Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:02, 1 January 2016 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,290,995 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 56) (bot← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:35, 23 December 2024 edit undoPsychloppos (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users9,238 edits →Randa Kassis and connected pages Tags: 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 = 56		\|counter = 114
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(~~14d~~)		\|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 ==
	== Sex offender registries in the United States ==

			(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.)
	] 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)

			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.
	: 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.

			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 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.

			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.
	: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.

			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".
	: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...

			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.
	::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.

			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:
	::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?

			"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." .
	::''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)

			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:
	:::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)

			"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:
	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)

			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 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)
	: 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.

			:Are there any meta-analyses of experimental data for this one? ] (]) 19:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
	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>

			::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
	::::::::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)
	{{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)
	*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)
	::You say: ''"Subsequent studies performed mainly by advocates"''. The RS you removed as ''"biased falsehoods"'' includes:
	::* Criminology has an Impact Factor of 3.098 and has rank of 2/55 (Criminology & Penology)
	::*
	::* Journal of Law and Economics: ranking: #16 out of 45 in Economics: Law
	::* Rank: 30/41 (Social Issues); 58/62 (Psychology Social). According to Google Scholar this paper has been cited 288 times.
	::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:
	::*
	::*
	::*
	::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.
	::] () 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)
	:::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)
	::::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)
	:::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)
	::::], 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)
	:::::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)
	::::::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. <s>Stalk much? Keep this up, and I will open up a thread on YOU here.</s> ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Threatening an editor, IP or not, for revealing the fact that you're being blatantly dishonest isn't particularly becoming. The only "crime" I'm guilty of is taking a look at your contributions, which show you decided to back MONGO up in the space of a minute between edits. If there's a policy that says no one is allowed to look at others' contributions, please cite it.<br>
	:::::As to your claim that you already knew MONGO was right by virtue of familiarity with this page, it strains credibility. You weren't on the list of the last 500 edits until you jumped in on MONGO's behalf. ] (]) 23:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Have you ever performed recent change patrolling? By it's very nature, you only see edits performed in the last few seconds. See, identify what looks questionable - or see an article that you are familiar with - follow the link, evaluate; not rocket science. My last 500 edits? I often put in 500 edits in a week. I may not have ever edited that particular article, but have read it, and it's on my watchlist. So, go bark up another tree. Anyone here with actual experience can tell you it's not a big deal. <s>And yes - running to contribute to discussions you have never been involved in because I reverted your edit on Millennials? Yeah. Somebody has a problem, and it ain't me. Makes me feel nostalgic, I'd almost think one of my favorite banned editors is back. (Wink, wink! Nudge, nudge!)</S> ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::: I do not wish to add any more fuel to the fire but to me it is hard to overlook the fact that the three editors who have been blanking this article (today and in the past, regardless of the comments left here and the talk page by numerous un-involved editors) are the same editors who were involved in the debate in the Adam Walsh Act article. To me the behavior in both cases resembles remarkably well what is described in ]. Before this day the article was being improved step by step, but it looks like the minor edit (a single word) by an IP initiated a response that resulted in wholesale blanking of some 20% of the article with simple ] justification. ] (]) 00:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::This needs special note: '''If you knew that MONGO was right because you were familiar with the page, why did you claim in your previous comment that you reverted a "pointed addition"?'''<br>
	:::::::You should probably go back and read the history before you continue. If you actually knew what was going on and made a considered decision as you pretended, you would have known that I added nothing. I edited one word ("rare" to "some") to match what the sources actually said, MONGO deleted the section in response, I reverted that, and you restored his deletion.<br>
	:::::::I'm not talking about your edits. I'm saying that you weren't in the last 500 edits on the page - i.e. the last two months - until you jumped in on MONGO's behalf. And what you're saying sounds suspiciously like an admission that you are '''not''' making your edits as considered decisions, but as snap judgments. Whether or not they're at others' request is now the only thing in doubt.<br>
	:::::::On to your new claim - where in the blazes did you come up with the lie that I'm a banned editor? I'm nothing of the sort, and I suspect you already know that but are trying to muddy the waters. Either give some evidence that you're not pulling that out of your tail end, or retract it. ] (]) 00:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
	{{od}}Getting more and more personal. Hugs and kisses.--] 00:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
	:ScrapIronIV - Good call getting MONGO to come and muddy the waters again, but it's not "personal" to provide clear evidence that an editor is lying and acting in bad faith. Let's review:<br>
	:You're lying about knowing MONGO was right because you were familiar with the article. You hadn't seen it in at least two months, during which it went through massive changes. To boot, you didn't even know what you were reverting, as evidenced by the mistaken claim that you were reverting a "pointed addition". You're also making an accusation (that I'm a banned editor) that is demonstrably false, based on no evidence.<br>
	:So where would you like to start in trying to climb out of the hole the two of you have dug? ] (]) 00:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
	::What hole? That an editor was checking recent changes and since he edited a related article that was also a POV mess and so he decided to jump in and start cleaning this one up too...how is that a hole? That you changed "rare" to "some" and I decided the whole statement was a POV synthesis...so I removed it...how is that a hole.--] 00:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
	*I agree with MONGO about the existing POV bias and think of content can be easily deleted, however removing is actually too much. This could be shortened and rephrased, but this is basically a valid and well sourced info on the subject. But whatever. I do not have time for this. ] (]) 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
	*::Thanks...while it will likely be seen as a POV fork, the peripherals on this matter should be on a new page as I mentioned earlier in this discussion.--] 04:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::*You suggested above that removed content belongs to "Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries". How come if the content you removed includes the following subtitles: "Registration process", "Public notification", "Additional restrictions", "Effectiveness", "Perceptions", etc.? This is not about any "legal challenges". Look, you made this posting on the noticeboard to have opinions by 3rd uninvolved parties, and here is it. ] (]) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
	::::: These sections were supposed to be worked on to make them more neutral. Mongo and NickCT were on to it, but for some reason ScrapIron came in like a Rambo and blew up like half of the article. I really can't see Mongos' reasoning for not allowing these sections to stay on the page and rework them as the original plan was. The accusations of the ip editor do not seem far fetched to me as I have seen this go down on another article related to this subject. 3/4 of the editors who did this in the ] article are now involved in blanking this article, regardless of multiple opposing opinions of uninvolved editors. Mongo did not have a problem with these sections (at least ostensibly) before ScrapIron removed them, but now he is suddenly edit warring for ScrapIron. This same counter-consensus behavior took place in AWA article. All of the sections are relevant to this article. I have now reinstated them. Just stick to the original plan you and NickCT had, Mongo. ] (]) 04:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Indeed, I do not see any reason for these paragraphs (in my last diff) be removed, and I do not even see a reason for them to be significantly reworked. Now, speaking about a similar removal on , I too agree that it was unwarranted, because it merely describes and explains the application of Law. Yes, this is a serious offense and must be described as such - with all consequences, per sources. ] (]) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::If you look at the history of that page, the revert on the Adam Walsh Act was the same material that he had removed based on COPYVIO. I looked it over as well and felt it was at the very least an extremely close case of paraphrasing material. --] 17:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::Are you talking about ? Can you give any link where this came from? This is different from the text removed as alleged copyvio , and according to the edit summary by ViperFace it was taken from another WP page. But this is a peripheral issue. Looking at discussion on article talk page , it appears that idea was indeed to improve the text rather than remove. ] (]) 17:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::You are correct on the revert issue in that the COPYVIO revert was different and that material was added by an IP, which originates from Helsinki, Finland. Yes, ViperFace, I am sure that must be you...it seems rather implausible that another Fin would be editing these articles on en.wiki. We're not here to discuss a different article. I'll look over ScrapIrons latest revert but it does appear to be very COATRACKish for this article.--] 17:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Sure, please take a look. I think this is personal bias. Texts in question describe real life consequences for people who committed the crime and their families. The consequences might be viewed as "unfairness" of the US law and practices, but that's irrelevant as long as the content is properly sources, and yes, it is about the subject. My personal bias would be different: people have every right to know the results of application of the law in their country, no matter if something was "fair". ] (]) 17:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: When you are going to remove the pseudo-science piece of ] you added, Mongo. Also, inb4 "Boo-hoo! Viper is a SPA!".<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:::::::MONGO is blatantly gaming the rules, and will continue to do so for as long as he is allowed. First he brings in his old ally ScrapIronIV to agree with him... at least until ScrapIronIV slipped badly and revealed that he didn't even know what he was agreeing to, continued to repeatedly (and demonstrably) lie about why he started with that then went on to blank 20% of the articleoldid=689869232] (and demonstrably,. Then when a new genuinely-uninvolved editor became involved and explained why he felt both sides had a point, but undid ScrapIronIV's blanking until a compromise could be reached, a "long term articled" editor whose talk page reflects repeated personal and noticeboard support from MONGO just coincidentally happened to stop by and feel very strongly that the blanking should be restored,. This story seems to have been repeated, here and elsewhere.<br>
	:::::::MONGO repeatedly "jokes" about bringing in his "army" to come agree with him if you make edits he doesn't like. At the very least it's not funny, and it doesn't appear to be a joke either. If I had a great deal more spare time, it would be well worth bringing it to AN/I... well, it would be ''if'' (big "if") anyone cares enough about ending routine collusion to address even blatant cases, or the rules that make it easy.
	:::::::To be fair, I don't like addressing nasty, time-consuming problems either. But sooner or later someone has to, or ArbCom might as well be renamed "'''T'''op-'''L'''evel '''D'''ispute '''R'''esolution". ] (]) 14:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::Hum...you should log in with your regular account. Anyway, maybe trimming the yet unaddressed issues that have been tagged will finally fix this soapbox article.--] 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
	{{od}}I love the fact that you and ScrapIronIV are so fond of insinuating/asserting/threatening that I'm a banned editor - without a shred of evidence. For the third (or is it the fourth?) time, I'm not. I left long ago of my own accord when it became obvious that you and people like you will always win unless WP is willing to reform the rules.<br>
	It's far too easy for those who (usually) pay lip service to the letter of the rules to bury editors of good will under dozens of hours of work following the spirit of the rules. Your appeal to AGF just now by implying "Who, me? I have ''no'' idea what you mean, let's start aaaall over again and now ''you'' can beat your head against my 'army' of 'Mongo-bots'‡ to game consensus until you give up in despair" is a perfect case-in-point.<br>
	I can read histories just fine, thank you, and I do well enough at creating my own despair. So no, I'm not interested in returning to editing and wasting dozens of hours demonstrating how long you've been doing this, if you can just bat your eyes and say the magic words "But I've ''changed'' and I've ''learned'' how wrong I was, soIapologizeandnowIdeserveanotherchance (or a dozen)." Nor am I interested in hoping you'll dig your own grave a hundred feet deep by continuing to use allies who make mistakes as obvious as ScrapIronIV's.<br>
	No one, except perhaps those who try to pretend that you and your ilk haven't made WP fodder for comedians, is that obstinately blind. If not even an admin is willing to tackle you - even when your group has made it this obvious that you're colluding - there's little point in me alone trying to do so.<br>
	‡ - "Why yes I ''do'' keep saying it, but I'm only joking, you big silly. Tee hee. Like I said, let's start over again." ] (]) 18:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
	:To imitate ViperFace's wisecrack, "In b4 someone praises MONGO and ScrapIronIV as prolific editors‡, the usual defense of those whose misbehavior is so egregious as to actually get in trouble for it."
	:‡ - I swear, I have never understood why anyone would consider this a mitigating circumstance. To me it's ''appalling'' to know that someone has been getting away with driving other editors away from "their" articles this long. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
	::If I thought ScrapIron had made a mistake I wouldn't have reverted. In fact, this article still needs more trimming to maintain focus and achieve NPOV. Aside from that, schreeching about alleged collisions that are unrelated to whether we are closer to neutrality are about as helpful as the average pile of donkey doo.--] 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::By "mistake", I'm not referring to the fact he blanked 20% of the article.
	:::I'm referring to his having accidentally admitted that he didn't even know what he was agreeing to, when he reverted on your behalf. He then compounded this mistake by demonstrably,) and repeatedly, inventing false reasons for it.
	:::Would you like to try to justify that, or will you continue trying to bluster your way out of it? ] (]) 20:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::: Mongo said: ''"Anyway, maybe trimming the yet unaddressed issues that have been tagged will finally fix this soapbox article."'' If this is the case, why an earth are these three edit warring for deleting this piece ? This well sourced 20% of the page content has one trivial "citation needed" and one "NPOV statement"- tag. The former can be easily cited or deleted. The latter one should go into the "debate" section as originally planned, or to the "effectiveness" section that was deleted earlier in similar manner, and the citation should be changed from NYT op/ed piece to this considerably more reliable which says the same thing. Majority of uninvolved editors have now disproved with the latest deletions. Why ask for third opinions if one does not care about third opinions? ] (]) 04:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

			::"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."
	I'm really surprised that this topic hasn't generated more input from uninvolved editors after all this time on this noticeboard. As it stands, the article has been gutted and the original editor has moved on to other topics of interest (possibly disproving the claim that it was an SPA). I'm really disappointed that, as a community, we have apparently decided to ignore the ] and instead go with practically a bare bones ''de minimus'' article on the subject. Yes, it's more than a stub, but certainly not the encyclopedic work I was hoping to see when all was done. As it stands now, the article supports beliefs from popular culture (i.e. beliefs supported by television crime dramas and the like) and does nothing to inform the reader, based on RS, the way an encyclopedic article should. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing doesn't end up on ]! <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">] \| ]\| ] </span> 12:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
	:] is much braver than I am and this is an emotional topic involving reputable editors from different cultural backgrounds. There have been suggestions that the UK follow the US -a view firmly rejected by the UK government who seem to share many of ViperFace's arguments. Important, properly cited material has been deleted but the article was too long. I would support splitting it along lines previously suggested. It should be available. ] (]) 13:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
	::Even this discussion has become a wall of text that many will not read. --sigh-- I'm all in favor of organizational changes that make the article easier to read and understand. My concern is the '''wholesale deletion of WP:RS from the article''' that has gone unchallenged by the larger community, even when such deletion supported a particular POV. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">] \| ]\| ] </span> 14:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::OK. I believe Mongo is concerned that this article could influence US opinion. Could we build a consensus on a link to a new article ] containing the ] deleted material? I had thought this was going to happen weeks ago. ] (]) 15:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::: I think if anything should be in ]. This piece was imported from ] when I did the split . The rest of the content that has been thrown out, that is, the and the part that has now been subject to edit warring belongs to this article. Anything else would be ]. I personally think version covers the subject quite well, but it should be checked for balance and POV expressions by someone else than the deletionists. I get that my version had some balance issues but the ultimate bias the deletionists hold is pretty clear from the Adam Walsh Act case. After all, MONGO said that I and ], who happens to be an expert notable enough to have his own Misplaced Pages article ], are We did provide around 50 peer reviewed articles to support our position but these same three editors kept on reverting any mention of them. I have deep mistrust to these editors and I genuinely believe that MONGO's intention was never follow through with NickCT's plan as Nick was not going to remove ], he was simply going to reword and re-organize the article. Suddenly, wild ScrapIron appeared out of nothing. ] (]) 19:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Its comical that anyone would assume that since you finally went and edited an unrelated article or two that this now means you aren't a POV pushing sex offender apologist. All laws tend to have more writings that oppose the laws than ones that support them. The key is whether any of that advocacy has led to alterations of any significance to the laws and in this case they haven't. The laws regarding the death penalty in the U.S. have similar advocacy against them....yet in many states in the U.S. the death penalty is still legal. I'm sick and tired of your POV pushing and advocacy and misuse of this website to attack laws in a country that isn't even your own...I don't need to read my wiki resume to you to demonstrate that I've always followed our policies such as BLP, NPOV and SOAP long before some of these were even policies.--] 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
	::::::The key is to follow what ] says, not what your gut feel says. If all of the RS take critical position, that's the position the article takes. Another key policy is to flow with the consensus. It is true that I came here as an ] to correct great wrong. My early ways of editing was intercepted by many long term editors. Since then I have tried my best to stand corrected. You and your bots are the only editors who seem to have hard time of acknowledging this. Your wiki history demonstrates the fact that the community is not able to address your violations properly. You are one of those who are able to come up clean after dipping in a pit of greasy doo-doo. Also, I'm striking over your blatant violation of ] and ]. ] (]) 16:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Don't alter anyone's comments...funny you might do that while at the same time stating that I am "one of those who are able to come up clean after dipping in a pit of greasy doo-doo.", and referring to others who see your POV pushing and sex offender SPA platforming for what it is as "bots". We're done here...I'm going to revert you on sight.--] 07:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::You are the one who keeps on joking(?) about Mongo bots. The IP brought that up and I happen to agree with his/hers account. You also seem to be able to avoid sanctions even when ArbCom finds you guilty. You and the "others", who are '''non-neutral editors''', have been removing ] which has been objected by majority of '''neutral editors''' who have responded here. You posted this here "in hopes of soliciting neutral contributions for balance." The questions of neutral editors still remain unanswered. How about answering them? You also fail miserably in keeping your own promises. ] (]) 16:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::* ViperFace, I can completely understand getting furious at being called a "sex offender apologist". But Misplaced Pages has a policy for the correct way to do everything, including removing blatant personal attacks against you. At least as I understand it, the correct way is to . Big surprise. (-_-)
	::::::::* MONGO, did you seriously just pretend to be offended that you infuriated someone by calling them a "sex offender apologist"? I guess that means you consider even ''de minimis'' alterations of others' comments to be worse than breaking the hell out of NPA. If that's the case, how should the community respond to ? ] (]) 19:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

			::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)
	I have reconsidered my position. I think we should try to build consensus around what ] and ] have proposed above. I try to see this as more of a ] rather than ]. The problem is . To save the deleted RS what MONGO considers peripheral for purposes of this article, multiple separate articles are needed. Could we add the debate section, which would have subsections with minimal coverage on each topic which would provide links to the main articles? ] (]) 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
	:I freely admit I am utterly bewildered at the intensity of the emotion shown in this discussion. I suspect it reflects both the European v US backgrounds of the editors + perhaps some victim experience. The UK has considered publication of the register and the RS are therefore useful. A debate section may be the best way of continuing to avoid excessive article length. ] (]) 17:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
	::It would be nice to have some sort of response from those who initially removed the debate section and other RS material. It's very frustrating to try to build the section if it gets arbitrarily removed without much of an explanation. ] (]) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

			:::(...Sound of Crickets...) --] (]) 01:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Paul Singer ==
			::::I've taken a crack at rolling back the ] / ] violations in . ] (]) 03:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Journal of Indo-European Studies ==
	This post concerns ]. I recently copy edited the article rather succinctly due to its NPOV tag. One of the sentences I removed from the lede by {{u\|Nomoskedasticity}}, mainly “His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a], a characterization which Singer rejects.” I claim the use of “vulture” is non-neutral, and as such goes against ]. Subsequent attempts at discussion were diluted and fizzled out, e.g. ] and ]. A related issue, concerning the fact that 67% of the article's Elliott Management section contents relate to distressed debt, was also raised per ]. Please note this is a BLP. Given nobody commented besides people who are directly involved with the article, I hope anyone unfamiliar with this issue and yet experienced in NPOV matters can provide much needed insight. I appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, <small>]</small> ]; ] 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
	:I'm not going to share my feelings on this b/c this conversation is getting silly. I will say that this is the '''3rd''' thread ] has started on this issue (after discussing it ] and ]), which seemed aimed at overturning an ]. I previously that repeatedly bringing up this topic in different forums might be considered ]. I'm curious as to whether FoCuS doesn't understand what forum shopping is, doesn't think this is forum shopping or just doesn't care. ] (]) 19:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
	::Seconded. ] (]) 19:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::Great way of not engaging in discussion! My reason for the posts is simple: lack of outside opinions. I know nothing about previous consensus; I didn't edit this article before and the history behind it seems to be long and convoluted - I was ] and copy edited it because of its tag; I didn't expect there would be such a long history of revisions behind an average BLP such as this one. I also know nothing about involved editors beyond the constant names cropping up in its edit history and talk page. The subsequent attempts at discussion were prompted by my copy edit, and concern the simple matters of 1) the lede; 2) the Elliott Management section - all were made in appropriate venues: BLPN, NPOVN and its own talk page. We should all strive for consensus. You can engage or again show apparent resignation and contempt. Clearly the article's content provides material for debate, otherwise there wouldn't be repeated NPOV claims made about it. Let's give fixing it a go; I'd much rather we tackle this for the sake of Misplaced Pages than yet again hide it under the rug. Best, <small>]</small> ]; ] 19:57, 15 December 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)
	This is just getting desperate now. There's no way I'm discussing this anymore. ] seems to be the running theme with this article. This is just so absurd now that it's almost descended into parody. ] (]) 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
	:I am trying to have a serious discussion about the contents of a BLP. I showed good faith by inviting all dissenting parties to the discussion. I've provided arguments and have always followed dispute resolution processes in hopes of encouraging ]. Instead of engaging, I've seen repeated claims that "consensus has been reached many times before". I haven't found evidence of said consensus, least of all considering, as far as I can tell, the same 2-3 editors have time and again stonewalled any attempts at improving this article's neutrality and overall structure and content. How Misplaced Pages's changed if we can claim consensus has been reached with 3 opinions! I won't go into attributing any of this to underlying ideological pretexts, given I strive to AGF and maintain discussions neutral; however we need to find consensus when there is an obvious neutrality issue at hand.
	:The fact of the matter is "vulture" remains a pejorative term. There wouldn't be a need for the use of such a term weren't it for its negative connotations. See ] as a clear example. Per WP:BLP, the content should be removed immediately yet I did not revert Nomoskedasticity in order not to trigger an edit war. Claiming there is no neutrality issue while claiming there have been previous discussions about it is simply ignoring reality. I am saddened {{u\|SegataSanshiro1}} has withdrawn from future discourse. I invite any uninvolved editors to participate in this discussion so that we can once and for all leave this behind us and improve the article. Regards, <small>]</small> ]; ] 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
	::I too find it difficult to see how "consensus" was reached with only three editors, all of which have been heavily active on Singer's personal page and talk page. Standards for a BLP are much different than that of other pages, such as a company website. Comparing someone a "vulture", especially in the lead, is incredibly disparaging. Even if it is sourced, I don't understand how users see this as neutral. ] (]) 00:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::Whether is disparaging or not, it exists as a descriptor for funds with a characteristic pattern of behavior - namely, buying distressed debt at a discount and trying to recover full price (or at least more than the purchase price), particularly from sovereign nations. Singer's work fits this to a T. The place to lobby for eliminating this term as being too hurtful would be on the page for the term itself, not Singer's page. ] (]) 05:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
	::::I don't need an explanation of what a vulture fund is. You argued that the term describes "funds", so why is it being used to describe an individual on a BLP? ] (]) 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::::{{reply to\|Meatsgains}} - re "''being used to describe an individual''" - That's shenanigans Meat and you know it. We're not calling anyone a vulture. ] (]) 16:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
	::::::It is describing his “His business practices..." thus, should be included on the company page, not his BLP. ] (]) 03:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::As he is the founding CEO the distinction is slightly artificial, but I have moved the sentence from the lead to the Elliott Management section where it perhaps makes more sense. ] (]) 08:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
	:Not a good move. He is known primarily for being the head of a Vulture fund. Now the lede again has undue weight on his charity work. We're treading a dangerous line here where the article is at risk of returning to just being a nice PR puff piece. What he is best known for should certainly be mentioned there, not doing so whould simply be whitewashing. Any chance the Singer page is related to ? I see many of the same names crop up. ] (]) 16:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
	::It's more complex than that: while I agree that there is a risk of whitewashing there are also genuine issues here. I've now reintroduced the "vulture" characterisation but following the source more closely in noting that opinions vary. If you think I have got this wrong then you should of course feel free to edit it, but the key thing here is, as always, to follow the sources rather than our own personal views. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::No, I think this last one is certainly a good edit. Essentially, if we want to avoid value judgements on Singer himself and separate what are criticisms of him from criticisms of his company, when Elliott Management is mentioned, it should be clarified that this is predominantly known for being a Vulture Fund - especially considering that the lede should reflect the content of the article. In some cases ''missing'' content, since there was a lot of controversy surrounding Delphi and Compuware is completely absent from the article - but this is probably for another discussion. ] (]) 21:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|Jonathan A Jones}} Thank you for your effort towards breaking the gridlock. I do think we're not quite there yet, however. We have in effect used a single source for a contentious statement in the lede, which in fact is a summary of particular portions of said source. This is not encyclopaedic. Why was just the ''Washington Post'' utilised or deemed representative? A similar analysis applies for the EM section with the reinstated comment from the lede. It now reads as if the firm's primary line of business is distressed debt (which in fact is not, per reliable sources); the preceding ''Financial Times'' statement also needs revising in light of this (per the source: "Elliott is a multi-strategy fund with $24bn in assets across global markets"). Let us please discuss how to incorporate neutral information from a representative sample of sources first, before editing the article while there is an ongoing discussion. Regards, <small>]</small> ]; ] 14:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Easily resolved by using multiple sources citing Eliott as a Vulture fund . We've been through the whole "percentage of business" line of argument, and that in no way concerns us - we must simply show what reliable sources say. It's what the fund is best known for considering these activities are extremely high profile and widely reported. Simply leaving this out of the lede would be akin to leaving out the accusation of murder from the lede of ]'s page and focussing instead on his sporting achievements and brief acting career. We all know this, let's not pretend that it's not the case. Any attempt to remove this from the lede is clearly an attempt at whitewashing. ] (]) 19:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Again, you and your sources are referring to Elliott Management as a vulture fund. So why are we including it on a BLP? To compare Singer, whose business practices are LEGAL, to the accusations of OJ Simpson's murder is completely out of line. Singer is covered in countless reliable sources on various topics outside of his investments. ] (]) 20:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Do a quick Google News search for "Paul Singer" and tell me how far you have to dig to finally come across an article that compares Singer to a vulture. That is not what he, nor his fund, are "best known for". ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
	I'm not comparing Vulture funds with murder. Clearly analogies aren't your strong point. The first couple of lines of the article are:

			: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)
	''Paul Elliott Singer (born August 22, 1944) is an American hedge fund manager, investor, philanthropist and political activist. He is the founder and CEO of hedge fund Elliott Management Corporation, what the New York Times terms an "activist hedge fund", and (via his Paul E. Singer Foundation) a prominent New York based philanthropist.''
			::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.
	I'm simply saying to change this description of his company to what it is widely regarded as. I'll ignore the rest of the straw man.

			::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)
	Also, again just as a side point, this sentence highlights the problem which has historically plagued this article - giving equal weight to "activism" and "philanthropy" in an attempt to detract attention from what should be given far greater weight. ] (]) 21:13, 23 December 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)
	:I find it astounding how instead of engaging in actual discussion people resort to facile arguments. I am also gobsmacked at the fact that the very content which this post is intended to discuss is being willy-nilly reintroduced into the article without proper process per Misplaced Pages policy. This reeks of agenda-pushing and needs to stop. It looks like we're sadly heading to upper levels of dispute resolution, given the lack of outside participation. <small>]</small> ]; ] 23:13, 23 December 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:
	::This topic has already been extensively discussed in many different places. Further forum shopping is not the answer. There's plenty of room to discuss details, but there is an established consensus that the term "vulture fund" is not inherently contentious or derogatory, and that the only relevant policies here are the usual ones about sourcing and weight. ] (]) 11:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
			::::https://www.jies.org/DOCS/jies_index/mainindex.html
	::See, for example, the extensive discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
			::::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)
	:::Again, this isn't about a page name, and thus your reference is void. This is about the use of a non-neutral term in a BLP's lede and contents. Several policies come into play here. Furthermore, creating a post in the relevant noticeboard before actually editing the article is ''precisely'' the opposite of forum shopping. I have solicited nobody's attention. This discussion is open to all parties. Can we discuss the issue at hand now? <small>]</small> ]; ] 18:12, 24 December 2015 (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 ] 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)
			:::::::I'm sorry but we don't exclude a work from an academic just because they're Marxist. ] (]) 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'. ] (]) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::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)
			::::::::::::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)
			:::::::::::::] does not mean that a source must be neutral. ] (]) ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:31, 3 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 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. ). ] (]) 00:53, 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. ] (]) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Focus, if I can just remind you of the RfC in October entitled '''Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP?''', the consensus was:
			:::::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-->
	::::''There are comments on past RFC's. RFC's findings are not forever, consensus can change, but it is not guaranteed to change. There is consensus to use the term "vulture". The majority argument is that the word is used by reliable sources WP:RS. The minority opinion cites WP:BLP, '''but BLP is not a policy against inclusion of information found in reliable sources. Its purpose is to make sure those sources exist and are used.''' The lede of BLP clearly sets this forth.''
			: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.
	::::A similar RfC in August 2014 also gave (weak) consensus to use the term. I'd just like to remind you again that you're not bringing absolutely anything new to the table here, and even more forum shopping is going to weaken your position since it does appear (at least from the outside) like there appears to be an effort to suppress reliable sources be editors who are personally offended by a term due to their ideological positions. This has extended far beyond just this article. Again, I also remind you of the RfC which you were a part of which, as Jonathan A Jones points out, "established consensus that the term "vulture fund" is not inherently contentious or derogatory". ] (]) 22:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Let me remind you that the RfC I participated in discussed a different article altogether. Even more forum shopping? Can you provide evidence of a single instance of forum shopping? I haven't even edited the article while trying to bring about a civil discussion (when several editors here have). I have also never suppressed any sources - which you seem to treat as acceptable practise on Misplaced Pages. I am in fact trying to weigh sources, but am met with constant refusals to do so. I also hold that your constant accusations of ideological persuits are laughable and cannot be held to any degree of seriousness. It's amusing how you're the only one using an ideology card; engaging in discussion (the very definition of neutrality) so far appears to border on the absurd. <small>]</small> ]; ] 15:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::::You alluded to two previous RfCs, can you please provide links to those? Are they about Paul Singer? I believe I participated in an RfC in the W2W talk page about a different article a few months ago. If as you say there was weak consensus in August 2014 (about Paul Singer?), then reassessing said positions seems appropriate and even prudent - especially when there is clear contention. I'd also urge editors experienced in the matter to come forward and provide expert opinions, given interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV can be quite daunting - and none of us here appear qualified to provide such interpretation (especially with such entrenched views). The fact of the matter is "vulture" is a derogatory term, as acknowledged by reliable sources, and as such cannot be used in a neutral encyclopaedia. That is a whole different (yet related) issue to the way the article is structured and its contents. We can thoroughly portray the work the subject does, but using neutral language. Politically-charged terms should not have any place on Misplaced Pages, and doing so when the exact same rources used to support its use acknowledge the term is pejorative seems utterly unreal. What place does opinion have in a lede? Imagine I introduced similar text to an actor's article: "the NYT describes Brad Pitt as a 'leftie nutjob' or a 'dramatic' actor" - what good does that sentence bring to the table, regardless of its provenance? I'm tired of saying this but let's keep things in perspective and engage in discussion. Avoiding discussion won't make dissent go away - ask Lenin. <small>]</small> ]; ] 16:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
	::::::May I remind you that you started the discussion at ]. Starting this discussion shortly afterwards in a clear breach of ]. ] (]) 17:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::May I remind you I started the second discussion after the first one went stale (nobody outside the article's own talk page has cared to comment in either, by the way) - in turn after the talk page's own discussion went stale; when both policies are at play; and in the appropriate venues to do so. I haven't solicited anybody's participation in other outlets. Have you ever even read WP:FORUMSHOP? In case you haven't: noticeboards are precisely where consensus is sought for, and I have, per the quoted policy itself, provided ''links to show where else I have raised the question''. Now, can we please set these attempts at discrediting serious editors aside and focus on the discussion at hand? <small>]</small> ]; ] 02:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::The other RfC on Singer's page was in October and can be found . As it has been noted multiple times in this discussion and the other two you have started, consensus was established to use the term. I really think you can't accuse anyone here of not engaging in discussion, since It is pretty evident that this has been discussed to death - there have been two on Singer's page, one on W2W and ''at least'' one more on Vulture funds. These discussions (along with the other RfC you participated in and another on the ] page) have found using RS that Vulture fund should be used since it is ]. Ignoring this consensus and the other established here whilst repeatedly forum shopping and still continuing to make the exact same claims which all these discussions repeatedly refuted is bordering on ] since it should be fairly obvious by this point that your POV is a minority one. As you have been told repeatedly, you are not bringing anything new to the table and the reason you feel that others are "unwilling to engage" is really just seems like a case of ] and (speaking only for myself here), I don't feel like going through all this again to satisfy the whims of one editor. ] (]) 21:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Note the use of quotation marks (and that the RfC uses the quotation marks itself) - which is the practice of most reliable sources using the term (NYT generally uses either "so-called" or quotation marks for usage of the term). ] (]) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
	<br>
	Forgive me if I'm unnecessarily reopening a can of worms, but I'm not sure I understand: If there's a clear consensus (and it appears there is) that Misplaced Pages policy does not forbid calling a vulture fund a vulture fund any more than it forbids calling a loan shark a loan shark (in both cases the most common term for a particular style of business practice), why does the lede call a vulture fund an "activist hedge fund"? ] (]) 01:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
	:Oh, hello there IP whose only mainspace edit is restoring a word in ]! {{smiley\|wink}} <small>]</small> ]; ] 02:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
	::Oh, hello there person who seems extremely troubled by the term ] being applied to <s>a</s> Paul Singer's ]! {{smiley\|wink}}
	::Did you want to answer the question, or were you just being friendly? ] (]) 04:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::Your appearance here out of all places looks odd, that's all. Now, a few remarks on your post above: 1) we're an encyclopaedia, not a village barbershop - neutrality is paramount to everything we do; 2) there is no clear consensus - 3 editors who've extensively edited the article feel like they ] it and have since established a smear campaign on several capitalist enterprises (nothing to do with their declared Communist-Socialist affiliations, of course); 3) as has been previously discussed, "loan shark" doesn't carry the same popular connotations as "vulture fund" - the former practise being in several domains illegal and having such a long history it counts with widespread use, the latter is still in its etymological infancy, if you will, and is treated by sources as pejorative, hence its appeal to mass media markets (see use of quotation marks - it is a legal practise and as such shouldn't be treated any differently; its only appeal is due to the fact sensationalism sells); 4) finally, the lede calls Elliott Management an "activist hedge fund" given the does so in the reference used for that specific claim. Hope this clears your questions. Best, <small>]</small> ]; ] 12:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
	::::I completely agree that the vulture fund business model is entirely legal. Indeed I would go further than that: vulture funds are ethical and provide a valuable service by exposing the bankruptcy (not just financial, but in many cases intellectual and moral) of the debtors. As has already been established there is nothing ''intrinsically'' pejorative about the term. And so once again we come back to the fundamental principles: follow the sources and apply due weight. We call Elliott Management an "activist hedge fund" because the ''New York Times'' does so, and similarly we describe Singer's investment style as 'either "an activist investor" or a "vulture capitalist"' because the ''Washington Post'' does so. There's nothing complicated here. ] (]) 13:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Focus, I don't feel like I "own" anything, I have been looking at this page for a few months and the "smear campaign" extends to Vulture fund, and that's it... The editor who feels like they own the page is Meatsgains, who has very clear free market leanings and has been protecting that page for quite some time. I think that now since you're resorting to cherry picking sources based on your own views, there is nothing further do discuss here. What you are trying to do seems overwhelmingly obvious. ] (]) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
	::{{reply to\|FoCuSandLeArN}} - ] ] (]) 00:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
	::{{reply to\|NickCT}} - ] <small>]</small> ]; ] 12:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
	::{{reply to\|FoCuSandLeArN}} - I'm pretty sure it was you who was not assuming good faith by implying foul play. ] (]) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
	::{{reply to\|SegataSanshiro1}} Foul play? You mean like Maradona? <small>]</small> ]; ] 22:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
	::{{reply to\|FoCuSandLeArN}} - I see you have just descended into childishness now that you haven't gotten your way. Judging from your snarky and xenophobic jibes in this discussion and the W2W discussion, I take it you're from the UK. ] (]) 22:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
	Can we please focus on the content at hand rather than the behavior of users? ] (]) 04:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

			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.
	== Michael Botticelli is NOT a 'Politician'! ==

			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.
	Michael Botticelli is NOT a 'Politician'!
	He is a PUBLIC SERVANT!
	He never ran for, or held, an elected position.
	I cannot edit the banner on this article.
	I hope you will.

			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.
	Robert E. Dwyer <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Looks like the page name is Michael Botticelli (politician) to differentiate the page from the figure skater named Michael Botticelli. ] (]) 18:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
	::Why not use "(civil servant)" in this case? ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::I was mulling over this the other day. I agree that "civil servant" is the most neutral name, and have moved it. Best, ]! 15:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

			Best,
	== Trustpilot ==

	~~There is a dispute on ] reguarding the neutrality of the lead paragraph. I would appreciate more opinions on what to do with this. Thanks,~~ ] (]) 17:27, 20 December ~~2015~~ (UTC)		] (]) 17:02, 5 December 2024 (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.
	==Request for comment at ExxonMobil==
			: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.
	]You are invited to join the discussion at ]. Issues of neutrality have been raised. Thanks. ] (]) 15:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- ] -->
			: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 ===
	== Request for comment on History of the Great War ==
			* 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)
			*:Did AfD: ] ] (]) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::The result was '''speedy keep'''.] (]) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] & ] ==
	] I'm revamping the article; a couple of years ago added material (''1917 Part II'') that didn't seem as NPOV as it does now, with me being more experienced. I'd like someone with an interest in NPOV to help me identify what certainly can't stay in since it's my OR. The problem I've got is that the paraphrase of Edmonds, Travers and Green is OK but ''they all get it wrong'' and that's the bit I couldn't resist adding. Edmonds tucked certain potentially embarrassing facts away in footnotes and appendices and occasionally they contradict the narrative. I'd hoped by now someone would be in print so that I could cite this to them but alas not (Unless there's an adept who knows better?). Everyone who writes on the 3rd battle of Ypres swallows the biggest mistake in the book. Thanks ] (]) 10:32, 24 December 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)
	== RfC - Aloysius Stepinac ==

			== Confusing language from a Mark Biondich source related to Balkans ==
	Your input is requested at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:50, 25 December 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
	== Pablo Picasso ==

			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 have to say that the article reads more like something generated by a foundation dedicated to promoting his works than a resource for information. It's widely accepted that the quality of his work greatly declined as his fame grew and he reached a point where he produced prints and lazy work simply because they could generate enormous sums of money. Remember, this is a man who would pay for a pack of gum by check because the shopkeeper wouldn't cash the check, he'd sell it. (Gum is an example as I have no idea what he bought, but the rest is true) The article makes it sound as if he was practically churning out innovative work on his deathbed.

			I would like to get other viewpoints and advice related to these. ] (]) 12:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	I really think someone with a far greater knowledge on the subject than I should review, and likely edit, the page.

			:{{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)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Pablo_Picasso <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::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}}
			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 ]. So 3 million made more sense.
	== what is "skate punk" anyway? ==

			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 ] article covers way to many other genres of punk music, and sports including but not limiting to ] and also ] which also adopted the ] movement at the same time. This article is to generalistic and ] to have any real encyclopedic value at this point in time. This article needs a massive adjustment beyond what I can achieve as an IP editor and perhaps a merger with the Punk rock article. ]

			The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence since 1878 is available through Misplaced Pages Library.
	--] (]) 05:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
			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:
	:This noticeboard is for article concerns relating to a biased point of view being displayed by editors within the article. Though this may apply to the skate punk article, the real glaring issue is with ] and ]. Normally NPOV issues derive from material that's already sourced, but it's being used to present a POV not supported by the source. However, this is part of the Misplaced Pages process. It seems you have a passion for this subject, so feel free to find some reliable sources of your own, and start editing the article to better represent those sources. At this point in time, you could argue that it be merged since I think there's only one source used for the entire article, but after doing a Google Scholar search, I found a few sources that discussed skatepunk. That means it probably deserves its own WP article and just needs to be developed more. Feel free to create an account and start getting involved in the project.] (]) 01:59, 29 December 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.}}

			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 article needs more uninvolved editors to check it for neutrality. The subject posts copiously on the talk page and does not always help his case, but I think that he has a genuine concern about neutrality. The lead talks about a twenty-year-old lawsuit, for instance. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

			This is what Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History says, pages xxxvii–xxxviii
	== Cosmology: Biblical Cosmology ==
			{{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.
	] (]) 00:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

			I'll fix the wording in affected articles in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	Biblical cosmology portion of Cosmology: Despite serious errors and lack of substantiation in the 'Biblical cosmology' portion of 'Cosmology' the editor 'All The Foxes' insists on reverting to the original text from my much more factual revision DESPITE my revision including the original text to show the reason for the changes. I suspect this is a case of an editor's personal opinion of both Old and New Testaments being false and untrustworthy. I ask for community support based on my inclusion of links in my revision testifying to the factualness of my revision, and the error of the original. Please and thank you.

			: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)
	'''Original Text:''' ''"Biblical cosmology Genesis creation narrative (c. 500 BC) Flat earth floating in infinite "waters of chaos"''
			::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)

			== ] ==
	'''My change:''' "I will leave the original text in 'Biblical Cosmology' unchanged, but changes should be made by an editor. The date or origin for instance of the Genesis creation narrative according to a Misplaced Pages article should be at least earlier than 1,000 BC, and according to other sources as early as 3,500 BC, not the 500 BC stated in the original text. Also, Babylon was a latecomer in Old Testament history when the Jews were captive there, having taken Moses' scriptures with them, with Jewish men rising to high positions in government, so the Babylonian account is likely based on Jewish scripture. In the Genesis account the "dry land" was not given a description, but appeared from beneath the waters which covered the planet earth, the earth not described as flat and circular, but a person can be led to believe the bible described the earth as circular because a sphere viewed from any angle is circular."


			It is a dispute in about https://en.wikipedia.org/BRICS#cite_note-:2-173
	'''Original text:''' "Based on Babylonian cosmology. The Earth and the Heavens form a unit within infinite "waters of chaos"; the earth is flat and circular, and a solid dome (the "firmament") keeps out the outer "chaos"-ocean."

			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)

			== ] ==

			{{ping\|C_at_Access}}
			Circulating on relevant noticeboards... essentially if contentious oligarch label should be mentioned in intro ] (]) 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 ] 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 ].

			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)

			: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)

			== Unwarranted promotional and COI tags on film articles ==

			Hi, I need help with some tags that have been added to two articles please:
			* ]
			* 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:
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			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!

			] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::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)

			== Bizarre weight on disordered eating in ] ==

			] 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:

			* 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. ] 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] 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 ]. 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.

			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).

			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 ] 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.

			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.

			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 ].

			I have also 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ==

			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.
			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

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Shortcuts

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page.

Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114

Additional notes:

Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument.
Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it.
The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here.
This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Misplaced Pages editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source.

Start a new discussion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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 under Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources.)

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. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 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)

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:

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)

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)

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: