Revision as of 23:36, 9 November 2015 editScrapIronIV (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,329 edits →Sex offender registries in the United States: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:35, 23 December 2024 edit undoPsychloppos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,238 edits →Randa Kassis and connected pagesTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}} | |||
{{backlog}}{{Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 114 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(21d) | ||
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}}]]] __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | }}]]] __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | ||
== |
== Eugene Lipov == | ||
(Note: I received significant assistance in writing the material below from a M.D, who chooses to remain anonymous rather than publicly attacking another doctor. Any errors in the following are mine.) | |||
This is to report the lack of compliance with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy in the BLP article ]. The matter has not been resolved in the ] and has been brought up previously ]. An entire paragraph with six references in the section “career” (which consists of only two paragraphs!) has been devoted to the questioning of papers by Ariel Fernandez as if they were noteworthy events in and of themselves, which is not something supported by reliable sources. The paragraph has negative implications, as pointed repeatedly by various editors, including ], ] and several others. No breach of ethics has ever been mentioned, let along proven, in regards to the subject. Thus, the paragraph is not providing useful information on the subject’s career or to Misplaced Pages. | |||
It should be mentioned that the subject has published over 350 professional papers, two books as the sole author and holds two patents, according to his online CV, and multiple secondary sources therein. Yet 50% of the discussion of his career in Misplaced Pages focuses on two papers questioned and his single retraction where no breach of ethics was involved. We may conclude that the Misplaced Pages BLP is not neutral and that the contents further reveal a nefarious intent to harm the subject. The libel has been repeatedly inserted as indicated in the following diffs, possibly pointing to a hatred driven attack on the subject: | |||
Our ] article uncritically presents stellate ganglion block therapy as if it was a well established medical treatment for ]. It appears to be an experimental treatment with very little support from the medical community, yet Dr. Lipov is selling these treatments for PTSD ( https://stellacenter.com/treatments/sgb-dual-sympathetic-reset ) and ] ( https://stellacenter.com/treatments/long-covid ) at 22 locations in the US. | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=681893308&oldid=681661402 | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=682581574&oldid=682001397 | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=686246039&oldid=686186985 | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=686248672&oldid=686247309 | |||
The American Psychological Association strongly recommends four interventions for treating post traumatic stress disorder, and conditionally recommends another four. See Stellate ganglion block therapy not on the list. | |||
Thanks much for your prompt attention. ] (]) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council | |||
:That's pretty over the top. Two points of context: 1) there's no reason to believe that this IP editor is in fact posting from the "Argentine Natl. Research Council"; it's likely instead that this is a sock of {{u|Arifer}}. And 2) there's no "hatred driven attack", rather a straightforward consulting of reliable sources that cover this subject. I'd suggest that there's a problem of forum shopping here -- but in fact I don't mind terribly that it's been brought to NPOVN, where there's an appreciation that whitewashing at the request of article subjects is not the way NPOV works. ] (]) 21:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I do think the article could use some work, and the questioned articles do occupy a place of undue prominence in this biography. I would encourage editors who have time to look for additional biographical information about this person - certainly the guy is not only notable for three articles that have been questioned. If that's the only real biographical infornation about him in reliable sources, then maybe the article should be prodded for deletion. | |||
The list of publications cited by Dr. Lipov to support the use of Stellate Ganglion blocks for the treatment of PTSD ( https://dreugenelipov.com/publications-2024/ ) is rather unimpressive. Dr. Lipov has been using this technique since 2008 and has given thousands of injections but there are no references to any long term outcomes data for his own patient population on his list of citations. There are ZERO references which specifically review patients treated with the "Dual Sympathetic Reset" technique. | |||
::Misplaced Pages does have a history and a policy of hearing concerns from article subjects, and the IP is at least bringing the issues to the proper notice boards - rather than edit warring. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 00:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::The IP editor gets no credit for not edit-warring -- because the article is indefinitely semi-protected (as a consequence of previous misbehaviour). ] (]) 05:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I didnt realize that. I did not look too far into the history of the article. I suggest the IP take some time to gather sources and make proposed edits on the article talk page. I will keep an eye out for proposed edits and work with the IP in improving the article - I just dont have the time or interest to do the research myself. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 17:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
Despite the claim that, "Stella aims to heal the injury, instead of just managing the symptoms", one of the papers listed as a citation on the Stella Center web page concludes that "stellate ganglion blocks are NOT a "cure" for PTSD... but have the potential to significantly reduce symptoms as part of the treatment plan for combat related PTSD". | |||
:::::Dear Minor4th, as per your advice and in an effort to get a balanced neutral description of the career of BLP subject Ariel Fernandez, we have included in the Talk page a proposed revised version with appropriate secondary sources for the Career section in the BLP. We most appreciate your help with the editing to ensure that the article complies with the neutral point of view. Our proposed version includes reputable secondary sources. | |||
] (]) 15:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council | |||
Although one of the cofounders of the Stella center is a PhD psychologist and the website has the tagline, "Highly effective evidence based mental health care", there are no studies from the psychiatric literature referenced on the website. | |||
Nomoskedasticity, please stop abusing us and deprecating Dr. Ariel Fernandez. Dr. Ariel Fernandez has done more than writing 3 questioned papers. According to the public records, he has published at least 350 papers, wrote two books and holds two patents. As numerous editors have indicated, the BLP on the subject is not in compliance with the neutrality tone that must prevail at Misplaced Pages. Please stop your hate-driven attack on the subject! | |||
The National Research Council of Argentina has regional centers throughout the country and Dr. Fernandez, who resides in Basel (Schweiz), is probably unaware that you are defaming him by abusing the Misplaced Pages platform. He certainly has the right to defend himself but has not done so as far as we can tell. We don´t owe you any explanation, yet we feel we need to tell you to please stop attacking everybody who stands up for Dr. Fernandez.] (]) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council | |||
Insurance companies won’t pay for Stellate ganglion block injections because published studies documenting their effectiveness are lacking, and because long term effects are completely unknown. A well controlled randomized and double blind study published in 2016 concluded that: | |||
Dr. Fernandez has published 350 papers, two books and is an inventor on two patents with several secondary sources and this article has chosen instead to focus on 3 questioned papers where no wrongdoing has been proven. Thus, it is putting undue weight on negative content, portraying the doctor in an intended negative light. The article is, in my view, neither neutral nor balanced. ] (]) 13:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)OSU | |||
"Although previous case series have suggested that Stellate Ganglion Block offers an effective intervention for PTSD, this study did not demonstrate any appreciable difference between Stellate ganglion blocks and sham treatment on psychological or pain outcomes." . | |||
== Sex offender registries in the United States == | |||
Approximately 125,000 veterans are currently diagnosed with PTSD, and both the Veterans Administration and the department of defense are highly motivated to find and implement reliable treatments for the devastating condition. However, the official 2024 VA position statement on Stellate ganglion blocks was: | |||
] has serious advocacy issues and appears to have been written primarily to provide a soapbox for changes in the law. The editor that started and has been the primary author is an admitted SPA who has made few edits outside this platform. The article needs massive adjustment to conform with NPOV or if that is not possible should be deleted if policy continues to be violated and the article persists in being hopelessly biased.--] 11:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
"Stellate ganglion blocks may have short term benefits for some individuals with PTSD, but it is not an established treatment at this time because the evidence is not conclusive. Stellate ganglion blocks have not been fully researched in Veterans with PTSD and the long term effects of stellate ganglion blocks are currently unknown"... "Currently, individuals with PTSD should be strongly encouraged to try established, and recommended treatments such as trauma-focused psychotherapy and medications. For Veterans that don't benefit from these traditional treatments, alternative interventions such as SGB might be considered". Source: | |||
: That article contains 178 notes of this writing, most of which are citations of reliable sources which support positions taken in the article. If there are other reliable sources taking issue with those which are cited, then the first step is to cite them and take issue within the article with its allegedly non-neutral positions. | |||
In my opinion, the ] article should present SGB as an unproven experimental procedure, and we should consider creating a ] stub article with ] redirecting to it. --] (]) 19:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:The article also cites (in sidebar, primarily) three national and five state organizations, all of which have WP articles and all of which are calling for changes in sex offender laws. | |||
:Are there any meta-analyses of experimental data for this one? ] (]) 19:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It is correct that the main editor is a SPA. However he or she is not a U.S. citizen or resident (s/he's Finnish) which makes the case for personal bias harder to demonstrate. | |||
::I haven't been able to find one. Certainly not for Long COVID; nobody but Eugene Lipov seems to believe that sticking a needle in your ] is a reasonable way of treating Long COVID. For PTSD, the best that I could find was https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/ganglionblock.pdf which concluded | |||
:I have removed the NPOV label as I do not see that Mongo has provided meaningful justification for its application. ] (]) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::The article is a one-sided advocacy piece that was created purely to soapbox on behalf of changes to sex offender legislation. Until sufficient neutral editors chime in to determine if changes are needed, you cannot as one of the editors unilaterally remove an NPOV tag.--] 16:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::These other articles, the three national an five state organizations, have articles because the primary author also wrote those. They themselves might need to be deleted due to a lack of notability. There may need to be a topic ban added should this SPA and his cohorts continue to misuse this website for their promotional POV agenda.--] 16:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::This is true. I wrote those, although I only included two most notable in the article as I thought not all of them needed to be included. The rest were added by Deisenbe. I'll go ahead and ping all the editors I know of having shown any interest on these topics in the past (mainly ]): ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],], ], ], ], ]. '''Note:''' MONGO, ScrapIronIV, DHeyward, Tom harrison on one side, and I and James Cantor on the other were involved in dispute related to Adam Walsh Act article as anyone may verify from the link above. It got somewhat personal at times (e.g. , and ). I personally believe hard feelings, rather than legitimate concerns of neutrality, might play major part in this NPOV notification. After all the article cites 44 peer reviewed studies, one book compiling topic specific studies, two reports by Human Rights Watch + handful of studies by government entities. The rest of the refs are news, including few editorials and links to government pages supporting the content. Relevant discussion related to our last dispute can be found from ]. I was looking to have this article nominated as Good Article at some point where it would be put under scrutiny. Since I'm not expecting much attention from un-involved editors to this NPOV and possible future AfD, I'm afraid that I and Deisenbe will be railroaded by MONGO and his allies from Adam Walsh Act incidence. That happened in AWA case: me and James Cantor got eventually tired of trying as these four kept pushing their side while numerous un-involved editors merely passed by dropping their opinion (all of them siding with me and James BTW) but never really engaged in the discussion. Hopefully, unlike the last time the discussion revolves more around the content of the article rather than the fact that I'm currently pretty much SPA. ] (]) 20:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::In other words, at the Adam Walsh page your efforts were rebuked so you created a POV fork as a new place to misuse the website for the purposes of advocacy.--] 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::No they were not, I just got tired like James Cantor did. Numerous un-involved editors told you and your gang to back down, but you didn't. I have pinged all of them. I and James were chased out from the AWA article by your personal attacks and persistent unwillingness to seek consensus. I have also posted RfC since I want more editors contributing to this article. This far only 4 or so have made good contributions and no NPOV issues has been raised by those editors. You on the other hand, with no editing history on this article just happened to bump into it and wanted to pick a fight immediately. Unless I can't find enough good faith editors to watch this article you and your buddies will attempt to introduce false parity by removing sourced material as you can't block it by reverting anymore as you did in AWA. This article is split from ] as the U.S. section covered more than half of it. is how it was after the split. Anyone may compare the first draft and current article and decide for them selves how much I have POV-pushed in any other way than raising the number of peer reviewed citations '''from 6 to 44''' which you so much would like to have excluded of these articles. It's too late now. I am not interested in chatting with you MONGO. I rather wait for others to comment so please do not respond to this post. ] (]) 00:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::My "gang"...oh you must mean the MONGO-bots...Yeah...that's it. Look, I'm sure from your perspective you're trying to do the right thing, but it seems to me that you have a serious conflict of interest that is interfering with your ability to edit neutrally and dispassionately in this controversial subject matter. The fact that your edits have no other focus also raises alarm bells.--] 02:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::By gang I meant those who I felt were acting counter-consensus back then. Thank you for assuming good faith. You are right, I am trying to make this article as good as possible. Due to my POV other editors are needed to ensure neutrality. This is a controversial subject and we need to get this right. Unfortunately not much interest has been given to this article. Now that the article is there, could you point to some paragraphs that need to be changed to be more neutral and I'll try to take care of it. I already made an attempt to improve the paragraph pointed out by Herostratus. ] (]) 04:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{Collapse|1=Mongo's field of expertise is geology/geography. Look at his contributions. My own field of expertise, if anyone cares, is history. ] (]) 01:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)|2=Off-topic. Please comment about content, not contributors.}} | |||
::Well that's a non sequitur. My field of expertise is Misplaced Pages editing so I guess you all can defer to me... | |||
::"SGB for PTSD is currently supported only by evidence from uncontrolled, unblinded case series which was neither confirmed nor refuted by a single RCT with imprecise findings, moderate methodological limitations, and which did not directly focus on clinically relevant outcomes. In currently used evidence grading systems,62 such evidence is considered “insufficient” for estimating an effect." | |||
::Of course the article is not neutral. The I don't know whether it can be fixed or not, but for goodness sakes don't remove the tag. I don't know if it can be fixed because it's a difficult subject to discuss because what you have is, not so so much people with a fundamental disagreement about ''a particular'' law, but about ''the nature and purpose of laws in a democracy'' in general -- which is not an easy thing for people to talk about and end up shaking hands on. The question of to what extent "the public strongly supports it" versus "most experts support it" is the best basis for making laws is too complicated to hash out here. Since we can't agree, let's just keep the article short and descriptive and, to the extent reasonable, stick to anodyne facts ("law was passed on such-and-such date") that we can all agree on. | |||
::but that was published in 2017. It could be that the answer has changed in the last seven years. --] (]) 03:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::So that's why {{xt|"While sections of the public strongly support , many experts... characterize them as ineffective and wasteful at best, and counterproductive at worst..."}}, even tho probably true I guess, still does not belong in the lede and let's not do stuff like that, people. That's just one example and there're other instances where the general tenor is "look! these laws suck!" Maybe they ''do'' suck -- in fact, I think in their current form that they do suck, but my opinion on that matter has zero do with what I think should be in Misplaced Pages legal articles -- but let's let the reader come to her own conclusions, ok? | |||
:::(...Sound of Crickets...) --] (]) 01:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::''The law is a crude instrument''. Get used to it, people. Life isn't fair. ''Many if not most laws suck. Many if not most laws let some offenders slip through while catching up some innocents''. Earth is not heaven. Let's just stick to the facts. ] (]) 01:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I've taken a crack at rolling back the ] / ] violations in . ] (]) 03:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Journal of Indo-European Studies == | |||
:::I agree the piece you raised up does not necessarily belong to the lede, maybe it should be in overview in a more neutral tone. This piece was added by Deisenbe, not me (just in case someone wants to accuse me of pushing it to front). How would you change the tone more neutral? What I have tried to do is to describe what sex offender registries in the U.S. are, where they came from, what restrictions comes with registration, how it affects people, how effective the laws are; what general populace, legislators, scholars and other stakeholders think of it; how courts have handled challenges and what law scholars think of that. I think that's what Misplaced Pages editors are expected to do. I'm not trying to introduce my personal opinion on this subject, it comes through the RS and it is hard to balance as there is not much academic RS in support of current registries to balance with. As far as I know there is RS in support how the registries were in early 1990's or how they currently are in 2 or 3 states, but this article is about current laws as a whole. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
*'''Comment''' - After glancing briefly at this article's content and history, I'm inclined to agree with ]'s assessment. Sadly, this type of ] ] behavior is all too common WP. We lack good mechanisms to deal with it. To be frank, I think an immediate topic ban for ] wouldn't be unwarranted here. This article covers a ''highly'' sensitive topic, and to have it turned into an advocacy piece really threatens the integrity of WP as a whole. ] (]) 13:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::'''Note:''' Steps have already been taken to achieve more neutral tone by me and user ] who was quite heavy handed but I also agree with his removals. ] actually thanked me twice for my attempts to seek neutrality. ] (]) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Continued move towards neutrality gains points.--] 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::{{reply to|ViperFace|MONGO}} - Ok. Well if Viper is genuinely looking to reform, we should try to aid him in that process. ] (]) 16:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Please do. Like I have said, I have strong personal POV on these matters but I also want to write neutral encyclopedia. Now that I have taken more closer look it seems that this NPOV notice was warranted. ] (]) 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
In order to avoid an edit war I am starting a topic here for this. The article for the Journal for Indo-European studies has throughout the years been given undue weight consistently to make it look like its a journal of poor standing when its not. The content places far too much focus on Roger Pearson, its founding publisher,and not enough on the journal's actual content in order to make it look 'racist' when it is not since it is clearly a linguistic journal. The article currently reads more like a mini bio on Pearson rather than anything to do with the actual content of the journal itself. More over, edits go unchecked on that article for over a month that remove info that makes the journal look reputable yet edits that take out all the mostly irrelevant bio info on Pearson and alleged negative aspects of the journal get scrutinized quickly and reverted. There is clear POV pushing and an anti-NPOV campaign going on here. Other editors have flagged it as being largely unbalanced and given undue weight. I am asking here for help in order to better remedy the situation as right now there is a stalemate and the way the article looks and reads right now is a mess. ] (]) 21:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
5 (UTC) | |||
::::{{reply to|ViperFace|MONGO}} - Ok. Well if Viper is genuinely looking to reform, we should try to aid him in that process. ] (]) 16:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::This issue is mainly the article. I'm concerned that trimming may be insufficient. It is clear ViperFace has a POV and critical analysis of existing laws is fine, but as you mentioned, soapboxing is not. A topic ban would essentially be a site ban since this is their primary focus.--] 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::: The whole article? Aren't most of the sections merely describing the reality as it is? At least 6 first sections are merely describing the history and different components of the legislation as they are. I don't know what you think of the "Impact" and sections following it, but that's what peer reviewed RS has to say about these subjects. Critical analysis is hard to balance with positive accounts as I can't find any other than general opinions of registries being "a useful tool". That's honestly all there is. This article can't be in 50%-50% balance with positive and negative accounts. Consensus among scholars is clear, they are critical to '''current''' registries. The only positive findings are already included in "Effectiveness". I deliberately put them on front of the section. What is currently missing is the rationale behind this legislation, which originally was keeping tab on ] and habitual offenders, of which none of the scholars seem to have nothing to complain about. ] (]) 20:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Can you list plainly the sources you have that you feel paint a balanced picture of the journal? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
The article needs to remove all the commentary throughout the history. Arguments for/against registries is out of place. that debate happens in legislatures. This article isn't the place to discuss how or if they work or whether they are effective. All that advocacy material needs to go. --] (]) 23:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::The only source that has anything remotely balanced to say about the journal in that article is this: | |||
: Thank you for your comment. What particular parts of this article you consider as commentary? Where in this article arguments for/against is taking place? Please, give me a copy/paste example and I'll do my best to make it more neutral. At this moment RS supporting current legislation seems to be lacking. I'd be more than happy to include such RS when provided. ] (]) 03:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::There is such a thing as carrying an argument too far. Laws generally take a long time to be enacted, perhaps longer to be amended and even longer if ever to be repealed. Using Misplaced Pages as a platform for the amend and or repeal options is advocacy and is a violation of policy. I'd be more inclined this article could be saved if it previously had a history that was.more neutral...but since its new and this is where its at, even with the most recent alterations, I'm inclined to think the article should not exist. I'd recommend a move back to its original starting point before you split it off. None of these studies conducted indicate that the percentage of inconvenienced registrants that "do not deserve this penalty" can be quantified. The studies cite a few examples but all seem to fail to give us solid percentages, instead only citing small numbers as grounds for saying 'bad law'. Laws supposedly protect the law abiding from the law breakers and inevitably some people will end up being excessively penalized inadvertently.--] 10:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm trying to make the article more neutral. If the quotes must go in order to make it more neutral I'm ok with it (DHeyward probably meant this), altough, at least, the Wetterling critique is kind of notable as she was the person who initiated the first federal legislation. The article does not try to quantify the number of "wrongly" or too "harshly" "punished" (officially registration isn't a punishment). I can't imagine how anyone could even construct such a number objectively as drawing a line after which life-long registration is ok, say, to age difference, would be arbitrary. I'm sure there are estimates of the percentage of ] which I guess is somewhere between 5-20%, the rest of the registrants are something else (not saying that all of them should not be registered). You really think that the whole article should be deleted?? Honestly, would you propose this to be deleted had this been written primarily by someone else than me? I do understand that my username is pretty stigmatized, but that should not mean that all of my edits are garbage. To me it sound like ad hominem argument against otherwise relevant subject that warrants its own article. I wish more editors were involved, but not many are willing to touch this subject other than correcting my typos. They don't want to became "that sex offender editor". ] (]) 12:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm pretty frustrated as not many seem to be interested providing comments. I propose we do this: I'll try to make this article "complete", which would mean (to me) improving "Public notification" -section, checking what was lost after DHeyward pared and adding relevant parts (if there is any) to appropriate sections, and splitting "state court rulings" into their own article page. After this I would nominate the article to be ]. I propose we do this in honest way, assuming good faith and without unnecessarily poisoning the well or trying to influence the opinion of the reviewers in any other way, maybe even removing NPOV tag for the time of peer review process. After all this should be about the quality of the article, not my editing history or my POV on these matters. I don't believe that any of us are able to be completely neutral. This NPOV notice is already somewhat poisoned as it started the way it started. We need truly neutral editors to determine what should be done. Tell me what you think of this proposal? PS. I have removed all but two of the reform groups from the sidebar template as it gave them way too much weight. I did not add them in the first place, BTW. ] (]) 13:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::: I haven't begun to trim. I just removed the blatant violations from a few sections and ViperFace restored some of it. A complete review would eliminate about 70-85% of the article as speculation or POV. --] (]) 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Hence my rationale that until neutrality can be achieved, this is better off not being a stand alone article.--] 04:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::: @] I almost entirely agree with removal you did. Eg. the lede is currently identical to how it was initially written by me. Much of POVish material was added by one or two other editors, although many of the sections written solely by me did, in fact, contain POVish expressions, which I have tried to pare off. The whole article has much more neutral tone now. To my knowledge I have not restored anything you removed other than the image of Zach Anderson. The text under the image is not necessarily neutral. I'll fix it right after this post. ] (]) 14:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{od|6}}I apologize for the late reply here; my current schedule has kept me away from Misplaced Pages more than I would like this past month. When I signed in today, I found that I had been pinged to this conversation way up above someplace, and feel compelled to comment about this situation. This topic has been of interest to me for some time, but I don't normally do more on this subject beyond minor copy editing. (I did suggest a merge with some other articles but there was no consensus and I closed that discussion -- the removal of the merge-templates were probably my most major edits to the article.) In general, I am interested in subjects related to disproportionate treatment of certain populations within the US, especially within the criminal justice system. This includes, but is not limited to, the treatment of those labeled as "sex offenders" by society. | |||
::Tucker, William H. (2002). Jazayery (ed.). The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. | |||
As ] started editing this and other related articles, I was concerned that the sources might not have been legit or balanced, but I've found that with only two exceptions, every link I've checked has gone to sources that meet the definition of ], and I've been unable to find any counter-examples that are anything other than "opinion pieces" where non-expert commentators basically say that they approve of sex offender registries. On my user page, since well before this discussion started, has been a userbox link to ], which states that {{tq|the pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.}} (Imagine if the suggestion that an article cannot contain any POV were applied to the article on ].) Seriously, nearly every section of ] supports the work that has been done with this article. The suggestion that ViperFace should be topic-banned is ludicrous; we need more editors who will dedicate themselves to improving the articles here. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">] | ]| ] </span> 08:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I guess I'm ludicrous then because I think ViperFace, a single purpose account, should be topic banned. If the laws are so bad, why are they not only virtually unchanged but in most cases, they have been strengthened. A few states have contested some federal guidelines but not a single state has ceased using registries.--] 08:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::The article makes an attempt to discuss why amendments are not happening, altough I removed the quote of one legislators. If "the Wetterling- critique" was allowed, it would also discuss why the laws are often strenghtened. Sex offenders as a group are frowned upon by the public as they associate the word "sex offender" with rapists and child molesters. Any move to further punish such people gains points to legislators. The problem is: the laws target every offense that has an sexual element and even some that don't. I have not found a single piece of RS arguing that registries should go away entirely, but virtually all RS says they should not target those who are not considered dangerous. This critical view is overwhelming in peer reviewed RS. ] (]) 14:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::There is such as thing as losing the argument because you take the argument too far. The article even with my updates and trimming reads like an apology piece on behalf of sex offenders. Of course there is going to be negative fallout from some laws, but the incidence of recidivism has declined ''BECAUSE'' of the registries...prior to their implementation, the recidivism rates were four times those for released prisoners that had been incarcerated for none sex related crimes. You're only telling the story you want to promote...that is a violation of NPOV.--] 01:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::"the incidence of recidivism has declined ''BECAUSE'' of the registries..." This is nothing more than your personal opinion. Pretty much all RS says that registries do not seem to have noticeable effect on recidivism. A few studies have found some effect, and these studies were included in the article before you removed the whole Effectiveness- section because you don't like what the RS says. Everything you have removed recently was well supported by multiple high end reliable sources. ] (]) 19:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::By sources, you mean from biased sources. Explain why recurrence is significantly lower now than before the laws and registries were implemented. In the late 80's and early 90s the recividism rate was four times greater than for non sex crime parolees. You apparently did not look at my efforts to bring NPOV to the article. You've been deliberately cherry picking sources to promote your agenda.--] 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::The source articles have been published in '''peer revieved scientific journals'''. Even studies by government entities find similar results. The whole Academia seems to be biased to you. The RS also says that sexual crime trends started to decline well before any registration laws were passed. It declined along with the general crime trend. Talking about cherry picking, you added findings of study by Dr. Gene Abel. This study is a '''survey''' on a small sub group of sexual offenders that are known to pose considerably higher risk of recidivism than all sexual offenders as category. It's a survey on '''sexual predators''' or '''preferential child molesters''' who molested "pre-pubescent boys outside the home". Unlike the sources you removed, it is not a statistical analysis on '''all''' those who have been ever convicted of '''any''' crime involving '''any sexual element''' or even some crimes that don't but still require registration. Although I don't dispute the findings of that study (some scholars do BTW, the methodology can be seen as questionable), you are giving undue weight to a one study that was studying '''sexual predators''' (who are the correct target group for these laws) to push a POV that people who piss on the street, take nude selfies, have sex on the beach, "cop a feel" or have consensual teenage sex would pose an equal risk of attacking "young boys outside the home". Sex offender ≠ ]. Furthermore, you cite a paper that is not a peer reviewed study. It is a paper by ]. The current president of the said organization, Patty Wetterling, is one of the most vocal critics of current registration laws. She's biased, right? ] (]) 13:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::This ]?? ] (]) 08:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::So one editor is adding pseudo-science sources, and calling for the opposing editor to be topic banned. | |||
::::::And I see he adds things like: ''but based on studies regarding recidivism of such crimes which, based on a 1994 report, was four times greater than recidivism for those convicted and sentenced for non-sexual related offenses.'' | |||
::::::Claiming that '''recidivism rates''' for the two groups are compared, while the source compares the '''sex offenses''' committed by both groups. ] (]) 08:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::After adding that statement , the user removed material that contradicted his claim: with edit summary "''remove biased falsehhods)''" ] (]) 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Thanks for weighting in. Yes this is the same Gene Abel. I did not know this guy was that controversial, but when writing my last post I did have a fuzzy memory of some scholars having questioned the results of his studies. <s>Now, if I recall right, in this particular study the subjects were participating in a treatment program and they were constantly encouraged to disclose more victims. Failing to disclose more victims would lead into terminating the participation in the program and presumably longer stay in incarceration/civil commitment, pseudo-scientific methodology indeed (I'm not 100% sure, I'll verify this later). I relly hope that MONGO merely did not bother to check the sources, but just added what the NCMEC paper said. ] (]) 15:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
::Nearly everything else entered in that article is meant to make the journal basically look like neo-nazis literature which it is not. It is simply a linguistic journal that focuses on linguistic matters concerning the Indo-European language family. Hardly any of the content of the journal itself is presented or discussed in the article. Surely that is problematic in and of itself. The journal isn't about Roger Pearson yet the way the article is written would have you believe its all about Pearson and that the journal is racist which it can't possibly be since its a linguistic journal. ] (]) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Striking over as this is not the same study I assumed it was, although some problems of this particular study seems to be discussed in ] That being said, what MONGO wrote in the article is not entirely correct description of what the FBI (or NCMEC) paper actually says. (page 15). Also, I don't think it is appropriate to refer to the victims of child molestation as "partners" in the article, even though FBI downplays the seriousness of those crimes by choosing to use such a word in their paper. ] (]) 04:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::No, I'm asking you about what you have. If you could collate the bibliography from scratch, what would it cite? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{od}}We can remove Abel but my removals of advocacy POV pushing stands. We have more trimming to do before this article could possibly be a neutral treatise on the subject. ViperFace has used this article as advocacy platform and that is a policy violation.--] 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::The only other texts I can think of that would maybe counter balance things are actual articles from the journal itself which shows its not racist: | |||
*Dead wrong ViperFace...the report is merely the coversheet of an FBI produced report used for training purposes at that time at the FBI training facility in Quantico. To set the groundwork for why these registries were established it's important for NPOV to provide background on the available data at the time. Subsequent studies performed mainly by advocates on behalf of sex offenders also have their place, but interestingly, courts have routinely rejected their arguments because of a lack of empirical evidence. The evidence compiled by such sources as the bureau of prisons as well as probationary and enforcement data better reflects trends in post release than some newspaper or some pro sex offenders advocacy group who cite one or two examples of how the laws have negatively impacted a tiny fraction of persons and then surmise that because this tiny fraction was inconvenienced then the laws are too heavy handed.--] 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::https://www.jies.org/DOCS/jies_index/mainindex.html | |||
::You say: ''"Subsequent studies performed mainly by advocates"''. The RS you removed as ''"biased falsehoods"'' includes: | |||
::::I think the problem though is the content in the wiki article itself does not focus on what the journal actually has in it. Its all literature being used to paint it as racist. ] (]) 00:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::* Criminology has an Impact Factor of 3.098 and has rank of 2/55 (Criminology & Penology) | |||
:::::I mean, this is pretty quickly revealing itself as the unavoidable core issue though, right? We don't write encyclopedia articles based predominantly on primary sources—and in this case, what the journal itself contains is a primary source for claims about the journal itself—but on secondary sources, and so we're going to be first and foremost balancing what independent, published, reliable sources have to say about it. This is a pretty basic restatement of our core policy on ] and our guideline on ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::* | |||
::::::Right, I understand the issue here between primary and secondary sources. But I really don't think the secondary sources are necessarily reliable, Arvidson for instance has a political ideology that lends an inherent biased against what the journal is about. I suspect the same applies for probably other sources there as well. But it all seems at the end of the day unbalanced and against NPOV. ] (]) 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::* Journal of Law and Economics: ranking: #16 out of 45 in Economics: Law | |||
:::::::I'm sorry but we don't exclude a work from an academic just because they're Marxist. ] (]) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::* Rank: 30/41 (Social Issues); 58/62 (Psychology Social). According to Google Scholar this paper has been cited 288 times. | |||
::::::::The context in which Arvidson's ideas presented here within the article (too many one sided views) coupled with how the ideology creates a biasing effect against the topic per the author's book is problematic. There are quite a few claims in the Arvidson book that shows he really just doesn't care for the study of Indo-European linguistics and mythology per his political stance which is bias. Question: are opinions derived from books written by authors with a strong right leaning political ideology allowed here on wikipedia and considered 'reliable sources'. ] (]) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::You removed content stating that studies find lower recidivism rates than is commonly believed, and is for sex offenders as a broad category, actually second lowest among all offender groups. This was supported by: | |||
:::::::::Generally yes, unless the strong right-leaning political ideology gets into ] beliefs such as pro-eugenicism or other racist / supremacist opinions and assuming they're operating within an area of specialty and would not, otherwise, be considered unreliable regardless of their personal politics. | |||
::* | |||
:::::::::I'll be honest, when dealing with academic sources, I don't generally look up the ideological position of the author unless it's somehow actually relevant. And I don't believe it's at all relevant here. ] (]) 18:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::* | |||
::::::::::I think that is rather naive and not very reasonable that an author's background or ideology wouldn't be relevant and that due diligence shouldn't be given to an author's background when choosing sources that would write fairly or reasonably on a subject. I don't think a book Sean Hannity would write on socialism would be received well in a wiki article pertaining to said subject and would raise editorial ire fairly quickly. We are dealing with much the same situation here. ] (]) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::* | |||
:::::::::::Sean Hannity is not an academic and does not write academic books. As such he's rather irrelevant to this discussion and the context of my response ''which was specific to the review of academic books and journals.'' ] (]) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I have not had much problem with the paring you did earlier, but '''NOTE:''' There is clearly '''NOT consensus for ANY further trimming to be made by you''' without discussing about it on the talk page first as your recent edits were not accepted by ] (, ), nor user Ssscienccce, nor Me. When user Etamni asked you to show "any specific statement in the article that "advocates" for change?" you didn't even bother to answer. Further, when Etamni asked the same questions on your talk page, you asked him to go pack to the article talk page, the same page where you did not bother to answer. | |||
::::::::::::Academics do not represent completely neutral views. Certainly not Arvidsson. Just like Sean Hannity doesn't. Separating the two is not as useful as you think. Both entities are capable of publishing highly skewed views on any position. You're essentially discouraging due diligence here. I don't find that very academic and suspect in its own right. ] (]) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::] () seemed to approve how the article read before you started deleting supported content. User JRPG also characterized your behavior as possible violation of ] against me and reminded you of ] (). ] (]) 01:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::] does not mean that a source must be neutral. ] (]) ] (]) 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I'll keep trimming it in hope it can be neutral and not the advocacy piece you would like it to be. If that's not feasible due to your incessant POV pushing and coatracking it will have to be sent to Afd where it will be voted on for deletion, merge or whatever.--] 07:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Bringing up the highly biased and skewed Arvidsson text as not within the many guidelines within Misplaced Pages's NPOV is fair game. You are trying to set your own perimiters here. ] (]) 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Firstly ] is required. Neither ] nor I are US citizens and neither of us have any personal benefit to be gained from the article -which isn't going to change US law. I came here following a ] request and this is the first and last sexual article I will comment on. The issue has been much debated in the UK where public opinion favours publication. Successive UK governments have rejected this and ] newspapers have highlighted the draconian effects of teenagers being registered for many years for unwanted but non forceful sexual approaches. Nothing that Viperface has written appears to be ] and whilst I have full respect for ] and his contributions, assuming the sources are ] he is out of order here. FWIW I have had a school governor role and therefore have had training in child protection UK style. ] (]) 08:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I agree that this is a problem that needs to be resolved. Anyone familiar with Indo-European studies is aware that the Journal of Indo-European Studies is a major, respected, and influential peer-reviewed publication in the field. ] (]) 00:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::If content supported by ] is further removed without seeking consensus on talk page I will revert on sight and request the article to be ]. We do not need another edit war. It is obvious now that most editors have concerns with your behavior MONGO, rather than mine. ] (]) 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Exactly. There really isn't anything wrong with the Journal itself, especially if you read it, but the sources presented have a peculiar bias against the journal. ] (]) 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::], looking at this in a dispassionate way, and the terms you use when making edits or describing ]’s motives, I suspect you have reasons for your obviously very strongly held views. I note you’ve contributed very little to this discussion but have simply deleted material from the article as you saw fit. Whilst there is consensus that the article is too long , I don’t think you’re helping. You’ve previously asked your friends to tell you when to shut up and as someone who respects your massive contributions over the years I think you should consider taking a voluntary break from this topic. I propose restoring an earlier version as a base and remove the state by state section to a separate article. ] (]) 16:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, you're free to think there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm genuinely not sure what we're meant to do while writing an encyclopedia article about it? Are we supposed to adopt a totally novel process than when writing about anything else? (To the best of my ability, these aren't rhetorical questions.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thanks but I'll decline your suggestion. The trimmed POV pushing and advocacy that I removed was put in the article by a self admitted single purpose account and I am well aware of his editing history. These things may be fine in an article titled ] but in the form they currently dominate this article, they are simply bloat and distraction. We still have much to do to get this disaster balanced.--] 17:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::In short, we just need to build out the article more regarding its reception, especially with discussion from individuals who actually have a background and standing in historical linguistics. For example, a quick look at the editor-in-chief since 2020 reveals quotes that actually reflect how the journal is perceived in for example philology and historical linguistics (eg. ). ] (]) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::You are pretty much only one who sees considerable POV pushing in this article. The article from which this one originates as a split on the other hand seems to be as POVish as they come. I (pretty much single-handily) re-wrote and expanded the whole article according ]. There is not a single revision where citations are from advocacy sites, or advocacy blogs, or studies by advocates (don't really know where you get that from). If there is a POV in this article it originates from the RS per ] as it should. Yes, there was some unnecessary repetition and highlighting of some points which were already removed per the discussion we had here. Only thing I have problem with is the removal of the tiny section about reformists (which could be trimmed more) and the loss of a large part of the "effectiveness"- section. Other than that I consider the current revision as the most stable version this far. Also, having repeatedly reading through ] I seem to be well within the allowed boundaries. Other editors seem to have acknowledged this. Please, calm down a little and take time to reach consensus on the talk page. ] (]) 18:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::: ] ] applies, it can be sorted -don't make yourself ill over this. ] (]) 22:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Oh I'm not...but there are so many policy violations here it makes me question your ability to understand what neutral point of view is. ViperFace spun this article off and has used it as a platform to espouse his already well exposed POV. These "reliable sources" are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions. I've already seen your POV posted to ViperFace's talk page, whereby I have previously stated that there is always room for critique of laws, just not room for 90% of an article to be a soapbox for changing the laws. No idea why you or ViperFace would give a hoot since the laws and registries have little to zero impact in your native countries. ViperFace once said in his country they are considering strengtjing their sex offender laws and he was concerned that anyone reading en.wiki articles on American laws might cast a too favorable view to outsiders. I have dealt with SPAs with an agenda before and each time they end up banned.--] 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: I have said that there was a short public discussion about having US style registries here, where professionals were quick to point out the obvious flaws of the US system. That's how I learned about the whole issue and the fact that WP did not have a sufficient article about US registries. You say: ''"These 'reliable sources' are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions."'' I say: ''You are lying.'' '''Please put forward at least one "inaccurate advocacy opinion" as an example.''' It is pretty much your responsibility after making such a statement. Anyone may go and look previous diffs to verify that 1/3 of the RS was and still is from peer reviewed academic sources or studies by government entities. Rest are news reports used as secondary sources. There were initially a lot more academic RS included but they were removed per ], but no "inaccurate advocacy opinions". Someone is lying through his teeth here to gain an upper hand again as initial ] did not work. ] (]) 01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: This is how the original article was before the split: . The article initially said: "Studies almost always show that residency restrictions increase offender's recidivism rates" and other BS like that. I actually cleaned it up quite a lot and you say I spun it off??? I'm also worried that you might have some ] issues as you seem to be working, or have worked for the Department of Homeland Security and tracking of sex offenders seems to be within their remit. ] (]) 02:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Ahem...I wouldn't have any idea if the DOHS is involved in overseeing sex offender registries...the legislation is passed at the federal level but its likely enforced by state regulators, parole boards and such. I am also not a liar. Four editors here have questioned the neutrality of this article so it's not just me nor my fault this board gets too few posters. I suppose if trimming the article of its inherent and obnoxious POV and advocacy is going to be so argumentative, it likely needs to be sent to afd to gain a wider audience. It might survive that venue now that it's been trimmed down some but I think it pretty obvious you need to be shown the door sooner rather than later.--] 05:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::: And four have OK'd the neutrality. There's also one editor who has not commented here but did contribute to the article relatively much (]). Like I have said, the article reads as more neutral after the paring we have done but I and couple of other editors were not happy with some of the most recent deletions. Still, I'm quite confident that it would have stood AfD even before any clean up, although comments of neutrality would have likely been seen. I was considering to send this to AfD myself to just to get this over with. These accusations really piss me off: ''"These 'reliable sources' are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions."'' Either you have not really bothered to check the sources, or you are deliberately saying things that are not true, trusting that your good reputation is enough to sway the opinions of other editors. I really, really, really hope it is the former one. You really need to be able to post some diffs after such accusations. One option would be put this trough peer review process but I'm ok with AfD if you want to do that. ] (]) 11:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::: I promise to self impose myself a ban for some time on these topics after we have reached consensus with respect the few controversial deletions you did. ] (]) 11:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
A note to anyone in this place who still gives a crap: In response to my changing one word that ] had previously edited in which mis-characterized the source material (and providing clear reasoning why it was a mischaracterization), MONGO deleted the whole paragraph with a mocking comment of "good point...its POV". When I reverted and asked for reasoning or sources rather than ], he immediately got the help of a friend (]) to revert it again in the same fashion ("Per WP:NPOV").<br> | |||
When I challenged ScrapIronIV for reasoning or sources, he responded "Not happening" and began blanking everything that didn't match his and/or MONGO's POV, with only token attempts to pretend his reasoning was any more than an echo of MONGO's "POV" claim. (Now he's all-but admitted they were deliberate POV edits in retribution.) Meanwhile, MONGO is bragging about how this is what happens to people who contradict him and his friends, and accusing me of being a ban evader based on the evidence that... I'm an IP who disagreed with him.<br> | |||
Gee. I wonder why I ever left, this place is a paradise... oh wait, now I remember. It ''is'' a paradise... for those who know how to game the system, because the rules make it easy for them to make others waste much more time following the spirit of the rules than they themselves waste by pretending to follow the letter of the rules (well, usually). And for some strange reason, people give up once they realize this. '''That''' was why.<br> | |||
So, yeah. Good luck with it, and I'll go back to remembering there's no point in caring about an organization that doesn't mind being used for the ends of small groups with an agenda. (Not to mention an organization that has refused to learn from its own history, or Stephen Colbert's attempts to warn it about ].) ] (]) 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I never asked anyone to revert your revert. It's entirely possible that others disagree with you.--] 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I was never asked anything by anyone. I came across it patrolling recent changes, which is one of the things I do here. My edits were to remove a slew of predetermined and biased information. Even when something is sourced, it does not necessarily belong. So many small sourced statements were being made that it led ] weight to the information presented. Errata, like a rule in one place where Registered Sex Offenders are not allowed to pass out Halloween candy. Make enough statements like that, and each little item adds a straw to the camel's back - the article was overloaded with loaded - but sourced - statements. I reduced it, and removed clearly biased and argumentative information. The article is about Sex Offender Registries, not about homelessness among sex offenders, or how their rights are being violated (particularly when the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise). Let's keep a clean article about registries, and leave the activism for sex offender rights out of it. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::It was much more believable when you openly admitted they were POV edits ("Any additional cruft to show criminals as victims will be promptly addressed.") and simply refused to provide any rationalizations ("Not happening") when asked for reasoning or sources. ] (]) 23:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::A glance at your contributions page shows you were indeed extremely busy making edits on a variety of pages, I'll concede.<br> | |||
:::So how, pray tell, were you able to read a very large article, fairly determine the weight that should be given to each of multiple POVs based on what the sources actually say, and discern that ] was in the right and should be assisted using all of the above rationalizations that you've given... in the space of under a minute?<br> | |||
:::It certainly couldn't be that ''you didn't'', and simply reverted because you had been asked to. ] (]) 23:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I have been involved with a number of these pages. You will find my contributions on at least four registry/law pages on this topic. The third highest of my contributions to talk pages is on one of them. I was quite familiar with the contents of the page long before I saw that pointed addition. Coming to that conclusion should not have taken a full minute, if it did - I'm slipping. Stalk much? Keep this up, and I will open up a thread on YOU here. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::There are opinions about the journal expressed in secondary sources that have questionable merit. Especially when you compare these opinions to what's actually in the journal. This is indeed very problematic and presents a rather unique problem here. I don't know the best way to remedy this either other than through continued dialogue. Perhaps maybe we can strike a harmonious balance. At the moment, something is very wrong here. ] (]) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Second Opinion Requested == | |||
:::::Ultimately the article (as with all Misplaced Pages articles) needs to be based on what reliable secondary sources say about the journal. What editors think of the journal is of no import, and what editors of the journal say about it is of limited use. The solution is to find additional secondary sources that discuss the journal. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I see some edits made over at the JIES article but to me it seems making a whole subsection about Pearson does more to draw away what the journal is about. The journal is not Pearson. Contributors and editors like Mallory, Polome, Adams, and Kristiansen made the journal by and large what it is today. Not Pearson. We still have some ways to go here. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Could I get a quick set of eyes on ]? You don't need to conduct a full DYK review, I just want someone to confirm or reject my belief that the DYK hook is too ]AL. I'm not entirely confident in my own determination, as it's probably on the line, and would appreciate input from a second editor. ] (]) 06:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I think the solution is to simply build out the rest of the article and then return to it. ] (]) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The secondary sources in the article clearly indicate your opinion - that the presence of a known white-supremacist as a founder of the journal is irrelevant to the reputation of the journal - is not universal among academics. I concur with bloodofox. If you're concerned about how the journal is depicted then you find sources that support it being described as ''not'' an armature of ]. ] (]) 18:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The limited secondary sources that are highly biased in the wiki as it stands does in no way represent a universal opinion among academics in and of themselves. The journal is simply not being represented fairly based on the texts available. Pearson's involvement is vastly over stated and the idea that its an extension of himself somehow is completely unfounded. ] (]) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Ok this is getting repetitive. I'm sorry you haven't got the response here you hoped for. But the advice to improve the article by finding additional academic sources is good advice and would serve you better than suggesting we should never treat the criticism of a journal with a white supremacist founder as due because said criticism came from a Marxist. ] (]) 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Again you're discouraging due diligence and whether or not a source can be viewed as reliable or not. If you would just read the journal yourself you would see its not at all what Arvidsson is trying to paint it as. ] (]) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I'm sorry but ] isn't appropriate in this case. Arvidsson is reliable because he's an academic writing about the topic that is at the literal core of his academic domain. He is, flatly put, a ] for criticism of Indo-European studies. As such it would be a violation of ] ''to exclude him''. However that does not mean that Misplaced Pages should treat his position as privileged in some way. If other ] disagree with him then they would be due inclusion too. This is why you've been told to find other sources. ] (]) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Ardvisson as a 'best choice' in this is simply your opinion. You're a socialist after all, so apparently he seems reasonable to you. Many others would not feel the same way you do. Sorry if you do no understand that. But feel free to continue the 'repetive' conversation here. At the end of the day all I see is due diligence being discouraged and a lack of NPOV. ] (]) 19:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::And now we have reached the point in the conversation when I ask you to read ]. ] (]) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::There was no personal attack. My tone was the same as yours. For all intended purposes that would mean you should read that yourself. If you would like to end this conversation cordially, now would be fine. We simply don't agree. ] (]) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::{{tq|You're a socialist after all...}} is, in context, a personal attack as you're suggesting my own, openly stated, politics makes me incapable of recognizing whether an academic is operating within his specialty - which he did his doctoral thesis on - and are trying to dismiss my advice accordingly. I would kindly ask you to strike that comment. ] (]) 20:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::I said politely that we should end this conversation as its turning out to be very, very unproductive. We don't agree on anything apparently and I don't take very well to people discouraging due diligence and setting their own standards on how wiki guidelines should be viewed. Please, stop. ] (]) 20:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* I mean, if that's what sources say about it, then that's what sources say about it. The sources we're citing there are largely academics with at least some degree of expertise in Indo-European studies, race science or far-right movements. Also, we're really only devoting a few sentences to the matter, which are roughly balanced in terms of focus - two for scholars who criticize it; one noting the existence of the boycott, and two from Tucker and Mallory ''defending'' the journal (and the defenses are given slightly more text!) Having them exactly balance out like that isn't ''necessary'' of course, but it makes it harder to argue that they're being given undue weight - aside from the fact that the page says almost nothing else about the journal at all, which is solved by finding other sources covering other aspects. (I will say that I did a quick search right now and found only a few passing mentions, ''all'' of which were about the race science connection to one degree or another. That really does seem to be the only aspect of the journal that has received meaningful external coverage. See eg. : {{tq|Although Duranton-Crabol (1988: 148), fifteen years ago, pointed with alarm to his involvement, Lincoln appears to be the first US-based Indo-European specialist to openly comment on the worrisome background of Roger Pearson, the publisher of the prestigious Journal of Indo-European Studies since its founding in 1973.}} Notable mostly because it's a secondary source describing such concerns, which lends additional weight to at least mentioning them.) ...also, they point out that Bruce Lincoln, who we cite in the article, ''is'' actually an Indo-European specialist; we might want to look at what we're citing him for and see if there are more details there. --] (]) 22:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*{{ping|Geog1}} You must notify other editors involved in a discussion (i.e. me) when you post it to this noticeboard. There is a big red notice instructing you to this at the top of the page. – ] <small>(])</small> 07:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*I don't really get what we can do here. "Neutral" specifically is a technical term meaning in proportion to what the independent, reliable secondary sources have said on the topic, and the limits of editorial discretion do not extend to excluding the what seems to be the views expressed by the majority of those sources, as indicated by the participants here. If the sources say that the earth is flat, then we can only report that that is what the sources say. Misplaced Pages does not have the resources to conduct original research, and it would be disallowed by policy even if we were able to. ] (] • ]) 09:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Just one other thing I have to bring up here. I noticed the Tucker quote had the text about Pearson's involvement regarding published material in JIES flagged as dubious for a while. I don't know by who. Eventually it was removed because someone (not sure who) did research noting Pearson had published 3 articles in the journal. That would seem to be original research. When we look at the Berlet and Lyons quote being used in the article, they claim the Journal is 'racialist' and 'ayranist' but it is a linguistic journal not 'racialist' or whatever. This can be seen by just reading a few entries from the journal which can easily be found online just like the Berlet and Lyons quote was easily pulled for online yet we see that characterization of the journal persist. This appears to present some inconsistency on how editing policy is being used. | |||
== ] == | |||
I see the comment by ] mentions how if 'reliable' sources report the earth is flat, then according to wikipedia policy, its fair game to put into an article and discuss. While I understand this is a policy, I'm not entirely sure if its serving us well here. This could open the door of Pandora's box for all sorts of misinformation to be presented in wiki articles. | |||
This article is absolutely terrifying. I would like your attention. | |||
* Read my edit summaries and check the changes I made | |||
* Check my message in the talk page. | |||
* Still in the talk page, notice that the '''tone''' and neutrality of the article have been questioned in the past a significant amount of times. | |||
Cheers, ] (]) 04:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Some of the passages in this article are absolute delights: | |||
:* ''"St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. is an important church for the WASP community."'' | |||
:* ''Like other ethnic groups, WASPs live in proximity of each other in close social circles.'' | |||
::The article is hilarious and, most impressively, faithfully sourced throughout. The sourcing aside, there's obviously a fundamental structural issue with respect to tonality that can't be fixed by some edits. It should probably just be blanked down to the lede. ] (]) 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
Finally, I took a look at the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society article. I see an entire section with no sources entitled 'discussion papers' which essentially relates to the journal's content. No one for some reason seems bothered that its not sourced but I have doubts that a similar section in the JIES article would go without scrutiny if we were to say flesh out what the content of the journal is actually like. Again, it would appear inconsistencies are presented here regarding wikipedia policy being applied to two different journals. | |||
== Assumptive and non neutral language added to Fringe Theories guideline == | |||
I don't know what can be done here, but like I said before in the JIES talk page, I'd welcome more information that could help balance out the article a little more. However, I also feel this is a situation where wikipedia policy is failing a particular article and I doubt this is the only one. In the future, it may be useful to revisit wikipedia policy and see if changes could be made to help prevent or better remedy situations like this. | |||
was added to the Fringe Theories guideline. The language is so inflammatory and non neutral especially for a guideline that I am bringing it here for neutral input and reading. I refuse to edit war this content and leave the working out of this to the larger community.(] (]) 15:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)) | |||
Best, | |||
Per this edit summary: "This is not an article. It is about fringe theories and the problems we encounter, therefore this is all exactly on-topic. Don't whitewash this to promote a fringe POV." | |||
] (]) 17:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Language of the guideline is being skewed so that the assumptive and inflammatory is presented as neutral while what might be neutral language on any other guideline or policy is presented as biased and POV. We should at the very least have policies and guidelines that are written in a neutral manner. (] (]) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)) | |||
:@]Thank you for bringing up these important points. It's clear that there's a need for careful scrutiny and consistent application of Misplaced Pages's policies to ensure accuracy and neutrality in our articles. | |||
:The guideline applies to all editors, not only ones that can be labeled as fringe or lunatic. ] (]) 16:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Regarding the Tucker quote and Pearson's involvement, it's essential to rely on verifiable sources and avoid original research. If a reliable source supports the claim that Pearson published in JIES, then it can be included. However, if the source is questionable, it should be approached with caution. | |||
*Most of your changes don't strike me as an improvement. The first part ('Proponents of fringe theories regularly attempt...') is the core summary of the section, and replacing it with 'editors may' completely undermines what it says; I don't think that that part is particularly non-neutral. Likewise, "...not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories..." is essential because the gist of the section is that people who are devoted to such theories frequently attempt to use Misplaced Pages to promote them, something we have to take specific steps to oppose; changing it to "editors or personal opinion" loses this. We could possibly lose the "lunatic fringe" quote, which doesn't seem essential, but I agree with BullRangifer's implicit statement that policy text is not subject to ], which specifically refers only to articles, so even that removal isn't strictly necessary. --] (]) 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:The characterization of the JIES as "racialist" and "Aryanist" is a serious allegation. It's crucial to base such claims on solid evidence from reliable sources. Simply reading a few articles may not be sufficient to make such a sweeping judgment. If there are specific examples of racist or discriminatory content in the journal, they should be cited and discussed in a neutral manner. | |||
:The Aquillion comment about the "flat Earth" scenario highlights a potential limitation of Misplaced Pages's policies. While it's important to be open to diverse viewpoints, it's equally important to maintain a high standard of quality and accuracy. In cases where there is a clear consensus among reliable sources, it's important to prioritize that consensus over fringe theories. | |||
:The issue of unsourced content in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society is a valid concern. However, it's important to consider the context and purpose of such sections. If these sections are intended to stimulate discussion and debate, rather than present definitive facts, then they may not require strict adherence to sourcing guidelines. ] (]) 06:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Everything being discussed is appropriately sourced to ]. ] (]) 12:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Also please have the respect for other people not to reply with a textwall of obvious chatbot glurge. ] (]) 12:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== notability concerns === | |||
Per Rhoarke: Policies and guidelines apply to all editors not those we choose to label. I would go one step further than Rhoarke and suggest we shouldn't label anyone. As for Jimbo's quoted cmt.; there is no place for name calling on Misplaced Pages. That Jimbo made this comment in public is no reason to use it here. The point is not whether my changes improve; its whether we should be slanting our policies using labelling and name calling. If there is agreement that we should colour policies that way then that is the community agreement, but heaven help us.(] (]) 17:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)) | |||
* Gonna skip all the conversation above and ask an honest question... can we just delete it? states it has an h-index of 10, and states an impact factor of 0.2. It doesn't seem like it would survive ]. ] (]) 20:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Well, aside from ''maybe'' the Jimbo quote, I don't see how the other parts are name-calling; and I do think that labeling has a place (in the sense that policies sometimes have to use labels to say "don't do this; don't be like that.") We identify vandals, tenacious editors, and so on as problems to be dealt with in other policies; identifying proponents of fringe theories here ''as a general category'' to be watchful of strikes me as reasonable. Obviously, as with any other accusation about user conduct, we'd want people to be cautious about accusing individuals of it without evidence, but it's something we legitimately have to be watchful for and which is therefore worth spelling out. --] (]) 18:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:Did AfD: ] ] (]) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Policies and guidelines apply to all editors. In this instance we identify editors under a criteria that is wider and more nebulous than an identification like vandal, and the criteria for identification is also nebulous and subject to change on the whim of personal opinion and bias. Before we label editors in a policy or guideline we need to make sure the label itself can be applied with consistent accuracy by all editors not just by those who have demonstrated they use the view to create outcasts to their view. Yes. POV labeling. We cannot create labels to tack onto people and then further cement that label by including it in a guideline. Further, labeling people as lunatics and charlatans is name calling and I hope beneath the dignity of people here. Are we professionals or not. We aren't when we call people names because we don't like what they do. (] (]) 19:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)) | |||
*::The result was '''speedy keep'''.] (]) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Olive, I'm surprised you haven't alerted ] to this discussion. Or have you, and I've missed it? Surely it would be helpful to get his take on it, beyond what can be crammed into edit summaries. It's not like you took it here and left it in the hands of neutral editors, is it; you have continued to post and argue with them, and more than half the words in the discussion are in fact yours. There, I've pinged him. ] | ] 19:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC). | |||
== ] & ] == | |||
I left a note on the talk page where he made the reverts . Since he reverted my changes I assumed he would look at the talk page. And no I did not intentionally leave him out of the discussion. I have continued to expand and comment on my concerns while not reverting to my preferred version of the guideline. In the end it doesn't matter to me what is added to that guideline (in part because it won't make any difference to how people are treated) or I would have reverted to what I consider to be a neutral version. My intent was to explain and expand on clearly what my concerns are. I understand your innuendos and they are unfounded, and I am truly sorry you felt you had to deal with my input this way. (] (]) 20:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)) | |||
Some IPv6 has opinions about ] & ]. Can someone who knows about such things please take a look? Thanks, ] (]) 07:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:The diff given at the beginning is really quite deceptive, seeming to show substantial rewording on BullRangifer's part. He actually added only the quote at the end and the change of tense at the beginning. Almost all of what you see in that diff is actually the reversion of Littleolive oil's changes . It is this change against a consensus version that hadn't changed since at least August 2012 which needs justification, not BR's relatively minor edits. ] (]) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I did not lay blame for the edits on anyone nor was that my intent, but its true I hadn't seen them until today and felt they as a group they were not appropriate words for a guideline. I left a notice on the talk page as notification for any editor including BR interested in a further analysis of those edits. The diff represents my edits not BR's so I'm not sure how the diff is deceptive. Please AGF.(] (]) 23:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)) | |||
== Confusing language from a Mark Biondich source related to Balkans == | |||
*] is applicable to all editors, whereas, the section in ] noted above (i.e. "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories") refers to a particular subset of editors... those who invent, promote, or adhere to fringe theories. Now, not everyone who invents, promotes, or adheres to a fringe theory is a "lunatic charlatan", so I would be OK with removing Jimbo's quote. - ] (]) 21:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::: ], I agree that NPOV applies to all editors, but it ''only'' applies to the encyclopedia itself, IOW only to ''articles'', not to article talk pages, policies, guidelines, or userspace. Even content in articles need not be neutral. At least that's my understanding. | |||
::: This is not directly related to this discussion, so if you think this is worth further examination, it might be best to start a new discussion. I would love to hear what other people think there, but not here. We must not derail this discussion. Does that make sense to you? -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 17:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
"In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.": https://books.google.com/books?id=gt8SDAAAQBAJ&q=Muslims+casualties+millions+Balkans&pg=PA93 | |||
::While I still disagree with the wording because of its possible implications, you make a good point which is logical and makes sense when you say, "the section in ] noted above (i.e. "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories") refers to a particular subset of editors.". (] (]) 23:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)) | |||
Why would Mark Biondich add those "killed or expelled" to those Muslims who emigrated to mean deaths as is stated in the ] article. As I see it from a neutral viewpoint, he refers to the reduction of Balkan Muslims as "casualties from the Balkans". | |||
I would like to get other viewpoints and advice related to these. ] (]) 12:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|Theofunny}}, the way I understand your interpretation, when Biondich says "the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million", you think this includes those expelled, right? So you think the word "casualties" do not mean only deaths. Is this correct? ] (]) 13:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Yes exactly. Like even in a war, the term casualties is quite flexible and is a source for confusion as it could mean all who are dead or all are dead as well as injured. ] (]) 13:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Later in the page he uses the term "victims" for "dead, wounded, and refugees". I don't think the term is as flexible as you think. ] (]) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Generally "casualties" includes dead and wounded. Including refugees is a bit novel but I don't think it's unduly confusing provided it's described with care. ] (]) 13:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::The question is, is my rewording in the article ] correct? {{tq|The historian Mark Biondich estimates that, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, more than three million Muslims from the Balkan area died, and around two million Muslims were displaced.}} ] (]) 13:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Those numbers don't seem to line up with what the OP posted as a quote from the source. Can you please elaborate? ] (]) 14:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I had interpreted the quote from the source as how Biondich calculated the number of deaths (casualties). ] (]) 14:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::{{tq|"In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans."}} He says 2 million left between 1878 and 1912. He says more than another million ("When one '''adds'''...") left or died between 1912 and 1923. (The number who died or left 1912-1923 is added to the number who left 1878-1912 to equal "far exceeds three million".) The source does not support any number that died because he groups those who left in the same estimate. ] ] 14:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Yeah my concern is that the two figures seem to be divided chronologically but not by type. So we can't determine what percentage of the three million were killed rather than expelled or wounded. ] (]) 14:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@]+1 ] (]) 08:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | {{od}} | ||
Thanks everyone! Looks like I was incorrect in this one due to my misinterpretation of the word "casualty". | |||
Nice discussion here! I see I missed the party, but I'll leave a couple diffs which show the differences between the contributions/revisions: | |||
I was also confused because McCarthy and Kaser give much higher number of deaths, around 5 million, in ]. So 3 million made more sense. | |||
* | |||
* | |||
Now I see that it has to do with dates. It should have been clear from the quote actually, but looks like I missed it. | |||
I'll let all the fine editors here discuss the merits and demerits of each version, and maybe there is some usable good in each version which could be used in a third version, one which is even better. Whatever will improve this guideline is fine with me. | |||
The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence since 1878 is available through Misplaced Pages Library. | |||
I notice some focus above on this applying to "editors", but we must keep in mind that these fringe people who attempt to misuse Misplaced Pages are often not regular editors, but driveby promoters and advocates who use the "edit this page" tab. They should not be treated or advised in the same way as trusted editors who know our PAG. That's why my version made this change: "Proponents of fringe theories <s>have in the past used</s> regularly attempt to use Misplaced Pages as a forum for promoting ..." I think we can recognize this as a common and problematic occurrence which must be discouraged, and that cannot be done with neutral language. | |||
Page 94: | |||
{{tq2|When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.157}} | |||
Source 157: | |||
{{tq2|157. Mazower, The Balkans, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii; and McCarthy, Ottoman Peoples, 149–62}} | |||
Biondich gives same numbers and sources in chapter , page 1: | |||
Keep in mind that NPOV does not mean neutral ''content'', but <s>neutral ''editors''</s> ''editors'' who edit neutrally. We document all kinds of non-neutral things and biases, using very biased sources, and our articles are often filled with such biased content, and that's how it should be. The important thing is that Misplaced Pages does not take sides, so the bias is not coming from Misplaced Pages's editors, but from the sources, and editors must not neutralize what sources say. Censorship is "taking sides"! They must faithfully reproduce the ideas, biases, and spirit of the sources. (I'm working on a new essay on this subject.) {{;)}} -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 05:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{tq2|The road from Berlin to Lausanne was littered with millions of casualties. Between 1878 and 1912, millions of Balkan Muslims emigrated or were forced from the region. When one adds up those who were killed or expelled between the Balkan Wars (1912–13) and Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), the number of Balkan-Muslim casualties may have exceeded three million. By 1923, fewer than one million Muslims remained in the Balkans.1<br/>...<br/>1 Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History (New York: Random House, 2002), xxxvii–xxxviii;<br/>Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Arnold, 2001), 149–62.}} | |||
:Then why not let neutral editors like (] (]) improve the NPOV....?--] (]) 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::: ], I see my wording has led to confusion, so I have tweaked it. Obviously no editor is neutral, neither myself, nor Olive, nor yourself. My edit is at least factual, so I'm going to seek a consensus, and I'll abide by it. Fair enough? -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 04:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::The statement in question (i.e. "Proponents of fringe theories regularly attempt to use Misplaced Pages as a forum for promoting their ideas.") <u>is</u> accurate and neutral. - ] (]) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Also note that the text in this section of the guideline had remained untouched since at least October 2012 (i.e. three years); the first paragraph hadn't been touched since at least October 2009 (ie. six years). Consensus needs to be reached, preferable with discussion on the talk page, before changes are made. - ] (]) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC) <small>edited 05:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
:::: ], I agree with you that, because the edit has been contested, we should seek consensus before proceeding. I also agree that this discussion should have been held at the article talk page, but Littleolive obviously chose to use this venue for the discussion, and immediately after starting it here they , presumably to direct editors there to come here. | |||
:::: So, where is the best place to discuss, now that the discussion already exists here, and was intended to exist here? Shouldn't we just continue here, rather than have two discussions on the same subject? -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 04:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::If you want to form consensus for the inclusion of the wording you propose, the article talk place is the right place. This page is in fact entirely irrelevant for the discussion as NPOV doesnt even apply to policies.] · ] 05:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
I don't have Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire. But the book seems to cover 1912-1922 period of Ottoman Empire . So this aligns with the quote from Biondich. | |||
I agree that it was probably inappropriate to bring this discussion here. However, I wanted input from the community as a whole. Both Bull Rangifer and I changed the guideline and are following those changes with discussion, all appropriate actions. The content I can't agree to is the Jimbo quote for the reasons I've given. I don't agree with BR's other changes or the stable version of the guideline, but given BR's reasonable input, and some of the insights above I could support both.(] (]) 11:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)) | |||
:: ], I understand and agree that community input is valuable. I totally AGF in you and think we can just work toward more input and get some kind of consensus. My edit had two parts, and the quote from Jimbo should be left for later discussion. Right now let's all concentrate on the wording of the first sentence. There has been some good input here, and we can ping or otherwise seek input when we continue this on the guideline's talk page. Does this seem reasonable? -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
This is what Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History says, pages xxxvii–xxxviii | |||
:I think one of the Village pump pages, possibly the Policy one ], is the best for notifying about a discussion like this but the discussion should take place on the talk page of the fringe theories guideline. The language does seem wrong to me and I would not let the business about it being from three years ago deter there. The Fringe theories noticeboard was a real cesspool then which actively deterred members of its clique from telling anyone on a talk page that the subject being discussed on FTN, and they plotted ways of acting in concert to remove articles. At least they now have a note at the top that they should inform editors that they are being talked about even if they don't put a notice on the talk page of an article being talked about. When I just looked now the discussions seemed fairly okay so I would give the benefit of the doubt and see if you can get a reasonable discussion on the fringe theory guideline talk page. ] (]) 13:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{tq2|Christian Europe’s blindness to Muslim victims overlooked the huge movements of populations triggered off by Ottoman decline. “People often talk in the West about transporting all the Turks, in other words Muslims, to Asia in order to turn Turkey in Europe into a uniquely Christian empire,” Ami Boué had written in 1854. “This would be a decree as inhumane as the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, or of Protestants from France, and indeed scarcely feasible since the Europeans always forget that in Turkey in Europe the Muslims are mostly Slavs or Albanians, whose right to the land is as ancient as that of their Christian compatriots.” Yet, according to one estimate, nearly 5 million Muslims were driven from former Ottoman lands in the Balkans and the Black Sea region in the century after 1821; from the Balkans themselves between 1.7 and 2 million Muslims immigrated voluntarily or involuntarily between 1878 and 1913 to what would later become the republic of Turkey. The Turkish language declined as a regional lingua franca, urban settlements were taken over by Christian incomers and Ottoman buildings were deliberately demolished or left to rot. The dynamiting of mosques and other architectural masterpieces in Bosnia-Hercegovina in the early 1990s was thus the continuation in an extreme form of a process of de-Islamicization that had begun decades earlier.19}} | |||
So the general confusion we had in ] has to do with dates and geographic areas (Balkans only or including other areas). Whether from 1820 to 1920, or 1878 to 1912, or 1912 to 1923. Mark Mazower only talks about displaced, but the 5 million displaced after 1821 is also in other sources. | |||
I'm fine with taking it back to the guideline talk page, and with dealing with the first sentence, first.(] (]) 17:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)) | |||
I'll fix the wording in affected articles in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: Agreed. Go for it and I'll get back to you a bit later. Thanks for great collaboration! -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | |||
:You should add the displaced figures by Mark Mazower in the article and and a '''displaced section''' in the infobox too with the other sources and Mark M. ] (]) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
] -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 05:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I can't do everything today, but I'll make some of the changes later. I already changed the wording in the article ] (]) 15:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
It is a dispute in about https://en.wikipedia.org/BRICS#cite_note-:2-173 | |||
Nobody seem willing to verify my citation therefore I lost this edit war. | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BRICS ] (]) 17:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Can you give more details and a link to the discussion at the talk page? Right now it's not clear what the dispute was about. Also, you might want to review ] and assume good faith. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Dear @] , yeah I can https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BRICS#Much_more_efficient_than_SWIFT . | |||
::I didn't get notified of your reply, please use the @] it would make it easier to keep up with the conversation. ] (]) 21:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
( @] you are welcome to join ;) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Contradictory Claims on HTS Governance and Human Rights Violations == | |||
The article on ] (HTS), a Syrian paramilitary organisation that has been designated a terrorist organisation by a variety of countries, contains contradictory information about the governance of HTS in occupied territories. | |||
The ] section claims HTS has generally not interfered in womens' lives, has been tolerant towards religious minorities, and has been lenient towards civilians. These statements are based primarily on a chapter written by Dareen Khalifa in the book ''The Rule is for None but Allah'', published by Oxford University Press. Khalifa’s work relies heavily on interviews with HTS leaders. For many claims about HTS' tolerance, the source she gives is "author interview, Jolani ", "author interview, HTS commander" or similar. | |||
However, as an anonymous user pointed out, the section ] (which for transparency I authored) contradicts this, citing multiple lengthy reports by the UN, EU, US, and human rights organisations, which document enforced dress codes, repression of women, executions for "crimes" such as blasphemy, forced disappearances of political opponents and activists, persecution of minorities, torture, among others. The governance section makes no mention of these reports, or that much of the current information in this sections relies on interviews with HTS leadership. | |||
The primary dispute appears to be that the users @] and @] consider Khalifa's chapter a reliable (or authoritative, given that her claims about HTS tolerance are stated as fact) source, because even though many of her claims are based on interviews with HTS leadership, the chapter is in a book published by Oxford University Press. The user @] is also of the opinion that the reports by the US government are "propaganda", although the user has not addressed the reports by other institutions that come to similar conclusions as the US reports. | |||
I am the other party to this dispute, and am of the opinion that the variety of reports by multiple - in my view credible - international organisations and human rights groups (and yes, the US too) should at least bear enough significance to warrant a re-writing of the Governance section, making it clear that much of the information regarding HTS' tolerance is based on HTS' self-portrayal in interviews and that there exist multiple credible reports that document a rather draconian and repressive governance policy employed by HTS. For example the ] concludes that HTS has interfered "in every aspect of civilian life" and notes that women have been whipped or even executed for violating religious dress codes (). | |||
The discussion on the talk page can be found ]. Neither @], @] or I have engaged in edit warring, but the way this discussion is going appears to be an endless back-and-forth, so it would be nice to get outside opinions. | |||
] (]) 00:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Have I successfully removed the promotional content from this article? == | |||
The owner of ] made ] and ] edits at his own article yesterday. I tried to remove the "fluff" and restore the ]. Has the ] been restored, or is it still too promotional? ] (]) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:yes, looks better now ] (]) 21:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Edits to “Game Science” == | |||
Discussion regarding ] has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. As the first subsection deals with a POV edit and the disputed edits create a POV more favorable to Game Science, I would appreciate your comment at ]. ] (]) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This isn't actually a neutrality problem. You've been arguing against things like attribution of quotes and secondary sources. Heck you tried to argue with me that attribution automatically casts doubt on the attributed statement. ] (]) 20:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::As I’ve said, the first subsection is about a neutrality issue. I am contesting that change because it violates NPOV, which explicitly mentions and forbids casting doubt through attribution. ] (]) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Attribution is not automatically casting doubt - it's good practice dealing with quotes or opinions to attribute them. ] (]) 20:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Not according to NPOV for RSes that state factual information, as I’ve quoted the policy to show in the discussion on the article’s talk page. I encourage you (and anyone else) to reply there for the added context of the quote. ] (]) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::It's a newspaper. It doesn't hurt the article to says "according to SCMP" and your resistance to that is perplexing. ] (]) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Look, I and a policy supported by community consensus agree that adding in-text attribution when we already have inline citations unnecessarily casts doubt. If you disagree with the policy, try and get consensus to change it. ] (]) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I think your policy interpretation is weak. And, generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't. ] (]) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Specifically your policy citation is to ] and this is not a "the sky is blue" situation here but is, rather, a newspaper reporting on an acquisition where the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment. ] (]) 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I don't see how "the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment" makes the fact that an acquisition happened doubtable and require in-text attribution. (Also, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to cite an essay on inline citation, which is about the {{fake ref}}, not "according to...". My reply here assumes you were contesting whether the claim {{tq|Hero Games acquired a 19% stake in Game Science through its wholly-owned subsidiary Tianjin Hero Financial Holding Technology in 2017, but sold the stake in 2022}} falls under {{tq|Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources}}.){{tqb|generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't.}}You may as well tell that to everyone who cites a policy to remove text it explicitly forbids. Anyways, I'll be moving this to the article talk page soon. ] (]) 22:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@] You do not have permission to refactor my comments please restore this discussion to its prior state. ] (]) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Ugh, if you say so. I'll transclude it there then. It's much better to centralize discussion in one place. ] (]) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::It is clear that South Morning Post reported on the relation between Hero Games and Game Science. It is also clear that Hero Games stated that they couldn't comment on the relation when asked directly about it. Using wikivoice is inappropiate, and an attribution is needed. Secondly, don't act like you have a consensus by proxy for your unilateral stance though a (misrepresentation of a) policy. --] (]) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I am replying on the article's talk page to centralize discussion. ] (]) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::You brought the discussion to the noticeboard. This is borderline disruptive. ] (]) 17:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::It is very common to notify and invite noticeboards to comment <em>elsewhere</em>. I invited participants of these noticeboards to comment on ]. ] (]) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
===fringe zoning the editor=== | |||
{{hat|Hatting rant from well-known and multiple blocked fringe POV pusher.}} | |||
{{ping|C_at_Access}} | |||
IMHO the page should have a warning at the top to inform the reader that any contribution in the skeptic dictionary zone of wikipedia will be used against you until the end of time. If you do not want to be harassed both on and off wikipedia avoid all articles under the catch phrase. Do not attempt to make even the most trivial contribution like spellings corrections or fixing broken templates and ref tags. Any and all contributions will demote you to the status of fringe editor which, after repetition, is a bannable offense. | |||
Circulating on relevant noticeboards... essentially if contentious oligarch label should be mentioned in intro ] (]) 20:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== NextEra Energy == | |||
Deleting sentences, whole sections and whole articles or making contributions that are obnoxious, offensive or paint a negative picture in some other way are of course welcome. | |||
Hi editors, I'm Matt and I work for NextEra Energy. I currently have two edit requests (first one linked ] that I think are directly applicable to this noticeboard. Content added some time ago by a now-banned user (]), which was largely copied from the Florida Power & Light article, creates some neutrality issues, particularly as relates to ]. The above linked request is to move content in a section titled "Environmental issues" about a power plant that was never built – and therefore can't be an issue – to the History section, in line with ]. | |||
Do not engage the fringe editor in discussions about content on the article talk page but limit your article talk page contributions to exclusively describing the fringe editor himself. If a discussion about content is inevitable make sure to use the fringe editors user talk page. It is advisable to invite other skeptic dictionary editors to the user talk page discussion and (where available) one of the grand inquisitors (known as administrators elsewhere on wikipedia.) Some deception and distortion might be desirable to help the administrator overcome their sensibility. Victory can be had by means of: Permanent ban, temporary ban, topic ban, locking the article or simply running the editor off the wiki. Always make sure the quality of fabrications and the number of reverts are sufficient before moving in for the kill. | |||
The second request is a bit meatier and involves removing some content that is pulled directly from a source without attribution and/or uses poor sourcing for negative information that doesn't meet the requirements of ], and moving what remains to the History section, again to improve ]<nowiki> in line with NOCRIT. I would appreciate any feedback or help you can offer. Because of my COI I have avoided making these changes myself and I'd like to have this page be reflective of our overall desire to have the page be neutral and factual. ~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 23:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Helping other editors overcome their neutrality is not always easy but several successful formulas have been crafted over the years: | |||
:In any case, as an editor I genuinely appreciate these requests being made in a responsible and transparent manner. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* Any contribution is disruptive editing | |||
* Any contribution qualifies the author as fringe pov pushing | |||
* Any contribution qualifies the author as a fringe editor | |||
* Any revert proves the fringe editor was disruptive (per 1,2 and 3) | |||
* Any contribution disrupts the stable article / guideline | |||
* Any request for assistance made by the fringe subject qualifies as forum shopping. | |||
* Always request help outing the fringe editor. | |||
* Any guideline can be ignored by means of consensus | |||
* Any distortion of guidelines is a matter of opinion (aka consensus) | |||
* If no guideline is available for distortion you may create one on the talk page. | |||
* Good distortions should be written into law. | |||
* Any source with the word skeptic in the title is acceptable and should be quoted as fact. | |||
== Unwarranted promotional and COI tags on film articles == | |||
I think this would improve the guideline a lot. The thing we really want is for people to stop trying to contribute to articles related to fringe blasphemy as well as the freedom to brand topics as such. | |||
Hi, I need help with some tags that have been added to two articles please: | |||
Our methods are of course already highly effective, hell we even have discretionary sanctions going for us, but the guideline is really quite dishonest about the futility of the effort. If only Fringe could be loosely equated with "the bad guys", only then editors could repent and work on more important topics from these ] such as disco music and video games. | |||
* ] | |||
* Draft:The Misguided | |||
I'm getting pretty tired of the constant unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing (which got removed after review), then COI tags without evidence, and now suddenly it's "promotional content" - but nobody's actually pointed out what's promotional or what constitutes a conflict of interest. Here's the situation: | |||
] (]) 14:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:We don't need rants. You haven't said anything constructive or useful in any way. Your irony or whatever is a waste of time. If that was the level of your response to whatever it was that annoyed you I can see why you got nowhere. ] (]) 15:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
1. Everything in these articles comes from proper independent sources like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat | |||
== RfC announce: What does ] cover? == | |||
2. Yes, some reviews are positive, but that's what the reliable sources reported | |||
3. My only contact with the filmmaker was to check facts like dates and get source materials | |||
4. I have no other connection to these films or anyone involved | |||
5. The latest tags were just slapped on without any discussion, continuing this pattern of baseless accusations | |||
The articles stick to Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view rules. If something sounds promotional, tell me what it is and I'll fix it. I'm happy to add any negative reviews too if someone can find them in reliable sources. | |||
There is a request for comments at ] ]. | |||
You can see the whole frustrating history here: | |||
At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain... | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
Can we get a fair review based on what's actually in the articles, not just assumptions and accusations? I am requesting that these unwarranted promotional content and COI tags be removed from the articles. Much appreciated! | |||
:''"Misplaced Pages's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."'' | |||
] (]) 22:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
...or whether it should be changed to... | |||
:Update: I've just discovered that the entire Reception section, which contained properly sourced reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and multiple independent critics, has been removed without discussion. This further demonstrates the issue with these arbitrary content removals. The deleted section was entirely based on reliable sources and followed Misplaced Pages guidelines. I have preserved the content and sources and request review of both the tags and this content removal. ] (]) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:''"Misplaced Pages's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical '''and health''' information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."'' | |||
::This discussion is ] here. You should know, you posted in the section. ] (]) 23:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{u|MrOllie}}, yes, I'm aware of that discussion. The wholesale removal of a properly sourced Reception section warrants broader review. This isn't just about a tag anymore - it's about the removal of verified content from reliable sources without justification. ] (]) 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::It wasn't "removed without discussion" as you just stated, then, was it? You've had an account since 2017, and in that time 100% of your editing has been about the films of Shannon Alexander, and often quite promotional in nature. If you don't want people to think you have a COI, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric, and strongly consider finding a way to improve the encyclopedia that is entirely unrelated to Alexander. ] (]) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{u|MrOllie}}, | |||
:::::1. The Reception section was actually just removed without proper discussion. A few quick comments declaring content "promotional" without specific examples doesn't constitute real consensus. | |||
:::::2. Your statement about my editing history is wrong. My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander. My recent focus on documenting these films stems from noticing a gap in coverage of internationally-recognized work - I've said countless times. | |||
:::::3. There's nothing "promotional" about including properly sourced reviews from reliable publications. If positive reviews exist in reliable sources, documenting them isn't promotion - it's proper encyclopedic coverage. | |||
:::::The focus should be on specific content concerns, not repeated unfounded attacks and assumptions about editor's motivations. ] (]) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Katherine Langford's article, where you wanted to correct information about a project she'd recently been in. Who made that film, I wonder? . Dishonesty is not going to help - every time you post something like this these 'attacks and assumptions' you mention appear to become better supported. ] (]) 23:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::This is just blatant forum shopping of a grievance previously discussed at the Helpdesk and now at COIN . | |||
:::::::Also, why does the user continue to lie that their edits to ] were {{tq|completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander}}? | |||
:::::::Here is one of the edits : {{tq|Langford will appear in her first feature film, ''The Misguided'', an independent comedic drama by Shannon Alexander}}. In actual fact, all of the user's edits to that article relate to Langford being in a film by Shannon Alexander. | |||
:::::::Pants on fire, my friend, pants on fire... ] (]) 23:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::And Stan... | |||
::::::::The reason the tags are in place and the reasons that the removals of material have occurred is that pretty much everyone who has commented in the various threads you've started ''disagrees'' fundamentally with what appears to be your transparent promotional agenda. | |||
::::::::For reference, normal editors do not (a) create promotional articles, (b) open multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC, (c) talk about when the articles will start to appear on Google searches, and (d) open multiple threads trying to strongarm other users into removing COI/PAID tags. | |||
::::::::That pattern of behaviour is how conflict of interest users operate, usually ones who have been paid to produce articles to order. ] (]) 23:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::{{u|MrOllie}}, your implication about my editing history misses the point. Like many editors, I followed connected topics that revealed gaps in coverage. Following a subject area and documenting it with reliable sources isn't wrong - it's how Misplaced Pages grows. | |||
:::::::::More concerning is the removal of an entire Reception section containing properly sourced reviews from established publications. The content was based on reliable sources including Rotten Tomatoes and Film Threat. If specific statements appeared promotional, they should have been identified and discussed, not wholesale removed. | |||
:::::::::This pattern of removing sourced content while making assumptions about contributors' motivations vioaltes Misplaced Pages's principles. ] (]) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::It was discussed in the relevant place and the consensus was for removal. Another user has since added back the Rotten Tomatoes part of the Reception section, by which we can reasonably assume that they agree with the rest of the removal. | |||
::::::::::As I have stated to you before, the ] is on the editor wishing to include material, not on those wishing to remove it. There is clearly no consensus in favour of inclusion, so arguing for inclusion in 3 completely separate threads (this thread, this one and this one ) is pointless. | |||
::::::::::In any event, it is obviously contrary to Misplaced Pages policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews, whether they are good or bad, so your line of argument is a very bad one in any case. Removal was thus entirely non-controversial. ] (]) 05:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::{{u|Axad12}}, your interpretation of both consensus and policy continues to be problematic: | |||
:::::::::::1. The "consensus" you reference was a single editor agreeing with you, while ignoring multiple objections. The fact that another editor has since restored part of the Reception section actually demonstrates that there isn't consensus for wholesale removal. | |||
:::::::::::2. Your interpretation of WP:ONUS is incorrect in this context. The content was already established with proper reliable sources. The burden shifts to those seeking removal to demonstrate why properly sourced content should be deleted. | |||
:::::::::::3. Your claim "it is obviously contrary to Misplaced Pages policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews" is simply false. Film articles regularly contain substantial reception sections when supported by reliable sources - see ] and ]. The removed content was based entirely on independent, reliable sources providing critical analysis. | |||
:::::::::::4. Regarding multiple discussion venues - each serves a distinct purpose and was used appropriately. Characterizing proper use of Misplaced Pages's established channels as "pointless" misrepresents how Misplaced Pages works. | |||
:::::::::::The core issue remains: properly sourced content was removed without valid policy-based justification or genuine consensus. ] (]) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::You are completely wrong. ] (]) 16:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::The core content issues remain: | |||
:::::::::::::The removed material was based on reliable sources and followed standard article formatting. No concrete policy violations were identified. | |||
:::::::::::::Removals occurred without consensus, and often without any substantive talk page discussion. | |||
:::::::::::::Vague claims of "promotional" tone have been asserted without pointing to specific passages or policies. | |||
:::::::::::::AI detection results are being misused to discredit good faith, policy-compliant contributions. | |||
:::::::::::::If there are proper neutrality or sourcing concerns with the removed content, please identify the exact issues so they can be addressed collaboratively. But so far, the removals appear to be based more on unfounded personal suspicions than objective policy issues. | |||
:::::::::::::Wiki articles rightly include reception sections with mainstream press reviews. That's not inherently 'promotional' it's documenting verifiable real-world coverage. Removing properly cited review content is detrimental to readers and sets a terrible precedent. | |||
:::::::::::::I remain committed to working with anyone who has constructive, policy-based feedback on improving these articles further. But edit-warring removals and personal attacks need to stop in favor of substantive, collaborative discussion. We deserves better. | |||
:::::::::::::Let's get back to focusing on content and policies, not personal battles. I'm happy to discuss any neutrality problems if you identify concrete examples. But so far I've yet to see a compelling rationale for these removals of policy-compliant material. ] (]) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::The only important issue here is that, despite you starting multiple different threads in various different arenas, ''no one else agrees with you''. | |||
::::::::::::::Therefore the tags remain and the removals remain. | |||
::::::::::::::You just have to accept that you are in the minority and move on. Continuing to argue is simply disruptive. ] (]) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::{{u|Axad12}}, your characterization of "no one else agrees" is both incorrect and misses the point. Several editors, including DMacks, have confirmed proper licensing and sourcing, and @Aafi has confirmed the images are restored after permissions verification. The issue isn't about counting votes - it's about following policy. | |||
:::::::::::::::The systematic removal of: | |||
:::::::::::::::1. Properly licensed images (with verified VRT permissions) | |||
:::::::::::::::2. Well-sourced content from reliable publications | |||
:::::::::::::::3. Standard film article sections matching Misplaced Pages's format | |||
:::::::::::::::...cannot be justified by simply claiming "you're in the minority." Misplaced Pages is not a vote-counting exercise - it's about following established policies for content inclusion. The continued removal of policy-compliant content while dismissing legitimate concerns is what's being noted and actually disruptive here. ] (]) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::I have no interest in the image issue. I am talking about the tags and the removal of the Reception section. | |||
::::::::::::::::The consensus is again you ''and'' you are consistently arguing contrary to policy, so the distinction you draw above is rather pointless. You have also been demonstrated to be a liar. ] (]) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::{{u|Axad12}}, | |||
:::::::::::::::::I strongly object to your repeated accusations of dishonesty. If you believe I have misrepresented anything, I ask that you provide clear evidence rather than resorting to personal attacks. Misplaced Pages is built on good faith and such language is both unproductive and contrary this platform. | |||
:::::::::::::::::Regarding the tags and the Reception section, I have consistently argued my case based on policy, including WP:NPOV and WP:V. I have sought to include well-sourced and neutrally presented content. | |||
:::::::::::::::::Consensus is not determined by the number of voices in a discussion but by the strength of the arguments grounded in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. I remain focused to working within those frameworks. ] (]) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::I provided evidence of your dishonesty upthread here . The evidence is so clear that I will happily once again call you a liar. ] (]) 19:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::Also, you consistently seem to believe that consensus is whatever you believe is correct, disregarding the opinions of every other user you encounter. ] (]) 19:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::1. Regarding transparency and process: | |||
:::::::::::::::::::: - Paid editing tags were initially added but subsequently removed through proper channels after review | |||
:::::::::::::::::::: - Wiki images were challenged but verified and reinstated through official processes | |||
:::::::::::::::::::: - All content is based on reliable, independent sources | |||
:::::::::::::::::::: - I served as an authorized representative specifically for image licensing/copyright verification, which was done transparently through proper Misplaced Pages channels | |||
::::::::::::::::::::2. Regarding consensus, let's look at the actual outcomes: | |||
:::::::::::::::::::: - Multiple administrators have reviewed and approved image reinstatements | |||
:::::::::::::::::::: - Paid editing tags were removed after proper review | |||
:::::::::::::::::::: - Content has been verified through reliable sources | |||
:::::::::::::::::::: - I've made requested changes when specific issues were identified | |||
::::::::::::::::::::3. This pattern shows I'm following Misplaced Pages's processes correctly. While I'm eager to expand my contributions to other topics and articles, I'm consistently forced to defend properly sourced and verified content instead of moving forward with new contributions. | |||
::::::::::::::::::::I’ve repeatedly suggested we focus on addressing specific content concerns through collaboration, but this has been met with nothing but resistance, preventing any meaningful progress. ] (]) 20:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked following a thread at ANI . ] (]) 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== RFC on Taylor Lorenz controversial statement regarding healthcare ceo shooting == | |||
Posting to relevant noticeboards: ] ] (]) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from ] to ] on a large number of Misplaced Pages pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --] (]) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Bizarre weight on disordered eating in ] == | |||
== Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. == | |||
] is already a very specific article that might be worth merging into something more general, but ] so I guess there is no reason to ''not'' have an article on grazing. Still: | |||
The wording of the NPOV banner is a persistent contributor to edit warring across the 'pedia. I've opened a discussion on that at ] ] (]) 16:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Almost all the sources cite Conceição's work on disordered eating, and grazing's role in it. | |||
== Too much science in ] == | |||
* The article does not really describe grazing except for it being a risk factor in disordered eating, according to this one person. | |||
* The article ''does'' contain information like the languages that Conceição's grazing questionnaire has been translated into. | |||
I think if you exclude undue weight and Conceição-promotion then there are about 2 sentences worth of notable info which can be merged into another article. ] 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Read the third paragraph (the last one) of the lead section. The paragraph is giving undue weight to science in an article that is not about science. I tried to at least add qualifiers like "in a scientific way" and "according to science" but both times I've been reverted. I came here to request someone to remove excessive bias, and overall, tone down that section, if appropriate. Cheers, ] (]) 03:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:"''in an article that is not about science''" The article is about a subject relevant to science. In fact, one of the sections of the article is related to the scientific views on the topic precisely because many sources talk about that connection. What you seem to be doing is to try make scientific evidence etc sound like "just another opinion". ] (]) 09:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::yes, that's quite plain. The third paragraph is entirely appropriate, I'd say. ] (]) 13:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::: Yes, due weight dictates that the best sources and best evidence be given the most weight. The balance should not be level between unequal content. Scientific fact and opinion weigh more than unscientific speculation and fringe theories, so they get the most weight. Articles about pseudoscience and fringe theories must always make it clear that the scientific POV is the best one. We do that by letting the sources speak for themselves. That's what they say. -- <code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 03:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::: Third paragraph seems to be a concise, accurate summary of the relevant section of the article body, and necessary in order to not give undue weight to fringe theories. <span style="text-shadow:0px 0px 2em #eea">]</span></sup>]] (]) 20:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Use of ''Watch Tower Society'' == | |||
The article on Jehovah's Witnesses uses Watch Tower Society when describing doctrines (shortened for ''Watchtower Bible & Tract society of Pennsylvania, Inc''). It uses "Watch Tower Society teach", "Watch Tower Society publications teach", "Watch Tower Society policy is that" and so on. FYI ''Watchtower Bible & Tract society of Pennsylvania, Inc'' is the corporation in US to which many of Jehovah's Witness' publications copyright belong to. Some copyrights belong to ''Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc.'' and presumably other corporations around the world. Secular sources sometimes use Watch Tower Society when describing doctrines but its not accurate anymore, since 2000, all corporations are completely independent of religions Governing Body (spiritual leaders). Non-profit corporations are used by Jehovah's Witnesses around the world for administration, publishing and for legal defense. I opposed using corporation names when describing doctrines and policies of Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe it was stemmed out of the fact that some ex-JWs editors prefer that wording to support alleged authoritative structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. (scholars dispute that claim). I felt its an NPOV issue. My reasons are below | |||
== ] and connected pages == | |||
* A corporation is not the source of Jehovah's Witness doctrine. It's the Bible and its interpretation by governing body. (doesn't matter if its published or copyrighted by one or more corporation) | |||
* There are multiple independent corporations used by Jehovah's Witnesses with the words "Watchtower Society" around the world (Its ambiguous) | |||
* Some teachings are disseminated orally in conventions (later with an explanation in one of the publications from Governing Body copyrighted by Watch Tower Society or another corporation) | |||
* Jehovah's Witnesses use other independent corporations without the words "Watch Tower" to copyright its publications. (example ''Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc'') | |||
* Using "Jehovah's Witness publications say" or "Jehovah's Witnesses policy" or "Governing Body teach" etc is accurate and neutral when describing official teachings | |||
* ] | |||
In the light of the recent fall of the Assad regime in Syria, I have been trying to update a bit the articles about the ]. There, I noticed that a lot of importance was given to Mrs Randa Kassis, which made me suspect that this could be a case of ]. Please note that presented her as the "leader" of the Syrian opposition, as a "leading figure of the Syrian opposition" and a "Leading secular female figure", all in the biographical infobox. A lot of content in the Randa Kassis page seems to rely on primary sources. After a simple research I could find that Mrs Kassis is controversial among the opposition due to her alleged ties to Russia. , , . Other people within the opposition have presented her and her groups as Russian-backed operatives. This may or may not be true, but it has to be mentioned in the article. | |||
I recommend to only refer to corporations when describing its history, legal aspects, publishing and administration. And not to use it when describing doctrines or church policy. See ]. I also notified this thread in the current discussion page. (An Rfc is raised, only one involved editor commented so far) ] (]) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Also, several pages have been created about the groups created or chaired by Mrs Kassis, namely the ], the ] and the ] (the latter of which should be rewritten). | |||
:Roller958, who is a Jehovah's Witness, has been pressing the point for some time that the term "Watch Tower Society" in the article is being used to imply JWs are "a bunch of uneducated ignorant people ... controlled by a corporation called WTS". I have ] many examples on the talk page of widespread and longstanding usage of that term by authors of academic and mainstream works in referring to the umbrella organisation that issues doctrine and policy for the religion and administers and directs its activities globally. ] continue to use that term without any negative connotation. Apart from Roller958, I am not aware of any suggestion that that term has a pejorative meaning. At the talk page he is resorting to cherry-picking to support his weak and novel argument. ] (]) 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Like you said I can also say, BlackCab, an ex-Member, has been writing in the past about alleged mind-control techniques used by his former religion and its authoritative and corporate style. That's not relevant. The secular sources you added is not accurate anymore, since ''Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc'' is a corporation without any Governing Body members as its officers. Before the year 2000 it used to be. Why are you insisting on this when its clear that the source of doctrine is Bible and Governing Body? Does it have anything to do with alleged and disputed claims of Authoritative structure? It's not important which publishing company prints doctrine, or owns copyright its important who writes the doctrine. We attribute as such. You just realized that after days of discussion all your arguments has been weakened. ] (]) 23:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::You have raised this here as a POV issue. There is in fact no point of view (implicit or explicit) in the usage of the name of the Watch Tower Society. ] (]) 23:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::It is a POV. You push the use of "Watch Tower Soceity" despite my clear explanation and ] that its not accurate and its historical. Use "Governing Body teach", "Jehovah's Witness publications teach" etc. --] (]) 23:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Your belief is that the term "is POV of critics to prove that JWs is nothing but a bunch of uneducated ignorant people (supported with the statistics on low college degree) controlled by a corporation called WTS." I am interested in seeing if other editors sense that same implication. ] (]) 00:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Why are you insisting on this then? What's your attachment to use Watch Tower Society when its inaccurate and ambiguous when describing doctrines? It is simple and clear to say "Jehovah's Witness publications", since Watchtower Society is not the sole copyright owner of all Jehovah's Witness publication nor it is the leadership. I also like to see what independent editors say.--] (]) 00:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Roller958 has ''already been told'' that it would be okay to change some instances for variety of presentation.--] (]) 03:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
The Watch Tower Society of Pennyslvania (not "''Watchtower''") is both the ''parent corporation''<ref>''1980 Yearbook'', page 257: "The first of these, formed in 1881 and incorporated in 1884, is known today as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. It is the parent of similar religious corporations formed world wide. Among such are the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., and the International Bible Students Association in a number of British Commonwealth nations."</ref> of other corporations used by Jehovah's Witnesses, and it is the ] for where JW doctrines are to be found.<ref>''The Watchtower'', 15 December 2012, page 29: "FOR decades, men and women around the globe have appreciated and benefited from the Bible-based information published in the pages of ''The Watchtower''.</ref><ref>''The Watchtower'', 15 December 2012, page 2: "© 2012 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania."</ref> The article is very clear in indicating that it is the Governing Body that ''establishes'' JW doctrines, but the ''sources'' that can be ''cited'' in the article are from ''the Watch Tower Society''.--] (]) 02:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
While the Astana Platform is notable enough to warrant a page, I have my doubts about the first two, so I proposed to first merge the Movement of the Pluralistic Society page into the Randa Kassis article. | |||
The ''guideline'' (not a ''policy'') at the JW WikiProject page refers to statements about those who ''lead'' or who ''set doctrine'' (and I already recommended a change for the ''one'' instance in the article where this is currently an issue). It does not refer to properly indicating ''where'' the doctrines are ''presented''. The ''guideline'' does not trump actual ''policies'' about ''citing sources''. Watch Tower Society publications are authored ''anonymously'', and it would be inappropriate to present those sources as statements of the Governing Body.--] (]) 03:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
As a result, an IP accused me ] of being "obsessed by Randa Kassis", and commented that what I did was "revolting" and amounted to "an harassment or sectarian political activism aimed at erasing or muzzling anyone who does not have his opinions". There were also ] of malicious libel, presumably also against me. | |||
:I highly question if parent religious corporation does mean they are legally binding. Its simply suggesting that other corporations were created in a similar line, with the similar name with the original corporation in Pennsylvania. They are managed independently and run independently. For example corporation charter of IBSA, of Watch Tower Society UK, of Watch Tower Society of Australia all clearly shows they are managed by Jehovah's Witnesses in respective countries. Regardless my other reasons above stand clear. Corporation is separate from Governing Body (spiritual leadership). Therefore "Jehovah's Witness publications" is accurate. --] (]) 03:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Several references mentioning Kassis' suspected role as a pro-Russian operative were removed. The merger request was also unilaterally removed (I just put it back). Please note (I guess that "the admin" is supposed to be me, even though I am no admin). , and also appear to be about me. | |||
::But back to why we are ''here'': what is the point of view being presented to which you object? ] (]) 03:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::You simply keep asking. Insisting on using Watch Tower Soceity when its not necessary suggest a corporation that control doctrines is the POV. Replace that with "Jehovah's Witness publications or policy or teachings". --] (]) 03:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::That's just a content dispute. You should probably take a moment to read ] ] (]) 04:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Apart from the personal attacks against me, I think that the pages about Randa Kassis and her initiatives need to be monitored and rewritten in order to ensure their neutrality and avoid ] as well as ] and ]. | |||
== What happens when a big portion of an article is promotion == | |||
I have also as it seems normal to mention the controversies within the opposition. | |||
I was asked to help copyedit ] but it reads more like a page from a tourism brochure instead of an encyclopedic article. For example, the section ''Cuisine'' is off the charts. Much of the article lacks RS because there simply aren't any so we're also dealing with OR. I don't want to provoke any edit wars but at the same time, I believe the article has potential to be a GA if we can get it compliant with NPOV. I am open to suggestions. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:If parts break our policy, can't we remove these parts? ''The gruesome ] of ]'' 14:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
However, I will now abstain from editing the page about Randa Kassis as long as it has not been reviewed by third parties. Thank you. ] (]) 08:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
==UK, Canada, Australia and NZ== | |||
Does the section violate weight and is it relevant to ]? | |||
:I’m from Egypt, and Randa Kassis is well known to many of us for her courage. Since 2007, she has spoken openly about social, political, and religious taboos and has appeared on numerous Arab media outlets. She was one of the first to champion secularism. | |||
A Commonwealth Realm is a member of the Commonwealth that shares the British monarch as head of state. This section discusses a proposal to provide greater integration between the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ. While these four countries are Commonwealth realms, the reasons for greater integration appear to be the countries' similarities, rather than sharing the crown. There is no proposal to include the other non-white Commonwealth Realms or any recommendation that the four countries could only belong if they agreed to retain the monarchy. (Both Australia and NZ are considering severing ties with the monarchy.) | |||
:You can observe that the secular coalition she created and presided over, alongside other opponents in 2011, preceded the formation of the Syrian National Council (SNC). After her expulsion from both the SNC and the secular coalition due to her warnings about Islamists, she ceased presiding over the secular coalition, and its fate remains unknown. | |||
:She was the only member of the opposition to adopt a pragmatic approach, going on to establish the Astana Platform in 2015 and the Constitutional Committee in 2017. Both initiatives were later recognised by the UN, Russia, Turkey, and Iran. ] (]) 11:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I don't mind mentioning this, as long as it is duly sourced and does not make the page look like a promotional piece. What we must also mention, however, is that Randa Kassis' ties to Russia have been controversial and widely reported by the media. ] (]) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I have added a NPOV tag to the Randa Kassis page as it still looks heavily promotional. ] (]) 19:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Hello, regarding the edits on Carolina Amesty == | |||
Furthermore, the "United Commonwealth Society" has received no coverage at all in reliable sources. The source used in the article is its web page. | |||
I disagree with the edits made to the ] article. I have noticed that a user is adding information with a negative bias against Carolina Amesty instead of maintaining an objective and neutral approach. For my part, I added and removed information based on the official report. However, the Orlando Sentinel, a source that has maintained a critical stance towards Amesty and published a series of negative articles, has been used as a reference. | |||
] (]) 18:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
To avoid conflicts, I will not undo any further edits, as I believe this is the appropriate space to resolve disputes between users. I prefer to wait for an impartial third party to review and determine the best version of the article. It is important to be cautious with sensationalist sources. If the information were accurate, it would be appropriate to include it, but this is not the case. I recommend reading the official report to ensure a more objective approach. ] (]) 15:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 19:35, 23 December 2024
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Eugene Lipov
(Note: I received significant assistance in writing the material below from a M.D, who chooses to remain anonymous rather than publicly attacking another doctor. Any errors in the following are mine.)
Our Eugene Lipov article uncritically presents stellate ganglion block therapy as if it was a well established medical treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. It appears to be an experimental treatment with very little support from the medical community, yet Dr. Lipov is selling these treatments for PTSD ( https://stellacenter.com/treatments/sgb-dual-sympathetic-reset ) and Long COVID ( https://stellacenter.com/treatments/long-covid ) at 22 locations in the US.
The American Psychological Association strongly recommends four interventions for treating post traumatic stress disorder, and conditionally recommends another four. See Stellate ganglion block therapy not on the list.
The list of publications cited by Dr. Lipov to support the use of Stellate Ganglion blocks for the treatment of PTSD ( https://dreugenelipov.com/publications-2024/ ) is rather unimpressive. Dr. Lipov has been using this technique since 2008 and has given thousands of injections but there are no references to any long term outcomes data for his own patient population on his list of citations. There are ZERO references which specifically review patients treated with the "Dual Sympathetic Reset" technique.
Despite the claim that, "Stella aims to heal the injury, instead of just managing the symptoms", one of the papers listed as a citation on the Stella Center web page concludes that "stellate ganglion blocks are NOT a "cure" for PTSD... but have the potential to significantly reduce symptoms as part of the treatment plan for combat related PTSD".
Although one of the cofounders of the Stella center is a PhD psychologist and the website has the tagline, "Highly effective evidence based mental health care", there are no studies from the psychiatric literature referenced on the website.
Insurance companies won’t pay for Stellate ganglion block injections because published studies documenting their effectiveness are lacking, and because long term effects are completely unknown. A well controlled randomized and double blind study published in 2016 concluded that:
"Although previous case series have suggested that Stellate Ganglion Block offers an effective intervention for PTSD, this study did not demonstrate any appreciable difference between Stellate ganglion blocks and sham treatment on psychological or pain outcomes." .
Approximately 125,000 veterans are currently diagnosed with PTSD, and both the Veterans Administration and the department of defense are highly motivated to find and implement reliable treatments for the devastating condition. However, the official 2024 VA position statement on Stellate ganglion blocks was:
"Stellate ganglion blocks may have short term benefits for some individuals with PTSD, but it is not an established treatment at this time because the evidence is not conclusive. Stellate ganglion blocks have not been fully researched in Veterans with PTSD and the long term effects of stellate ganglion blocks are currently unknown"... "Currently, individuals with PTSD should be strongly encouraged to try established, and recommended treatments such as trauma-focused psychotherapy and medications. For Veterans that don't benefit from these traditional treatments, alternative interventions such as SGB might be considered". Source:
In my opinion, the Eugene Lipov article should present SGB as an unproven experimental procedure, and we should consider creating a Stellate Ganglion Block Therapy stub article with Dual Sympathetic Reset redirecting to it. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Are there any meta-analyses of experimental data for this one? Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to find one. Certainly not for Long COVID; nobody but Eugene Lipov seems to believe that sticking a needle in your Stellate ganglion is a reasonable way of treating Long COVID. For PTSD, the best that I could find was https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/ganglionblock.pdf which concluded
- "SGB for PTSD is currently supported only by evidence from uncontrolled, unblinded case series which was neither confirmed nor refuted by a single RCT with imprecise findings, moderate methodological limitations, and which did not directly focus on clinically relevant outcomes. In currently used evidence grading systems,62 such evidence is considered “insufficient” for estimating an effect."
- but that was published in 2017. It could be that the answer has changed in the last seven years. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've taken a crack at rolling back the WP:MEDRS / WP:PEACOCK violations in this edit. Generalrelative (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Journal of Indo-European Studies
In order to avoid an edit war I am starting a topic here for this. The article for the Journal for Indo-European studies has throughout the years been given undue weight consistently to make it look like its a journal of poor standing when its not. The content places far too much focus on Roger Pearson, its founding publisher,and not enough on the journal's actual content in order to make it look 'racist' when it is not since it is clearly a linguistic journal. The article currently reads more like a mini bio on Pearson rather than anything to do with the actual content of the journal itself. More over, edits go unchecked on that article for over a month that remove info that makes the journal look reputable yet edits that take out all the mostly irrelevant bio info on Pearson and alleged negative aspects of the journal get scrutinized quickly and reverted. There is clear POV pushing and an anti-NPOV campaign going on here. Other editors have flagged it as being largely unbalanced and given undue weight. I am asking here for help in order to better remedy the situation as right now there is a stalemate and the way the article looks and reads right now is a mess. Geog1 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can you list plainly the sources you have that you feel paint a balanced picture of the journal? Remsense ‥ 论 22:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The only source that has anything remotely balanced to say about the journal in that article is this:
- Tucker, William H. (2002). Jazayery (ed.). The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund.
- Nearly everything else entered in that article is meant to make the journal basically look like neo-nazis literature which it is not. It is simply a linguistic journal that focuses on linguistic matters concerning the Indo-European language family. Hardly any of the content of the journal itself is presented or discussed in the article. Surely that is problematic in and of itself. The journal isn't about Roger Pearson yet the way the article is written would have you believe its all about Pearson and that the journal is racist which it can't possibly be since its a linguistic journal. Geog1 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm asking you about what you have. If you could collate the bibliography from scratch, what would it cite? Remsense ‥ 论 22:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The only other texts I can think of that would maybe counter balance things are actual articles from the journal itself which shows its not racist:
- https://www.jies.org/DOCS/jies_index/mainindex.html
- I think the problem though is the content in the wiki article itself does not focus on what the journal actually has in it. Its all literature being used to paint it as racist. Geog1 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, this is pretty quickly revealing itself as the unavoidable core issue though, right? We don't write encyclopedia articles based predominantly on primary sources—and in this case, what the journal itself contains is a primary source for claims about the journal itself—but on secondary sources, and so we're going to be first and foremost balancing what independent, published, reliable sources have to say about it. This is a pretty basic restatement of our core policy on neutral point of view and our guideline on reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 00:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right, I understand the issue here between primary and secondary sources. But I really don't think the secondary sources are necessarily reliable, Arvidson for instance has a political ideology that lends an inherent biased against what the journal is about. I suspect the same applies for probably other sources there as well. But it all seems at the end of the day unbalanced and against NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but we don't exclude a work from an academic just because they're Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The context in which Arvidson's ideas presented here within the article (too many one sided views) coupled with how the ideology creates a biasing effect against the topic per the author's book is problematic. There are quite a few claims in the Arvidson book that shows he really just doesn't care for the study of Indo-European linguistics and mythology per his political stance which is bias. Question: are opinions derived from books written by authors with a strong right leaning political ideology allowed here on wikipedia and considered 'reliable sources'. Geog1 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Generally yes, unless the strong right-leaning political ideology gets into WP:FRINGE beliefs such as pro-eugenicism or other racist / supremacist opinions and assuming they're operating within an area of specialty and would not, otherwise, be considered unreliable regardless of their personal politics.
- I'll be honest, when dealing with academic sources, I don't generally look up the ideological position of the author unless it's somehow actually relevant. And I don't believe it's at all relevant here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is rather naive and not very reasonable that an author's background or ideology wouldn't be relevant and that due diligence shouldn't be given to an author's background when choosing sources that would write fairly or reasonably on a subject. I don't think a book Sean Hannity would write on socialism would be received well in a wiki article pertaining to said subject and would raise editorial ire fairly quickly. We are dealing with much the same situation here. Geog1 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sean Hannity is not an academic and does not write academic books. As such he's rather irrelevant to this discussion and the context of my response which was specific to the review of academic books and journals. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Academics do not represent completely neutral views. Certainly not Arvidsson. Just like Sean Hannity doesn't. Separating the two is not as useful as you think. Both entities are capable of publishing highly skewed views on any position. You're essentially discouraging due diligence here. I don't find that very academic and suspect in its own right. Geog1 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV does not mean that a source must be neutral. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bringing up the highly biased and skewed Arvidsson text as not within the many guidelines within Misplaced Pages's NPOV is fair game. You are trying to set your own perimiters here. Geog1 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV does not mean that a source must be neutral. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Academics do not represent completely neutral views. Certainly not Arvidsson. Just like Sean Hannity doesn't. Separating the two is not as useful as you think. Both entities are capable of publishing highly skewed views on any position. You're essentially discouraging due diligence here. I don't find that very academic and suspect in its own right. Geog1 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sean Hannity is not an academic and does not write academic books. As such he's rather irrelevant to this discussion and the context of my response which was specific to the review of academic books and journals. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is rather naive and not very reasonable that an author's background or ideology wouldn't be relevant and that due diligence shouldn't be given to an author's background when choosing sources that would write fairly or reasonably on a subject. I don't think a book Sean Hannity would write on socialism would be received well in a wiki article pertaining to said subject and would raise editorial ire fairly quickly. We are dealing with much the same situation here. Geog1 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The context in which Arvidson's ideas presented here within the article (too many one sided views) coupled with how the ideology creates a biasing effect against the topic per the author's book is problematic. There are quite a few claims in the Arvidson book that shows he really just doesn't care for the study of Indo-European linguistics and mythology per his political stance which is bias. Question: are opinions derived from books written by authors with a strong right leaning political ideology allowed here on wikipedia and considered 'reliable sources'. Geog1 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but we don't exclude a work from an academic just because they're Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right, I understand the issue here between primary and secondary sources. But I really don't think the secondary sources are necessarily reliable, Arvidson for instance has a political ideology that lends an inherent biased against what the journal is about. I suspect the same applies for probably other sources there as well. But it all seems at the end of the day unbalanced and against NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, this is pretty quickly revealing itself as the unavoidable core issue though, right? We don't write encyclopedia articles based predominantly on primary sources—and in this case, what the journal itself contains is a primary source for claims about the journal itself—but on secondary sources, and so we're going to be first and foremost balancing what independent, published, reliable sources have to say about it. This is a pretty basic restatement of our core policy on neutral point of view and our guideline on reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 00:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm asking you about what you have. If you could collate the bibliography from scratch, what would it cite? Remsense ‥ 论 22:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nearly everything else entered in that article is meant to make the journal basically look like neo-nazis literature which it is not. It is simply a linguistic journal that focuses on linguistic matters concerning the Indo-European language family. Hardly any of the content of the journal itself is presented or discussed in the article. Surely that is problematic in and of itself. The journal isn't about Roger Pearson yet the way the article is written would have you believe its all about Pearson and that the journal is racist which it can't possibly be since its a linguistic journal. Geog1 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a problem that needs to be resolved. Anyone familiar with Indo-European studies is aware that the Journal of Indo-European Studies is a major, respected, and influential peer-reviewed publication in the field. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. There really isn't anything wrong with the Journal itself, especially if you read it, but the sources presented have a peculiar bias against the journal. Geog1 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you're free to think there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm genuinely not sure what we're meant to do while writing an encyclopedia article about it? Are we supposed to adopt a totally novel process than when writing about anything else? (To the best of my ability, these aren't rhetorical questions.) Remsense ‥ 论 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- In short, we just need to build out the article more regarding its reception, especially with discussion from individuals who actually have a background and standing in historical linguistics. For example, a quick look at the editor-in-chief since 2020 reveals quotes that actually reflect how the journal is perceived in for example philology and historical linguistics (eg. "a long-standing journal with a stellar reputation and a global reach"). :bloodofox: (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you're free to think there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm genuinely not sure what we're meant to do while writing an encyclopedia article about it? Are we supposed to adopt a totally novel process than when writing about anything else? (To the best of my ability, these aren't rhetorical questions.) Remsense ‥ 论 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. There really isn't anything wrong with the Journal itself, especially if you read it, but the sources presented have a peculiar bias against the journal. Geog1 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are opinions about the journal expressed in secondary sources that have questionable merit. Especially when you compare these opinions to what's actually in the journal. This is indeed very problematic and presents a rather unique problem here. I don't know the best way to remedy this either other than through continued dialogue. Perhaps maybe we can strike a harmonious balance. At the moment, something is very wrong here. Geog1 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ultimately the article (as with all Misplaced Pages articles) needs to be based on what reliable secondary sources say about the journal. What editors think of the journal is of no import, and what editors of the journal say about it is of limited use. The solution is to find additional secondary sources that discuss the journal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are opinions about the journal expressed in secondary sources that have questionable merit. Especially when you compare these opinions to what's actually in the journal. This is indeed very problematic and presents a rather unique problem here. I don't know the best way to remedy this either other than through continued dialogue. Perhaps maybe we can strike a harmonious balance. At the moment, something is very wrong here. Geog1 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I see some edits made over at the JIES article but to me it seems making a whole subsection about Pearson does more to draw away what the journal is about. The journal is not Pearson. Contributors and editors like Mallory, Polome, Adams, and Kristiansen made the journal by and large what it is today. Not Pearson. We still have some ways to go here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog1 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the solution is to simply build out the rest of the article and then return to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The secondary sources in the article clearly indicate your opinion - that the presence of a known white-supremacist as a founder of the journal is irrelevant to the reputation of the journal - is not universal among academics. I concur with bloodofox. If you're concerned about how the journal is depicted then you find sources that support it being described as not an armature of Mankind Quarterly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The limited secondary sources that are highly biased in the wiki as it stands does in no way represent a universal opinion among academics in and of themselves. The journal is simply not being represented fairly based on the texts available. Pearson's involvement is vastly over stated and the idea that its an extension of himself somehow is completely unfounded. Geog1 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok this is getting repetitive. I'm sorry you haven't got the response here you hoped for. But the advice to improve the article by finding additional academic sources is good advice and would serve you better than suggesting we should never treat the criticism of a journal with a white supremacist founder as due because said criticism came from a Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again you're discouraging due diligence and whether or not a source can be viewed as reliable or not. If you would just read the journal yourself you would see its not at all what Arvidsson is trying to paint it as. Geog1 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but do your own research isn't appropriate in this case. Arvidsson is reliable because he's an academic writing about the topic that is at the literal core of his academic domain. He is, flatly put, a WP:BESTSOURCE for criticism of Indo-European studies. As such it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude him. However that does not mean that Misplaced Pages should treat his position as privileged in some way. If other WP:BESTSOURCES disagree with him then they would be due inclusion too. This is why you've been told to find other sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ardvisson as a 'best choice' in this is simply your opinion. You're a socialist after all, so apparently he seems reasonable to you. Many others would not feel the same way you do. Sorry if you do no understand that. But feel free to continue the 'repetive' conversation here. At the end of the day all I see is due diligence being discouraged and a lack of NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- And now we have reached the point in the conversation when I ask you to read WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was no personal attack. My tone was the same as yours. For all intended purposes that would mean you should read that yourself. If you would like to end this conversation cordially, now would be fine. We simply don't agree. Geog1 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
You're a socialist after all...
is, in context, a personal attack as you're suggesting my own, openly stated, politics makes me incapable of recognizing whether an academic is operating within his specialty - which he did his doctoral thesis on - and are trying to dismiss my advice accordingly. I would kindly ask you to strike that comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)- I said politely that we should end this conversation as its turning out to be very, very unproductive. We don't agree on anything apparently and I don't take very well to people discouraging due diligence and setting their own standards on how wiki guidelines should be viewed. Please, stop. Geog1 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was no personal attack. My tone was the same as yours. For all intended purposes that would mean you should read that yourself. If you would like to end this conversation cordially, now would be fine. We simply don't agree. Geog1 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- And now we have reached the point in the conversation when I ask you to read WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ardvisson as a 'best choice' in this is simply your opinion. You're a socialist after all, so apparently he seems reasonable to you. Many others would not feel the same way you do. Sorry if you do no understand that. But feel free to continue the 'repetive' conversation here. At the end of the day all I see is due diligence being discouraged and a lack of NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but do your own research isn't appropriate in this case. Arvidsson is reliable because he's an academic writing about the topic that is at the literal core of his academic domain. He is, flatly put, a WP:BESTSOURCE for criticism of Indo-European studies. As such it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude him. However that does not mean that Misplaced Pages should treat his position as privileged in some way. If other WP:BESTSOURCES disagree with him then they would be due inclusion too. This is why you've been told to find other sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again you're discouraging due diligence and whether or not a source can be viewed as reliable or not. If you would just read the journal yourself you would see its not at all what Arvidsson is trying to paint it as. Geog1 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok this is getting repetitive. I'm sorry you haven't got the response here you hoped for. But the advice to improve the article by finding additional academic sources is good advice and would serve you better than suggesting we should never treat the criticism of a journal with a white supremacist founder as due because said criticism came from a Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The limited secondary sources that are highly biased in the wiki as it stands does in no way represent a universal opinion among academics in and of themselves. The journal is simply not being represented fairly based on the texts available. Pearson's involvement is vastly over stated and the idea that its an extension of himself somehow is completely unfounded. Geog1 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The secondary sources in the article clearly indicate your opinion - that the presence of a known white-supremacist as a founder of the journal is irrelevant to the reputation of the journal - is not universal among academics. I concur with bloodofox. If you're concerned about how the journal is depicted then you find sources that support it being described as not an armature of Mankind Quarterly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, if that's what sources say about it, then that's what sources say about it. The sources we're citing there are largely academics with at least some degree of expertise in Indo-European studies, race science or far-right movements. Also, we're really only devoting a few sentences to the matter, which are roughly balanced in terms of focus - two for scholars who criticize it; one noting the existence of the boycott, and two from Tucker and Mallory defending the journal (and the defenses are given slightly more text!) Having them exactly balance out like that isn't necessary of course, but it makes it harder to argue that they're being given undue weight - aside from the fact that the page says almost nothing else about the journal at all, which is solved by finding other sources covering other aspects. (I will say that I did a quick search right now and found only a few passing mentions, all of which were about the race science connection to one degree or another. That really does seem to be the only aspect of the journal that has received meaningful external coverage. See eg. :
Although Duranton-Crabol (1988: 148), fifteen years ago, pointed with alarm to his involvement, Lincoln appears to be the first US-based Indo-European specialist to openly comment on the worrisome background of Roger Pearson, the publisher of the prestigious Journal of Indo-European Studies since its founding in 1973.
Notable mostly because it's a secondary source describing such concerns, which lends additional weight to at least mentioning them.) ...also, they point out that Bruce Lincoln, who we cite in the article, is actually an Indo-European specialist; we might want to look at what we're citing him for and see if there are more details there. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC) - @Geog1: You must notify other editors involved in a discussion (i.e. me) when you post it to this noticeboard. There is a big red notice instructing you to this at the top of the page. – Joe (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really get what we can do here. "Neutral" specifically is a technical term meaning in proportion to what the independent, reliable secondary sources have said on the topic, and the limits of editorial discretion do not extend to excluding the what seems to be the views expressed by the majority of those sources, as indicated by the participants here. If the sources say that the earth is flat, then we can only report that that is what the sources say. Misplaced Pages does not have the resources to conduct original research, and it would be disallowed by policy even if we were able to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Just one other thing I have to bring up here. I noticed the Tucker quote had the text about Pearson's involvement regarding published material in JIES flagged as dubious for a while. I don't know by who. Eventually it was removed because someone (not sure who) did research noting Pearson had published 3 articles in the journal. That would seem to be original research. When we look at the Berlet and Lyons quote being used in the article, they claim the Journal is 'racialist' and 'ayranist' but it is a linguistic journal not 'racialist' or whatever. This can be seen by just reading a few entries from the journal which can easily be found online just like the Berlet and Lyons quote was easily pulled for online yet we see that characterization of the journal persist. This appears to present some inconsistency on how editing policy is being used.
I see the comment by Aquillion mentions how if 'reliable' sources report the earth is flat, then according to wikipedia policy, its fair game to put into an article and discuss. While I understand this is a policy, I'm not entirely sure if its serving us well here. This could open the door of Pandora's box for all sorts of misinformation to be presented in wiki articles.
Finally, I took a look at the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society article. I see an entire section with no sources entitled 'discussion papers' which essentially relates to the journal's content. No one for some reason seems bothered that its not sourced but I have doubts that a similar section in the JIES article would go without scrutiny if we were to say flesh out what the content of the journal is actually like. Again, it would appear inconsistencies are presented here regarding wikipedia policy being applied to two different journals.
I don't know what can be done here, but like I said before in the JIES talk page, I'd welcome more information that could help balance out the article a little more. However, I also feel this is a situation where wikipedia policy is failing a particular article and I doubt this is the only one. In the future, it may be useful to revisit wikipedia policy and see if changes could be made to help prevent or better remedy situations like this.
Best,
Geog1 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Geog1Thank you for bringing up these important points. It's clear that there's a need for careful scrutiny and consistent application of Misplaced Pages's policies to ensure accuracy and neutrality in our articles.
- Regarding the Tucker quote and Pearson's involvement, it's essential to rely on verifiable sources and avoid original research. If a reliable source supports the claim that Pearson published in JIES, then it can be included. However, if the source is questionable, it should be approached with caution.
- The characterization of the JIES as "racialist" and "Aryanist" is a serious allegation. It's crucial to base such claims on solid evidence from reliable sources. Simply reading a few articles may not be sufficient to make such a sweeping judgment. If there are specific examples of racist or discriminatory content in the journal, they should be cited and discussed in a neutral manner.
- The Aquillion comment about the "flat Earth" scenario highlights a potential limitation of Misplaced Pages's policies. While it's important to be open to diverse viewpoints, it's equally important to maintain a high standard of quality and accuracy. In cases where there is a clear consensus among reliable sources, it's important to prioritize that consensus over fringe theories.
- The issue of unsourced content in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society is a valid concern. However, it's important to consider the context and purpose of such sections. If these sections are intended to stimulate discussion and debate, rather than present definitive facts, then they may not require strict adherence to sourcing guidelines. Tattipedia (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything being discussed is appropriately sourced to highly reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also please have the respect for other people not to reply with a textwall of obvious chatbot glurge. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything being discussed is appropriately sourced to highly reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
notability concerns
- Gonna skip all the conversation above and ask an honest question... can we just delete it? states it has an h-index of 10, and states an impact factor of 0.2. It doesn't seem like it would survive WP:NJOURNAL. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Indo-European_Studies Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The result was speedy keep.XavierItzm (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Indo-European_Studies Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Open Orthodoxy & David Bar-Hayim
Some IPv6 has opinions about Open Orthodoxy & David Bar-Hayim. Can someone who knows about such things please take a look? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Confusing language from a Mark Biondich source related to Balkans
"In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.": https://books.google.com/books?id=gt8SDAAAQBAJ&q=Muslims+casualties+millions+Balkans&pg=PA93
Why would Mark Biondich add those "killed or expelled" to those Muslims who emigrated to mean deaths as is stated in the Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction article. As I see it from a neutral viewpoint, he refers to the reduction of Balkan Muslims as "casualties from the Balkans".
I would like to get other viewpoints and advice related to these. Theofunny (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Theofunny, the way I understand your interpretation, when Biondich says "the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million", you think this includes those expelled, right? So you think the word "casualties" do not mean only deaths. Is this correct? Bogazicili (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes exactly. Like even in a war, the term casualties is quite flexible and is a source for confusion as it could mean all who are dead or all are dead as well as injured. Theofunny (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Later in the page he uses the term "victims" for "dead, wounded, and refugees". I don't think the term is as flexible as you think. Bogazicili (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Generally "casualties" includes dead and wounded. Including refugees is a bit novel but I don't think it's unduly confusing provided it's described with care. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The question is, is my rewording in the article Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction correct?
The historian Mark Biondich estimates that, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, more than three million Muslims from the Balkan area died, and around two million Muslims were displaced.
Bogazicili (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)- Those numbers don't seem to line up with what the OP posted as a quote from the source. Can you please elaborate? Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had interpreted the quote from the source as how Biondich calculated the number of deaths (casualties). Bogazicili (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
"In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans."
He says 2 million left between 1878 and 1912. He says more than another million ("When one adds...") left or died between 1912 and 1923. (The number who died or left 1912-1923 is added to the number who left 1878-1912 to equal "far exceeds three million".) The source does not support any number that died because he groups those who left in the same estimate. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)- Yeah my concern is that the two figures seem to be divided chronologically but not by type. So we can't determine what percentage of the three million were killed rather than expelled or wounded. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had interpreted the quote from the source as how Biondich calculated the number of deaths (casualties). Bogazicili (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Those numbers don't seem to line up with what the OP posted as a quote from the source. Can you please elaborate? Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The question is, is my rewording in the article Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction correct?
- Generally "casualties" includes dead and wounded. Including refugees is a bit novel but I don't think it's unduly confusing provided it's described with care. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Later in the page he uses the term "victims" for "dead, wounded, and refugees". I don't think the term is as flexible as you think. Bogazicili (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes exactly. Like even in a war, the term casualties is quite flexible and is a source for confusion as it could mean all who are dead or all are dead as well as injured. Theofunny (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Theofunny+1 Tattipedia (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Looks like I was incorrect in this one due to my misinterpretation of the word "casualty".
I was also confused because McCarthy and Kaser give much higher number of deaths, around 5 million, in Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction. So 3 million made more sense.
Now I see that it has to do with dates. It should have been clear from the quote actually, but looks like I missed it.
The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence since 1878 is available through Misplaced Pages Library. Page 94:
When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.157
Source 157:
157. Mazower, The Balkans, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii; and McCarthy, Ottoman Peoples, 149–62
Biondich gives same numbers and sources in The Routledge History Handbook of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century Volume 4: Violence chapter The Balkan Wars, page 1:
The road from Berlin to Lausanne was littered with millions of casualties. Between 1878 and 1912, millions of Balkan Muslims emigrated or were forced from the region. When one adds up those who were killed or expelled between the Balkan Wars (1912–13) and Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), the number of Balkan-Muslim casualties may have exceeded three million. By 1923, fewer than one million Muslims remained in the Balkans.1
...
1 Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History (New York: Random House, 2002), xxxvii–xxxviii;
Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Arnold, 2001), 149–62.
I don't have Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire. But the book seems to cover 1912-1922 period of Ottoman Empire . So this aligns with the quote from Biondich.
This is what Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History says, pages xxxvii–xxxviii
Christian Europe’s blindness to Muslim victims overlooked the huge movements of populations triggered off by Ottoman decline. “People often talk in the West about transporting all the Turks, in other words Muslims, to Asia in order to turn Turkey in Europe into a uniquely Christian empire,” Ami Boué had written in 1854. “This would be a decree as inhumane as the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, or of Protestants from France, and indeed scarcely feasible since the Europeans always forget that in Turkey in Europe the Muslims are mostly Slavs or Albanians, whose right to the land is as ancient as that of their Christian compatriots.” Yet, according to one estimate, nearly 5 million Muslims were driven from former Ottoman lands in the Balkans and the Black Sea region in the century after 1821; from the Balkans themselves between 1.7 and 2 million Muslims immigrated voluntarily or involuntarily between 1878 and 1913 to what would later become the republic of Turkey. The Turkish language declined as a regional lingua franca, urban settlements were taken over by Christian incomers and Ottoman buildings were deliberately demolished or left to rot. The dynamiting of mosques and other architectural masterpieces in Bosnia-Hercegovina in the early 1990s was thus the continuation in an extreme form of a process of de-Islamicization that had begun decades earlier.19
So the general confusion we had in Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#Death_toll_and_casualty_figures: has to do with dates and geographic areas (Balkans only or including other areas). Whether from 1820 to 1920, or 1878 to 1912, or 1912 to 1923. Mark Mazower only talks about displaced, but the 5 million displaced after 1821 is also in other sources.
I'll fix the wording in affected articles in Misplaced Pages. Bogazicili (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You should add the displaced figures by Mark Mazower in the article and and a displaced section in the infobox too with the other sources and Mark M. Theofunny (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't do everything today, but I'll make some of the changes later. I already changed the wording in the article Bogazicili (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:BRICS
It is a dispute in about https://en.wikipedia.org/BRICS#cite_note-:2-173
Nobody seem willing to verify my citation therefore I lost this edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BRICS Dark Flow (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can you give more details and a link to the discussion at the talk page? Right now it's not clear what the dispute was about. Also, you might want to review WP:BATTLEGROUND and assume good faith. Alaexis¿question? 20:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Alaexis , yeah I can https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BRICS#Much_more_efficient_than_SWIFT .
- I didn't get notified of your reply, please use the @user citation it would make it easier to keep up with the conversation. Dark Flow (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
( @Walter you are welcome to join ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Flow (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Contradictory Claims on HTS Governance and Human Rights Violations
The article on Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Syrian paramilitary organisation that has been designated a terrorist organisation by a variety of countries, contains contradictory information about the governance of HTS in occupied territories.
The Governance section claims HTS has generally not interfered in womens' lives, has been tolerant towards religious minorities, and has been lenient towards civilians. These statements are based primarily on a chapter written by Dareen Khalifa in the book The Rule is for None but Allah, published by Oxford University Press. Khalifa’s work relies heavily on interviews with HTS leaders. For many claims about HTS' tolerance, the source she gives is "author interview, Jolani ", "author interview, HTS commander" or similar.
However, as an anonymous user pointed out, the section Human rights violations and war crimes (which for transparency I authored) contradicts this, citing multiple lengthy reports by the UN, EU, US, and human rights organisations, which document enforced dress codes, repression of women, executions for "crimes" such as blasphemy, forced disappearances of political opponents and activists, persecution of minorities, torture, among others. The governance section makes no mention of these reports, or that much of the current information in this sections relies on interviews with HTS leadership.
The primary dispute appears to be that the users @Whoopsawa and @Shadowwarrior8 consider Khalifa's chapter a reliable (or authoritative, given that her claims about HTS tolerance are stated as fact) source, because even though many of her claims are based on interviews with HTS leadership, the chapter is in a book published by Oxford University Press. The user @Shadowwarrior8 is also of the opinion that the reports by the US government are "propaganda", although the user has not addressed the reports by other institutions that come to similar conclusions as the US reports.
I am the other party to this dispute, and am of the opinion that the variety of reports by multiple - in my view credible - international organisations and human rights groups (and yes, the US too) should at least bear enough significance to warrant a re-writing of the Governance section, making it clear that much of the information regarding HTS' tolerance is based on HTS' self-portrayal in interviews and that there exist multiple credible reports that document a rather draconian and repressive governance policy employed by HTS. For example the European Union Agency for Asylum concludes that HTS has interfered "in every aspect of civilian life" and notes that women have been whipped or even executed for violating religious dress codes (p. 88).
The discussion on the talk page can be found here. Neither @Whoopsawa, @Shadowwarrior8 or I have engaged in edit warring, but the way this discussion is going appears to be an endless back-and-forth, so it would be nice to get outside opinions.
Sarrotrkux (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Have I successfully removed the promotional content from this article?
The owner of emailSanta.com made WP:COI and WP:YESPROMO edits at his own article yesterday. I tried to remove the "fluff" and restore the WP:NPOV. Has the WP:NPOV been restored, or is it still too promotional? Félix An (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- yes, looks better now Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Edits to “Game Science”
Discussion regarding Game Science has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. As the first subsection deals with a POV edit and the disputed edits create a POV more favorable to Game Science, I would appreciate your comment at Talk:Game Science#Interview-based edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't actually a neutrality problem. You've been arguing against things like attribution of quotes and secondary sources. Heck you tried to argue with me that attribution automatically casts doubt on the attributed statement. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I’ve said, the first subsection is about a neutrality issue. I am contesting that change because it violates NPOV, which explicitly mentions and forbids casting doubt through attribution. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Attribution is not automatically casting doubt - it's good practice dealing with quotes or opinions to attribute them. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not according to NPOV for RSes that state factual information, as I’ve quoted the policy to show in the discussion on the article’s talk page. I encourage you (and anyone else) to reply there for the added context of the quote. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a newspaper. It doesn't hurt the article to says "according to SCMP" and your resistance to that is perplexing. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I and a policy supported by community consensus agree that adding in-text attribution when we already have inline citations unnecessarily casts doubt. If you disagree with the policy, try and get consensus to change it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think your policy interpretation is weak. And, generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Specifically your policy citation is to WP:SKYBLUE and this is not a "the sky is blue" situation here but is, rather, a newspaper reporting on an acquisition where the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how "the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment" makes the fact that an acquisition happened doubtable and require in-text attribution. (Also, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to cite an essay on inline citation, which is about the , not "according to...". My reply here assumes you were contesting whether the claim
Hero Games acquired a 19% stake in Game Science through its wholly-owned subsidiary Tianjin Hero Financial Holding Technology in 2017, but sold the stake in 2022
falls underUncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources
.)
You may as well tell that to everyone who cites a policy to remove text it explicitly forbids. Anyways, I'll be moving this to the article talk page soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't.
- I don't see how "the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment" makes the fact that an acquisition happened doubtable and require in-text attribution. (Also, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to cite an essay on inline citation, which is about the , not "according to...". My reply here assumes you were contesting whether the claim
- Specifically your policy citation is to WP:SKYBLUE and this is not a "the sky is blue" situation here but is, rather, a newspaper reporting on an acquisition where the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think your policy interpretation is weak. And, generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I and a policy supported by community consensus agree that adding in-text attribution when we already have inline citations unnecessarily casts doubt. If you disagree with the policy, try and get consensus to change it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a newspaper. It doesn't hurt the article to says "according to SCMP" and your resistance to that is perplexing. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not according to NPOV for RSes that state factual information, as I’ve quoted the policy to show in the discussion on the article’s talk page. I encourage you (and anyone else) to reply there for the added context of the quote. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu You do not have permission to refactor my comments please restore this discussion to its prior state. Simonm223 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ugh, if you say so. I'll transclude it there then. It's much better to centralize discussion in one place. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is clear that South Morning Post reported on the relation between Hero Games and Game Science. It is also clear that Hero Games stated that they couldn't comment on the relation when asked directly about it. Using wikivoice is inappropiate, and an attribution is needed. Secondly, don't act like you have a consensus by proxy for your unilateral stance though a (misrepresentation of a) policy. --Cold Season (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am replying on the article's talk page to centralize discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- You brought the discussion to the noticeboard. This is borderline disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is very common to notify and invite noticeboards to comment elsewhere. I invited participants of these noticeboards to comment on Talk:Game Science. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- You brought the discussion to the noticeboard. This is borderline disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am replying on the article's talk page to centralize discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is clear that South Morning Post reported on the relation between Hero Games and Game Science. It is also clear that Hero Games stated that they couldn't comment on the relation when asked directly about it. Using wikivoice is inappropiate, and an attribution is needed. Secondly, don't act like you have a consensus by proxy for your unilateral stance though a (misrepresentation of a) policy. --Cold Season (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ugh, if you say so. I'll transclude it there then. It's much better to centralize discussion in one place. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Attribution is not automatically casting doubt - it's good practice dealing with quotes or opinions to attribute them. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I’ve said, the first subsection is about a neutrality issue. I am contesting that change because it violates NPOV, which explicitly mentions and forbids casting doubt through attribution. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead
@C at Access: Circulating on relevant noticeboards... essentially if contentious oligarch label should be mentioned in intro Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
NextEra Energy
Hi editors, I'm Matt and I work for NextEra Energy. I currently have two edit requests (first one linked here that I think are directly applicable to this noticeboard. Content added some time ago by a now-banned user (Surge of Reason), which was largely copied from the Florida Power & Light article, creates some neutrality issues, particularly as relates to WP:STRUCTURE. The above linked request is to move content in a section titled "Environmental issues" about a power plant that was never built – and therefore can't be an issue – to the History section, in line with WP:NOCRIT.
The second request is a bit meatier and involves removing some content that is pulled directly from a source without attribution and/or uses poor sourcing for negative information that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS, and moving what remains to the History section, again to improve WP:STRUCTURE in line with NOCRIT. I would appreciate any feedback or help you can offer. Because of my COI I have avoided making these changes myself and I'd like to have this page be reflective of our overall desire to have the page be neutral and factual. ~~~~ NextEraMatt (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- In any case, as an editor I genuinely appreciate these requests being made in a responsible and transparent manner. Remsense ‥ 论 05:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Unwarranted promotional and COI tags on film articles
Hi, I need help with some tags that have been added to two articles please:
- It's Coming (film)
- Draft:The Misguided
I'm getting pretty tired of the constant unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing (which got removed after review), then COI tags without evidence, and now suddenly it's "promotional content" - but nobody's actually pointed out what's promotional or what constitutes a conflict of interest. Here's the situation:
1. Everything in these articles comes from proper independent sources like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat 2. Yes, some reviews are positive, but that's what the reliable sources reported 3. My only contact with the filmmaker was to check facts like dates and get source materials 4. I have no other connection to these films or anyone involved 5. The latest tags were just slapped on without any discussion, continuing this pattern of baseless accusations
The articles stick to Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view rules. If something sounds promotional, tell me what it is and I'll fix it. I'm happy to add any negative reviews too if someone can find them in reliable sources.
You can see the whole frustrating history here:
- Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Help with New Page Patrol Review and Paid Editing Tag Removal for "It's Coming"
- Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft
- Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#COI tags on "It's Coming (film)" and "The Misguided"
Can we get a fair review based on what's actually in the articles, not just assumptions and accusations? I am requesting that these unwarranted promotional content and COI tags be removed from the articles. Much appreciated!
Stan1900 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I've just discovered that the entire Reception section, which contained properly sourced reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and multiple independent critics, has been removed without discussion. This further demonstrates the issue with these arbitrary content removals. The deleted section was entirely based on reliable sources and followed Misplaced Pages guidelines. I have preserved the content and sources and request review of both the tags and this content removal. Stan1900 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion is Talk:It's_Coming_(film)#Promotional_tag here. You should know, you posted in the section. MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MrOllie, yes, I'm aware of that discussion. The wholesale removal of a properly sourced Reception section warrants broader review. This isn't just about a tag anymore - it's about the removal of verified content from reliable sources without justification. Stan1900 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't "removed without discussion" as you just stated, then, was it? You've had an account since 2017, and in that time 100% of your editing has been about the films of Shannon Alexander, and often quite promotional in nature. If you don't want people to think you have a COI, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric, and strongly consider finding a way to improve the encyclopedia that is entirely unrelated to Alexander. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MrOllie,
- 1. The Reception section was actually just removed without proper discussion. A few quick comments declaring content "promotional" without specific examples doesn't constitute real consensus.
- 2. Your statement about my editing history is wrong. My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander. My recent focus on documenting these films stems from noticing a gap in coverage of internationally-recognized work - I've said countless times.
- 3. There's nothing "promotional" about including properly sourced reviews from reliable publications. If positive reviews exist in reliable sources, documenting them isn't promotion - it's proper encyclopedic coverage.
- The focus should be on specific content concerns, not repeated unfounded attacks and assumptions about editor's motivations. Stan1900 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Katherine Langford's article, where you wanted to correct information about a project she'd recently been in. Who made that film, I wonder? diff. Dishonesty is not going to help - every time you post something like this these 'attacks and assumptions' you mention appear to become better supported. MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is just blatant forum shopping of a grievance previously discussed at the Helpdesk and now at COIN .
- Also, why does the user continue to lie that their edits to Katherine Langford were
completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander
? - Here is one of the edits :
Langford will appear in her first feature film, The Misguided, an independent comedic drama by Shannon Alexander
. In actual fact, all of the user's edits to that article relate to Langford being in a film by Shannon Alexander. - Pants on fire, my friend, pants on fire... Axad12 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- And Stan...
- The reason the tags are in place and the reasons that the removals of material have occurred is that pretty much everyone who has commented in the various threads you've started disagrees fundamentally with what appears to be your transparent promotional agenda.
- For reference, normal editors do not (a) create promotional articles, (b) open multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC, (c) talk about when the articles will start to appear on Google searches, and (d) open multiple threads trying to strongarm other users into removing COI/PAID tags.
- That pattern of behaviour is how conflict of interest users operate, usually ones who have been paid to produce articles to order. Axad12 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MrOllie, your implication about my editing history misses the point. Like many editors, I followed connected topics that revealed gaps in coverage. Following a subject area and documenting it with reliable sources isn't wrong - it's how Misplaced Pages grows.
- More concerning is the removal of an entire Reception section containing properly sourced reviews from established publications. The content was based on reliable sources including Rotten Tomatoes and Film Threat. If specific statements appeared promotional, they should have been identified and discussed, not wholesale removed.
- This pattern of removing sourced content while making assumptions about contributors' motivations vioaltes Misplaced Pages's principles. Stan1900 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was discussed in the relevant place and the consensus was for removal. Another user has since added back the Rotten Tomatoes part of the Reception section, by which we can reasonably assume that they agree with the rest of the removal.
- As I have stated to you before, the WP:ONUS is on the editor wishing to include material, not on those wishing to remove it. There is clearly no consensus in favour of inclusion, so arguing for inclusion in 3 completely separate threads (this thread, this one and this one ) is pointless.
- In any event, it is obviously contrary to Misplaced Pages policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews, whether they are good or bad, so your line of argument is a very bad one in any case. Removal was thus entirely non-controversial. Axad12 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12, your interpretation of both consensus and policy continues to be problematic:
- 1. The "consensus" you reference was a single editor agreeing with you, while ignoring multiple objections. The fact that another editor has since restored part of the Reception section actually demonstrates that there isn't consensus for wholesale removal.
- 2. Your interpretation of WP:ONUS is incorrect in this context. The content was already established with proper reliable sources. The burden shifts to those seeking removal to demonstrate why properly sourced content should be deleted.
- 3. Your claim "it is obviously contrary to Misplaced Pages policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews" is simply false. Film articles regularly contain substantial reception sections when supported by reliable sources - see WP:FILMPLOT and WP:FILMSOURCE. The removed content was based entirely on independent, reliable sources providing critical analysis.
- 4. Regarding multiple discussion venues - each serves a distinct purpose and was used appropriately. Characterizing proper use of Misplaced Pages's established channels as "pointless" misrepresents how Misplaced Pages works.
- The core issue remains: properly sourced content was removed without valid policy-based justification or genuine consensus. Stan1900 (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are completely wrong. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The core content issues remain:
- The removed material was based on reliable sources and followed standard article formatting. No concrete policy violations were identified.
- Removals occurred without consensus, and often without any substantive talk page discussion.
- Vague claims of "promotional" tone have been asserted without pointing to specific passages or policies.
- AI detection results are being misused to discredit good faith, policy-compliant contributions.
- If there are proper neutrality or sourcing concerns with the removed content, please identify the exact issues so they can be addressed collaboratively. But so far, the removals appear to be based more on unfounded personal suspicions than objective policy issues.
- Wiki articles rightly include reception sections with mainstream press reviews. That's not inherently 'promotional' it's documenting verifiable real-world coverage. Removing properly cited review content is detrimental to readers and sets a terrible precedent.
- I remain committed to working with anyone who has constructive, policy-based feedback on improving these articles further. But edit-warring removals and personal attacks need to stop in favor of substantive, collaborative discussion. We deserves better.
- Let's get back to focusing on content and policies, not personal battles. I'm happy to discuss any neutrality problems if you identify concrete examples. But so far I've yet to see a compelling rationale for these removals of policy-compliant material. Stan1900 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The only important issue here is that, despite you starting multiple different threads in various different arenas, no one else agrees with you.
- Therefore the tags remain and the removals remain.
- You just have to accept that you are in the minority and move on. Continuing to argue is simply disruptive. Axad12 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12, your characterization of "no one else agrees" is both incorrect and misses the point. Several editors, including DMacks, have confirmed proper licensing and sourcing, and @Aafi has confirmed the images are restored after permissions verification. The issue isn't about counting votes - it's about following policy.
- The systematic removal of:
- 1. Properly licensed images (with verified VRT permissions)
- 2. Well-sourced content from reliable publications
- 3. Standard film article sections matching Misplaced Pages's format
- ...cannot be justified by simply claiming "you're in the minority." Misplaced Pages is not a vote-counting exercise - it's about following established policies for content inclusion. The continued removal of policy-compliant content while dismissing legitimate concerns is what's being noted and actually disruptive here. Stan1900 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no interest in the image issue. I am talking about the tags and the removal of the Reception section.
- The consensus is again you and you are consistently arguing contrary to policy, so the distinction you draw above is rather pointless. You have also been demonstrated to be a liar. Axad12 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12,
- I strongly object to your repeated accusations of dishonesty. If you believe I have misrepresented anything, I ask that you provide clear evidence rather than resorting to personal attacks. Misplaced Pages is built on good faith and such language is both unproductive and contrary this platform.
- Regarding the tags and the Reception section, I have consistently argued my case based on policy, including WP:NPOV and WP:V. I have sought to include well-sourced and neutrally presented content.
- Consensus is not determined by the number of voices in a discussion but by the strength of the arguments grounded in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. I remain focused to working within those frameworks. Stan1900 (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I provided evidence of your dishonesty upthread here . The evidence is so clear that I will happily once again call you a liar. Axad12 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, you consistently seem to believe that consensus is whatever you believe is correct, disregarding the opinions of every other user you encounter. Axad12 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1. Regarding transparency and process:
- - Paid editing tags were initially added but subsequently removed through proper channels after review
- - Wiki images were challenged but verified and reinstated through official processes
- - All content is based on reliable, independent sources
- - I served as an authorized representative specifically for image licensing/copyright verification, which was done transparently through proper Misplaced Pages channels
- 2. Regarding consensus, let's look at the actual outcomes:
- - Multiple administrators have reviewed and approved image reinstatements
- - Paid editing tags were removed after proper review
- - Content has been verified through reliable sources
- - I've made requested changes when specific issues were identified
- 3. This pattern shows I'm following Misplaced Pages's processes correctly. While I'm eager to expand my contributions to other topics and articles, I'm consistently forced to defend properly sourced and verified content instead of moving forward with new contributions.
- I’ve repeatedly suggested we focus on addressing specific content concerns through collaboration, but this has been met with nothing but resistance, preventing any meaningful progress. Stan1900 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked following a thread at ANI . Axad12 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, you consistently seem to believe that consensus is whatever you believe is correct, disregarding the opinions of every other user you encounter. Axad12 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I provided evidence of your dishonesty upthread here . The evidence is so clear that I will happily once again call you a liar. Axad12 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are completely wrong. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Katherine Langford's article, where you wanted to correct information about a project she'd recently been in. Who made that film, I wonder? diff. Dishonesty is not going to help - every time you post something like this these 'attacks and assumptions' you mention appear to become better supported. MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't "removed without discussion" as you just stated, then, was it? You've had an account since 2017, and in that time 100% of your editing has been about the films of Shannon Alexander, and often quite promotional in nature. If you don't want people to think you have a COI, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric, and strongly consider finding a way to improve the encyclopedia that is entirely unrelated to Alexander. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MrOllie, yes, I'm aware of that discussion. The wholesale removal of a properly sourced Reception section warrants broader review. This isn't just about a tag anymore - it's about the removal of verified content from reliable sources without justification. Stan1900 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion is Talk:It's_Coming_(film)#Promotional_tag here. You should know, you posted in the section. MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
RFC on Taylor Lorenz controversial statement regarding healthcare ceo shooting
Posting to relevant noticeboards: Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#RfC_on_Taylor_Lorenz's_comments_on_Brian_Thompson's_murder Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Bizarre weight on disordered eating in Grazing (human eating pattern)
Grazing (human eating pattern) is already a very specific article that might be worth merging into something more general, but Misplaced Pages is not paper so I guess there is no reason to not have an article on grazing. Still:
- Almost all the sources cite Conceição's work on disordered eating, and grazing's role in it.
- The article does not really describe grazing except for it being a risk factor in disordered eating, according to this one person.
- The article does contain information like the languages that Conceição's grazing questionnaire has been translated into.
I think if you exclude undue weight and Conceição-promotion then there are about 2 sentences worth of notable info which can be merged into another article. YAQUBROLI 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Randa Kassis and connected pages
In the light of the recent fall of the Assad regime in Syria, I have been trying to update a bit the articles about the Syrian opposition. There, I noticed that a lot of importance was given to Mrs Randa Kassis, which made me suspect that this could be a case of WP:UNDUE. Please note that this version presented her as the "leader" of the Syrian opposition, as a "leading figure of the Syrian opposition" and a "Leading secular female figure", all in the biographical infobox. A lot of content in the Randa Kassis page seems to rely on primary sources. After a simple research I could find that Mrs Kassis is controversial among the opposition due to her alleged ties to Russia. 1, 2, 3. Other people within the opposition have presented her and her groups as Russian-backed operatives. This may or may not be true, but it has to be mentioned in the article.
Also, several pages have been created about the groups created or chaired by Mrs Kassis, namely the Movement of the Pluralistic Society, the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians and the Astana Platform (the latter of which should be rewritten).
While the Astana Platform is notable enough to warrant a page, I have my doubts about the first two, so I proposed to first merge the Movement of the Pluralistic Society page into the Randa Kassis article.
As a result, an IP accused me here of being "obsessed by Randa Kassis", and commented that what I did was "revolting" and amounted to "an harassment or sectarian political activism aimed at erasing or muzzling anyone who does not have his opinions". There were also accusations of malicious libel, presumably also against me.
Several references mentioning Kassis' suspected role as a pro-Russian operative were removed. The merger request was also unilaterally removed (I just put it back). Please note this comment (I guess that "the admin" is supposed to be me, even though I am no admin). This comment, this one and this one also appear to be about me.
Apart from the personal attacks against me, I think that the pages about Randa Kassis and her initiatives need to be monitored and rewritten in order to ensure their neutrality and avoid WP:UNDUE as well as WP:PROMO and WP:Advocacy.
I have also added back these parts, which had been removed as it seems normal to mention the controversies within the opposition.
However, I will now abstain from editing the page about Randa Kassis as long as it has not been reviewed by third parties. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I’m from Egypt, and Randa Kassis is well known to many of us for her courage. Since 2007, she has spoken openly about social, political, and religious taboos and has appeared on numerous Arab media outlets. She was one of the first to champion secularism.
- You can observe that the secular coalition she created and presided over, alongside other opponents in 2011, preceded the formation of the Syrian National Council (SNC). After her expulsion from both the SNC and the secular coalition due to her warnings about Islamists, she ceased presiding over the secular coalition, and its fate remains unknown.
- She was the only member of the opposition to adopt a pragmatic approach, going on to establish the Astana Platform in 2015 and the Constitutional Committee in 2017. Both initiatives were later recognised by the UN, Russia, Turkey, and Iran. 102.188.124.44 (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind mentioning this, as long as it is duly sourced and does not make the page look like a promotional piece. What we must also mention, however, is that Randa Kassis' ties to Russia have been controversial and widely reported by the media. Psychloppos (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a NPOV tag to the Randa Kassis page as it still looks heavily promotional. Psychloppos (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind mentioning this, as long as it is duly sourced and does not make the page look like a promotional piece. What we must also mention, however, is that Randa Kassis' ties to Russia have been controversial and widely reported by the media. Psychloppos (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, regarding the edits on Carolina Amesty
I disagree with the edits made to the Carolina Amesty article. I have noticed that a user is adding information with a negative bias against Carolina Amesty instead of maintaining an objective and neutral approach. For my part, I added and removed information based on the official report. However, the Orlando Sentinel, a source that has maintained a critical stance towards Amesty and published a series of negative articles, has been used as a reference. To avoid conflicts, I will not undo any further edits, as I believe this is the appropriate space to resolve disputes between users. I prefer to wait for an impartial third party to review and determine the best version of the article. It is important to be cautious with sensationalist sources. If the information were accurate, it would be appropriate to include it, but this is not the case. I recommend reading the official report to ensure a more objective approach. Bilonio (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: