Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:47, 1 December 2012

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

Health care articles

• Public opinion on health care reform in the United States
• Single-payer health care
• Public opinion on health care reform in the United States

We have an issue of factual inaccuracy here, as User:Scjessey insists on calling a reputable poll a "push poll" and giving an incorrect portrayal of said poll in article ( ) as well as mischaracterizing the nature of certain polls with User:CartoonDiablo (). Upon request for evidence of Scjessey's claims, he instead claims the factual assertions are "fantasy land comments" () and will not provide even basic documentation for his claim. CartoonDiablo, also, insists on keeping certain sections as a table (), creating a strange situation where the POV of certain ideologies gets undue weight, and is questionable for MOS issues considering the way the articles are structured.

Some assistance on this would be worthwhile. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm calling it a push poll on article talk pages and edit summaries because it is a push poll. It is obvious from the wording, and implicitly obvious because of the skewed result it yielded at the time (almost all other polls in the field have yielded results that are more or less the opposite of this one). I have not referred to it as a push poll in any actual article and I have not removed it from any article. There is no NPOV issue with my editing. In contrast (to use the same original research neutral wording as Thargor does in the article), Thargor Orlando acts as an SPA using Misplaced Pages to push a US-centric, right-wing agenda - something that is more for the auspices of WP:RFC/U than this noticeboard. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is the NPOV pushing, really. It requires no request for comment, just for the editors in question to follow basic policies and stop POV pushing. Rasmussen does not push poll, and few other polls have yielded an opposite result. This is a fact that you're unwilling to concede, which is why we're here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I am not pushing anything except neutrality. You are trying to take certain articles and impose your personal point-of-view upon them. In this particular case, you are inflating the importance of a single poll that asks a question about single-payer healthcare (after a bunch of other questions asking about Occupy Wall Street protests) and attempting to give it equivalence ("in contrast") with the scores of polls that say the complete opposite. That's as pure an example of POV pushing as I've ever seen, and sadly reflects the bulk of your Misplaced Pages contributions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not neutral to mischaracterize a reputable poll as a "push poll," to claim that polls say something they don't. Two questions about Occupy does not make a 9 question poll about it, sorry. You couldn't be more wrong on this, and I look forward to the noticeboard volunteers to look at this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not I am "neutral" (by your definition) on talk pages is irrelevant and of no interest to this noticeboard. All that matters is editing performed in actual articles. In this respect, my actions are beyond question and your own lack of neutrality borders on shocking. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well a few things: there is criticism of Rasmussen's polling methods but not in that particular poll. If we used criticism in general and applied it to the one example I think it would be synth since there is no RS criticizing that poll. Personally I think it probably is skewed since it's the only one with a majority opposed but that's not really a basis for removing or commenting on the poll.

That's not what a push poll is. A push poll is when a poll is used as a guise for efforts to convert somebody. It's not a poll that is handled in a manner that is designed to create a particular result for the poll. North8000 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Single payer polls/chart

That aside, there is another issue in those articles regarding the polling sections. For what seem like obvious POV reasons, North8000 and Thargor Orlando reverted the charts to the earlier prose that they originally disagreed with. I think its obvious the charts were both easier to read and gave more information. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to DRN.

I do not support this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that the DRN has been closed, care to actually try and fix this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked for a third opinion regarding the polls. Just for the sake of reference there are two issues:

1. Are these single-payer polls or polls of "various levels of government involvement in healthcare"?

• As the previous edit points out (diff) there are six sources including the Washington Post and NPR calling them single-payer polls, Thargor's revert was "rv per facts" which "facts" undermine those six sources he did say.

• The source is the questions themselves, which do not ask about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

2. Whether or not to categorize the polls as a table.

• In my opinion it seems clear that giving the orignal source material as well as showing over a dozen polls works better as table than it does in prose. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• The articles are prose, especially the entire one about public opinion. Organizing them this way gives certain points of view undue weight, as well as misstates what the polls say and are given the incorrect insistence that they are "single payer polls." Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post and NPR call them "single-payer polls." Unless you have a good reason as to why what you think the polls are trumps the Reliable sources' definition, this discussion is ridiculous. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What trumps these claims are the actual polls, which do not ask about single payer. "Universal health insurance" is not "single payer" and not understood as such, for example - the Politifact piece in the article makes this expressly clear. Your continued insistence on this is baffling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I want to be clear here: that is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what constitutes a single-payer poll.

The Washington Post, NPR, PNHP, Healthcare-NOW! etc. all consider the polls that are posted to be single-payer polls. If you revert it again it will be reported as an incident of POV pushing because unless your definition outweighs those sources then that is exactly what you're doing. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not my interpretation. This is the language of the polls, something you refuse to address. Stop threatening people and start working to fix the problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So how come six sources say that that language is appropriate? Should we go by The Washington Post or Thargor Orlando? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why the media would misrepresent the polls. We should instead go by what the polls actually say. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In this area, the selection of the wording of the poll determines the result. So the actual wording from the poll should be used. It should not be changed by the editors, including by placing it under a table heading which is such modified wording. North8000 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why editors should impose their POV of what the polls are when the consensus of the sources say they are single-payer polls. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(added later) That "question" has two false assertions put in as false implied premises and so is too faulty to answer. North8000 (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We're trying to stop you from imposing your POV. That's why we brought this discussion here. Thargor Orlando(talk) 00:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

To Thargor, whether or not you seriously believe that to be true I hope you realize you're replacing what The Washington Post and NPR say is a single-payer poll with what you think the poll is. No matter how you frame it, it's pushing a WP:Fringe POV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not what I'm saying, but what the polls actually say. Politifact notes this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Politifact is saying that wording matters, I'd like to hear what you think those six sources as saying. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The "six sources" are not asking about "single payer" but rather about things like "government insurance" or things "like Medicare." You've been told this countless times, and you ignore it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This POV pushing must stop. Thargor is trying to create a false equivalence by suggesting that one poll (conducted by the right-leaning Rasmussen pollster with dubious wording) somehow balances the fistful of polls indicating that Americans overwhelmingly support the adoption of some form of single-payer system (link contains analysis of polling, including trashing the Rasmussen poll). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This comment encapsulates the problem exactly - disparaging a mainstream source in one line, and then outright misstating evidence in the next. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

To cut through all the argument... why does the article in question rely so heavily on polls as sources in the first place. Poll results are time and time again proven to be inaccurate and flawed. Polling is a very unreliable art. Surely there are more reliable sources we can use for the topic. Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In at least one of the articles, the article is specifically about public opinion. The other two are polling sections. Removing them in those areas may make some sense in this context, especially given the bad information bandied about, but the problem in the public opinion article would still remain. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely there are more reliable sources to support an article about public opinion than inherently unreliable polls. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you that polling is unreliable, but that's a different discussion than the problem being created in these articles. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I am suggesting that the solution to the problem is to rewrite the articles so they don't rely so heavily (exclusively?) on polls. Start over, and find other more reliable sources to base the information on. For one thing, polls are a form of primary source, and articles are supposed to rely mostly on secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement here, either. CD, SCJ? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that the article is a candidate for AfD. It has a very limited scope and relies on sources that are mostly several years old. There are other articles where the good stuff can be used. But if it is going to stay, the polling data is absolutely essential because it gives the clearest view of what "public opinion on health care reform in the US" actually is. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite... if the polls are old, then the most we can say about the polls is: they represent what a given sample of the public thought about health care reform in the US, at the time that a given poll was conducted. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we just merge the public opinion stuff into the health care in the US article? It still means we have to figure out how to stop referring to the polls incorrectly, but it at least solves one problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't refer to the polls at all... leave that sort of thing to the secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Polls are inevitably cherry-picked primary sources. A few objective, intelligent secondary sources would be ideal for this, much better than cherry picked lower grade / biased secondary sources which would be the next issue as this moves along. I think that by wp:notability and scope this article can legitimately exist as a separate article, but it's almost inevitably a huge coatrack for cherry-picked material. I'd probably say nuke it to a stub, and start over with quality secondary-source material and keep the article. But if "nuke it to a stub" can't be agreed on, then delete the article. This article is too sick to be fixed in my lifetime by edits in contentious environment. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. If the article exists, it must contain the polling. It's an article charting public opinion, so removing the polls would be ludicrous. I think there is an inherent problem with the article's existence because public opinion changes all the time. That means the article is constantly out of date. The only way around this is to show polling trends, but finding secondary sourcing to describe these trends is nigh on impossible. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So again, why not just merge the worthwhile information from "public opinion in the united states" into "health care reform in the united states"? We still need to work out the POV problems that started this mess about how to categorize the polls into that section, but it will solve one major issue, at least. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there objection to this option for the public opinion article, at least? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think, with no further objection, we can just do the redirect. I'll wait a little longer to see if there's any other debate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect complete. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, polls are the gauge for public opinion. If we went by that logic we would have to delete about a dozen different articles and deny the basic statistics of how polling works. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixing the remaining issues

We still have the issues of the table and the misstatement of the polls in the remaining articles where this dispute sits. Some extra help on this would be very useful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

At this point, the people with continued problems are not looking to engage, so I'm not sure where to go from here. Further attempts to fix the NPOV problems will likely create a storm of controversy again. Anyone else reading this at this point? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Understanding "prevalence in reliable sources" to determine weight

WP:NPOV states that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". In this discussion it has been argued that in determining weight, sources should be considered as "eligible" for weight if they have independently developed the information. My reading of prevalence, however, and that of dictionary.com, is that it refers to how widespread something is. If something is widespread, it already implies that it has spread somewhere from somewhere else.

The context here is that a poll was published in an Israeli newspaper (Haaretz), and a large number of international publications, including the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, the Globe and Mail and Sydney Morning Herald ran articles on the poll, citing the Haaretz article. (see here for a list of sources). It has now been argued that since these international publications are "based" on the Haaretz article, they are irrelevant for weight. In my own opinion, the opposite is the case as the story has "spread" to them and thus become "widespread", which is how prevalence (the term in the policy) is understood. I searched the archives but didn't find a discussion where this issue would have been covered. There are a few other wrinkles in the discussion as well, but the point in this section is the determination of weight as described above. Opinions on which it would be? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not an exact description of the dispute.

Here's what the Globe and Mail says: Other major newspapers, including The Globe and Mail, The Guardian, The Independent and the Sydney Morning Herald carried stories citing the Haaretz poll and interpretation.

In other words, there's one source which is Haaretz. There are other sources that repeat what Haaretz published. They haven't seen the poll themselves nor published their own interpretation of the results (which is quite obvious, since they haven't seen said results for themselves). So there's one source for the poll and interpretation of the results, which is Haaretz. There are other sources that say "Haaretz said X".

So the question is if the poll and interpretation, which was published by Haaretz, gets the weight of all the sources that cite it to Haaretz as if they're independent sources verifying the information. Another question is what weight does criticism of Haaretz's interpretation, published after most of the sources published their article gets. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you seem confused about what WP:WEIGHT is for. It isn't about replicated generation of information in order to demonstrate that it is true. It is about repeated mention of information in order to demonstrate that it is noteworthy. So, if something first published in Haaretz is picked up by international media, that makes it more noteworthy and more likely to be appropriate for inclusion per WEIGHT. If you have reason to doubt that the information in Haaretz is sound, that's another issue. If there is good reason to suppose that it is unsound (ie erroneous), then it should not be included, regardless of where it has been republished. But, in terms of WEIGHT, republication in other media is always going to count.

The weight that the criticism should get depends on how substantive and widespread the criticism is, so it is difficult to answer in the abstract. If we are talking about something that has been totally or virtually debunked, then the criticism should be promintently included. If it is something that an op-ed or two has called a bunch of crap, then we have to make a realistic assessment about how important those criticisms are in the scheme of things. Formerip (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. Source A says "B=C". Sources D, E, and F say "A says B=C". If I understand WEIGHT correctly, we have quite a bit of support for "A says B=C", but not necessarily for "B=C" on its own. Now let's say sources G and H say "source A was incorrect when it said B=C" (then A makes corrections). How much wight should the criticism get? Are we weighing A, D, E, and F against G and H, or only A against them?

Out in the real world, Haaretz changed its headline after the criticism was published, and most of the sources which were citing Haaretz changed their headlines to reflect the Haaretz change. That also strengthens the idea that they stand behind "A said B=C" but not necessarily "B=C on its own". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, it does not seem to me you are understanding WEIGHT correctly. It's purpose is not to support the truth of facts, only their noteworthiness. So, what is said in Haaretz in this case is more noteworthy the more it is reproduced or commented on. It is simply a matter of how much attention we should be pay the facts in source A.

We may then wish to mention sources G and H, but WEIGHT dictates that we need to consider how important they are in the scheme of things.

If Haaretz changed its headline, we need to consider how that affects what we write. Quite possibly, we should reflect the modified headline rather than the original one. But changing a headline suggests to me either an error in the detail or an editorial decision to change focus, rather than the invalidation of the whole article (i.e. Haaretz presumably still stand by B=C if it still says B=C on their website). Formerip (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a difference in how much weight we should give (and to what exactly) between a situation where 5 sources say B=C and where 1 source says B=C and 4 sources say "A said B=C"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. The same arguments being repeated over and over again editors who refuse to find a resolution and enjoy forum shopping since there is an obvious stalemate. ARBPIA3 is the only correct venue.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is unhelpful and unwarranted, you should stick to the relevant discussion or stay quite, do not derail. If a group of editors in in an article are refusing to abide by the core policy of WP:NPOV, making sophistic lawyerly arguments why they don't have to represent viewpoints in proportion to their prevalence in RS per WP:NPOV, then bringing the issue to the wider Misplaced Pages community is a reasonable step to take, in fact that is what this noticeboard is for. Dlv999 (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside your accusations of bad faith, there's nothing sophistic here. It's common sense. What makes sources like these reliable is that we assume they check their facts. Without access to the primary source the only facts they could check is that source A said something. They can't know if it's true or not which is why they attribute it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Is there a difference in how much weight we should give (and to what exactly) between a situation where 5 sources say B=C and where 1 source says B=C and 4 sources say "A said B=C"? First, a lot depends on what the specific topic of the article in question is... if the article is a bio article about A, then all that coverage of A's view goes towards the notability of A... and it would be appropriate to give a fair amount of weight to A's views. If, on the other hand, the article is about B, then we must look deeper into what the sources that mention the fact that "A says B=C" say about A's conclusion... for example, suppose that after mentioning what A says, they all go on to say "However, A's conclusion does not take into account X... therefore we think A's statement is flawed". This indicates that we should pay less attention to A's conclusion about B (we would give it less weight per WP:UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In this case A is a newspaper and "B=C" are poll results and interpretation that were not published elsewhere without attribution to A (except in the case of one other newspaper, and we have a 3rd that says the second newspaper (and others) got the results and interpretation from A). None of the other sources deal with whether the data is valid or not, they just repeat what A said, with attribution. Additionally, when A corrected its headline, so did most of the sources that were reporting "A said B=C". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

So the paper's (Haaretz) view of the polling data is extremely prominent in RS, having been published by numerous international news media. The weighting of the article should reflect that per WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To know how much weight to give the poll, we need to know the specific context in which you wish to mention the poll. Could you link to the article (preferably with a diff to show how you wish to present it)? Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The question here is how much weight to give to the findings of the poll, as opposed to how much weight to give to criticism of the poll. The findings were reported in the initial report ("A") and in numerous international media, citing A. The criticism of the poll is published in far fewer sources than the findings. The view, with which I don't agree, that prompted me to open this thread is that the majority of sources reporting on the findings wouldn't quality when assessing weight, since they didn't "independently" come up with the information. Here is one suggestion for covering the poll in the article Israel and the apartheid analogy, there are a few other proposals in the talkpage as well. So the question is rather simple really, should we give more weight to the findings since the findings are more prevalent in sources? Or are sources disqualified from WEIGHT if they cite another source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is rude and disregards the obvious, Dlv999. This discussion was derailed years ago and is not getting back on the tracks via this forum. You may not like it but it is the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A story may get widespread attention at the time but that does not mean that it deserves weight in the article. If the article is Israel, a single poll that was mentioned by the international press may be of minor significance compared with the hundreds of thousands of pieces of information about Israel that have been mentioned in the international press. TFD (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If I read this rightly, a newspaper made a claim about a poll it undertook which it later determined did not fairly represent what the actual findings of the poll were. This would be relevant to an article about that paper, but not strongly relevent to anything else. The actual findings of the poll might be relevant in other articles, but the misuse of a word, ain't. Collect (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the issue here is whether the international sources count for WEIGHT if they cited the original Haaretz article. Ths involves material that either isn't connected with the correction in the article, or reflects the content after the correction. The Misplaced Pages article in question isn't Israel, see my earlier comment immediately above. The issue is in fact very simple. --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

More precisely, the question is what is the thing that gets WEIGHT, what Haaretz reported as a stand alone thing (that is, are the other sources supporting the poll+interpretation when they publish it cited to Haaretz) or that Haaretz reported it (that is, are the other sources supporting the fact that Haaretz reported a poll+interpretation). Another question is how much weight to give to criticism of the poll, which was published after most of the other sources reported that Haaretz reported something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the issue really is, as repeatedly stated above, whether citing another source disqualifies a source from WEIGHT. So far no-one has presented any policy-based reasons why this would be so, so the case seems settled. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Edward Said

The Edward Said article has serious issues with its NPOV. See, for example:

"Character assassination:

To undermine Edward Saïd as a public intellectual qualified to speak of and about the Palestinian dispossession by Israel, Justus Weiner, an American lawyer and resident scholar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs think-tank, said that Saïd was dishonest about his childhood biography. In the Commentary magazine article “My Beautiful Old House and Other Fabrications by Edward Saïd” (1999), Weiner impugned Saïd’s intellectual honesty and personal integrity when he said that Saïd lied when he said: “I was born in Jerusalem, and spent most of my formative years there; and, after 1948, when my entire family became refugees, in Egypt.”"

http://en.wikipedia.org/Edward_Said

To describe a critique of Said's biographical claims like Weiner's as "character assasination," and attribute motives to him like "undermin(ing) Said as a public intellectual qualified to speak of and about the Palestinian dispossession by Israel" reflects an inappropriate degree of political bias and lack of objectivity.

The entire article has a similarly biased tone. I request an NPOV disputed tag until it's re-written to comply with Wiki policies.

Kamandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.28.75 (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I agree that the wording there isn't ideal. No need to label this as "Character assassination," and you can simplify the first sentence to something like "Justus Weiner, an American lawyer and resident scholar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, questioned Saïd's credibility as an expert on Palestinian dispossession. In particular, Weiner wrote that Saïd had misrepresented himself when he claimed such and such..." Is that a little better? Or do you have other suggestions on how it can be improved? TheBlueCanoe 06:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Squatting in England and Wales

The article for Squatting in England and Wales appears to be created, and extensively re-written – after being copy-edited for neutrality (by the User:FT2) – by the User:Mujinga – who, from his overtly positive and flattering contributions, especially to the article for the UK Social Centre Network (an organisation of sorts, or a collective, of so-called "social centres" set up in real properties, mostly of the commercial kind, that are being occupied by squatters, in London, Edinburgh, Dublin, Cardiff, at Glasgow and some other major cities in England) – probably himself has links, associations or affiliations of some sort to the anarchist "Squatting" movement here in England – to show a continuing pro-squatting bias. Is this actually so, or am I mistaken? The tone of the article certainly (still) does not sound or read right, or at least neutral in tone. And ought some of the links to more "outrageous" external sites and references thereto be removed? -- KC9TV 11:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Great Chinese Famine

Here lies a problem of stating "fringe" view of the Famine or not. It started with the removing of some lines by a former Chinese dissenter Li Minqi, because his words are contracting with all lines above. In my opinion, there should be a space for those who believe this Famine is not the greatest. The death number of Famine is varied (and controversial), the death number of Republican era famine also varied, so there does exist a possibility. So I add more supporting Li's view, but I could only find this from internet instead of reference books. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 04:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure why this minor question was brought on the noticeboard. Please see my last comment. According to claim by a single source, the death rate was actually decreased during one of the worst famine in human history. This is so improbable and contradicts all other sources that: (a) I asked to clarify what this "dissident" source actually tells with pages (the burden of providing exact quotation and checking the source is on Wwbread who restored this information ), and (b) I suggested to remove this claim as an obviously "fringe". There is nothing special here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC on neutrality and citing names (with diacritics) in WP:BLP

RfC on Reliable Sources for Names in BLP.  LittleBen (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is an Oxymoron

The Propositions:

1 A point of view (POV) is a view that an observer takes from the position occupied by the observer.

2. Using the adjective "neutral" to describe a POV implies that the POV is independent of any observer.

Conclusion:

The term "Neutral Point Of View" is misleading because it does not and cannot exist. It is an oxymoron.

Suggestion

Rather than requiring a neutral point of view, it seems to me that it would be better to require a contributor to explain the "position" from which he or she is viewing the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ken evans (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Second "proposition" (premise?) is wrong, therefore the conclusion is false. (Even if both "propositions" were true, they do not lead to a conclusion of impossible and oxymoron.) Therefore the suggestion is baseless. Poster is advised to study WP:NPOV. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion should be at the talk page for the relevant policy not here. However it is probably best just to abandon it. TFD (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Simple: Consider acids and bases ... H+ is "acid" and (OH)- is "base." With a pH of 7 - there are an equal number of each -- but the acid H+ is still "acid" and the (OH)- is still "base" - the "neurality" comes not from having "all particles be neutral" but from having a balance of each. Is this analogy clear? Collect (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion here is that in this context, "NPOV" means "The point of view of a hypothetical neutral observer" - so (for example) in a war between two countries, a neutral observer is one who is from a country that is not involved with the war and who has no special interests in any of the issues relating to it. It may be tough to find a truly neutral observer in some situations - but that doesn't invalidate the concept. Hence proposition (2) is false and NPOV is not an oxymoron. SteveBaker (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi

the ethnicity of this individual is disuputed/or unknown so wouldnt it be neutral to not include an ethnicity as the header seeing there is an ethnicity section in the article already? some editors on the talk page brought up undue weight but if other encyclopedias dont put any ethnicity as the header then why should wikipedia? Baboon43 (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The article body states that his ethnicity is disputed - and on that basis we cannot assert it as a fact in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Reuven Feuerstein

Reuven Feuerstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This ostensible biography is on the most part an overly-detailed advertisement-like description of the subject's invention, the "Feuerstein Method". In addition, the "theory" presented in the first line of the article as the subject's claim to fame does not seem to say much. = WP:SPAM + WP:NPOV + WP:COATRACK. Note that these issues were already once addressed in part on the article's talk page; apparently an NPOV tag had been removed.

הסרפד (Hasirpad) 05:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Identifying terrorism

Not sure if this is better asked here, at WP:NORN or maybe even somewhere else, sorry. Do we have any sort of standard definition of what constitutes "terrorism", "terrorist" etc? For example, in articles such Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012 it sometimes has seemed to be the case that people have added incidents that, yes, may be terror-related but could equally well be "mere" criminal acts (armed robbery, for example), tribal disputes, honour killings relating to marriage etc, retribution against corrupt police, etc. Where do we draw the line? Can we limit it to instances where the source actually uses the word and, if so, does a "sectarian attack" amount to a "terrorist attack", does "persecution" amount to terrorism ... and so on. It is a bit of a semantic minefield, I'm afraid, but articles such as this can be prone to POV-warring. In fact, articles relating to India-Pakistan are especially prone to it, particularly with those supporting India doing whatever they can to make Pakistan look bad, and vice versa. How do we achieve neutrality here? - Sitush (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no easy answer here. I think that sources should be our first resort - does sources explicitly call an event "terrorism"? Amid political controversy, we might find that some sources do and some don't - so we need to be alert to the risk that somebody will cherrypick a source which calls an event terrorism when other sources don't. If no source explicitly calls an event terrorism, there should be a very high bar before we apply the label. bobrayner (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's not easy. The conservative media in my city called our local Occupy demonstrators terrorists. It would be quite wrong to do that here. In 1975 Gerald Seymour wrote in Harry's Game "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

When there is a debate in the sources as to whether to apply the term terrorist/terrorism to a group/individual/act... the key is Attribution. The article should explain who uses various terms to describe the group/individual/act. So... if one newspaper or governmental agency calls a group "terrorists"... and another calls them "freedom fighters" ... we neutrally note both labels (without trying to "prove" which is correct). We say something like: The Gotham City Tribune has labeled the group "Terrorists", while the Metropolis Times has labeled them "Freedom Fighters". Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. bobrayner (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally, the deliberate attack on civilians by a state or non-state political entity to instill fear, i.e. terror. See Terrorism. Usage by generally accepted sources should not be problematic. I agree with Blueboar, that non-standard usages should be flagged as "X says ..." Jason from nyc (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a think, based on the comments above. Thanks, everyone. - Sitush (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We should only call something terrorism if there is consensus in reliable sources that it is terrorism. Even people who commit terrorist acts should not be called terrorists, unless there is consensus. Overt actions by governments, including torture and assassination are not considered to be terrorism, although they would be if carried out by insurgents. TFD (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Shock and awe has always seemed to me to be a form of terrorism. It's certainly intended to make the targets feel terror. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See Global anti-terrorism law and policy, p. 20: "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defence, not terror, such as the allied carpet-bombing of civilians in the Second World War, the United States' use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the American use of more than seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos". Notice that the law treats them differently, compare for example the different treatment of suspected war criminals and suspected terrorists. TFD (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Eliding the tangents presented above: Misplaced Pages has no fixed definition of "terrorism" but it appears to be like Potter Stewart's standard for "hard-core pornography": "I know it when I see it." In international politics, it frequently depends on the POV of the writer, so, as ever, I suggest we ascribe the label as an opinion, properly ascribed to those holding that opinion. "Persecution" moreover rises to "terrorism" if, and only if, some level of violence is threatened or occurs - which is fairly rare, fortunately. Requiring "consensus" is futile as there will always be sufficient people with the opposing POV for anything other than "personal terrorist acts" meaning no one is ever a "terrorist" other than someone like Manson. Collect (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Defining terrorism is difficult inside Misplaced Pages and also outside it. If some sources describe an act as terrorism and some don't, attribution can be used or we can say something like "has been described as terror". If reliable sources are unanimous in describing it as terrorism we can simply describe it as terrorism. If no reliable sources call it terrorism we can't call it terror even if some editors feel it meets some definition of terrorism. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it would be unhelpful for us to get too bogged down in defining internal rules, in wikipedia-space, on what can be called "terrorism". Let's just reflect what good sources say on each subject; the same as we do for a thousand other controversial labels. bobrayner (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Joel C. Rosenberg‎

Joel C. Rosenberg‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• The tone here is bizarrely laudatory, with odd claims of near-prophetic powers on the part of this ideologue/novelist. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Alliance Defending Freedom

Alliance Defending Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• There's a dispute here about including a recent incident involving an attorney linked to this organization by press articles. While the tone was reasonable at one point, sadly it's now descended to claims of a "media smear" and similarly accusatory language. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The talk page of the article is full of accusations that the press only mentions the lawyer's links to ADF because of involvement or pressure or something (it's a bit unclear) by unnamed (presumable secularist) blogs. The only refutations offered have been from conservative blogs, and a statement by the organization itself. I'm not trying to lead a smear campaign here; but the mainstream press (NOT Misplaced Pages) has been drawing the connection, and I think that claims of a smear campaign are red herrings. I just want to make sure we keep a proper NPOV here, regardless of whether the Biron material stays in or comes out; I make no accusations of ill faith on the part of other editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike, I saw the reply on the talk board which I appreciate. I responded: Orangemike: The last sentence was in reference to the previous statement: "The false impression of a closer linkage has been manufactured by blogs" It was not pointed at you personally - sorry if there was confusion. Thank you for the dialogue ...it truly makes wikipedia great.

As you stated in your NPOV board...I truly did not mean it to be inferred as accusatory language and if allowed I would gladly edit out that last sentence.

Earlier I was merely stating the 'false impression' produced by many blogs that many of the news sources picked up and presented as fact. Again I was not insinuating that you personally were participating in a smear campaign and again I can clarify by removing those parts to merely present the facts with proof links.

Orangemike - I appreciate you and I have a lot to learn from you. I checked out your page and I'm truly impressed by your dedication, helpfulness and contribution to the Misplaced Pages community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.239.13 (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

QlikTech

QlikTech seems to be written like an advertisement. Just the 3rd paragraph in the introduction is almost like a sales pitch:

"Traditionally, presentation of information is put into printed reports via a process whereby data and notes are gathered from a wide range of sources (eg, spreadsheets, printed material, etc.). The end result of using this time-consuming process is a paper presentation filled with colored graphic charts and pictures. While fancy, the information on printed presentations is all static and user interaction with it is passive. If someone wants a chart in the report to display certain data differently (eg, change some numbers based on years to basing it on months), then a new paper report would have to be generated. With Qlikview, endusers are given presentations on an interactive software program that allows them to enter new data (depending on the dashboard setup) or simply move saved data around (within the parameters of the template) so that they can see the same set of data from different viewpoints on the same presentation. In effect, QlikView creates real-time customized presentations by allowing endusers to move and change data within it instantly."

The Talk page has mentioned that this is indeed in need of a Neutral Point of View, yet nothing has been accomplished ExilorX (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wonders of the Invisible World

This article is almost entirely an attack on the book that the article describes. The analysis section read like an editorial rather than the proper encyclopedic description of criticisms that have been voiced against the book. It also resembles some kind of student essay, as it sourced only on a brief excerpt found in an anthology. --98.24.43.97 (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looks problematic - as you say, it is more of an essay than a proper article, and seems to contain original research. I'd have thought that there might be more material available on the subject, and there may be the potential for improvement. I'll look into it if I get the chance, and see if I can find someone with knowledge of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed a lot of SYNTH and editorialising. It is interesting that Cotton Mather was an early proponent of smallpox inoculation etc. and was far from the hellfire-and-brimstone preacher this essay seems to wish to depict. In some ways, Mather was a precursor of Franklin in promoting scientific inquiry in America. More recent studies than his contemporary Calef, who might not have been NPOV per Misplaced Pages standards <g>, seem to give Mather blame for holding common opinions of his time on the Devil, and for being ahead of his time on using science and not just the Bible - thus foreshadowing Darwin in some ways. I had not realised just how complex this preacher actually was. Collect (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issue, as usual, on Kashmir Conflict

Kashmir conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See these first:

1. diff
2. Talk page
3. Interview link

Note:Please do not succumb to non sequiturs and red herrings.
This is what the issue is all about.

The lines that were added in the lead by none other than Killbillbrowser, are downright irrelevant and lending undue weight to one man's POVs (which is most likely deliberate). Contrary to Killbillbrowser's claims, you will hopefully notice that they are not actually balancing any other POV. In fact, there is no other POV inside Musharraf's interview there in the lead. He admitted (it's not his POV) to forming terrorist/militant groups and turning a blind eye towards there existence simply to force India re-enter negotiation. This is what he himself admitted. This is what Indian Government always accused Pakistan of doing. Now, it has been conceded/confessed.

Even if I agree that the mention of that POV statement is needed to give more clarity to the previous admission, I submit that there is no need to use quotation. The quotation is being used without pertinence. Misplaced Pages is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations.

A. Paraphrasing conveys the meaning more neutrally than his POV-laden quotation ever could. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording is excessively POV-ridden. In a sensitive article as this, I think, we should consider an extra dose of neutrality.
B. This quote may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification.

Furthermore, whether or not India is killing civilians, this question is covered (according to some, excessively) in detail in subsequent sections, other articles this one and this one. Perhaps, Musharraf's direct quotation about India Killing civilians in Kashmir is more suited there. But other than that section it's not needed to use direct quotation.

P.S. If only a direct quote can convey the message and not the paraphrasing, if all this is pertinent, then I think we should copy-paste the whole interview there. Thanks to all in advance. Mr T 08:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Indian government is involved in killing innocent Kashmiri civilians. This is what a significant part of the world was always saying. Now this guy has said that again in the interview. Secondly I do not understand what this statement means he himself admitted. This person is being interviewed in an individual's capacity. He was part of an illegitimate government in pakistan, currently does not speak for the government of pakistan and if India was always saying this, meaning even before this guy's tenure, then obviously his statement does not mean much unless verified by the Government of Pakistan as an official stance. There have been tons of confessions from Indian military and politicians about human rights abuse and staged exodus of Kashmiri Pandits. When Mustafa Kamal's confession that government was involved in hindu migration was added to article, none other than Mrt3366 had an issue with that and claimed 'one mans opinion'. That is what Kashmiris have been saying all along and that is what Kamal confessed/conceded. So, why did Mrt3366 suddenly have an issue with that? Anyway, not to get sidetracked, the statement 'strategic deals with India' was completed taken out of context by Mrt3366 in his edit. It was incomplete and misleading. Musharraf had said it in the context of people blaming pakistan and not India for what it is doing. However, Mrt3366 conveniently decided to ignore that part. This sentence puts the statements into context. I invite the readers to read the link and figure it out. First of all this matter should not be in the lead at all. Secondly this is a confession no less than Kamal's. Thirdly these quotations are not loosely related. They put the whole sentence into context without which the reader is misinformed. Now one can choose to paraphrase it, however, Mrt3366 has a flare to weasel the balancing view and emphasize the Indian sentiment as is evident from all the edits. One should read the number of times he uses alleged and claimed when an editor adds a view point something that is against his POV (Indian sentiment). At this point, Musharraf's interview is no more than a claim. Calling it a confession on part of the Government of Pakistan is blowing it out of proportion. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to humbly refrain from replying to KBB's bogus claims here. Mr T 13:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that the word "stated" would be more neutral than either "admitted" or "claimed". Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

....non sequiturs and red herrings. This is what the issue is all about. WRONG. This is all about WP:CPUSH, always is with Mrt3366. Anyway, my edit is here. Please suggest the language. I have been extremely fair and did not remove any content added by Mrt3366, plus someone needs to read WP:CIVIL to Mrt. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

while we are still in discussion, Mrt claims waited long enough and reverts to his changes. STOP. There has been no resolution and long enough is not your discretion. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

much as a i hate myself for doing this, i had to undo the recent edits (war) by Mrt3366 given that there was no resolution, yet Mrt decided that he had waited long enough. Here is the resolution I propose, feel free to amend it till we feel comfortable and then we can edit the article. 1. Take it completely off the lead (undue). 2. Change the confess/claim/admit to stated as suggested by Blueboar, both for involvement in training groups (section title and text) and killing of innocent civilians by India 3. No need for according to Musharraf since, given we change it to stated, it is according to him automatically. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring all those Ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs, I would humbly like to suggest KBB not to filibuster. Okay, I will even longer. You know as well as me that Misplaced Pages policies actually advises against overuse of quotations and nothing in that quote actually mandates that it be a direct quote. KBB simply wants to keep it that way because it is a derogatory claim against India. Of course Mr. Musharraf will see every one killed at the hands of Indian Army as "innocent civilians" but that doesn't mean we must insert them injudiciously.

Also, note that when I first inputted the info about this interview KBB quickly deleted all of that leaving it for me to put it in the correct section and back in the article. Mr T 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

WAIT A SECOND: The quoted portion "doesn't question India about the killings of innocent civilians in Kashmir" doesn't even exist in the sources. It was not even an assertion, it was a rhetorical question..He said, "The West blames Pakistan for everything. Nobody asks the Indian prime minister, Why did you arm your country with a nuclear weapon? Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir?" and that was before he admitted that The Pakistani government formed militant groups. ThisThat line was personal and biased opinion of Killbillbrowser all along. Mr T 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"KBB quickly deleted all of that". WRONG!! It was never deleted. In fact, so it can be easily copy pasted into the correct section, I only commented it, leaving the entire text there. Don't look at the page as rendered. Look at the content of the page - any novice editor can see that and Mrt3366 is no novice. He is just trying to gain some pity points here. As far as the statement is concerned, am I missing something? "Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir?" What does this mean? Isnt this what is added to the section? So, how is this my personal opinion? And 'he admitted Pakistan'. Who is he to admit it? Is this a statement from a democratically elected official of Pakistan? Is this the official stance of Pakistan? He stated it just as he stated killing of innocent civilians. WP does not judge who is innocent or who is not, based on opinions of some editors. It presents information, from all points of view, neutrally. So, it should not be used to further any agenda. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• "It was never deleted" - admit it you hid it and in the rendered page it's tantamount to delete. I didn't need you to make it hidden. I would have gotten the way I got the first time or the way one gets his deleted info back in Misplaced Pages. Enough of your damn silly arguments.

  "What does this mean?" - This means it's your synthesis of the source. That quoted should never have been attributed to Musharraf. They were never his original words. Also this word you keep using, "exile", why? He, for one, has claimed in that very interview that he still has hundreds of thousands of Pakistani fans. Notability is not temporary, one person or an event does not need to have ongoing coverage (one time significant coverage is enough). Mr T 08:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Latest news: Pervez musharraf is going to run for President in 2013 elections in Pakistan. He even claims that he will win Pakistan's 2013 elections (see this). What Exile were you referring to, huh?? Mr T 08:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

first: you watch your language. second: I am running for the President of the European Union this year and I am going to win. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

See my dear, if you could prove to me that you were the president of EU earlier and going to run again while feeling confident, I would believe you. The fact of the matter is, Musharraf in "exile" is your own synthesis. Pakistani people love him now and always will. Besides, like I told you these are all off-topic, notability is not temporary. Mr T 08:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani people love him now and always will. This is an unsubstantiated claim and completely your opinion. I have no reason to believe this. It might be true, it might be completely bogus. Regardless, it is a known fact that he was part of an illegitimate government formed after a military coup and removal of a democratically elected government, so his statements can never be used as a stance for a democratic country (Pakistan or whichever) and is currently in exile . I was the one that agreed that this is relevant information for the article, but need to be put into context and stated as Musharraf's POV, not as a fact Killbillsbrowser (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"This is an unsubstantiated claim and completely your opinion." - I am choosing to ignore that word "unsubstantiated", but yeah the idea that Pakistani people loved, loves and will always love that dictator Musharraf, is entirely my opinion here. FYI, I didn't want to put it in the article. All this is beside the point anyway. If you want to chat with me or vilify or malign me, then I suggest you do it on my talk page instead of creating clutter here while groping for shoddy pretexts to impugn me as opposed to addressing my concerns. Mr T 10:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

How to keep P & I pov warriors off the page on indigenous peoples

If someone has an idea about how to keep Palestine/Israel POV pushers off the page about indigenous peoples which frankly has no relevance to that dispute I would be thrilled to hear it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry

ParkSehJik (talk · contribs) has made edits to the Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry articles that me and another user have objected to. Here are the changes for the Psychiatry article. Myself, and Looie496 (talk · contribs) have reverted this user's changes. On the talk page for Psychiatry, we have discussed the issue (See Talk:Psychiatry#Significant_controversies). I am in favor of including a few sentences or a paragraph on the controversies in psychiatry, but the paragraph that this user has included go far beyond NPOV and may be giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority opinions.

This user has made similar edits to Forensic Psychiatry (See here).

This user has also included a POV tag for both pages. I would like for this noticeboard to give advice on how to resolve this NPOV conflict. I apologize if I did not post this to the most appropriate place. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This same user has also added a POV tag to Bipolar disorder and has removed material. The material removed appears to be factual, just merely missing citations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply - Please stick to discussing my edits and their sources, not discussing me. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1 I do not have a POV.

- I use MOS and BLP to write biographies and related articles strictly from RSS and MEDRS, wherever the sources may lead.

- I ruthlessly delete medical claims without MEDRS secondary sources.

- When an article fails MOS (lede) in not having significant controversy material, I add a POV tag.

That's it.

• 2 Editors should rely only on what the MEDRS and RS say, whether they like what that is or not, and not accuse other editors of POV because they do not like what the sources say.

- MOS (lede) demands controversy material -

- The second lede paragraph of the DSM article at WP states "It has also attracted controversy and criticism. Some critics argue that the DSM represents an unscientific system that enshrines the opinions of a few powerful psychiatrists. There are ongoing issues concerning the validity and reliability of the diagnostic categories; the reliance on superficial symptoms; the use of artificial dividing lines between categories and from 'normality'... "

- There is no corresponding controversy material entirely absent from the articles on psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and bipolar disorder, articles in the main dependent on DSM.

- RS and MEDRS based placement of such material in an article is not a matter of POV.

- Harizotoh9's removal of MEDRS and RS sourced controversy material, as cited by diffs below, is POV editing.

• 3 The offending supposedly "POV" sources are peer reviewed MEDRS in mainstream and highly respected joirnals International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine and two from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and the source of the word "frequently" is New York Law School.

• 4 Unsourced medical claims that I deleted per MEDRS were put back in, with no sourcing at all, and an edit summary "this is pretty basic. I need to find the page from DSM IV TR but is core"'.

- Then this discussion was started with an accusation that I was POV as a result!

• 5 My MEDRS based edits in the lede, per MOS (lede) - "summarize the most important points — including any prominent controversies", keep being deleted with edit summaries like "far too strong" as simply too strong, and sources disputing whether psychiatry is a science are in the minority"and "These edits blatantly push an anti-psychiatry POV".

- I was ignored when I repeated asked Harizotoh9 for sources for both of his claims upon which he based his deletions - that this was the “minority” view, and - that it was not a “significant controversy”, as asserted by the sources I cited, International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and New York Law School.

- Having no such sources to support his deletions, Harizotoh9 came here with a personal attack that is unrelated to the content of my edits or the quality of their sources, calling my deletion of unsourced medical claims per MEDRS “POV’, just because he wants to believe in the claims, sources or not.

• 6 I posted notice of the MOS (lede) violating problem at the talk pages of forensic psychiatry, psychiatry], and bipolar disorder.

Summarizing -

• Editors who apply WP policies and guidlines from mainstream MEDRS and RS sources should not be accused of POV because other editors do not like what the MEDRS and RS sources say.

• The significant controversy material regarding scientific invalidity of part of psychiatry and related topics, all based on MEDRS and RS, should be restored, per MOS (lede).

• Unsourced medical claims, which I deleted, must be deleted again. POV has nothing at all to do with it. This is a MEDRS issue, not a POV or TEND issue.

ParkSehJik (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This editor appears to have an unusual POV and you are right to mention it here. I had a discussion with him at Talk:Pseudoscience#Is psychiatry a pseudoscience?. I suggest warning him if he approaches 3rr and applying for a block if he exceeds it. TFD (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces - What is your RS that my POV, based on info I got from the above cited mainstream MEDRS and RS, is "unusual"? Please strike your comment if you cannot provide a source for it, or as irrelevant, and stick to discussing the content of edits and quality or lack of sources. Why should I be "warned", even if my RS and MEDRS based approach to editing, such as deletion of unsourced medical claims, is "unusual"? ParkSehJik (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the user's perspective on psychiatry is unusual, but it's underrepresented in the Psychiatry literature for obvious reasons. I have suggested to the user that they tone it down a bit and stick to reliable sources, and I've found them to be quite willing to listen and modify behavior. They're fairly new here, and it takes editors time to learn to work in this space. I hope that it does not come to blocking. -- Scray (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Samples of edits indicating a failure to grasp Misplaced Pages policies and WP:TEND A small sampling of ParkSehJik's edits:

1. Added dubious tag to common knowledge: Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the study and treatment of mental disorders.
2. Added dubious to biomedical research: Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the study and treatment of mental disorders.
   1. On the above, I suspect he's way beyond 3RR; another indication of WP:TEND.
3. Added POV tags based on dubious tagging of common knowledge above.
4. Deleted common knowledge most likely cited in the next source.
5. Believes articles must have a criticism section:

This is only a quick glance: there is much more, it extends across many articles, and I've yet to encounter a correct edit in all that I've checked. Every indication of WP:TEND and pov pushing, little indication of understanding of WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1. Re you "suspect" I am way beyond 3RR? Please retract your false accusation, not made in AGF.
• 2. What is your source for your claim that it is "common knowedge" that psychiatry is all medicine. I cited sources asserting that areas of psychiatry are not.
• 3. How is it WP:TEND to put a dubious tag up when the sources I provided in the controversy content questioned what you called "common knowledge".

- Freudian analysis concluding penis envy is not "biomedical research". The dubious tag is correctly placed.

- Psychiatrists working at Guantanamo are not "treating disease" - the "discomforts" they come up with so as to avoid the label "torture" is not in any way medicine devoted to the treatment of mental illness". The dubious tags are correctly placed.

• 4. - I would not have placed the tags if it were worded "some psychiatry may be based on biomedical research", or that "some areas of psychatry is medicine devoted to the treatment of mental illness".

• 5. I cited sources for my assertions and tagging - International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine and two from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and the source of the word "frequently" is New York Law School. What are your sources contesting these assertions? ParkSehJik (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that this user's edits are still up on forensic psychiatry. Most of these issues don't even relate to forensic psychiatry at all.

There is controversy regarding the motives and scientific validity of forensic psychiatry findings of mental disorders. Forensic psychiatrists are frequently called “whores”. In psychiatry, “politics and economics has replaced quality science”. Unlike evidence based medicine or even traditional medicine, psychiatry may use the term “disease” or "disorder" without a systemic etiology indicated, i.e. even without any observable and measurable abnormalities in anatomy, chemistry, and physiology hypothesized as causative for mental categories declared by psychiatrists to be diseases or disorders. Psychiatry may apply the term “disease” politically, for the mere belief that a cluster of symptoms must be a disease because the symptoms are very uncommon, to justify crude its own specialty treatments such as lobotomies, to justify involuntary commitments, and for financial profit to justify the sale of psychotropic drugs.

...Really? Whores? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Whores" is the word used in the mainstream article titles as being "frequently" used to describe. A wikipedia editor not liking what is in RS is not a basis for keeping the information out. If you have any experience in the field whatsoever, this is not just frequently used, as per the sources, it is uncommon for it not to be used. Please rely on the sources, not on your own opinions. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Above was also posted to WPMED: My response is there. -- Scray (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Scray, thanks for the supportive AGF. I expect editors new to reading RS on the topic will gradually come around per the RS and MEDRS, and stop making content-free, source-free ridicule such as the "...Really? Whores?" -- User:Harizotoh9. (But recall that Thomas Henry Huxley, who initially emotionally flew off the handle against Darwin's theory of evolution like most at that time, ended up becoming "Darwin's bulldog", and empirically proving for the first time in human history that explanations of the true origins of humans, the core of most world religions, was false. Perhaps some of the editors now calling me names and arguing by emotion will, after reading the RS and MEDRS, similarly become strong advocates for inclusion of the S and MEDRS content.)

• 10% of legal opinions (re forensic psychiatry) termed or compared expert witnesses to “hired guns”, “whores”, or “prostitutes”. (source - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27:414 –25, 1999 – 2). Prosecutors made the plurality of the comments. This is not just a review of usage on the street, this is a review of legal opinions. 10% of legal opinions, the majority of which are by prosecutors, is significant per MOS (lede), and is in no way UNDUE. And that is just a citation of what is in the legal record, so it the very most conservative number on prevalence of opinion in the legal profession.

• There is also RS that such usage has a rational basis in the way the profession is currently practiced, of which I am compiling. Here are four of many RS on the topic - (1. “Hired guns,” “whores,” and “prostitutes”: case law references to clinicians of ill repute, D. Mossman, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27:414 –25, 1999 – 2. Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, Hagen MA, New York: HarperCollins, 1997 – 3. Reel Forensic Experts: Forensic Psychiatrists as Portrayed on Screen, Susan Hatters Friedman, MD, Cathleen A. Cerny, MD, Sherif Soliman, MD, and Sara G. West, MD, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 39:412–17, 2011.

• Hagan criticized the methods of clinical assessment and psychological testing (in an evidence based and very reasoned and manner) and argued that mental health testimony is business rather than science, which is only a small part of the many bases of my placement of the Dubious tag on “medicine” re forensic psychiatry, and thereby on "all of psychiatry" being medicine. I was ridiculed as not being worthy of responding to re my arguments to keep the content I put in with MEDRS, with no sourcing for the ridicule, and simply because I put a dubious tag per the MEDRS and RS. This is not a good way to treat editors, nor is it a good basis for editing andarguing on talk, citing "common knowledge" to trump MEDRS sourced info.

• Samuel Gross (a Michigan Law School prof) writes “The contempt of lawyers and judges for experts is famous. They regularly describe expert witnesses as prostitutes.” This is RS for the use of “famous”, in addition to the source I provided describing “frequent” use of the expression. No wiki editor critical of my edits is citing any sources to base their opinions. The New York Times published similar remarks re being partisans rather than science based medical practitioners (In U.S., expert witnesses are partisan, Liptak A, New York Times. August 12, 2008, p A1).

• This is not just a “minority” “opinion”, and my recitation of what is in highly MEDRS and RS sources is not POV. It is citing sources. Deletions based on editors (likely as yet uninformed) opinions are not justified. I expect that in the end, these editors, likely deleting in good faith, will read the RS and MEDRS literature, and the material will gradually go into the article. In the meantime, editors should stop attacking me because they are uninformed as to what is in the MEDRS and RS sources, and is a prevalent, if not dominant, view in the legal, medical, and scientific community.

This discussion belongs here, as well as in the three articles whose content and POV is in dispute, because of the general points I raised at the top of this section. Please read the sources, or refrain from comenting, and in any case, as I requested at the outset of this section, please comment on the sources, not on me. I am simply regurgitating what is all over in the RS and MEDRS, all evidence based, like it or not. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

ParkSehJik, a few observations:

(1) MEDRS does not work like a magic cloak so that nothing can possibly be wrong with your edits so long as you are following it. You still need to represent the sources accurately and fairly and ensure that you observe WP:WEIGHT. Some piece of information being in a journal does not give an automatic pass to its inclusion on Misplaced Pages - far from it.

(2) While there should be room for criticism of psychiatry is both articles, it ought to be obvious that neither article should begin with a one-sided rant against the subject of the article. If you disagree, then my advice is to just give up now because there is no way you are going to get anywhere.

(3) It's necessary always to consider how significant and widely-held particular views are in deciding how much coverage - if any - to give them in the article. It is also necessary to consider what contrary views are held and to ensure that the article offers the reader an appropriate balance of opinion, reflecting what the current state of thought is among experts.

(4) It's important not to make the mistake of generalising debates and controversies within psychology into denials of the validity of psychiatry. Of course, there are many outmoded and doubtful philosophies and practices in the history of psychiatry. But currently fashionable practice is, by definition, not outmoded, so be careful not to confuse past and present tense. How much focus would you give to leaches in a general overview of medical general practice?

(5) Be sure that you fully understand the implications of research you are citing. To what extent is a negative description of US courtroom psychiatrists reflective of the shortcomings of psychiatry (I don't say not at all) and to what extent does it reflect shortcomings in medical training and the court system in the US (I'd say, probably, quite a large extent)?

Hope that's helpful and you'll think about it. Formerip (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Formerip gives well reasoned and good advice.

• re WEIGHT in the psychiatry and bipolar and related articles, the issue of weight does need addressing. I am not sure that including a WP:MOS (lede) paragraph with content from mainstream RS re substantial controversies, especially in a context in which these are so great that DSM 5 is now being called off for publicatin by the Chair of DSM 4, can be accurately characterized as a "rant".
• re WEIGHT in the forensic psychiatry article, it only has possibly UNDUE weight because of a lack of RS based content about the topic. This indicates a need to add more RS based conent to the article, not to delete the MOS (lede) RS content I added. The content I added is sourced to possibly be the majority, not the minority, view by legal and psychiatry experts in the field.
• Clarification - In light of Formerip's "magic cloak" comment re MEDRS, I need to clarify that MEDRS should be ruthlessly enforced insofar as deleting medical claims that do not have MEDRS sources, and WP:UNDUE is irrelevant in such cases, but I am in full agreement with Formerip that MEDRS is not a magic cloak for including content, even with MEDRS sources, since UNDUE and other policies need consideration. ParkSehJik (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion re MEDRS questions raised by the above NPOV concerns - In light of the above discussion and related discussions at associated talk pages, discussion re uniform application of MEDRS standards to all WP articles is here. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

User:EnlightenmentAchievedAgain and Esperanto

This new user (or returning?) user has done nothing except to tag almost every article about Esperanto institutions as "purely promotional"; and has starting instigating AfDs against many of them (initially as a bundle, although that one has been closed). The level of sophistication in the edits and moves, makes it hard for me to attempt to assume good faith. Full disclosure: I am an Esperantist. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to recuse myself from this discussion as I have been previously identified as racista against esperantuloj.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Times of India opinion - Fringe?

In regards to Death of Savita Halappanavar, an editor has expressed concern that the Times of India's editorial opinion as expressed

In an editorial on 17 November, The Times of India said, "There appears to be a tendency to view this issue in terms of India versus Ireland or the Catholic faith against other religions. To fall prey to such tendencies would be a serious mistake and a great disservice to the memory of Savita. ... Adding a nationalist or communal tone to the debate detracts from the merit of argument rather than enhancing it."( "Savitas kin being consulted". The Times of India. 17 November 2012. Retrieved 19 November 2012.)

is a fringe view that should be removed from the article. (one would be negligent if one also failed to include the fact that this very same editor created the section heading "Removal of vital information from the lead" in which they vociferously argued "Three points have been removed from the lead, (1) that prima facie Halappanavar's death was caused by denial of termination of her pregnancy when it was indicated. (2) That it were Ireland's Catholic laws and ethos that were responsible for the decision that her caregivers took. (3) that ther family was unhappy that Catholic religious laws applied to those like Halappanavar who was a Hindu and not a Catholic. )

so is the Times of India opinion Fringe? or not fringe? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand what the problem is here. The TOI is clearly speaking from an Indian perspective - so its describing a common view among Indians. It may not be a significant way in which the debate is seen in Ireland, but that's a different issue and it is no basis for claiming that the TOI's opinion is "fringe" in Misplaced Pages's sense. It might be claimed that the views of Indians are somehow of marginal relevance to the article, but that's a weight issue: nothing to do with WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(side note) the death lead to the indian ambassador being called home and then coming back and having a special session with ireland's PM - so even if the major impact is vis a vis ireland and its laws, the event is a pretty big deal in india and receiving regular news coverage there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've no doubt it is. I didn't mean to suggest that India reactions are justifiably regarded as marginal. I'm still unclear what the issue is. The TOI says the death shouldn't lead to nationalistic or communalistic name-calling (ie. India-is-better-than-Ireland or Hinduism-is-better-than-Cathloicism). It's a fairly reasonable, but also fairly banal, point. Such communalistic name-calling is common in Indian politics, as it has been in the past in Ireland. All the TOI says is that the death should not be demeaned by point-scoring in national and religious rivalries. Fairly unremarkable. Paul B (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So, far from being FRINGE, you are indicating that it is probably so "sky is blue" that it probably doesnt bear mentioning? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A scrutiny of the sources makes it clear that TOI's opinion mentioned above has not been shared by others, whereas the statements regarding the deceased's religious persuasion etc. are statements made by her mother and her husband as quoted by multiple reliable media sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

THe article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 went through an WP:AfD. The "consensus seems to be that the article needs substantial work to become unbiased, but the tool for that is an editor's pen, not an admin's axe.". I wanted to ask for suggestions to move the article towards being unbiased. Any thoughts or useful edits will help. Thanks. Casprings (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Improvements at the Alternative Medicine article

There have been numerous editors that have commented that the current lead of the alternative medicine article fails WP:NPOV, (see and ). Some editors have disagreed that the lead is POV, but most challenges to this claim have simply been anti-alternative medicine rhetoric (again, see above links to past discussions). As such, I am posting notification of a new discussion here, in hopes that some reasonable editors will like to review the issues raised and comment. The newest discussion of changes that might improve the article are here:. Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

When recruiting editors from a noticeboard such as this one, neutral wording is very important. -- Scray (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My proposal asks to give a bit more weight to a NPOV definition of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is supported by ample reliable sources. There have been a few comments, but no one has commented on the concerns that the lead currently gives more weight to one POV, no one has challenged my proposal based on policy or reliable sources, no-one has even commented on the merits of this idea, or how else we could improve the article. However, there has been plenty of critical remarks made about homeopathy, faith healing, acupuncture, etc. There has also been a 'challenge' over if the CAM definition that BMJ quotes and attributes to Cochrane is really from Cochrane, as if this has any impact on the POV of the article or my proposal. This has been the trend in the past 3 threads started regarding concerns about this aticle (see and ). I have appealed here because it appears that things are not neutral over there. Is that not the purpose of this noticeboard? I am not at all new to wikipedia, but I am not experienced with the protocols on the noticeboards, what can I do different in my situation that would more consistent with the 'rules'?

• The sources of the allegedly POV “anti-CAM rhetoric” in the lede first paragraph are -

• 1. National Science Foundation
• 2. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
• 3. Academic Medicine
• 4. Nature Medicine
• 5. American Psychological Association
• 6. Journal of the Association of Medical Colleges
• 7. Medical Journal of Australia
• 8. Canadian Medical Association Journal
• 9. Carl Sagan
• 10. Canadian Medical Association Journal
• 11. Nature (journal)
• 12. National Institute of Health – NCCAM
• 13. British Medical Journal
• 14. World Health Organization

• As I and many others repeatedly explained at the talk page, all of the sources and their definitions and descriptions are consistent with each other, are MEDRS, and are NPOV. ParkSehJik (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

None of these sources are challenged in my proposal. Please see here . I have only asked to give a bit more weight to a more NPOV definition of CAM that is supported by ample reliable sources.Puhlaa (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What is CAM? Insider talk? HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Complementary and Alternative Medicine 06:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkSehJik (talk • contribs)

Thanks. So it's just a redirect. Why not use the main title of the article? Is this part of our problem? HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I should have been calling it AM (for alternative medicine). I am sorry that I didnt do this from the start to avoid the confusion, but too late.... Our article clumps complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) into one article under alternative medicine (AM), I am used to sources calling them CAM not AM. Sorry for not staying consistent, however, this is not at all the problem. At the talk page , I have provided evidence for why the lead of the article represents one POV and have proposed moving a single sentence in the lead to help remedy this. Puhlaa (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, the lead was recently changed, including a change to the definition, and his proposal is to change the definition back. The section he links is only the most recent of a very long and convoluted discussion about the lead, and is a restatement of arguments that have mostly been responded to above that talk page section, not below. Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue of immediate concern is the continuing lack of explanation for the most glaring and elementary fault in the lead's first paragraph, mentioned at ]. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• The upshot of Quexitor's "continuing lack of explanation for the most glaring and elementary fault in the lead's first paragraph" is his own unresponded to comment - "Citation 1 is to "Wallace Samson" as author of "The Flight from Science and Reason: Antiscience Trends in the Rise of the "Alternative Medicine Movement", Volume 775, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Is there anything to vouch for his authenticity?" I believe since the citation links to the NYAS Annals itself, he is alleging that someone went in an hacked the New York Academy of Sciences website, a speculation that other editors did not bother to respond to as being an unsourced and bizarre speculation. That is not an NPOV issue, but an issue of not respoding to bizzare speculations unsupported by RS.
• As Arc de Ciel indicates, a handfull of editors, dissatisfied with the outcome of discussion in talk page sections, restart new sections on identical issues, to which editors who already commented above do not respond again and again, and whereby new editors coming in will not see the reasoning by which consensus was reached in identical sections above. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting more input for RfC concerning La Luz del Mundo

Hi, according to this I am able to publicize an RfC on content by posting a notice here. The RfC can be found here Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#rfc_E6DA8F8 and it deals with a concern regarding neutrality. Thank you for your time, Fordx12 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Panamanian Public Forces

IP editor is changing the existing text to what reads like a very POV version without any sourcing that uses his pointed language. Last version is here . Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Additionally, the same IP keeps inserting the claim "The center provided pro-war propaganda in the run up to the 2003 Iraq War." without sourcing and reverting when I remove it and ask for a source to return it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting this. The original unsourced pro-US propaganda read like this - "The final military dictator, Manuel Noriega, had been belligerent toward the USA culminating in the killing of a US Marine Lieutenant and US invasion ordered..." This is NPOV and a justification of Bush's military adventure masquerading as neutral history. Please advise --192.223.243.6 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Do you even pay attention to what you say. You just said the passage you removed is NPOV. That's great! It SHOULD be NPOV. You did the same thing here . You DO understand what NPOV means right? And that we desire NPOV? Can you honestly say you think your wording is neutral? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant NPOV violation. The point stands; someone please advise us. --192.223.243.6 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• My question still stands: Do you honestly think your wording is neutral? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I do, just as I'm sure you're convinced that your version is the truth. I think you're wrong about the facts but, as some sort of patriot or whatever you consider yourself, can't see the neutral truth. Requesting outside help or a declaration that the article itself maybe be biased. I'll then stand down.--192.223.243.6 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, that's not "my version". It was the existing version and you changed it to add very non-neutral language that had no source. Second, this isn't about "truth". Misplaced Pages isn't really about truth. I HAVE requested outside participation. It was ME that started this discussion, so let's not pretend that you're the one who decided to seek outside input. Lastly, I'm really not the guy you want to start doing the snarky/sarcasm bit with, so keep your uneducated opinions about what I consider myself to yourself.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You reverted and therefore defended the supposed NPOV nature of the existing article, so you're wrong on facts, ITG. I'm endorsing your decision to let the community decide, even if they decide incorrectly, i.e. with you. --192.223.243.6 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't tell me what I endorsed, especially when you are wrong. I reverted your change from the existing article. It was reverted because it was very POV and wholly unsourced. That does not mean I would oppose re-writing the passage in a more neutral tone. It means that YOUR version was far from neutral and actually made the article more biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

192.223.243.6, Please read the Misplaced Pages WP:BRD guide. Articles here are developed by consensus. There is an assumed consensus on the preexisting version of the article. You made a WP:BOLD edit and it was reverted, so it's now time to discuss your proposed change on the article talk page and develop consensus among other editors that the change is warranted. Mojoworker (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" (The pirate bay solely description in lead)

The quotation "one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" is currently being used to solely describe what the pirate bay is in the article lead, and is taken from a story article produced by Los Angeles Times. No other media description is used in the lead, and when looking what international news outlets like bbc, Der Spiegel International, and New York Times say, they all use a quite different style of description, where the most common one is "one of the most famous file-sharing sites". Consensus is however that even if the LA times quotation is "overdramatic", they rather use that one and only that one. Belorn (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

How comprehensive was your search for descriptive terms? I was able to find other results that describe the illegality of The Pirate Bay with ease. It's possible to find articles that describe TPB as a "popular" filesharing site, and a "resilient" filesharing site, sure, but the LA Times description has the added benefit of conveying a legal ruling. Nothing dramatic about that at all. — ThePowerofX 09:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to provide the results. If the argument is that LA times general description of the pirate bay is in common use by reliable sources, then there should not be a problem to provide sources to that fact. The question does however still remain in using a single "overdramtic" description over a prevailing common used impartial toned description. That is the NPOV issue I brought up, and which the current consensus do not address. Belorn (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm under no obligation to provide anything. You said, categorically, that other media "all use a quite different style of description", which is something you can only provide evidence for if you have performed a careful and detailed search through their archives. And clearly you have not. The answer to your question, provided to you by multiple editors, is that the LA Times is useful because it encapsulates the nature of TPB, its popularity, and its legal status in a single concise quote. Why add four separate quotes to say the same thing when one is perfectly fine? — ThePowerofX 10:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Belorn, you could start with your own refs. None of the articles that you ref are really about Pirate Bay or even Sweden. The first is about ISPs in the UK. The second about the Pirate Party in Germany. The third is a very general article starting with YouTube and not mentioning TPB until the eighth paragraph. But, all mention illegality -- you just didn’t include those parts. In fact, the first article states about TPB, “In April 2009, the Swedish courts found the four founders of the site guilty of helping people circumvent copyright controls.” It would be irresponsible for WP to provide an article on TPB with a lead that contains glowing, positive phrases while neglecting to mention that the site is illegal.74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All four of the founders were sentenced to prison. All appeals have been completed. Two of the founders are fugitives, one was deported from Cambodia and is being detained, and the last is begging for mercy. The site is illegal. Why would you remove that from the lead? Why is calling an illegal site illegal “overdramatic?” What is not “impartial” about a matter-of-fact, accurate description by a highly reliable source? These constant attempts to whitewash the TPB story and your noticeboard-shopping (three noticeboards last time you failed to gain consensus) have become tiring. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

neutrality of Breast cancer awareness

I'd like to call attention to the article Breast cancer awareness. I'm concerned that there are major neutrality problems with this article, specifically that it advances a viewpoint that the most well-known elements of the Breast Cancer Awareness movement (such as the Susan G. Komen foundation) promote a kind of falsely-cheerful type of activism that hurts patients. This is a point of view that has been advanced by some serious people (Barbara Ehrenreich for instance) but in this article it is given undue weight and claims made by these detractors are treated as fact. Given that this movement enjoys widespread popular support, the lack of balance is quite striking. The following are examples of problems that I see:

• The article makes sweeping generalizations and states them as facts, rather than as opinions. For instance: "Mainstream pink ribbon culture is also trivializing, silencing, and infantilizing (Sulik 2010, page 98)." Sulik may conclude that it is, but I doubt so many people would contribute money and time to these organizations if they agreed.
• The article gives massive weight to critics of this movement and comparably little weight to proponents. The section on the social role of the breast cancer movement, which discusses the negative effects that the movement has on survivors is 12 paragraphs long, and placed above the section on the achievements of the movement, which is seven paragraphs long. Following this is a five-paragraph section titled "Risks of too much awareness" and then a five-paragraph critical section titled "Independence of breast cancer organizations" and then a four-paragraph section that starts by accusing major foundations of ignoring possible environmental causes of breast cancer. Following this is a three-paragraph section called "Dissent through art"
• When summing up organizations or elements of the breast cancer awareness movement, the article takes a dismissive tone. For instance, the last paragraph of the section "Events" says this:

"Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause. These supporters may feel socially compelled to participate, in a type of "obligatory voluntarism" that critics say is "exploitative"

This portrays participants in awareness events as both self-satisfied and exploited and engaged in meaningless work. It also takes a much harsher tack than the cited source: it ignores benefits of these events that the cited source points out just one paragraph earlier - that they enable breast cancer patients to meet others in the same predicament and to feel comfortable receiving advice and support. It also changes the source's tone by suggesting that this movement IS exploitative when the source says it "can be".

• The article takes constructs from social science research and presents them as facts. For instance: "Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient" (Sulik 2010, page 319)". Is this "misery quotient" a term universally excepted in social science research, or is it something that Sulik came up with?
• The article talk page includes an FAQ titled "Why is this article so critical" that suggests to editors that changes are unwelcome.

I think this article would benefit strongly from a fresh perspective and I encourage you to take a look. (note that I've copied this from Jimbo's talk page). GabrielF (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ “The pejorative phrase ‘defendant’s whore’ or ‘prosecutor’s whore’ is frequently used describing experts who would ‘say anything wants him to say.’” , 'They’re An Illusion to Me Now': Forensic Ethics, Sanism and Pretextuality, Michael L. Perlin, New York Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series 07/08 # 27,
2. "Courtroom Whores" ?--or Why Do Attorneys Call Us? Findings from a Survey on Attorneys' Use of Mental Health Experts, Douglas Mossman & Marshall Kapp, 26 J. American Academy of Academic Psychiatry and the Law, 27 (1998)
3. “The ‘hired gun phenomenon’ is a recurrent topic in forensic psychiatric shop talk…”, "Hired Guns," "Whores," and "Prostitutes": Case Law References to Clinicians of Ill Repute, D. Mossman, Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 1999;27(3):414-25,
4. ^ ”While an operational definition for the term disease is lacking in traditional medicine, consensus indicates that it infers observable and measurable abnormalities in anatomy, chemistry, and physiology as causative for an observed cluster of symptoms. However, the term disease in psychiatry and psychology has a very different historical usage. It has been used when no systemic etiology has been indicated, it has been used politically for addictions, it has been used for the mere belief that a cluster of symptoms must be a disease because the symptoms are bizarre, and it has been used to justify crude medically based treatments, such as electroshock, lobotomies, involuntary commitments, and the sale of powerful drugs. With the advent of new medical machines, such as CAT scans, PET scans, and MRI's, a large volume of poorly conducted and questionable research has been pouring fourth to find diseases as a justification to promote psychotropic drugs. Politics and economics has replaced quality science.”, Toward an Operational Definition of Disease in Psychiatry and Psychology: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment, David B. Stein, Steve Baldwin, Medicine, Pharmacy and Medical Law and Ethics, International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, Volume 13, Number 1, 2000

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution