your rationale about words are capitalised is not enough because the name is misleading. I propouse to add "so-called" before the name or to add in every case that the treaty has been characterized by historians as an offensive and as an defensive one. This agreement must be replicated to all places in the article where the treaty is mentioned. Also we have to accept the same conditions for the Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873 article. Best Regards, -- Keysanger ( what?) 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a Treaty of Mutual Defense which guaranteed their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. An additional clause kept the treaty secret. Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence, which led Chilean historiography to conclude that the treaty was aimed against Chile.
I made a proposal and hope that will find a good echo (sorry, I introduced a new issue, but it can be reverted). We can discuss here or in the talk page of the article, as you like it .-- Keysanger ( what?) 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to finish the declaration of war issue first and then I will be back to this theme to find a sustainable solution for this o/d issue. -- Keysanger ( what?) 09:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a bit late in here for a week and sorry to sneak in. I have read the discussion and wondered about 2 aspects that have not been really analized yet, and are very important and solution driven, these are:
1. in assumption the pact was really defensive, isn't it counterproductive to sign it in secrecy? Defensive nature in humans (even animals!) have always tried to include the disuasive component when they are in danger (Example: Spiders which feel attacked lift their front feet too make themselves bigger, cats and dogs who feel meanaced show their teeth and make intimidating sounds, to show that you can lose something too!). When you want somebody not to attack you, you show him the risk of what CAN happen!
Now... we ALL DO agree this peruvian-bolivian pact was signed with the intention of secrecy, no matter if Chile found out or not later (last is of no relevance for the definition of the INITIAL agreement, as it is a non previsible post-matter). It has been kept as a state secret between Peru and Bolivia. When you sign something in secret, you can question the intention of it. If you don't want third parties to know about it, it is because you plan a SURPRISE action/factor (at this point I could start in all right a discussion it might be an offensive pact, but that is not my intention). Also, if you sign something in secret, it also loses a potential disuasive factor of a supposed defense intention, as it might trick the third party not aware of the increased risk of it to step ino a trap. It is of no-good-faith and at least hostile, but never "defensive" in it's substance.
2. Another substantial point which has not been really analized is the "cause and effect" question here, and the importance of chronology which can naturally and elegantly bias the opinion of users: Why do we even discuss this to be a "defensive pact"? Answer: because we KNOW the chronological RESULT / OUTCOME of the war. Your brain plays tricks with you, because assuming the party who loses, "should" be the defensive one. But what would have happened, if war would have been lost by Chile? Would there be a minimal chance, to call the secertly signed military pact between the winner parties a "defense pact" ? Don't think so...
I am not of the opinion that the pact should be called defensive pact (also not agree on it as an offensive pact, even the chance is also given) but just the way it is. It is a military pact/alliance. Keep the weasel words out, because they do no justice to the facts and evidences. -- 194.203.215.254 ( talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
(References from prior discussion.)
|
A few people have been removing NPOV tags over as Elizabeth Rauscher over purely WP:BUREAUCRATIC grounds. Namely they say that {{ NPOV}} tag should not be added when the article is not neutrally presented and that readers shouldn't be made aware of the fact that the article has been whitewashed (see Talk:Elizabeth Rauscher#POV tag for the details), but rather that since we aren't in a "last resort" situation (defined as what... post-ARBCOM?) that the tag should not be present.
Help would be much appreciated to resolve this issue (a.k.a. whether or not the NPOV tag should be on the article while the NPOV issues have not been resolved). Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
In this section, with the dispute still unresolved, Slim requests that the complaining editors provide an itemized list, with sources (of what?), of all POV-related edits they would like to make, again appearing to ignore that at least one example has already been provided and ignored.
No one appears to be working together here, in short. Editors who disagree that the article is POV are simply stonewalling the editors who think it is. In a situation like that, it seems to me to be appropriate to have an NPOV tag on the article, since this is a textbook example of "the neutrality of this article is disputed". Saying that the tag can only be applied as a last resort, when attempts to remedy the situation have failed...well, attempts have been made, and progress on deciding the neutrality status of the article remains stalled. Which means...you guessed it, the neutrality of the article is disputed! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 18:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I've made some suggestions for resolving the alleged POV at the talk page. Thanks, Agricola44 ( talk) 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC).
Lately there have been edits to this article by people probably associated with Bodog in some way and I'm not sure how to clean up the article due to a lot of new content, most of which is sourced by interviews and primary sources and probably not relevant to the article itself. Rymatz ( talk) 21:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Pashute appears to have a fixation on Davison Associates and has been adding to various articles information about a $26 million court order that went against them because of fraudulent practices. They are clearly "a bit dodgy" but, in my view, Pashute's edits are going well beyond a neutrally balanced summary of the issue and straying into original research in an effort to make some sort of point and/or attack against the firm. But maybe I'm wrong.
Here's Pashute's last major preferred version.
I would be grateful for someone else to take a look at this article to make sure that both of us are editing appropriately. I certainly agree that it's important to report the issue, but am not at all sure of the right level of detail that should be included. GDallimore ( Talk) 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Palestine describes the raison d'etre of WikiProject Palestine as "a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia." Note that "Palestine" is not piped to anything and directs to the geographical region encompassing Israel and the Palestinian territories. I recognize that this strikes a sensitive nerve with editors who identify with movements aspiring to claim land belonging to Israel as part of a future Palestinian state, but it's important that this Template be kept NPOV and the flag, which is a political symbol, not be superimposed over the entire region of Palestine and instead be used only in reference to those areas designated as the Palestinian territories.— Biosketch ( talk) 06:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The template that WPPalestine uses is literally the mirror image of the template that WPIsrael uses. And as several users above note, that template includes the flag of Israel, a "political symbol", and further it is used in a large number of talk pages of articles on places outside of Israel, ranging from the talk page for East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, villages in the West Bank, Israeli settlements, and on and on and on. But to the point, this is not something that appears in article space. This only shows up on talk pages. But if Biosketch would really like to remove one flag, he should likewise be arguing for the removal of the Israeli flag from that template. For some reason I doubt he will be doing that. nableezy - 19:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Methinks this should be taken to ARBCOM because this is lame. WikiProjects are not subject to our rules on article editing, they are subject to the consensus of the community.-- Cerejota ( talk) 02:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Should Category:Christian terrorism be a category on Category:Anti-abortion violence? I think that each criterion of WP:CAT (the "Categorizing pages" part) is satisfied. The relevant ones here being:
Haymaker is repeatedly removing the category, citing WP:CAT and WP:Terrorist, though it's not really clear which parts he's claiming support his removal of this well-cited category. As I explained above, WP:CAT is well satisfied; WP:Terrorist, besides being generally an article text guideline rather than a category guideline, is pretty irrelevant since anti-abortion violence is and has long been in terrorism categories for the obvious reason that sources define it as terrorism.
To suppress this category for no actual policy-based reason is an obvious NPOV issue as well as just general bad practice. We could just eliminate Category:Religious terrorism and its subcats to avoid offending people, but that's not how we work, because that's unhelpful and pointless. Source after source defines anti-abortion violence as a form of Christian terrorism. The category applies to the topic in general as well as to all or most of the members of Category:Anti-abortion violence individually. We don't remove well-sourced information simply to avoid offending people, any more than we remove any well-sourced "Islamic terrorism" category from articles on Islamic terrorism to avoid offending Muslims who don't want to be associated with terrorists. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Quite an extraodinary idea - considering the discussion at the Christian terrorism article about what it entails - and none of the discussions link it especially to anti-abortion violence. The Wikipedia tendency to categorize everything in its path is fraught with peril, especially where BLPs are concerned. Count me as opposed to such a "category." Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Should Category:Islamic terrorism be a category on Category:Suicide bombers? The two are as connected as the two categories under discussion. Most suicide bombers are at least vaguely muslim and most make reference to islam at some point. I'm sure I can pull together twice as many sources that mention suicide bombing and islam in the same page as roscelese found that mention abortion and Christianity. - Haymaker ( talk) 07:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
This requested move at Talk:China could use the eyeballs of editors and admins who have experience interpreting the NPOV policy. The article is considered WP:VITAL, so more than the typical attention from WP:RM is necessary. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 20:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Web Sheriff reads like an advert. Four NPOV discussions have been started by different people in the last year, and all have been vigorously defended by a single babysitter who admits they do it because they are "the one who has put in the hours of work". They won't allow an NPOV tag to be put on the article, despite the obvious controversy. ··gracefool ☺ 11:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note to mention that I went to the article to make some improvements. aprock ( talk) 20:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"I was letting you edit ..." It appears there may be some issues of WP:OWN with this article. aprock ( talk) 21:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Even a ten second skim reveals prose like "The company has achieved a consistent success in helping to deliver highest ever chart placings or highest ever sales for many music clients, despite their albums leaking early." - it could come straight out of a glossy brochure. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
further investigation reveals that article is a real shocker and full of original research and novel synthesis - along the lines of "Bob Smith hired Web Sheriff"[ref 1]. "Bob smith's album was #1 on the chart"[ref 2] - set up to create the inference that the two are connected - they might be, but the reference in the article don't make that claim. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. This article appeared to be more an ad than anything else. A "documented" ad is still an ad. Collect ( talk) 13:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Web_Sheriff Is this really allowed? He is asking for more to get involved with this full scale attack? Agadant ( talk) 13:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
My problem is Agadant isn't allowing anyone to tag the article as POV, even though most people agree it is. ··gracefool ☺ 23:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops. Mathsci ( talk) 23:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender, Cameron Scott is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motived when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - [32] All but the barest descriptions are being reversed. The company is not even being allowed to be called an "international policing company". He has changed that often used term to an organization which is effect, not correct. Agadant ( talk) 10:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is in no way or form involved in 'policing'; policing has a very specific meaning. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 10:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender, Cameron Scott is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motived when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - Salacious and Demeaning Agadant ( talk) 11:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
On July 29, 2011, Gracefool appeared on the talkpage saying they were "unarchiving the talkpage as a talkpage shouldn't be blanked. Gracefool was actually in fact putting the March 27, 2011 Third Opinion ruling on Advert by HelloAnnYong as "NOT AN ADVERT" into a newly created (by Gracefool) archive and summarizing with: undid archive - only extra stuff should be archived, shouldn't be blanked. at 11:42 29 July 2011 Gracefool
Gracefool had 7 minutes earlier put this article up for review on the NPOV noticeboard posted at 11:35 29 July So actually the editors who have participated here have not had the opportunity to view or be aware of the ruling of March 27, 2011. By stating "only extra stuff should be archived" it would have deflected the attention away from the archive holding such important and very pertinent information. I move this whole discussion be ended and all changes to the Web Sheriff article be reversed. That does not prevent a civilized, constructive dialogue from taking place there about changes that will improve the article, backed up by WP policies, and I'm not suggesting otherwise.
