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 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
ParkSehJik ( talk · contribs) has made edits to the Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry articles that me and another user have objected to. Here are the changes for the Psychiatry article. Myself, and Looie496 ( talk · contribs) have reverted this user's changes. On the talk page for Psychiatry, we have discussed the issue (See Talk:Psychiatry#Significant_controversies). I am in favor of including a few sentences or a paragraph on the controversies in psychiatry, but the paragraph that this user has included go far beyond NPOV and may be giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority opinions.
This user has made similar edits to Forensic Psychiatry (See here).
This user has also included a POV tag for both pages. I would like for this noticeboard to give advice on how to resolve this NPOV conflict. I apologize if I did not post this to the most appropriate place. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This same user has also added a POV tag to Bipolar disorder and has removed material. The material removed appears to be factual, just merely missing citations. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 08:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Reply -
Please stick to discussing my edits and their sources, not discussing me.
ParkSehJik (
talk) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Summarizing -
ParkSehJik ( talk) 18:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Samples of edits indicating a failure to grasp Wikipedia policies and WP:TEND A small sampling of ParkSehJik's edits:
This is only a quick glance: there is much more, it extends across many articles, and I've yet to encounter a correct edit in all that I've checked. Every indication of WP:TEND and pov pushing, little indication of understanding of WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I should also point out that this user's edits are still up on forensic psychiatry. Most of these issues don't even relate to forensic psychiatry at all.
There is controversy regarding the motives and scientific validity of forensic psychiatry findings of mental disorders. Forensic psychiatrists are frequently [1] called “ whores”. [2] [3] [1] In psychiatry, “politics and economics has replaced quality science”. [4] Unlike evidence based medicine or even traditional medicine, psychiatry may use the term “disease” or "disorder" without a systemic etiology indicated, i.e. even without any observable and measurable abnormalities in anatomy, chemistry, and physiology hypothesized as causative for mental categories declared by psychiatrists to be diseases or disorders. [4] Psychiatry may apply the term “disease” politically, for the mere belief that a cluster of symptoms must be a disease because the symptoms are very uncommon, to justify crude its own specialty treatments such as lobotomies, to justify involuntary commitments, and for financial profit to justify the sale of psychotropic drugs. [4]
...Really? Whores? -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 06:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussion re MEDRS questions raised by the above NPOV concerns - In light of the above discussion and related discussions at associated talk pages, discussion re uniform application of MEDRS standards to all WP articles is here [8]. ParkSehJik ( talk) 20:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Should these pages still have a neutrality tag? This user is the only one who has problems with them, and their changes have been opposed by several users. Any problem with these pages likely does not warrant a neutrality tag. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 11:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to call attention to the article Breast cancer awareness. I'm concerned that there are major neutrality problems with this article, specifically that it advances a viewpoint that the most well-known elements of the Breast Cancer Awareness movement (such as the Susan G. Komen foundation) promote a kind of falsely-cheerful type of activism that hurts patients. This is a point of view that has been advanced by some serious people ( Barbara Ehrenreich for instance) but in this article it is given undue weight and claims made by these detractors are treated as fact. Given that this movement enjoys widespread popular support, the lack of balance is quite striking. The following are examples of problems that I see:
"Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause. These supporters may feel socially compelled to participate, in a type of "obligatory voluntarism" that critics say is "exploitative"
I think this article would benefit strongly from a fresh perspective and I encourage you to take a look. (note that I've copied this from Jimbo's talk page). GabrielF ( talk) 20:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
There have been numerous editors that have commented that the current lead of the alternative medicine article fails WP:NPOV, (see [9] and [10] ). Some editors have disagreed that the lead is POV, but most challenges to this claim have simply been anti-alternative medicine rhetoric (again, see above links to past discussions). As such, I am posting notification of a new discussion here, in hopes that some reasonable editors will like to review the issues raised and comment. The newest discussion of changes that might improve the article are here: [11]. Thanks Puhlaa ( talk) 22:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, the lead was recently changed, including a change to the definition, and his proposal is to change the definition back. The section he links is only the most recent of a very long and convoluted discussion about the lead, and is a restatement of arguments that have mostly been responded to above that talk page section, not below. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 11:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Could somebody other than me, somebody who didn't leave Tennessee forever because of politicians like him, take a look at Don Sundquist to see whether it's as fluffy and spun pro-Sundquist as it appears to my jaundiced view? -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of Wikipedia:BLPN#Andrew_Wakefield, hatting this one per WP:FORUMSHOP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Summary as follows, help requested on NPOV and BLP noticeboards. NPOV tag added but hopefully will be removed shortly
If criminal, then Wakefield has an over-riding presumption of innocence until there is a verdict regardless of his approach to litigation. If scientific, then can we use the ORI definition ( http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct) which would fit with the Lancet / GMC statements. Grateful for help and advice Nernst ( talk) 15:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
|
In regards to Death of Savita Halappanavar, an editor has expressed concern that the Times of India's editorial opinion as expressed
In an editorial on 17 November, The Times of India said, "There appears to be a tendency to view this issue in terms of India versus Ireland or the Catholic faith against other religions. To fall prey to such tendencies would be a serious mistake and a great disservice to the memory of Savita. ... Adding a nationalist or communal tone to the debate detracts from the merit of argument rather than enhancing it."( "Savitas kin being consulted". The Times of India. 17 November 2012. Retrieved 19 November 2012.)
is a fringe view that should be removed from the article. (one would be negligent if one also failed to include the fact that this very same editor created the section heading "Removal of vital information from the lead" in which they vociferously argued "Three points have been removed from the lead, (1) that prima facie Halappanavar's death was caused by denial of termination of her pregnancy when it was indicated. (2) That it were Ireland's Catholic laws and ethos that were responsible for the decision that her caregivers took. (3) that ther family was unhappy that Catholic religious laws applied to those like Halappanavar who was a Hindu and not a Catholic. )
so is the Times of India opinion Fringe? or not fringe? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
A scrutiny of the sources makes it clear that TOI's opinion mentioned above has not been shared by others, whereas the statements regarding the deceased's religious persuasion etc. are statements made by her mother and her husband as quoted by multiple reliable media sources. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This article has been subjected recently to edits by a couple of IPs (in the same range, and presumably the same person with a dynamic IP address) to defend the legitimacy of restrictive covenants as preserving the "cultural homogeineity" rights of "European Americans". I don't know if this is a sock, but I'd rather have somebody look at it who is not myself (a white refugee from the South, and a resident of the inner city of one of the United States' most segregated cities). -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You may want to watch Kool Smiles. Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kool_Smiles&action=history An editor added corporate-sounding promotional language to the article and removed large chunks of content saying that they were "non-factual entries as well as entries based on non-factual media accounts" WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
THe article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 went through an WP:AfD. The "consensus seems to be that the article needs substantial work to become unbiased, but the tool for that is an editor's pen, not an admin's axe.". I wanted to ask for suggestions to move the article towards being unbiased. Any thoughts or useful edits will help. Thanks. Casprings ( talk) 03:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The quotation "one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" is currently being used to solely describe what the pirate bay is in the article lead, and is taken from a story article produced by Los Angeles Times. No other media description is used in the lead, and when looking what international news outlets like bbc, Der Spiegel International, and New York Times say, they all use a quite different style of description, where the most common one is "one of the most famous file-sharing sites". Consensus is however that even if the LA times quotation is "overdramatic", they rather use that one and only that one. Belorn ( talk) 08:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It is important to maintain a neutral point of view as per policy WP:NPOV. It's worth noting that the LA Times article dates from 2007 - that is old and I'm sure more recent article can be found. Due to the age of the article, it's out of date...it was written about the founders and previous owners, not the current owners who acquired the site in 2009. There are some people above stating that it operates illegally - it wasn't the website but the previous owners who were convicted of assisting copyright theft. There's a difference. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Belorn above and believe that adding the quote to the lede is not in line with guidelines since it is not summarizing and not NPOV. A simple summary statement can portray the same information, and details can be found in appropriate sections. According to guidelines, the key points that should be summarized in the lede are:
With that in mind, my suggestion is as follows (refs, etc, to be added):
Comments? -- HighKing ( talk) 12:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No other comments for a while, and it seems we're in agreement with making the change along the lines above. To summarize then, we're proposing the following as the lede (and refs will be added back, etc)
I believe this version addresses the concerns raised. Thoughts? -- HighKing ( talk) 20:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The article read that the Books of Kings "concludes a series of [[Deuteronomistic history|historical]] books" which I changed to "concludes a series of books" and noted in the edit summary that calling these historical was pov.(There's also an Easter egg there, I didn't think we were supposed to add that sort of piping). The article linked does indeed talk about "Deuteronomistic history", but I still don't think that is sufficient to state in Wikipedia's voice that these are historical books (indeed a handful of versions ago there was no link to Deuteronomist at all, it just said "conclused a series of historical books". I'm bringing this here instead of to the article talk page as this is really a general question that would apply to other books of the Bible as well. I'll note that it is my understanding that there isn't anything this old we would call history. Dougweller ( talk) 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WP:BLPN on this person that might interest regulars here. Numerous sources describe this person as a "con man" (as in this version, the first three sources in the lead, e.g. this one from the Sydney Morning Herald). Predictably enough, a certain BLPN regular thinks this is "contentious" and so has removed it "per BLP". What we're left with, then, is an article based almost entirely on the "Papala Chronicles", a vehicle for self-promotion if ever there was one -- and Noah Musingku is then merely a "king". Needless to say, I think this is hopelessly in conflict with WP:NPOV. It's not ideal to have two separate discussions, so if you have thoughts on the matter perhaps you could voice them at BLPN. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a row brewing in the Continental Freemasonry article and I wouldn't mind a third pair of eyes. The question is whether the Freemasonry that exists in places like France and Italy should be called Irregular because it is not recognised by the United Grand Lodge of England. This is a very contentious issue among Freemasons and seems to be an almost existential question. The term "Irregular" has been in this article for a few years as an alternate description to the more neutral Continental (along with Latin, Adogmatic and Liberal Freemasonry). An anonymous user who claims not to be a Freemason has taken that term out as being insulting (as it wass meant to be when it was coined, if not when it was used in this article). I've tried to take it out and then when it's been reinserted a couple of times seperate it out but there's been an insistent re-insertion by someone who seems to be quite caught up in this (three times so far today).
Can someone please look at this? I don't want to start breaking 3RR or anything like that. Personally I'm not a Freemason but I've crossed swords with them before, although rarely on this issue, so I think a disinterested observer would make them (or me) see sense.
JASpencer ( talk) 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a quibble... the "Grand Lodge of All England" and the "Regular Grand Lodge of England" is the same group... they simply changed their name. So your count actually needs to be 11 not 12. Yes, the mainstream lodges do consider more than just Continental Freemasonry to be irregular... but that does not change the fact that the term Irregular Freemasonry is routinely used to refer to Continental Freemasonry. I have provided sources and even quotes to demonstrate this. You simply don't want to accept that the name is used. Blueboar ( talk) 00:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think GoDF in America is just Le Droit Humain, but I'm not sure, and we don't deal with that group at all in the article. MSJapan ( talk) 05:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I seem to have inadvertently wandered into an edit war here over the template {{islamophobia}}. Since Islamophobia is mentioned significantly in the article, it seems appropriate to me, but I'd like other opinions. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 11:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Has this in the lede:
Does this paragraph in Wikipedia's voice violate WP:NPOV? Would similar language in an article on any other religion be accepted as "neutral point of view"? Collect ( talk) 18:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The text in the lead is now: "Christian science is pseudoscience that claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. It rejects science as illusory, while attempting to disguise itself as science.[4][5]:317 A number of preventable deaths have occurred amongst its followers, and their children since outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths have occurred due to a lack of vaccination and treatment.[6][7]:50" I think this addresses any neutrality concerns. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section are not written in a NPOV and do not meet other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:
Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam.[10] If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.
User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers.[11] The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers.[12] The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.
RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less.[13] Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%.[14].
In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:OR, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.
Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 ( talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
PRSA It appears that there is an unbalanced POV coverage in this article concerning the subject's dispute with someone named O'Dwyer. The organization and said person has been in a dispute for sometime from what I gather. I tried to include that O'Dwyer refuted an allegation made by PRSA.
I was told its against consensus to do so [ [20] here] It was something that was found in a source used to support existing contents. I'm not really seeing a consensus to not include a brief statement that is supported in the source. I simply included the opposing view that was stated within the cited reference in this diff.
The section reads "O'Dwyer "has castigated the Public Relations Society on subjects ranging from its effectiveness to its professionalism.", but the source where this came from also says that PRSA's letter attacked O'Dwyer. The section appears to be written in PRSAs view framing O'Dwyer as the wrongdoer and I think the selective inclusion of contents from within cited sources is non-neutral POV.
There's an extensive discussion over this on the article's talk page. Can you comment if it looks like consensus to only include one side of view and if you all see neutrality issue as I do? Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 22:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Two users are blatantly ignoring facts, and at least in Europe, the law. Please review Moshe Friedman document == as well as my scrubbed edits. Joeyrichardchicago ( talk) 10:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right board? Rather than starting a discussion immediately, can someone please just look at this deletion and say whether this is the right place. This is partly related to a WP:FORK issue, except a fork Historical mayor of Leicester hasn't yet been created. Similar problem on a dozen "Mayor of X" UK articles. Thanks.
Christmas is the wrong period :) ... if anyone responds to this please give me a heads up on Talk page. Thanks In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I need some help here.
The added content is basically true but the way it's presented seems deliberately malicious, the purpose seems to make Laar look foolish. There's a lot more to say about Laar and the ACTA discussions, but the edit puts undue weight on that one quote from him, without any neutralizing explanation. The issue was spoken of in several sources so I guess it's significant enough to mention, but not quite like this.
I'm not sure right now what happened but it seems like the user replied to me on their talk page with a vague personal attack, and I don't have that kind of energy right now to continue to argue with him. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Need some context here - I took a shot at understanding this dispute. I am an uninvolved editor and I know nothing about Estonia. I do understand why ACTA is important, so perhaps I should try to figure this out. Was Estonia one of the countries that initially ratified it? And then once there was an outcry they backed off and Facebook posts got deleted? Is that somewhere close? Offhand my reaction is that Facebook posts are a bit trivial, and this is a BLP. On the other hand if he was serious it does reflect the fundamental problem of politicians with no clue about the internet trying to regulate it, so.... I'll try to check on this thread in a couple of days. Could one of you please confirm that I even understand what you are arguing about? Thanks. Elinruby ( talk) 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Portal:Latter-day Saints was created in August 2006 with the lead "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true and only Church of God here on earth. The new religion was started in the United States by Joseph Smith Jr. when Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in the spring of 1820." It still has that lead today. And here I thought we were managing to keep LDS pages NPOV. I discovered this just now when an editor changed the lead at Portal:Latter-day Saints/Intro from " The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes referred to as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church, describes itself as the restoration of the original church established by Jesus Christ. It is classified as a Christian church; separate from the Catholic or Protestant traditions, though many of those denominations disavow the LDS Church." to the same wording. I haven't read the whole text but it needs examining on both pages. Dougweller ( talk) 10:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Overview:Over at the Ecclesiastes page, there is some disagreement over whether to include certain material. One editor is in disagreement with the other parties, over inclusion of a certain point of view; in fact, he has deleted any information that disagrees with a very narrow interpretation.
Background: The issue of the date of Ecclesiastes has been in dispute for at least 150 years. Scholarly opinion has bounced around quite a bit, but essentially there are three views held among Bible scholars. The first is a late view, dating the book to around the 3rd century B.C.E. This view is based on a supposed presence of Hellenistic culture found in the book. It is held by quite a few scholars, with Rudman, of Exeter university being the primary source given in the article. Rudman claims, in his book, that "250 B.C.E. is the consensus date" among scholars, even though the editor who added this, has failed to provide other sources that give this particular date as the "consensus" view. (This is Dispute #1)
The second view, advocated by Seow of Princeton University (and author of the prestigious Anchor/Yale commentary on Ecclesiastes), denies the presence of such Hellenistic culture found in the book, and instead advocates for Persian influence of the 4th to fifth century (330-450, to be exact). The editor in question has removed any mention of this other, equally held view, because it apparently disagrees with his own. Though Seow, Batholomew, Longman, and other authorities deny any consensus, the editor has insisted on quoting this "consensus" view as fact...which, from what I have read, goes against Wikipedia's standards (it should be cited as Rudman's opinion for NPOV).
The third view, which is a minority view, has also been completely censored, that of an early date. D.C. Fredricks published his study in 1988, and it has since been noted, critiqued, criticied, and yes, also applauded. Seow himself notes the importance of the work, as does Bartholomew, agreeing with the study in part. That Fredricks view is still held by many, is apparent from the current literature. IVP academic has just published an updated version of his material in the new Apollos Bible Commentary series. His work is frequently cited in peer reviewed publications (Bibliotecha Sacra, April 2012), and others in the field have adopted his views. This would seem to merit inclusion. The editor has even admitted that it is not a "fringe view," yet he refuses to allow any mention of the study, the theory, etc. Instead, his article as it stands, portrays the 250 B.C.E date as if it is held by everyone, when in fact not even a majority of scholars would agree to it.
I would appreciate your review of the article, and of the talk page. The editor in question has been doing a lot of editing lately on this page, and there definitely seems to be bias. Here are the two versions.
Original version: The book takes its name from the Greek ekklesiastes, a translation of the title by which the central figure refers to himself: Koheleth, meaning something like "one who convenes or addresses an assembly". [6] According to Rabbinic tradition he was Solomon in his old age, [7] but for various reasons critical scholars have long rejected this idea. [8] On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE, [9] and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it. [10] The current consensus dates it to the early Hellenistic era, around 250 BCE. [11]
Updated with a NPOV: (Retains the material from the original version about the book's name and the traditional view of Solomon as author, which implies a date; remainder, from "On lingistic grounds...", replaced with the following: Dating of the book of Ecclesiastes is difficult as well. On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE, [9] while the latest possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it. [10] Although some suggest that there is a consensus date of 250 B.C.E. [11], this is still disputed. Essentially the dispute revolves around the degree of Hellenization (influence of Greek culture and thought) that is present in the book. Scholars arguing for an earlier date of 330 B.C.E. to 450 B.C.E., hold that there is a complete lack of Greek influence in the book [9]. Those who argue for a third century date on the other hand, hold that the book was written in a Greek influenced social setting, and believe it shows internal evidence of this fact [12]. A third group of scholars continue to advocate for a date much earlier than 450 B.C.E., up to and including the time of Solomon. D.C. Fredericks in a 1988 study advocated not only an early date, but Solomonic authorship. His work has not gained a high degree of acceptance and has been criticized by many [13].
Havensdad ( talk) 23:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC) {{subst:PiCo-notice}}
Ok, here's my response.
Response
First, I don't quite agree with Havensdad's description of the dispute - I don't think it's a POV dispute but rather one about due weight. He wants to include the views of Fredericks, at some length, and I regard that as undue. But let that pass.
Havensdad says there are three views on the date of the book of Ecclesiastes. This is not so: there's only one, really, which is that was composed some time between about 450 and 180 BCE. Havensdad divides this range into two parts, which is sort of ok, as it's true that some scholars say the earlier end of the range (the Persian period) and others the later (the Hellenistic period. Anyway, we have sourced sentences in the article saying this: "On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE,( sourced from Seow|2007|p=944) and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it.(sourced from Fox|2004|p=xiv). Seow actually says that most modern scholars say the post-450 date is right. Seow and Fox are important modern scholars, and I gather that Havensdad doesn't dispute what they say.
So it comes down to whether the idea that the book could have been written before about 450 (the exilic/pre-exilic period) has enough supporters to warrant inclusion in our article.
Havensdad refers to a scholar named Fredericks, who examined the language of the book (it's written in Hebrew) and decided on that basis that it could be, and probably was, exilic or pre-exilic. That was in 1988, almost a quarter of a century ago. Not surprisingly, scholarship has examined his ideas in the interim. The overwhelming conclusion is that he's wrong. I can cite:
In my research for this section of the article I did not come across a single modern scholar (writing in the last 10 years) who would put the book before about 450 BC. On that basis, to mention that date as one supported by modern scholars, even a significant minority, is without evidence; and to mention Fredericks by name, when it seems no modern scholar supports him, is undue weight.
We should also look at what contemporary scholars do actually say about the date:
And they go on and on. Many, many scholars saying postexilic, none saying pre-exilic or exilic. Clearly, Fredericks does not represent a significant body of scholarly opinion, and the inclusion of his name would be undue weight. PiCo ( talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I ran across this issue while doing cleanup in computing -- somebody flagged the article on Unix HAL as biased. I am unix-literate enough to understand the issue but not to solve it. Elinruby ( talk) 01:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Moshe_Friedman need assistance. There is support for Holocaust denial which lacks sources and facts and would appreciate balanced editors who actually read the sources. Tellyuer1 ( talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
These two articles talk essentially about the same event: the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and subsequent events. In my opinion, this situation creates a huge potential for POV content forking (I even recall the latter article was created during a hot neutrality dispute). In addition, the idea to separate the story of negotiations from the story of the pact signing is quite artificial, and I see no reason behind that other than POV CFORK. In connection to that I believe it would be more correct to merge these two articles (especially, taking into account that their content essentially coincides).-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 05:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Race (human classification) has been considerably revised recently. I reverted a major edit which removed cited text and made this statement about the work of Franz Boas: " Boas' study was later found to be fraudulent by Sparks and Jantz.<ref name="Sparks">[http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/boas-skulls-revisited.pdf A reassessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited], Sparks and Jantz, 2002</ref>" It was restored with the edit summary "Fine, fixed that. Added relevant sources. Removed political bias from "Complications and various definitions of the concept"."
The first time I reverted the false Boas claim I pointed to Boas's article and a quote from it. This was simply ignored, but if you read Boas's article you can see that the work by Sparks and Jantz has been challenged, that it's been said that they misrepresented Boas, that their date has been reanalyzed and found to support Boas, and that Boas's work has been reanalyzed and found to be basically correct. Anyone who simply ignores all of this has a pov problem.
The alleged 'political bias' that was removed was material about race as a social construction sourced to the "American Anthropological Association" - why that is called 'political bias' I leave up to others or hopefully the editor who removed to explain.
All of the recent edits need review. Dougweller ( talk) 05:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually found the discussion above to be pretty illuminating. Why don't you find a concise way to summarize what you've written here? For example, on the Sparks and Jantz debate, instead of the previous "Boas' study was later found to be fraudulent by Sparks and Jantz," you could write something like "Boas' findings were criticized by Sparks and Jantz [why?], though subsequent reassessments of Boas' data reinforced the validity of his conclusions."
As to the American Anthropological Association and the issue of race as a social construct, maybe a solution is to just attribute different opinions and perspectives more clearly? So, for instance, when something is cited to an anthropologist, you can say as much. TheBlueCanoe 04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The authors of the study that, in effect, implied that Boas practised scientific fraud(Jantz etc.) did actually criticise the new study that supposedly re-proved Boas' claims. Here's an article in which they point out the flaws in that new pro-Boas study:-
http://www.rps.psu.edu/0305/boas.html
excerpt:- Coincidentally, as of this writing, another paper, by anthropologists at the University of Michigan, the University of Florida, and Northwestern University, is scheduled for publication in American Anthropologist; it concludes that Boas correctly interpreted his head-form data. According to Jantz, these present-day anthropologists fail to acknowledge Boas’s error in comparing children with adults. Nor, points out Sparks, do they consider cranial differences between ethnic groups." Of course, whether or not Boas was correct or a fraud is irrelevant, really, and cannot be stated with certainty without tons more evidence. However, according to wikipedia rules, Boas ought at least to have a criticism section wherein this study criticising Boas is mentioned. Otherwise, the article just reads like a hagiography. Vorlon19 ( talk) 09:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) This article is suffering severely from a lack of NPOV. I rewrote it in userspace here but any attempt I make to make the article neutral is reverted without discussion. I would appreciate some neutral editors looking the article over. Darkness Shines ( talk) 07:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Page:
Smithfield Foods (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Which image of sows is preferred for inclusion at
Smithfield Foods#Pregnant sows?
Gestation crates 3.jpg, prepared by the animal welfare advocacy group, the
Humane Society of the United States, or
Gestcrate1.png prepared by the
Smithfield Foods. Details of the actions of the Humane Society are described in
Smithfield Foods#2010 State Veterinarian Visit. The relevant guideline is
Choosing images. There appear to be no copyright issues.
My opinion is that the company's image is preferable, because the the Humane Society image may not be representative. The State Veterninarian inspected the facility and determined that the conditions described by the Humane Society were unfounded. The Humane Society is an advocacy group with no assigned powers of enforcement or prosecution.
It would be helpful as well for other editors to comment on the relative weight and accuracy given to animal welfare issues in the article.
TFD ( talk) 09:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
TFD was asked [23] by the Smithfield Foods marketing manager, User:Kkirkham, to remove the current image. TFD, the image you want to replace it with is not a company image.
There's no reason to remove the image in question. It is free, it is reasonably good quality, it is representative of these stalls, it was taken inside Smithfield Foods (KKirkham has confirmed this), it is recent (end of 2010), and it very precisely illustrates the subject matter of the section in which we use it. If Smithfield Foods wants to post a free one of their own alongside it, for comparison's sake – as another editor and I suggested months ago – that's fine.
It's worth noting that Smithfield has been heavily criticized for its use of gestation crates, even by McDonald's and by its own animal-welfare consultant, Temple Grandin, which may be why they're keen that Wikipedia downplay it. Here's a timeline of its recent efforts:
Again, there is no reason within policy to remove the image, and if Smithfield wants to post one of its own next to it, they're welcome to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Humane Soc. Photo - They are both free photos; and both show gestation crates; but the HSUS photo has a couple of advantages: (1) it is taken inside a Smithfield facility; and (2) it provides more visual information (size, etc) to the reader. -- Noleander ( talk) 01:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The article opens with
and continues in the same vein. It has section titles like "A Brilliant Student" and "An Admired Professor" (both describing the subject of the article).
Further, in apparent violation of WP:COI, much of the content was added by User:SadhuVaswani, which, judging by the page, seems to be an account maintained by the Sadhu Vasvani Mission (established by the subject of the article). -- 59.95.18.216 ( talk) 10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
Could somebody take a look at
Progressive utilization theory? I have concerns that it's become a hugely lengthy article which treats fringe views at face value, eulogising the writer/philosopher behind the theory; there are many other related articles, which generally big up the "vast literary heritage of the author" &c. Of course, other editors might disagree with this summary; Abhidevananda asserts that I'm prejudiced and ignorant, and reverts all my edits because they're "vandalism". Maybe one of us is right; maybe neither. This shouldn't become adversarial; could somebody uninvolved have a look at the
Progressive utilization theory article, please?
bobrayner (
talk) 14:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Since I have come here to discuss on another discuss (just above), I better try to get help on another issue too. This issue is being taken issue everywhere for last few months. The best and complete report can be found here. Even after that RPP, Editntice, ANI (again), personally contacting admins (Moonriddengirl, Drmies etc) have been tried. All these newly released Bengali masala (commercial) film articles (specially the box office and reception) section are being written from NPOV, FANPOV etc. Any help/suggestion/contribution/idea/opinion will be highly appreciated (and barntared). -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Today I made major changes to article Geoffrey Edelsten. It led to reverts by different editors which led to a sockpuppet investigation [33] and an edit war investigation [34]. The neutrality of the article is disputed as the weight of the content is slanted too much toward the subject's criminal activity as opposed to other aspects of his medical career. He was arrested and convicted for hiring someone to beat up a former patient. This is undisputed and in numerous sources. The current article has it mentioned in numerous sections of the article and also hammers the fact that he was deregistered from practicing medicine. Now, from a weight perspective, I believe that I made edits to make the article more neutral. I currently have a copy of the article with the edits that I made in my sandbox. [35] I would request that the sandbox be reviewed and the edits that I made be placed back into the article. If there are changes that others feel need to be made, please do so in my sandbox. My only concern is that the article is written from a neutral point of view. I have covered his convictions, his being kicked out of medicine and his multiple times of trying to get his license back. Not sure what else I can do but would request a review from some unbiased editors who are not involved with the topic, the edit war, or the sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation. I simply ask that editors take a look at what is written and either suggest changes or implement parts or all of the sandbox into the article so that it is weighted properly. Thank you.-- NikoVee ( talk) 08:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a little snark in that article, but nothing which is not fixable IMO. Collect ( talk) 14:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
At Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp, there's a problem with only PR-type promotional material being allowed into the article. See this deletion of a section on litigation and criticism: "06:05, 10 January 2013 Tyrsdomain ( talk · contribs) (removed poorly sourced section)" [36]. Six references were deleted. (The company has been involved in some questionable activities, and there's a lawsuit.) Tyrsdomain ( talk · contribs) is the creator of the article and all edits from that user since January 2011 have been related to that article. Possible WP:OWN issue. More discussion at Talk:Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp Please take a look. Thanks. -- John Nagle ( talk) 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Native American mascot controversy (mascots) has a number of content and formatting issues which I plan to address, but most of all it is not neural based upon giving appropriate weight to documented academic sources vs. magazines, newspapers, and blogs. These mascots are not controversial in the academic or legal literature that is readily available, for example the APA Recommendation [37] (which is backed up by dozens of research studies) and the US Civil Rights Commission [38]. Last year there was a hearing before the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs which presented the same points; all in favor of eliminating stereotypical mascots. Against this are two public opinion polls of doubtful scientific validity which say essentially that "only" 40% of Native Americans polled are offended. All of the other evidence on the other side is even less worthy, being quotes from team owners and fans (hardly unbiased).
I am sure that as soon as I begin to make my planned changes (which I am working on in a user page) there will be backlash from which I may need to seek protection. I have not contacted any other editors since many are anonymous, and most are making minor changes. I did place a notice on the talk page several days ago, to which there have been no responses. I do not know who set the initial tone of the article or if they are now actively editing.
There is some urgency, since there will be a symposium on the topic at the National Museum of the American Indian on Feb. 7 [39] , and I would like to have the article in good condition by that time. FigureArtist ( talk) 02:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Can some seasoned NPOV editors please cast an eye over Execution of Rizana Nafeek, I came across this following a link form WP:ITN/C and at the time was probably the most POV article I had seen in a long time. There are two editors now teaming up to enforce there view on the article. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Here editor Maunus states "Chinese anthropology is not a part of the mainstream science on race or on human biological variation." Is that correct?
BanjoBruce (
talk) 16:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC) striking; sock evasion
Professor marginalia (
talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Garadaghly Massacre is based on 18 references but 16 out of this 18 references are Azerbaijani, which means partisan, sources and some are even dead links. As far as I know this is against Wikipedia Neutral point of view. The creator of the article user Angel670 has already been informed about this issue on the talk page but finds the article notable as it is. The article also was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2012 but the result of the discussion was oddly no consensus.-- Markus2685 ( talk) 16:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Mail Online is about an online publication. It has a section called "Inaccuracies" (now renamed "Criticism"). I had thought that "criticism" sections were not favoured as a matter of NPOV, and would like eyes on any such section there. The "criticism" edit removed actual information about one of the sources used, and again this is only a matter of seeking eyes about possibly contentious claims having a POV. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a potential for an edit conflict between people who wish to include material about Ortiz's involvement wrt Swartz on an article about her (a biography of a living person), and User:Viriditas who chooses to remove that content wielding BLP and recentism as reasons (there has been at least one previous such action before by another editor, also based on a recentism claim) and Viriditas calling the section "attack content", which I believe is unjustified.
I strongly disagree with Viriditas' removal action and assessment (recentism being the most dubious), but Viriditas has also sent me a template warning for alleged edit-warring after one small (if, perhaps, unfounded) edit, after which I restored the part that I removed, and later it was removed anyway by a much more seasoned editor.
I do not want to revert because of the edit war warning template that I have, but if I did revert, Viriditas would perhaps revert that revert, or use my action as reason to complain about me (given the edit war warning template on my talk page he put there). I consider Viriditas' sending me an edit war warning template aggressive action, because s/he could have chosen not to use a template and engage with me using his/her own letter-writing abilities in my user talk.
Now, I belive there is still very little consensus over whether the removal is proper and the NPOV status regarding the removed content. I think Viriditas is pushing his POV by having removed information about Ortiz' involvement in the case, despite the fact that people are entitled to know what Carmen Ortiz is about, and removing the section removes the necessary elements of notability regarding the article. The Ortiz article already has a section at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Carmen_Ortiz, and there's so far at least one person who agrees with user Viriditas.
I do not know what to do further, because the issue has become rather contentious, since Carmen Ortiz is/was involved in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, but user Viriditas and a few others think this should not be in her article (as seen on BLPN linked above). (Admittedly, Swartz's lawyer has named an assistant attorney who did much of the legwork working and negotiating the case against Swartz.) So there. - Mardus ( talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to add that I placed a Request for Comment tag on the Talk:Carmen Ortiz#Request_for_Comment, which I why I wrote all this here. - Mardus ( talk) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The description does need to be neutral but quoting her public statements about her decision to prosecute Swartz is completely fair game. Elinruby ( talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Need help in making the lead section for this article neutral like before ( see the difference). User:Music&Co has been treating this article like a personal blog/fansite (rewriting the lead to make the singer look extremely successful and inflating her sales with unreliable sources). — Oz 07:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Oz doesn't converse in constructive way, despite has twice looked for in pacific way to talk to him in the personal talk. Contrarily he doesn't answer, and it acts before a comparison inserting with some tags for disputes. Oz does you take the right to attribute words as "of success" or "of not success" (of thing? of charts? of sales? of criticism? in US? in Uk? In other countries of Europe?) sending forth therefore a judgment I don't objectify; He discredits reliable datas (all verifiable ones with sources inserted in the center of the page and in discography page) concerned sales of albums and peak of chart, that I have replaced his personals and arbitrary adjectives concerning success or failures. He defines style from "blog / fansite" all edit that differs from his style of writes and that doesn't meet his personal point of view. It also results "closed in dialogs" in the edit of other user (as you can be seen in Rowland's "view history" for example)
-- Music&Co ( talk) 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
We result for what we are for and for ours behaviors. You have had the opportunity to talk for 2 times, but you have preferred to open 3 discussions in 3 different places and to insert 2 tags. The unreliable sources of which you refer already concern peak on charts and sales of 2 albums approved in wikipedia from years, and with more reliable sources in lead page and discography. Do you insert opinions about to the success without defining its concept (sale? classification? criticism? countries?) what they result a great deal subjective. Then not to speak of fansite (also this is one opinion of yours) style, and triy to be constructive, without only attaching when something doesn't mirror your personal taste. Music&Co ( talk) 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
In fact I haven't expressed judgments, I have insert more information: the sales of the two first albums, her singles worthy of to be mentioned (3singles from the first album, 2 in the second+ "when love takes over" and 3singles from the third album) and her four principal collaborations (* "Here We Go" top 20 in US, UK, NZ and Gold in US; * "Breathe Gentle" in Italy #1 on Airplay and #2 on Sales, #7 in Netherland, #28 in Europe and #53 in Belgium; * "Invincible" top-5 in UKr&b and NZ, #11 UK mainstream, #13 Ireland, #14 Australia urban, top40 in other 3 international charts, eligible3 for silver in Uk and certied gold in NZ; * "What to Feeling" top ten in 6 international charts and and top-30 in others 5 countrieses). It seems me that can be mentioned as her 4 principal collaborations. Don't seem me to have expressed judgments like "Phenomenal success", "Hit of worldwide fame", or other of similar (this would have been an impartial style like a blog or fansite). I have confined to insert 4 collaborations that I have appraised remarkable to the purpose of her general presentation. Music&Co ( talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This article since its beginning has always been written like an advertisement. I don't know enough in the area to fix it myself but if anyone has an interest in a possibly quack form of fat removal, they can improve the article. Gizza Talk © 08:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I am engaged in a dispute over the wording of the newly-created Company of St. Ursula. You'll find the fruitless discussion here. I have unintentionally broken the three-revert rule. Block at your discretion. Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you 200.93.208.84 ( talk) 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The neutrality of the article is being called into question on the article's talk page. One user mentioned that it may not have been written in good faith. Can someone look over the article and try to address the negativity this article presents? -- BigBabyChips ( talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
A more neutral version was condensed into Juggalo, but another user who seems to be aimed at slandering Juggalos has been rewriting multiple articles to claim that Juggalo is a gang, which goes against NPOV rules. BigBabyChips ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate another set of eyes on the Aafia Siddiqui page. Codetruth is constantly inserting material that she is innocent, and messes around with refs (removing text without removing accompanying refs, making them point to other things [40]), as well as changing uses of her last name to "Dr. Aafia’s" ( first edit). I rolled back their edits twice [41] [42], and added warnings about POV to their talk page, but I can't be sure any more.-- Auric talk 19:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Codetruth, I understand where your coming from, but Wikipedia articles must follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. NPOV is absolutely a core policy but so is making sure that information is sourced to reliable secondary sources. Blogs are rarely considered good sources, especially when dealing with BLP articles (articles about living people). There is some information in the article about concerns and questions that have been raised - see the reaction section. You need to be looking for good secondary sources with additional information that can be added to the article. Parts of the article are a mess (see the background section - it's both background and a second lead!) and some cleanup is needed but that's more to cut down the article some. If the prevaling view in secondary sources is reflected accurately, that's the view that will stay. If the prevailing view isn't accurately reflected, then we need to get that information, correctly sourced, in the article. You're best bet is to work on finding those good, strong secondary sources. Articles and/or books from top publishing houses and magazines that cover the entire situation would be helpful. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey.
Reading through some Wikipedia articles, as you do, I came across a set of articles in which I believe there may be POV and weight issues; i.e. I think articles related to violence against men may have a slight MRA bias. Specifically:
These are issues I've found from a five-minute look; there may be deeper issues at play (I do remember the article Female privilege at AfD a year or so ago, where an equivalence was argued that didn't exist in sources). Sceptre ( talk) 19:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits to Cannabis (drug) have added a section on Safety which is strongly biased toward cannabis being a risk-free drug. Emphasis is on a claim that no marijuana related deaths have ever occurred. Yes, there are some sources where the author states no cannabis deaths to report, but using these claims selectively is misleading. Several reliable sources have reported infrequent deaths and also list cannabis smoke as a carcinogen (links to these articles or to abstracts are provided in the deleted history or on the Talk page). Summary:
“Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use”
“Cerebellar Infarction in Adolescent Males Associated with Acute Marijuana Use”
“Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?”
“Cannabis-induced cerebral and myocardial infarction in a young woman”
“Cannabis-Related Myocardial Infarction and Cardioembolic Stroke”
“Effects of marijuana on the lung and its immune defenses”
“Area Profiles of Drug-Related Mortality” (this is a government tertiary source)
“Chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” (This is a government tertiary source)
“Marijuana-only drug abuse deaths” (This is a tertiary source)
Efforts have been made to resolve this on the article Talk page. A marijuana supporter will not accept published medical journals and government reports that raise any safety concerns about cannabis usage. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and an unbiased handling of divergent sources. Certainly, cannabis is not as dangerous as several other hard drugs, but that does not result in absolute safety. Wikipedia should include both sources that discuss safety and sources that indicate problems. A balanced and neutral view is required.
Additional input and comments are welcome on the Talk page. Rlsheehan ( talk) 16:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
In Australian head of state dispute, LJ Holden wishes to use court transcripts which are not referenced by any secondary commentary. Comments by judges during proceedings are being presented as findings of fact, for example an off-hand remark during discussion as to the litigant's ability to pay costs is being used as if it were a considered opinion on the identity of Australia's head of state. Clearly WP:WEIGHT applies here; if no other agency has seen fit to publish commentary, then the remarks are not viewed as important. My approach has been to retain the very one-sided references to the transcripts without comment. The reader may check them for herself - they do not need "interpretation" by Wikipedia. There is some discussion here. -- Pete ( talk) 21:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
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 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
ParkSehJik ( talk · contribs) has made edits to the Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry articles that me and another user have objected to. Here are the changes for the Psychiatry article. Myself, and Looie496 ( talk · contribs) have reverted this user's changes. On the talk page for Psychiatry, we have discussed the issue (See Talk:Psychiatry#Significant_controversies). I am in favor of including a few sentences or a paragraph on the controversies in psychiatry, but the paragraph that this user has included go far beyond NPOV and may be giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority opinions.
This user has made similar edits to Forensic Psychiatry (See here).
This user has also included a POV tag for both pages. I would like for this noticeboard to give advice on how to resolve this NPOV conflict. I apologize if I did not post this to the most appropriate place. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This same user has also added a POV tag to Bipolar disorder and has removed material. The material removed appears to be factual, just merely missing citations. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 08:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Reply -
Please stick to discussing my edits and their sources, not discussing me.
ParkSehJik (
talk) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Summarizing -
ParkSehJik ( talk) 18:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Samples of edits indicating a failure to grasp Wikipedia policies and WP:TEND A small sampling of ParkSehJik's edits:
This is only a quick glance: there is much more, it extends across many articles, and I've yet to encounter a correct edit in all that I've checked. Every indication of WP:TEND and pov pushing, little indication of understanding of WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I should also point out that this user's edits are still up on forensic psychiatry. Most of these issues don't even relate to forensic psychiatry at all.
There is controversy regarding the motives and scientific validity of forensic psychiatry findings of mental disorders. Forensic psychiatrists are frequently [1] called “ whores”. [2] [3] [1] In psychiatry, “politics and economics has replaced quality science”. [4] Unlike evidence based medicine or even traditional medicine, psychiatry may use the term “disease” or "disorder" without a systemic etiology indicated, i.e. even without any observable and measurable abnormalities in anatomy, chemistry, and physiology hypothesized as causative for mental categories declared by psychiatrists to be diseases or disorders. [4] Psychiatry may apply the term “disease” politically, for the mere belief that a cluster of symptoms must be a disease because the symptoms are very uncommon, to justify crude its own specialty treatments such as lobotomies, to justify involuntary commitments, and for financial profit to justify the sale of psychotropic drugs. [4]
...Really? Whores? -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 06:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussion re MEDRS questions raised by the above NPOV concerns - In light of the above discussion and related discussions at associated talk pages, discussion re uniform application of MEDRS standards to all WP articles is here [8]. ParkSehJik ( talk) 20:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Should these pages still have a neutrality tag? This user is the only one who has problems with them, and their changes have been opposed by several users. Any problem with these pages likely does not warrant a neutrality tag. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 11:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to call attention to the article Breast cancer awareness. I'm concerned that there are major neutrality problems with this article, specifically that it advances a viewpoint that the most well-known elements of the Breast Cancer Awareness movement (such as the Susan G. Komen foundation) promote a kind of falsely-cheerful type of activism that hurts patients. This is a point of view that has been advanced by some serious people ( Barbara Ehrenreich for instance) but in this article it is given undue weight and claims made by these detractors are treated as fact. Given that this movement enjoys widespread popular support, the lack of balance is quite striking. The following are examples of problems that I see:
"Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause. These supporters may feel socially compelled to participate, in a type of "obligatory voluntarism" that critics say is "exploitative"
I think this article would benefit strongly from a fresh perspective and I encourage you to take a look. (note that I've copied this from Jimbo's talk page). GabrielF ( talk) 20:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
There have been numerous editors that have commented that the current lead of the alternative medicine article fails WP:NPOV, (see [9] and [10] ). Some editors have disagreed that the lead is POV, but most challenges to this claim have simply been anti-alternative medicine rhetoric (again, see above links to past discussions). As such, I am posting notification of a new discussion here, in hopes that some reasonable editors will like to review the issues raised and comment. The newest discussion of changes that might improve the article are here: [11]. Thanks Puhlaa ( talk) 22:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, the lead was recently changed, including a change to the definition, and his proposal is to change the definition back. The section he links is only the most recent of a very long and convoluted discussion about the lead, and is a restatement of arguments that have mostly been responded to above that talk page section, not below. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 11:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Could somebody other than me, somebody who didn't leave Tennessee forever because of politicians like him, take a look at Don Sundquist to see whether it's as fluffy and spun pro-Sundquist as it appears to my jaundiced view? -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of Wikipedia:BLPN#Andrew_Wakefield, hatting this one per WP:FORUMSHOP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Summary as follows, help requested on NPOV and BLP noticeboards. NPOV tag added but hopefully will be removed shortly
If criminal, then Wakefield has an over-riding presumption of innocence until there is a verdict regardless of his approach to litigation. If scientific, then can we use the ORI definition ( http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct) which would fit with the Lancet / GMC statements. Grateful for help and advice Nernst ( talk) 15:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
|
In regards to Death of Savita Halappanavar, an editor has expressed concern that the Times of India's editorial opinion as expressed
In an editorial on 17 November, The Times of India said, "There appears to be a tendency to view this issue in terms of India versus Ireland or the Catholic faith against other religions. To fall prey to such tendencies would be a serious mistake and a great disservice to the memory of Savita. ... Adding a nationalist or communal tone to the debate detracts from the merit of argument rather than enhancing it."( "Savitas kin being consulted". The Times of India. 17 November 2012. Retrieved 19 November 2012.)
is a fringe view that should be removed from the article. (one would be negligent if one also failed to include the fact that this very same editor created the section heading "Removal of vital information from the lead" in which they vociferously argued "Three points have been removed from the lead, (1) that prima facie Halappanavar's death was caused by denial of termination of her pregnancy when it was indicated. (2) That it were Ireland's Catholic laws and ethos that were responsible for the decision that her caregivers took. (3) that ther family was unhappy that Catholic religious laws applied to those like Halappanavar who was a Hindu and not a Catholic. )
so is the Times of India opinion Fringe? or not fringe? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
A scrutiny of the sources makes it clear that TOI's opinion mentioned above has not been shared by others, whereas the statements regarding the deceased's religious persuasion etc. are statements made by her mother and her husband as quoted by multiple reliable media sources. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This article has been subjected recently to edits by a couple of IPs (in the same range, and presumably the same person with a dynamic IP address) to defend the legitimacy of restrictive covenants as preserving the "cultural homogeineity" rights of "European Americans". I don't know if this is a sock, but I'd rather have somebody look at it who is not myself (a white refugee from the South, and a resident of the inner city of one of the United States' most segregated cities). -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You may want to watch Kool Smiles. Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kool_Smiles&action=history An editor added corporate-sounding promotional language to the article and removed large chunks of content saying that they were "non-factual entries as well as entries based on non-factual media accounts" WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
THe article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 went through an WP:AfD. The "consensus seems to be that the article needs substantial work to become unbiased, but the tool for that is an editor's pen, not an admin's axe.". I wanted to ask for suggestions to move the article towards being unbiased. Any thoughts or useful edits will help. Thanks. Casprings ( talk) 03:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The quotation "one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" is currently being used to solely describe what the pirate bay is in the article lead, and is taken from a story article produced by Los Angeles Times. No other media description is used in the lead, and when looking what international news outlets like bbc, Der Spiegel International, and New York Times say, they all use a quite different style of description, where the most common one is "one of the most famous file-sharing sites". Consensus is however that even if the LA times quotation is "overdramatic", they rather use that one and only that one. Belorn ( talk) 08:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It is important to maintain a neutral point of view as per policy WP:NPOV. It's worth noting that the LA Times article dates from 2007 - that is old and I'm sure more recent article can be found. Due to the age of the article, it's out of date...it was written about the founders and previous owners, not the current owners who acquired the site in 2009. There are some people above stating that it operates illegally - it wasn't the website but the previous owners who were convicted of assisting copyright theft. There's a difference. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Belorn above and believe that adding the quote to the lede is not in line with guidelines since it is not summarizing and not NPOV. A simple summary statement can portray the same information, and details can be found in appropriate sections. According to guidelines, the key points that should be summarized in the lede are:
With that in mind, my suggestion is as follows (refs, etc, to be added):
Comments? -- HighKing ( talk) 12:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No other comments for a while, and it seems we're in agreement with making the change along the lines above. To summarize then, we're proposing the following as the lede (and refs will be added back, etc)
I believe this version addresses the concerns raised. Thoughts? -- HighKing ( talk) 20:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The article read that the Books of Kings "concludes a series of [[Deuteronomistic history|historical]] books" which I changed to "concludes a series of books" and noted in the edit summary that calling these historical was pov.(There's also an Easter egg there, I didn't think we were supposed to add that sort of piping). The article linked does indeed talk about "Deuteronomistic history", but I still don't think that is sufficient to state in Wikipedia's voice that these are historical books (indeed a handful of versions ago there was no link to Deuteronomist at all, it just said "conclused a series of historical books". I'm bringing this here instead of to the article talk page as this is really a general question that would apply to other books of the Bible as well. I'll note that it is my understanding that there isn't anything this old we would call history. Dougweller ( talk) 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WP:BLPN on this person that might interest regulars here. Numerous sources describe this person as a "con man" (as in this version, the first three sources in the lead, e.g. this one from the Sydney Morning Herald). Predictably enough, a certain BLPN regular thinks this is "contentious" and so has removed it "per BLP". What we're left with, then, is an article based almost entirely on the "Papala Chronicles", a vehicle for self-promotion if ever there was one -- and Noah Musingku is then merely a "king". Needless to say, I think this is hopelessly in conflict with WP:NPOV. It's not ideal to have two separate discussions, so if you have thoughts on the matter perhaps you could voice them at BLPN. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a row brewing in the Continental Freemasonry article and I wouldn't mind a third pair of eyes. The question is whether the Freemasonry that exists in places like France and Italy should be called Irregular because it is not recognised by the United Grand Lodge of England. This is a very contentious issue among Freemasons and seems to be an almost existential question. The term "Irregular" has been in this article for a few years as an alternate description to the more neutral Continental (along with Latin, Adogmatic and Liberal Freemasonry). An anonymous user who claims not to be a Freemason has taken that term out as being insulting (as it wass meant to be when it was coined, if not when it was used in this article). I've tried to take it out and then when it's been reinserted a couple of times seperate it out but there's been an insistent re-insertion by someone who seems to be quite caught up in this (three times so far today).
Can someone please look at this? I don't want to start breaking 3RR or anything like that. Personally I'm not a Freemason but I've crossed swords with them before, although rarely on this issue, so I think a disinterested observer would make them (or me) see sense.
JASpencer ( talk) 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a quibble... the "Grand Lodge of All England" and the "Regular Grand Lodge of England" is the same group... they simply changed their name. So your count actually needs to be 11 not 12. Yes, the mainstream lodges do consider more than just Continental Freemasonry to be irregular... but that does not change the fact that the term Irregular Freemasonry is routinely used to refer to Continental Freemasonry. I have provided sources and even quotes to demonstrate this. You simply don't want to accept that the name is used. Blueboar ( talk) 00:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think GoDF in America is just Le Droit Humain, but I'm not sure, and we don't deal with that group at all in the article. MSJapan ( talk) 05:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I seem to have inadvertently wandered into an edit war here over the template {{islamophobia}}. Since Islamophobia is mentioned significantly in the article, it seems appropriate to me, but I'd like other opinions. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 11:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Has this in the lede:
Does this paragraph in Wikipedia's voice violate WP:NPOV? Would similar language in an article on any other religion be accepted as "neutral point of view"? Collect ( talk) 18:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The text in the lead is now: "Christian science is pseudoscience that claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. It rejects science as illusory, while attempting to disguise itself as science.[4][5]:317 A number of preventable deaths have occurred amongst its followers, and their children since outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths have occurred due to a lack of vaccination and treatment.[6][7]:50" I think this addresses any neutrality concerns. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section are not written in a NPOV and do not meet other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:
Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam.[10] If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.
User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers.[11] The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers.[12] The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.
RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less.[13] Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%.[14].
In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:OR, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.
Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 ( talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
PRSA It appears that there is an unbalanced POV coverage in this article concerning the subject's dispute with someone named O'Dwyer. The organization and said person has been in a dispute for sometime from what I gather. I tried to include that O'Dwyer refuted an allegation made by PRSA.
I was told its against consensus to do so [ [20] here] It was something that was found in a source used to support existing contents. I'm not really seeing a consensus to not include a brief statement that is supported in the source. I simply included the opposing view that was stated within the cited reference in this diff.
The section reads "O'Dwyer "has castigated the Public Relations Society on subjects ranging from its effectiveness to its professionalism.", but the source where this came from also says that PRSA's letter attacked O'Dwyer. The section appears to be written in PRSAs view framing O'Dwyer as the wrongdoer and I think the selective inclusion of contents from within cited sources is non-neutral POV.
There's an extensive discussion over this on the article's talk page. Can you comment if it looks like consensus to only include one side of view and if you all see neutrality issue as I do? Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 22:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Two users are blatantly ignoring facts, and at least in Europe, the law. Please review Moshe Friedman document == as well as my scrubbed edits. Joeyrichardchicago ( talk) 10:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right board? Rather than starting a discussion immediately, can someone please just look at this deletion and say whether this is the right place. This is partly related to a WP:FORK issue, except a fork Historical mayor of Leicester hasn't yet been created. Similar problem on a dozen "Mayor of X" UK articles. Thanks.
Christmas is the wrong period :) ... if anyone responds to this please give me a heads up on Talk page. Thanks In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I need some help here.
The added content is basically true but the way it's presented seems deliberately malicious, the purpose seems to make Laar look foolish. There's a lot more to say about Laar and the ACTA discussions, but the edit puts undue weight on that one quote from him, without any neutralizing explanation. The issue was spoken of in several sources so I guess it's significant enough to mention, but not quite like this.
I'm not sure right now what happened but it seems like the user replied to me on their talk page with a vague personal attack, and I don't have that kind of energy right now to continue to argue with him. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Need some context here - I took a shot at understanding this dispute. I am an uninvolved editor and I know nothing about Estonia. I do understand why ACTA is important, so perhaps I should try to figure this out. Was Estonia one of the countries that initially ratified it? And then once there was an outcry they backed off and Facebook posts got deleted? Is that somewhere close? Offhand my reaction is that Facebook posts are a bit trivial, and this is a BLP. On the other hand if he was serious it does reflect the fundamental problem of politicians with no clue about the internet trying to regulate it, so.... I'll try to check on this thread in a couple of days. Could one of you please confirm that I even understand what you are arguing about? Thanks. Elinruby ( talk) 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Portal:Latter-day Saints was created in August 2006 with the lead "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true and only Church of God here on earth. The new religion was started in the United States by Joseph Smith Jr. when Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in the spring of 1820." It still has that lead today. And here I thought we were managing to keep LDS pages NPOV. I discovered this just now when an editor changed the lead at Portal:Latter-day Saints/Intro from " The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes referred to as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church, describes itself as the restoration of the original church established by Jesus Christ. It is classified as a Christian church; separate from the Catholic or Protestant traditions, though many of those denominations disavow the LDS Church." to the same wording. I haven't read the whole text but it needs examining on both pages. Dougweller ( talk) 10:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Overview:Over at the Ecclesiastes page, there is some disagreement over whether to include certain material. One editor is in disagreement with the other parties, over inclusion of a certain point of view; in fact, he has deleted any information that disagrees with a very narrow interpretation.
Background: The issue of the date of Ecclesiastes has been in dispute for at least 150 years. Scholarly opinion has bounced around quite a bit, but essentially there are three views held among Bible scholars. The first is a late view, dating the book to around the 3rd century B.C.E. This view is based on a supposed presence of Hellenistic culture found in the book. It is held by quite a few scholars, with Rudman, of Exeter university being the primary source given in the article. Rudman claims, in his book, that "250 B.C.E. is the consensus date" among scholars, even though the editor who added this, has failed to provide other sources that give this particular date as the "consensus" view. (This is Dispute #1)
The second view, advocated by Seow of Princeton University (and author of the prestigious Anchor/Yale commentary on Ecclesiastes), denies the presence of such Hellenistic culture found in the book, and instead advocates for Persian influence of the 4th to fifth century (330-450, to be exact). The editor in question has removed any mention of this other, equally held view, because it apparently disagrees with his own. Though Seow, Batholomew, Longman, and other authorities deny any consensus, the editor has insisted on quoting this "consensus" view as fact...which, from what I have read, goes against Wikipedia's standards (it should be cited as Rudman's opinion for NPOV).
The third view, which is a minority view, has also been completely censored, that of an early date. D.C. Fredricks published his study in 1988, and it has since been noted, critiqued, criticied, and yes, also applauded. Seow himself notes the importance of the work, as does Bartholomew, agreeing with the study in part. That Fredricks view is still held by many, is apparent from the current literature. IVP academic has just published an updated version of his material in the new Apollos Bible Commentary series. His work is frequently cited in peer reviewed publications (Bibliotecha Sacra, April 2012), and others in the field have adopted his views. This would seem to merit inclusion. The editor has even admitted that it is not a "fringe view," yet he refuses to allow any mention of the study, the theory, etc. Instead, his article as it stands, portrays the 250 B.C.E date as if it is held by everyone, when in fact not even a majority of scholars would agree to it.
I would appreciate your review of the article, and of the talk page. The editor in question has been doing a lot of editing lately on this page, and there definitely seems to be bias. Here are the two versions.
Original version: The book takes its name from the Greek ekklesiastes, a translation of the title by which the central figure refers to himself: Koheleth, meaning something like "one who convenes or addresses an assembly". [6] According to Rabbinic tradition he was Solomon in his old age, [7] but for various reasons critical scholars have long rejected this idea. [8] On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE, [9] and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it. [10] The current consensus dates it to the early Hellenistic era, around 250 BCE. [11]
Updated with a NPOV: (Retains the material from the original version about the book's name and the traditional view of Solomon as author, which implies a date; remainder, from "On lingistic grounds...", replaced with the following: Dating of the book of Ecclesiastes is difficult as well. On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE, [9] while the latest possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it. [10] Although some suggest that there is a consensus date of 250 B.C.E. [11], this is still disputed. Essentially the dispute revolves around the degree of Hellenization (influence of Greek culture and thought) that is present in the book. Scholars arguing for an earlier date of 330 B.C.E. to 450 B.C.E., hold that there is a complete lack of Greek influence in the book [9]. Those who argue for a third century date on the other hand, hold that the book was written in a Greek influenced social setting, and believe it shows internal evidence of this fact [12]. A third group of scholars continue to advocate for a date much earlier than 450 B.C.E., up to and including the time of Solomon. D.C. Fredericks in a 1988 study advocated not only an early date, but Solomonic authorship. His work has not gained a high degree of acceptance and has been criticized by many [13].
Havensdad ( talk) 23:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC) {{subst:PiCo-notice}}
Ok, here's my response.
Response
First, I don't quite agree with Havensdad's description of the dispute - I don't think it's a POV dispute but rather one about due weight. He wants to include the views of Fredericks, at some length, and I regard that as undue. But let that pass.
Havensdad says there are three views on the date of the book of Ecclesiastes. This is not so: there's only one, really, which is that was composed some time between about 450 and 180 BCE. Havensdad divides this range into two parts, which is sort of ok, as it's true that some scholars say the earlier end of the range (the Persian period) and others the later (the Hellenistic period. Anyway, we have sourced sentences in the article saying this: "On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE,( sourced from Seow|2007|p=944) and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it.(sourced from Fox|2004|p=xiv). Seow actually says that most modern scholars say the post-450 date is right. Seow and Fox are important modern scholars, and I gather that Havensdad doesn't dispute what they say.
So it comes down to whether the idea that the book could have been written before about 450 (the exilic/pre-exilic period) has enough supporters to warrant inclusion in our article.
Havensdad refers to a scholar named Fredericks, who examined the language of the book (it's written in Hebrew) and decided on that basis that it could be, and probably was, exilic or pre-exilic. That was in 1988, almost a quarter of a century ago. Not surprisingly, scholarship has examined his ideas in the interim. The overwhelming conclusion is that he's wrong. I can cite:
In my research for this section of the article I did not come across a single modern scholar (writing in the last 10 years) who would put the book before about 450 BC. On that basis, to mention that date as one supported by modern scholars, even a significant minority, is without evidence; and to mention Fredericks by name, when it seems no modern scholar supports him, is undue weight.
We should also look at what contemporary scholars do actually say about the date:
And they go on and on. Many, many scholars saying postexilic, none saying pre-exilic or exilic. Clearly, Fredericks does not represent a significant body of scholarly opinion, and the inclusion of his name would be undue weight. PiCo ( talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I ran across this issue while doing cleanup in computing -- somebody flagged the article on Unix HAL as biased. I am unix-literate enough to understand the issue but not to solve it. Elinruby ( talk) 01:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Moshe_Friedman need assistance. There is support for Holocaust denial which lacks sources and facts and would appreciate balanced editors who actually read the sources. Tellyuer1 ( talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
These two articles talk essentially about the same event: the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and subsequent events. In my opinion, this situation creates a huge potential for POV content forking (I even recall the latter article was created during a hot neutrality dispute). In addition, the idea to separate the story of negotiations from the story of the pact signing is quite artificial, and I see no reason behind that other than POV CFORK. In connection to that I believe it would be more correct to merge these two articles (especially, taking into account that their content essentially coincides).-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 05:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Race (human classification) has been considerably revised recently. I reverted a major edit which removed cited text and made this statement about the work of Franz Boas: " Boas' study was later found to be fraudulent by Sparks and Jantz.<ref name="Sparks">[http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/boas-skulls-revisited.pdf A reassessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited], Sparks and Jantz, 2002</ref>" It was restored with the edit summary "Fine, fixed that. Added relevant sources. Removed political bias from "Complications and various definitions of the concept"."
The first time I reverted the false Boas claim I pointed to Boas's article and a quote from it. This was simply ignored, but if you read Boas's article you can see that the work by Sparks and Jantz has been challenged, that it's been said that they misrepresented Boas, that their date has been reanalyzed and found to support Boas, and that Boas's work has been reanalyzed and found to be basically correct. Anyone who simply ignores all of this has a pov problem.
The alleged 'political bias' that was removed was material about race as a social construction sourced to the "American Anthropological Association" - why that is called 'political bias' I leave up to others or hopefully the editor who removed to explain.
All of the recent edits need review. Dougweller ( talk) 05:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually found the discussion above to be pretty illuminating. Why don't you find a concise way to summarize what you've written here? For example, on the Sparks and Jantz debate, instead of the previous "Boas' study was later found to be fraudulent by Sparks and Jantz," you could write something like "Boas' findings were criticized by Sparks and Jantz [why?], though subsequent reassessments of Boas' data reinforced the validity of his conclusions."
As to the American Anthropological Association and the issue of race as a social construct, maybe a solution is to just attribute different opinions and perspectives more clearly? So, for instance, when something is cited to an anthropologist, you can say as much. TheBlueCanoe 04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The authors of the study that, in effect, implied that Boas practised scientific fraud(Jantz etc.) did actually criticise the new study that supposedly re-proved Boas' claims. Here's an article in which they point out the flaws in that new pro-Boas study:-
http://www.rps.psu.edu/0305/boas.html
excerpt:- Coincidentally, as of this writing, another paper, by anthropologists at the University of Michigan, the University of Florida, and Northwestern University, is scheduled for publication in American Anthropologist; it concludes that Boas correctly interpreted his head-form data. According to Jantz, these present-day anthropologists fail to acknowledge Boas’s error in comparing children with adults. Nor, points out Sparks, do they consider cranial differences between ethnic groups." Of course, whether or not Boas was correct or a fraud is irrelevant, really, and cannot be stated with certainty without tons more evidence. However, according to wikipedia rules, Boas ought at least to have a criticism section wherein this study criticising Boas is mentioned. Otherwise, the article just reads like a hagiography. Vorlon19 ( talk) 09:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) This article is suffering severely from a lack of NPOV. I rewrote it in userspace here but any attempt I make to make the article neutral is reverted without discussion. I would appreciate some neutral editors looking the article over. Darkness Shines ( talk) 07:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Page:
Smithfield Foods (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Which image of sows is preferred for inclusion at
Smithfield Foods#Pregnant sows?
Gestation crates 3.jpg, prepared by the animal welfare advocacy group, the
Humane Society of the United States, or
Gestcrate1.png prepared by the
Smithfield Foods. Details of the actions of the Humane Society are described in
Smithfield Foods#2010 State Veterinarian Visit. The relevant guideline is
Choosing images. There appear to be no copyright issues.
My opinion is that the company's image is preferable, because the the Humane Society image may not be representative. The State Veterninarian inspected the facility and determined that the conditions described by the Humane Society were unfounded. The Humane Society is an advocacy group with no assigned powers of enforcement or prosecution.
It would be helpful as well for other editors to comment on the relative weight and accuracy given to animal welfare issues in the article.
TFD ( talk) 09:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
TFD was asked [23] by the Smithfield Foods marketing manager, User:Kkirkham, to remove the current image. TFD, the image you want to replace it with is not a company image.
There's no reason to remove the image in question. It is free, it is reasonably good quality, it is representative of these stalls, it was taken inside Smithfield Foods (KKirkham has confirmed this), it is recent (end of 2010), and it very precisely illustrates the subject matter of the section in which we use it. If Smithfield Foods wants to post a free one of their own alongside it, for comparison's sake – as another editor and I suggested months ago – that's fine.
It's worth noting that Smithfield has been heavily criticized for its use of gestation crates, even by McDonald's and by its own animal-welfare consultant, Temple Grandin, which may be why they're keen that Wikipedia downplay it. Here's a timeline of its recent efforts:
Again, there is no reason within policy to remove the image, and if Smithfield wants to post one of its own next to it, they're welcome to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Humane Soc. Photo - They are both free photos; and both show gestation crates; but the HSUS photo has a couple of advantages: (1) it is taken inside a Smithfield facility; and (2) it provides more visual information (size, etc) to the reader. -- Noleander ( talk) 01:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The article opens with
and continues in the same vein. It has section titles like "A Brilliant Student" and "An Admired Professor" (both describing the subject of the article).
Further, in apparent violation of WP:COI, much of the content was added by User:SadhuVaswani, which, judging by the page, seems to be an account maintained by the Sadhu Vasvani Mission (established by the subject of the article). -- 59.95.18.216 ( talk) 10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
Could somebody take a look at
Progressive utilization theory? I have concerns that it's become a hugely lengthy article which treats fringe views at face value, eulogising the writer/philosopher behind the theory; there are many other related articles, which generally big up the "vast literary heritage of the author" &c. Of course, other editors might disagree with this summary; Abhidevananda asserts that I'm prejudiced and ignorant, and reverts all my edits because they're "vandalism". Maybe one of us is right; maybe neither. This shouldn't become adversarial; could somebody uninvolved have a look at the
Progressive utilization theory article, please?
bobrayner (
talk) 14:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Since I have come here to discuss on another discuss (just above), I better try to get help on another issue too. This issue is being taken issue everywhere for last few months. The best and complete report can be found here. Even after that RPP, Editntice, ANI (again), personally contacting admins (Moonriddengirl, Drmies etc) have been tried. All these newly released Bengali masala (commercial) film articles (specially the box office and reception) section are being written from NPOV, FANPOV etc. Any help/suggestion/contribution/idea/opinion will be highly appreciated (and barntared). -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Today I made major changes to article Geoffrey Edelsten. It led to reverts by different editors which led to a sockpuppet investigation [33] and an edit war investigation [34]. The neutrality of the article is disputed as the weight of the content is slanted too much toward the subject's criminal activity as opposed to other aspects of his medical career. He was arrested and convicted for hiring someone to beat up a former patient. This is undisputed and in numerous sources. The current article has it mentioned in numerous sections of the article and also hammers the fact that he was deregistered from practicing medicine. Now, from a weight perspective, I believe that I made edits to make the article more neutral. I currently have a copy of the article with the edits that I made in my sandbox. [35] I would request that the sandbox be reviewed and the edits that I made be placed back into the article. If there are changes that others feel need to be made, please do so in my sandbox. My only concern is that the article is written from a neutral point of view. I have covered his convictions, his being kicked out of medicine and his multiple times of trying to get his license back. Not sure what else I can do but would request a review from some unbiased editors who are not involved with the topic, the edit war, or the sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation. I simply ask that editors take a look at what is written and either suggest changes or implement parts or all of the sandbox into the article so that it is weighted properly. Thank you.-- NikoVee ( talk) 08:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a little snark in that article, but nothing which is not fixable IMO. Collect ( talk) 14:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
At Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp, there's a problem with only PR-type promotional material being allowed into the article. See this deletion of a section on litigation and criticism: "06:05, 10 January 2013 Tyrsdomain ( talk · contribs) (removed poorly sourced section)" [36]. Six references were deleted. (The company has been involved in some questionable activities, and there's a lawsuit.) Tyrsdomain ( talk · contribs) is the creator of the article and all edits from that user since January 2011 have been related to that article. Possible WP:OWN issue. More discussion at Talk:Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp Please take a look. Thanks. -- John Nagle ( talk) 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Native American mascot controversy (mascots) has a number of content and formatting issues which I plan to address, but most of all it is not neural based upon giving appropriate weight to documented academic sources vs. magazines, newspapers, and blogs. These mascots are not controversial in the academic or legal literature that is readily available, for example the APA Recommendation [37] (which is backed up by dozens of research studies) and the US Civil Rights Commission [38]. Last year there was a hearing before the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs which presented the same points; all in favor of eliminating stereotypical mascots. Against this are two public opinion polls of doubtful scientific validity which say essentially that "only" 40% of Native Americans polled are offended. All of the other evidence on the other side is even less worthy, being quotes from team owners and fans (hardly unbiased).
I am sure that as soon as I begin to make my planned changes (which I am working on in a user page) there will be backlash from which I may need to seek protection. I have not contacted any other editors since many are anonymous, and most are making minor changes. I did place a notice on the talk page several days ago, to which there have been no responses. I do not know who set the initial tone of the article or if they are now actively editing.
There is some urgency, since there will be a symposium on the topic at the National Museum of the American Indian on Feb. 7 [39] , and I would like to have the article in good condition by that time. FigureArtist ( talk) 02:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Can some seasoned NPOV editors please cast an eye over Execution of Rizana Nafeek, I came across this following a link form WP:ITN/C and at the time was probably the most POV article I had seen in a long time. There are two editors now teaming up to enforce there view on the article. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Here editor Maunus states "Chinese anthropology is not a part of the mainstream science on race or on human biological variation." Is that correct?
BanjoBruce (
talk) 16:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC) striking; sock evasion
Professor marginalia (
talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Garadaghly Massacre is based on 18 references but 16 out of this 18 references are Azerbaijani, which means partisan, sources and some are even dead links. As far as I know this is against Wikipedia Neutral point of view. The creator of the article user Angel670 has already been informed about this issue on the talk page but finds the article notable as it is. The article also was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2012 but the result of the discussion was oddly no consensus.-- Markus2685 ( talk) 16:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Mail Online is about an online publication. It has a section called "Inaccuracies" (now renamed "Criticism"). I had thought that "criticism" sections were not favoured as a matter of NPOV, and would like eyes on any such section there. The "criticism" edit removed actual information about one of the sources used, and again this is only a matter of seeking eyes about possibly contentious claims having a POV. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a potential for an edit conflict between people who wish to include material about Ortiz's involvement wrt Swartz on an article about her (a biography of a living person), and User:Viriditas who chooses to remove that content wielding BLP and recentism as reasons (there has been at least one previous such action before by another editor, also based on a recentism claim) and Viriditas calling the section "attack content", which I believe is unjustified.
I strongly disagree with Viriditas' removal action and assessment (recentism being the most dubious), but Viriditas has also sent me a template warning for alleged edit-warring after one small (if, perhaps, unfounded) edit, after which I restored the part that I removed, and later it was removed anyway by a much more seasoned editor.
I do not want to revert because of the edit war warning template that I have, but if I did revert, Viriditas would perhaps revert that revert, or use my action as reason to complain about me (given the edit war warning template on my talk page he put there). I consider Viriditas' sending me an edit war warning template aggressive action, because s/he could have chosen not to use a template and engage with me using his/her own letter-writing abilities in my user talk.
Now, I belive there is still very little consensus over whether the removal is proper and the NPOV status regarding the removed content. I think Viriditas is pushing his POV by having removed information about Ortiz' involvement in the case, despite the fact that people are entitled to know what Carmen Ortiz is about, and removing the section removes the necessary elements of notability regarding the article. The Ortiz article already has a section at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Carmen_Ortiz, and there's so far at least one person who agrees with user Viriditas.
I do not know what to do further, because the issue has become rather contentious, since Carmen Ortiz is/was involved in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, but user Viriditas and a few others think this should not be in her article (as seen on BLPN linked above). (Admittedly, Swartz's lawyer has named an assistant attorney who did much of the legwork working and negotiating the case against Swartz.) So there. - Mardus ( talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to add that I placed a Request for Comment tag on the Talk:Carmen Ortiz#Request_for_Comment, which I why I wrote all this here. - Mardus ( talk) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The description does need to be neutral but quoting her public statements about her decision to prosecute Swartz is completely fair game. Elinruby ( talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Need help in making the lead section for this article neutral like before ( see the difference). User:Music&Co has been treating this article like a personal blog/fansite (rewriting the lead to make the singer look extremely successful and inflating her sales with unreliable sources). — Oz 07:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Oz doesn't converse in constructive way, despite has twice looked for in pacific way to talk to him in the personal talk. Contrarily he doesn't answer, and it acts before a comparison inserting with some tags for disputes. Oz does you take the right to attribute words as "of success" or "of not success" (of thing? of charts? of sales? of criticism? in US? in Uk? In other countries of Europe?) sending forth therefore a judgment I don't objectify; He discredits reliable datas (all verifiable ones with sources inserted in the center of the page and in discography page) concerned sales of albums and peak of chart, that I have replaced his personals and arbitrary adjectives concerning success or failures. He defines style from "blog / fansite" all edit that differs from his style of writes and that doesn't meet his personal point of view. It also results "closed in dialogs" in the edit of other user (as you can be seen in Rowland's "view history" for example)
-- Music&Co ( talk) 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
We result for what we are for and for ours behaviors. You have had the opportunity to talk for 2 times, but you have preferred to open 3 discussions in 3 different places and to insert 2 tags. The unreliable sources of which you refer already concern peak on charts and sales of 2 albums approved in wikipedia from years, and with more reliable sources in lead page and discography. Do you insert opinions about to the success without defining its concept (sale? classification? criticism? countries?) what they result a great deal subjective. Then not to speak of fansite (also this is one opinion of yours) style, and triy to be constructive, without only attaching when something doesn't mirror your personal taste. Music&Co ( talk) 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
In fact I haven't expressed judgments, I have insert more information: the sales of the two first albums, her singles worthy of to be mentioned (3singles from the first album, 2 in the second+ "when love takes over" and 3singles from the third album) and her four principal collaborations (* "Here We Go" top 20 in US, UK, NZ and Gold in US; * "Breathe Gentle" in Italy #1 on Airplay and #2 on Sales, #7 in Netherland, #28 in Europe and #53 in Belgium; * "Invincible" top-5 in UKr&b and NZ, #11 UK mainstream, #13 Ireland, #14 Australia urban, top40 in other 3 international charts, eligible3 for silver in Uk and certied gold in NZ; * "What to Feeling" top ten in 6 international charts and and top-30 in others 5 countrieses). It seems me that can be mentioned as her 4 principal collaborations. Don't seem me to have expressed judgments like "Phenomenal success", "Hit of worldwide fame", or other of similar (this would have been an impartial style like a blog or fansite). I have confined to insert 4 collaborations that I have appraised remarkable to the purpose of her general presentation. Music&Co ( talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This article since its beginning has always been written like an advertisement. I don't know enough in the area to fix it myself but if anyone has an interest in a possibly quack form of fat removal, they can improve the article. Gizza Talk © 08:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I am engaged in a dispute over the wording of the newly-created Company of St. Ursula. You'll find the fruitless discussion here. I have unintentionally broken the three-revert rule. Block at your discretion. Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you 200.93.208.84 ( talk) 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The neutrality of the article is being called into question on the article's talk page. One user mentioned that it may not have been written in good faith. Can someone look over the article and try to address the negativity this article presents? -- BigBabyChips ( talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
A more neutral version was condensed into Juggalo, but another user who seems to be aimed at slandering Juggalos has been rewriting multiple articles to claim that Juggalo is a gang, which goes against NPOV rules. BigBabyChips ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate another set of eyes on the Aafia Siddiqui page. Codetruth is constantly inserting material that she is innocent, and messes around with refs (removing text without removing accompanying refs, making them point to other things [40]), as well as changing uses of her last name to "Dr. Aafia’s" ( first edit). I rolled back their edits twice [41] [42], and added warnings about POV to their talk page, but I can't be sure any more.-- Auric talk 19:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Codetruth, I understand where your coming from, but Wikipedia articles must follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. NPOV is absolutely a core policy but so is making sure that information is sourced to reliable secondary sources. Blogs are rarely considered good sources, especially when dealing with BLP articles (articles about living people). There is some information in the article about concerns and questions that have been raised - see the reaction section. You need to be looking for good secondary sources with additional information that can be added to the article. Parts of the article are a mess (see the background section - it's both background and a second lead!) and some cleanup is needed but that's more to cut down the article some. If the prevaling view in secondary sources is reflected accurately, that's the view that will stay. If the prevailing view isn't accurately reflected, then we need to get that information, correctly sourced, in the article. You're best bet is to work on finding those good, strong secondary sources. Articles and/or books from top publishing houses and magazines that cover the entire situation would be helpful. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey.
Reading through some Wikipedia articles, as you do, I came across a set of articles in which I believe there may be POV and weight issues; i.e. I think articles related to violence against men may have a slight MRA bias. Specifically:
These are issues I've found from a five-minute look; there may be deeper issues at play (I do remember the article Female privilege at AfD a year or so ago, where an equivalence was argued that didn't exist in sources). Sceptre ( talk) 19:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits to Cannabis (drug) have added a section on Safety which is strongly biased toward cannabis being a risk-free drug. Emphasis is on a claim that no marijuana related deaths have ever occurred. Yes, there are some sources where the author states no cannabis deaths to report, but using these claims selectively is misleading. Several reliable sources have reported infrequent deaths and also list cannabis smoke as a carcinogen (links to these articles or to abstracts are provided in the deleted history or on the Talk page). Summary:
“Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use”
“Cerebellar Infarction in Adolescent Males Associated with Acute Marijuana Use”
“Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?”
“Cannabis-induced cerebral and myocardial infarction in a young woman”
“Cannabis-Related Myocardial Infarction and Cardioembolic Stroke”
“Effects of marijuana on the lung and its immune defenses”
“Area Profiles of Drug-Related Mortality” (this is a government tertiary source)
“Chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” (This is a government tertiary source)
“Marijuana-only drug abuse deaths” (This is a tertiary source)
Efforts have been made to resolve this on the article Talk page. A marijuana supporter will not accept published medical journals and government reports that raise any safety concerns about cannabis usage. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and an unbiased handling of divergent sources. Certainly, cannabis is not as dangerous as several other hard drugs, but that does not result in absolute safety. Wikipedia should include both sources that discuss safety and sources that indicate problems. A balanced and neutral view is required.
Additional input and comments are welcome on the Talk page. Rlsheehan ( talk) 16:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
In Australian head of state dispute, LJ Holden wishes to use court transcripts which are not referenced by any secondary commentary. Comments by judges during proceedings are being presented as findings of fact, for example an off-hand remark during discussion as to the litigant's ability to pay costs is being used as if it were a considered opinion on the identity of Australia's head of state. Clearly WP:WEIGHT applies here; if no other agency has seen fit to publish commentary, then the remarks are not viewed as important. My approach has been to retain the very one-sided references to the transcripts without comment. The reader may check them for herself - they do not need "interpretation" by Wikipedia. There is some discussion here. -- Pete ( talk) 21:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)