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 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
Does it violate NPOV to use the word "cult" in the lead? Keep in mind that the word "cult" is clearly in quotation marks, as it is a quote. Please see this revision. VictoriaGrayson Talk 19:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the lede can say that some people consider it to be a cult, with a citation to one such source? I agree that its hard to draw a fine line between cults and non-cults, but I don't think we want to ban the word "cult" entirely from the wiki, or require that it only be used after the publication of multiple books on cults. Djcheburashka ( talk) 22:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean a source that uses the term, but a source that comments on the use of the term. For example if a scholarly book on cults says that they are generally described as a cult, we can say that. We can accept that the author is familiar with all the literature, while we are not, and can make a judgment about the use of the term to describe the group. While the Tibetologist is for what he said, the issue is what weight to assign it. I would suggest very little, because he is an expert on Tibetology. That does not mean he is wrong, of course. The same thing if he were to discuss medical science. TFD ( talk) 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Seriously though...here are my rules for using the word cult: 1. You can use it to describe a group without qualification IFF a large majority of reliable secondary sources refer to the group as such. The result of this is that the word cult will pretty much only be used to describe destructive cults on Wikipedia. 2. If there is controversy over whether a group is a cult or not with some primary sources calling it a cult and others saying it's not, and this controversy is consistently reported in secondary sources (i.e. not WP:RECENTISM) then you can use the word cult but it must be attributed. For example, "so and so has described X as a cult". 3. In a majority of cases, groups referring to one another as cults is just mudslinging and it doesn't merit being repeated in a serious encyclopedia. I think the example provided by the OP falls under #2 or #3. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 05:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute about the title of 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre. I feel it should reflect the abundance of reliable source which call it "attack" while a few others feel it meets the definition of "massacre" and therefore should be called that. More input from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated. See Talk:2014_Jerusalem_synagogue_massacre#Article_title. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 22:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed regarding the misogyny section of the 2014 Isla Vista Killings article. Is it NPOV to include text in this section about gendered massacres targeting males [1] (such as in Srebrenica and also a school massacre carried out by Boko Haram), in this article about the recent killing spree in California by Elliot Rodgers? I'm specifying this part of Misogyny section because it seemed to stand out as POV/off topic; however, talk page concern has been raised regarding section in general regarding removal of text/refs after many editors have moved on with fewer editors active on article: /info/en/?search=Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny_Section. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 23:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I personally think that Wikipedia should buy stock in Gillette so the contributors to the aforementioned talk page can shave their neckbeards. Sceptre ( talk) 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an AFD [2] which is currently very closely split. It has been relisted twice (total of 22 days open so far) and closes in 7 hours. There have only been 7 votes so far. I invite you to comment before this AFD closes. -- Obsidi ( talk) 14:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This is to request an impartial opinion of editors in Wikipedia on the Wiki article Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky The article is about a Bangladeshi politician, a candidate for the Mayor of a country with a royal lineage. The lineage is obtained from a genealogy printed in a Persian book that was translated into Bengali and used as a source in a Cambridge Encyclopedia that was used as a reference. The original Persian script documenting this lineage is also available and it was uploaded as a picture in Wiki-image. Unfortunately, Editor Neil-N has consistently held the view that he will not allow the genealogy information to be documented as he does not consider it relevant information for the political background of the politician. As a political historian of the country where the subject is a politician and a former Mayor candidate, I feel pedigree information and lineage information are very important and they have been used in other Wikipedia articles on politicians worldwide. Editor Neil-N had the following to say. "Wikipedia doesn't care what politicians think is important to buff their image. If all you have is a genealogical tree then I will oppose adding this trivia, scans or no. --NeilN "
He is trying to discriminate lineage information on this topic, based on what he writes above, since lineage information has been used in other Wikipedia articles as well. Therefore he is trying to get in an unwarranted edit war and bully other editors. Please comment whether this is fair or not? Why lineage information cannot be relevant when other wiki-pages have used them as well? Westcott001 ( talk) 17:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas. Someone claimed that there might be some bias going on! RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 ( talk) 06:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: this was originally posted to RSN, but both respondents there claimed it was a NPOV issue citing WEIGHT and ASSERT. I believe that NPOV is quite clear that all major points of view must be included, so I believe the question becomes: Are these four statements major enough to include in the article and do they reflect facts based on the reviewed research instead of merely the authors' opinions?
EllenCT ( talk) 22:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment This is sort of a tough thing to evaluate in isolation. One can find review articles saying that thiomersol in vaccines causes autism but this is clearly not a mainstream view that would get much attention in a Wikipedia article. We know that the autism claim would get little weight in a NPOV Wikipedia article, not because of the characteristics of the article itself, but because of the 30:1 ratio of articles expressing the opposite opinion to this one. There is very little scholarly evidence either way on the impact of e-cigarettes on the ease of smoking, at least to the best of my knowledge. Shouldn't all these expressions of opinion based on extremely limited evidence be expressed in a very qualified way, or attributed and not made in Wikipedia's voice? Formerly 98 ( talk) 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Mihaister you spearheaded the effort to include McNeill
here, there was no consensus to do so, you were caught trying to add it in anyway
here, you filed a
WP:DRN discussion over it
here, that concluded successsfully with no consensus to include (with your agreement), you then tried to add it to the sub-article
here and got caught doing that, and now you're still flogging it here. I'm having a hard time describing your editing regarding McNeill as anything other than
tendendtious editing.
Zad
68
20:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody please have a look at above mentioned article? I would like opinions to be able to remove the POV-check section. Thanks.
I stumbled upon this article Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code, which appears to have been written as an attack page. The external links section is the largest I've ever seen, and it is comprised almost entirely of critical pieces, none of which are actually integrated into the article as inline citations. I could use some help bringing this article into compliance with Wikipedia's policies on WP:NPOV, among others. Champaign Supernova ( talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Ukrainian and western military officials, and some media, have described Russian actions in Crimea/Eastern Ukraine as a "stealth invasion." This is currently mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, but a number of editors would like to keep the phrase in the first sentence of the lead, e.g. through this edit. I believe the phrase is significant but non-neutral, and doesn't warrant inclusion until the "reactions" section of the lead. Advice or comment would be appreciated. We have discussed this issue at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#"Stealth invasion". - Darouet ( talk) 19:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This text has no weight. "Tobacco policy expert Ann McNeill of King's College London and Clive Bates, former director of ASH UK, have asserted that misguided regulatory action could interfere with a safe substitute for smoking" Both sources are primary sources. See Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes#Regulatory_background. There are better sources in the same section. We should not use primary sources to argue against reviews QuackGuru ( talk) 02:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not trying to use MEDRS on a legal page. But are you trying to use primary sources against WP:SECONDARY? I explained on the talk page "the threshold is WP:SECONDARY. [6]. Both sources are primary sources and no evidence to the contrary has been provided. The tags were removed but the sources are still primary. You did not address the concerns. Please show not assert that they are not primary sources. What evidence do you have that they are secondary sources or do you think primary sources can be used when we have better sources available. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
|
This question is about a discussion here link The subject of weight has not come up, and I am asking this before bringing it up so I dont make a fool of myself. The section deals with a statement by the WHO, that the WHO removed and replaced. The page still exists but with a different statement. The only place it may be found is the wayback machine. Does this previous, removed statement carry any weight? I would think not since the source who made the statement removed or retracted it and then replaced it. It is in effect the point of view of no one. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 23:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Please visit Death and Eulogy of Roi Rotberg. There is disagreement over whether the article should be focused on the person's death, as the article creator wants, or on his eulogy by Moshe Dayan, as the users who commented in the AfD recommended. Talk:Death and Eulogy of Roi Rotberg#Title is the most recent section. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on Saffron terror is facing vandalism by people with hurt religious sentiments. This article is named under deletion for no reason at all. This sentimental bias is affecting the already existing neutrality of the wikipedia article. No such vandalism is observed in case of the article Islamic terrorism, there are many muslim countries and 1 billion muslims all over the world inspite of that the article on Islamic terrorism is unscathed by such vandalism, then why is it only Indian editors in particluar are perpetrating such vandalism on the article on Saffron terror, clearly, the Indian editors are biased and hurt about the article and its content.
This article is worth saving for the same reason as to why the article on Islamic terrorism should be worth saving. If the article on Saffron terror is deleted, then I request the article on Islamic terrorism to be deleted as well, because deletion of the article Saffron terror would make the whole English wikipedia article non-neutral and biased. These people tried playing the same game on the Hindi Wikipedia article on भगवा आतंकवाद (Saffron terror) but they failed there because the writer of the article cited the existence of such an article on the english wikipedia. Now by deleting the English Wikipedia article on Saffron terror, they can delete the similar article on the Hindi Wikipeidia.
Thinkmaths ( talk) 05:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
A full-scale edit war has been taking place on the RT network page for about a month, though there is a history of (suppressed) conflict over the neutrality of the lede that goes back quite a ways further. The issue at present is whether the lede is the proper place for charges of "propaganda" against this network to be lodged, and most particularly whether the claims that it has been "accused of disinformation" are substantiated and reliable, and likewise belong in the lede. Here is the paragraph in the lede that is the source of the dispute:
Recognizing that four of the five sources purporting to support the "disinformation" do no such thing, and the the fifth only reports that a single US State Department employee blogged something to this effect last April, I attempted several times to delete this part of the sentence, giving my full reasoning on the talk page. In each case, my edit was undone by one of the editors named below without any effort by any of them to show HOW these references relate to "disinformation" accusations. They certainly all relate to the perceived bias of the network by the authors involved, but "disinformation," which word is linked to its Wikipedia definition, involves the willful dissemination of information known to be false, and four of these "references" do not make allegations of this. The quantity of references does not supply the want of quality here.
