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 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
Can I have a little help from you guys reviewing an article that I created and has subsequently become a hotbed of conflict? For a little bit of history, the article is Media Bias/Fact Check. The original version as finished and published (before other editors showed up and started removing material) can be found here. Following a protracted period of instability, the last version that I would support as being neutral in POV would be this. The article subsequently had much of its sourced content removed to the point that the article is now almost entirely negative in its coverage of the topic. A couple of editors are quite fond of an article written by the Columbia Journalism Review ( [1]), which discussed MBFC briefly in a paragraph or two in a wider discussion on measuring media bias. This particular author was generally critical of measuring media bias, and also wasn't impressed by MBFC, describing it as "an amateur attempt". I was not aware of the CJR article when I wrote the original version of the article. As I said, the two editors in question are fond of this source's general reliability, considering its viewpoint to be so significant that the article has now been essentially paired down to only contain negative coverage of the website in line with CJR's assessment of the website. In the last 24 hours a large amount of what I would consider fairly well-sourced content has been removed with various explanations that can be seen on the history page (I won't comment further, please draw your own conclusions).
This article wasn't really ever visible in the New Pages Feed, as I have the autopatrolled flag, but I would like some input on it at this stage. I'm asking for a bit of help reviewing the article (both the original version I created, the most recent version I supported, and the current version as it stands now).
I've basically given up on the article, and even removed it from my list of created works, as it has little to nothing that I wrote left in it; but I'd like some feedback and a few other opinions on the situation and how it went down so that I can learn from it moving forward and possibly learn where I went wrong here. Thanks all, — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 01:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
"Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation... Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in."Similarly the Poynter Institute says
"Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article on acupuncture does not have a neutral point of view and is very biased against acupuncture. A few people have reported to me that they have tried to edit it and their edits have just disappeared or they have been dismissed. As Wikipedia's policy is to have a neutral point of view, surely this article should be itself more neutral, just stating facts rather than pressing the point that the writer believes acupuncture doesn't work. Yes there are some studies that suggest it doesn't work in those cases but there are plenty of studies that say it does, and there are more positive ones now.
The same with the Homeopathy page. This page is also very biased against Homeopathy and indeed claims false "facts".
Please could you assure us that if these pages are fairly edited, they will not be changed back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaderon ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
BTW I trained in scientific argument and I could tear holes in ANY experiment or study, as every single one can be disputed in some way.But then you say
Also the western medical model of human physiology is starting to PROVE the Chinese oneso are you saying that studies and research are only true if the agree with your beliefs? if not, what are you trying to say? Tornado chaser ( talk) 19:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, once said:
So yes, we are biased towards
science and biased against
pseudoscience.
We are biased towards
astronomy, and biased against
astrology.
We are biased towards
chemistry, and biased against
alchemy.
We are biased towards
mathematics, and biased against
numerology.
We are biased towards
medicine, and biased against
homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards
cargo planes, and biased against
cargo cults.
We are biased towards
crops, and biased against
crop circles.
We are biased towards
laundry soap, and biased against
laundry balls.
We are biased towards
water treatment, and biased against
magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards
electromagnetic fields, and biased against
microlepton fields.
We are biased towards
evolution, and biased against
creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in
double-blind
clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon
preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards
astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against
ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards
psychology, and biased against
phrenology.
We are biased towards
Mendelian inheritance, and biased against
Lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change.
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC relevant to this topic at -
the COI noticeboard
Morgan Leigh |
Talk 04:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The critics of Acupuncture miss the point, which is that an article should describe the practice and what it purports to do, then cover the opinions for and against, with refs. The same applies to Naturopathy or any other therapy; a neutral article will describe the subject and what it purports to do, then discuss the arguments for and against, with refs. That is neutrality. To say something is "pseudoscientific" or whatever is expressing an opinion, otherwise known as POV. Sardaka ( talk) 09:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This RfC [18] may be of interest. The question is about whether it is due weight to mention the newspaper's climate change coverage in the lede paragraph. Marquis de Faux ( talk) 19:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
May I ask for comment on the neutrality of proposed edits at Talk:Sugar#RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines?
Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=S%C3%A9rgio_Moro&action=history
The section being removed is terribly biased as it ignores all of Moro's highly popular and praised merits in leading the Operation Car Wash, even ignores his most famous case in which he convicted Lula, and instead focuses entirely on leftist rhetoric and on disqualifying him over criticism that comes exclusively from biased editorials. I've got my account blocked because of this so is there any experienced editor who can give a throughout check? The section they want to keep clearly violate NPOV and doesn't give its due weight. Besides, it's not even in the Portuguese Wikipedia.
This article is a blatant example of POV. It doesn't even pretend to be impartial. It adopts the attitude that naturopathy is bunk right from the start, with the statement that naturopathy is "pseudoscientific", without even a ref. Whether you believe in naturopathy or not is not the point; the point is that the article is biased.
The NPOV approach would be to describe the subject and what it purports to do, then provide arguments for and against, with refs. The article does not even attempt to do this. It is completely biased, and it is impossible to change it because the protectors of the article delete any attempt to make it more NPOV. I have tried lately, but even the slightest change is reverted almost immediately. Sardaka ( talk) 09:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The "experts" in question are doctors, who are notoriously conservative and prejudiced against anything off the beaten track. Modern medicine isn't dominated by science, it's dominated by the pharmaceutical industry, which has no interest in alternatives to drugs. The article will never change because it is controlled by a cabal of gatekeepers who make sure the article stays the way it is, and who can be extremely unpleasant towards anyone who tries to change anything. Most of them are probably doctors or have connections with the pharmaceutical industry. As it stands, the article doesn't read like an encyclopedia article; it's more like an article in a tabloid newspaper. However, the cabal who control it are only fooling themselves, because the average reader who uses Wiki is capable of recognizing bias when they see it. Sardaka ( talk) 07:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello by placing these notices I am not trying to "forum shop" I am trying to achieve consensus, and I am trying to avoid canvassing by asking medicine to get involved rather than just anthropology and sociology. I hope this doesn't break guidelines they kind of appear to be in conflict here for this I'm not quire sure.
I would like to add this to the digital dependencies and global mental health page, under a new section called psychiatry under psychology, and have RfCd it for linguistics and sociology due to the linguistics and sociological components of both the statements and the research. I have left open for discussion around WP:MEDRS under the social media addiction page, which is a proposed merger. WP:SYNTH needs discussion.
Psychiatry
Psychiatric experts have called for further studies to explore psychiatric correlates with digital media use in childhood and adolescence. "Over the past 10 years, the introduction of mobile and interactive technologies has occurred at such a rapid pace that researchers have had difficulty publishing evidence within relevant time frames."
[1]
An "important contribution" of "a large, well-designed longitudinal study
[2] taking into account multiple sociodemographic confounders" was published in 2018, relating to
Angry Birds and
Pokemon Go, a game and a social media application that "reached adoption by an estimated 50 million global users within 35 and 19 days, respectively, of their release."
[3]It was "a longitudinal cohort of 2587 15- and 16-year-olds who did not have self-reported symptoms of ADHD at baseline, self-reported higher-frequency digital media use was associated with self-reported ADHD symptoms over two years of follow-up. The frequent distraction and rapid feedback of digital media may disrupt normal development of sustained attention, impulse control, and ability to delay gratification. In addition, digital media may displace other activities that build attention span and executive function. It remains to be determined whether symptoms that develop in response to media use require or respond to typical ADHD treatments."
[4] The National Insitute of Health stated that "study represents a starting point, and there are some potential caveats to the findings," commenting that it only shows association, but not causality. "Nevertheless, the findings suggest that the recent rise in popularity of digital technologies could play a role in ADHD. The findings also serve as an important warning for teens, parents, teachers, and others as increasingly stimulating forms of digital media become ever more prevalent in our daily lives."
[5]
Thanks what do we think? 07:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 ( talk • contribs)
References
Editors interested in neutrality reporting in scientific topics may be interested in the fracas at the talk page for Global catastrophic risk. More the merrier! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
At the
NVIC article as well as FTN
[19] there has been extensive debate, going back a year, over whether to include the NVIC's motto/slogan and mission statment in the infobox. The mission statment parameter was removed from the infobox template, but an RfC was just closed with no consensus for the removal of the "motto" parameter
[20].
JzG has strenuously objected to the inclusion of the motto parameter, while I feel his arguments have mostly been POV.
Guy Macon has suggested that the motto be included only if independent sources can be found for it, while I was initially OK with this, we do have a primary source (NVIC) that establishes what NVIC's motto is, so it passes
WP:V, and I don't see how it can be undue to fill all infobox parameters. Me and JzG going back and forth will get us nowhere (well maybe ANI, but no one wants that) and Guy macon's attempts to diffuse our dispute are appreciated, but we need more editors to weigh in on this.
Tornado chaser (
talk) 03:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Exclude and consider a TBAN. Marketing slogans are bad enough when they are anodyne, this is an Orwellian slogan for an organisation whos purpose is in effect the promotion of preventable infectious diseases. Every mainstream source identifies NVIC as a propaganda outfit. Guy ( Help!) 07:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
"If you are receiving this transmission, You are the Resistance"as a similarly promotional statement. Is that a fair interpretation? — Newslinger talk 03:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
There are several open RFCs at Talk:Electric smoking system - it's very confusing what is actually being proposed, and I feel that some of the possible changes might violate NPOV. Readers of this noticeboard may be interested in participating in those RFCs. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a dispute on the Mitch McConnell article over whether we can include a sentence that qualifies McConnell's reputation as a master tactician. The bold sentence is under dispute, with some editors claiming it's not NPOV:
References
Additional sources that use this language:
Is the bold sentence a violation of WP:NPOV? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I'm having some trouble with the article about EROEI.
For anyone not familiar, the topic of EROEI is mired in pseudoscience. It has been used to predict the imminent collapse of civilization, over and over again, since the early 1970s. I take a lay interest in this fringe group.
Odd material is creeping into the wikipedia article about the topic. A fringe paper is being given its own entire section. That paper has conclusions which drastically contradict the conclusions of hundreds of other studies. The paper was roundly criticized and labelled "refuted" by leading researchers in the field. This paper is given its own section, when meta-analyses of dozens or hundreds of legitimate studies are reduced to a single line.
I have deleted the offending section, but it's just re-added by another editor with whom I appear to be in dispute.
The new disputed section includes totally unacceptable sources. For example, the two most recent sources are a one-page undergraduate paper for an introductory college course, and a political blog of some kind where community members can contribute. Both sources simply repeat the fringe material they have read, and so do not represent independent sources.
This appears to be devolving into an "undo war". I'd appreciate it if some other people could show up and weigh in.
The discussion about this issue can be found here.
Thanks, Thomas pow s ( talk) 22:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
In the big picture, Thomas, my impression is that there might be an ongoing debate in the sources about how to calculate the numbers. Our article might do well to focus on the opposing views without trying to find TRUTH in a discrete list of numbers. And you'll get a lot farther by finding secondary sources, especially ones that are not paywalled. For example, instead of reporting numbers from the Weißbach paper, do you understand their criticism of prior approaches? Write it up! And contrast the criticism of the rebuttals. Best if you can use non-paywalled secondary sources to do it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(outdenting) Hi NewsAndEventsGuy,
Perhaps I should summarize this issue, and better explain my position.
The paper includes EROI figures for solar PV which are totally discrepant with the non-fringe consensus.
These ideas cannot be presented as factual in wikipedia. Furthermore, they certainly cannot be given vastly more weight than non-fringe papers on the topic. This paper is a far outlier and is referred to as "refuted" by leading researchers. Furthermore, the calculation of the minimum net energy for civilization to exist is nonsensical.
I realize there is a debate about this topic. However, the mere existence of a debate indicates nothing whatsoever. There is a debate over whether the Earth is flat, and will continue to be a debate until nobody in the world advocates that position any more. The mere existence of a debate indicates nothing. The question is the WEIGHTING being given to various sides in this debate.
There are more than 250 studies on net energy of solar PV. They all reach broadly similar conclusions except these two far outliers which are championed by a bizarre fringe group. I am pointing out the NUMBER of studies here. Why should a single far outlier be given its own SECTION while 250 studies by reputable researchers are reduced to a single line? Why should a single study which is repeatedly referred to as "refuted" by the leading researchers in this field be given its own section, when 250 other papers are reduced to a single line?
It is not necessary for the editors of wikipeida to evaluate this issue or take sides in the "debate". I am raising the issue of UNDUE WEIGHT, not correctness. How much weight is appropriate for a single outlier paper repeatedly referred to as "refuted" by the leading researchers in the field, when 250+ papers have are represented by a single line above?
There are three papers recently which are meta-analyses, and which summarize the results from HUNDREDS of papers on this topic:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116306906
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211500146X
None of them reach conclusions similar to that paper.
Thomas pow s ( talk) 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Nicotine is a chemical. There's biomolecular research that is related to nicotine effects that's not done in clinical settings and not on humans. But an editor repeatedly deletes that research without regard for this fact, referencing first its primary source nature as reason, as if that research was a medical/health information, and then referencing the WP:MEDRS, whereas it has nothing to do with medical research. At one point, that editor WTF'd part of that research wording on the Talk page and deleted it rather suggest wording improvement. I even tried to improve and to clarify the research is non-health in a section heading, but that got deleted in the same manner.
That article is about a chemical, but there have been changes on the page skewing its focus toward a drug infopiece (for example, the Infodrug template does not contain Material Safety Data Sheet field), and now the editor is invoking medical research policy to block content on non-applicable grounds. That chemical is a substance that generates high revenues for businesses, so it is plausible this article needs to be involved in a neutral point of view discussion/maintenance to assure moneyed interests do not interfere with the WP:NPOV that the world comes to appreciate about Wikipedia.
I'm not sure how to notify the editor Seppi333 using NPOV-notice. User109012 ( Talk) 05:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Darouet keeps adding fringe conspiracy theories to the Kiki Camarena article, whenever i undo his edits he adds them back. Jaydoggmarco ( talk) 22:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The preponderance of evidence... persuades us beyond any reasonable doubt that Manuel Buendía was slain on behalf of the United States because of what he had learned about U.S.-Mexico collusion with narcotics traffickers, international arms dealers, and other governments in support of Reagan administration efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Camarena was... killed for the same reason.
In May 1984, the influential journalist and columnist Manuel Buendía was brutally shot in the back in the centre of Mexico City... In a painstaking investigative process, the authors along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked, and much of the book is about the Bartleys trying to put the different pieces together. The most important element is that the interests behind both killings go beyond criminal interests and reach into the political domains on both sides of the border. In the mid-1980s, Mexico's one party regime confronted serious challenges, while the Reagan administration was deeply involved in a Cold War battle against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Buendía and DEA agent Camarena had each separately discovered that the CIA was running a dark network, which involved Mexican and Central American drug traffickers that imported cocaine into the U.S. and facilitated the movement of arms to the contras. Nicaraguan contras were trained at a Mexican ranch owned by one of the country's most notorious capos. CIA pilots flew many of the planes. The DFS functioned as the go-between, and hence involved the Ministry of the Interior. The Mexican army provided the necessary protection, and got a bite of the pie. Since the overriding concern of the CIA was the anti-Sandinista project, it trumped the DEA's task of combating drug trafficking, and covertly incorporated (or pressured) parts of the Mexican state into subservience. Buendía had found out about the CIA-contra-drugsDFS connection, which seriously questioned Mexican sovereignty, while Camarena learned that the CIA had infiltrated the DEA and sabotaged its work so as to interfere with the clandestine contra-DFS-traffickers network. They knew too much and were eliminated on the orders of the U.S. with Mexican complicity. Later official investigations attempted to limit criminal responsibility to the dirty connections between drug traffickers, secret agents and corrupt police, leaving out the (geo)political ramifications.
An RfC has been open for some time at Albania-Greece relations. Input from this noticeboard's participants is welcomed to help achieve a consensus [31]. Khirurg ( talk) 07:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Is the following text a violation of WP:NPOV?:
An editor on the Jill Stein page keeps removing the second part of that NBC News quote (citing WP:NPOV), so that the text reads:
To me, it seems that removing the full NBC News quote is the NPOV violation. Additional input would be helpful. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole ( talk · contribs) has recently ramped up his disruptive editing of topics related to the Catholic Church and homosexuality. In particular, at Catholic Church and homosexuality and Political activity of the Knights of Columbus, among other articles, he's attempting to insert promotional material even in cases where consensus has explicitly rejected the specific wording he is proposing. At Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus, for instance, FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk · contribs) and Doniago ( talk · contribs) very explicitly rejected the euphemistic "support marriage as the union of one man and one woman" and "culture of life" in favor of the clearer "oppose same-sex marriage and abortion" (alongside myself and Contaldo80 ( talk · contribs) who were already editing the article. A month later, Slugger continues to attempt to add that exact wording and pretend that there was no voice against it. Here, among other NPOV violations related to promotional content and WP:WEIGHT, he insists on vaguely writing "In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically on issues of importance to LGBT people" in place of the more clear and source-supported "against LGBT rights," insisting that to say "rights" would violate NPOV and, nonsensically, that because LGBT people are also interested in other matters, "rights" is overly narrow. ( Here's the only other user in the discussion besides myself, Contaldo80 ( talk · contribs) specifically rejecting this proposal.)
I have no taste for an edit war but I don't know how to proceed when this user refuses to listen to anyone who disagrees with him even in cases where formal procedures like 3O have been followed. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Australian paradox about an article with multiple issues including NPOV, and I invite any and all interested parties to contribute there. Thank you. EdChem ( talk) 01:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
In a scholar biography page for Alastair Lamb, an editor has added the label of "pro-India" for one of the book reviewers (Parshotam Mehra). The editor has provided a quote from a book review of Mehra's own book (not Alastair Lamb's) that says:
the author [Mehra] has not only abdicated his responsibility as a scholar but also made himself vulnerable to the charge that he has indirectly tried to reinforce the official position of India under the garb of academic objectivity.
The "abdication of responsibility" apparently refers to the fact that Mehra did not relate the history covered in his own book (not Alastair Lamb's) to the present-day border dispute between China and India. Instead he left it to the reader "to form his own judgement". I can't see how any of this warrants a branding like "pro-India". The talk page discussion is here. Can somebody take a look and give us their view? Thanks. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
More eyes needed on Special:Contributions/Laylaor. He/she advocates an antiquated POV, which has been debunked by WP:RS/AC for many decades, see https://web.archive.org/web/20011110114548/http://lib1.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Heveeobjex continues to demonstrate questionable WP:SPA activity on the subject of Ron Nirenberg and articles related to him, especially 2017 San Antonio mayoral election and 2019 San Antonio mayoral election. He continues to replace a valid cited image of Nirenberg already uploaded and properly licensed to Commons with one he claims he took or another image he claims to have taken but has conflicting metadata. He has continued to display COI issues with other edits on these topics as well. His issues were discussed on the talk page of Ron Nirenberg about 6 months ago but he stopped editing at that time and has only recently resumed. His activity is questionable at best. Thank you. - SanAnMan ( talk) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This article reads like it has been written by PETA themselves, and tends to euphemise the criticism while over-emphasizing PETA's points of view. I am not that great at content creation, nor am I the best at rearranging things to fit where they should be within the policy of WP:NPOV. I would like some help in ensuring this article follows the due principles of WP:DUE, rearranging/editing titles, addition and removal of content that does not mean its proper due weight, among other things. Thanks. I believe perhaps a start would be to revert to/take content from this revision, given this version has a lot less NPOV issues, and seems more balanced. Here's a comparison between this revision and current. Tutelary ( talk) 18:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Can the statement "Acupuncture is one of the most common alternative medicine practices in Europe" be properly sourced to a monograph on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Policy in Canada (
Ramsay 2009, p.45), which says "The three most commonly used alternative therapies in Europe as of 2007 were homeopathy, acupuncture/[TCM], and herbal medicine"
?
That the source is RS isn't disputed, but there are other objections (my responses follow):
Discussion is at Talk:Acupuncture § Popularity in Europe but I think the above about covers it. Editors have declined to discuss further, hence this post. -- Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 18:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The source seems questionable to start. Is there some discussion on its reliability already? -- Ronz ( talk) 20:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If there are no other significant views then there are no significant views at all. If the best you can come up with is an aside, in a list, where the source is about another country on another continent, from a think tank then you are cherry picking and not representing a significant view. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
"If there are no other significant views then there are no significant views at all."-- the logic underwhelms. You can't cherry-pick without there being other cherries (sig views) to pick from. Editors are making the mistake of assuming that the claim being made is at all controversial (news flash -- some CAM's are more popular than others
For my own amusement I tracked down where this supposed information originally came from. Its a pretty good illustration of why we should use think tanks with care. [1] AlmostFrancis ( talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Our article on Nicolás Maduro currently states:
Some commentators note he has gradually consolidated enough power to become the country's de facto dictator.
In prior revisions, this was phrased more directly, e.g. the first line being
Nicolás Maduro Moros is the de facto dictator of Venezuela.
Both statements have been cited to a welter of variable-quality sources, including op-eds, Forbes.com contributors, some RS that only use the word "dictator" in the headline, and two RS that support the description (Vox, WaPo newsblog). There have been several disputes on the talk page regarding whether the word "dictator" is a neutral, appropriately-weighted description — more eyes would be helpful. — 0xf8e8 ( talk) 14:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC) (edited by 0xf8e8 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC))
There is currently a dispute, mainly focused on NPOV, between me and User:Snowsky Mountain. A few points of contention have been resolved, but the main issue remains. Specifically, what the above mentioned user wants a part of the lead to be is this:
Born in 647 to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Maysun bint Bahdal, Yazid grew up with his maternal tribe, the Banu Kalb. Some time before his death, Muawiya made Yazid his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of the Hasan-Muawiya treaty. The nomination was opposed by a few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husain ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar. [Paragraph Break] Upon Muawiya's death in 680 CE, Yazid assumed power. He demanded pledges of allegiance to him, including from those who had opposed his nomination. Husain, the grandson of Muhammad, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, as Yazid was considered an illegitimate ruler and corrupt. (It's important to note here that many sources specifically list Yazid's corruption when mentioning Husain's refual to give allegiance. --Snowsky Mountain) Husain went towards Kufa but was stopped at Karbala. Yazid's army killed Husain and many of his companions in the ensuing Battle of Karbala, after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners. This sparked widespread outrage against Umayyad rule. Later, in 683 CE, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and his supporters rose up against Yazid's rule in Medina. After first trying to bribe and then arrest ibn al-Zubayr, Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the city being plundered. Later in 683, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The weeks-long siege led to the Kaaba being damaged by fire and finally ended when news arrived of Yazid's death.
I consider this in violation of NPOV, as the user is arguing for what is a religious belief to be presented as fact. While I argue that religious views be presented as religious beliefs. To me the balanced version of the said para, is this:
In 676 (56 AH), Muawiya made him his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of Hasan–Muawiya treaty. A few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husayn ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar, refused to accept his nomination. Following his accession after Muawiya's death in 680, Yazid demanded allegiance from these three, but only ibn Umar recognized him, while the other two refused and escaped to sanctuary of Mecca. When Husayn was on his way to Kufa to lead a revolt against Yazid, he was killed with his small band of supporters by forces of Yazid in the Battle of Karbala. Killing of Husayn led to widespread resentment in Hejaz, where Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr centered his opposition to rule of Yazid, and was supported by many people in Mecca and Medina. After failed attempts to regain confidence of ibn al-Zubayr and people of Hejaz diplomatically, Yazid sent an army to end the rebellion. The army defeated Medinese in the Battle of al-Harrah in August 683 and the city was given to three days of pillage. Later on siege was laid to Mecca, which lasted for several weeks, during which the Kaaba was damaged by fire. The siege ended with death of Yazid in November 683 and the empire fell to civil war.
Detailed arguments can be found at the talk page. A look at the body of the article, of which the lead is supposed to be concise summary, might help in assessing whether I am being biased or the said user. Thanks AhmadLX ( talk) 22:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
AfriForum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs work - it's obvious that the lead is inadequate, using 8 sources to establish that AfriForum is an organisation and being partially mission statement and certainly not a summary of the article. However the issue that I'm bringing here is text that an IP insists must be in the article because "Wikipedia is not the place for slander and defamation." [34] User:Grayfell reverted an earlier addition, and I reverted twice. The IP, user:197.245.16.108 complained about the removal on the talk page but never responded to my comments on the text before reinserting it.
Here's the text I reverted and the comments I made:
"AfriForum has laid multiple successful complaints with the South African Press Ombudsman against News24, Mail & Guardian and The Huffington Post SA, several prominent local media houses. The Ombudsman found all of the aforementioned outlets to be in serious breach of the South African Press Code and each organisation was ordered to publish a public apology to AfriForum. The complaints related to "misrepresentation, distortion and suppression of the facts" relating to statement's AfriForum has made and the failure to "take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly" by stating that AfriForum supports the white genocide conspiracy theory, despite AfriForum having consistently stated that the organisation does not believe white genocide is occurring in South Africa. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]"
My comments:
The first finding in the sources states: "News24 was in breach of Section 7.2.4 of the Press Code for stating that AfriForum did not offer a single solution, while Roets did so – albeit in response to a question. This section says: “[Comment or criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it] has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true”. The rest of the complaint is dismissed." I suggest editors read the entire report.
I don't think SA Promo is a reliable source here. I'm not sure that the media apologies are reported adequately. "Multiple successful complaints" is incorrect so far as I can see. The complaint about New24 was only upheld on one issue, the statement "that it did not offer a single solution to the issue of land restitution".
The other complaints were:
“Roets’ submission – which he tweeted and which is available on AfriForum’s website – does not explain why he believes that white people never ‘stole land’ (besides just claiming that they never did) nor does it offer any clear or sophisticated argument about Section 25”; and “At one stage Roets sat grinning while black MPs spoke of their families’ experiences under apartheid, wars of dispossession and how his attitude merely served to harden some attitudes.” The organisation adds that: News24 manipulated an edited version of a video in which he had presented AfriForum’s submissions to the Constitutional Review Committee in such a manner so as to portray it as the truth to corroborate the false and untrue accusations; and the reportage has caused it serious reputational damage."
These were rejected. The Finding on the video complaint starts with "This part of the complaint has no legs to stand on. Part of the finding about the complaint about reputational damage was " I am not going to blame News24 for causing “serious reputational damage”, as Roets himself – by not finding time to address solutions in his formal presentation – contributed to this “reputational damage”." Again, editors should read these in full as I can only copy part of them here.
Looking at edits just a few minutes ago by another IP, it looks as though AfriForum:Racist also has problems. It's written from AfriForum's pov, the description of its CEO Rhoda Kadalie as a civil rights activist is to say the least controversial, the description of the lawyer Mark Oppenheimer seems to come from AfriForum, etc. (the source for the paragraph doesn't back the paragraph but that may be because too many editor are quite happy to add material not in the source to sourced text). Doug Weller talk 16:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
References
RfC is here in case anyone is interested in contributing. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The following is allowed,
She has drawn criticism from Senator Marco Rubio and Donald Trump Jr. for tweeting 'Our future is female, intersectional, Powered by our belief in one another, And we’re just getting started'.[17]
But the following got removed again and again,
Son of incumbent president Donald Trump Jr. retweeted, "...if you think running as a parent is edgy delete your account and your campaign". In response, Gillibrand encouraged people to make monetary donations to the campaign.[18][19][20] She avoided a war of words.
It is not fair, please help. Important "Twitter Exchange" should not be censored from Wikipedia. It meets the notability requirement. I have already tried RfC, thanks. I have been warned for edit-warring. Tony85poon ( talk) 06:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
it looks like an admin also deleted a giant list of see also links you added. they dont seem to be especially important to the content of the article. perhaps if you tied them all together in some way or wrote something about why you think those references are important then they would be acceptable.
I would suggest you shorten the description of the twitter exchange to fit with what is already on the page. something like, 'She is running on a platform of...she has drawn criticism from X jr and commentator Y.' but your references seem weak. secondnexus.com dennismichaellynch.com and causeaction.com arnt really note worthy sources. dennis michael lynch perhaps. but still it seems more like it was a clever move, using the exposure trump jr. provided to expand the exposure of the campaign. I would suggest focusing on just the key points of her campaign. remember every link posted on wikipedia is a vote for the value of that article as articles posted on wikipedia are far more likely to be cited elsewhere. Verify references ( talk) 07:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
i have just double checked that DML link and it is just a recitation of an article on the Daily Caller. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources The Daily Caller is on the do not link list. "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes "false or fabricated information". Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be properly attributed." Verify references ( talk) 07:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I will fix the Donald Trump campaign article and Trump junior articles now, coz I used the same citations. Tony85poon ( talk) 08:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Tony85poon post your proposed edits on the talk page of that article and wait for feedback. Don't just throw it straight up on the page. if you post the same content that has already been rejected on a different page, you will likely get a vandalism and edit warring warning because it doesn't matter that its the first edit on that page, it will be used to argue a history of abuse.
Move to close Verify references ( talk) 08:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
French ban on face covering is overly supportive of the ban by discussing the point of view of the dominant culture in France in many parts of the article without counterpoints. Many of the statements need to be further verified. I draw particular attention to the paragraphs dealing with violent reactions from the community. Although it does constitute rioting, there's a de-emphasis on the facts of the cases. notably, tearing a womans clothes off is likely to elicit some response from the community that shouldn't be regarded as a dramatic uprising of mujahideen who were hiding behind every bush. Verify references ( talk) 02:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
there were no objections so i have corrected the article.
Verify references ( talk) 16:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Users and Editors,
I wanted to draw your attention to my earlier post containing a correction request for one of the sections of the Hotpoint Wikipedia Page. My full post with the details of the proposed update and its rationale was initially uploaded onto the Talk section of the Hotpoint page and can be found here.
To give you more background on the initial request - the current text within the section titled “Grenfell Tower Fire” contains some inaccurate and outdated information. I would like to ask you to consider my proposal on why the section should be amended. In my earlier post, I provided sources and rationale for all of my suggestions.
Please consider my submission as soon as possible.
Please also note that I am an employee of Whirlpool Corporation and intend to help ensure the Wikipedia community has access to up-to-date and correct information regarding Whirlpool Corporation.
I do not intend to edit any sections myself, but rather want to point out some inaccuracies so that they can be reviewed and amended as appropriate by the Wikipedia community. I hope you find this helpful. For more information, please refer to my user page.
Kind regards, Ian_Peterborough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Peterborough ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This BLP has a number of issues, the most glaring being the clear bias in the language of the lede. A handful of editors who do little to hide their personal disliking of the article's subject have insisted on using loaded words such as "conjecture" to describe his ideas, and have repeatedly tried to quiet discussion on the matter of neutrality by removing the NPOV dispute notice from the article. They have also reverted edits that attempt to add more biographical information to the lede, summarizing the course of the subject's career as a mainstream scientist and as an author and parapsychology researched outside of the scientific mainstream. Even an edit which changed to phrasing of "New Age movement" to "New Age circles" was reverted, despite the fact that the New Age article itself states very clearly that there is no scholarly consensus that there is any such movement at all, rather than simply a cultural milieu. Likewise, an edit which quotes the source stating Sheldrake's lack of alignment with some New Age interpretations of his ideas was reverted, leaving the impression that Sheldrake is in lockstep with New Age thinking as if it were a political movement.
I am not debating that Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance is considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience, nor have others I've seen object to the wording of the lede. It should be characterized as such, and is already well-sourced. What I am objecting to is the lede's singular focus on morphic resonance, and its repetitive, editorialized treatment of the subject. The article is about the individual, not simply morphic resonance. As such, it is reasonable to summarize his life in more detail. Likewise, it is perfectly legitimate to clearly state the rejection of morphic resonance by the scientific community and the reasons for it without using contentious language to do so. Certainly, discussion of the neutrality of the article should be allowed to carry on until their is consensus. HappyWanderer15 ( talk) 02:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,. He worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in India until 1978. During his time at Cambridge, Sheldrake and Philip Rubery developed the chemiosmotic hypothesis of polar auxin transport. [1]
In his 1981 book A New Science of Life, Sheldrake proposed the idea of morphic resonance, which posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems... inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". He proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, telepathy and the psychic staring effect as well as idiosyncratic explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.
Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience. [2]. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.
While morphic resonance lacks scientific acceptance, it has found support in New Age circles from individuals such as Deepak Chopra. [3] Sheldrake's ideas regarding the philosophy of science, especially his critique of scientism, have been praised by Mary Midgely. [4]
HappyWanderer15 ( talk) 07:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
References
It appears there are SOAP and POV problems with giving his books so very much weight. The article should be about the person. A section on his ideas, drawing strongly on what he expresses in his books, would be an appropriate substitute. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Rent regulation#RfC about describing extent of disagreement There is an RFC discussing how to describe economists' opinions on the effectiveness of rent control policies. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 04:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Former Greenpeace president and current industry lobbyist Patrick Moore's Wikipedia article is titled "Patrick Moore (environmentalist)". Looking at the talk page there, this page could use more eyes, particularly given recent coverage from entities like Fox News (title: "Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit’"), and because Moore or someone connected to him has been active on the article, no doubt influencing the article's current title. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The FoxNews ref looks extremely poor and probably should not be used at all.
The title appears a POV and NOT violation. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The Honda Ridgeline article is extremely detailed, and much of that detail is cited to self-published sources such as press releases ( hondanews.com), brochures and owners manuals. For example, the equipment list includes such run-of-the-mill items such as power door locks, airbags, cupholders and sun visors, and attempts to trim the list are always reverted. Editors have repeatedly brought up these issues on the talk page and some of the more egregious sources such as owner forums have been removed, however the primary author of the article continues to add excessively-detailed descriptions sourced to the manufacturer. The article could use some more eyes to ensure that we are presenting a well-balanced, independent view of the topic. – dlthewave ☎ 23:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute at Talk:Morrison Academy#"Creation science" about two issues of neutrality and/or undue weight. There are few secondary sources reporting on the Academy; the only ones I found (and the only ones cited in the article) are bland directory entries and some sports journalism. The questions thus are how much use of primary sources should be made regarding various topics.
The discussion on the talk page is long, and it seems unlikely that the editors involved can reach a consensus there. I'm bringing it here for wider community input. Huon ( talk) 22:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
"How much and what use should be made of primary sources regarding the school's curriculum?" While Wikipedia does use primary sources, they can't really be used for in-depth coverage. The relevant policy is in Wikipedia:No original research.:
This is more a question seeking guidance after an anonymous user made an to the La Luz del Mundo church article. The now deceased church leader was publicly accused of sexual abuse in Mexican media, where the church is based. The accusations were made after the statute of limitations had passed, so obviously they were never proven. How do you abide by the innocent until proven guilty principle without undermining possibly credible sexual abuse victims? BadHombres ( talk) 07:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Please lend a hand verifying contribs from
The sample about green politics is this diff here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I've been working with Move to suggest improvements and updates to the Move (company) and Realtor.com articles. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on both talk pages, and any requests I've made have been reviewed by uninvolved editors.
Recently, an anonymous editor added a "Social Media Concerns" section to the article. I've posted a request on the article's talk page outlining how this specific detail is being given a lot of weight, compared to the reporting. Sourcing actually focuses on how Facebook collects data from third-party apps, and discusses multiple other apps. I've proposed removing the addition, or at least eliminating the section heading and incorporating text into the article's "History" section. User:SMcCandlish, who has helped with some previous edit requests for the article, suggested I post here to get additional feedback regarding WP:UNDUE.
Can any editors here help determine whether the added content should be kept, removed, or move into the article's "History" section by reviewing sourcing and contributing to the talk page discussion? I don't edit articles directly because of my conflict of interest and I am asking other editors to update the article on my behalf and on behalf of Realtor.com. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason ( talk) 17:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
User is openly gender essentialist on their user page. User added NPOV tag to Detransition article, and in its talk page immediately (offensively) denied existence of detrans community, made false and exaggerated claims against the article's content and sources (nowhere has Tumblr ever been cited), and made false claims against other editors. This appears to be a case of inappropriately and incorrectly seeing the detrans community as a threat to trans politics (anti-detrans bias, or detransphobia). It's requested that the user stop attacking other editors, to take a NPOV regarding this article's content, or to stop disrupting the editing process on this article, please. Thank you. A145GI15I95 ( talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
On talk page here, user likens detransition to conversion therapy, and claims it "undermines a foundational LGBTIQ narrative". When asked for clarification in subsequent diff, user offers no denial of bias or ill intention. We're not here to pit trans against detrans (or anyone against anyone). Detrans folk exist and have social, legal, and medical needs regardless of (separate from) others' rights. This is outrageously offensive and detransphobic. A145GI15I95 ( talk) 01:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Forbes recently published an article about the possibility of an attack to the power grid for political purposes. I have tried to add this reference and sourced statement to the article, and I have been reverted twice. [35] [36] I don't want to get involved in an edit war. I have been reverted by the same user ( User:Jamez42) in other Venezuelan articles, and his/her behaviour is deleting my sourced content. emijrp ( talk) 08:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Lynching of Shedrick Thompson, which I wrote, has been tagged by @ Qwirkle: as non-neutral and of questionable accuracy. I believe both tags are unjustified and want them removed. I first brought this up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson and was referred to this Noticeboard as more appropriate. I have notified Qwirkle of the discussion here.
The issue is that the 1932 coroner's report and grand jury stated this was a suicide, not a lynching. Qwirkle maintains that to call this a lynching is not neutral and of questionable accuracy, since "the jury is still out". There is discussion at Talk:lynching of Shedrick Thompson and at the noticeboard just cited. i My position, as stated above, is that:
Given the above, I do not understand, nor has Qwirkle explained, why "the jury is still out" or why the article deserves these tags he has placed on it. If he will not accept the National Lynching Museum, a book, and a documentary as settling the question, I cannot understand his position, or what documentation he would conceivably accept as authoritative.
As said above, I would like those tags removed. Thank you. deisenbe ( talk) 10:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
"by former Virginia Governor and U.S. presidential candidate Henry Byrd" Henry Byrd was a blues singer from Louisiana. You have apparently confused him with Harry F. Byrd, the segragationist Senator from Virginia. His first name actually was "Harry". Dimadick ( talk) 14:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
If there are no modern sources disputing that it was a lynching (i.e. the only people. saying it wasn't are racist white Virginians from 90 years ago) I see no reason to question the modern historical interpretation. We are not required to give equal validity to the conclusions of a Jim Crow-era all-white jury and modern historical scholarship. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 14:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Many others suffered similar fates, but their deaths went unreported at the time, their names unmentioned in official tallies. Thompson is sometimes included in this group–a hairline case, as the NAACP said. But he does not belong there.? Qwirkle ( talk) 02:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
While we are at it, here is the
principal source’s take on his own book With this new freedom, I went back to my computer and recast the story. I tried to make it complete, but now I also wanted it to be definitive. I became a prosecutor, dispelling reasonable doubt and building the case for murder.
Qwirkle (
talk) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I’m not going to edit the article while this discussion is going on, but someone today removed a lot of the documentation. On another point, the book was published by the History Press, not Arcadia, and it is not a picture book. You can preview it here:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/last-lynching-in-northern-virginia-seeking-truth-at-rattlesnake-mountain/oclc/967392546/viewport
deisenbe (
talk) 17:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I read the article and I feel that Shedrick Thompson could have committed suicide and he could have been lynched. I see no reason to think one way or the other beyond the consideration that back then in those places men like him got lynched for a lot less. In reading the article, I felt both sides were represented appropriately so the the reader would make their own decision. The only thing I would change is the name. It should be The death of Shedrick Thompson, because Wikipedia does not know what happen. I would also reduce the number of external videos and put them in external links, making sure not to link to any copyright violations. I see someone has already removed the offending section. Saying some authority "knows" it was a lynching is a argument from authority that should not be applied here. If there is no physical evidence from the actual incident or a witness to the actual incident that makes it clear one way or the other, then anything anyone says about it is just an assumption. Maybe a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with Richard-of-Earth on this, as there's going to be no way to determine who was right, even though I personally would be sympathatic to the only rational cause being lynching. Calling the article "Death of Shedrick Thompson" would remain neutral to the point without taking either side, even if we think one side is incorrect. Even recent articles covering the book's release in 2017 still use "iffy" language to what happened. -- Masem ( t) 17:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
While I'm holding off on making edits until this discussion is concluded, others are not, so comments above may not be on exactly the same content. There were 11 edits on May 12, for example, 6 of them by Qwirkle. deisenbe ( talk) 11:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the real kicker is this comment by Qwirkle--"The museum has a rather obvious axe to grind". They're talking about the Equal Justice Initiative, which operates The National Memorial for Peace and Justice. They have an axe to grind? I don't even want to spell out the rather sick set of assumptions that I suspect underlie that comment; it smacks of Holocaust industry. I have not yet read any criticism of the EJI's investigations or of their methods; perhaps Qwirkle can point us to some peer-reviewed studies that indicate the EJI hasn't done their homework, or that they got it wrong in this case. Masem, we can't really even say in Wikipedia's voice that the sky is blue, but the only evidence that I see that points to it NOT being a lynching is a set of doubtful statements by some deeply implicated state and local officials. I don't know how much you know about lynchings in America, but that's a usual pattern ( Devil in the Grove makes for good reading). And then we have Qwirkle, who casts doubt on the author, on the publisher, on the EJI. So, no, I think the tag is unjustified and disruptive. And to top it all off, there was this, pretty much the essence of whitewashing. Drmies ( talk) 22:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
emphasis this was a race-driven thing by identifying the races of those involvedin the manner Masem did. That’s nothing to do with the facts, but with a ham-handed presentation of them. Do you really think that was good writing? Qwirkle ( talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson#Disruptive editing by Qwirkle deisenbe ( talk) 15:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was recently fully protected because of POV pushing an edit warring. The fight continues in the form of edit requests on the talk page. I am completely ignorant about anything having to do with the military of Pakistan and India other than hoping that they don't nuke each other, so I would really appreciate it if someone else would look at the page and evaluate the edit requests. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Is the SYZYGY study measuring the narcissism of millennials significant enough to belong in the Millennials article? The study was described in a story in The Des Moines Register by intern Molly Longman. SYZYGY uses the uncommon millennial date rage of 1981 to 1998 to define this cohort.
The reliability of the SYZYGY source was discussed here on the millennials talk page, and on the RS Noticeboard here.
I propose removing the following text from WP Millennials:
SYZYGY, a digital service agency partially owned by WPP, uses 1981–1998.
A 2016 study by SYZYGY, a digital service agency, found millennials in the U.S. continue to exhibit elevated scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory as they age, finding millennials exhibited 16% more narcissism than older adults, with males scoring higher on average than females. The study examined two types of narcissism: grandiose narcissism, described as "the narcissism of extraverts, characterized by attention-seeking behavior, power and dominance", and vulnerable narcissism, described as "the narcissism of introverts, characterized by an acute sense of self-entitlement and defensiveness."
I propose using the story "Millennials are narcissistic? The evidence is not so simple" from the BBC to replace this information. This story also discusses the “Narcissistic Personality Inventory” which was used by SYZYGY, but instead it quotes Psychologist Jean Twenge, author of the book Generation Me, who is the "most vocal proponent of the view that young people today are more narcissistic and self-centred than in previous generations". Kolya Butternut ( talk) 00:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I propose using neither Syzygy nor the BBC. The Syzygy study was not published in an actual scientific journal, and media coverage doesn't confer reliability in the field of psychology. In fact, the Syzygy study is incapable of actually proving the headline conclusion, as there is no way for them to disentangle generational effects from age effects. The right way to make this argument can be seen here. As well, care needs to be taken answering the question, "more narcissistic than whom?" That paper mentions an alternative model that, rather than narcissism increasing over time, narcissism peaked with the boomers, crashed, and is now returning to an intermediate value. As that paper mentions, it's not trivial to do a fair comparison past a certain point in time, which may prohibit a firm conclusion on that (the NPI was only published in 1979, after all). Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
While reasonably sourced, the article on Abiy Ahmed has clear neutrality issues, particularly in the critics section. However, I do not have enough familiarity with the subject to fix it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugpug ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I suspect that people close to Ali Bin Fetais Al-Marri, Attorney General of Qatar and United Nations “Special Advocate for the Prevention of Corruption", have tried to remove critical but true information from his Wikipedia page.
I have talked about it in detail here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Ali_Bin_Fetais_Al-Marri#Censorship_and_hidden_conflicts_of_interests
Critical elements come from mainstream media, especially in France and Switzerland, and clearly appear to be in the public interest.
Please have a look.
Thank you,
Freewheel56 ( talk) 12:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like additional editors to review Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Renamed Critics section to Criticism and the RFC and discussions therein, please. The article only relates the point of view of the advocates, and attempts to balance those views with contradictory reliable sources are being called original research because the sources do not refer to the theory. Most of our articles on conspiracy theories have counter-point which does not explicitly refer to the conspiracy theories. EllenCT ( talk) 19:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Following a request at RFPP, I semi-protected this page to stem an edit-war. But can editors familiar with the wikipedia policies or MOS recommendations regarding pro-choice/pro-abortion terminology weigh in the the substance of the dispute? Abecedare ( talk) 05:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
the Venezuela article describes reclaimed food waste as garbage. I believe this to be POV pushing. The international political situation in Venezuela is currently volatile and so the article is locked so i cannot mark the relevant section with a POV tag. I believe the labelling of reclaimed food waste as garbage to be politically motivated in order to further inflame the situation.
Australia is one of the most highly ranked countries in the world for standard of living on the OECD rankings [1] yet Woolworths has donated an average of a million kilograms of 'food waste' a year for distribution by charities. [2] a report from the Australian Government stated, "Food rescue organisations contribute to reducing wasted food that is suitable for human consumption. In rescuing food that would otherwise be thrown away, these organisations provide those in need with a meal, partly addressing food insecurity. A range of people access food relief in Australia. The number of people receiving food relief is high. One food relief organisation reports that each month 652,000 Australians receive food relief, with over 27 per cent of these being children." [3] It can thus be concluded that food deemed suitable for human consumption remains food and not garbage. the USDA further explained the reasoning behind the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and encourages the distribution and consumption of "food waste","Donations of non-perishable and unspoiled perishable food from homes and businesses help stock the shelves at food banks, soup kitchens, pantries, and shelters. Donations of perishable prepared foods, typically collected from restaurants, caterers, corporate dining rooms, hotels, and other food establishments, also play an important role in feeding families in need..." [4] yet nobody is claiming that there is a humanitarian crisis requiring immediate military intervention in the U.S.A. or Australia because their citizens are forced to eat garbage.
Thusly, I argue that editors should refrain from using inflammatory language such as describing reclaimed food suitable for human consumption as garbage as it violates wiki policy by distorting the information at hand and POV pushing. 49.198.21.145 ( talk) 23:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
from the Venezuela article, "...resorting to eating wild fruit or garbage..." I believe they are using it in the noun form.
the exact wording used in the poll is, "mediante residuos de comida que desechados por establecimiento commerciales". [5] chile uses the same terminology in spanish to refer to food waste fit for human consumption. they are drafting laws to forbid companies from throwing away food waste fit for human consumption. [6] I can get you a stock picture of my hands in a trash bag for you to look at with the australian reports if that makes them easier to compare. 49.198.21.145 ( talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This section of the article states the fact that Cory Booker is being criticised for the "meat issue". When I recently tried to state Cory Booker's response (for the sake of neutrality), it got reverted. I don't want this section of the article to be biased, please help. By the way, some editor added a "non-primary source needed" tag at the end of the quote. Thanks for attention Ribenderen ( talk) 20:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Booker says that planet Earth cannot sustain First World meat-eating habits as prosperity spreads worldwide, and has drawn criticism. He responds to the criticism,
We are a part of this take-down culture where people are trying to twist your words. I think that whatever you eat is a very personal decision and everybody should eat what they want to eat. That is America. That is what we believe in freedom. Here is - live free or die. The last thing we want is - government telling us what to eat. The reality is, I do have a problem. Like, farmers have a problem. Like, cattle ranches have a problem with these massive corporate companies. Many of them Chinese-owned like the Smithfield company. They are coming in here polluting our water and creating unsustainable practices. You can raise cows and pigs like we used to in our heritage in our country without doing the things these big corporate conglomerate farms are doing. So, I have no problem with what Americans eat and the decisions we make. But, whether it is farming, whether it is drilling for natural resources, all these should be done in a way that affirms our environment that sustainable. non-primary source needed
Two or more Denver IPs are making similar non-neutral edits here [39] and removing neutrality tags [40]. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Just pointing out that the tag removal is still ongoing [41] (a new Denver IP) ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Somebody accused me of promoting Stormfront by adding material from reliable sources that are critical of Jexodus. Also, all material, also all from reliable sources, connecting Trump to Jexodus, and his past history praising anti-Semitic groups has been removed for some reason. I sense some pro-trump POV pushing going on here. How is The NY Times and Haaretz not reliable sources? 97.118.143.21 ( talk) 04:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the user wallyfromdilbert has systematically scrubbed the pages of Debora Juarez and other Seattle City Councilmembers of any criticism. Many members of the Seattle City Council are extremely controversial, and criticism has been detailed in highly reputable outlets such as the Seattle Times and local TV/radio news outlets. Yet, anytime a user adds a criticism, wallyfromdilbert hits "undo" within hours or minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.192.63 ( talk) 03:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
New editor User:Rolling Phantom claims that if we don't change the article to fit his viewpoint, then that proves the feminazis are sabotaging the article. His best "source" is a thread from Quora. I've reverted twice, and templated him for NPOV violation. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I have only this to say about my "wiewpoint" : https://www.google.com/search?q=feminazi+vs+feminist&oq=feminazi+vs&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.7635j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Rolling Phantom ( talk) 00:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, are the search results fake then? Rolling Phantom ( talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Limbaugh has stated that the term feminazi refers to "radical feminists" whose goal is "to see that there are as many abortions as possible" and a small group of "militants" whom he distinguishes from "well-intentioned but misguided people who call themselves 'feminists'". However, the term came to be used more widely for the feminist movement as a whole;Per WP:LEAD, I propose the compromise solution
Feminazi is a pejorative term for either feminists perceived to be extreme or all feminists as a wholebased on body text. Leugen9001 ( talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Feminazi is a pejorative term for either all feminists as a whole or feminists perceived to be extremecould also be used. Leugen9001 ( talk) 18:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Limbaugh has used it in reference to the Feminist Majority Foundation and the activists Gloria Steinem and Susan Sarandon, and he is quoted as saying, "It's the way I look at the feminist movement". [43] [44] So, clearly not just "radical" feminists then. The phrasing
perceived to be extremeraises the obvious question, perceived by whom? It looks like a false balance, especially when independent sources describe the term as a pejorative for feminists, full stop. [45] [46] — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 15:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC))
Feminazi is a rightfully pejorative term for extreme feminist. Other extremists may use it as a pejorative for any feminist. There are thousands of sources on this on the net. If the net isnt a reliable source, then neither is this article. There IS a difference between a feminazi and a feminist, from the wiew of normal people. Change it. Rolling Phantom ( talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The use of "radical feminist" seems misleading. It seems less a reference to radical feminism than it is to what critics perceive to be, well, in Rolling Phantom's words, "overly" radical. That's not a specific type of feminist, that's a subjective evaluation relative to what makes the speaker feel threatened/uncomfortable. I don't know if there's a good way to word that in the lead, though, without getting into "feminists in general or whatever random aspect of feminism the speaker doesn't like or subjectively considers 'too extreme'." It's uncontroversial, however, that google searches and quora are completely unacceptable as sources. I.e. keep current wording until something better is proposed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I tried to inform and discuss with contribs of the article ( /info/en/?search=Gab_Dissenter) of my concerns about the possible existence of NPOV issues in the article after seeing clear political bias and a lack of neutrality. (see link below) /info/en/?search=Talk:Gab_Dissenter#this_wiki_article_appears_to_contain_NPOV_issues
I did this in accordance with the regulations set forth in many of the NPOV pages that the contributors should first be informed and invited to discussion on a possible NPOV before proceding.
Jorm (
/info/en/?search=User:Jorm) proceded to immediately delete the talk entry. As dictated by wikipedia NPOV regulations I have sent Jorm a notice (
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Jorm#Notice_of_intent_to_open_NPOV) that the NPOV issue is now a dispute that I will escalate to the NPOV noticeboard as per wikipedia regulations since he is now in the following category (see link below)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors
please see all associated screenshot links below: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000960185040956/Capture.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000971996069928/Capture1.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000976660135966/Capture3.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000971828428801/Capture2.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562030632155480126/Capture6.JPG
The screenshots will ensure that further attempts to hide events will not be successful. In case Jorm has the authority to delete this entry too, I'll take a screenshot of this entry as well after publishing
KykMooi ( talk) 19:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chief_Whip&type=revision&diff=890466069&oldid=890434350
until 1st April 2019 when [[Julian Smith (politician)]] chose to attack his own government and Prime Minister. Smith went on to use so-called ‘remain [[propaganda]]' in an attempt to overturn U.K. [[Parliamentary Democracy]] when he suggested the [[2017 United Kingdom general election|2017 UK general election]] result meant parliament could overturn the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|2016 European Union Referendum]] result.<ref>{{cite web|last=Cappuro|first=Daniel|title=''Julian Smith: The beleaguered Chief Whip with a long record of mistakes''|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/01/julian-smith-beleaguered-chief-whip-long-record-mistakes/|date=1 April 2019|publisher=The Telegraph|accessdate=1 April 2019}}</ref>
-- Trublu ( talk) 16:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A request for comment is underway at Talk:List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Talk:List_of_works_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci#RfC_-_Horse_and_Rider. The RfC addresses the following question:
All are invited to participate. SamHolt6 ( talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking for some outside input on some discussions on The Great Replacement. The first discussion concerns whether the article should be titled Great Replacement or Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory. The second (closely related) concerns whether or not to call The Great Replacement a conspiracy theory in the article itself or whether to distinguish between "conspiracy" and "non-conspiracy" variants.
Nblund talk 17:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't normally edit country articles, but I noticed that the treatment of criticism in the lead is rather inconsistent. At a glance, it seems to reflect page-specific consensus (or lack thereof) rather than any systematic POV. This is fine in principle, except for the following concerns:
1) The phrase "any prominent controversies" in WP:LEAD gives little concrete guidance about how to measure prominence for subject like a country. Does criticism by human rights organizations create a "prominent controversy" in itself? Should prominence be measured by how often the criticism comes up in the news coverage of the country? international or only English-language press? all RSs on the contemporary politics of the country? Is frequently mentioned corruption an admissible type of "prominent controversy"? How about criticism of foreign policy, economic policy, stance on climate change, etc?
2) Country articles are a prominent feature of WP and there's a fairly standard set of issues that "countries" tend to be criticized for, so there is potential of coming up with some WP-wide points of consensus.
I wanted to start a discussion here to see if there's a potential RfC or two that could go somewhere. Here are a few examples I gathered. If I missed any criticism in the lead, please let me know and I'll update.
Eperoton ( talk) 00:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a stale RfC at Talk:Rent regulation as to whether the article should state that there is a consensus in the economics field about the effects of rent control, and if so, what the nature of that consensus is. I'm not necessarily interested in closing the RfC right now, but I am particularly interested in understanding the issue in question from a WP:NPOV perspective. Would the article be maintaining a neutral point of view if, for instance, it states that there is a "broad consensus among economists" that rent control reduces the quantity and quality of available rental housing? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 16:54, 10 April 2019 (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 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
Can I have a little help from you guys reviewing an article that I created and has subsequently become a hotbed of conflict? For a little bit of history, the article is Media Bias/Fact Check. The original version as finished and published (before other editors showed up and started removing material) can be found here. Following a protracted period of instability, the last version that I would support as being neutral in POV would be this. The article subsequently had much of its sourced content removed to the point that the article is now almost entirely negative in its coverage of the topic. A couple of editors are quite fond of an article written by the Columbia Journalism Review ( [1]), which discussed MBFC briefly in a paragraph or two in a wider discussion on measuring media bias. This particular author was generally critical of measuring media bias, and also wasn't impressed by MBFC, describing it as "an amateur attempt". I was not aware of the CJR article when I wrote the original version of the article. As I said, the two editors in question are fond of this source's general reliability, considering its viewpoint to be so significant that the article has now been essentially paired down to only contain negative coverage of the website in line with CJR's assessment of the website. In the last 24 hours a large amount of what I would consider fairly well-sourced content has been removed with various explanations that can be seen on the history page (I won't comment further, please draw your own conclusions).
This article wasn't really ever visible in the New Pages Feed, as I have the autopatrolled flag, but I would like some input on it at this stage. I'm asking for a bit of help reviewing the article (both the original version I created, the most recent version I supported, and the current version as it stands now).
I've basically given up on the article, and even removed it from my list of created works, as it has little to nothing that I wrote left in it; but I'd like some feedback and a few other opinions on the situation and how it went down so that I can learn from it moving forward and possibly learn where I went wrong here. Thanks all, — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 01:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
"Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation... Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in."Similarly the Poynter Institute says
"Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article on acupuncture does not have a neutral point of view and is very biased against acupuncture. A few people have reported to me that they have tried to edit it and their edits have just disappeared or they have been dismissed. As Wikipedia's policy is to have a neutral point of view, surely this article should be itself more neutral, just stating facts rather than pressing the point that the writer believes acupuncture doesn't work. Yes there are some studies that suggest it doesn't work in those cases but there are plenty of studies that say it does, and there are more positive ones now.
The same with the Homeopathy page. This page is also very biased against Homeopathy and indeed claims false "facts".
Please could you assure us that if these pages are fairly edited, they will not be changed back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaderon ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
BTW I trained in scientific argument and I could tear holes in ANY experiment or study, as every single one can be disputed in some way.But then you say
Also the western medical model of human physiology is starting to PROVE the Chinese oneso are you saying that studies and research are only true if the agree with your beliefs? if not, what are you trying to say? Tornado chaser ( talk) 19:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, once said:
So yes, we are biased towards
science and biased against
pseudoscience.
We are biased towards
astronomy, and biased against
astrology.
We are biased towards
chemistry, and biased against
alchemy.
We are biased towards
mathematics, and biased against
numerology.
We are biased towards
medicine, and biased against
homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards
cargo planes, and biased against
cargo cults.
We are biased towards
crops, and biased against
crop circles.
We are biased towards
laundry soap, and biased against
laundry balls.
We are biased towards
water treatment, and biased against
magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards
electromagnetic fields, and biased against
microlepton fields.
We are biased towards
evolution, and biased against
creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in
double-blind
clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon
preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards
astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against
ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards
psychology, and biased against
phrenology.
We are biased towards
Mendelian inheritance, and biased against
Lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change.
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC relevant to this topic at -
the COI noticeboard
Morgan Leigh |
Talk 04:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The critics of Acupuncture miss the point, which is that an article should describe the practice and what it purports to do, then cover the opinions for and against, with refs. The same applies to Naturopathy or any other therapy; a neutral article will describe the subject and what it purports to do, then discuss the arguments for and against, with refs. That is neutrality. To say something is "pseudoscientific" or whatever is expressing an opinion, otherwise known as POV. Sardaka ( talk) 09:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This RfC [18] may be of interest. The question is about whether it is due weight to mention the newspaper's climate change coverage in the lede paragraph. Marquis de Faux ( talk) 19:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
May I ask for comment on the neutrality of proposed edits at Talk:Sugar#RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines?
Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=S%C3%A9rgio_Moro&action=history
The section being removed is terribly biased as it ignores all of Moro's highly popular and praised merits in leading the Operation Car Wash, even ignores his most famous case in which he convicted Lula, and instead focuses entirely on leftist rhetoric and on disqualifying him over criticism that comes exclusively from biased editorials. I've got my account blocked because of this so is there any experienced editor who can give a throughout check? The section they want to keep clearly violate NPOV and doesn't give its due weight. Besides, it's not even in the Portuguese Wikipedia.
This article is a blatant example of POV. It doesn't even pretend to be impartial. It adopts the attitude that naturopathy is bunk right from the start, with the statement that naturopathy is "pseudoscientific", without even a ref. Whether you believe in naturopathy or not is not the point; the point is that the article is biased.
The NPOV approach would be to describe the subject and what it purports to do, then provide arguments for and against, with refs. The article does not even attempt to do this. It is completely biased, and it is impossible to change it because the protectors of the article delete any attempt to make it more NPOV. I have tried lately, but even the slightest change is reverted almost immediately. Sardaka ( talk) 09:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The "experts" in question are doctors, who are notoriously conservative and prejudiced against anything off the beaten track. Modern medicine isn't dominated by science, it's dominated by the pharmaceutical industry, which has no interest in alternatives to drugs. The article will never change because it is controlled by a cabal of gatekeepers who make sure the article stays the way it is, and who can be extremely unpleasant towards anyone who tries to change anything. Most of them are probably doctors or have connections with the pharmaceutical industry. As it stands, the article doesn't read like an encyclopedia article; it's more like an article in a tabloid newspaper. However, the cabal who control it are only fooling themselves, because the average reader who uses Wiki is capable of recognizing bias when they see it. Sardaka ( talk) 07:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello by placing these notices I am not trying to "forum shop" I am trying to achieve consensus, and I am trying to avoid canvassing by asking medicine to get involved rather than just anthropology and sociology. I hope this doesn't break guidelines they kind of appear to be in conflict here for this I'm not quire sure.
I would like to add this to the digital dependencies and global mental health page, under a new section called psychiatry under psychology, and have RfCd it for linguistics and sociology due to the linguistics and sociological components of both the statements and the research. I have left open for discussion around WP:MEDRS under the social media addiction page, which is a proposed merger. WP:SYNTH needs discussion.
Psychiatry
Psychiatric experts have called for further studies to explore psychiatric correlates with digital media use in childhood and adolescence. "Over the past 10 years, the introduction of mobile and interactive technologies has occurred at such a rapid pace that researchers have had difficulty publishing evidence within relevant time frames."
[1]
An "important contribution" of "a large, well-designed longitudinal study
[2] taking into account multiple sociodemographic confounders" was published in 2018, relating to
Angry Birds and
Pokemon Go, a game and a social media application that "reached adoption by an estimated 50 million global users within 35 and 19 days, respectively, of their release."
[3]It was "a longitudinal cohort of 2587 15- and 16-year-olds who did not have self-reported symptoms of ADHD at baseline, self-reported higher-frequency digital media use was associated with self-reported ADHD symptoms over two years of follow-up. The frequent distraction and rapid feedback of digital media may disrupt normal development of sustained attention, impulse control, and ability to delay gratification. In addition, digital media may displace other activities that build attention span and executive function. It remains to be determined whether symptoms that develop in response to media use require or respond to typical ADHD treatments."
[4] The National Insitute of Health stated that "study represents a starting point, and there are some potential caveats to the findings," commenting that it only shows association, but not causality. "Nevertheless, the findings suggest that the recent rise in popularity of digital technologies could play a role in ADHD. The findings also serve as an important warning for teens, parents, teachers, and others as increasingly stimulating forms of digital media become ever more prevalent in our daily lives."
[5]
Thanks what do we think? 07:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 ( talk • contribs)
References
Editors interested in neutrality reporting in scientific topics may be interested in the fracas at the talk page for Global catastrophic risk. More the merrier! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
At the
NVIC article as well as FTN
[19] there has been extensive debate, going back a year, over whether to include the NVIC's motto/slogan and mission statment in the infobox. The mission statment parameter was removed from the infobox template, but an RfC was just closed with no consensus for the removal of the "motto" parameter
[20].
JzG has strenuously objected to the inclusion of the motto parameter, while I feel his arguments have mostly been POV.
Guy Macon has suggested that the motto be included only if independent sources can be found for it, while I was initially OK with this, we do have a primary source (NVIC) that establishes what NVIC's motto is, so it passes
WP:V, and I don't see how it can be undue to fill all infobox parameters. Me and JzG going back and forth will get us nowhere (well maybe ANI, but no one wants that) and Guy macon's attempts to diffuse our dispute are appreciated, but we need more editors to weigh in on this.
Tornado chaser (
talk) 03:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Exclude and consider a TBAN. Marketing slogans are bad enough when they are anodyne, this is an Orwellian slogan for an organisation whos purpose is in effect the promotion of preventable infectious diseases. Every mainstream source identifies NVIC as a propaganda outfit. Guy ( Help!) 07:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
"If you are receiving this transmission, You are the Resistance"as a similarly promotional statement. Is that a fair interpretation? — Newslinger talk 03:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
There are several open RFCs at Talk:Electric smoking system - it's very confusing what is actually being proposed, and I feel that some of the possible changes might violate NPOV. Readers of this noticeboard may be interested in participating in those RFCs. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a dispute on the Mitch McConnell article over whether we can include a sentence that qualifies McConnell's reputation as a master tactician. The bold sentence is under dispute, with some editors claiming it's not NPOV:
References
Additional sources that use this language:
Is the bold sentence a violation of WP:NPOV? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I'm having some trouble with the article about EROEI.
For anyone not familiar, the topic of EROEI is mired in pseudoscience. It has been used to predict the imminent collapse of civilization, over and over again, since the early 1970s. I take a lay interest in this fringe group.
Odd material is creeping into the wikipedia article about the topic. A fringe paper is being given its own entire section. That paper has conclusions which drastically contradict the conclusions of hundreds of other studies. The paper was roundly criticized and labelled "refuted" by leading researchers in the field. This paper is given its own section, when meta-analyses of dozens or hundreds of legitimate studies are reduced to a single line.
I have deleted the offending section, but it's just re-added by another editor with whom I appear to be in dispute.
The new disputed section includes totally unacceptable sources. For example, the two most recent sources are a one-page undergraduate paper for an introductory college course, and a political blog of some kind where community members can contribute. Both sources simply repeat the fringe material they have read, and so do not represent independent sources.
This appears to be devolving into an "undo war". I'd appreciate it if some other people could show up and weigh in.
The discussion about this issue can be found here.
Thanks, Thomas pow s ( talk) 22:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
In the big picture, Thomas, my impression is that there might be an ongoing debate in the sources about how to calculate the numbers. Our article might do well to focus on the opposing views without trying to find TRUTH in a discrete list of numbers. And you'll get a lot farther by finding secondary sources, especially ones that are not paywalled. For example, instead of reporting numbers from the Weißbach paper, do you understand their criticism of prior approaches? Write it up! And contrast the criticism of the rebuttals. Best if you can use non-paywalled secondary sources to do it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(outdenting) Hi NewsAndEventsGuy,
Perhaps I should summarize this issue, and better explain my position.
The paper includes EROI figures for solar PV which are totally discrepant with the non-fringe consensus.
These ideas cannot be presented as factual in wikipedia. Furthermore, they certainly cannot be given vastly more weight than non-fringe papers on the topic. This paper is a far outlier and is referred to as "refuted" by leading researchers. Furthermore, the calculation of the minimum net energy for civilization to exist is nonsensical.
I realize there is a debate about this topic. However, the mere existence of a debate indicates nothing whatsoever. There is a debate over whether the Earth is flat, and will continue to be a debate until nobody in the world advocates that position any more. The mere existence of a debate indicates nothing. The question is the WEIGHTING being given to various sides in this debate.
There are more than 250 studies on net energy of solar PV. They all reach broadly similar conclusions except these two far outliers which are championed by a bizarre fringe group. I am pointing out the NUMBER of studies here. Why should a single far outlier be given its own SECTION while 250 studies by reputable researchers are reduced to a single line? Why should a single study which is repeatedly referred to as "refuted" by the leading researchers in this field be given its own section, when 250 other papers are reduced to a single line?
It is not necessary for the editors of wikipeida to evaluate this issue or take sides in the "debate". I am raising the issue of UNDUE WEIGHT, not correctness. How much weight is appropriate for a single outlier paper repeatedly referred to as "refuted" by the leading researchers in the field, when 250+ papers have are represented by a single line above?
There are three papers recently which are meta-analyses, and which summarize the results from HUNDREDS of papers on this topic:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116306906
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211500146X
None of them reach conclusions similar to that paper.
Thomas pow s ( talk) 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Nicotine is a chemical. There's biomolecular research that is related to nicotine effects that's not done in clinical settings and not on humans. But an editor repeatedly deletes that research without regard for this fact, referencing first its primary source nature as reason, as if that research was a medical/health information, and then referencing the WP:MEDRS, whereas it has nothing to do with medical research. At one point, that editor WTF'd part of that research wording on the Talk page and deleted it rather suggest wording improvement. I even tried to improve and to clarify the research is non-health in a section heading, but that got deleted in the same manner.
That article is about a chemical, but there have been changes on the page skewing its focus toward a drug infopiece (for example, the Infodrug template does not contain Material Safety Data Sheet field), and now the editor is invoking medical research policy to block content on non-applicable grounds. That chemical is a substance that generates high revenues for businesses, so it is plausible this article needs to be involved in a neutral point of view discussion/maintenance to assure moneyed interests do not interfere with the WP:NPOV that the world comes to appreciate about Wikipedia.
I'm not sure how to notify the editor Seppi333 using NPOV-notice. User109012 ( Talk) 05:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Darouet keeps adding fringe conspiracy theories to the Kiki Camarena article, whenever i undo his edits he adds them back. Jaydoggmarco ( talk) 22:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The preponderance of evidence... persuades us beyond any reasonable doubt that Manuel Buendía was slain on behalf of the United States because of what he had learned about U.S.-Mexico collusion with narcotics traffickers, international arms dealers, and other governments in support of Reagan administration efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Camarena was... killed for the same reason.
In May 1984, the influential journalist and columnist Manuel Buendía was brutally shot in the back in the centre of Mexico City... In a painstaking investigative process, the authors along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked, and much of the book is about the Bartleys trying to put the different pieces together. The most important element is that the interests behind both killings go beyond criminal interests and reach into the political domains on both sides of the border. In the mid-1980s, Mexico's one party regime confronted serious challenges, while the Reagan administration was deeply involved in a Cold War battle against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Buendía and DEA agent Camarena had each separately discovered that the CIA was running a dark network, which involved Mexican and Central American drug traffickers that imported cocaine into the U.S. and facilitated the movement of arms to the contras. Nicaraguan contras were trained at a Mexican ranch owned by one of the country's most notorious capos. CIA pilots flew many of the planes. The DFS functioned as the go-between, and hence involved the Ministry of the Interior. The Mexican army provided the necessary protection, and got a bite of the pie. Since the overriding concern of the CIA was the anti-Sandinista project, it trumped the DEA's task of combating drug trafficking, and covertly incorporated (or pressured) parts of the Mexican state into subservience. Buendía had found out about the CIA-contra-drugsDFS connection, which seriously questioned Mexican sovereignty, while Camarena learned that the CIA had infiltrated the DEA and sabotaged its work so as to interfere with the clandestine contra-DFS-traffickers network. They knew too much and were eliminated on the orders of the U.S. with Mexican complicity. Later official investigations attempted to limit criminal responsibility to the dirty connections between drug traffickers, secret agents and corrupt police, leaving out the (geo)political ramifications.
An RfC has been open for some time at Albania-Greece relations. Input from this noticeboard's participants is welcomed to help achieve a consensus [31]. Khirurg ( talk) 07:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Is the following text a violation of WP:NPOV?:
An editor on the Jill Stein page keeps removing the second part of that NBC News quote (citing WP:NPOV), so that the text reads:
To me, it seems that removing the full NBC News quote is the NPOV violation. Additional input would be helpful. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole ( talk · contribs) has recently ramped up his disruptive editing of topics related to the Catholic Church and homosexuality. In particular, at Catholic Church and homosexuality and Political activity of the Knights of Columbus, among other articles, he's attempting to insert promotional material even in cases where consensus has explicitly rejected the specific wording he is proposing. At Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus, for instance, FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk · contribs) and Doniago ( talk · contribs) very explicitly rejected the euphemistic "support marriage as the union of one man and one woman" and "culture of life" in favor of the clearer "oppose same-sex marriage and abortion" (alongside myself and Contaldo80 ( talk · contribs) who were already editing the article. A month later, Slugger continues to attempt to add that exact wording and pretend that there was no voice against it. Here, among other NPOV violations related to promotional content and WP:WEIGHT, he insists on vaguely writing "In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically on issues of importance to LGBT people" in place of the more clear and source-supported "against LGBT rights," insisting that to say "rights" would violate NPOV and, nonsensically, that because LGBT people are also interested in other matters, "rights" is overly narrow. ( Here's the only other user in the discussion besides myself, Contaldo80 ( talk · contribs) specifically rejecting this proposal.)
I have no taste for an edit war but I don't know how to proceed when this user refuses to listen to anyone who disagrees with him even in cases where formal procedures like 3O have been followed. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Australian paradox about an article with multiple issues including NPOV, and I invite any and all interested parties to contribute there. Thank you. EdChem ( talk) 01:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
In a scholar biography page for Alastair Lamb, an editor has added the label of "pro-India" for one of the book reviewers (Parshotam Mehra). The editor has provided a quote from a book review of Mehra's own book (not Alastair Lamb's) that says:
the author [Mehra] has not only abdicated his responsibility as a scholar but also made himself vulnerable to the charge that he has indirectly tried to reinforce the official position of India under the garb of academic objectivity.
The "abdication of responsibility" apparently refers to the fact that Mehra did not relate the history covered in his own book (not Alastair Lamb's) to the present-day border dispute between China and India. Instead he left it to the reader "to form his own judgement". I can't see how any of this warrants a branding like "pro-India". The talk page discussion is here. Can somebody take a look and give us their view? Thanks. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
More eyes needed on Special:Contributions/Laylaor. He/she advocates an antiquated POV, which has been debunked by WP:RS/AC for many decades, see https://web.archive.org/web/20011110114548/http://lib1.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Heveeobjex continues to demonstrate questionable WP:SPA activity on the subject of Ron Nirenberg and articles related to him, especially 2017 San Antonio mayoral election and 2019 San Antonio mayoral election. He continues to replace a valid cited image of Nirenberg already uploaded and properly licensed to Commons with one he claims he took or another image he claims to have taken but has conflicting metadata. He has continued to display COI issues with other edits on these topics as well. His issues were discussed on the talk page of Ron Nirenberg about 6 months ago but he stopped editing at that time and has only recently resumed. His activity is questionable at best. Thank you. - SanAnMan ( talk) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This article reads like it has been written by PETA themselves, and tends to euphemise the criticism while over-emphasizing PETA's points of view. I am not that great at content creation, nor am I the best at rearranging things to fit where they should be within the policy of WP:NPOV. I would like some help in ensuring this article follows the due principles of WP:DUE, rearranging/editing titles, addition and removal of content that does not mean its proper due weight, among other things. Thanks. I believe perhaps a start would be to revert to/take content from this revision, given this version has a lot less NPOV issues, and seems more balanced. Here's a comparison between this revision and current. Tutelary ( talk) 18:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Can the statement "Acupuncture is one of the most common alternative medicine practices in Europe" be properly sourced to a monograph on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Policy in Canada (
Ramsay 2009, p.45), which says "The three most commonly used alternative therapies in Europe as of 2007 were homeopathy, acupuncture/[TCM], and herbal medicine"
?
That the source is RS isn't disputed, but there are other objections (my responses follow):
Discussion is at Talk:Acupuncture § Popularity in Europe but I think the above about covers it. Editors have declined to discuss further, hence this post. -- Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 18:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The source seems questionable to start. Is there some discussion on its reliability already? -- Ronz ( talk) 20:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If there are no other significant views then there are no significant views at all. If the best you can come up with is an aside, in a list, where the source is about another country on another continent, from a think tank then you are cherry picking and not representing a significant view. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
"If there are no other significant views then there are no significant views at all."-- the logic underwhelms. You can't cherry-pick without there being other cherries (sig views) to pick from. Editors are making the mistake of assuming that the claim being made is at all controversial (news flash -- some CAM's are more popular than others
For my own amusement I tracked down where this supposed information originally came from. Its a pretty good illustration of why we should use think tanks with care. [1] AlmostFrancis ( talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Our article on Nicolás Maduro currently states:
Some commentators note he has gradually consolidated enough power to become the country's de facto dictator.
In prior revisions, this was phrased more directly, e.g. the first line being
Nicolás Maduro Moros is the de facto dictator of Venezuela.
Both statements have been cited to a welter of variable-quality sources, including op-eds, Forbes.com contributors, some RS that only use the word "dictator" in the headline, and two RS that support the description (Vox, WaPo newsblog). There have been several disputes on the talk page regarding whether the word "dictator" is a neutral, appropriately-weighted description — more eyes would be helpful. — 0xf8e8 ( talk) 14:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC) (edited by 0xf8e8 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC))
There is currently a dispute, mainly focused on NPOV, between me and User:Snowsky Mountain. A few points of contention have been resolved, but the main issue remains. Specifically, what the above mentioned user wants a part of the lead to be is this:
Born in 647 to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Maysun bint Bahdal, Yazid grew up with his maternal tribe, the Banu Kalb. Some time before his death, Muawiya made Yazid his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of the Hasan-Muawiya treaty. The nomination was opposed by a few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husain ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar. [Paragraph Break] Upon Muawiya's death in 680 CE, Yazid assumed power. He demanded pledges of allegiance to him, including from those who had opposed his nomination. Husain, the grandson of Muhammad, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, as Yazid was considered an illegitimate ruler and corrupt. (It's important to note here that many sources specifically list Yazid's corruption when mentioning Husain's refual to give allegiance. --Snowsky Mountain) Husain went towards Kufa but was stopped at Karbala. Yazid's army killed Husain and many of his companions in the ensuing Battle of Karbala, after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners. This sparked widespread outrage against Umayyad rule. Later, in 683 CE, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and his supporters rose up against Yazid's rule in Medina. After first trying to bribe and then arrest ibn al-Zubayr, Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the city being plundered. Later in 683, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The weeks-long siege led to the Kaaba being damaged by fire and finally ended when news arrived of Yazid's death.
I consider this in violation of NPOV, as the user is arguing for what is a religious belief to be presented as fact. While I argue that religious views be presented as religious beliefs. To me the balanced version of the said para, is this:
In 676 (56 AH), Muawiya made him his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of Hasan–Muawiya treaty. A few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husayn ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar, refused to accept his nomination. Following his accession after Muawiya's death in 680, Yazid demanded allegiance from these three, but only ibn Umar recognized him, while the other two refused and escaped to sanctuary of Mecca. When Husayn was on his way to Kufa to lead a revolt against Yazid, he was killed with his small band of supporters by forces of Yazid in the Battle of Karbala. Killing of Husayn led to widespread resentment in Hejaz, where Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr centered his opposition to rule of Yazid, and was supported by many people in Mecca and Medina. After failed attempts to regain confidence of ibn al-Zubayr and people of Hejaz diplomatically, Yazid sent an army to end the rebellion. The army defeated Medinese in the Battle of al-Harrah in August 683 and the city was given to three days of pillage. Later on siege was laid to Mecca, which lasted for several weeks, during which the Kaaba was damaged by fire. The siege ended with death of Yazid in November 683 and the empire fell to civil war.
Detailed arguments can be found at the talk page. A look at the body of the article, of which the lead is supposed to be concise summary, might help in assessing whether I am being biased or the said user. Thanks AhmadLX ( talk) 22:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
AfriForum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs work - it's obvious that the lead is inadequate, using 8 sources to establish that AfriForum is an organisation and being partially mission statement and certainly not a summary of the article. However the issue that I'm bringing here is text that an IP insists must be in the article because "Wikipedia is not the place for slander and defamation." [34] User:Grayfell reverted an earlier addition, and I reverted twice. The IP, user:197.245.16.108 complained about the removal on the talk page but never responded to my comments on the text before reinserting it.
Here's the text I reverted and the comments I made:
"AfriForum has laid multiple successful complaints with the South African Press Ombudsman against News24, Mail & Guardian and The Huffington Post SA, several prominent local media houses. The Ombudsman found all of the aforementioned outlets to be in serious breach of the South African Press Code and each organisation was ordered to publish a public apology to AfriForum. The complaints related to "misrepresentation, distortion and suppression of the facts" relating to statement's AfriForum has made and the failure to "take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly" by stating that AfriForum supports the white genocide conspiracy theory, despite AfriForum having consistently stated that the organisation does not believe white genocide is occurring in South Africa. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]"
My comments:
The first finding in the sources states: "News24 was in breach of Section 7.2.4 of the Press Code for stating that AfriForum did not offer a single solution, while Roets did so – albeit in response to a question. This section says: “[Comment or criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it] has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true”. The rest of the complaint is dismissed." I suggest editors read the entire report.
I don't think SA Promo is a reliable source here. I'm not sure that the media apologies are reported adequately. "Multiple successful complaints" is incorrect so far as I can see. The complaint about New24 was only upheld on one issue, the statement "that it did not offer a single solution to the issue of land restitution".
The other complaints were:
“Roets’ submission – which he tweeted and which is available on AfriForum’s website – does not explain why he believes that white people never ‘stole land’ (besides just claiming that they never did) nor does it offer any clear or sophisticated argument about Section 25”; and “At one stage Roets sat grinning while black MPs spoke of their families’ experiences under apartheid, wars of dispossession and how his attitude merely served to harden some attitudes.” The organisation adds that: News24 manipulated an edited version of a video in which he had presented AfriForum’s submissions to the Constitutional Review Committee in such a manner so as to portray it as the truth to corroborate the false and untrue accusations; and the reportage has caused it serious reputational damage."
These were rejected. The Finding on the video complaint starts with "This part of the complaint has no legs to stand on. Part of the finding about the complaint about reputational damage was " I am not going to blame News24 for causing “serious reputational damage”, as Roets himself – by not finding time to address solutions in his formal presentation – contributed to this “reputational damage”." Again, editors should read these in full as I can only copy part of them here.
Looking at edits just a few minutes ago by another IP, it looks as though AfriForum:Racist also has problems. It's written from AfriForum's pov, the description of its CEO Rhoda Kadalie as a civil rights activist is to say the least controversial, the description of the lawyer Mark Oppenheimer seems to come from AfriForum, etc. (the source for the paragraph doesn't back the paragraph but that may be because too many editor are quite happy to add material not in the source to sourced text). Doug Weller talk 16:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
References
RfC is here in case anyone is interested in contributing. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The following is allowed,
She has drawn criticism from Senator Marco Rubio and Donald Trump Jr. for tweeting 'Our future is female, intersectional, Powered by our belief in one another, And we’re just getting started'.[17]
But the following got removed again and again,
Son of incumbent president Donald Trump Jr. retweeted, "...if you think running as a parent is edgy delete your account and your campaign". In response, Gillibrand encouraged people to make monetary donations to the campaign.[18][19][20] She avoided a war of words.
It is not fair, please help. Important "Twitter Exchange" should not be censored from Wikipedia. It meets the notability requirement. I have already tried RfC, thanks. I have been warned for edit-warring. Tony85poon ( talk) 06:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
it looks like an admin also deleted a giant list of see also links you added. they dont seem to be especially important to the content of the article. perhaps if you tied them all together in some way or wrote something about why you think those references are important then they would be acceptable.
I would suggest you shorten the description of the twitter exchange to fit with what is already on the page. something like, 'She is running on a platform of...she has drawn criticism from X jr and commentator Y.' but your references seem weak. secondnexus.com dennismichaellynch.com and causeaction.com arnt really note worthy sources. dennis michael lynch perhaps. but still it seems more like it was a clever move, using the exposure trump jr. provided to expand the exposure of the campaign. I would suggest focusing on just the key points of her campaign. remember every link posted on wikipedia is a vote for the value of that article as articles posted on wikipedia are far more likely to be cited elsewhere. Verify references ( talk) 07:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
i have just double checked that DML link and it is just a recitation of an article on the Daily Caller. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources The Daily Caller is on the do not link list. "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes "false or fabricated information". Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be properly attributed." Verify references ( talk) 07:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I will fix the Donald Trump campaign article and Trump junior articles now, coz I used the same citations. Tony85poon ( talk) 08:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Tony85poon post your proposed edits on the talk page of that article and wait for feedback. Don't just throw it straight up on the page. if you post the same content that has already been rejected on a different page, you will likely get a vandalism and edit warring warning because it doesn't matter that its the first edit on that page, it will be used to argue a history of abuse.
Move to close Verify references ( talk) 08:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
French ban on face covering is overly supportive of the ban by discussing the point of view of the dominant culture in France in many parts of the article without counterpoints. Many of the statements need to be further verified. I draw particular attention to the paragraphs dealing with violent reactions from the community. Although it does constitute rioting, there's a de-emphasis on the facts of the cases. notably, tearing a womans clothes off is likely to elicit some response from the community that shouldn't be regarded as a dramatic uprising of mujahideen who were hiding behind every bush. Verify references ( talk) 02:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
there were no objections so i have corrected the article.
Verify references ( talk) 16:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Users and Editors,
I wanted to draw your attention to my earlier post containing a correction request for one of the sections of the Hotpoint Wikipedia Page. My full post with the details of the proposed update and its rationale was initially uploaded onto the Talk section of the Hotpoint page and can be found here.
To give you more background on the initial request - the current text within the section titled “Grenfell Tower Fire” contains some inaccurate and outdated information. I would like to ask you to consider my proposal on why the section should be amended. In my earlier post, I provided sources and rationale for all of my suggestions.
Please consider my submission as soon as possible.
Please also note that I am an employee of Whirlpool Corporation and intend to help ensure the Wikipedia community has access to up-to-date and correct information regarding Whirlpool Corporation.
I do not intend to edit any sections myself, but rather want to point out some inaccuracies so that they can be reviewed and amended as appropriate by the Wikipedia community. I hope you find this helpful. For more information, please refer to my user page.
Kind regards, Ian_Peterborough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Peterborough ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This BLP has a number of issues, the most glaring being the clear bias in the language of the lede. A handful of editors who do little to hide their personal disliking of the article's subject have insisted on using loaded words such as "conjecture" to describe his ideas, and have repeatedly tried to quiet discussion on the matter of neutrality by removing the NPOV dispute notice from the article. They have also reverted edits that attempt to add more biographical information to the lede, summarizing the course of the subject's career as a mainstream scientist and as an author and parapsychology researched outside of the scientific mainstream. Even an edit which changed to phrasing of "New Age movement" to "New Age circles" was reverted, despite the fact that the New Age article itself states very clearly that there is no scholarly consensus that there is any such movement at all, rather than simply a cultural milieu. Likewise, an edit which quotes the source stating Sheldrake's lack of alignment with some New Age interpretations of his ideas was reverted, leaving the impression that Sheldrake is in lockstep with New Age thinking as if it were a political movement.
I am not debating that Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance is considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience, nor have others I've seen object to the wording of the lede. It should be characterized as such, and is already well-sourced. What I am objecting to is the lede's singular focus on morphic resonance, and its repetitive, editorialized treatment of the subject. The article is about the individual, not simply morphic resonance. As such, it is reasonable to summarize his life in more detail. Likewise, it is perfectly legitimate to clearly state the rejection of morphic resonance by the scientific community and the reasons for it without using contentious language to do so. Certainly, discussion of the neutrality of the article should be allowed to carry on until their is consensus. HappyWanderer15 ( talk) 02:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,. He worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in India until 1978. During his time at Cambridge, Sheldrake and Philip Rubery developed the chemiosmotic hypothesis of polar auxin transport. [1]
In his 1981 book A New Science of Life, Sheldrake proposed the idea of morphic resonance, which posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems... inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". He proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, telepathy and the psychic staring effect as well as idiosyncratic explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.
Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience. [2]. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.
While morphic resonance lacks scientific acceptance, it has found support in New Age circles from individuals such as Deepak Chopra. [3] Sheldrake's ideas regarding the philosophy of science, especially his critique of scientism, have been praised by Mary Midgely. [4]
HappyWanderer15 ( talk) 07:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
References
It appears there are SOAP and POV problems with giving his books so very much weight. The article should be about the person. A section on his ideas, drawing strongly on what he expresses in his books, would be an appropriate substitute. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Rent regulation#RfC about describing extent of disagreement There is an RFC discussing how to describe economists' opinions on the effectiveness of rent control policies. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 04:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Former Greenpeace president and current industry lobbyist Patrick Moore's Wikipedia article is titled "Patrick Moore (environmentalist)". Looking at the talk page there, this page could use more eyes, particularly given recent coverage from entities like Fox News (title: "Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit’"), and because Moore or someone connected to him has been active on the article, no doubt influencing the article's current title. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The FoxNews ref looks extremely poor and probably should not be used at all.
The title appears a POV and NOT violation. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The Honda Ridgeline article is extremely detailed, and much of that detail is cited to self-published sources such as press releases ( hondanews.com), brochures and owners manuals. For example, the equipment list includes such run-of-the-mill items such as power door locks, airbags, cupholders and sun visors, and attempts to trim the list are always reverted. Editors have repeatedly brought up these issues on the talk page and some of the more egregious sources such as owner forums have been removed, however the primary author of the article continues to add excessively-detailed descriptions sourced to the manufacturer. The article could use some more eyes to ensure that we are presenting a well-balanced, independent view of the topic. – dlthewave ☎ 23:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute at Talk:Morrison Academy#"Creation science" about two issues of neutrality and/or undue weight. There are few secondary sources reporting on the Academy; the only ones I found (and the only ones cited in the article) are bland directory entries and some sports journalism. The questions thus are how much use of primary sources should be made regarding various topics.
The discussion on the talk page is long, and it seems unlikely that the editors involved can reach a consensus there. I'm bringing it here for wider community input. Huon ( talk) 22:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
"How much and what use should be made of primary sources regarding the school's curriculum?" While Wikipedia does use primary sources, they can't really be used for in-depth coverage. The relevant policy is in Wikipedia:No original research.:
This is more a question seeking guidance after an anonymous user made an to the La Luz del Mundo church article. The now deceased church leader was publicly accused of sexual abuse in Mexican media, where the church is based. The accusations were made after the statute of limitations had passed, so obviously they were never proven. How do you abide by the innocent until proven guilty principle without undermining possibly credible sexual abuse victims? BadHombres ( talk) 07:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Please lend a hand verifying contribs from
The sample about green politics is this diff here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I've been working with Move to suggest improvements and updates to the Move (company) and Realtor.com articles. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on both talk pages, and any requests I've made have been reviewed by uninvolved editors.
Recently, an anonymous editor added a "Social Media Concerns" section to the article. I've posted a request on the article's talk page outlining how this specific detail is being given a lot of weight, compared to the reporting. Sourcing actually focuses on how Facebook collects data from third-party apps, and discusses multiple other apps. I've proposed removing the addition, or at least eliminating the section heading and incorporating text into the article's "History" section. User:SMcCandlish, who has helped with some previous edit requests for the article, suggested I post here to get additional feedback regarding WP:UNDUE.
Can any editors here help determine whether the added content should be kept, removed, or move into the article's "History" section by reviewing sourcing and contributing to the talk page discussion? I don't edit articles directly because of my conflict of interest and I am asking other editors to update the article on my behalf and on behalf of Realtor.com. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason ( talk) 17:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
User is openly gender essentialist on their user page. User added NPOV tag to Detransition article, and in its talk page immediately (offensively) denied existence of detrans community, made false and exaggerated claims against the article's content and sources (nowhere has Tumblr ever been cited), and made false claims against other editors. This appears to be a case of inappropriately and incorrectly seeing the detrans community as a threat to trans politics (anti-detrans bias, or detransphobia). It's requested that the user stop attacking other editors, to take a NPOV regarding this article's content, or to stop disrupting the editing process on this article, please. Thank you. A145GI15I95 ( talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
On talk page here, user likens detransition to conversion therapy, and claims it "undermines a foundational LGBTIQ narrative". When asked for clarification in subsequent diff, user offers no denial of bias or ill intention. We're not here to pit trans against detrans (or anyone against anyone). Detrans folk exist and have social, legal, and medical needs regardless of (separate from) others' rights. This is outrageously offensive and detransphobic. A145GI15I95 ( talk) 01:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Forbes recently published an article about the possibility of an attack to the power grid for political purposes. I have tried to add this reference and sourced statement to the article, and I have been reverted twice. [35] [36] I don't want to get involved in an edit war. I have been reverted by the same user ( User:Jamez42) in other Venezuelan articles, and his/her behaviour is deleting my sourced content. emijrp ( talk) 08:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Lynching of Shedrick Thompson, which I wrote, has been tagged by @ Qwirkle: as non-neutral and of questionable accuracy. I believe both tags are unjustified and want them removed. I first brought this up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson and was referred to this Noticeboard as more appropriate. I have notified Qwirkle of the discussion here.
The issue is that the 1932 coroner's report and grand jury stated this was a suicide, not a lynching. Qwirkle maintains that to call this a lynching is not neutral and of questionable accuracy, since "the jury is still out". There is discussion at Talk:lynching of Shedrick Thompson and at the noticeboard just cited. i My position, as stated above, is that:
Given the above, I do not understand, nor has Qwirkle explained, why "the jury is still out" or why the article deserves these tags he has placed on it. If he will not accept the National Lynching Museum, a book, and a documentary as settling the question, I cannot understand his position, or what documentation he would conceivably accept as authoritative.
As said above, I would like those tags removed. Thank you. deisenbe ( talk) 10:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
"by former Virginia Governor and U.S. presidential candidate Henry Byrd" Henry Byrd was a blues singer from Louisiana. You have apparently confused him with Harry F. Byrd, the segragationist Senator from Virginia. His first name actually was "Harry". Dimadick ( talk) 14:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
If there are no modern sources disputing that it was a lynching (i.e. the only people. saying it wasn't are racist white Virginians from 90 years ago) I see no reason to question the modern historical interpretation. We are not required to give equal validity to the conclusions of a Jim Crow-era all-white jury and modern historical scholarship. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 14:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Many others suffered similar fates, but their deaths went unreported at the time, their names unmentioned in official tallies. Thompson is sometimes included in this group–a hairline case, as the NAACP said. But he does not belong there.? Qwirkle ( talk) 02:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
While we are at it, here is the
principal source’s take on his own book With this new freedom, I went back to my computer and recast the story. I tried to make it complete, but now I also wanted it to be definitive. I became a prosecutor, dispelling reasonable doubt and building the case for murder.
Qwirkle (
talk) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I’m not going to edit the article while this discussion is going on, but someone today removed a lot of the documentation. On another point, the book was published by the History Press, not Arcadia, and it is not a picture book. You can preview it here:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/last-lynching-in-northern-virginia-seeking-truth-at-rattlesnake-mountain/oclc/967392546/viewport
deisenbe (
talk) 17:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I read the article and I feel that Shedrick Thompson could have committed suicide and he could have been lynched. I see no reason to think one way or the other beyond the consideration that back then in those places men like him got lynched for a lot less. In reading the article, I felt both sides were represented appropriately so the the reader would make their own decision. The only thing I would change is the name. It should be The death of Shedrick Thompson, because Wikipedia does not know what happen. I would also reduce the number of external videos and put them in external links, making sure not to link to any copyright violations. I see someone has already removed the offending section. Saying some authority "knows" it was a lynching is a argument from authority that should not be applied here. If there is no physical evidence from the actual incident or a witness to the actual incident that makes it clear one way or the other, then anything anyone says about it is just an assumption. Maybe a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with Richard-of-Earth on this, as there's going to be no way to determine who was right, even though I personally would be sympathatic to the only rational cause being lynching. Calling the article "Death of Shedrick Thompson" would remain neutral to the point without taking either side, even if we think one side is incorrect. Even recent articles covering the book's release in 2017 still use "iffy" language to what happened. -- Masem ( t) 17:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
While I'm holding off on making edits until this discussion is concluded, others are not, so comments above may not be on exactly the same content. There were 11 edits on May 12, for example, 6 of them by Qwirkle. deisenbe ( talk) 11:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the real kicker is this comment by Qwirkle--"The museum has a rather obvious axe to grind". They're talking about the Equal Justice Initiative, which operates The National Memorial for Peace and Justice. They have an axe to grind? I don't even want to spell out the rather sick set of assumptions that I suspect underlie that comment; it smacks of Holocaust industry. I have not yet read any criticism of the EJI's investigations or of their methods; perhaps Qwirkle can point us to some peer-reviewed studies that indicate the EJI hasn't done their homework, or that they got it wrong in this case. Masem, we can't really even say in Wikipedia's voice that the sky is blue, but the only evidence that I see that points to it NOT being a lynching is a set of doubtful statements by some deeply implicated state and local officials. I don't know how much you know about lynchings in America, but that's a usual pattern ( Devil in the Grove makes for good reading). And then we have Qwirkle, who casts doubt on the author, on the publisher, on the EJI. So, no, I think the tag is unjustified and disruptive. And to top it all off, there was this, pretty much the essence of whitewashing. Drmies ( talk) 22:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
emphasis this was a race-driven thing by identifying the races of those involvedin the manner Masem did. That’s nothing to do with the facts, but with a ham-handed presentation of them. Do you really think that was good writing? Qwirkle ( talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson#Disruptive editing by Qwirkle deisenbe ( talk) 15:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was recently fully protected because of POV pushing an edit warring. The fight continues in the form of edit requests on the talk page. I am completely ignorant about anything having to do with the military of Pakistan and India other than hoping that they don't nuke each other, so I would really appreciate it if someone else would look at the page and evaluate the edit requests. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Is the SYZYGY study measuring the narcissism of millennials significant enough to belong in the Millennials article? The study was described in a story in The Des Moines Register by intern Molly Longman. SYZYGY uses the uncommon millennial date rage of 1981 to 1998 to define this cohort.
The reliability of the SYZYGY source was discussed here on the millennials talk page, and on the RS Noticeboard here.
I propose removing the following text from WP Millennials:
SYZYGY, a digital service agency partially owned by WPP, uses 1981–1998.
A 2016 study by SYZYGY, a digital service agency, found millennials in the U.S. continue to exhibit elevated scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory as they age, finding millennials exhibited 16% more narcissism than older adults, with males scoring higher on average than females. The study examined two types of narcissism: grandiose narcissism, described as "the narcissism of extraverts, characterized by attention-seeking behavior, power and dominance", and vulnerable narcissism, described as "the narcissism of introverts, characterized by an acute sense of self-entitlement and defensiveness."
I propose using the story "Millennials are narcissistic? The evidence is not so simple" from the BBC to replace this information. This story also discusses the “Narcissistic Personality Inventory” which was used by SYZYGY, but instead it quotes Psychologist Jean Twenge, author of the book Generation Me, who is the "most vocal proponent of the view that young people today are more narcissistic and self-centred than in previous generations". Kolya Butternut ( talk) 00:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I propose using neither Syzygy nor the BBC. The Syzygy study was not published in an actual scientific journal, and media coverage doesn't confer reliability in the field of psychology. In fact, the Syzygy study is incapable of actually proving the headline conclusion, as there is no way for them to disentangle generational effects from age effects. The right way to make this argument can be seen here. As well, care needs to be taken answering the question, "more narcissistic than whom?" That paper mentions an alternative model that, rather than narcissism increasing over time, narcissism peaked with the boomers, crashed, and is now returning to an intermediate value. As that paper mentions, it's not trivial to do a fair comparison past a certain point in time, which may prohibit a firm conclusion on that (the NPI was only published in 1979, after all). Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
While reasonably sourced, the article on Abiy Ahmed has clear neutrality issues, particularly in the critics section. However, I do not have enough familiarity with the subject to fix it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugpug ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I suspect that people close to Ali Bin Fetais Al-Marri, Attorney General of Qatar and United Nations “Special Advocate for the Prevention of Corruption", have tried to remove critical but true information from his Wikipedia page.
I have talked about it in detail here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Ali_Bin_Fetais_Al-Marri#Censorship_and_hidden_conflicts_of_interests
Critical elements come from mainstream media, especially in France and Switzerland, and clearly appear to be in the public interest.
Please have a look.
Thank you,
Freewheel56 ( talk) 12:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like additional editors to review Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Renamed Critics section to Criticism and the RFC and discussions therein, please. The article only relates the point of view of the advocates, and attempts to balance those views with contradictory reliable sources are being called original research because the sources do not refer to the theory. Most of our articles on conspiracy theories have counter-point which does not explicitly refer to the conspiracy theories. EllenCT ( talk) 19:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Following a request at RFPP, I semi-protected this page to stem an edit-war. But can editors familiar with the wikipedia policies or MOS recommendations regarding pro-choice/pro-abortion terminology weigh in the the substance of the dispute? Abecedare ( talk) 05:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
the Venezuela article describes reclaimed food waste as garbage. I believe this to be POV pushing. The international political situation in Venezuela is currently volatile and so the article is locked so i cannot mark the relevant section with a POV tag. I believe the labelling of reclaimed food waste as garbage to be politically motivated in order to further inflame the situation.
Australia is one of the most highly ranked countries in the world for standard of living on the OECD rankings [1] yet Woolworths has donated an average of a million kilograms of 'food waste' a year for distribution by charities. [2] a report from the Australian Government stated, "Food rescue organisations contribute to reducing wasted food that is suitable for human consumption. In rescuing food that would otherwise be thrown away, these organisations provide those in need with a meal, partly addressing food insecurity. A range of people access food relief in Australia. The number of people receiving food relief is high. One food relief organisation reports that each month 652,000 Australians receive food relief, with over 27 per cent of these being children." [3] It can thus be concluded that food deemed suitable for human consumption remains food and not garbage. the USDA further explained the reasoning behind the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and encourages the distribution and consumption of "food waste","Donations of non-perishable and unspoiled perishable food from homes and businesses help stock the shelves at food banks, soup kitchens, pantries, and shelters. Donations of perishable prepared foods, typically collected from restaurants, caterers, corporate dining rooms, hotels, and other food establishments, also play an important role in feeding families in need..." [4] yet nobody is claiming that there is a humanitarian crisis requiring immediate military intervention in the U.S.A. or Australia because their citizens are forced to eat garbage.
Thusly, I argue that editors should refrain from using inflammatory language such as describing reclaimed food suitable for human consumption as garbage as it violates wiki policy by distorting the information at hand and POV pushing. 49.198.21.145 ( talk) 23:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
from the Venezuela article, "...resorting to eating wild fruit or garbage..." I believe they are using it in the noun form.
the exact wording used in the poll is, "mediante residuos de comida que desechados por establecimiento commerciales". [5] chile uses the same terminology in spanish to refer to food waste fit for human consumption. they are drafting laws to forbid companies from throwing away food waste fit for human consumption. [6] I can get you a stock picture of my hands in a trash bag for you to look at with the australian reports if that makes them easier to compare. 49.198.21.145 ( talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This section of the article states the fact that Cory Booker is being criticised for the "meat issue". When I recently tried to state Cory Booker's response (for the sake of neutrality), it got reverted. I don't want this section of the article to be biased, please help. By the way, some editor added a "non-primary source needed" tag at the end of the quote. Thanks for attention Ribenderen ( talk) 20:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Booker says that planet Earth cannot sustain First World meat-eating habits as prosperity spreads worldwide, and has drawn criticism. He responds to the criticism,
We are a part of this take-down culture where people are trying to twist your words. I think that whatever you eat is a very personal decision and everybody should eat what they want to eat. That is America. That is what we believe in freedom. Here is - live free or die. The last thing we want is - government telling us what to eat. The reality is, I do have a problem. Like, farmers have a problem. Like, cattle ranches have a problem with these massive corporate companies. Many of them Chinese-owned like the Smithfield company. They are coming in here polluting our water and creating unsustainable practices. You can raise cows and pigs like we used to in our heritage in our country without doing the things these big corporate conglomerate farms are doing. So, I have no problem with what Americans eat and the decisions we make. But, whether it is farming, whether it is drilling for natural resources, all these should be done in a way that affirms our environment that sustainable. non-primary source needed
Two or more Denver IPs are making similar non-neutral edits here [39] and removing neutrality tags [40]. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Just pointing out that the tag removal is still ongoing [41] (a new Denver IP) ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Somebody accused me of promoting Stormfront by adding material from reliable sources that are critical of Jexodus. Also, all material, also all from reliable sources, connecting Trump to Jexodus, and his past history praising anti-Semitic groups has been removed for some reason. I sense some pro-trump POV pushing going on here. How is The NY Times and Haaretz not reliable sources? 97.118.143.21 ( talk) 04:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the user wallyfromdilbert has systematically scrubbed the pages of Debora Juarez and other Seattle City Councilmembers of any criticism. Many members of the Seattle City Council are extremely controversial, and criticism has been detailed in highly reputable outlets such as the Seattle Times and local TV/radio news outlets. Yet, anytime a user adds a criticism, wallyfromdilbert hits "undo" within hours or minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.192.63 ( talk) 03:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
New editor User:Rolling Phantom claims that if we don't change the article to fit his viewpoint, then that proves the feminazis are sabotaging the article. His best "source" is a thread from Quora. I've reverted twice, and templated him for NPOV violation. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I have only this to say about my "wiewpoint" : https://www.google.com/search?q=feminazi+vs+feminist&oq=feminazi+vs&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.7635j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Rolling Phantom ( talk) 00:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, are the search results fake then? Rolling Phantom ( talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Limbaugh has stated that the term feminazi refers to "radical feminists" whose goal is "to see that there are as many abortions as possible" and a small group of "militants" whom he distinguishes from "well-intentioned but misguided people who call themselves 'feminists'". However, the term came to be used more widely for the feminist movement as a whole;Per WP:LEAD, I propose the compromise solution
Feminazi is a pejorative term for either feminists perceived to be extreme or all feminists as a wholebased on body text. Leugen9001 ( talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Feminazi is a pejorative term for either all feminists as a whole or feminists perceived to be extremecould also be used. Leugen9001 ( talk) 18:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Limbaugh has used it in reference to the Feminist Majority Foundation and the activists Gloria Steinem and Susan Sarandon, and he is quoted as saying, "It's the way I look at the feminist movement". [43] [44] So, clearly not just "radical" feminists then. The phrasing
perceived to be extremeraises the obvious question, perceived by whom? It looks like a false balance, especially when independent sources describe the term as a pejorative for feminists, full stop. [45] [46] — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 15:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC))
Feminazi is a rightfully pejorative term for extreme feminist. Other extremists may use it as a pejorative for any feminist. There are thousands of sources on this on the net. If the net isnt a reliable source, then neither is this article. There IS a difference between a feminazi and a feminist, from the wiew of normal people. Change it. Rolling Phantom ( talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The use of "radical feminist" seems misleading. It seems less a reference to radical feminism than it is to what critics perceive to be, well, in Rolling Phantom's words, "overly" radical. That's not a specific type of feminist, that's a subjective evaluation relative to what makes the speaker feel threatened/uncomfortable. I don't know if there's a good way to word that in the lead, though, without getting into "feminists in general or whatever random aspect of feminism the speaker doesn't like or subjectively considers 'too extreme'." It's uncontroversial, however, that google searches and quora are completely unacceptable as sources. I.e. keep current wording until something better is proposed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I tried to inform and discuss with contribs of the article ( /info/en/?search=Gab_Dissenter) of my concerns about the possible existence of NPOV issues in the article after seeing clear political bias and a lack of neutrality. (see link below) /info/en/?search=Talk:Gab_Dissenter#this_wiki_article_appears_to_contain_NPOV_issues
I did this in accordance with the regulations set forth in many of the NPOV pages that the contributors should first be informed and invited to discussion on a possible NPOV before proceding.
Jorm (
/info/en/?search=User:Jorm) proceded to immediately delete the talk entry. As dictated by wikipedia NPOV regulations I have sent Jorm a notice (
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Jorm#Notice_of_intent_to_open_NPOV) that the NPOV issue is now a dispute that I will escalate to the NPOV noticeboard as per wikipedia regulations since he is now in the following category (see link below)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors
please see all associated screenshot links below: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000960185040956/Capture.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000971996069928/Capture1.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000976660135966/Capture3.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562000971828428801/Capture2.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/289603731119538186/562030632155480126/Capture6.JPG
The screenshots will ensure that further attempts to hide events will not be successful. In case Jorm has the authority to delete this entry too, I'll take a screenshot of this entry as well after publishing
KykMooi ( talk) 19:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chief_Whip&type=revision&diff=890466069&oldid=890434350
until 1st April 2019 when [[Julian Smith (politician)]] chose to attack his own government and Prime Minister. Smith went on to use so-called ‘remain [[propaganda]]' in an attempt to overturn U.K. [[Parliamentary Democracy]] when he suggested the [[2017 United Kingdom general election|2017 UK general election]] result meant parliament could overturn the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|2016 European Union Referendum]] result.<ref>{{cite web|last=Cappuro|first=Daniel|title=''Julian Smith: The beleaguered Chief Whip with a long record of mistakes''|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/01/julian-smith-beleaguered-chief-whip-long-record-mistakes/|date=1 April 2019|publisher=The Telegraph|accessdate=1 April 2019}}</ref>
-- Trublu ( talk) 16:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A request for comment is underway at Talk:List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Talk:List_of_works_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci#RfC_-_Horse_and_Rider. The RfC addresses the following question:
All are invited to participate. SamHolt6 ( talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking for some outside input on some discussions on The Great Replacement. The first discussion concerns whether the article should be titled Great Replacement or Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory. The second (closely related) concerns whether or not to call The Great Replacement a conspiracy theory in the article itself or whether to distinguish between "conspiracy" and "non-conspiracy" variants.
Nblund talk 17:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't normally edit country articles, but I noticed that the treatment of criticism in the lead is rather inconsistent. At a glance, it seems to reflect page-specific consensus (or lack thereof) rather than any systematic POV. This is fine in principle, except for the following concerns:
1) The phrase "any prominent controversies" in WP:LEAD gives little concrete guidance about how to measure prominence for subject like a country. Does criticism by human rights organizations create a "prominent controversy" in itself? Should prominence be measured by how often the criticism comes up in the news coverage of the country? international or only English-language press? all RSs on the contemporary politics of the country? Is frequently mentioned corruption an admissible type of "prominent controversy"? How about criticism of foreign policy, economic policy, stance on climate change, etc?
2) Country articles are a prominent feature of WP and there's a fairly standard set of issues that "countries" tend to be criticized for, so there is potential of coming up with some WP-wide points of consensus.
I wanted to start a discussion here to see if there's a potential RfC or two that could go somewhere. Here are a few examples I gathered. If I missed any criticism in the lead, please let me know and I'll update.
Eperoton ( talk) 00:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a stale RfC at Talk:Rent regulation as to whether the article should state that there is a consensus in the economics field about the effects of rent control, and if so, what the nature of that consensus is. I'm not necessarily interested in closing the RfC right now, but I am particularly interested in understanding the issue in question from a WP:NPOV perspective. Would the article be maintaining a neutral point of view if, for instance, it states that there is a "broad consensus among economists" that rent control reduces the quantity and quality of available rental housing? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 16:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)