First entry on Web Sheriff talkpage by Gracefool: Per Gracefool: (after placing tag) "This article is still really biased. There's not real criticism at all, and the article is very positive about the company. The NPOV template shouldn't be removed until more people are satisfied that it doesn't read like an advert." Gracefool 12 July 2011
The next time Gracefool appeared on the talk page they once more raised no specific issues only that others had claimed 4 times it was POV. (I had addressed any issues brought up by other parties with them and they did not rebutt me but left the conversation. I even made some changes they suggested but didn't defend.)
Per Gracefool addressed to me and after putting the article on NPOV noticeboard "As for WP:DRIVEBY in full context I did the right thing. The previous sentence to your quote says 'The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talkpage, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies', which I did. This is the fourth time someone has raised the issue of this article being POV in a year (I missed the first which was sitting by itself in an archive page for some reason) - so it's hardly a last resort." Gracefool 29 July 2011
Note I was not the one who put the first one in an archive by itself, it was done by HelloAnnYong and correctly placed there by itself as it was very dated. And I myself have just discovered the missing 3O ruling was placed in the archive that Gracefool created on 29 July 2011, after posting her complaint on the NPOV noticeboard. 8 August 2011.. Agadant
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Web_Sheriff/Archive_1&action=history
Agadant ( talk) 17:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Outside opinion: The article not NPOV but it's not the worst I've seen. It is interesting. The first thing I would do is properly attribute all the controversial statements that are improperly made in Wikipedia's voice. Brmull ( talk) 19:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
FOR THE RECORD: Never in my lifetime, have I ever been personally attacked, ridiculed, treated disrespectfully and ganged up on, as on this occasion, when I have given my time as a volunteer to a project. The fact that I have done nothing wrong, have never been "in cahoots" with the Web Sheriff and have let that fact be known makes it a truly bitter experience for someone who overall looks at life positively. No, this is not GBCW, it's just a summary of my experience, knowing full well that all involved feel justified by their actions and will find this humorous and/or another reason to attack me and my editing further. I knew the risk I was taking by editing on an article about anti-piracy and the "most hated man on the internet", but I had no idea, it would become such a contentious and harmful one for me. I do emphatically believe that if the subject article had not been Web Sheriff, this process would never have taken place. Agadant ( talk) 22:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It is sufficient to Google the expression Michael Moore criticism to find more than enough reliable sources that support the notability of a criticism/controversy section in his article. Several books and films have exposed unethical methods used to manipulate and distort findings in order to support his agenda; all of those can also be properly sourced. Moore also has a tendency to resort to controversy to get media attention, such as his support of the Park51 project on the exact date of the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Without this information, the Moore article keeps a very one-sided tone, thus blatantly breaking WP:NPOV, protected by certain editors. I will just go ahead and say it looks like a WP:tagged WP:civil POV pushing, since it is impossible to add anything to the article without having that addition "doomed" to be a "violation of WP:UNDUE/ WP:NPOV"... boy, talking about calling the kettle black! If sources are needed, I will be more than happy to provide them, but you can find more than a few in the article's edit history/talk page. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW
[34] appears to be RS for the claim that Moore made a connection between the two in the Columbine film.
[35] etc. are published contemporary comments thereon. There is a somewhat amusing animation piece in the movie that tracks America's fear of non-whites up to the present. The cartoon goes astray by linking the NRA to the KKK, and giving the best rebuttal to gun control in saying some of the first gun control laws in America prohibited blacks from owning arms. is typical of a few comments on that movie's view of the NRA as being causitive of violence.
[36] is also interesting ...
The famous bank scene where he is shown receiving a rifle as a bonus gift for opening a $1,000 account was disputed by the woman at that very bank, who said the filmmakers spent a month’s time in order to stage that scene, thus bypassing the standard practice of the usual 10-day waiting period and having to receive the rifle from a licensed dealer across town. ... This racism mindset springs from Bowling’s rather farcical conclusion that the NRA and the KKK are intertwined, based on the inaccurate supposition that they were formed in the same year. Whilst one article (Variety_ does not have the backstory, that does not mean the backstory is invalid. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: I have fully protected the page for 48 hours to stop the edit warring while y'all work this out. The current version is equal to the one prior to the start of edit warring, thus I kept the page where it is. If the dispute is "solved" prior to the expiration of the dispute, leave me a message on my talk page and I will unprotect (or use WP:RFPP to request unprotection if I'm not around). Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
As I asserted at the beginning of this paragraph, a simple Google search shows enough reliable sources to establish the subject's WP:notability, thus meriting a section... but of course John has chosen not to look at the first half of Jimbo's first sentence – quote – "[i]n many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary". Moore works very hard to create controversy to keep his name in the news, a fact which can supported by multiple reliable sources. He was also proven multiple times to have manipulated and distorted the findings used in his films. His whole public persona is fake, as he is that same "greedy capitalist" he is trying to "help fight". All of this can be easily sourced. Unfortunately, the same editors who protect this article will deem any of that as WP:UNDUE and biased, and unfortunately, even on Wikipedia, if enough people repeat a statement, it becomes the truth. Finally, my "analysis" was nothing but reiteration of excerpts from the film, I made no deductions that were not already made there. You are welcome to watch it and see for yourselves. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 18:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Please show me the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claim" here. Everything here is a mere reiteration of what's found in the source, the analytic part is a part of the film – which, clearly, no one saw nor is anyone intending to see. I am asking the participating editors to start referring to specific claims rather than making general statements. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 04:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article while vandal-patrolling. Note in particular the subsection "Activities in Balochistan." This article could benefit from some independent scrutiny. ScottyBerg ( talk) 20:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the recent changes to Interstate Van Lines by Jmorrissette26 ( talk · contribs)? I don't think there's any doubt that this is a single-purpose account but since I've already warned twice in April if I warn again it could look like hounding. Perhaps an uninvolved editor could find a better way to approach the situation. Thanks - Pointillist ( talk) 21:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
A couple of editors have asserted that one need not explicitly attribute the view that "the international community views X to be illegal", since it is not actually a legal opinion, but merely stating the "facts" about the view of the international community. I understand that if one has, say, 10 reliable sources all supporting a specific point, then one need not name all of them. But if it is just one or two, can one dispense with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to repeat something I mentioned over at the RS/N where Jayjg also posted a question related to this discussion. Please post direct links to the discussions, because outside parties need to see the context to give accurate answers. I had to dig through your edit history to find this one. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 02:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
To provide the outside context requested, at issue is whether or not we need to attribute in-text to the authors of several high quality sources for the statement that the international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law. That sentence was cited to the following sources:
The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law.
the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars.
This sentence can be cited to many, many sources in peer-reviewed journal articles or books published by high quality presses. Jayjg is claiming that a source reporting on the views of the international community is actually presenting its POV of the international community. He is arguing that by virtue of the source not being an official spokesman, they cannot be used for the view of the international community. That argument make a mockery of Wikipedia's requirements on sourcing. We specifically want to use high quality secondary sources for statements of fact such as these, not claim that they are "POV" without being to give any sources that dispute this supposed POV. The text is not saying that the settlements are illegal under international law as a fact. It is attributing that view to the international community, and doing so because several high quality sources say that this is the view of the international community. We already were attributing the POV. nableezy - 04:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
We have had a centralized discussion on this. It received consensus (slim majority with an administrator saying yes) but one thing that was important was that it was not set in stone. Even more important was that we shouldn't be jumping around to different noticeboards and talk pages since that was the reason for the centralized discussion in the first place. One editor at a talk page discussion (I don;t like Jay and disagree with him for the most part) offered something that came up in the centralized discussion that was a hurdle several of us wanted passed. "...majority of the international community" should not hurt peoples feelings. It is a valid concern and if that one word is needed to clarify it even more than it should of course go in. Attempts to keep that one word out only look like trying to make something more definitive than it is. Not all of the intl community is clearly on board with it being illegal so why make it ambiguous? The majority opinion clearly says it is. Add that one word to the standard line (and make the change over the topic area with the fervor seen in the original change) and this can all go away. Cptnono ( talk) 04:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
This is like asking whether we need to explicitly attribute the view that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old because "a couple of editors" think it isn't. If there are hundreds of secondary sources available that explicitly support the precise wording of the statement "the international/scientific community views X to be Y" and the one or two sources cited are representative of that set of sources there is clearly no need for attribution. Editors need to look at the data and objectively assess the consistency between how the secondary sources summarize information and how we summarize information. If there is a measurable mismatch there is a valid policy based reason to be concerned. Statements about the degree of consistency or inconsistency must be backed up by source based evidence. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Lamest. Discussion. Ever.
Jayjg said: "I understand that if one has, say, 10 reliable sources all supporting a specific point, then one need not name all of them" Just find Jayjg his 10 reliable sources, use the two that are fine with him, and get it over with. Take him at his word. If you cannot do it, he wins. Now, if only he would apply the same standard to that infamous coatrack walking policy violation that is called New antisemitism, I could wikidie happily ever after...-- Cerejota ( talk) 05:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
We have a simple fix. Add the word "majority". But since that is not good enough for whatever silly reason and since this discussion is taking place right now on two different noticeboards and at least one article talk page: how about it goes back to centralized discussion. This will limit claims of filibustering and forum shopping. Cptnono ( talk) 06:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that since there is no definition of exactly who or what the 'international community' is, citing a source using that terms is always going to be appropriate, particularly since any claim that the international community supports or opposes X is likely to have some pretty staunch opponents. Consider also that 'international community' has been shorthand for UN majority votes and coalitions of international powers to do stuff like impose or lift sanctions, drop bombs on third parties, pay for emergency aid, etc. In that context the shorthand for a group of UN or coalition members can be just innocent shorthand. But it can, at times, be a propaganda claim of universal support for international actions that may actually not be very universal at all. For that reason alone, a neutral point of view should specify the members of any claimed international community where a source can be found to list that breakdown, or attribute the claim 'international community' to a source so it's not Wikipedia making that claim.
As always, every specific instance needs to be assessed on its own merits. I would suggest that an entry level test for distancing Wikipedia from repeating an unattributed claim about the 'international community' is whether the mention relates to negative actions like wars or sanctions, which are always controversial and likely to be hotly debated. Conversely, I think it's fairly uncontroversial to repeat 'international community' in a paraphrase about an action likely to have widespread support, like earthquake or tsunami relief operations. Does that assist? Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"... the 'international community' is a term sometimes employed by publicists, diplomats and careless academics (including, sadly, the present write on occasion) when they wish to express approval of some collective international action, or, perhaps, criticize the failure to act. In fact, the term is pretty much meaningless or even misleading..." Chris Brown. Sovereignty, Rights and Justice: International Political Theory Today, Wiley-Blackwell, 2002, p. 244.
"But invoking the international community is a lot easier than defining it. [...] According to this definition, it is clear that an international community does not exist, at least not on a worldwide level. [...] Second when the phrase of 'international community' is invoked, what it refers to seems highly situational. [...] Third, who makes decisions for the 'international community' seems to be heavily influenced by the international power structure. ...the concept of 'international community'... is meant to give legitimacy to actors and institutions, and very often it is used as an idealistic cover of power relations and self interests." Hongying Wang, "Understanding the intangible in international relations", in China and International Relations: The Chinese View and the Contribution of Wang Gungwu, Taylor & Francis, 2010, p. 205.
"First, the 'international community' does not truly exist. Such a 'community,' in truth, is an exclusive and largely privileged membership, which includes hegemons and imperialists who came to dominate the landscape in this new century..." P.H. Liotta. The wreckage reconsidered: Five oxymorons from Balkan deconstruction, Lexington Books, 1999, p. 96.
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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Flagging page João de Deus (medium). Large portions of the article, including several paragraphs claiming his faith healing is statistically better than western medicine, is uncited. Article continues with apparent pro-faith healing bias, then ends with cited but aggressively worded anti-faith healing statement: "On the show and in Ms. Casey's article, no rational explanation is provided as to why an untrained and medically unlicensed individual scraping a cornea or inserting foreign objects into the nose would be advisable. There is no medical or scientific reasoning for these procedures." -- 208.71.235.4 ( talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This may be of interest to the people that follow this noticeboard.
Sven Manguard Wha? 06:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
At Exit International there is a concern that by including a billboard picture that was sponsored by the group it "changes the article from a neutral description into a platform of promoting the cause and the organisation". [1] Is it NPOV to include the billboard picture? Jesanj ( talk) 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it's a start. I found a number of good references in lexis/nexis, I think we can flesh out the article and that will help with the layout. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 02:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
There was a recent AfD on the article Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper), which can be found here. The title of the article back then was just Lewontin's fallacy. A couple of users brought up in the discussion that the title of the article should probably be changed, because it could be misconstrued as stating as fact that Lewontin was wrong or other issues in regards to that. Thus, there was a discussion afterwards on the talk page here, where we really didn't get anywhere and seemed to be arguing in circles.
Eventually, to fix the issue, I just boldly moved the title to what it currently is, which is the full title of the scientific paper and even states in parentheses, per common convention, that it is a paper. Thus, the title should be neutral enough, correct? However, the two users I was discussi:::::ng with in the prior stated section stated a Move/Merge discussion and one is stating that the current title is still non-neutral just because it has the name of a scientist and the word fallacy in it, even though that is the exact name of the paper and is clearly stated as being a paper. You can see the diff of the user saying that here.
They seem to be saying that there is no possible way for the article to ever be neutral because it is discussing a paper that considers a response to a paper by another scientist, even though the article has a background section that discusses Lewontin's views and I have stated time and again that the paper that Lewontin wrote should also have an article. But no matter what I say or title options I offer, the response seems to be that the article is non-neutral and that it should be merged into another article, ignoring the AfD.
I would like to request outside opinions on this matter of neutrality. Silver seren C 04:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Silver seren's account above is not correct as stated. There are several omissions:
The request here appears to be an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. It appears to have nothing at all to do with improving the scientific content of this encyclopedia. Mathsci ( talk) 05:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I have some background in medical genetics and I never heard of Lewontin's Fallacy. The underlying science doesn't seem particularly profound. I suppose if the article is to remain it should have the exact title of the scientific paper (that would be NPOV despite the unfortunate eponym), but my preference would certainly be to merge with the author's page. Brmull ( talk) 07:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This article is about Bernard Fellay, a bishop of the SSPX(Society of Saint Pius X). In 1988, against papal authority, Archbishop Lefebvre illicitly and illegally consecrated 4 men as Bishops against Papal authority. Pope John Paul II declared this an unlawful and schismatic act and excommunicated the 4 and the archbishop. In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication on the survivng 4 bishops. Fellay is the current head of the Society. We have sourced statements in the article detailing the excommunication and the lifting and even a nugget from the SSPX followers who insist the pope was wrong, etc. A user, User:Seminarian Matt insists on inserting the word "alleged" into the lede section with regard to the excommunication [6]. I won't revert again, and have tried to engage the author on the talk page who simply accuses me of POV pushing and accuses me of categorizing the bishop as "evil", something I've never done. My sole objection is to the use of "alleged" in the article as it is a weasel word. The Author has a history of this behavior in related articles, I've tried explaining things rationally, but all I get are rants of me being a "modernist". [7] I'll back off from reverting him, but don't think anyone should be given a pass on weasel words like "alleged" when there are sources to back up the excommunication and the lifting of such.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This article appears to have many POV issues which I will try to summarise below:
My attempts to fix many of these problems have mostly been rejected by other editors, so I have been somewhat of a lone voice - hence posting here in the hope of either improving the article or improving my understanding of what is and isn't POV. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 08:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I posted this on the Wikiproject: Neutrality page but apparently that's defunct. A big red X through the page would have stopped me. I posted a help request and it led me here. If someone could tell me what indicator I missed that would have told me to come here right away I'd appreciate it. The issue:
I claim neutrality on the death penalty and indifference on Rick Perry. I do not claim neutrality on the killing of innocent people or those whose convictions don't stand up to the test of reasonable doubt. I claim that a reasonable, independent, outside observer will conclude that there is doubt about the guilt of Cameron_Todd_Willingham and that the current wording of the Rick Perry page section dealing with CTW doesn't reflect NPOV as already wearily worked out on the CTW page. The CTW page is finally NPOV and the Rick Perry page's section on the case is now not, it sugarcoats the issue and tries to gloss over the facts to protect a politician - if the Cameron_Todd_Willingham page is NPOV, then a summary of said on Rick Perry's page should also automatically be NPOV. User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bdell555 improperly removed the NPOV tag on said section as evidenced on http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rick_Perry&action=historysubmit&diff=444791026&oldid=444786454 - as a direct result of the NPOV tag removal, the section spiraled out of control in the edit wars. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham and Cameron_Todd_Willingham for background. Please help either keep the NPOV tag on and lock (?) the disputed section until the edit wars simmer down, or assemble an authoritative NPOV summary of the CTW page on the Rick Perry page (and then protect it?). Cheers. Also, sorry about this section heading, I don't know how to link to a section on a page. For what it's worth, I'm fairly sure the Rick Perry edit wars will cool down once Rick Perry is either in or out as a GOP presidential candidate, so this would be about a 14-month issue at most, but until then the public is best served by a full and free neutral discussion of facts. Pär Larsson ( talk) 15:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
My previous discussion got nowhere, so I will bring it up again: User:Hearfourmewesique keeps on deleting the fact that smooth jazz is descended from jazz, a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. All of the early smooth jazz musicians root their influences to musicians of older styles of jazz, but Hearfourmewesique keeps on editing the smooth jazz article to suit his/her POV. ANDROS1337 TALK 20:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Could we get some additional eyes on the Judith Reisman article? I've worked on it here and there over time, and it seems to me that the article relies too much on her own works and is a bit of a soapbox for her views. Some of the sources may not be reliable, but I figured it would be best to start here to see if anyone else sees any pov problems. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 10:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Claim of 60% of Sedan/ Ethiopia being J1 rather than E Haplogroup are not factual based on papers cited and are contradicted by others.
I realize original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. However, image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. "*etc..." is not a justification of many parts of this image, including referenced assumptions for Central Asia and the Caucasus outside of Dagestan.
The Horn of Africa where the highest densities is shown for J1 depict a density of over 60% in Sudan and Ethiopia.
the paragroup E-M78*. E-V65 and E-V13 were completely absent in the samples analyzed, whereas the other subclades were relatively common. E-V12* accounts for 19.3% and is widely distributed among Sudanese. E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common subclades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups. http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384897/figure/FG1/
http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Members/Lahr/pubs/AHG-65-01.pdf
http://www2.smumn.edu/facpages/~poshea/uasal/DNAWWW/pdfs/Underhill2000.pdf
given in Underhill et al. 2000." Figure 2 relates to a total found, not the specific "Central Asia."
(2); Asia: 3 Japanese IV, V, VII; 2 Han Chinese VII, 1 Taiwan Atayal VII, 1 Taiwan Ami, VII, 2 Cambodian VI, VII; Pakistan: 2 Hunza VI, IX; 2 Pathan VI, VII; 1 Brahui VIII; 1 Baloochi VI; 3 Sindhi III, VI, VIII; Central Asia: 2 Arab IX; 1 Uzbek IX; 1 Kazak V; MidEast: 1 Druze VI; Pacific: 2 New Guinean V, VIII; 2 Bougainville Islanders VIII; 2 Australian VI, X: America: 1 Brazil Surui, 1 Brazil Karatina, 1 Columbian, 1 Mayan all X. We genotyped an additional 1,009 chromosomes, representing 21 geographic regions, by DHPLC for all markers other than those on the terminal branches of the phylogeny. We genotyped the latter only in individuals from the haplogroup to which those markers belonged. This hierarchic genotyping protocol was necessitated by the limited amounts of genomic DNA available for most samples.regions, by DHPLC for all markers other than those on the terminal branches of the phylogeny.
The majority of them are J2[M172]. Those who are not are under M89. The 17 with M89 alone can be J* without being J1.
*There is no mention in the methods in any of the four listed of a retesting of these samples. Since F* is the parent of J*, it is possible, all of the 17 samples claimed to be J1 are J* rather than J1.
*The issue of J1 in the Caucasus is even more evident as they have been mostly F* or G* without the subclade of J. I can go into further issues, but just one inaccuracy in the map statements and depiction should be enough JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 23:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm hoping that some of you can comment on the NPOV situation at August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids especially the title NPOV issues as discussed at the requested move section on the talk page. Right now due to the 1RR rule, I can't readd the NPOV issue template to the article and readers may be misled without this on there. Please advise.-- 98.112.224.106 ( talk) 08:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Discount-licensing.com#ECJ_asked_to_rule_on_re-sale_of_software_licences Chzz ► 04:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Long, unrelated, and likely mistakenly inserted text. -JJ
|
---|
“I agree with earlier editor. Both are respectable scholars. Thus, they should be treated on a balanced view. Lefkowitz article and editor’s resume copy in Wiki are emerging assumptions. This is most obvious by the above editor’s breaking down analysis. The point regarding archaeology and politics (pseudoarchaeology…etc) is an interesting article. However, attributing to the dating results of Liritzis team such a predetermination and unjustified attack is surely not fair and an unlawful possession. If one scholar does not agree with another scholar’s data, she/he should produce independent evidence. The article by the innovator of surface luminescence dating is written in english and his short sentence in Geochronometria (I am convinced having read most relevant papers) refers to inconsistencies of Lefkowitz article. Inconsistencies that one editor above has rightly pinpointed in some detail producing a point per point explanation to respective lemma in wiki. So, the one view is a proof, while the other i.e. Lefkowitz’ views is disagreement based on assumptions, accusations for pseudo archaeology, preconceived fallacies etc. The editor in right to say she was wrong! She is wrong and the editor above explains that. It is these misleading statements that make her a voluntary denouncer. I thus propose a short sentence on Lefkowitz (avoiding hypothetical views without evidence) and on Liritzis (only facts) supplying necessarily the relevant references for both. For example, “Lefkowitz disagrees on hypothetical grounds about this earlier dating results and questions the reliability[ref], while Liritzis and his team has accredited the methodology coined surface luminescence dating [ref] and referred to Lefkowitz view in a series of articles published in Journals with citation.[refs]”, or something like that. The managing editors should focus on the questions below: Lefkowitz disagrees on…. QUEST 1: on what? the methodology? Surely not. It has been explained and references provided. Wrongly it was stated that the methodology was tested on these two pyramidals to determine the reliability of the method. The method had been tested on laboratory work and actual archaeological cases (see above one editor gives bibliography). QUEST 2: On the other pyramids in Greece? The authors do not discuss or attribute to pyramids other buildings, beyond to simple reference, though it is attributed to them. Another editor above has seen this. Why is this? And to which references in English she read this? In fact they wrongly are named by Lefkowitz (and other grey literature) as pyramids, rather the correct term pyramidals. The top is missing and no one knows if there was a top! QUEST 3: She coins this effort and the result as preconceived idea to make it seems old etc etc.? This is incorrect. As fas as I know the authors present the results in a scientific way published in renowned Journals and do not make any comment on this that Lefkowitz accuses them. She probably refers to other works but in the lemma it does not come out correctly. QUEST 4: The lemma refers to Lefkowitz view and quotes 4 times same article of hers [ref.14-17]. Why no mention of Liritzis team passages that refer to her points? Answer: Because no comments of this kind is made in their papers. The wording used by Lefkowitz is utterly wrong and should be removed from Wikipedia lemma otherwise the managing editors back up Lefkowitz as a professional swindler: “ to back up an assumption…..”, “to determine the reliability of the method, as was suggested, ….”, “…structure in Stylidha which is just a long wall etc..”, “recycled stones…”, “other structures mentioned in this research to be pyramids in fact…alleged to be the tomb….”, “in order to confirm a predetermined theory….”. By the way, another hot dating issue concerns the Dragon Houses at Styra, Euboea. These mystery buildings were attributing an old age and more recent by others. The Liritzis team dated this to c.4-5th c BC in a recent aerticle and in a volume edited by Boston Univ known archaeologist D.Keller (see, Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry 2011 vol.11, No.3, online at www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal). This is just a point to exclude pseudoarchaeology dilemmas attributed to internationally recognized scholars”. Finally only one sole reference (an article in a Book by Lefkowitz) does not warrant reliability but instead bias. No other authors back her assumptions. On the other hand the surface luminescence dating has been referred to Liritzis and his team in many publications. This presentation should be changed because soon or later similar confrontations might be backed up by sole misinterpretations against renowned scholarly publications. I kindly urge editors to reconsider this lemma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geokitis ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
Lately, Loki0115 ( talk · contribs) has been raising issues with the content of an article I authored as part of a course on human evolution titled Control of fire by early humans. His issues seem to stem from the fact that he disagrees with the writings of a particular evolutionary biologist who wrote on the subject, who doesn't have many proponents, but the discussion of his writings are still useful for the article. When I checked his contributions, I discovered that Loki0115 has been heavily editing articles concerning the raw foodism movement, which are:
It appears that he has reached some level of opposition on his beliefs on various talk pages, but my main issue is that he has been removing swaths of content that he does not agree with without adding sources to provide the contrary. I came here because I am fairly certain that his actions are not allowable and his most recent edits, along with his extensive editing history, show a clear agenda to push raw food consumption.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
First of all, my "agenda" is not to push raw food consumption per se. I am happy that data is included on things like food-poisoning in raw foods and the like and happily accept that cooking can create benefits/improvements in a number of cases, given certain scientific studies. My main interest in all this is simply to make sure that the scientific data/refs etc. in favour of cooking are as solid as the scientific data/refs backing raw foods. That seems reasonable. I have not solely gone in for deletions either, but also, in the past, added whole new sections to the raw foodism page, among others, even to pages such as the Aajonus Vonderplanitz and raw veganism pages, 2 aspects of raw foodism which I personally am somewhat opposed to, simply for the purposes of adding reliable notable data to wikipedia, even if those 2 pages somewhat conflict with my personal views. Indeed, I have, here and there, deleted pro-raw data provided by other contributors which was seriously dodgy on a scientific level. The reason for my focus on raw-related pages is simply because I happen to be particularly knowledgeable about the subject. I have at times added whole sentences, and occasionally, paragraphs to non-diet-related pages, or edited grammatical mistakes, but don't always feel "expert" enough in those areas.
In the case of Richard Wrangham, the scientist mentioned above, and his book "Catching Fire", my main aim was to show, with provided refs, that the mainstream viewpoint of most other anthropologists was opposed to Wrangham's views. When a particular belief is clearly only held by a minority of scientists, according to online articles, it seems reasonable to make note of that. In the case of the cooking article, as I recall, my main contribution was to state that the mainstream viewpoint of anthropologists as to when cooking got started was c. 250,000 years ago, and provided references. Hardly biased, as that data can easily be found online.
In the case of the "Palaeolithic Diet" page, as I recall, my contribution has been actually very minor. I deleted a Jared Diamond reference to modern hunter-gatherers which as not relevant to the palaeolithic era, and one or two other minor points such as adding an image and the like. But, quite frankly, most of the current article has nothing to do with me, and I only rarely viewed/edited it in the past. Same applies to the "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons" page, which very rarely visit/edit, as I only have specific knowledge re some aspects of those toxins.
Then we go to the particular webpage referenced above by Ryulong, "control of fire by early hominids":-
This all started over a disagreement I had with the wording of the 1st paragraph of the control of fire page. However, despite Ryulong at first objecting to my 2 points made in the link below, he seems now to have corrected the relevant paragraph to make it more accurate and in line with wikipedia policy , so that I have no further problem with it:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Control_of_fire_by_early_humans#Major_Issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans
There is still a problem, though. I added some valid data re the Samu find being the oldest evidence of control of fire by homo erectus people in Hungary from " 350,000 years ago"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samu_(Homo_erectus)
The 350,000 year figure is noteworthy, especially since a vague figure of 300 to 500,000 years is given a little later for acheulian tools of some sort.
, and the point about the Samu location being used by "later versions of homo erectus" is important to add since there were many much older, earlier versions of homo erectus, concerning which use of/control of fire data is sketchy at best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Control_of_fire_by_early_humans&diff=445025392&oldid=445025162 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 ( talk • contribs)
Oh, it seems that Ryulong has reverted back to my previous update re the "350,000" figure and the other "later homo erectus" mention, so there doesn't seem to be a contentious issue here. Loki0115 ( talk) 23:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Loki0115 has continued to remove content that does not follow his basic raw food ideas that have reliable sources as evidenced by his recent edits at Control of fire by early humans ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of Transcendental Meditation research reads as follows:
”Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) beyond relaxation or health education.”
This sentence creates POV because it only tells one side of the story and there are a dozen independent research reviews discussed in the article which do report health benefits. See here. As it is, no one reading the opening section of this article would have any idea that TM has been shown to have any health benefits, when the article is full of scientific findings indicating the contrary.
I have attempted to add the following sentence to the lead:
"Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits associated with TM, compared to health education, relaxation, and other control groups."
The sentence cites six of the research reviews (from 12 total in list above) from the following journals and medical books: Ethnicity and Disease; Pediatrics: American Academy of Pediatrics; an AHRQ-funded systematic review and meta-analysis; Braunwald's Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; and Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine. Discussion of the suitability of these refs here
Most of the studies covered in these reviews were outside the scope of the three reviews cited in the current first sentence that says there are no benefits for TM. For example, the study on metabolic syndrome published by the American Medical Association (AMA) ( here), and cited in Braunwald’s Heart Disease (listed above), came out iafter the Sept 2005 cutoff date for the AHRQ review.
The added sentence would also bring the article in line with WP:LEAD which says the opening paragraph should, "define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."
Shouldn’t the sentence above, which summarizes significant content in the body of the article, be allowed be allowed to stand in the lead? Please give your thoughts and comments. Thank you. Early morning person ( talk) 14:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the 3 meta-analyses (or systematic reviews) currently relied on by the 1st sentence have clear limitations. To back the idea that TM has no health benefits more than relaxation or health ed., it cites three narrowly focused references, two of them on reviews of research on mental conditions:
1) A review of research on anxiety. And this review is further confined to studies of persons with a serious (i.e., formally diagnosed) anxiety disorder. They could only find one study in this category. It excluded many other published studies for this reason.
2) A review of research on ADHD (a hyperactivity disorder). (Another problem with this reference, is that it does not compare TM to either relaxation or health education, and so does obviously does not support the comparison in the 1st sentence)
3) The third reference, the AHRQ-funded review of meditation and health at least focuses directly on health. But it has two major problems as a reference for the 1st sentence:
a) It directly contradicts the first sentence that it is supposed to support! I have actually used it in my list of references that report health benefits for TM (see #3 here). Briefly, it performed a meta-analysis that found a clinically significant improvement in hypertension in TM subjects, compared to relaxation.
b) It (see Health section of TM Research article here) excluded 98 studies recommended by its own peer-review committee, including studies on meditation and adolescent health, meditation and drug abuse, and meditation and life-expectancy, which comprise at least a dozen high-quality, published findings. It also cut off research to Sept 2005, after which some of the major studies I cite were published.
So why this sentence is there in the first place? It is poorly supported by its references, and is actually directly contradicted by one of them. And, back to my earlier point, it does not summarize or even mention the other findings that pervade the article, as required by both WP:Lead and WP:NPOV. Early morning person ( talk) 19:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the pages in question you will notice a group of editors that have been working at trying to add that TM is better than health education / relaxation. A number of them admit to practicing TM themselves. If you look at my concerns regarding the claimed "systematic reviews" one of them does not state it is a systematic review (to which we all agree). And I still do not find the text mentioned in the second. The current version was decided with the help of a RfC [8]. Early morning did indeed add ""Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits associated with TM, compared to health education, relaxation, and other control groups." [9] so I looked at each and every ref and not one supported the stated sentence. So IMO there is no NPOV issue with the lead but there is with the body of the text (more of an issue of WP:DUE than anything) with poorer quality research that supports TM being gradually added over a long period of time rather than just using the best quality evidence. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, I do not understand your statement about "poorer quality research" being in the article in support of health benefits for TM. I just see a lot of top quality reviews, as per MEDRS, reporting peer-reviewed research finding clinically significant health benefits. Early morning person ( talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Splitting off the research section was discussed at several different points since I've been editing. This is the final discussion and agreement after which I created the article as requested [10]( olive ( talk) 20:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC))
Yes the main article is here Transcendental Meditation. I am not able to keep all the rest NPOV as I edit broadly. This is definitely an issue. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes have been trying to keep the "claiming of magical powers" to a minimum but could definitely use some help on this. Wikipedia unfortunately does not seem to take WP:COI seriously. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
A couple of issues with the ideas of putting the section on history first (1) we have an article about the history of TM and this is not it (2) that paragraph reads like a press release of the TM organization (3) independent comments on TM research / science include comments like:
"The problem with most TMO-sponsored research was the predetermined outcome of the studies. Maharishi had already decreed that TM was a universal panacea; the job of researchers was to confirm this unquestioned conclusion. Science was useful only to the extent that it appeared to demonstrate the benefits of TM. Evidence of negative side effects was not reported" "By the mid-1970s TMO-produced scientific studies were coming under increased scrutiny and open attack by reputable scientists.42 It soon became clear that some of the studies’ most dramatic findings could not be replicated. The methodology underlying studies demonstrating the so-called “Maharishi Effect,”43 the power of group meditation to transform all aspects of society, was attacked as invalid. Trained scientists and scholars within the TMO also defected, making public charges of academic misconduct, bias and fraud in TMO research.44"
Vedic astrology,47 architecture, medicine, music, fire sacrifices, gemstone therapy and the like are all promoted as science by the TMO.
The TMO spent a fortune importing an estimated one thousand53young Brahmin “pandits” (trained Vedic scholar-priests), who should more accurately be called pujaris (temple ritual specialists who are not necessarily scholars). Living isolated in a remote, fenced trailer park in the Fairfield area, they increased the number of participants in group meditations while conducting Vedic rituals to help bring the Maharishi Effect to Iowa, the United States and the world.54 Based on the spectacular flooding in Iowa in 2008, the regional methamphetamine trade, and the present state of the economies in the United States and the world, this experiment does not appear to be working http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nr.2011.14.4.54 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Rbhuvaneshbabu has today converted our article on Solestruck, an e-commerce company specialising in footwear to a blatant advertisment. I had left a note on Rbhuvaneshbabu's talk page pointing to our relevant policies, but Rbhuvaneshbabu has continued to add to the article. I reverted to the previous version, but has now Rbhuvaneshbabu restored his/her edit. I'm reluctant to take this straight to AN/I without a second opinion on whether the article should be reverted, deleted as spam, or restored to the earlier stub. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru. The conflict is also known as the "Saltpeter War", as disputes over mineral-rich territory were the war's prime cause. The conflict originated in a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, but Bolivia and Chile's controversy over ownership of Atacama preceded and laid foundations for the conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia activated its mutual defense treaty with Peru.
Extended content
| |
---|---|
|
Extended content
| |
---|---|
|
Extended content
| |
---|---|
|
Alexh, let me help you. Go to Keysanger's link, click (on the content box) on "Mediation of offensive/defensive issue". Go the section "Moving On". Finally, open up the "extended content" to read the sources provided by Keysanger. Nearly 2 years have passed after that discussion, and over the years I have gotten better at analyzing and gathering sources. These things I note now that back then I did not consider:
2 years ago I had very little knowledge on how to analyze sources, but now I am confident that all of the sources originally presented by Keysanger only serve little purpose other than to demonstrate a Chilean POV which is already present in the Wikipedia article. Whether Keysanger purposely tried to trick both me and the mediator at that point, I ultimately assume good faith from his part. Furthemore, this Chilean POV is a minority view in the sense that only Chileans seem to agree with it.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
War of the Pacific; MarshalN20 (Non-Peruvian or Bolivian) Sources:
The nature of "offensive alliances" and "defensive alliances"
Example of a Defensive Alliance treaty aimed at specific countries (Spain and USA), but which does not constitute an offensive alliance:
As this source demonstrates, an alliance treaty aimed at a country does not constitute an "offensive alliance". Defensive alliances have a strict character, different from offensive alliances, as they are forced to only take effect upon the attack of a foreign country. The historical record of the War of the Pacific also demonstrates that neither Peru or Bolivia ever invaded Chile; the whole war was based on Chile invading both Bolivian and Peruvian territory, while both countries simply defended.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, friction began to develop over the mineral-rich Bolivian province of Antofagasta and the Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, whose wealth was exploited largely by Chilean enterprises. In 1875 Peru seized Chilean nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and in 1878 a new Bolivian government greatly increased taxes on Chilean business interests. To protect these interests and preempt their threatened expropriation, Chile dispatched a naval squadron headed by the ironclad Blanco Encalada and landed 200 troops at the Bolivian port of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, provoking a declaration of war by Bolivia on March 1, an action reciprocated by Chile on April 5. Peru, which had concluded the secret Treaty of Mutual Defense with Bolivia in 1873, was now also drawn into the conflict (see The Liberal Era, 1861-91 , ch. 1).
Notwithstanding the fact that in 1873 Peru had induced Bolivia to sign a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile, the Peruvian government offered its mediation in the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, the origin of which was nothing more than Peru’s monopolistic nitrate policy, which had instigated Bolivia to disposes Chilean industries. The mediation of Peru was accompanied by three suspicious circumstances: (1) The denial on the part of the mediating minister of the existence of the secret treaty of which Chile had lately become aware; (2) Previous Peruvian demands compatible only with the pretensions of Bolivia; (3) Hurried war preparations of Peru, the Peruvian government meanwhile showing a desire to gain time. These circumstances, with the fact that Bolivia did not manifest the slightest desire to facilitate an amicable adjustment, indicated to Chile that Peru was not working ‘bona fide’, but only with the intentin of strengthening the alliance.
The War of the Pacific ( Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru. Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, disputes soon arose over the mineral-rich Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, and the Bolivian province of Antofagasta. Chilean enterprises, which largely exploited the area, saw their interests at stake when Peru nationalized all nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company. The problem primarily focused on Bolivia and Chile due to their controversy over ownership of Atacama, which preceded and laid foundations for their conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but, when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia sought the activation of its Treaty of Mutual Defense with Peru. Disputes further escalated until Chile declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.
This " Saltpeter War" took place over five years in a variety of terrain, including the Atacama Desert and Peru's deserts and mountainous regions. The war's first battle was the Battle of Topáter. For most of the first year the focus was on the naval campaign, as Chile struggled to establish a sea-based resupply corridor for its forces in the world's driest desert. The Peruvian Navy met initial success, but the Chilean Navy prevailed. Afterwards, Chile's land campaign bested the badly equipped Bolivian and Peruvian armies, leading to Bolivia's complete defeat and withdrawal in the Battle of Tacna on May 26, 1880, and the defeat of the Peruvian army after the Battle of Arica on June 7. The land campaign climaxed in 1881, with the Chilean occupation of Lima. The conflict then became a guerrilla war engaging Peruvian army remnants and irregulars. This Campaign of the Breña was fairly successful as a resistance movement, but did not change the war's outcome. After Peru's defeat in the Battle of Huamachuco, Chile and Peru signed the Treaty of Ancón on October 20, 1883. Bolivia signed a truce with Chile in 1884.
Hi Alex, Hi MarshallN20,
I agree that, regarding the use of "defensive" in the paragraph, MarshalN20's proposal is a good proposal. MarshalN20, would you be so kind to change the wording of the other places that come into consideration? (Yesterday I counted 5 places in the article where the word "defensive" was used to portray the treaty). We also should add the word "secret" in the lede in order to inform the reader about the complicated situation at that time.
We can analyse some issues in the lede, like " Peru entered the affair in 1879 …" and others, at the proper time.
I am sure that a decision by consensus will endure and set the basis for a change for the better in the article. Best Regards, -- Keysanger ( what?) 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
My agreement to this proposal is under the condition that in no case the reader can be mislead to the assumption that the treaty was a defensive one. If needed there must be said that the treaty was called "of defense" or "defensive", but that it is not the opinion of Wikipedia. -- Keysanger ( what?) 11:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course my agreement to this proposal is under the condition that this difference between name and adjective must be replicated overall in the article where the treaty is mentioned. Also this agreement is valid and bindig for the page of the treaty Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873. -- Keysanger ( what?) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your objections in my talk page, I repeat, the reader in no case should be lead to presume that the treaty was defensive. Your rationale about words are capitalised is not enough because the name is misleading. I propouse to add "so-called" before the name or to add in every case that the treaty has been characterized by historians as an offensive and as an defensive one. This agreement must be replicated to all places in the article where the treaty is mentioned. Also we have to accept the same conditions for the Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873 article. Best Regards, -- Keysanger ( what?) 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a Treaty of Mutual Defense which guaranteed their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. An additional clause kept the treaty secret. Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence, which led Chilean historiography to conclude that the treaty was aimed against Chile.
I made a proposal and hope that will find a good echo (sorry, I introduced a new issue, but it can be reverted). We can discuss here or in the talk page of the article, as you like it .-- Keysanger ( what?) 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to finish the declaration of war issue first and then I will be back to this theme to find a sustainable solution for this o/d issue. -- Keysanger ( what?) 09:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a bit late in here for a week and sorry to sneak in. I have read the discussion and wondered about 2 aspects that have not been really analized yet, and are very important and solution driven, these are:
1. in assumption the pact was really defensive, isn't it counterproductive to sign it in secrecy? Defensive nature in humans (even animals!) have always tried to include the disuasive component when they are in danger (Example: Spiders which feel attacked lift their front feet too make themselves bigger, cats and dogs who feel meanaced show their teeth and make intimidating sounds, to show that you can lose something too!). When you want somebody not to attack you, you show him the risk of what CAN happen!
Now... we ALL DO agree this peruvian-bolivian pact was signed with the intention of secrecy, no matter if Chile found out or not later (last is of no relevance for the definition of the INITIAL agreement, as it is a non previsible post-matter). It has been kept as a state secret between Peru and Bolivia. When you sign something in secret, you can question the intention of it. If you don't want third parties to know about it, it is because you plan a SURPRISE action/factor (at this point I could start in all right a discussion it might be an offensive pact, but that is not my intention). Also, if you sign something in secret, it also loses a potential disuasive factor of a supposed defense intention, as it might trick the third party not aware of the increased risk of it to step ino a trap. It is of no-good-faith and at least hostile, but never "defensive" in it's substance.
2. Another substantial point which has not been really analized is the "cause and effect" question here, and the importance of chronology which can naturally and elegantly bias the opinion of users: Why do we even discuss this to be a "defensive pact"? Answer: because we KNOW the chronological RESULT / OUTCOME of the war. Your brain plays tricks with you, because assuming the party who loses, "should" be the defensive one. But what would have happened, if war would have been lost by Chile? Would there be a minimal chance, to call the secertly signed military pact between the winner parties a "defense pact" ? Don't think so...
I am not of the opinion that the pact should be called defensive pact (also not agree on it as an offensive pact, even the chance is also given) but just the way it is. It is a military pact/alliance. Keep the weasel words out, because they do no justice to the facts and evidences. -- 194.203.215.254 ( talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
(References from prior discussion.)
|
A few people have been removing NPOV tags over as Elizabeth Rauscher over purely WP:BUREAUCRATIC grounds. Namely they say that {{ NPOV}} tag should not be added when the article is not neutrally presented and that readers shouldn't be made aware of the fact that the article has been whitewashed (see Talk:Elizabeth Rauscher#POV tag for the details), but rather that since we aren't in a "last resort" situation (defined as what... post-ARBCOM?) that the tag should not be present.
Help would be much appreciated to resolve this issue (a.k.a. whether or not the NPOV tag should be on the article while the NPOV issues have not been resolved). Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
In this section, with the dispute still unresolved, Slim requests that the complaining editors provide an itemized list, with sources (of what?), of all POV-related edits they would like to make, again appearing to ignore that at least one example has already been provided and ignored.
No one appears to be working together here, in short. Editors who disagree that the article is POV are simply stonewalling the editors who think it is. In a situation like that, it seems to me to be appropriate to have an NPOV tag on the article, since this is a textbook example of "the neutrality of this article is disputed". Saying that the tag can only be applied as a last resort, when attempts to remedy the situation have failed...well, attempts have been made, and progress on deciding the neutrality status of the article remains stalled. Which means...you guessed it, the neutrality of the article is disputed! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 18:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I've made some suggestions for resolving the alleged POV at the talk page. Thanks, Agricola44 ( talk) 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC).
Lately there have been edits to this article by people probably associated with Bodog in some way and I'm not sure how to clean up the article due to a lot of new content, most of which is sourced by interviews and primary sources and probably not relevant to the article itself. Rymatz ( talk) 21:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Pashute appears to have a fixation on Davison Associates and has been adding to various articles information about a $26 million court order that went against them because of fraudulent practices. They are clearly "a bit dodgy" but, in my view, Pashute's edits are going well beyond a neutrally balanced summary of the issue and straying into original research in an effort to make some sort of point and/or attack against the firm. But maybe I'm wrong.
Here's Pashute's last major preferred version.
I would be grateful for someone else to take a look at this article to make sure that both of us are editing appropriately. I certainly agree that it's important to report the issue, but am not at all sure of the right level of detail that should be included. GDallimore ( Talk) 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Palestine describes the raison d'etre of WikiProject Palestine as "a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia." Note that "Palestine" is not piped to anything and directs to the geographical region encompassing Israel and the Palestinian territories. I recognize that this strikes a sensitive nerve with editors who identify with movements aspiring to claim land belonging to Israel as part of a future Palestinian state, but it's important that this Template be kept NPOV and the flag, which is a political symbol, not be superimposed over the entire region of Palestine and instead be used only in reference to those areas designated as the Palestinian territories.— Biosketch ( talk) 06:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The template that WPPalestine uses is literally the mirror image of the template that WPIsrael uses. And as several users above note, that template includes the flag of Israel, a "political symbol", and further it is used in a large number of talk pages of articles on places outside of Israel, ranging from the talk page for East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, villages in the West Bank, Israeli settlements, and on and on and on. But to the point, this is not something that appears in article space. This only shows up on talk pages. But if Biosketch would really like to remove one flag, he should likewise be arguing for the removal of the Israeli flag from that template. For some reason I doubt he will be doing that. nableezy - 19:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Methinks this should be taken to ARBCOM because this is lame. WikiProjects are not subject to our rules on article editing, they are subject to the consensus of the community.-- Cerejota ( talk) 02:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Should Category:Christian terrorism be a category on Category:Anti-abortion violence? I think that each criterion of WP:CAT (the "Categorizing pages" part) is satisfied. The relevant ones here being:
Haymaker is repeatedly removing the category, citing WP:CAT and WP:Terrorist, though it's not really clear which parts he's claiming support his removal of this well-cited category. As I explained above, WP:CAT is well satisfied; WP:Terrorist, besides being generally an article text guideline rather than a category guideline, is pretty irrelevant since anti-abortion violence is and has long been in terrorism categories for the obvious reason that sources define it as terrorism.
To suppress this category for no actual policy-based reason is an obvious NPOV issue as well as just general bad practice. We could just eliminate Category:Religious terrorism and its subcats to avoid offending people, but that's not how we work, because that's unhelpful and pointless. Source after source defines anti-abortion violence as a form of Christian terrorism. The category applies to the topic in general as well as to all or most of the members of Category:Anti-abortion violence individually. We don't remove well-sourced information simply to avoid offending people, any more than we remove any well-sourced "Islamic terrorism" category from articles on Islamic terrorism to avoid offending Muslims who don't want to be associated with terrorists. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Quite an extraodinary idea - considering the discussion at the Christian terrorism article about what it entails - and none of the discussions link it especially to anti-abortion violence. The Wikipedia tendency to categorize everything in its path is fraught with peril, especially where BLPs are concerned. Count me as opposed to such a "category." Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Should Category:Islamic terrorism be a category on Category:Suicide bombers? The two are as connected as the two categories under discussion. Most suicide bombers are at least vaguely muslim and most make reference to islam at some point. I'm sure I can pull together twice as many sources that mention suicide bombing and islam in the same page as roscelese found that mention abortion and Christianity. - Haymaker ( talk) 07:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
This requested move at Talk:China could use the eyeballs of editors and admins who have experience interpreting the NPOV policy. The article is considered WP:VITAL, so more than the typical attention from WP:RM is necessary. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 20:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Web Sheriff reads like an advert. Four NPOV discussions have been started by different people in the last year, and all have been vigorously defended by a single babysitter who admits they do it because they are "the one who has put in the hours of work". They won't allow an NPOV tag to be put on the article, despite the obvious controversy. ··gracefool ☺ 11:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note to mention that I went to the article to make some improvements. aprock ( talk) 20:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"I was letting you edit ..." It appears there may be some issues of WP:OWN with this article. aprock ( talk) 21:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Even a ten second skim reveals prose like "The company has achieved a consistent success in helping to deliver highest ever chart placings or highest ever sales for many music clients, despite their albums leaking early." - it could come straight out of a glossy brochure. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
further investigation reveals that article is a real shocker and full of original research and novel synthesis - along the lines of "Bob Smith hired Web Sheriff"[ref 1]. "Bob smith's album was #1 on the chart"[ref 2] - set up to create the inference that the two are connected - they might be, but the reference in the article don't make that claim. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. This article appeared to be more an ad than anything else. A "documented" ad is still an ad. Collect ( talk) 13:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Web_Sheriff Is this really allowed? He is asking for more to get involved with this full scale attack? Agadant ( talk) 13:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
My problem is Agadant isn't allowing anyone to tag the article as POV, even though most people agree it is. ··gracefool ☺ 23:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops. Mathsci ( talk) 23:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender, Cameron Scott is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motived when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - [32] All but the barest descriptions are being reversed. The company is not even being allowed to be called an "international policing company". He has changed that often used term to an organization which is effect, not correct. Agadant ( talk) 10:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is in no way or form involved in 'policing'; policing has a very specific meaning. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 10:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender, Cameron Scott is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motived when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - Salacious and Demeaning Agadant ( talk) 11:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
On July 29, 2011, Gracefool appeared on the talkpage saying they were "unarchiving the talkpage as a talkpage shouldn't be blanked. Gracefool was actually in fact putting the March 27, 2011 Third Opinion ruling on Advert by HelloAnnYong as "NOT AN ADVERT" into a newly created (by Gracefool) archive and summarizing with: undid archive - only extra stuff should be archived, shouldn't be blanked. at 11:42 29 July 2011 Gracefool
Gracefool had 7 minutes earlier put this article up for review on the NPOV noticeboard posted at 11:35 29 July So actually the editors who have participated here have not had the opportunity to view or be aware of the ruling of March 27, 2011. By stating "only extra stuff should be archived" it would have deflected the attention away from the archive holding such important and very pertinent information. I move this whole discussion be ended and all changes to the Web Sheriff article be reversed. That does not prevent a civilized, constructive dialogue from taking place there about changes that will improve the article, backed up by WP policies, and I'm not suggesting otherwise.
First entry on Web Sheriff talkpage by Gracefool: Per Gracefool: (after placing tag) "This article is still really biased. There's not real criticism at all, and the article is very positive about the company. The NPOV template shouldn't be removed until more people are satisfied that it doesn't read like an advert." Gracefool 12 July 2011
The next time Gracefool appeared on the talk page they once more raised no specific issues only that others had claimed 4 times it was POV. (I had addressed any issues brought up by other parties with them and they did not rebutt me but left the conversation. I even made some changes they suggested but didn't defend.)
Per Gracefool addressed to me and after putting the article on NPOV noticeboard "As for WP:DRIVEBY in full context I did the right thing. The previous sentence to your quote says 'The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talkpage, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies', which I did. This is the fourth time someone has raised the issue of this article being POV in a year (I missed the first which was sitting by itself in an archive page for some reason) - so it's hardly a last resort." Gracefool 29 July 2011
Note I was not the one who put the first one in an archive by itself, it was done by HelloAnnYong and correctly placed there by itself as it was very dated. And I myself have just discovered the missing 3O ruling was placed in the archive that Gracefool created on 29 July 2011, after posting her complaint on the NPOV noticeboard. 8 August 2011.. Agadant
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Web_Sheriff/Archive_1&action=history
Agadant ( talk) 17:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Outside opinion: The article not NPOV but it's not the worst I've seen. It is interesting. The first thing I would do is properly attribute all the controversial statements that are improperly made in Wikipedia's voice. Brmull ( talk) 19:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
FOR THE RECORD: Never in my lifetime, have I ever been personally attacked, ridiculed, treated disrespectfully and ganged up on, as on this occasion, when I have given my time as a volunteer to a project. The fact that I have done nothing wrong, have never been "in cahoots" with the Web Sheriff and have let that fact be known makes it a truly bitter experience for someone who overall looks at life positively. No, this is not GBCW, it's just a summary of my experience, knowing full well that all involved feel justified by their actions and will find this humorous and/or another reason to attack me and my editing further. I knew the risk I was taking by editing on an article about anti-piracy and the "most hated man on the internet", but I had no idea, it would become such a contentious and harmful one for me. I do emphatically believe that if the subject article had not been Web Sheriff, this process would never have taken place. Agadant ( talk) 22:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It is sufficient to Google the expression Michael Moore criticism to find more than enough reliable sources that support the notability of a criticism/controversy section in his article. Several books and films have exposed unethical methods used to manipulate and distort findings in order to support his agenda; all of those can also be properly sourced. Moore also has a tendency to resort to controversy to get media attention, such as his support of the Park51 project on the exact date of the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Without this information, the Moore article keeps a very one-sided tone, thus blatantly breaking WP:NPOV, protected by certain editors. I will just go ahead and say it looks like a WP:tagged WP:civil POV pushing, since it is impossible to add anything to the article without having that addition "doomed" to be a "violation of WP:UNDUE/ WP:NPOV"... boy, talking about calling the kettle black! If sources are needed, I will be more than happy to provide them, but you can find more than a few in the article's edit history/talk page. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW
[34] appears to be RS for the claim that Moore made a connection between the two in the Columbine film.
[35] etc. are published contemporary comments thereon. There is a somewhat amusing animation piece in the movie that tracks America's fear of non-whites up to the present. The cartoon goes astray by linking the NRA to the KKK, and giving the best rebuttal to gun control in saying some of the first gun control laws in America prohibited blacks from owning arms. is typical of a few comments on that movie's view of the NRA as being causitive of violence.
[36] is also interesting ...
The famous bank scene where he is shown receiving a rifle as a bonus gift for opening a $1,000 account was disputed by the woman at that very bank, who said the filmmakers spent a month’s time in order to stage that scene, thus bypassing the standard practice of the usual 10-day waiting period and having to receive the rifle from a licensed dealer across town. ... This racism mindset springs from Bowling’s rather farcical conclusion that the NRA and the KKK are intertwined, based on the inaccurate supposition that they were formed in the same year. Whilst one article (Variety_ does not have the backstory, that does not mean the backstory is invalid. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: I have fully protected the page for 48 hours to stop the edit warring while y'all work this out. The current version is equal to the one prior to the start of edit warring, thus I kept the page where it is. If the dispute is "solved" prior to the expiration of the dispute, leave me a message on my talk page and I will unprotect (or use WP:RFPP to request unprotection if I'm not around). Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
As I asserted at the beginning of this paragraph, a simple Google search shows enough reliable sources to establish the subject's WP:notability, thus meriting a section... but of course John has chosen not to look at the first half of Jimbo's first sentence – quote – "[i]n many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary". Moore works very hard to create controversy to keep his name in the news, a fact which can supported by multiple reliable sources. He was also proven multiple times to have manipulated and distorted the findings used in his films. His whole public persona is fake, as he is that same "greedy capitalist" he is trying to "help fight". All of this can be easily sourced. Unfortunately, the same editors who protect this article will deem any of that as WP:UNDUE and biased, and unfortunately, even on Wikipedia, if enough people repeat a statement, it becomes the truth. Finally, my "analysis" was nothing but reiteration of excerpts from the film, I made no deductions that were not already made there. You are welcome to watch it and see for yourselves. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 18:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Please show me the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claim" here. Everything here is a mere reiteration of what's found in the source, the analytic part is a part of the film – which, clearly, no one saw nor is anyone intending to see. I am asking the participating editors to start referring to specific claims rather than making general statements. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 04:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article while vandal-patrolling. Note in particular the subsection "Activities in Balochistan." This article could benefit from some independent scrutiny. ScottyBerg ( talk) 20:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the recent changes to Interstate Van Lines by Jmorrissette26 ( talk · contribs)? I don't think there's any doubt that this is a single-purpose account but since I've already warned twice in April if I warn again it could look like hounding. Perhaps an uninvolved editor could find a better way to approach the situation. Thanks - Pointillist ( talk) 21:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
A couple of editors have asserted that one need not explicitly attribute the view that "the international community views X to be illegal", since it is not actually a legal opinion, but merely stating the "facts" about the view of the international community. I understand that if one has, say, 10 reliable sources all supporting a specific point, then one need not name all of them. But if it is just one or two, can one dispense with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to repeat something I mentioned over at the RS/N where Jayjg also posted a question related to this discussion. Please post direct links to the discussions, because outside parties need to see the context to give accurate answers. I had to dig through your edit history to find this one. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 02:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
To provide the outside context requested, at issue is whether or not we need to attribute in-text to the authors of several high quality sources for the statement that the international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law. That sentence was cited to the following sources:
The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law.
the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars.
This sentence can be cited to many, many sources in peer-reviewed journal articles or books published by high quality presses. Jayjg is claiming that a source reporting on the views of the international community is actually presenting its POV of the international community. He is arguing that by virtue of the source not being an official spokesman, they cannot be used for the view of the international community. That argument make a mockery of Wikipedia's requirements on sourcing. We specifically want to use high quality secondary sources for statements of fact such as these, not claim that they are "POV" without being to give any sources that dispute this supposed POV. The text is not saying that the settlements are illegal under international law as a fact. It is attributing that view to the international community, and doing so because several high quality sources say that this is the view of the international community. We already were attributing the POV. nableezy - 04:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
We have had a centralized discussion on this. It received consensus (slim majority with an administrator saying yes) but one thing that was important was that it was not set in stone. Even more important was that we shouldn't be jumping around to different noticeboards and talk pages since that was the reason for the centralized discussion in the first place. One editor at a talk page discussion (I don;t like Jay and disagree with him for the most part) offered something that came up in the centralized discussion that was a hurdle several of us wanted passed. "...majority of the international community" should not hurt peoples feelings. It is a valid concern and if that one word is needed to clarify it even more than it should of course go in. Attempts to keep that one word out only look like trying to make something more definitive than it is. Not all of the intl community is clearly on board with it being illegal so why make it ambiguous? The majority opinion clearly says it is. Add that one word to the standard line (and make the change over the topic area with the fervor seen in the original change) and this can all go away. Cptnono ( talk) 04:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
This is like asking whether we need to explicitly attribute the view that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old because "a couple of editors" think it isn't. If there are hundreds of secondary sources available that explicitly support the precise wording of the statement "the international/scientific community views X to be Y" and the one or two sources cited are representative of that set of sources there is clearly no need for attribution. Editors need to look at the data and objectively assess the consistency between how the secondary sources summarize information and how we summarize information. If there is a measurable mismatch there is a valid policy based reason to be concerned. Statements about the degree of consistency or inconsistency must be backed up by source based evidence. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Lamest. Discussion. Ever.
Jayjg said: "I understand that if one has, say, 10 reliable sources all supporting a specific point, then one need not name all of them" Just find Jayjg his 10 reliable sources, use the two that are fine with him, and get it over with. Take him at his word. If you cannot do it, he wins. Now, if only he would apply the same standard to that infamous coatrack walking policy violation that is called New antisemitism, I could wikidie happily ever after...-- Cerejota ( talk) 05:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
We have a simple fix. Add the word "majority". But since that is not good enough for whatever silly reason and since this discussion is taking place right now on two different noticeboards and at least one article talk page: how about it goes back to centralized discussion. This will limit claims of filibustering and forum shopping. Cptnono ( talk) 06:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that since there is no definition of exactly who or what the 'international community' is, citing a source using that terms is always going to be appropriate, particularly since any claim that the international community supports or opposes X is likely to have some pretty staunch opponents. Consider also that 'international community' has been shorthand for UN majority votes and coalitions of international powers to do stuff like impose or lift sanctions, drop bombs on third parties, pay for emergency aid, etc. In that context the shorthand for a group of UN or coalition members can be just innocent shorthand. But it can, at times, be a propaganda claim of universal support for international actions that may actually not be very universal at all. For that reason alone, a neutral point of view should specify the members of any claimed international community where a source can be found to list that breakdown, or attribute the claim 'international community' to a source so it's not Wikipedia making that claim.
As always, every specific instance needs to be assessed on its own merits. I would suggest that an entry level test for distancing Wikipedia from repeating an unattributed claim about the 'international community' is whether the mention relates to negative actions like wars or sanctions, which are always controversial and likely to be hotly debated. Conversely, I think it's fairly uncontroversial to repeat 'international community' in a paraphrase about an action likely to have widespread support, like earthquake or tsunami relief operations. Does that assist? Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"... the 'international community' is a term sometimes employed by publicists, diplomats and careless academics (including, sadly, the present write on occasion) when they wish to express approval of some collective international action, or, perhaps, criticize the failure to act. In fact, the term is pretty much meaningless or even misleading..." Chris Brown. Sovereignty, Rights and Justice: International Political Theory Today, Wiley-Blackwell, 2002, p. 244.
"But invoking the international community is a lot easier than defining it. [...] According to this definition, it is clear that an international community does not exist, at least not on a worldwide level. [...] Second when the phrase of 'international community' is invoked, what it refers to seems highly situational. [...] Third, who makes decisions for the 'international community' seems to be heavily influenced by the international power structure. ...the concept of 'international community'... is meant to give legitimacy to actors and institutions, and very often it is used as an idealistic cover of power relations and self interests." Hongying Wang, "Understanding the intangible in international relations", in China and International Relations: The Chinese View and the Contribution of Wang Gungwu, Taylor & Francis, 2010, p. 205.
"First, the 'international community' does not truly exist. Such a 'community,' in truth, is an exclusive and largely privileged membership, which includes hegemons and imperialists who came to dominate the landscape in this new century..." P.H. Liotta. The wreckage reconsidered: Five oxymorons from Balkan deconstruction, Lexington Books, 1999, p. 96.