Ymblanter, an editor with admin privileges (though not for this page in particular), once accused me of edit warring, and when I reminded him that my editorial attempts never crossed the WP threshold of 3 per day, posted an "incident" on the admin page, suggesting that I was "wikilawyering." In order to avoid further such abusive treatment, I took a different tack and inserted the following sentence before the last one in the paragraph, in order to create at least the appearance of some even-handedness:
This was soon reverted by Volunteer Marek, the most aggressive of the disruptive editors, and not for the last time. I responded to his claim that the source was "non-notable" by linking it to the Wikipedia page of the author, Edward S Herman. Then, out of the blue, an editor not previously involved in this fracas, My very best wishes, reverts my constructive edit, claiming that the source of the interview with E. Herman is "fringe." https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=RT_%28TV_network%29&diff=631062896&oldid=631033208 These editors seem almost to be tag-teaming in this effort to preserve a very negative, one-sided tone in this lede, and with similarly lame reasoning given (if any). Then Iryna Harpy reverts the NPOV tag dutifully placed on the article page by another editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=RT_(TV_network)&oldid=630743454 And on and on...
The following editors were previously named in the mediation request because of their support for this tendentious editing:
37.214.122.178 Volunteer Marek Sidelight12 Galassi Capitalismojo Ymblanter NE Ent
Not one of them would agree to participate in the mediation, save Ymblanter, who agreed only to be involved on the question of maintaining the allegation of "propaganda" in the lede (which he supports). Because these editors would not agree to the mediation, the request was rejected by the MC. It should be noted that two other editors, Spotter 1 and The Four Deuces, who are not among the disruptors, did agree to participate in the mediation.
I am personally feeling overwhelmed by the lack of any authoritative effort to negotiate neutrality in this lede. In my view, this entire page needs a makeover to include all the relevant criticism of RT in a "Controversy" section (this suggestion by another editor, but I have offered to implement it if consensus can be garnered), but response to this approach has been, predictably, negative from the above sources, who prefer to use the lede to advertise their shared disdain of RT.
The tendentiousness resulting from this editorial gangsterism is overwhelming all efforts to restore neutrality to this lede. Input from neutral observers is urgently requested! Kenfree ( talk) 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Response to Marek's defenses (above) of the five current citations behind the claim of "disinformation: Marek, the word "disinformation" in this objectionable sentence in the lede, as you MUST know, is linked to the Wikipedia definition of "disinformation." Before I respond to your defenses, I think it important to review this with you, as you seem to have forgotten it. Here is the Wikipedia definition: "Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth." [1] Please try to remember this throughout my responses. Presumably we can both agree on this definition for authority, since it is linked in the statement in the lede.
"Misinformation" and "disinformation" are not at all the same thing, but don't take my word for it. On that Wikipedia definition (of "disinformation") page, one of the very first statements is: "Not to be confused with Misinformation." Did you happen to notice that? Well, which of us is really showing "bad faith" then???
That is correct, because no where in the article does its author make the slightest accusation that RT is practicing disinformation, or intentionally spreading information known to RT to be false as if it were true, so what difference does the title make? "Disinformation" is a rather "sexy" term, and people throw it around all the time (like you and certain other editors are wont to do) without understanding its actual meaning, but if these authors meant to accuse RT of disinfo, well, they had their whole article to do it and they failed completely. There is not one instance of "disinformation" even referred to.
LOL, nope, I implied nothing of the sort. I stated that a single employee blogged, and whether he was the former managing editor of Time or just the janitor, it is still only one employee, and that was my whole statement.
How could it? Is Vladimir Putin RT? No doubt you think so, but let's try this another way: say that a Russian official had accused Obama of disinformation, would you argue that therefore this represents an accusation that Voice of America is guilty of disinformation? This kind of puerile argumentation is really appalling...I'm amazed that you think any intelligent reader would buy it. The other quote you adduce does not specifically allege "disinformation" as defined by Wikipedia.
It not only doesn't say it directly, but like the other three sources above, it doesn't mention it AT ALL. So how can it be used as a citation allegation that RT has been "accused of disinformation?"
So, in sum, all of the citations together distill down to a single US State Department employee blogging, last April, that RT engages in "disinformation" (without providing any specific facts to back up the allegation, we should note). And for this reason the lede of this Wikipedia must make room for this spurious claim that RT is "accused of disinformation" (a very serious libel if untrue, by the way)? Kenfree ( talk) 21:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfree ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Before you continue with your
critique of my techniques, I will refer you to my response to Spotter 1's same accusation on my talk page (where the both of you have spent an inordinate amount of time) -
Would you consider
Der Spiegel an RS? How about
this,
this,
Reporters Without Borders per
this. Perhaps you consider The Independent to be corrupt, Western ideologues in their criticism
here. Perhaps PRWatch is more to your taste
here. Alternatively, here's a long and insightful
look into RT by Oliver Bullough for the New Statesman. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 05:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I see one glaring issue with the quoted lead WP:BOMBARD, please see WP:CITEBUNDLE to improve appearance of the lead. That being said, please see WP:LEAD, the first sentence is to define the scope of the article. The entire lead section is suppose to summarize the content of the article. As the lead section is suppose to summarize the rest of the article, one rule of thumb that I have heard thrown about is after the first sentence (or paragraph if necessary) defines the subject, there should be about one sentence per section of the body of the article. This helps provide a summary of the article to a reader who doesn't want to delve into the body. Therefore, if there, in regards to the question of content (not editor actions), is a section about RT being called a propaganda outlet, than it should be included somewhere in the lead section. It should be neutrally worded and well sourced. From a casual glance it appears to be well sourced in the lead, and if there is not a section about the statement, there appears to be sufficient reliable sources to create one.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I've read through the sources so I could contribute to resolving this dispute, and I agree with VolunteerMarek. The sources say what he says they say. They do not say what the OP says they say. I have no prior involvement with the RT page, or with any of the editors in this dispute. So I hope I am sufficiently "neutral" to satisfy the objectors. Djcheburashka ( talk) 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There are several sources that say RT gives false information. Perhaps there is objection to the word 'disinformation', since by precise definition, it can imply it is done deliberately, yet the sources do say misinformation, and other ways of saying pushes false information. It is harder to prove why something is done, while the sources appear to believe this.
As for the Department of State and John Kerry, we say, people have accused or people say This rather than, so and so is This (for neutrality, avoid Wikipedia's voice). This is documented by CSPAN, Business Insider, (two reliable third-party sources) along with the primary sources of Department of State and the blog. The reason for using the source of Business Insider was, because it was the latest that included the whole ordeal (from spoken word to the blog). There are a few other completely different sources that say it propagates false information. I propose dropping the word disinformation and replacing it with false information. Also, to leave RT shows commentary favorable to Russia and foreign policy in the lead, with the mention of propaganda. My concern was removing the statement of the mention of it propagates or publishes false information from a section lead or lead. - Sidelight 12 Talk 00:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This dispute has been going on for 11 days. Does anyone but the OP disagree that there is a consensus now? Djcheburashka ( talk) 04:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC
Earlier I had provided multiple published reliable sources that call RT a propaganda publisher, that is not to say that it is fact, but it is one verified POV. Per WP:NEU & WP:BALANCE, it should be included. As someone else wrote above, it should not be said that RT is a propaganda publisher of the Russian government, but that source X writes that... and source Y writes that ... this view is verified, and repeated enough that it should be given some weight in the article. Obviously it should be neutrally worded and well sourced, but it should not be excluded, as advocated by only two of a multitude of editors involved in this discussion.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the claim about "lacking impartiality" from the lead, and inserted a claim that proponents disagree. I believe there are enough RS to support both claims, but the lacking impartiality claim wasn't really needed for the lead. Two sources about proponents who disagree now back that statement; I ask for people to add more appropriate sources to that rather than delete it. I moved the rest of your edit into the subsection of the article, the only worry is if truth-out is reliable, which I won't decide. Much of this is explained in the edit summary. The claim for false information is supported, since you believe it is not, what do you think those five references behind it say? I believe in truth, after that, I believe in NPOV, which luckily for my perspective, a lot of references support what I believe to be true. - Sidelight 12 Talk 05:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's a list of sources saying RT has published disinformation. Feel free to add more entries. Binksternet ( talk) 03:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: there used to be a Controversies and criticisms of RT-article, but it was redirected. Maybe it is an idea to bring it back to life? Jeff5102 ( talk) 11:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
References
Hi, folks. I’m hoping to have some eyes at the Sex offender and Adam Walsh Act pages.
The basic issue is around false impressions of parity. The Adam Walsh Act is one of the laws passed in an effort to combat rates of repeat crimes among sex offenders. However, there is nearly unanimous evidence and opinion among researchers and professional societies that the law is ineffective and likely counter-productive. The RS’s presented demonstrating this view include:
I apologize for the length of that list, but I wanted to emphasize exactly how well established that view is among RS’s.
Normally, one would proportionately balance that view with RS’s claiming/showing the Adam Walsh Act has been effective, etc.; however, there do not exist such RS’s. The evaluations from experts and professional societies has been virtually unanimous. The editors who claim that positive evaluations of the Adam Walsh Act are getting ignored have been asked multiple times to provide RS’s that express that view, but no one has provided even one. Despite the lack of RS's expressing a positive evaluation, some editors are claiming undue weight (or advocacy) on the negative and reverting ALL text showing the negative evidence.
I believe the relevant NPOV policies are:
WP:YESPOV: Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity (emphasis added)
WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (emphasis added)
WP:WEIGHT (note #3): The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.
The editors repeatedly reverting the RS’s showing the problems with the Adam Walsh Act are claiming UNDUE, but I believe they are confusing due weight with parity. The discussions are at a standstill and are beginning to devolve into personal attacks and accusations of people’s motivations. Some outside eyes with folks familiar with NPOV would be greatly appreciated.
— James Cantor (
talk) 17:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Neutral point of view concerns at the New version of map section of this RfC. Prcc27 ( talk) 07:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This work by Humphrey Llwyd is thought to be the first written rendition of the supposed voyage to America by the legendary Prince Madoc. I have been trying to have the article either describe Madoc as legendary or say 'supposed' voyage, using sources discribing the Cronica Walliae including those already used by the article's creator, User:Doug Coldwell, but these are constantly removed on the basis that Llwyd himself did not describe Madoc as legendary (although another source wrote ""‘Cronica Walliae’ is that which tells of the discovery of the New World by Madog, claimed to be the son of Owain Gwynedd, the twelfth-century prince of Gwynedd. It is not intended here to dwell on the story nor on the remarkable validation it affords of Llwyd’s own judgement that it is a tale which in the retelling ‘the commen people do use in distance of place and leingth of tyme rather to augment than to dyminish’." which suggests Llywyd had his own doubts). I've brought this up at Talk:Cronica Walliae but to no avail. Also used in the article are phrases such as "A comparison to other historical events" which is a statement in Wikipedia's voice that the Madoc voyage was an historical event, and overuse of "records as historical events" - why 'as historical events'? Llywd is important, but he also believed the Welsh were Trojans, and this article is written to suggest that Madoc's voyage was an historical event. Dougweller ( talk) 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I responded to a request for
WP:3O regarding
Talk:WOT Services. Essentially, one editor wanted an "unbalanced" tag on the article and the other said there were no reliable sources for criticisms of WOT. There was one source that I thought might be usable, and we checked that out at RSN. There,
Elaqueate said he did not think that source was usable, but
added, "However, the article,
WOT Services, looks like it has clear NPOV problems. The only (pseudo) negative material is the fact that they won a lawsuit against them. Everything else is borderline promotional. The reviews section is comprised entirely of a single sentence that reads The rating tool has received several reviews in the press.
without mentioning anything the reviews said. This is probably unintentionally funny, as the article is covering a webservice fueled by customer reviews. This is probably an article that should be considered over at the NPOV board, but there's definitely something off." So I am bringing it here for comment.
Scolaire (
talk) 17:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is a link to the section in question. link Here is a link to the Talk page, it ony has one discussion, and its on this section. Perfect Example of Bloat
This is a weight question. The whole section is sourced from a single journal article that raises questions for further study. There are no other known journal articles on this subject. It is in a medical section so it needs WP:MEDRS sources, this source is considered reliable as its in a peer reviewed journal. It is full of opinions, only one fact, that about some companies having a battery recycle program. There is no real dispute, its to early and no other studies have been done. There is no coverage of the article.
Thanks AlbinoFerret 06:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Just commenting to stop automatic archiving. AlbinoFerret 21:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with this question, or a reason its been ignored?
AlbinoFerret 19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the review in question, this statement found in it raises new questions on the weight of its conclusions.
RESULTS Environmental considerations due to e-cigarette manufacturing No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing
This should raise questions on weight as it shows its the only paper of its kind. AlbinoFerret 17:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on about the neutrality of Center for Governmental Studies. I think the article is promotional in tone and uses too many flowery adjectives. For example, "It created innovative political and media solutions," "Empower citizens and help them to become more engaged in their communities," and "supplying fresh analysis." These types of phrases read to me like text from a group's own page or press release. Thoughts appreciated. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The lead section of the article is corrupted with undue weight by cherry picking information from doubtful sources. See the discussion. The discussion has led to nothing, and based on the comments and edit history of the opponent user, I have got serious doubts on his good faith. Therefore, I ask for your help. -- Gwafton ( talk) 22:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no edit war yet, so let’s see if I can get some consensus on my opinion.
For those who do not know: the Western Schism beganin 1378, after the death of Pope Gregory XI. Urban VI was elected and took his residence in Rome. Dissatisfied cardinals chose Clement VII, took residence in Avignon: the city where the popes had their residence from 1309 to 1377. The popes got a somewhat equal support in the world. Thus, in the period from 1378 to 1417, there were rival claimants to the title of pope: one in Rome, one in Avignon, and, after the Council of Pisa (1409), one in Pisa. All the three lines got considerable support, but in the end, the schism was ended, and the Vatican rejected the Avignon and Pisan lines of popes as “antipopes.”
My idea was to make this visible in the succession-boxes . I tried to be neutral, and as such I added the Avignon pope in the succession box and infobox of Pope Gregory XI., without taking a stance on the ‘correct’ pope (see here . Thus, no pope was called an antipope, but rather Clement VII (Avignon claimant). This was in line with the other infoboxes of popes during the western schism. I still believe I did the right thing. It was neutral, so that Wikipedia doesn’t take sides in this centuries-old conflict. Furthermore, It was in line with the template, which doesn’t call any pope during the schism an antipope:
However, this was reverted by User:GoodDay. When I took the issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, he argued: “the Vatican excludes these anti-popes from the papal line. That's why they're called anti-popes.” (see here) Someone else proposed an RfC, and wanted to wait for the right moment for it. That was a good idea.
Unfortunately, the next thing User:GoodDay. did, was editing the infoboxes of the other antipopes edit the info-boxes of (anti)-popes-articles so that they comply to his own opinion (like this one, this one and this one). In short: what he did was changing the neutral description for the popes (like '(Rome claimant)' and '(Avignon claimant)') into a “Pope” and “Antipope.” In this way, the articles now imply that the ones in Rome always were the ‘real’ popes, and the others were merely illegal, marginal pretenders(something like Lambert Simnel). Thus the Wikipedia-article now complies to the Vatican’s POV, instead of a neutral one. I protested against this. User:GoodDay responded with “If you can get a consensus for what your want, then those articles will be reverted.” Thus here I am. My question is: am I right when I believe that we should treat the popes during the Western Schism neutral? Or is it up to the Vatican for how we treat pope-related topics, just like George Lucas is the authority on the truth on the Star Wars-universe?
Best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 09:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Notice the article names of popes & anti-popes of that era, as a clue. Jeff5102 edit would be acceptable if we had (for example) Pope Gregory XII (Roman claiment) & Pope Benedict XIII (Avignon claiment), instead of Pope Gregory XII & Antipope Benedict XIII. You see, even the article titles reflect the Vatican's views. GoodDay ( talk) 10:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll accept whatever the board members decide. GoodDay ( talk) 10:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Clarification for those less familar with papal history. The Avignon Papacy and the Avignon claiments during the Western Schism, are two seperate different groups of individuals. The former being the popes who resided in Avignon, France. The latter being anti-popes residing in Avignon, France :) GoodDay ( talk) 01:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I've made numerious edits to the Western Schism era popes infoboxes & succession boxes, aswell as those of the antipopes of that era, which comform to Jeff5102's arguments. Having thought over & read over Jeff's side of the discusson, I've come to agree with him. Furthermore, I think that fact that the article titles remain Pope for the Roman claiments & Antipope for the Avignon/Pisan claiments, is a compromise in of itself. GoodDay ( talk) 04:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I am a dispute resolution volunteer who is currently trying to resolve a content dispute at WP:DRN regarding Malysia Airlines Flight 17. There is a high probability that after DRN takes a shot at the content dispute Arbcom will be asked to address user conduct issues, but DRN only deals with article content.
At question is the proper application of WP:WEIGHT in the following situation:
We have a bunch of western sources -- including US intelligence agencies -- that say the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists using a Buk surface-to-air missile.
We have a bunch of Russian sources -- including the Russian Ministry of Defense -- that say the plane was shot down by Ukraine using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane.
If I look at the evidence (keeping in mind that I can read English and not Russian) things appear to favor the western POV, but the Russian POV is really quite prominent and should not be treated like a view held by a tiny minority.
And, of course, it is likely that some or all of these government sources are either putting a spin on things or outright lying, and that many of the other sources are relying on the government sources.
Right now that Ukrainian SAM/fighter plane POV is buried halfway down the page with the words "According to the Russian military, in what the New York Magazine called "Russia's Conspiracy Theory"..." while evidence supporting the separatist/Buk POV dominate the lead.
I proposed that we move all claims of responsibility into sections using this basic structure:
I think each section should neutrally report what the sources say with no inserted editorializing.
So my basic question is whether my proposed structure satisfies WP:WEIGHT, whether the current structure satisfies WP:WEIGHT, or whether some structure that we haven't discussed is better than either.
Previous NPOV/NB discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Malaysian Airways Flight MH 17(sic).
It is likely that this thread will attract multiple involved editors, which I have no problem with, but I intend on paying attention to the established NPOV noticeboard regulars as being more likely to give me a good answer on how to properly apply WP:WEIGHT in this situation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
DeeOlive has suggested in Talk:Black Guerrilla Family that "inmate organization" be used in place of " prison gang" to describe the Black Guerrilla Family. Professor Oliver appears to contribute infrequently so she may not be aware of this forum. I will leave it up to others as to whether they would like to contribute here or on the talk page. - Location ( talk) 18:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
[15], [16] and [17] are at issue. The editor rejected the version which had been in place since 14 December, and has reverted and added non-RS material repeatedly to promote a POV, it appears.
The question is to whether this, using such reliable sources as the "Colbert Report" to make specific claims that living persons are "craven hatchet men" is violative of WP:NPOV
The prior version was
Personally, I think calling living persons "craven hatchet men" as a claim of fact in any way, the inference that Breitbart had to be forced to delete the article and did not make a correction, and that the misidentification was a deliberate political act seems to push NPOV past the breaking point. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
In this case, the Truth-O-Meter doesn’t have to work too hard to come up with a rating, but we think it’s important to address anyway because of how quickly false information spreads around the Internet.
I made a note above about a dispute concerning the term "stealth invasion" in the lead of our article, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The issue has been extensively discussed here. Unfortunately, above, only two people commented, both already involved in the dispute.
I know it's a pain to have to read about / comment on these very controversial subjects, but honestly I think it would help a lot if a number of experienced, uninvolved editors could comment on the neutrality of the term as used. The issue is whether the term should be used to describe reactions to the conflict, should be used in the lead, and/or should be used in the first sentence of the lead. - Darouet ( talk) 17:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The Shooting of Michael Brown article is having issues with how to best represent WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. The case has been widely and repeatedly commented on, with almost every aspect being deeply scrutinized and commented on.
Currently we have several sections (listed below) that are basically dumping grounds for every reliably sourced opinion that someone wants to include. Neutrality and weight are currently "achieved" because opinions that are more widely held are repeated multiple times by the various voices that have said that opinion.
There are multiple ongoing RFCs to address this, but the interpretation of the RFCs is itself contentious.
This has also boiled into ANI without much result Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ChrisGualtieri.27s_behavior_at_Shooting_of_Michael_Brown
Surely this is a problem that has been solved. How do we represent these views appropriately without just being a giant WP:QUOTEFARM?
In wiki-voice, its easy to say "Fact A has been widely criticized as being X, and Y, but some defenders have said Z", but then you get into WP:WEASEL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV issues, and the argument that such wording is "equal WP:VALIDitiy and not appropriate WP:WEIGHT".
Some of that could be addressed by using footnotes similar to the "Sun" example in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Bundling_citations, where we could potentially dump the entire quotefarm for those that want to see how we came to our statement - Does such a footnote adequately deal with weasel/attribution/OR issues?
Is there another solution other than waiting (potentially years?) for WP:RS/AC sources to come out? Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There is understandable resentment expressed on the article Talk page about the neutrality, or lack of, in this article. At the moment, it reads as if slaves voluntarily left the Slave Coast in West Africa to engage in some travelling to whatever destination. This seems just wrong. I'm surprised Wiki has allowed this to be kept in place, as it seems to diminish the extreme suffering that slaves had to endure. The sentence involved is: "Slaves as well as free men used the exchange routes to travel to new places which aided in hybridizing European and African cultures." Did slaves really use the routes to travel to new places voluntarily? I suggest the sentence be changed to: "The involuntary transportation of slaves, as well as the voluntary travelling of free men, led to the hybridizing of European and African cultures." /info/en/?search=Slave_Coast . Richard Nowell ( talk) 10:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia policy, is there anything wrong with a quote containing the word "cult" in the lead? Please see what I am talking about HERE. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with both AndyTheGrump and Montanabw. Montanabw is referring to @ Prasangika37: by the way. VictoriaGrayson Talk 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
That a quote is used in the body of an article does not mean each quote is then also suitable for the lede. Best practice is to use "summary style" for the lede, which means avoiding substantial quotes in the lede - readers will find them in the body of the article. In short - summarize sections in the lede, which usually means a sentence sans quotes. Note that such summary sentences do not need cites if the original claims are properly cited. Collect ( talk) 14:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Bitcoin is an online payment system that, among other uses, facilitates illicit purchases of drugs, etc. at online black market sites. This activity well documented, and many major news outlets have discussed this. Apparently two editors now want to remove any mention of this from the lede of the article. I ave started a RfC on the subject.
I'm posting this to the NPOV noticeboard because these two editors have established a decidedly pro-bitcoin stance removing information that casts bitcoin in a negative light and disparaging editors who don't solely contribute bitcoin-boosting content.
WP:LEAD states that, "The lead should... summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." and that "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."
Just as an example of the type of coverage bitcoin gets from major news outlets on the issue of it being used in online black markets:
CNN has referred to bitcoin as a "shady online currency [that is] starting to gain legitimacy in certain parts of the world", and The Washington Post calls it "the currency of choice for seedy online activities". The Sacramento Bee says that "bitcoins are the currency of choice" in "underground networks where marketing in contraband is common". The BBC states, "bitcoin is often the virtual currency of choice" for "sites selling drugs". The London Evening Standard says, "it’s true that bitcoins are the currency of choice for ‘dark’ websites... through which users can buy drugs."
Talk:Bitcoin#RfC: Summarizing the "Criminal activities" section in the lede
Fleetham ( talk) 23:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this from the point of view of an outsider who has little interest in the subject, I would say that the passage mentioned does come across a tad biased. I think the definition of what Bitcoin is and what it is used for needs to be separated, not blended into one. Something like "Bitcoin is a decentralised, peer-to-peer driven online payment system. Illicit contraband is often purchased online using Bitcoin." That would still get the point across without confusing concept and usage. Levelledout ( talk) 02:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem emphasizing Bitcoins place as a currency in the black market, as long as it is written in the context of its nature. I think the lead should be more focused on the structure of such a financial technology and its primary uses, illicit activities could fall under that. I'm new to this discussion, but I do take offense to overemphasizing and over moderation of the issue. We are a group of actors no an actor. -- Mathew105601 ( talk) 14:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the wording mentioning criminal activities that is gaining consensus in the dispute:
U.S. law enforcement officials and financial regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized at a November 2013 U.S. Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers.
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 01:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The article currently states that:"Although some people have a desire to quit smoking by using e-cigarettes, other common explanations for the use of these products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut back on traditional cigarettes."
In the article there is also an image of a no smoking sign with the caption: "Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or to circumvent smoke-free laws."
The text in the article is sourced from here. This source says: "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws..."
However another source says: "Most users use them to either replace cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited or discouraged..."
There is currently a discussion on the article's talk page regarding whether "circumvent" should be rewritten: Link. The intention of the original poster is to replace it with "other common explanations for the use of these products are to obey smoke-free laws and to cut back on traditional cigarettes". My personal feelings are that both "circumvent" and "obey" represent partial language. However I think that "circumvent" could easily be replaced with something neutral such as "permit usage in places where smoking is prohibited". "Circumvent" to me is judgemental because it implies that e-cigarette users have some sort of deviant or criminal intentions that go against the spirit of the law and the image in my opinion, is being used to attract attention to this.
So the question are:
Levelledout ( talk) 15:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)As previously explained, the text is well sourced. See "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut down on conventional cigarettes, which may reinforce dual use patterns and delay or deter quitting." [18] How many times must I explain this? There is also more details in the source about this. I and others on the talk page this explain the text is sourced. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tsavage that the current wording misrepresents the source. I also think that particular source has a clear anti e-cig company POV and should be used more carefully. The second Gov.UK source's wording is preferable. SPACKlick ( talk) 09:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The information presented here ought to be presented, but not on main article page for Electronic Cigarettes, because it is yet another example of violating NPOV.
I have posted an RFC on the Kurds article talk page. There is an ongoing debate as to whether Kurds are Iranian, and I have been trying to invite discussion on the issue, but re-reversion has become an issue. I invite any and all editors to comment on the matter. — Josh3580 talk/ hist 06:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
International Christian Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Many sections in this article are preposterously biased. Neutral edits would be welcome. I tagged the article until the problems can be fixed.
jps ( talk) 00:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Editor(s) potentially connected with the church are making POV edits like this one Valenciano ( talk) 21:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Question: is it correct for WP to refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first line in WP's voice, as we do the article currently does?
Thank you, Atsme☯ Consult 19:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
can I use an opinion piece from Spiked Online [21] to extend the following piece in the Washington Post [22] in Death of Leelah Alcorn?. Editors in the article talk page have disputed the inclusion because of WP:UNDUE which I in return dispute because the harassment of Alcorn's Parents was already talked about in the Washington Post article. I have been directed to post here. Avono ( talk) 15:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
3rd paragraph of introduction
I see WP:YESPOV to the statement - There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease. Reference: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/ayurvedic-medicine, is an opinion of an organisation and this is not the fact. The website cites no references to this statement. They come into Wikipedia:PRIMARY sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 January 2015
An IP editor and a couple of newly registered editors have shown up to delete large parts of the article about Laura Owen, including most of the information about her tenure as Kansas Secretary of Commerce. The subject's notability was debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Owen, and facts that contribute most substantially to her notability are among those that are being removed. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 00:23, 8 January 2015 (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 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
Does it violate NPOV to use the word "cult" in the lead? Keep in mind that the word "cult" is clearly in quotation marks, as it is a quote. Please see this revision. VictoriaGrayson Talk 19:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the lede can say that some people consider it to be a cult, with a citation to one such source? I agree that its hard to draw a fine line between cults and non-cults, but I don't think we want to ban the word "cult" entirely from the wiki, or require that it only be used after the publication of multiple books on cults. Djcheburashka ( talk) 22:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean a source that uses the term, but a source that comments on the use of the term. For example if a scholarly book on cults says that they are generally described as a cult, we can say that. We can accept that the author is familiar with all the literature, while we are not, and can make a judgment about the use of the term to describe the group. While the Tibetologist is for what he said, the issue is what weight to assign it. I would suggest very little, because he is an expert on Tibetology. That does not mean he is wrong, of course. The same thing if he were to discuss medical science. TFD ( talk) 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Seriously though...here are my rules for using the word cult: 1. You can use it to describe a group without qualification IFF a large majority of reliable secondary sources refer to the group as such. The result of this is that the word cult will pretty much only be used to describe destructive cults on Wikipedia. 2. If there is controversy over whether a group is a cult or not with some primary sources calling it a cult and others saying it's not, and this controversy is consistently reported in secondary sources (i.e. not WP:RECENTISM) then you can use the word cult but it must be attributed. For example, "so and so has described X as a cult". 3. In a majority of cases, groups referring to one another as cults is just mudslinging and it doesn't merit being repeated in a serious encyclopedia. I think the example provided by the OP falls under #2 or #3. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 05:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute about the title of 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre. I feel it should reflect the abundance of reliable source which call it "attack" while a few others feel it meets the definition of "massacre" and therefore should be called that. More input from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated. See Talk:2014_Jerusalem_synagogue_massacre#Article_title. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 22:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed regarding the misogyny section of the 2014 Isla Vista Killings article. Is it NPOV to include text in this section about gendered massacres targeting males [1] (such as in Srebrenica and also a school massacre carried out by Boko Haram), in this article about the recent killing spree in California by Elliot Rodgers? I'm specifying this part of Misogyny section because it seemed to stand out as POV/off topic; however, talk page concern has been raised regarding section in general regarding removal of text/refs after many editors have moved on with fewer editors active on article: /info/en/?search=Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny_Section. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 23:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I personally think that Wikipedia should buy stock in Gillette so the contributors to the aforementioned talk page can shave their neckbeards. Sceptre ( talk) 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an AFD [2] which is currently very closely split. It has been relisted twice (total of 22 days open so far) and closes in 7 hours. There have only been 7 votes so far. I invite you to comment before this AFD closes. -- Obsidi ( talk) 14:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This is to request an impartial opinion of editors in Wikipedia on the Wiki article Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky The article is about a Bangladeshi politician, a candidate for the Mayor of a country with a royal lineage. The lineage is obtained from a genealogy printed in a Persian book that was translated into Bengali and used as a source in a Cambridge Encyclopedia that was used as a reference. The original Persian script documenting this lineage is also available and it was uploaded as a picture in Wiki-image. Unfortunately, Editor Neil-N has consistently held the view that he will not allow the genealogy information to be documented as he does not consider it relevant information for the political background of the politician. As a political historian of the country where the subject is a politician and a former Mayor candidate, I feel pedigree information and lineage information are very important and they have been used in other Wikipedia articles on politicians worldwide. Editor Neil-N had the following to say. "Wikipedia doesn't care what politicians think is important to buff their image. If all you have is a genealogical tree then I will oppose adding this trivia, scans or no. --NeilN "
He is trying to discriminate lineage information on this topic, based on what he writes above, since lineage information has been used in other Wikipedia articles as well. Therefore he is trying to get in an unwarranted edit war and bully other editors. Please comment whether this is fair or not? Why lineage information cannot be relevant when other wiki-pages have used them as well? Westcott001 ( talk) 17:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas. Someone claimed that there might be some bias going on! RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 ( talk) 06:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: this was originally posted to RSN, but both respondents there claimed it was a NPOV issue citing WEIGHT and ASSERT. I believe that NPOV is quite clear that all major points of view must be included, so I believe the question becomes: Are these four statements major enough to include in the article and do they reflect facts based on the reviewed research instead of merely the authors' opinions?
EllenCT ( talk) 22:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment This is sort of a tough thing to evaluate in isolation. One can find review articles saying that thiomersol in vaccines causes autism but this is clearly not a mainstream view that would get much attention in a Wikipedia article. We know that the autism claim would get little weight in a NPOV Wikipedia article, not because of the characteristics of the article itself, but because of the 30:1 ratio of articles expressing the opposite opinion to this one. There is very little scholarly evidence either way on the impact of e-cigarettes on the ease of smoking, at least to the best of my knowledge. Shouldn't all these expressions of opinion based on extremely limited evidence be expressed in a very qualified way, or attributed and not made in Wikipedia's voice? Formerly 98 ( talk) 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Mihaister you spearheaded the effort to include McNeill
here, there was no consensus to do so, you were caught trying to add it in anyway
here, you filed a
WP:DRN discussion over it
here, that concluded successsfully with no consensus to include (with your agreement), you then tried to add it to the sub-article
here and got caught doing that, and now you're still flogging it here. I'm having a hard time describing your editing regarding McNeill as anything other than
tendendtious editing.
Zad
68
20:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody please have a look at above mentioned article? I would like opinions to be able to remove the POV-check section. Thanks.
I stumbled upon this article Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code, which appears to have been written as an attack page. The external links section is the largest I've ever seen, and it is comprised almost entirely of critical pieces, none of which are actually integrated into the article as inline citations. I could use some help bringing this article into compliance with Wikipedia's policies on WP:NPOV, among others. Champaign Supernova ( talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Ukrainian and western military officials, and some media, have described Russian actions in Crimea/Eastern Ukraine as a "stealth invasion." This is currently mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, but a number of editors would like to keep the phrase in the first sentence of the lead, e.g. through this edit. I believe the phrase is significant but non-neutral, and doesn't warrant inclusion until the "reactions" section of the lead. Advice or comment would be appreciated. We have discussed this issue at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#"Stealth invasion". - Darouet ( talk) 19:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This text has no weight. "Tobacco policy expert Ann McNeill of King's College London and Clive Bates, former director of ASH UK, have asserted that misguided regulatory action could interfere with a safe substitute for smoking" Both sources are primary sources. See Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes#Regulatory_background. There are better sources in the same section. We should not use primary sources to argue against reviews QuackGuru ( talk) 02:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not trying to use MEDRS on a legal page. But are you trying to use primary sources against WP:SECONDARY? I explained on the talk page "the threshold is WP:SECONDARY. [6]. Both sources are primary sources and no evidence to the contrary has been provided. The tags were removed but the sources are still primary. You did not address the concerns. Please show not assert that they are not primary sources. What evidence do you have that they are secondary sources or do you think primary sources can be used when we have better sources available. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
|
This question is about a discussion here link The subject of weight has not come up, and I am asking this before bringing it up so I dont make a fool of myself. The section deals with a statement by the WHO, that the WHO removed and replaced. The page still exists but with a different statement. The only place it may be found is the wayback machine. Does this previous, removed statement carry any weight? I would think not since the source who made the statement removed or retracted it and then replaced it. It is in effect the point of view of no one. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 23:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Please visit Death and Eulogy of Roi Rotberg. There is disagreement over whether the article should be focused on the person's death, as the article creator wants, or on his eulogy by Moshe Dayan, as the users who commented in the AfD recommended. Talk:Death and Eulogy of Roi Rotberg#Title is the most recent section. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on Saffron terror is facing vandalism by people with hurt religious sentiments. This article is named under deletion for no reason at all. This sentimental bias is affecting the already existing neutrality of the wikipedia article. No such vandalism is observed in case of the article Islamic terrorism, there are many muslim countries and 1 billion muslims all over the world inspite of that the article on Islamic terrorism is unscathed by such vandalism, then why is it only Indian editors in particluar are perpetrating such vandalism on the article on Saffron terror, clearly, the Indian editors are biased and hurt about the article and its content.
This article is worth saving for the same reason as to why the article on Islamic terrorism should be worth saving. If the article on Saffron terror is deleted, then I request the article on Islamic terrorism to be deleted as well, because deletion of the article Saffron terror would make the whole English wikipedia article non-neutral and biased. These people tried playing the same game on the Hindi Wikipedia article on भगवा आतंकवाद (Saffron terror) but they failed there because the writer of the article cited the existence of such an article on the english wikipedia. Now by deleting the English Wikipedia article on Saffron terror, they can delete the similar article on the Hindi Wikipeidia.
Thinkmaths ( talk) 05:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
A full-scale edit war has been taking place on the RT network page for about a month, though there is a history of (suppressed) conflict over the neutrality of the lede that goes back quite a ways further. The issue at present is whether the lede is the proper place for charges of "propaganda" against this network to be lodged, and most particularly whether the claims that it has been "accused of disinformation" are substantiated and reliable, and likewise belong in the lede. Here is the paragraph in the lede that is the source of the dispute:
Recognizing that four of the five sources purporting to support the "disinformation" do no such thing, and the the fifth only reports that a single US State Department employee blogged something to this effect last April, I attempted several times to delete this part of the sentence, giving my full reasoning on the talk page. In each case, my edit was undone by one of the editors named below without any effort by any of them to show HOW these references relate to "disinformation" accusations. They certainly all relate to the perceived bias of the network by the authors involved, but "disinformation," which word is linked to its Wikipedia definition, involves the willful dissemination of information known to be false, and four of these "references" do not make allegations of this. The quantity of references does not supply the want of quality here.
Ymblanter, an editor with admin privileges (though not for this page in particular), once accused me of edit warring, and when I reminded him that my editorial attempts never crossed the WP threshold of 3 per day, posted an "incident" on the admin page, suggesting that I was "wikilawyering." In order to avoid further such abusive treatment, I took a different tack and inserted the following sentence before the last one in the paragraph, in order to create at least the appearance of some even-handedness:
This was soon reverted by Volunteer Marek, the most aggressive of the disruptive editors, and not for the last time. I responded to his claim that the source was "non-notable" by linking it to the Wikipedia page of the author, Edward S Herman. Then, out of the blue, an editor not previously involved in this fracas, My very best wishes, reverts my constructive edit, claiming that the source of the interview with E. Herman is "fringe." https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=RT_%28TV_network%29&diff=631062896&oldid=631033208 These editors seem almost to be tag-teaming in this effort to preserve a very negative, one-sided tone in this lede, and with similarly lame reasoning given (if any). Then Iryna Harpy reverts the NPOV tag dutifully placed on the article page by another editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=RT_(TV_network)&oldid=630743454 And on and on...
The following editors were previously named in the mediation request because of their support for this tendentious editing:
37.214.122.178 Volunteer Marek Sidelight12 Galassi Capitalismojo Ymblanter NE Ent
Not one of them would agree to participate in the mediation, save Ymblanter, who agreed only to be involved on the question of maintaining the allegation of "propaganda" in the lede (which he supports). Because these editors would not agree to the mediation, the request was rejected by the MC. It should be noted that two other editors, Spotter 1 and The Four Deuces, who are not among the disruptors, did agree to participate in the mediation.
I am personally feeling overwhelmed by the lack of any authoritative effort to negotiate neutrality in this lede. In my view, this entire page needs a makeover to include all the relevant criticism of RT in a "Controversy" section (this suggestion by another editor, but I have offered to implement it if consensus can be garnered), but response to this approach has been, predictably, negative from the above sources, who prefer to use the lede to advertise their shared disdain of RT.
The tendentiousness resulting from this editorial gangsterism is overwhelming all efforts to restore neutrality to this lede. Input from neutral observers is urgently requested! Kenfree ( talk) 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Response to Marek's defenses (above) of the five current citations behind the claim of "disinformation: Marek, the word "disinformation" in this objectionable sentence in the lede, as you MUST know, is linked to the Wikipedia definition of "disinformation." Before I respond to your defenses, I think it important to review this with you, as you seem to have forgotten it. Here is the Wikipedia definition: "Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth." [1] Please try to remember this throughout my responses. Presumably we can both agree on this definition for authority, since it is linked in the statement in the lede.
"Misinformation" and "disinformation" are not at all the same thing, but don't take my word for it. On that Wikipedia definition (of "disinformation") page, one of the very first statements is: "Not to be confused with Misinformation." Did you happen to notice that? Well, which of us is really showing "bad faith" then???
That is correct, because no where in the article does its author make the slightest accusation that RT is practicing disinformation, or intentionally spreading information known to RT to be false as if it were true, so what difference does the title make? "Disinformation" is a rather "sexy" term, and people throw it around all the time (like you and certain other editors are wont to do) without understanding its actual meaning, but if these authors meant to accuse RT of disinfo, well, they had their whole article to do it and they failed completely. There is not one instance of "disinformation" even referred to.
LOL, nope, I implied nothing of the sort. I stated that a single employee blogged, and whether he was the former managing editor of Time or just the janitor, it is still only one employee, and that was my whole statement.
How could it? Is Vladimir Putin RT? No doubt you think so, but let's try this another way: say that a Russian official had accused Obama of disinformation, would you argue that therefore this represents an accusation that Voice of America is guilty of disinformation? This kind of puerile argumentation is really appalling...I'm amazed that you think any intelligent reader would buy it. The other quote you adduce does not specifically allege "disinformation" as defined by Wikipedia.
It not only doesn't say it directly, but like the other three sources above, it doesn't mention it AT ALL. So how can it be used as a citation allegation that RT has been "accused of disinformation?"
So, in sum, all of the citations together distill down to a single US State Department employee blogging, last April, that RT engages in "disinformation" (without providing any specific facts to back up the allegation, we should note). And for this reason the lede of this Wikipedia must make room for this spurious claim that RT is "accused of disinformation" (a very serious libel if untrue, by the way)? Kenfree ( talk) 21:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfree ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Before you continue with your
critique of my techniques, I will refer you to my response to Spotter 1's same accusation on my talk page (where the both of you have spent an inordinate amount of time) -
Would you consider
Der Spiegel an RS? How about
this,
this,
Reporters Without Borders per
this. Perhaps you consider The Independent to be corrupt, Western ideologues in their criticism
here. Perhaps PRWatch is more to your taste
here. Alternatively, here's a long and insightful
look into RT by Oliver Bullough for the New Statesman. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 05:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I see one glaring issue with the quoted lead WP:BOMBARD, please see WP:CITEBUNDLE to improve appearance of the lead. That being said, please see WP:LEAD, the first sentence is to define the scope of the article. The entire lead section is suppose to summarize the content of the article. As the lead section is suppose to summarize the rest of the article, one rule of thumb that I have heard thrown about is after the first sentence (or paragraph if necessary) defines the subject, there should be about one sentence per section of the body of the article. This helps provide a summary of the article to a reader who doesn't want to delve into the body. Therefore, if there, in regards to the question of content (not editor actions), is a section about RT being called a propaganda outlet, than it should be included somewhere in the lead section. It should be neutrally worded and well sourced. From a casual glance it appears to be well sourced in the lead, and if there is not a section about the statement, there appears to be sufficient reliable sources to create one.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I've read through the sources so I could contribute to resolving this dispute, and I agree with VolunteerMarek. The sources say what he says they say. They do not say what the OP says they say. I have no prior involvement with the RT page, or with any of the editors in this dispute. So I hope I am sufficiently "neutral" to satisfy the objectors. Djcheburashka ( talk) 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There are several sources that say RT gives false information. Perhaps there is objection to the word 'disinformation', since by precise definition, it can imply it is done deliberately, yet the sources do say misinformation, and other ways of saying pushes false information. It is harder to prove why something is done, while the sources appear to believe this.
As for the Department of State and John Kerry, we say, people have accused or people say This rather than, so and so is This (for neutrality, avoid Wikipedia's voice). This is documented by CSPAN, Business Insider, (two reliable third-party sources) along with the primary sources of Department of State and the blog. The reason for using the source of Business Insider was, because it was the latest that included the whole ordeal (from spoken word to the blog). There are a few other completely different sources that say it propagates false information. I propose dropping the word disinformation and replacing it with false information. Also, to leave RT shows commentary favorable to Russia and foreign policy in the lead, with the mention of propaganda. My concern was removing the statement of the mention of it propagates or publishes false information from a section lead or lead. - Sidelight 12 Talk 00:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This dispute has been going on for 11 days. Does anyone but the OP disagree that there is a consensus now? Djcheburashka ( talk) 04:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC
Earlier I had provided multiple published reliable sources that call RT a propaganda publisher, that is not to say that it is fact, but it is one verified POV. Per WP:NEU & WP:BALANCE, it should be included. As someone else wrote above, it should not be said that RT is a propaganda publisher of the Russian government, but that source X writes that... and source Y writes that ... this view is verified, and repeated enough that it should be given some weight in the article. Obviously it should be neutrally worded and well sourced, but it should not be excluded, as advocated by only two of a multitude of editors involved in this discussion.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the claim about "lacking impartiality" from the lead, and inserted a claim that proponents disagree. I believe there are enough RS to support both claims, but the lacking impartiality claim wasn't really needed for the lead. Two sources about proponents who disagree now back that statement; I ask for people to add more appropriate sources to that rather than delete it. I moved the rest of your edit into the subsection of the article, the only worry is if truth-out is reliable, which I won't decide. Much of this is explained in the edit summary. The claim for false information is supported, since you believe it is not, what do you think those five references behind it say? I believe in truth, after that, I believe in NPOV, which luckily for my perspective, a lot of references support what I believe to be true. - Sidelight 12 Talk 05:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's a list of sources saying RT has published disinformation. Feel free to add more entries. Binksternet ( talk) 03:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: there used to be a Controversies and criticisms of RT-article, but it was redirected. Maybe it is an idea to bring it back to life? Jeff5102 ( talk) 11:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
References
Hi, folks. I’m hoping to have some eyes at the Sex offender and Adam Walsh Act pages.
The basic issue is around false impressions of parity. The Adam Walsh Act is one of the laws passed in an effort to combat rates of repeat crimes among sex offenders. However, there is nearly unanimous evidence and opinion among researchers and professional societies that the law is ineffective and likely counter-productive. The RS’s presented demonstrating this view include:
I apologize for the length of that list, but I wanted to emphasize exactly how well established that view is among RS’s.
Normally, one would proportionately balance that view with RS’s claiming/showing the Adam Walsh Act has been effective, etc.; however, there do not exist such RS’s. The evaluations from experts and professional societies has been virtually unanimous. The editors who claim that positive evaluations of the Adam Walsh Act are getting ignored have been asked multiple times to provide RS’s that express that view, but no one has provided even one. Despite the lack of RS's expressing a positive evaluation, some editors are claiming undue weight (or advocacy) on the negative and reverting ALL text showing the negative evidence.
I believe the relevant NPOV policies are:
WP:YESPOV: Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity (emphasis added)
WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (emphasis added)
WP:WEIGHT (note #3): The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.
The editors repeatedly reverting the RS’s showing the problems with the Adam Walsh Act are claiming UNDUE, but I believe they are confusing due weight with parity. The discussions are at a standstill and are beginning to devolve into personal attacks and accusations of people’s motivations. Some outside eyes with folks familiar with NPOV would be greatly appreciated.
— James Cantor (
talk) 17:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Neutral point of view concerns at the New version of map section of this RfC. Prcc27 ( talk) 07:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This work by Humphrey Llwyd is thought to be the first written rendition of the supposed voyage to America by the legendary Prince Madoc. I have been trying to have the article either describe Madoc as legendary or say 'supposed' voyage, using sources discribing the Cronica Walliae including those already used by the article's creator, User:Doug Coldwell, but these are constantly removed on the basis that Llwyd himself did not describe Madoc as legendary (although another source wrote ""‘Cronica Walliae’ is that which tells of the discovery of the New World by Madog, claimed to be the son of Owain Gwynedd, the twelfth-century prince of Gwynedd. It is not intended here to dwell on the story nor on the remarkable validation it affords of Llwyd’s own judgement that it is a tale which in the retelling ‘the commen people do use in distance of place and leingth of tyme rather to augment than to dyminish’." which suggests Llywyd had his own doubts). I've brought this up at Talk:Cronica Walliae but to no avail. Also used in the article are phrases such as "A comparison to other historical events" which is a statement in Wikipedia's voice that the Madoc voyage was an historical event, and overuse of "records as historical events" - why 'as historical events'? Llywd is important, but he also believed the Welsh were Trojans, and this article is written to suggest that Madoc's voyage was an historical event. Dougweller ( talk) 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I responded to a request for
WP:3O regarding
Talk:WOT Services. Essentially, one editor wanted an "unbalanced" tag on the article and the other said there were no reliable sources for criticisms of WOT. There was one source that I thought might be usable, and we checked that out at RSN. There,
Elaqueate said he did not think that source was usable, but
added, "However, the article,
WOT Services, looks like it has clear NPOV problems. The only (pseudo) negative material is the fact that they won a lawsuit against them. Everything else is borderline promotional. The reviews section is comprised entirely of a single sentence that reads The rating tool has received several reviews in the press.
without mentioning anything the reviews said. This is probably unintentionally funny, as the article is covering a webservice fueled by customer reviews. This is probably an article that should be considered over at the NPOV board, but there's definitely something off." So I am bringing it here for comment.
Scolaire (
talk) 17:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is a link to the section in question. link Here is a link to the Talk page, it ony has one discussion, and its on this section. Perfect Example of Bloat
This is a weight question. The whole section is sourced from a single journal article that raises questions for further study. There are no other known journal articles on this subject. It is in a medical section so it needs WP:MEDRS sources, this source is considered reliable as its in a peer reviewed journal. It is full of opinions, only one fact, that about some companies having a battery recycle program. There is no real dispute, its to early and no other studies have been done. There is no coverage of the article.
Thanks AlbinoFerret 06:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Just commenting to stop automatic archiving. AlbinoFerret 21:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with this question, or a reason its been ignored?
AlbinoFerret 19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the review in question, this statement found in it raises new questions on the weight of its conclusions.
RESULTS Environmental considerations due to e-cigarette manufacturing No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing
This should raise questions on weight as it shows its the only paper of its kind. AlbinoFerret 17:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on about the neutrality of Center for Governmental Studies. I think the article is promotional in tone and uses too many flowery adjectives. For example, "It created innovative political and media solutions," "Empower citizens and help them to become more engaged in their communities," and "supplying fresh analysis." These types of phrases read to me like text from a group's own page or press release. Thoughts appreciated. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The lead section of the article is corrupted with undue weight by cherry picking information from doubtful sources. See the discussion. The discussion has led to nothing, and based on the comments and edit history of the opponent user, I have got serious doubts on his good faith. Therefore, I ask for your help. -- Gwafton ( talk) 22:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no edit war yet, so let’s see if I can get some consensus on my opinion.
For those who do not know: the Western Schism beganin 1378, after the death of Pope Gregory XI. Urban VI was elected and took his residence in Rome. Dissatisfied cardinals chose Clement VII, took residence in Avignon: the city where the popes had their residence from 1309 to 1377. The popes got a somewhat equal support in the world. Thus, in the period from 1378 to 1417, there were rival claimants to the title of pope: one in Rome, one in Avignon, and, after the Council of Pisa (1409), one in Pisa. All the three lines got considerable support, but in the end, the schism was ended, and the Vatican rejected the Avignon and Pisan lines of popes as “antipopes.”
My idea was to make this visible in the succession-boxes . I tried to be neutral, and as such I added the Avignon pope in the succession box and infobox of Pope Gregory XI., without taking a stance on the ‘correct’ pope (see here . Thus, no pope was called an antipope, but rather Clement VII (Avignon claimant). This was in line with the other infoboxes of popes during the western schism. I still believe I did the right thing. It was neutral, so that Wikipedia doesn’t take sides in this centuries-old conflict. Furthermore, It was in line with the template, which doesn’t call any pope during the schism an antipope:
However, this was reverted by User:GoodDay. When I took the issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, he argued: “the Vatican excludes these anti-popes from the papal line. That's why they're called anti-popes.” (see here) Someone else proposed an RfC, and wanted to wait for the right moment for it. That was a good idea.
Unfortunately, the next thing User:GoodDay. did, was editing the infoboxes of the other antipopes edit the info-boxes of (anti)-popes-articles so that they comply to his own opinion (like this one, this one and this one). In short: what he did was changing the neutral description for the popes (like '(Rome claimant)' and '(Avignon claimant)') into a “Pope” and “Antipope.” In this way, the articles now imply that the ones in Rome always were the ‘real’ popes, and the others were merely illegal, marginal pretenders(something like Lambert Simnel). Thus the Wikipedia-article now complies to the Vatican’s POV, instead of a neutral one. I protested against this. User:GoodDay responded with “If you can get a consensus for what your want, then those articles will be reverted.” Thus here I am. My question is: am I right when I believe that we should treat the popes during the Western Schism neutral? Or is it up to the Vatican for how we treat pope-related topics, just like George Lucas is the authority on the truth on the Star Wars-universe?
Best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 09:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Notice the article names of popes & anti-popes of that era, as a clue. Jeff5102 edit would be acceptable if we had (for example) Pope Gregory XII (Roman claiment) & Pope Benedict XIII (Avignon claiment), instead of Pope Gregory XII & Antipope Benedict XIII. You see, even the article titles reflect the Vatican's views. GoodDay ( talk) 10:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll accept whatever the board members decide. GoodDay ( talk) 10:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Clarification for those less familar with papal history. The Avignon Papacy and the Avignon claiments during the Western Schism, are two seperate different groups of individuals. The former being the popes who resided in Avignon, France. The latter being anti-popes residing in Avignon, France :) GoodDay ( talk) 01:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I've made numerious edits to the Western Schism era popes infoboxes & succession boxes, aswell as those of the antipopes of that era, which comform to Jeff5102's arguments. Having thought over & read over Jeff's side of the discusson, I've come to agree with him. Furthermore, I think that fact that the article titles remain Pope for the Roman claiments & Antipope for the Avignon/Pisan claiments, is a compromise in of itself. GoodDay ( talk) 04:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I am a dispute resolution volunteer who is currently trying to resolve a content dispute at WP:DRN regarding Malysia Airlines Flight 17. There is a high probability that after DRN takes a shot at the content dispute Arbcom will be asked to address user conduct issues, but DRN only deals with article content.
At question is the proper application of WP:WEIGHT in the following situation:
We have a bunch of western sources -- including US intelligence agencies -- that say the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists using a Buk surface-to-air missile.
We have a bunch of Russian sources -- including the Russian Ministry of Defense -- that say the plane was shot down by Ukraine using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane.
If I look at the evidence (keeping in mind that I can read English and not Russian) things appear to favor the western POV, but the Russian POV is really quite prominent and should not be treated like a view held by a tiny minority.
And, of course, it is likely that some or all of these government sources are either putting a spin on things or outright lying, and that many of the other sources are relying on the government sources.
Right now that Ukrainian SAM/fighter plane POV is buried halfway down the page with the words "According to the Russian military, in what the New York Magazine called "Russia's Conspiracy Theory"..." while evidence supporting the separatist/Buk POV dominate the lead.
I proposed that we move all claims of responsibility into sections using this basic structure:
I think each section should neutrally report what the sources say with no inserted editorializing.
So my basic question is whether my proposed structure satisfies WP:WEIGHT, whether the current structure satisfies WP:WEIGHT, or whether some structure that we haven't discussed is better than either.
Previous NPOV/NB discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Malaysian Airways Flight MH 17(sic).
It is likely that this thread will attract multiple involved editors, which I have no problem with, but I intend on paying attention to the established NPOV noticeboard regulars as being more likely to give me a good answer on how to properly apply WP:WEIGHT in this situation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
DeeOlive has suggested in Talk:Black Guerrilla Family that "inmate organization" be used in place of " prison gang" to describe the Black Guerrilla Family. Professor Oliver appears to contribute infrequently so she may not be aware of this forum. I will leave it up to others as to whether they would like to contribute here or on the talk page. - Location ( talk) 18:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
[15], [16] and [17] are at issue. The editor rejected the version which had been in place since 14 December, and has reverted and added non-RS material repeatedly to promote a POV, it appears.
The question is to whether this, using such reliable sources as the "Colbert Report" to make specific claims that living persons are "craven hatchet men" is violative of WP:NPOV
The prior version was
Personally, I think calling living persons "craven hatchet men" as a claim of fact in any way, the inference that Breitbart had to be forced to delete the article and did not make a correction, and that the misidentification was a deliberate political act seems to push NPOV past the breaking point. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
In this case, the Truth-O-Meter doesn’t have to work too hard to come up with a rating, but we think it’s important to address anyway because of how quickly false information spreads around the Internet.
I made a note above about a dispute concerning the term "stealth invasion" in the lead of our article, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The issue has been extensively discussed here. Unfortunately, above, only two people commented, both already involved in the dispute.
I know it's a pain to have to read about / comment on these very controversial subjects, but honestly I think it would help a lot if a number of experienced, uninvolved editors could comment on the neutrality of the term as used. The issue is whether the term should be used to describe reactions to the conflict, should be used in the lead, and/or should be used in the first sentence of the lead. - Darouet ( talk) 17:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The Shooting of Michael Brown article is having issues with how to best represent WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. The case has been widely and repeatedly commented on, with almost every aspect being deeply scrutinized and commented on.
Currently we have several sections (listed below) that are basically dumping grounds for every reliably sourced opinion that someone wants to include. Neutrality and weight are currently "achieved" because opinions that are more widely held are repeated multiple times by the various voices that have said that opinion.
There are multiple ongoing RFCs to address this, but the interpretation of the RFCs is itself contentious.
This has also boiled into ANI without much result Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ChrisGualtieri.27s_behavior_at_Shooting_of_Michael_Brown
Surely this is a problem that has been solved. How do we represent these views appropriately without just being a giant WP:QUOTEFARM?
In wiki-voice, its easy to say "Fact A has been widely criticized as being X, and Y, but some defenders have said Z", but then you get into WP:WEASEL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV issues, and the argument that such wording is "equal WP:VALIDitiy and not appropriate WP:WEIGHT".
Some of that could be addressed by using footnotes similar to the "Sun" example in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Bundling_citations, where we could potentially dump the entire quotefarm for those that want to see how we came to our statement - Does such a footnote adequately deal with weasel/attribution/OR issues?
Is there another solution other than waiting (potentially years?) for WP:RS/AC sources to come out? Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There is understandable resentment expressed on the article Talk page about the neutrality, or lack of, in this article. At the moment, it reads as if slaves voluntarily left the Slave Coast in West Africa to engage in some travelling to whatever destination. This seems just wrong. I'm surprised Wiki has allowed this to be kept in place, as it seems to diminish the extreme suffering that slaves had to endure. The sentence involved is: "Slaves as well as free men used the exchange routes to travel to new places which aided in hybridizing European and African cultures." Did slaves really use the routes to travel to new places voluntarily? I suggest the sentence be changed to: "The involuntary transportation of slaves, as well as the voluntary travelling of free men, led to the hybridizing of European and African cultures." /info/en/?search=Slave_Coast . Richard Nowell ( talk) 10:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia policy, is there anything wrong with a quote containing the word "cult" in the lead? Please see what I am talking about HERE. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with both AndyTheGrump and Montanabw. Montanabw is referring to @ Prasangika37: by the way. VictoriaGrayson Talk 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
That a quote is used in the body of an article does not mean each quote is then also suitable for the lede. Best practice is to use "summary style" for the lede, which means avoiding substantial quotes in the lede - readers will find them in the body of the article. In short - summarize sections in the lede, which usually means a sentence sans quotes. Note that such summary sentences do not need cites if the original claims are properly cited. Collect ( talk) 14:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Bitcoin is an online payment system that, among other uses, facilitates illicit purchases of drugs, etc. at online black market sites. This activity well documented, and many major news outlets have discussed this. Apparently two editors now want to remove any mention of this from the lede of the article. I ave started a RfC on the subject.
I'm posting this to the NPOV noticeboard because these two editors have established a decidedly pro-bitcoin stance removing information that casts bitcoin in a negative light and disparaging editors who don't solely contribute bitcoin-boosting content.
WP:LEAD states that, "The lead should... summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." and that "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."
Just as an example of the type of coverage bitcoin gets from major news outlets on the issue of it being used in online black markets:
CNN has referred to bitcoin as a "shady online currency [that is] starting to gain legitimacy in certain parts of the world", and The Washington Post calls it "the currency of choice for seedy online activities". The Sacramento Bee says that "bitcoins are the currency of choice" in "underground networks where marketing in contraband is common". The BBC states, "bitcoin is often the virtual currency of choice" for "sites selling drugs". The London Evening Standard says, "it’s true that bitcoins are the currency of choice for ‘dark’ websites... through which users can buy drugs."
Talk:Bitcoin#RfC: Summarizing the "Criminal activities" section in the lede
Fleetham ( talk) 23:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this from the point of view of an outsider who has little interest in the subject, I would say that the passage mentioned does come across a tad biased. I think the definition of what Bitcoin is and what it is used for needs to be separated, not blended into one. Something like "Bitcoin is a decentralised, peer-to-peer driven online payment system. Illicit contraband is often purchased online using Bitcoin." That would still get the point across without confusing concept and usage. Levelledout ( talk) 02:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem emphasizing Bitcoins place as a currency in the black market, as long as it is written in the context of its nature. I think the lead should be more focused on the structure of such a financial technology and its primary uses, illicit activities could fall under that. I'm new to this discussion, but I do take offense to overemphasizing and over moderation of the issue. We are a group of actors no an actor. -- Mathew105601 ( talk) 14:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the wording mentioning criminal activities that is gaining consensus in the dispute:
U.S. law enforcement officials and financial regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized at a November 2013 U.S. Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers.
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 01:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The article currently states that:"Although some people have a desire to quit smoking by using e-cigarettes, other common explanations for the use of these products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut back on traditional cigarettes."
In the article there is also an image of a no smoking sign with the caption: "Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or to circumvent smoke-free laws."
The text in the article is sourced from here. This source says: "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws..."
However another source says: "Most users use them to either replace cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited or discouraged..."
There is currently a discussion on the article's talk page regarding whether "circumvent" should be rewritten: Link. The intention of the original poster is to replace it with "other common explanations for the use of these products are to obey smoke-free laws and to cut back on traditional cigarettes". My personal feelings are that both "circumvent" and "obey" represent partial language. However I think that "circumvent" could easily be replaced with something neutral such as "permit usage in places where smoking is prohibited". "Circumvent" to me is judgemental because it implies that e-cigarette users have some sort of deviant or criminal intentions that go against the spirit of the law and the image in my opinion, is being used to attract attention to this.
So the question are:
Levelledout ( talk) 15:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)As previously explained, the text is well sourced. See "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut down on conventional cigarettes, which may reinforce dual use patterns and delay or deter quitting." [18] How many times must I explain this? There is also more details in the source about this. I and others on the talk page this explain the text is sourced. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tsavage that the current wording misrepresents the source. I also think that particular source has a clear anti e-cig company POV and should be used more carefully. The second Gov.UK source's wording is preferable. SPACKlick ( talk) 09:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The information presented here ought to be presented, but not on main article page for Electronic Cigarettes, because it is yet another example of violating NPOV.
I have posted an RFC on the Kurds article talk page. There is an ongoing debate as to whether Kurds are Iranian, and I have been trying to invite discussion on the issue, but re-reversion has become an issue. I invite any and all editors to comment on the matter. — Josh3580 talk/ hist 06:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
International Christian Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Many sections in this article are preposterously biased. Neutral edits would be welcome. I tagged the article until the problems can be fixed.
jps ( talk) 00:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Editor(s) potentially connected with the church are making POV edits like this one Valenciano ( talk) 21:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Question: is it correct for WP to refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first line in WP's voice, as we do the article currently does?
Thank you, Atsme☯ Consult 19:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
can I use an opinion piece from Spiked Online [21] to extend the following piece in the Washington Post [22] in Death of Leelah Alcorn?. Editors in the article talk page have disputed the inclusion because of WP:UNDUE which I in return dispute because the harassment of Alcorn's Parents was already talked about in the Washington Post article. I have been directed to post here. Avono ( talk) 15:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
3rd paragraph of introduction
I see WP:YESPOV to the statement - There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease. Reference: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/ayurvedic-medicine, is an opinion of an organisation and this is not the fact. The website cites no references to this statement. They come into Wikipedia:PRIMARY sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 January 2015
An IP editor and a couple of newly registered editors have shown up to delete large parts of the article about Laura Owen, including most of the information about her tenure as Kansas Secretary of Commerce. The subject's notability was debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Owen, and facts that contribute most substantially to her notability are among those that are being removed. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 00:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)