Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 9 July 2011

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Acupuncture: aggressive skeptics pushing POV

There appears to be an (ongoing) problem with the Acupuncture page.

Militant skeptics have substantially hijacked the page, negating, criticizing, or qualifying much of the content -- this should instead be moved to a separate page.

There is clear, highly biased POV:

1) Acupuncture safety/ deaths are presented as a problem. US figures for deaths due to medical error are 250,000 per year; with harmful side-effects of prescription drugs, and pain-killer addiction, also being very major problems.

2) Many studies, by reputable Western institutes, find clear benefits/ advantages to acupuncture. Yet certain studies or reviews, eliminating Asian publications & not finding benefits, are seized upon as "authoritative". Search PubMED for acupuncture examples -- there are over 16,000 publications in this database alone.

3) Discussion has degenerated into argument, about trivial technicalities -- skeptics happily arguing, about how to & how much, acupuncture has been disproved.

4) Aggressive skepticism being pushed, has discouraged & driven off any of the genuine Chinese contributors & actual "domain experts" -- people who know acupuncture, are being literally driven off from contributing.

5) Claims of "publication bias" used to reject positive Chinese evidence, are not matched by consideration of very major "funding bias" -- present in much so-called "evidence", for Western medicine. Western medicine, and the claim of impeccable science, are vastly weighted by pharmaceutical & medical-devcie funding. Publication bias in this field, is also well established.

6) Attempts to discuss this on the Talk:;Acupuncture page, have been rejected and wiped.

7) Attempts to propose & write more neutral (factualyl correct) content, have been reverted.

8) The page has been taken over by 'Skeptics' -- who are attempting to push their POV. Users such as Usertalk:OrangeMarlin explicitly state a pre-assumption on their page, that "Alternative Medicine is bullshit". This is a gross logical error, and a violation of scientific principles -- science is meant to be about genuine inquiry, rather than attempting to prove pre-formed assumptions.

Diffs of neutral content, and reversion

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Acupuncture&action=historysubmit&oldid=429176041&diff=428574416

Section on talk page

This article is inappropriately negative. It's meant to be about Acupuncture, not 'Acupuncture Skepticism'.

Acupuncture is a long-established form of treatment, coming from a pre-scientific background. The fact of this background does not in way, prove it is not effective or does not work -- that is a logical fallacy.

It is inappropriate for this page, intended to be about Acupuncture, to be hijacked to convey a clear skeptical POV. This page should be removed from the purview of the 'Skepticism Project'. They can write a counter-page if they want.

Acupuncture has been of significant scientific interest, for a long time. With many studies ongoing. It is unlikely it would be of such interest, in finding the means, if there were no effect.

Many current studies, appear to find it useful for Cardiology, Anasthesia as well as Musculo-Skeletal and other conditions.

Here are just a very few studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15078586 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9330670 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18452622 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12528093 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12528093

There are dozens or hundreds more, searching PubMed alone. (Published under auspices of the US Government NIH).

If acupuncture were any empty phenomenon, there would not be this level of scientific investigation (16,457 published papers). This is a subject, which is receiving genuine & substantial amounts of investigation -- to uncover why it appears to be efefctive.

However, acupuncture is the primary phenomenon -- not the partial and limited understanding of it, yet gleaned by science. *That* should not be the topic, or focus, of this article.

I also challenge the objectivity & neutrality of skeptics -- very few surgical procedures have been validated by double-blind trials, and 'medical error' is a leading cause of death in industrialized countries.

195,000 deaths from errors in hospitals, per year in US: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/deadbymistake/6555095.html

up to 780,000 deaths from wider medical errors, per year in US: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm

$19.5 billion cost per year, from medical errors in US http://www.soa.org/news-and-publications/newsroom/press-releases/2010-08-09-med-errors.aspx

Where are the skeptics defacing pages, on surgery & Western medicine? I'm a supporter myself, but this a clear embedded bias which the skeptics seem too irrational & uninformed to acknowledge.

It is unnecessary -- and outright incorrect -- to garnish every single statement about acupuncture, with criticisms or negatives based on a limited & skeptical understanding and 'selective viewing' of evidence.

By comparison with Western medicine, acupuncture is safe. Article on gardening, do not immediately focus on legionella deaths from planting mix -- articles on rocketry, do not immediately focus on rocket explosions -- articles on Western medicine, cover the 'positive purpose & benefit' with little mention of the 20% - 33% rate of hospital complications and 250,000 deaths per year (in the US).

Yet the supposed 'rationalism' of skeptics -- actually, a *logically false* and erroneously argumentative form of criticism -- comes from a weak & limited understanding of their own 'embedded mindset' and accepted background. Things considered to be 'normal' or 'accustomed' practice, by them, are not equally considered or subjected to such criticism.

Such 'skepticism' is logically false, and should not be the major feature in this article. This is exceptionally hostile, exceptionally POV, and both exceptionally weak & arrogant -- to assume that a raft of selective minor criticisms, should assume first-class status & take over the article.

I call upon the editor to remove this page from the purview of the skeptic's group -- and to edit the page, so it provides a genuine neutral view of Acupuncture rather than this negatively biased POV.

Furthermore, I'd like and expect this discussion of 'purpose', 'bias' and 'criticism' to REMAIN IN THIS TALK PAGE -- until such time as it becomes unnecessary, or a better and more comprehensive NEUTRAL DISCUSSION succeeds it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhitmore.nz (talk • contribs)

Would you be satisfied with a treatment something like what we've done with the Cold fusion controversy? Say that proponents have published arguments and evidence in favor of acupuncture, but that the Western medical establishment has dismissed all pro-acupuncture advocacy as irreproducible, i.e., that only proponents can get the effects, while skeptics get nothing? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Relisted: How best to present disputed information

Idris bin Abdullah al-Senussi is a claimant to the abolished throne of Libya. The man has gained quite a bit of notoriety in the media, including most recently in the U.S., in light of the protests against Gaddafi. But the legitimacy of his claims have been widely questioned.

• The two main sources used in the list, Christopher Buyers and Henry Soszynski, both present the son of the last crown prince, Muhammad al-Senussi, as the rightful heir.
• In 1995, a British magistrate ruled that "The world of make belief has totally absorbed Mr Idris Al-Senussi in this case. Mr al-Senussi wishes people to believe he is the heir presumptive to the Libyan throne. ... he clear evidence in this case says that crown prince Muhammad, son of the last Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Libya, has a stronger case".
• This case followed his attempt to convince British members of parliament that he was the "great nephew of the late King Idris of Libya". However, David Williamson, co-editor of Debrett's Peerage, instead described the man (after also mocking his claim) as "the second son of the sixth son of the second son of the younger brother of Idris's father." (The Sunday Times) Buyers' genealogy matches this association exactly. Soszynski doesn't list him at all.

There is now a disagreement regarding how best to present his claim on List of current pretenders. WP:LIST requires a verifiable inclusion criteria, and this list currently requires a legitimate link to the throne. The order of succession in Libya was codified in Art. 45 of the Constitution: primogeniture, or failing that, nomination by the reigning king. This man fails both of these, and it's verified by independent sources. Similarly dubious claims are presented in the article either in plain prose or in a footnote, but not as a main entry. The other editor involed claims that presenting claims unequally violates NPOV. As for myself, I consider it a violation of NPOV to give dubious claims the same weight as those that are generally recognised; see the following relevant sections from WP:NPOV: I'm hoping that editors here, familiar with the policy, can determine which is the right way to go. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Nightw 08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My reading is that we should exclude people like Emperor Norton, whose claims are entirely illegitimate. TFD (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Noting that I've been asked to comment here on my talk (but also that the message was neutrally worded and I am looking at this without regard for who holds which position here).

A list such as this needs to find a way of giving appropriate weight to each POV in each case. Per WP:NPOV (and in particular WP:VALID), the idea that points need to be given equal validity, regardless of prevalence, is not accepted. Neutrality requires that we give due weight to each case, which in this means putting significantly more weight on those who are recognised by scholars as those who would be the legitimate heirs to the throne if it still existed, and less weight to those who are not. For this reason, it would appear from the above that Idris al-Senussi should not be given equal weight with Muhammad al-Senussi in the case of Libya.

I think it would also be a good idea to distinguish more clearly those individuals who actually claim rights to the thrones concerned from those who recognise the abolition of the thrones concerned (or the rights of another line). Pfainuk talk 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion Crown Prince Mohammed El Senussi is the rightful claimant that is my 'POV'. However Idris al-Senussi is a widely acknowledged and high profile claimant since the late 1980’s, his claims are not entirely illegitimate I don't think it is appropriate to dismiss him completely, he is without doubt a member of the Senussi family (compare with Portugal: Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza and the other 'claimant' Rosario Poidimani), his father was appointed by the last king, Idris to restore the monarchy, he in turn succeeded his father. Within former reigning families sometimes disputes arise, are Misplaced Pages editors going to make decisions over who the rightful claimant is to Lippe, Russia, France, Italy, Brazil, Two Scillies....? - dwc lr (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

But he has been dismissed, as shown above, my multiple genealogical sources. He may be named in hundreds of news articles, but the sources that discuss his claim in relation to that of the Crown Prince's are the ones that should be given most weight. Nightw 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I can cite sources to dismiss one rival claimant over another in other countries as well. At any rate Buyers and Soszynski are self published I don't think they are really even supposed to be used as sources. But there are sources that discuss his claim such as Greg Copley of the International Strategic Studies Association. Idris is treated as a claimant in the media, I don't see justification for removing his listing. - dwc lr (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The media is not a reliable source for this subject. I'm aware of your position, I'm listing this in order to get further opinions. Nightw 08:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone offer an opinion, please?

I've relisted this in order to get further input. Do any of the regulars on here have any thoughts? Nightw 08:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think he is a notable pretender to the throne and should be listed. The media would not have the last word, but any experts on Libya, or on monarchy, writing on the media would be citable. The existence of articles in the serious media is an indicator of notability. I appreciate that there should be criteria for inclusion of pretenders so that absolutely ridiculous claims are ignored completely, but if this is indeed a notable claim, then those criteria should be reviewed or waived in this instance. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than removing the claim then, what alternative would you suggest in order to represent the view of genealogists? Nightw 09:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just add one sentence using the Sunday Times 1995 lead article linked to above. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell NPOV exclusion of criticism

The editors of the page seem to hold a consensus of excluding certain criticism based on a violation of NPOV and a misunderstanding of nobility. The section in question reads as such:

The liberal watchdog group, Media Matters has criticized many of Sowell's remarks such as a comparison Sowell made between President Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler in an editorial for Investor's Business Daily after the creation of a relief fund "as a result of negotiations between BP and the White House". However, Republicans such as Sarah Palin and Representative Louie Gohmert have endorsed Sowell's comparison. Sowell was also criticized for an editorial in which he stated that the Democratic Party played the Race card, instigating ethnic divisions and separatism, and argued that a similar situation occurred between the Tutsis and the Hutus in Rwanda.

I've addressed the non-POV arguments on numerous occasions (nobility of media matters etc.) (Diffs: and ) leaving obvious POV arguments.

These are the POV arguments made by the users:

Chris Chittleborough

• (Diff: )

PokeHomsar

• (Diffs: and )

Unfortunately the culmination of these arguments creates an unjustified consensus for the page.

(Note: This could also belong in BLS and if an admin wants to end the discussion here I'll move it)

CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The full discussion is available at Talk:Thomas Sowell#Media Matters Criticism. 6 editors (4 usernames, including the 2 quoted above and myself, and 2 IPs) have expressed concerns about the inclusion of this content–some with a bit of soapboxing to be sure, but nonetheless. User:CartoonDiablo is the only one that supports it. I personally feel that Media Matters, being an organization with a blatant liberal bias, is unsuitable for a BLP. The fact that they criticize Sowell is not notable because they criticize virtually every conservative. This would be akin to adding Media Research Center criticism to the BLP of a liberal economist. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've argued that the criticism is notable since it was commented on by politicians (ie Sarah Palin) cited by secondary sources such as Politico, with media matters as an example of the criticism. Even if it was based on nobility argument alone I don't think the consensus would justify it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo keeps reverting into the article 2 cites to articles at mediamatters.org which make false claims about 2 of Sowell's columns, backed up by cleverly selective quotes from Sowell. (The Politico article does the same.) If needed, I can explain the dishonesty at length, but a careful read of Sowell's articles and his attackers responses should be enough.

Worse still, CartoonDiablo also keeps reinserting a cite to every article on mediamatters.org tagged "Thomas Sowell", which requires us to believe not only that MMfA has been honest and decent in every article with that tag currently on their website, but will be honest in every future article with that tag.

It is not a violation of WP:NPOV for me to point out that a partisan activist organization is prone to dishonesty, particularly when I can demonstrate numerous examples of that organization being maliciously deceptive. (That is, my low opinion of MMfA is not just my POV, it is backed up by facts.) To edit Misplaced Pages in accordance with policies such as WP:BLP, editors need to discuss which possible sources can be used in conformance with those rules, and give opinions like I did, so we can come to consensus like we have in this case.

(While I'm here, let me point out CartoonDiablo's edit summary here: "The fact that I have to undue POV edits means those editors are the ones edit warring." As said above, the consensus is 6 to 1.)

More importantly: this is the wrong noticeboard for this dispute. The proper place for discussing this is WP:BLPN (or, alternatively, WP:RSN?). Cheers, CWC 08:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Edited 17:44, 18 June 2011

And I should have mentioned that CartoonDiablo has been asked more than once to find alternative, better sources for this partisan criticism of Sowell, but has not done so. CWC 12:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Thomas Sowell is a Republican and a Conservative. As such he would be a target for criticism from Democrats or Liberals. Media Matters consistently promotes a pro-Democratic or pro-Liberal viewpoint. Perhaps we could label MM as "pro-Liberal" as in:

• The pro-Liberal group Media Matters criticized Thomas Sowell, citing remarks like the following . . .

In partisan politics and in several high-profile controversies, the practice of quote mining is a regular part of presenting a one-sided argument to support a favored position. Rather than (a) accusing a source of bias or (b) endorsing a source as objective, we might try (c) describing their position fairly. Meanwhile, we should also try to describe the position they oppose, fairly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, I was thinking the section should focus more on the actual statement and then have the reactions of groups like media matters and politicians like Palin. As it stands it seems centered on Media matters. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Billy Bob Thornton Perspectives welcome

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Billy Bob Thornton about the inclusion or removal of certain information. The disagreement seems to involve conflicting interpretations of whether inclusion or removal of the information would comply with or violate the policies on BLPs and undue weight. Additional comments and perspectives from uninvolved editors would be welcome. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

The tone of this article is clearly that of support for the woman's controversial claims. The article barely talks of the woman herself, rather it serves to advertise her statements and viewpoints. Several paragraphs do not even discuss subjects connected to Ms. Iserbyt, instead focusing on topics related - only to the contents of her writings such as Ronald Reagan's affiliations and Yale societies. Further, there is a dearth of citations for the numerous claims in the article, and two of the three references are the author's website and an amateur Youtube video. In all, this is a very poorly written article that requires a serious rewrite to establish any amount of neutrality. Trorbes (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very poor article not meeting our standards for WP:BLP. My first question is whether she is notable. She was a rather junior policy advisor, if the article is to be believed, and has written two books, one of a conspiracy theory nature, probably with minor publishers or self-published. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone straighten out this paragraph in a fringe article??

This is a bit complicated. The 3rd paragraph of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact#Material evidence of possible contact is a bit of a mess as it mixes up statements about two substances (cocaine and nicotine) and the time line of the reports. After I added a statement from a 2008 report dealing with a failure to replicate findings of cocaine (" Two attempts to replicate Balbanova finds of cocaine failed, suggesting "that either Balabanova and her associates are misinterpreting their results or that the samples of mummies tested by them have been mysteriously exposed to cocaine." an editor added right after that sentence " Skeptical of Balabanova's findings, Rosalie David Keeper of Egyptology at the Manchester Museum had similar tests performed on samples taken from the Manchester mummy collection and reported that two of the tissue samples and one hair sample did test positive for nicotine, however. In response to these results Balabanova said, ""The results of the tests on the Manchester mummies have made me very happy after all these years of being accused of false results and contaminated results, so I was delighted to hear nicotine had been found in these mummies, and very, very happy to have this enormous confirmation of my work." Note that the new addition is not about cocaine, but about nicotine and refers to work discussed earlier in the paragraph and uses the same source as that discussion. But it could easily be read as referring and contradicting the statement about cocaine. The quote from Balabanova also seems a bit undue. I've been discussing the editor's edits on the talk page but not getting very far as can be seen there. This is the sort of article that almost always is prone to NPOV issues. (And I don't mind being told my edits aren't perfect, again these articles are difficult) Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

a Fred Pearce sentence / reliably sourced loosely worded sentences

This illustrates a frequently recurring problem in content disputes with climate change regulars so I'd appreciate some outside views.

As we all know, ostensibly reliable sources sometimes still contain loosely worded sentences as well as statements better described as opinions which just happen to appear in otherwise reliable sources.

To illustrate in relation to the present content dispute, the following sentence from Fred Pearce in The Guardian has been added as a fact in Misplaced Pages's voice to the Hockey stick controversy (now redacted in prose) and has been a bone of contention:

The contrarians have made the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists.

The various problem with the sentence are that (a) obviously not all 'contrarians' wanted to destroy climate scientists' credibility, and some were presumably motivated by curiosity (i.e. it's a generalisation); (b) we have removed the sentence from its context in the article; (c) the sentence insinuates that the HS graph's chief critic Stephen McIntyre had an alterior motive; and (d) we find in Fred Pearce's more carefully written book that he actually believes Stephen McIntyre & similar bloggers were motivated by other factors such as intellectual curiosity, desire for openness, and so on, and certainly it is not said that their chief aim was character assassination. In other words, I don't believe the sentence is the considered view of its author.

For all these reasons I believe use of this sentence in the article is not consistent with NPOV (or V or BLP).

I would also appreciate comments on the general point, i.e. that just because a sentence appears in a reliable source it does not automatically follow that the sentence makes a fact that can be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice.

Cheers, Alex Harvey (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor. I support Alex's analysis and query. Ongoing problem at Hockey stick controversy and other controversial CC pages. Thanks for outside opinions and advice. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved, both Alex and Pete have been arguing on the talk page for interpretations not found in reliable sources, and despite repeated requests have failed to provide reliable sources supporting their contention that clear majority views by respected mainstream authors are in some way disputed. If such sources are provided, we can discuss it on the talk page, but there has been a consistent pattern of original interpretation by these editors: for example, in Alex's argument above the repeated attempts to "destroy the credibility of climate scientists" as well attested in Pearce's writings, somehow becomes "their chief aim was character assassination" which is not the same thing. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• In other words, a reliable source says something that Alexh19740110 does not agree with, so he wants it removed or qualified. I frankly don't see a valid reason for either; WP:RS is pretty clear here, and WP:SYNTH covers the latter. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  No, Tarc, I was hoping that other Wikipedians interpreted NPOV as it is actually written, rather than deferring instead to the 'Word of God' interpretation of WP:RS. NPOV is quite clear that reliable sources sometimes say things which we should avoid repeating. In this case, we almost certainly have attributed to Fred Pearce a view that he doesn't actually hold. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  I have written to The Guardian to point out that this sentence is not accurate and to ask if possible for Fred Pearce's view on Misplaced Pages's use of the sentence. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fred Pearce has written back and agreed with me on every point, i.e. that (1) as I guessed, he didn't actually write this in the Guardian article in the first place, but that one of his editors changed the sentence without his knowledge; (2) as I said, he expressed a quite different view in his book The Climate Files; (3) he agrees with me that the statement is a "bald over-generalisation". I am not sure at this stage whether The Guardian intends to make a correction to the online article, but I'll reproduce his email with permission in the relevant talk page.
I trust some editors can see this is a good example of why NPOV says that we should not assume that just because a source is reliable we can or should simply quote every word. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Unless there is an official editorial correction/retraction, none of this "I got an e-mail" stuff...if it even to be believed...is even remotely applicable to making an editorial decision here. Tarc (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  I have reproduced the correspondence in the talk page at the Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy. I am happy to write to Fred Pearce and request on behalf of Misplaced Pages a formal retraction. This should not, of course, be necessary. The statement is, self evidently, an over generalisation. NPOV say, therefore, we should not use the wording, whether it's in an RS or not. You are just plainly wrong. You are answering here at NPOVN but have you actually read NPOV? Alex Harvey (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I have, as opposed to you who clearly have not. All you do is pop up about once a month to whine about how your fringe POV isn't being represented in the climate change topic area. Guess what? That's why they call em "fringe". Take care, unwatching this dead-end discussion now. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite Tarc's smear, my question is a serious and I would be grateful for a serious response. This isn't the RS/N so if all that was required were reliable sources there would be no need for the NPOV policy at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there have been about six edits to this page in as many days. Does this mean there are hardly any active editors left? Or am I in the wrong place? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nair

The new article about nair posted in wikipedia is full of misinformation. One paragragh reads like this "Pork was also noted as one of their favourite foods, and even high-status Nairs were noted as eating buffalo meat." In india, everybody knows that Beef or Pork is not cooked in Hindu homes, even in this day. Another one "The worship of snakes, a Dravidian custom, is so prevalent in the area that one modern historian notes: "In no part of the world is snake worship more general than in Kerala." There is no proof that it is purely a dravidian custom, even other hindus in different parts of northern india also practised this. In the first paragraph itself there is an attempt to show the whole community in badlight. it says "the pre-puberty thalikettu kalyanam and the later sambandham. The practice, in which some women, predominantly from central Kerala, bore legitimate children with their several husbands lasted in some areas until the late nineteenth century and in others until as late as the 1960s. Some Nair women from higher sub divisions also practiced hypergamy with Nambudiri Brahmins from the Malabar area." Actual is the pre-puberty thaliketty kalyanam is just a ritual and the girls need not continue any relationship with the brahmin boy and will get married to another nair, sometimes with same brahmin boy also. But not all nair women had multiple hunsbands and Sambandam with Brahmins are not limited to malabar area. Too many mistakes are there in the article. In the Etymology section, deregatory reference and comparison to dogs are mentioned citing an unknown author who recently published a book full of nair, brahmin hatred In the military history, an unknown alliance with portughese is mentioned, also proposing that portughese were influencial enough to bestow the "nair" name to all people who fought with them, thus making many, instantanious upper class. This is ridiculous!

The section of caste system should not have been there as it is irrelevent to the article subject. this section and sub group section cites a lot of foreign authors who dont really understand the subject and subsequently the facts are distorted in those sections as well. Under the section, Historical customs and traditions, which says "Pullapilly has suggested that the Nairs may share a common heritage with the Ezhava caste. This theory is based on similarities between numerous of the customs adopted by the two groups, particularly with regard to marking various significant life stages such as childbirth and death, as well as their matrilineal practices and martial history. The theory is that only a common parentage can explain some of these issues." Ezhavas didnt follow the matrilineal practice and it is common knowledge. these two castes are entirely different from each other. Who is pullapilly? nobody has heard about him. There is a very sick attempt to bring down the nair caste in all the sections of the article.

The editors should be warned or the Nair community will come together and approach the government and the courts to punish such culprits. There have been previous instances of people from Ezhava community and Christian community who indulged in such activities and they were arrested by police for spreading false information. The whole article is edited by such people and we will not rest until such nonsense published in Misplaced Pages is removed. Thanks The king555 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Above user now blocked for making the legal threat. Most of what is alleged above is a distortion of the article. The article is currently being closely watched by at least two non-involved admins & there has been substantial POV-pushing, probably orchestrated off-wiki, by people who claim to be members of the Nair caste. There are at least two SPIs in the queue right now, and the article has on several occasions - including today - featured at WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD matter at Talk:Femininity#Definition of femininity

Hi. Is there anyone here willing to read or partially read through the long discussions about this and help out? I feel that a few editors there are controlling the lead in a way that is not consistent with the Manual of Style, and that they are also going against Misplaced Pages's principles. There is more than one thing that femininity encompasses, including biological factors, and yet a few editors at the Femininity article are trying to keep the definition of femininity limited to only or mostly a social construction, despite the reliable sources I have provided that demonstrates that femininity is considered to be due to both biological and sociological factors. They only want to stick to their sources, instead of having the lead present a wider definition of the term. And per WP:LEAD, all the ways the term is defined should be included in the lead, especially any significant controversies or debates, such as the biological vs. sociological debate in this case. With such a narrow version of the lead, it also currently violates WP:Neutral. And as one editor weighing in on the RfC stated:

The sources above definitely indicate there are a variety of views of "femininity", perhaps even a sharp disagreement. Clearly the lead needs to reflect the various definitions. The sentence from the proposal above "Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well" seems like a very good characterization, and should probably be in the first 2 or 3 sentences. I understand that some editors may find the clean definition "femininity is a social construct, period" very tempting, but the article must follow the sources (editors cannot pick-and-choose which sources' definitions to use, and cannot rely on their own viewpoint). If the sources provide a variety of interpretations to "femininity", so must the lead paragraph.

So please...can (or rather will) anyone here help out? I don't believe this is the way Misplaced Pages is supposed to work regarding its leads (excluding or under-representing other ways a term is defined) simply because editors prefer one particular definition.

I would provide diffs, but there isn't any one diff that I can provide to show that I have tried to resolve the matter on the talk page. The linked section above, which leads to the other sections where the discussion is still going on, shows how I have tried to resolve the matter (including the RfC, which has been a bust so far). I have even tried to compromise, but the few editors are insistent upon limiting the lead. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This IP editor can't see that we're in agreement and is arguing again and again over a non-issue. EVERYONE (not an exaggeration) agrees with the IP, and yet we still argue for some reason. I've suggested that we're just not communicating well. Despite full agreement with the IP, the IP insists on seeing this in contentious terms with 2 'sides', when in reality every single person in the discussion fully agrees on the points. So, if anything, come and help explain things in a way to end this pointless debate. -- Avanu (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We were not entirely in agreement, which is why extensive debate took place on the talk page and there were people who agreed with me about the lead being narrow in its scope and non-neutral. Even so, this matter now seems resolved. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

sikh

A Sikh is a follower of Sikhism. Sikhism primarily originated in the 15th century in the Punjab region with the birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji. The term "Sikh" has its origin in Sanskrit term शिष्य, meaning "disciple, student" or शिक्ष, meaning "instruction". A Sikh is a disciple of the Guru. According to Article I of the "Rehat Maryada" (the Sikh code of conduct and conventions), a Sikh is defined as "any human being who faithfully believes in One Immortal Being; ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Sri Guru Gobind Singh; Sri Guru Granth Sahib; the teachings of the ten Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru; and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion". Sikhs believe in the One Supreme God (Ik Onkar), the Guru who is main driving force behind Sikhs, truth, equality of humankind, universal brotherhood, truthful earning, respect towards life and all other creations/decisions made by GOD and they believe that no one can understand the supreme God without the blessings of the Guru and outmost love. Sikhs are recognized by their 5 Ks. 1) Kesh, specially maintained hair 2) Kara, special metal ring like bracelet 3) Kirpan, special small sword in a Strap called gatra. 4) Kashera, specially designed underpants, 5) Kanga, special comb for hair. These are applied to Baptised Sikhs called Khalsa. Sikhs are recognized by their distinctively wrapped turban, uncut hair, beard and moustache and they are supposed to wear an iron/steel bracelet (kara). The surname Singh (lion) being used by men and Kaur (princess) by women (Waheguru) the name of One Supreme God, (Sharbat da Bhala) selfless service and believe for the benefits of all is an integral part of Sikh worship, Due to their distinct identity they can be very easily observed in the masses as well as in the Gurdwara where visitors of any religious or socio-economic background are welcomed, where langar (free and unbiased food for all) is another way to break the caste system (as observed by Hindus) by serving people of all origins with the same (vegetarian) food, while sitting together on the same level of the floor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.214.108 (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"LIberal" versus "progressive" for United States politics

This question is inspired by a particular article, but I want to ask it more generally, isolated from some of the other variables at work there. I'll say at the outset that I don't plan to reference this discussion to influence that one.

I'm curious about the use of labels to describe political organizations and individuals. In particular, there's "liberal" and "progressive" for modern United States politics. In the last 10 or so years, "progressive" has become increasingly popular with left-of-center politicians and groups to describe their political philosophy. The news media in a lot of cases still uses "liberal" even for organizations that fairly stringently stick to "progressive." There are different shades of meaning for both terms, but in my view, they encompass the same rough idea. One issue that weighs on the topic is that American conservatives have engaged in concerted effort to make liberal a "dirty word" that conjures negative feelings int he electorate.

We have a few options for characterizing the politics of a person/organization such as this: 1. Use no label at all 2. Use a different label entirely 3. Use one of "liberal" or "progressive", but not the other 4. Use either one interchangeably 5. Use some sort of "compromise" phrase that casts the labeling as some sort of dispute

I have a fairly strong distaste for both 1 and 5. I understand the theoretical appeal of using no labels, but we need words to describe things. For 5, I think that does a disservice to the politician to say something like, "Often called a liberal, Jones calls himself a progressive." That ascribes a degree of defensiveness that may or may not actually be there on the part of the politician or organization. It also creates a sort of clunky phrase where we dither about using two different terms that are more similar than different.

Where I'm largely lost is which term the voice of the encyclopedia should use. Is one "better" than the other? Should it matter which term the organization uses? Should we try to "count votes" in our sources to see which they use? ("Sources A and B use 'liberal' exclusively, Source C uses both, but prefers 'progressive," Source D only uses 'progressive,' and so on.)

Should we crop or bracket-edit quotes to avoid using one term or the other? For instance, let's say that editors decide that a politician's website is worth quoting to describe his positions. If the site reads, "Senator Jones believes in standing up for progressive values, such as.." and then lists his positions on issues, should we leave out the progressive identifier? Should we instead write something like, "Jones says he stands up for liberal values, such as.." and then quote the website?

I appreciate anyone who's read through this whole thing, and I'm interested in hearing a lot of opinions on this sort of thing if anyone wants to give them. If this isn't the right place for a question of this nature, please point me in the right direction. Croctotheface (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs a bit. If 'liberal' really had become pejorative then I would agree that to remain neutral we should avoid using it. That's a very big 'if' though. Out of all your options I believe (4) is closest to what I would favour, although I wouldn't say 'interchangeably' but I would say use 'editorial discretion'. Hope this helps. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alex that 4 is the best option. In terms of 5 (compromise/dispute), I think something like that would only come into play if there's an actual dispute noted in RS where some person/institution accuses the politician of calling himself one thing when he is (at lease according to the source) another. Otherwise, it's not really an issue.--Scaleshombre (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. There should be no question that there's been an attempt by conservative activists to make "liberal" into a pejorative. See Modern liberalism in the United States#"Liberal" as a derogatory epithet. Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I would usually avoid the terms "liberal" and "conservative" which are contentious, lack precision, and have a different meaning in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Usually the best terms would be Democrat and Republican. The term "progressive" however seems more acceptable because there is a Progressive Congressional Caucus and Progressive Democrats of America - it is an identifiable faction within the Democratic Party and to the left of the party. TFD (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am Australian and it has never occurred to me that 'liberal' is pejorative, although our conservative party is actually called the 'Liberal Party', so that could be the reason. Still, I doubt there is going to be a lasting shift in meaning of the term 'liberal'. But if it is clear that a source is using the term pejoratively then Misplaced Pages shouldn't be doing that. Can this be illustrated with reference to a specific content dispute? Part of the problem is that this whole discussion seems somewhat abstract. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham NPOV?

Hi. I'm hardly neutral as I'm fairly certain that the guy was innocent, or at the very least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Could someone knowledgeable in NPOV issues have a look over the section and decide whether or not to place an NPOV tag? Thank you. Also not certain how I should have labeled this section but at least it works. Pär Larsson (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

propaganda at United States and state terrorism

It would be great to have more editors involved in the discussion. The article's highly contentious and has been flagged for neutrality violations since September 2010. I'd love to have input regarding peacock terms ("notable," "foremost," etc.) puffing up people quoted in the piece.

Please see discussion at Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#Chomsky.

Thank you.--Scaleshombre (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky does not need to be "puffed up" to place him among the topic's strongest proponents. He is certainly notable, and perhaps foremost. This is not puffery or peacockism, it is simply an accurate description of the most vocal gadfly on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Then his work can speak for itself. The role of Misplaced Pages is to be an impartial chronicler, not a cheerleader.--Scaleshombre (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

We are correct to tell the reader new to the topic that Chomsky is notable. Many observers have described him as such. It seems obvious, but the casual reader should be told the state of scholarly thought including a bit of who's who on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact the source says that he is one of the notable writers on the subject. TFD (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

4th Halifax Highland Scout Troop / Scots Highland Company

Reeks of agenda, potential BLP violations, and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh god. Someone obviously had a very large amount of prose to unload, but it's virtually impenetrable. I'm tempted to simply stub the article, keep the references, and start all over again, but someone better than me at salvaging content should have a crack at it first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed in several places. Please look at the merge discussion flagged at the top of the page which will also lead to other discussions. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for an encyclopedic article to reinforce only one side of a controversial issue?

In the article for conspiracy theories a vested contributor has relinquished any responsibility to write for the opponent since he or she assumes that the opponent might not be supported by reliable sources. Of course, this assumption is based on nothing but sheer arrogance.

Is it acceptable or fair to write for only one viewpoint unchallenged then soft-own the article by demanding consensus for the opposing viewpoint? Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for an opinion on an editor's conduct? You might consider reviewing WP:AGF, as your questions strike me as pretty abrasive. Editors often disagree about content, but our goal is to present material in a neutral manner, according to reliable sources. To choose an extreme example, on an article about cigarette smoking, we say that it is bad for you based on the vast number of sources supporting that view. We are not obligated to balance that view with statements arguing how it is good for you, unless reliable sources support those claims. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for clarification about accepted standards for Misplaced Pages articles. The article contains more quotes from sociologists than from conspiracy theorists. The appeal to emotion in the article is an example of the lack of balance resulting from bias or anecdotes rather than facts. Informing about the harmful effects of cigarette smoking is necessary for the public good. Writing an article for the sake of "debunking" conspiracy theories, on the hand, appears to be motivated chiefly by a political agenda. Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have only had a very quick look at Talk:Conspiracy theory#This article is full of judgmental statements, but it appears that Loremaster has explained WP:NPOV very well ("we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view"—that is of course a slightly simplified version of the policy, but in essence it is correct). It also appears as if the disagreement started very recently; assuming that's correct, such a matter should not normally be reported to a noticeboard unless there is some kind of urgent need for action (that's just a general thought, and is a minor issue). The next step would be to focus on some content in the article and explain your problem about that (on the article talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Algol - feedback on whether (and if so, to what extent) pseudoscience policy affects the content of this star page.

I'm asking for clarification / benefit of experience / general advice on a matter where an editor seems intent on starting an edit war by invoking pseudo-science policy over the content of the Misplaced Pages page on the fixed star Algol.

MakeSense64 has a history of targeting content which involves any kind of connection with astrology. Three days ago (6th July) he took it on himself to remove astrological references from this fixed star page, beginning with the talk-page question “Since this article is about the star, then is it normal there is also an astrology section? The astrology of Algol is covered in Behenian_fixed_stars, so it can be removed here. Any objections?” (BTW, the astrology of Algol is not covered on the other page, as another editor later pointed out).

This question met with the objection of a contributing editor who wrote: “Yes. mine. It is like any popular culture/cultural depictions section. I prefer to have them all at the topic, as that is what we are talking about.”

MakeSense64 ignored the objection and removed the content anyway. At that stage I also objected and restored the content, asking for consensus to be reached before cuts are made to content that has been a part of the page for 6 years. That began a series of undos and reverts, and a discussion which pulled in some new editors, partly as a result of Makesense64 placing a request for comment on the Misplaced Pages Astronomy Project notice-board - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Astrology.3F

Despite this, only one editor supported his point of view and it has always been the case, throughout the discussion, that more editors wanted the astrological content to remain than be removed.

The point of contention originally involved the appropriateness of an external link which led to an article on the astrological significance of the star, and since the suggestion was that there shouldn’t be such external links on the page, I offered to produce some relevant and reliably sourced text which could elaborate on its cultural and traditional astrological significance. My point was this:

As I have said before, the focus of this article is not pure astronomy, but the star popularly known as Algol (from its Arabic name ‘the ghoul’). This article is not limited to covering only modern scientific information on the star: the question of why it has been considered ghoulish is of interest to an enquiring mind and suitable for inclusion on the page. There should be some expansion of the single astrological reference to its meaning that currently exists “Algol is considered the most unfortunate star in the sky”. Why? If an external link is considered inappropriate then I shall aim to provide some explanation of that within the main text.

I worked hard to provide solidly referenced text, free of ‘woo woo’ and of value to researchers, scholars, and historians, as well as readers with a general astrological interest. The emphasis was on the widespread cultural and long-standing astrological tradition attached to the star. The passage demonstrated how the name and astrological associations connect to the noted astronomical features of the star. Following publication, one contributing editor raised an issue about the reliability of one point concerning the historical recognition of its variability; but this was talked through to satisfaction with a slight edit and a reminder that the same historical point had already been given in the astronomical section of the star.

As the page may have changed, please consider this diff between his subsequent removal of the text, and the previous edit which shows the text in place, to see exactly what we are talking about.

Ignoring all the previous discussion, Makesense64 removed everything I had contributed saying “see talk”. His ‘talk’ stated:

We have to adhere to WP:PSCI, which makes it clear that where science and pseudoscience are presented next to each other in an article (which can be for good reason), the pseudoscience part should not be made as big as to look equal in importance. That becomes a case of undue weight WP:UNDUE. … …. Just imagine how it would be if astronomers came to add their materials in an astrology article about a planet, that would not benefit any user of WP . Please consider that it will not be helpful for astrology articles if you go to war with the astronomy community on WP.

This happened yesterday. Then another editor reverted the undo and placed arguments on the talk page saying that the addition was well sourced and of good quality and demonstrated care and research. But today I see that Makesense64 has deleted it again, arguing that the text cannot be published to the page unless it gets consensus first. This is bizarre: he has held an extreme and minority position all along, supported by only one other editor from the astronomy project, who I suspect is overly concerned by Makesense64’s suggestion there: “It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages with GA status, so more editor comments will be welcome.”

I am going to revert the deletion myself, this one time, and ask him to leave the content in place so it can be evaluated here. If he doesn’t I hope others will act instead because this reference to war, following on from what he claimed to be an edit war the day before (in which he slapped a banning warning on my talk page) makes me loathe to do anymore myself now for fear of adding fuel to an inflammatory situation.

I don’t know whether to comment on the astronomy discussion page myself or whether that would make things worse. I hope the astronomers realise that when Makesense64 joined their project on the day he posted to their talk page to call their attention to this, he was not forwarding a pro-astronomy concern but only continuing his habitual anti-astrology agenda. His contribution history shows how practically all his editorial activity is geared towards condemning astrology comments and astrology-related pages. Criticisms are fair enough – this sharpens content - but references to going to war, attempts to stir astronomers into a state of emotive reaction against the fear that “astrologers start taking over the astronomy pages”, whilst drawing reference to the pseudo-science policy seems completely over the top and surely benefits no one. If Wiki editors apply common sense and adhere to WP policy, why is there need for editors to ‘go to war’? I struggle to know how to deal with what seems to be deliberate engineering of controversy and division. Maybe I need to open a complaint against this editor elsewhere but we also need a review of his argument from those of you with more experience, to establish the principle of whether – as he suggests - there must be extreme restriction placed upon anything that construes an astrological reference. My argument is that we are not dealing with a page in an astronomy manual here, we are talking about a Misplaced Pages feature article on the fixed star Algol, which can easily accommodate a segmented section that sensibly explores the star’s point of interest from the cultural and traditional astrological angle too.

Thanks for any guidance you can give Zac Δ talk 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Zachariel notified me about this post on my Talk page. This looks like strong campaigning to me. Please consider WP:CANVAS . MakeSense64 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood WP:CANVAS. It is obvious consensus on the talk page is not working so bringing it here as part of the dispute process is quite reasonable. As to the actual dispute I believe you are wrong in every respect and have in addition acted disruptively against consensus by edit warring. Dmcq (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Media Matters category for Thomas Sowell
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? Investor Business Daily.
3. Sowell falsely claims Obama essentially "confiscated" $20 billion from BP and compares Obama to Hitler"
4. "Sarah Palin praises column linking Obama, Hitler", Politico
5. "Gohmert Endorses Sowell's Hitler Comparison", The Washington Monthly
6. Race and Politics, Townhall.com
7. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004070005 Media Matters

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view