Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) at 21:00, 30 November 2014 (→Electronic cigarette health claims). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

CISQ

Could somebody please have a look at above mentioned article? I would like opinions to be able to remove the POV-check section. Thanks.

RT (TV Network)...neutral feedback desperately needed!

A full-scale edit war has been taking place on the RT network page for about a month, though there is a history of (suppressed) conflict over the neutrality of the lede that goes back quite a ways further. The issue at present is whether the lede is the proper place for charges of "propaganda" against this network to be lodged, and most particularly whether the claims that it has been "accused of disinformation" are substantiated and reliable, and likewise belong in the lede. Here is the paragraph in the lede that is the source of the dispute:

"RT has been accused of providing disinformation and commentary favorable to Russian foreign policy. News reporters, former Russian officials, and former RT reporters have called RT a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. The network itself states that RT offers a Russian perspective on global events."

Recognizing that four of the five sources purporting to support the "disinformation" do no such thing, and the the fifth only reports that a single US State Department employee blogged something to this effect last April, I attempted several times to delete this part of the sentence, giving my full reasoning on the talk page. In each case, my edit was undone by one of the editors named below without any effort by any of them to show HOW these references relate to "disinformation" accusations. They certainly all relate to the perceived bias of the network by the authors involved, but "disinformation," which word is linked to its Misplaced Pages definition, involves the willful dissemination of information known to be false, and four of these "references" do not make allegations of this. The quantity of references does not supply the want of quality here.

Ymblanter, an editor with admin privileges (though not for this page in particular), once accused me of edit warring, and when I reminded him that my editorial attempts never crossed the WP threshold of 3 per day, posted an "incident" on the admin page, suggesting that I was "wikilawyering." In order to avoid further such abusive treatment, I took a different tack and inserted the following sentence before the last one in the paragraph, in order to create at least the appearance of some even-handedness:

" Others disagree; media analyst and author Edward S. Hermann argues that "to be at all credible to English-speaking audiences, RT has to lean over backwards to avoid straight out pro-Russian propaganda, but it welcomes Western experts like Stephen Cohen and Ray McGovern who barely make it to The New York Times or US television."[25}" https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RT_%28TV_network%29&oldid=630451692

This was soon reverted by Volunteer Marek, the most aggressive of the disruptive editors, and not for the last time. I responded to his claim that the source was "non-notable" by linking it to the Misplaced Pages page of the author, Edward S Herman. Then, out of the blue, an editor not previously involved in this fracas, My very best wishes, reverts my constructive edit, claiming that the source of the interview with E. Herman is "fringe." https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RT_%28TV_network%29&diff=631062896&oldid=631033208 These editors seem almost to be tag-teaming in this effort to preserve a very negative, one-sided tone in this lede, and with similarly lame reasoning given (if any). Then Iryna Harpy reverts the NPOV tag dutifully placed on the article page by another editor.https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RT_(TV_network)&oldid=630743454 And on and on...

The following editors were previously named in the mediation request because of their support for this tendentious editing:

37.214.122.178 Volunteer Marek Sidelight12 Galassi Capitalismojo Ymblanter NE Ent

Not one of them would agree to participate in the mediation, save Ymblanter, who agreed only to be involved on the question of maintaining the allegation of "propaganda" in the lede (which he supports). Because these editors would not agree to the mediation, the request was rejected by the MC. It should be noted that two other editors, Spotter 1 and The Four Deuces, who are not among the disruptors, did agree to participate in the mediation.

I am personally feeling overwhelmed by the lack of any authoritative effort to negotiate neutrality in this lede. In my view, this entire page needs a makeover to include all the relevant criticism of RT in a "Controversy" section (this suggestion by another editor, but I have offered to implement it if consensus can be garnered), but response to this approach has been, predictably, negative from the above sources, who prefer to use the lede to advertise their shared disdain of RT.

The tendentiousness resulting from this editorial gangsterism is overwhelming all efforts to restore neutrality to this lede. Input from neutral observers is urgently requested! Kenfree (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read between the lines, then what the above wall of text basically says is that this single purpose account, along with another one, Spotter1 (or whatever his current username is), has been edit warring against close to a dozen of different editors. Bottom line, there is no consensus for either the changes proposed by this user, no consensus to include the tag, *and* consensus that the present lede is fine.

Or let me put it another way. Kenfree complaints that The following editors were previously named in the mediation request because of their support for this tendentious editing:" and then goes on to list seven different editors, all but one long term, established and experienced editors. He failed to include a few more that have been "tendentiously editing" to support consensus. Volunteer Marek  22:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the quality of Marek's argument here, which reduces (as usual) to ad hominems, and does not address a single one of the issues raised, helps neutral observers appreciate what I've been dealing with on a regular basis. Though it's no doubt true that there are other editors who could be cited (in the past) for supporting this tendentious approach, there are also others (from the past) who could be cited who objected to it. My list includes those only that I encountered in my direct experience, in the timeframe stated. Kenfree (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out that almost ten different editors disagree with you and your crusade, is not "ad hominem". It's just pointing out a relevant fact. Neither is criticism of your action an adhominem. Volunteer Marek  00:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(Mis)characterizing me as a "single purpose account" is simply an attempt to shoot the messenger, to discredit me without addressing a single issue I've raised (except to declare that everything is just as you like it, which we already know), just as your insistence on entering your personal POV into the lede, about "disinformation" and the like, serves to discredit RT. Your latest post here uses the loaded term "crusade" -- rhetorical suasion again -- but not a word about the issues: can you, for instance, explain how the provided references support in any way the claim that RT has been accused of "disinformation?" And can you, for a change, answer the question without resort to further name-calling??? Kenfree (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, once something has been explained a dozen times, by almost a dozen different editors, and you and your buddy Spotter1 still refuse to get, it becomes a stupid waste of time repeating it once again. It's classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT combined with a good bit of edit warring and some forum shopping (hence, we're here now).

But ok. One. Last. Time.

You state above: "Recognizing that four of the five sources purporting to support the "disinformation" do no such thing"

This is nonsense.

The first source states: "Russia Today has been described by Konstantin Preobrazhensky (...) as “a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation” designed to mislead foreign audiences about Russian intentions. ". I guess the word "disinformation" is not exactly the same as "misinformation" which is how you apparently justify your above assertion. That's bad faith. Worse, it's being dishonest.

The second source... is titled "Disinformation: ‘Pravda’ May Be Gone, but Now There’s ‘Russia Today’". Well, it's true the word "disinformation" does not appear otherwise in the text. So, according to you this source does not support the notion of "disinformation".

The third source I guess is the one that you claim is only "reports that a single State Department employee blogged" this "disinformation" business. As it happens this "single State Department employee" is the former managing editor of Time Magazine. We're not talking about some janitor who empties the trashcans as you're trying to imply.

The fourth source says "But as the Ukraine crisis continues to unfold, (Putin's) particular brand of disinformation is coming into clear focus.". And then "Outlets like RT are “devoted to this effort to propagandize and to distort” the truth, (Kerry) said". And then "At his Friday press conference with German chancellor Angela Merkel, President Obama groused about Putin’s disinformation. ". And according to you this doesn't support the notion that it's "disinformation".

The fifth source is titled "How Russia Is Revolutionizing Information Warfare". It says " The new Russia doesn’t just deal in the petty disinformation, forgeries, lies, leaks, and cyber-sabotage usually associated with information warfare." RT TV is mentioned as part of this strategy. So this one maybe actually doesn't say it directly, but hey, it's the fifth source given, and it's also impossible to say that the source is being misrepresented.

Enough. Volunteer Marek  01:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Enough of your "he/she said experts" WP:ASSERT/WP:YESPOV. From "ABC, CNN, Aljazeera..." to "BBC" and "CCTV" are all candidates for a propaganda lede. When I confronted you and Ymblanter with just one page that collects many examples of disinformation, fabrications etc. primarily from "western" media organizations your reaction was deafening silence. Ymblanter cynically replied to me that I should "try" to put a propaganda part into the lede of a mentioned news organization. Just for maintaining the "opinipedia" structural coherence such claims should be put under the section "criticism". I know there was a consensus for that and this sums up the article (sadly it sums up the biased opinions and claims in the article) but it is still not a NPOV. I very much doubt this will satisfy your "inquisition" like approach (almost like a catholic priest who says there is no reliable bishop who is quotable on that - so argument must be false)(where are the facts?) to an opposing view no matter how well supported by evidence.Spotter 1 (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please go to the RS noticeboard, get consensus there that CNN is a propaganda outlet, and then come back.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My reasoning is multi dimensional. 1. An encyclopedia should not be a log for opinions regardless if deemed (by RSN) reliable or not. 2. To put in an assessment into the lede as if it was a fact and could be an appropriate summary of RT's operations is disingenuous at best. 3. If you have reliable claims put them into the right category like every other analogue article (f.e. CCTV). 4. There is a implicit accusations/answer script throughout the entire article. 5. Most important of all: At least from my perspective all information disseminating entities are TOOLS (I will not try to push a propaganda intro into every journo outlets' article; they are by definition). Therefore there is nothing further from the truth than telling me I'd like the RF's media. There are many points about the reporting that could be criticized - on a statement per statement basis. Again if something is true it has to be recognizable as such through evidence. Truth, as in accordance with fact or reality, should be the objective.Spotter 1 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to Marek's defenses (above) of the five current citations behind the claim of "disinformation: Marek, the word "disinformation" in this objectionable sentence in the lede, as you MUST know, is linked to the Misplaced Pages definition of "disinformation." Before I respond to your defenses, I think it important to review this with you, as you seem to have forgotten it. Here is the Misplaced Pages definition: "Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth." Please try to remember this throughout my responses. Presumably we can both agree on this definition for authority, since it is linked in the statement in the lede.

"The first source states: "Russia Today has been described by Konstantin Preobrazhensky (...) as “a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation” designed to mislead foreign audiences about Russian intentions. ". I guess the word "disinformation" is not exactly the same as "misinformation" which is how you apparently justify your above assertion. That's bad faith. Worse, it's being dishonest."

"Misinformation" and "disinformation" are not at all the same thing, but don't take my word for it. On that Misplaced Pages definition (of "disinformation") page, one of the very first statements is: "Not to be confused with Misinformation." Did you happen to notice that? Well, which of us is really showing "bad faith" then???

"The second source... is titled "Disinformation: ‘Pravda’ May Be Gone, but Now There’s ‘Russia Today’". Well, it's true the word "disinformation" does not appear otherwise in the text. So, according to you this source does not support the notion of "disinformation"."

That is correct, because no where in the article does its author make the slightest accusation that RT is practicing disinformation, or intentionally spreading information known to RT to be false as if it were true, so what difference does the title make? "Disinformation" is a rather "sexy" term, and people throw it around all the time (like you and certain other editors are wont to do) without understanding its actual meaning, but if these authors meant to accuse RT of disinfo, well, they had their whole article to do it and they failed completely. There is not one instance of "disinformation" even referred to.

"The third source I guess is the one that you claim is only "reports that a single State Department employee blogged" this "disinformation" business. As it happens this "single State Department employee" is the former managing editor of Time Magazine. We're not talking about some janitor who empties the trashcans as you're trying to imply."

LOL, nope, I implied nothing of the sort. I stated that a single employee blogged, and whether he was the former managing editor of Time or just the janitor, it is still only one employee, and that was my whole statement.

"The fourth source says "But as the Ukraine crisis continues to unfold, (Putin's) particular brand of disinformation is coming into clear focus.". And then "Outlets like RT are “devoted to this effort to propagandize and to distort” the truth, (Kerry) said". And then "At his Friday press conference with German chancellor Angela Merkel, President Obama groused about Putin’s disinformation. ". And according to you this doesn't support the notion that it's "disinformation"."

How could it? Is Vladimir Putin RT? No doubt you think so, but let's try this another way: say that a Russian official had accused Obama of disinformation, would you argue that therefore this represents an accusation that Voice of America is guilty of disinformation? This kind of puerile argumentation is really appalling...I'm amazed that you think any intelligent reader would buy it. The other quote you adduce does not specifically allege "disinformation" as defined by Misplaced Pages.

"The fifth source is titled "How Russia Is Revolutionizing Information Warfare". It says " The new Russia doesn’t just deal in the petty disinformation, forgeries, lies, leaks, and cyber-sabotage usually associated with information warfare." RT TV is mentioned as part of this strategy. So this one maybe actually doesn't say it directly, but hey, it's the fifth source given, and it's also impossible to say that the source is being misrepresented."

It not only doesn't say it directly, but like the other three sources above, it doesn't mention it AT ALL. So how can it be used as a citation allegation that RT has been "accused of disinformation?"

So, in sum, all of the citations together distill down to a single US State Department employee blogging, last April, that RT engages in "disinformation" (without providing any specific facts to back up the allegation, we should note). And for this reason the lede of this Misplaced Pages must make room for this spurious claim that RT is "accused of disinformation" (a very serious libel if untrue, by the way)? Kenfree (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfree (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I already said. When something has been pointed out a dozen times, and one, maybe two, editors insist on just NOT GETTING IT, it becomes a very stupid way to spend one's time repeating the same explanation over and over again. Quit wasting people's time. Volunteer Marek  22:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

NOT GETTING IT is misused by you in the way that you are deflecting any challenge with it. You get challenged and after you fail to make a convincing argument you pack out NOT GETTING IT. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT/WP:OWNER seems to be your approach and you just cannot see WP:CCC/WP:TALKEDABOUTIT.Spotter 1 (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that people should not be removing POV tags when there are disputes under active discussion, as user:Volunteer Marek has done. This is clearly a hotly disputed issue by multiple users, and as such, removing the POV tag only serves to further fuel the warring and create additional tensions. We should be concerned with resolving the issue, not pretending it's resolved by superficial means. Please see Template:POV#When_to_remove. LokiiT (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, LokiiT, I see you're back again. Anyway, no, if there is no reason for a POV tag except some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT then the tag doesn't get to stay, it gets removed. it's possible, as you are probably well aware, to generate "artificial controversy" about anything under the sun. And there's always one or two people who have some wacky ideas and who will be upset that Misplaced Pages articles don't provide "enough space" to their wacky ideas. Too bad. The criteria for whether a POV tag belongs or not is whether the article follows reliable sources. And as has been pointed out by about a dozen different editors, it does. Volunteer Marek  22:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek is conveniently ignoring WP:ASSERT,WP:CONTROVERSY,WP:OWNER and WP:NPOV!. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is ridiculous in light of the points made. There are at least the following issues with the article all of which can be found on the talk page (and article page): 1. An encyclopedia should not be a log for opinions regardless if deemed (by RSN) reliable or not. 2. To put in an assessment into the lede as if it was a fact and could be an appropriate summary of RT's operations is disingenuous at best. 3. If you have reliable claims put them into the right category like every other analogue article (f.e. CCTV). 4. There is a implicit accusations/answer script throughout the entire article. 5. Most important of all: At least from my perspective all information disseminating entities are TOOLS (I will not try to push a propaganda intro into every journo outlets' article; they are by definition). Therefore there is nothing further from the truth than telling me I'd like the RF's media. There are many points about the reporting that could be criticized - on a statement per statement basis. Again if something is true it has to be recognizable as such through evidence. Truth, as in accordance with fact or reality, should be the objective.Spotter 1 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that an RfC at talk is the proper way to resolve this. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that only the RSN needs to be consulted in order to ascertain that, this year alone, RT has been a sinkhole for literally months of editor time and energy. I don't see the value in indulging two new editors who are engaging in tendentious editing practices. Whether Spotter 1 and Kenfree realise it or not (I'm going for the former as being most likely as they've been instructed at length about policy and guidelines, but choose not to WP:LISTEN), they have harassed and tried to wear down a number of editors on personal talk pages, the RT article talk page, and have generally acted as a WP:TAGTEAM in order to keep the POV issue falsely afloat with WP:WALLSOFTEXT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The above statement by Ms. Harpy (on whose exceptionally well chosen moniker I must sincerely compliment her) is a textbook example of rhetorical abuse. Fluency in WP lingo, in Ms. Harpy's hands, becomes a weaponized argot with which to assault editors who breach her idea of political correctness. She hurls her WP-esque code words asglittering generalities, precluding any need to provide particulars that might substantiate her wild accusations (and note the similarity here to the actual issue at stake on the RT Network page, as detailed above). Far be it for Ms. Harpy to lower herself to provide any references or documentations to support her daisy-chain of ad hominems...no, she's got the jargon down pat, so listen up: she's the maestro...the master of WP discourse. Providing particulars, responding to actual CONTENT issues identified...that's real work...fitting only for the hoi polloi. Kenfree (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Before you continue with your critique of my techniques, I will refer you to my response to Spotter 1's same accusation on my talk page (where the both of you have spent an inordinate amount of time) -
Would you consider Der Spiegel an RS? How about this, this, Reporters Without Borders per this. Perhaps you consider The Independent to be corrupt, Western ideologues in their criticism here. Perhaps PRWatch is more to your taste here. Alternatively, here's a long and insightful look into RT by Oliver Bullough for the New Statesman. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not surprise me in the slightest that you arrogate to yourself the right to determine someone else's appropriate amount of time to spend on the talk page in editorial discussion. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of Misplaced Pages's egalitarian philosophy would find your latest put down repugnant. The sources you cite may be reputable sources, as you claim, but what have they to do with the current discussion? Does any of them say anything in particular accusing RT of practicing "disinformation" (as defined by Misplaced Pages)? Then they are just so many red herrings. How about showing us, if you can, how the currently appended refs support the claim (in the lede no less) that RT is (credibly) accused of disinformation. Maybe you'll succeed where Marek has failed so miserably (see above). Kenfree (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a train wreck. Spotter clearly doesn't understand or agree with the fact that Misplaced Pages articles can have opinions - if they are presented according to our guidelines and policies and are reliable sources. Spotter also says "Truth, as in accordance with fact or reality, should be the objective." That's an obvious oversimplication and not an objective of Misplaced Pages anyway. One person's 'truth' can be another person's lie in contexts like this. User:Kenfree, you complaina about ad hominem and happily make personal attacks against other editors. Your comment on libel comes close to being a violation of WP:NLT, perhaps you need to clear that up. I can't see this board being able to solve/stop the problems on the article. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, this looks more like a case of editor behaviour that should be discussed at WP:ANI. Alexbrn 10:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Spotter1 is clearly a sock. Editors in good standing do not forget their passwords after two days of editing, and they do not start their Misplaced Pages career with walls of text in highly controversial areas. Kenfree was not editing for two years before jumping on RT, though I give them a benefit of doubt and consider them as a pretty new editor in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I took Kenfree to ANI recently, no result. Not really surprising, yesterday I had a lot of difficulties at ANI to get an (unrelated) quacking sock blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There you go again. That's an obvious oversimplication this says it all, lol. Not even a minimal standard is achievable. Go on defend your opinipedia that is degenerating into a political tool!.Spotter 1 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I see one glaring issue with the quoted lead WP:BOMBARD, please see WP:CITEBUNDLE to improve appearance of the lead. That being said, please see WP:LEAD, the first sentence is to define the scope of the article. The entire lead section is suppose to summarize the content of the article. As the lead section is suppose to summarize the rest of the article, one rule of thumb that I have heard thrown about is after the first sentence (or paragraph if necessary) defines the subject, there should be about one sentence per section of the body of the article. This helps provide a summary of the article to a reader who doesn't want to delve into the body. Therefore, if there, in regards to the question of content (not editor actions), is a section about RT being called a propaganda outlet, than it should be included somewhere in the lead section. It should be neutrally worded and well sourced. From a casual glance it appears to be well sourced in the lead, and if there is not a section about the statement, there appears to be sufficient reliable sources to create one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your point about the evident "bombardment" and failure to bundle citations in this dreadful sentence is certainly constructive, however, you seem to have entirely missed the point about the difference between accusations of "being a propaganda outlet" (though this is a loaded term), for which there are several sources, and being accused of practicing "disinformation," for which there is only one source (out of the five appended) that even mentions such an accusation, and this by a US State Department employee who, after all, is paid to make such accusations (and who provides no proof) . And no, there is NOT a section on RT "disinformation," so please respond to the question raised in the first place, as to whether such a poorly sourced opinion therefore belongs in the lede (or anywhere else, without some neutral balancing, which was attempted by me and reverted as usual by the disruptive editors in question). Kenfree (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"being accused of practicing "disinformation," for which there is only one source (out of the five appended)". Will. You. Please. Stop. Lying. I already pointed out in DETAIL how at least four of the five sources say directly that it practices "disinformation" ("misinformation" if you want to be pedantic), and the last one says it indirectly, right above. As in, earlier in this thread. And then in another half a dozen instances previously. This is a really really obnoxious way to waste other people's time. I do not appreciate it. Misplaced Pages does not appreciate it. It's dishonest. Stop. Quit it. Desist. Just repeating something over and over again does NOT make it true when there's obvious evidence laying right there on the table that it's false. Volunteer Marek  04:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You either failed to read my detailed responses (above) debunking each of your bogus claims, or you are choosing to ignore them. In either case, your response is (characteristically) unconstructive. Neutral observers will hopefully take the time to see for themselves whether these sources have any relevance to the "accused of disinformation" allegation. Kenfree (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

For RightCowLeftCoast's edification, this POV pushing from Kenfree and Spotter 1 is why the article has escalated to suffering from WP:BOMBARD and the inability by other editors to move ahead and clean up the article in order for it to adhere to the fundamentals of a good article. If there weren't such a sinkhole of editor energy and time, there'd be energy and time to clear it up. They (and others recently attracted by current affairs) have created a catch 22 situation where it's virtually impossible to stay on top of vandalism and POV pushing on a multitude of articles surrounding the events in Ukraine alone. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ms.Harpy , ever true to her well-chosen moniker, delights in innuendo. The question here is about the content of the lede of this article, and whether it satisfies Misplaced Pages's NPOV requirement, and all she can do is issue more and more personal attacks on the editors who wish the question examined. For shame! Not one word from her on the subject at hand: exactly how do the currently appended citations verify the allegation that RT is accused of "disinformation?" Nor will we hear anything of relevance from her on this, because these citations are off the mark, as previously demonstrated. Kenfree (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it "POV pushing" to want to remove accusations of disinformation and propaganda from the lead? It isn't neutral to add stuff like this in the lead just as it wouldn't be neutral to say something like "RT is a highly acclaimed and immensely popular source of information on Ukraine's politics." The users just want to remove opinionated stuff from the lead. Read "Media bias in the United States" and "CNN#Controversy", etc. Why doesn't the lead section of the CNN article say something like "This is common practice for CNN to report selectively, repetitively, and falsely in order to sway public opinion in favor of direct American aggression in the Middle East. CNN's journalistic ethics are systematically degraded." Similarly to other articles that don't say stuff like this in the lead and have special "Controversy" sections for this instead, the RT article must too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is sufficient reliable sources that mention the point of view that the subject of this discussion, RT, is viewed as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. For instance there are these sources (out of many out there) here:

• Arutunyan, Anna (1 September 2009). The Media In Russia. McGraw-Hill International. p. 137. ISBN 978-0-335-22889-8.
• Philip Seib (2008). The Al Jazeera Effect: How the New Global Media Are Reshaping World Politics. Potomac Books, Inc. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-61234-002-9.
• John Maxwell Hamilton; Regina G. Lawrence (13 September 2013). Foreign Correspondence. Taylor & Francis. p. 131. ISBN 978-1-135-73883-9.
• Nancy Snow; Philip M. Taylor (1 November 2008). The Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. Routledge. pp. 309–310. ISBN 978-1-135-92689-2.
• Mickey Huff; Andy Lee Roth; Project Censored (21 October 2014). Censored 2015: Inspiring We the People; The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2013- 2014. Seven Stories Press. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-60980-566-1.

As I stated prior, if there is not content in the body of the article, the sentence in question in this discussion should not be there until a section of criticism about this is created per WP:LEAD; however, a neutrally worded criticism section that is well referenced (which as shown above is entirely possible) can easily be created, using references already in the article and the references I have provided, and the sentence in the lead in question retained.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Western media is not a reliable source during this practically new Cold War. Read the Russian press, it's much better and much more neutral.
the sentence in the lead in question retained — I don't get it. You are talking about neutrality and you want to keep the sentence saying "RT has been accused of providing disinformation" which is the apotheosis of how you should not write a neutral article. This sentence is so clearly an attack on the subject of the article. It's just so obvious that someone who wrote this hates RT and wants readers to hate it. Something like this is simply inacceptable in the lead. (By the way... I looked at the introduction of the article about "Mein Kampf", and it just states bare facts... Strange...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

well, the Western media are essentially the only reliable sources which we have. Russian TV which shows a border crossing between Belarus and Poland with a giant queue and commenting that these are Ukrainian refugees waiting to enter Russia is not. I do not see how it is negotiable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea about the particular incident (link?),
but it was probably just like when a British newspaper called The Times used a photo of an armed soldier in Kashmir to illustrate an article about the Ukrainian elections and the description said, "More than five million people could not vote as they were in territories held by pro-Russian separatists" . And I can't see how it is not negotiable. You just stated your personal (and emotional) opinion. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"The Western media is not a reliable source during this practically new Cold War" - feel free to float that proposal at WP:RSN. Also, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "neutral" means. "Neutral" does NOT mean "no critical statements are allowed". "Neutral" means it accurately reflects reliable sources. Which does here. Western or not. Volunteer Marek  23:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've read through the sources so I could contribute to resolving this dispute, and I agree with VolunteerMarek. The sources say what he says they say. They do not say what the OP says they say. I have no prior involvement with the RT page, or with any of the editors in this dispute. So I hope I am sufficiently "neutral" to satisfy the objectors. Djcheburashka (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL, you're about as "neutral" as a fox in a henhouse. Stating that A is right and B is wrong is not constructive. If the citations in question really do demonstrate that RT is accused of "disinformation" then you could, as Volunteer Marek has abjectly failed to do, show us WHERE in these citations this relevant information is to be found. But saying that it's there without any quotes from these sources only demonstrates your obvious partisanship. Kenfree (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources that say RT gives false information. Perhaps there is objection to the word 'disinformation', since by precise definition, it can imply it is done deliberately, yet the sources do say misinformation, and other ways of saying pushes false information. It is harder to prove why something is done, while the sources appear to believe this.

As for the Department of State and John Kerry, we say, people have accused or people say This rather than, so and so is This (for neutrality, avoid Misplaced Pages's voice). This is documented by CSPAN, Business Insider, (two reliable third-party sources) along with the primary sources of Department of State and the blog. The reason for using the source of Business Insider was, because it was the latest that included the whole ordeal (from spoken word to the blog). There are a few other completely different sources that say it propagates false information. I propose dropping the word disinformation and replacing it with false information. Also, to leave RT shows commentary favorable to Russia and foreign policy in the lead, with the mention of propaganda. My concern was removing the statement of the mention of it propagates or publishes false information from a section lead or lead. - Sidelight12 00:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The term "disinformation" does not just "imply" that false information is knowingly propagated as true, this what the term MEANS. Therefore, unless someone wishes to propose (and demonstrate) that this is what RT is doing, then the term is not only inaccurate but libelous. Mutatis mutandis, the same can be said for the term "spreads false information," where the implication that this is being done deliberately is unmistakable. Demonstrating intent is all-important when using terms like these to characterize actions. It is not a side issue. Kenfree (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I won't argue on the term disinformation, so that word was removed. The claim about 'false information' is supported. Spreads doesn't necessarily imply deliberate, but this wording can be made softer. - Sidelight12 05:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This dispute has been going on for 11 days. Does anyone but the OP disagree that there is a consensus now? Djcheburashka (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC

I disagree. Cause any allegations and accusations by political opponents shouldn't be in the lead and should be moved into a special section. Misplaced Pages is intended as a politically neutral website and what we see here is an attempt to use it for propaganda. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Djcheburashka|Djcheburashka demonstrates total ignorance of the term "consensus" by asking such a foolish question. How can there be consensus when there is open debate by several parties on both sides? Even if there was only one party disagreeing, there would still not be "consensus," only majority agreement. Please STOP ABUSING THIS TERM! Thanks! Kenfree (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of reliable sources agree that RT is a propaganda tool, it should be in the lede. You are free to think that all western sources are biased, and Russian TV is neutral, but this has to go through the reliable source noticeboard first.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources do not say that RT is a propaganda tool. You have not demonstrated that. What can be demonstrated is that CERTAIN WESTERN sources characterize it thusly, but other sources, even Western sources, disagree. Of course, when I tried to list one of the latter in this controversial section in order to provide some balance, you and/or another editor who disagree with you deleted it. So for you, the only "reliable" sources are those who, like you, dismiss RT as a propaganda tool, whereas those who disagree are, ipso facto, unreliable. But that, Ymblanter, is not NPOV. That is your prejudice showing. Someone with administrative privileges should show more care to protect neutrality, and be less concerned with having a personal POV insinuated in the lede of this page. Kenfree (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It is really unfortunately that you continue disruption even after it became clear that the majority disagree with you. Please drop the stick. We are wasting too much time for you, and you are risking getting blocked sooner that you could expect.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see...so in other words, if I maintain and express my own opinion on this matter (which, please note, is taking place in a discussion I, and not you, initiated), you will impose punitive sanctions on me. That's clear enough. I see that this was done with another editor you reverted, so I suppose I am next on your hit list. Well, that's one way to deal with dissent, I suppose, but somehow I still get the impression that Misplaced Pages policy supports talking out differences, rather than (ab)using administrative privileges to enforce one's opinion, so I'll take my chances. Thanks all the same for your unambiguous warning. Kenfree (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this source, http://truth-out.org/news/item/26711-mainstream-news-coverage-of-ukraine-malaysia-airlines-flight-17-shows-western-propaganda-machine-at-work-edward-s-herman . I don't know if truth-out is reliable, but the rule of notability is for topics to get their own page (which is not), and it is especially helpful if the person mentioned has their own page (which he does). For this, the only issue is whether or not truth-out is reliable. If its reliable it can go in, but for a lead mention there needs to be more reliable refs backing that claim, and they are probably in the article. Then the specific claim summary goes into the lead. - Sidelight12 21:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is the source, but as I've demonstrated, the claim that RT has been accused of disinformation only includes a single relevant source to this effect (despite adding four more which do NOT support the claim), so following from this rule of yours, since it only has one RELEVANT citation, it does not belong in the lead either, correct? The alternative is that a double standard of source requirements is being applied, which is my impression, and therefore the impetus for this notice here in the first place. Kenfree (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Earlier I had provided multiple published reliable sources that call RT a propaganda publisher, that is not to say that it is fact, but it is one verified POV. Per WP:NEU & WP:BALANCE, it should be included. As someone else wrote above, it should not be said that RT is a propaganda publisher of the Russian government, but that source X writes that... and source Y writes that ... this view is verified, and repeated enough that it should be given some weight in the article. Obviously it should be neutrally worded and well sourced, but it should not be excluded, as advocated by only two of a multitude of editors involved in this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

RT has certainly been described as providing Russian state propaganda, and by enough high quality sources that we must relay this information to the reader. Scholars at Sonoma State University wrote that "The Russian government funds the news network Russia Today (RT), which has been called the propaganda arm of Russia in the US." This sort of wording agrees with the position expressed by RightCowLeftCoast. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the claim about "lacking impartiality" from the lead, and inserted a claim that proponents disagree. I believe there are enough RS to support both claims, but the lacking impartiality claim wasn't really needed for the lead. Two sources about proponents who disagree now back that statement; I ask for people to add more appropriate sources to that rather than delete it. I moved the rest of your edit into the subsection of the article, the only worry is if truth-out is reliable, which I won't decide. Much of this is explained in the edit summary. The claim for false information is supported, since you believe it is not, what do you think those five references behind it say? I believe in truth, after that, I believe in NPOV, which luckily for my perspective, a lot of references support what I believe to be true. - Sidelight12 05:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well you realize by now, I'm sure, that your good faith edits were all reverted by user:Volunteer Marek, right? In fact, when he reverted two more times, when I tried to restore your edits, I notifed the edit warring noticeboard about his behavior. So all of your above efforts are for naught (needless to add, no action was taken against that disruptive editor). In answer to your question, four out of five of those currently appended citations only contextualize RT in the larger framework of the international "information war," declaring the RT is supportive of Russian positions. Such citations COULD be used to support the claim that RT "has been accused of providing commentary favorable to Russian foreign policy," to be sure, but that's a far cry from accusing it of disinformation (the deliberate broadcasting of information known to be false). Not one of those four articles makes any such allegation. The fifth, which does, only reports that a single US State Department employee blogged something to this effect (without providing any specifics) last April. Really, if an equivalent Russian Bureaucrat made a similar, nebulous charge against, say, CNN or NBC, would we expect to find that reported in the lede under THEIR Misplaced Pages entries? This is just an attempt to use the RT entry as anti-RT propaganda.. it has nothing to do with responsible editorial behavior. Kenfree (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the sources actually say "disinformation". Quotes have been provided. Explanations have been given. You're not listening. Volunteer Marek  01:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not listening because the sound of one hand clapping makes no noise. Want me to listen? Simple: FINALLY respond with actual QUOTES from any of these four sources that actually allege that RT practices "disinformation" (not "misinformation," "propaganda," etc., but DISINFORMATION, as defined by Misplaced Pages). Your abject failure to produce such quotes is the only sound I, or anyone else, can hear, Marek. Your silence is deafening! Kenfree (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The quotes have already been provided above. See also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  Volunteer Marek  03:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: "prominent" controversies should be summarized in articles' introductions per WP:LEAD. EllenCT (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

RT engages in disinformation

Here's a list of sources saying RT has published disinformation. Feel free to add more entries. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

They seem pretty much all opinion pieces, which are not reliable sources for facts. I could put together a similar list of opinion pieces saying that global warming is a hoax. Accuracy in Media has itself promoted conspiracy theories. Writers for The American Conservative, the National Review and The Washington Times, hardly good sources, consider the "liberal mainstream media" as anti-American propaganda too. The best summary of these sources is that right-wing sources in the U.S. do not like RT or Russians for that matter. TFD (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Putin’s Disinformation Matrix. Wall Street Journal.
• Putin’s propaganda highlights need for public diplomacy. Martha Bayles in the Boston Globe.
• Russia Today’s Disinformation Campaign. US State Dept.
• Russia's Propaganda Channel Just Got A Journalism Lesson From The US State Department. Business Insider.
• Disinformation: ‘Pravda’ May Be Gone, but Now There’s ‘Russia Today’. Tablet magazine.
• Russian Disinformation for a Conservative Audience. Accuracy in Media.
• Who Is Behind Adam Kokesh and Russia Today Television? Accuracy in Media. "'America is enjoying euphoria of victory over Communism in the Cold War, but Russians say the war is still going on,' notes Konstantin Preobrazhensky, a former Soviet KGB officer. He says the channel is serving the interests of the Kremlin, especially its intelligence agencies, by spreading disinformation about Russian intentions in domestic and foreign affairs."
• Richard Stengel: Russia Today's disinformation campaign. Kyiv Post.
• How Russia Is Revolutionizing Information Warfare. The Atlantic
• Why One RT Anchor Actually Took a Stand Against Russia's Ukraine Policy. The Wire.
• The Case for Latvia. Disinformation Campaigns Against a Small Nation: Fourteen Hard Questions and Straight Answers about a Baltic Country, pages 219–20, by Jukka Rislakki, published by Rodopi in 2014.
• Russia Today presenter hits out at Moscow over Ukraine. The Guardian.
• Ukraine Behind the Headlines: Disinformation, Manipulation, Propaganda. New American.
• Life of Bryan: How an RT Columnist Tries to Influence the Debate on Russia and Ukraine. The Interpreter magazine.
• From Russia with Lies. National Review.
• Liz Wahl: Russia Today anchor quits on air as cold war rhetoric heats up. The Christian Science Monitor.
• Carl Bildt & Russian Disinformation. The American Conservative.
• JBANC Report on Russian Propaganda Efforts. The Joint Baltic American National Committee.
• Russia TV host calls Ukraine intervention 'wrong' on-air. BBC.
• American Anchor of Kremlin-backed Russia Today Unrepentant After Lashing Out at Russian Intervention. Variety.
• Rep. Devin Nunes: The bear out there. Washington Times. "The audience of the Kremlin’s expanding media apparatus was treated to unsupported allegations and disinformation reminiscent of the extravagant untruths of Soviet-era Pravda. Rusia Today (RT)..."
• What Is Russia Today? – The Kremlin’s propaganda outlet has an identity crisis. Columbia Journalism Review. "Coverage and stunts like these have given RT a bad reputation, especially among other Western journalists working in Russia who see RT not as journalism from the other side’s trenches, but as nothing more than Kremlin propaganda."
• Russia Today Journalist Fed Up with Putin’s Propaganda Machine Signs Off with Truth-Telling Flurry. Independent Journal Review.
• Russia Today could enter Romanian media market. Business Review. "RT has been widely accused of providing disinformation and commentary favorable to Russian foreign policy."
• Everyone Lies: The Ukraine Conflict and Russia’s Media Transformation. Jill Dougherty. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
• Yes, Russia Matters: Putin’s Guerrilla Strategy. World Affairs. "Now, thanks to RT, when an international crisis like Ukraine hits, the Kremlin can quickly release a barrage of disinformation..."

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Disinformation

Use of the word cult

Does it violate NPOV to use the word "cult" in the lead? Keep in mind that the word "cult" is clearly in quotation marks, as it is a quote. Please see this revision.VictoriaGrayson 19:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's a quote from a reliable source with due weight, about the only improvement I can think of would be to include more of the quote for context ("a cult on the basis of its organisational form"). Although I could be wrong. Creativity (religion), Heaven's Gate (religious group), The Manson Family, Peoples Temple, and Branch Davidians doesn't use the word cult in their intros (if at all), and they're the sort of groups anyone can call a cult without argument. It is used in the intros for Aum Shinrikyo, Church of Scientology, Family International, House of Yahweh, International House of Prayer, and Raëlism. My gut feeling is that if an academic and non-sectarian source uses the word, and it's due weight, it's fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary.com says a cult is:

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

That fits most religions, and I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The source is an interview with a Tibeologist (not a cult expert) who says, "The NKT can be described typologically as a cult on the basis of its organisational form, its excessive group pressure and blind obedience to its founder." I do not think that source has sufficient weight for inclusion. You need to show that books about cults routinely classify it as a cult. It is possible to find sources that describe any organization as a cult, and has been mentioned, all religions meet the definition provided.

This may be a case where someone Googled the group + "cult".

TFD (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Cult" is a word used by adherents of larger, older religions to describe smaller, newer religious groups in a derogatory manner. For a serious encyclopaedia, it's a pretty useless word really. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the lede can say that some people consider it to be a cult, with a citation to one such source? I agree that its hard to draw a fine line between cults and non-cults, but I don't think we want to ban the word "cult" entirely from the wiki, or require that it only be used after the publication of multiple books on cults. Djcheburashka (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both TFD and HiLo48. 1) We would need scholarly, peer-reviewed sources that classify the religion as a cult, not in the 'small religion' sense but in the derogatory sense, which is what is generally interpreted now 2) The term is a WP:W2W and should be used carefully--perhaps, if argued for properly, cited within the article later on and duly appropriated, but not in the lead 3) While it is a good word and useful when it just refers to small religious groups (the cult of christianity in the late 100s, for example), when it refers to them in a derogatory manner it ceases functioning effectively. 4) It already says "New Religious Movement" which most people consider the best scholarly terminology for this sort of situation. 5) The lead should be a summary of the article, and anything on this topic is basically non-existent within the article and if its present, its very minor Prasangika37 (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out by other editors, Prasangika37 has possible COI's regarding the New Kadampa Tradition. I agree with Djcheburashka and Ian Thomson.VictoriaGrayson 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Scientology article is a good example of an article that uses the word "cult" in its lead, and where its adherents object to the term, but nonetheless it stays. The folks seeking "peer reviewed sources" that the group IS a cult are missing the point; the issue is if some outside entities view it as a cult, and, indeed, third party sources note this allegation. The Independent notes a "cult of Shugden" here. Robert Thurman, Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism at Columbia University and co-founder and President of Tibet House US calls them a cult here. There has been an extensive BBC documentary on the topic. (came out about 15 years ago, not much has changed) See here. At 8:00 in the video, there are images from a demonstration where protestrors are carrying signs saying, in effect, "don't call us a cult." —clearly the allegation is there. At 16:00, there is further discussion of the nature of the group and its properties (which parallel the description of a cult), at 17:05 or so, a person interviewed states they have a "rather fanatic mentality"; and at 17:45, another interviewee describes it as a "cult group." In my view, the BBC is a reliable source for a statement such as "some claim it's a cult." Obviously, some do. The lead doesn't say NKT IS a cult, jsut that some say it is. To my view this is fine; WP:RS is met, there is no undue weight and the article also contains the views of the NKT in rebutting this allegation. I say keep it. Montanabw 00:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my earlier post described that phenomenon - "Cult" is a word used by adherents of larger, older religions to describe smaller, newer religious groups in a derogatory manner. For a serious encyclopaedia, it's a pretty useless word really. We shouldn't be using it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you going by Misplaced Pages policy or personal opinion? You are a well known user....VictoriaGrayson 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That post adds nothing to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, frankly, neither does your position that appears to be "all religions are cults, so what's the difference?" There is a pretty significant difference that is well-described by a lot of mainstream scholars, including those who themselves are not religious. Montanabw 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with using the term as suggested in WP:LABEL. But no matter how many people use term, we need a source that says they use the term. Then we can assess the weight of that opinion when mentioning it. TFD (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the article has a source, and more can be added. Will that do? Montanabw 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Do you mean the source from the term 'cult' ? The source, I think, is an interview with a 'Tibetologist'(what does that even mean? How does one become a Tibetologist and how does that make you RS? Not sure.) with no evident degree in Buddhism etc. in an interview on a site that is devoted to criticizng the NKT. Prasangika37 (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean a source that uses the term, but a source that comments on the use of the term. For example if a scholarly book on cults says that they are generally described as a cult, we can say that. We can accept that the author is familiar with all the literature, while we are not, and can make a judgment about the use of the term to describe the group. While the Tibetologist is for what he said, the issue is what weight to assign it. I would suggest very little, because he is an expert on Tibetology. That does not mean he is wrong, of course. The same thing if he were to discuss medical science. TFD (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Scientology is a bad example in comparing it. There are countless scholars and well reputed people documenting clear examples of their cult-like behavior. This is far different than the New Kadampa Tradition. Using three total examples comparing to the countless articles, both scholarly and just general news (ala the Independent), that never mention things like this while talking about the New Kadampa Tradition, is a good reason why its just a fringe view and doesn't add anything that "New Religious Movement" sufficiently does. Can anyone give an example of how it does? Also a 15 year old documentary about a 25 year old religious movement isn't incredibly helpful. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Scientology has been around decades longer, so there is more scholarship on it. Are you saying that the BBC is not a reliable source? Particularly when, as far as I can tell, the positions taken by the NKT have not changed one whit in those 15 years? Montanabw 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Cult-like going ons of the last 15 years? I don't know of anything that really fits that description, especially when you compare to the groups like Scientologists..Mormons etc also have far more damning evidence from what I can observe. From your studying of the NKT what was 'cult like' 15 years ago that is the same now? Prasangika37 (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopedia example Melton's Encyclopedia Of Religion . Chrysides "Exploring New Religions", Carol Matthews "New Religions", Donald Lopez "Prisoners of Shangri-la", David Kay "British Buddhism". Nigel Scottlands "A Pocket Guide to Sects and New Religions",John Powers "A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism". And so on. They don't include this view even as a brief criticism. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Thurman most recently asked people to hack members of the New Kadampa Tradition as documented here so...thats that. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The absence of a statement does not imply that it does not exist; that is poor logic. We have several reliable sources that state that "some" people regard NKT as a cult, and the organization itself most certainly doth protest too much on the topic. Two of the three sites that Prasangika37 uses that can be accessed online that support his/her position are generally parroting the NKT position. One is an encyclopedia of religions, at best a neutrally-worded tertiary source, these generally use material provided to them by the organizations they discuss; the Guide to Buddhism refers to NKT as a "fundamentalist" group, but the entire work only appears to use the word "cult" in a historic context. It must also be pointed out that the "arebuddhistsracist" site is anonymous, has a fringe tone, seems obsessed with Thurman and also parrots some of the positions of the Chinese Government, which is believed to provide funding to some of these Shugden groups. @VictoriaGrayson: ( Montanabw 23:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)) has raised concerns that Prasangika37 has a COI as to NKT or a related group, and I have come to suspect that this is so, this user's arguments and behavior closely mirror that of the people in NKT interviewed by the BBC, as well has behavior I have seen in other movements that have a "cult-like" aspect to them. Montanabw 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

CFynn first mentioned those COI concerns. See the archives of the Dorje Shugden Controversy article.VictoriaGrayson 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ad Hominem is incredibly tiring.. Honestly it just takes away from the legitimate concern the other users involved here have. Address the points at hand here and stop taking away from the discussion. If you want plenty of reliable source on criticism that provides another POV, look at Al jazeera, France24, and SwissTV, all very reliable news networks. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2008/09/200893014344405483.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMvBXYRzAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Per3ePLsEcw Prasangika37 (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The film shows a fake monk and a camera crew trying to fight people. Yes we know Dolgyal worshipers are violent people already.VictoriaGrayson 02:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

We do not have "We have several reliable sources that state that "some" people regard NKT as a cult". We have one or several sources that say it is a cult. Whether or not those opinions are significant needs to be established by secondary sources commenting on them. Just try googling the name of any group with the term "cult" and one is likely to find a source that says it is a cult. TFD (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think HiLo pretty much hit it on the head with "'Cult' is a word used by adherents of larger, older religions to describe smaller, newer religious groups in a derogatory manner. For a serious encyclopaedia, it's a pretty useless word really."

  Seriously though...here are my rules for using the word cult: 1. You can use it to describe a group without qualification IFF a large majority of reliable secondary sources refer to the group as such. The result of this is that the word cult will pretty much only be used to describe destructive cults on Misplaced Pages. 2. If there is controversy over whether a group is a cult or not with some primary sources calling it a cult and others saying it's not, and this controversy is consistently reported in secondary sources (i.e. not WP:RECENTISM) then you can use the word cult but it must be attributed. For example, "so and so has described X as a cult". 3. In a majority of cases, groups referring to one another as cults is just mudslinging and it doesn't merit being repeated in a serious encyclopedia. I think the example provided by the OP falls under #2 or #3. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • That is well stated. But while 2. may be the case, I don't think the source fulfills it. It is just a comment in an interview, and we do not know how widespread the opinion is. TFD (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • TFD, did you not notice the multiple additional sources I noted above (at 10 November)? If VictoriaGrayson added those sources, would that allieviate your concerns? Montanabw 07:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Montanabw, I may not be explaining my position well. In order to say "mulitiple sources say" we need a secondary source that observes "multiple sources say...." If no secondary source makes that observation, then it is insignificant. The statement "many sources say" is a matter of judgment which must be made in a secondary source. Having read the various postings, it appears that few sources call the group a cult, and the claim is routinely ignored in sources writing about them. So including the claim would be providing undue weight to an opinion ignored in the overwhelming number of sources. We should not be providing greater weight to views that rarely appear in reliable sources. We are not supposed to read all the sources and weigh them. That is the role of secondary sources which we then report. Instead of saying, "I think they are a cult - I need a source", we should determine what sources say and reflect them. TFD (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Those are very reasonable points re: Adjwilley. Thank you. Montanabw, when you look at #2, which @Adjwilley: pointed out, is there 'consistent reporting in secondary sources'? Its pretty clear thats not the case. Out of the probably hundred or so scholarly texts that talk about the New Kadampa Tradition and hundreds of newspaper articles that talk about demonstrations at the Dalai Lama's teachings, you came up with one newspaper, one 15 year old documentary (where you are largely either assuming that 'cult' is used or inferring it, without providing in-text or verbatim usage), an op-ed from Robert Thurman who I pointed out is amidst this controversy and has recently requested publicly people in the NKT to be hacked, and an interview with a 'Tibetologist'. Could we agree at least it doesn't belong in the lead? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, TFD; "many sources say" is a simple summary HERE - did you note the links I pasted in above? Did you watch the documentary? That was my question to you. In the articles in question, we most certainly could phrase it "two people interviewed by the BBC, a respected Tibetanologist, Cultwatch, yada, yada, yada, all have said the NKT is a cult." However, better form IS to say "many sources say" (with footnotes ( , , if necessary). I've worked on a couple dozen featured articles (not all of which are listed on my user page) including ones on controversial figures (I had some minor input, for example, at the ] FAC), and it is perfectly permissible to summarize in narrative what is adequately cited. The question here (which is now generating more heat than light) is the circumstances under which the word "cult" is suitable. I think the consensus is, put simply, "it can be done if there are adequate neutral, third party sources that say so." If that's the answer, then the dispute over which sources meet that criterion is one to go back to the talk page of the article. Montanabw 05:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, TFD is asking for a tertiary analysis of the number of secondary sources, which is not required (assuming that the cited sources are secondary, and that they refer to different primary sources; I haven't read them). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I am asking for secondary sources to establish the significance of the opinions, although tertiary sources would be equally acceptable. I have for example reliable secondary sources that explain the views of Scientology. That does not give me license to add Scientology's views to articles about every topic about which they write. Sure, "reliable sources" policy allows it, but "neutral point of view" does not, and that is the subject of the discussion. Prasangika37 says that he has examined all the sources about the group and determined that the opinion they are a cult is significant. I would ask how many reliable sources mention them and what percent call them a cult. Also, how does he determine what weighting to give each of the sources. That requires an expertise in cults and judgment, which is beyond what we are supposed to have. Why not let the experts do that and we can report what they say.

You also need to show that when all these sources use the term cult they are referring to the same thing. It is a term that can be used strictly or loosely. We talk about "cult films" for example. Going to midnight showings of the Rocky Horror picture show all dressed up is similar to what cults do, but not the same thing, for example.

TFD (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant to say that—in my often flawed judgment—if you can cite secondary sources that show that multiple primary sources say x, then you can state that multiple sources say x without some meta analysis of the significance of the number. My response was limited to that one narrow question, and I would be over my head trying to discuss the finer points of due weight, especially where I'm not intimately familiar with the topic in question. Due weight consderations would apply to how you use the information that multiple sources say x, beyond simply stating that. Apologies if I misunderstood the question. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What I have noticed is that this criticism is actually often not-used in scholarly sources. It looks like the only examples of RS that specifically use the term that Montanabw has mentioned are the Dodin interview and in Thurman's op-ed on the Huffington post. He mentions a newspaper article but its one of hundreds upon hundreds on the topic. He mentions BBC documentary but fails to talk about a specific case. It seems that for people overtly trying to prove this criticism, its quite telling that the sources are so few and the quality of the sources is actually relatively low. That is why I would propose leaving it as a separate criticism in the main body as opposed to the lead. Perhaps someone here can make that change. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny section of 2014 Isla Vista killings article

Opinions are needed regarding the misogyny section of the 2014 Isla Vista Killings article. Is it NPOV to include text in this section about gendered massacres targeting males (such as in Srebrenica and also a school massacre carried out by Boko Haram), in this article about the recent killing spree in California by Elliot Rodgers? I'm specifying this part of Misogyny section because it seemed to stand out as POV/off topic; however, talk page concern has been raised regarding section in general regarding removal of text/refs after many editors have moved on with fewer editors active on article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny_Section. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

My first instinct when I saw the question was "yes, this will turn out to be NPOV," but upon examining the article I don't think it is. It's in a section on "reactions," and it follows a discussion on how the incident affected the gun control debate. A short section on how the incident affected discussions of misogyny seems appropriate. That said, I think the section is a tad confusing and meanders a bit and should be a lot trimmer. I'm going to see if I take a quick pass and propose the result on the talk page. Djcheburashka (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as POV, just rather unclear. Parts of the section are rather poorly and confusingly written. The bit about "gendered massacres targeting males" isn't a "section". It's half a sentence, and it's role is fairly clear - it is criticising the argument that misogyny is a significant cause of massacres. Essentially the section seems to have the following structure: 1. Various commentators are quoted saying that this killing demonstrates that massacres are related to a wider cultural problem of "misogyny". 2. Critics reply that gendered massacres of men are more common. 3. Other commentators say that this is about social attidudes to mental illness rather than attitudes to women. Paul B (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To specify my NPOV concerns, parts of the Misogyny section reads to me as if the wiki editors disagree with the general media consensus that misogyny was a significant/notable factor in Elliot Rodger's killings. While I think it's important for NPOV to mention that this general media view was not 100%, the section seems to go beyond that. It gives significant weight to the minority of commentators who disagreed and also mentions unrelated massacres such as Srebrenica and Boko Haram, which as far as I can see, were only mentioned in passing by one commentator and seem to have nothing to do with Elliot Rodgers or his killing spree in California.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Now that I understand what you're actually pointing to, its clear to me that its your view that has the POV issue. You're setting up a proposition -- a "general media consensus that misogyny was a significant/notable factor" -- in POV way. "Significant factor" means there's a consensus that Rodger was motivated by misogyny (I doubt very much there was such consensus). "Notable factor" means there's a consensus that misogyny is part of the discussion about Rodger (which it undoubtedly was). If it was a "notable factor," then the article should set forth the outlines of the debate that took place in the media, which is what its trying to do (not in a clear way, but it seems that is because of editing issues).

For you to establish your claim, you would have to have reliable sourcing demonstrating that there was not a substantial debate in the media over the roles of misogyny and mental illness. Do you have any such sources?

It looks like you're trying to marginalize the view that the role of misogyny was debated. That's only supposed to be for extreme, fringe views like holocaust denial, which this plainly isn't. Trying to suppress or minimize it is POV. Djcheburashka (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a POV. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the media on Rodgers/misogyny connection, but a google search of "Elliot Rodger" and "misogyny" will reveal the media reporting on the issue, which is what we are supposed to report on Misplaced Pages, regardless of our personal beliefs, and it should be reported giving weight to the views as they are given in the sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

But that is not the proposition that you're advancing! The proposition you're advancing is that the media generally agreed that the incident was linked to misogyny more than mental illness. If there was a substantial debate over the roles of misogyny and mental illness, then your argument fails and your proposed language is all POV. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I never mentioned mental illness at all, but now that you mention it, I see nothing mutually exclusive about misogyny and mental illness. Not sure I get the argument that we should pit one against the other as they seem like the could and probably often do occur together. I'm aware that many RS speculated Rodgers was mentally ill (although apparently he was never formally diagnosed with a mental illness).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat I'm glad you agree that mental illness and misogyny are not mutually exclusive causes. But we aren't supposed to be determining the cause, but just noting the fact of the debate. I'm kind of disturbed that you're surprised to see a discussion of mental illness - the subject matter of the section you want to edit is the comparative roles of mental illness and misogyny. And the nature of your edits is to marginalize those in the debate who wanted to give primacy to mental illness. I want to suggest to you -- maybe this is a section of an article where it might be best if you gave it some time to see what others can come up with, and then revisit? I think there's a pretty broad consensus that will prevent people who are WP:POV on the "men's rights movement" from taking over, which I think is what you're worried about. Perhaps if you gave it a few weeks, the section might take a balanced form that would reduce further conflict. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Djcheburashka, I think maybe you're confused. I'm surprised in the respect that you're attributing arguments to me that I never made like when you wrote, "The proposition you're advancing is that the media generally agreed that the incident was linked to misogyny more than mental illness" when I never mentioned mental illness at all, much less in the context of any "proposition".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat I think you need to re-read the section, your proposal, and your comments on this page. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide direct quotes from me or diffs to illustrate what you're referring to?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying there should be no such section, but there are two issues about Rodger's alleged misogyny. The first is whether Rodger was motivated by anger at or hatred of women, which clearly he was, or at any rate said he was. The second is whether this is a manifestation of a misgynistic culture in a broader sense. I think you are merging the two issues. Analogy: if a person decides they hate, say, Chinese people and so shoots people he thinks look "Chinese", there can be a reasonable debate about whether this was a personal obsession, or whether it is related to some wider anti-Chinese culture that's causing violence against Chinese people. But identifying the killer as anti-Chinese is not the same as saying there is an anti-Chinese culture. Likewise, identifying Rodger as misogynistic is not the same as saying there is a misogynistic culture that caused or facilitated his actions. That's essentially what the debate is about. Some writers and activists are claiming that Rodger's actions are a manifestation of a misogynistic culture that motivates violence against women, and some are saying that's not appropriate to extrapolate from his personal mental state in that way. Just typing "Elliot Rodger" and "misogyny" wont distinguish the two issues. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Paul B, I think you bring up some really good points which could be useful for re-structuring the Misogyny section for both NPOV and clarity/coherency. Section could open with the widely reported assessment that Rodgers was misogynist (giving reasons reported in sources for this assesment: such as youtube vids, manifesto, etc). Then it could go into how this assessment prompted broader discussion of misogynistic culture in general prompting the hashtag #YesAllWomen. Then it could go into arguments for and against misogynistic culture (but we'd need to be careful to limit it to reliable sources that also discuss or reference Rodgers or his killing spree). It seems like such a structure would make more sense than the rather structureless section currently in article, which seems neither NPOV or clear and coherent. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

See this is the problem. The article is about the the incident. You want to have section of arguments for and against "misogynistic culture in general." If "arguments" on that belong anywhere, they belong on pages about misogyny. The only question for that section of the article is whether the media generally concurred that misogyny played a greater role than mental illness, or if there was a debate in the media over whether misogyny or mental illness played a greater role. That is what you need WP:RS on. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This effort by Bobomeowcat strikes me as an effort to eliminate a view, no matter how established the commentator, that the attacks could be broader than pure misogyny. It's been a theme in her efforts on that page and if we eliminate the Barbara Kay article, would be a whitewash and a move away from NPOV.Mattnad (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My only effort has been to follow the RS and present issues per due weight given amount of coverage in sources. That doesn't seem to be happening here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I agree with Mattnad. It seems you're trying to marginalize legitimate opinions where there are a multitude of views. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that Misplaced Pages should buy stock in Gillette so the contributors to the aforementioned talk page can shave their neckbeards. Sceptre 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/massacre

There is currently a dispute about the title of 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre. I feel it should reflect the abundance of reliable source which call it "attack" while a few others feel it meets the definition of "massacre" and therefore should be called that. More input from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated. See Talk:2014_Jerusalem_synagogue_massacre#Article_title. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Safety of electronic cigarettes Environmental impact section

Here is a link to the section in question. link Here is a link to the Talk page, it ony has one discussion, and its on this section. Perfect Example of Bloat

This is a weight question. The whole section is sourced from a single journal article that raises questions for further study. There are no other known journal articles on this subject. It is in a medical section so it needs WP:MEDRS sources, this source is considered reliable as its in a peer reviewed journal. It is full of opinions, only one fact, that about some companies having a battery recycle program. There is no real dispute, its to early and no other studies have been done. There is no coverage of the article.

• The question is, should this be included in the article at all?
• If so should it be given a prominent place like its own section?
• Should this be boiled down to a sentence or two and place in the article in a less prominent place?

Thanks AlbinoFerret 06:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

AFD

There is an AFD which is currently very closely split. It has been relisted twice (total of 22 days open so far) and closes in 7 hours. There have only been 7 votes so far. I invite you to comment before this AFD closes. --Obsidi (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-Discrimination

This is to request an impartial opinion of editors in Misplaced Pages on the Wiki article Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky The article is about a Bangladeshi politician, a candidate for the Mayor of a country with a royal lineage. The lineage is obtained from a genealogy printed in a Persian book that was translated into Bengali and used as a source in a Cambridge Encyclopedia that was used as a reference. The original Persian script documenting this lineage is also available and it was uploaded as a picture in Wiki-image. Unfortunately, Editor Neil-N has consistently held the view that he will not allow the genealogy information to be documented as he does not consider it relevant information for the political background of the politician. As a political historian of the country where the subject is a politician and a former Mayor candidate, I feel pedigree information and lineage information are very important and they have been used in other Misplaced Pages articles on politicians worldwide. Editor Neil-N had the following to say. "Misplaced Pages doesn't care what politicians think is important to buff their image. If all you have is a genealogical tree then I will oppose adding this trivia, scans or no. --NeilN "

He is trying to discriminate lineage information on this topic, based on what he writes above, since lineage information has been used in other Misplaced Pages articles as well. Therefore he is trying to get in an unwarranted edit war and bully other editors. Please comment whether this is fair or not? Why lineage information cannot be relevant when other wiki-pages have used them as well?Westcott001 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to your identical posting at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Wiki Discrimination. Please do not make the same post at multiple locations - it disrupts coherent discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas. Someone claimed that there might be some bias going on! RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette health claims

Note: this was originally posted to RSN, but both respondents there claimed it was a NPOV issue citing WEIGHT and ASSERT. I believe that NPOV is quite clear that all major points of view must be included, so I believe the question becomes: Are these four statements major enough to include in the article and do they reflect facts based on the reviewed research instead of merely the authors' opinions?

Source 1 of 2 ("Hajek 2014")

Hajek, P; Etter, JF; Benowitz, N; Eissenberg, T; McRobbie, H (31 July 2014). "Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit" (PDF). Addiction. 109 (11). Abingdon, England. PMID 25078252.

Article

Electronic cigarette, with talk page discussion archived at

Content statements (first two of four)

A. "Electronic cigarettes are likely to be much less harmful to smokers than cigarettes."

B. "Health care professionals should support smokers wishing to switch to electronic cigarettes and emphasise the importance of stopping using cigarettes and nicotine."

Source 2 of 2 ("Polosa 2013")

Polosa, Riccardo; Rodu, Brad; Caponnetto, Pasquale; Maglia, Marilena; Raciti, Cirino (2013), "A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette" (PDF), Harm Reduction Journal, 10 (10), doi:10.1186/1477-7517-10-19, PMID 24090432{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Article

Electronic cigarette, with talk page discussion archived at

Content statements (last two of four)

C. "Smokers switching to electronic cigarettes find them helpful and will likely achieve large health gains."

D. "Even if they are effective for only a quarter of smokers, electronic cigarettes could save millions of lives over the next decade."

EllenCT (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment This is sort of a tough thing to evaluate in isolation. One can find review articles saying that thiomersol in vaccines causes autism but this is clearly not a mainstream view that would get much attention in a Misplaced Pages article. We know that the autism claim would get little weight in a NPOV Misplaced Pages article, not because of the characteristics of the article itself, but because of the 30:1 ratio of articles expressing the opposite opinion to this one. There is very little scholarly evidence either way on the impact of e-cigarettes on the ease of smoking, at least to the best of my knowledge. Shouldn't all these expressions of opinion based on extremely limited evidence be expressed in a very qualified way, or attributed and not made in Misplaced Pages's voice? Formerly 98 (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Would prefacing the statements with "A 201_ literature review in the journal said ..." resolve this dispute? EllenCT (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I note I am involved in the page although not this particular dispute. To Formerly I would say in general I agree, the issue is that the article currently reflects, with some qualification, mostly sources that conclude "we cannot yet say e-cigs are safe/help smoking cessation" and reflects very few sources that conclude as the above. The weight within journals is slightly skewed towards inconclusive conclusions but not to the degree the article is. SPACKlick (talk)

Formerly 98, when apparently reliable sources make claims in opposition to what other relaible sources say, then we need to look deeper. In the case of the autism article, it was written by people with no relevant credentials who have promoted finge views in the past and the article appears in an open-access journal of little notability. Here is a a posting about it on a blog about pseudo-science. But in the case of e-cigarettes, there is no question about the reliability of the sources and no reliable sources saying anything else. TFD (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We currently state "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes." to "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

One only needs to read the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes to see how out of touch the positive spin these two sources are with respect to the position of the mainstream medical community. Of the 4 major international medical organizations listed, they all have neutral to negative statements to make about e-cigarettes, and of the 30 total listed, only 2 out of those 30 have a generally positive outlook on them. Almost every MEDRS compliant source says there have been no long term studies and little data to base any conclusions on. To state, in Misplaced Pages's voice that it will save "millions" of lives when we know that there have been no long term studies done on these devices is beyond perplexing. Yobol (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources say there is no evidence they are safer. TFD (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What you call "reliable sources" have been criticized as being plagued by overt bias in the selection of the studies for review and making gross errors in the interpretation of the evidence by a highly respected group of public health experts lead by Ann McNeill of King's College London: see here. Further, McNeill et al. state that these negative reviews, uncritically parroted by many "medical organizations", misrepresent the evidence and use alarmist language to disguise unsubstantiated opinion as if it were evidence. So what we have here is the the position of WHO, which is based entirely on the junk-science publication by Grana et al., being used to prove that said review by Grana is reliable and mainstream. Hmmm something went circular here... Mihaister (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It is trivially obvious that those who disagree with the majority of medical organizations' opinions will criticize those opinions. It should also be trivially obvious that we do not ignore, per WP:WEIGHT, the overwhelming majority of respected medical sources such as the WHO, FIRS, etc because one small group of researchers disagrees with them. Yobol (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Mihaister you spearheaded the effort to include McNeill here, there was no consensus to do so, you were caught trying to add it in anyway here, you filed a WP:DRN discussion over it here, that concluded successsfully with no consensus to include (with your agreement), you then tried to add it to the sub-article here and got caught doing that, and now you're still flogging it here. I'm having a hard time describing your editing regarding McNeill as anything other than tendendtious editing. Zad68 20:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Mihaister, you are missing the point of the rs and weight policies. It is wholly irrelevant whether the WHO and other experts are right or wrong or have poor methodology. Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to reflect what they say. TFD (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution