Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vecrumba (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 12 June 2011 (→Forged picture: typo). 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.

Archives

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

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

Acupuncture: aggressive skeptics pushing POV

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

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

There is clear, highly biased POV:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of neutral content, and reversion

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

Section on talk page

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

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

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

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

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

Here are just a very few studies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted: How best to present disputed information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone offer an opinion, please?

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

Prescott Bush

Prescott Bush was stable for a very long time.

Recently the claim the Bush was a Nazi agent through the Union Banking Corporation conspo\iracy theory has been "un-NPOVed" substantially - removing an RS document belying the claims (one editor now asserts it may be "fake" even though the link was from hnn.com, and furnished by the accuser!). (There was prior lengthy discussion on the talk page).

I would like fresh eyes to look at the conspiracy theory being promoted there. I would note that the "conspiracy theorists" involved are generally considered to be such - including "9/11 truthers" and the like. , , and so on.

At this point, the theory sppears to be given vastly undue weight, while the theory was fairly mentioned prior to the current instability (although IPs occasionally sought to remove the ADL's denunciation of it), and Misplaced Pages does not theoretically promote pushing such theories as fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Femininity and promoting androgyny

2-person dispute at Talk:feminism and more opinions are needed. Does adding a picture of a female shaman and info on effeminophobia promote androgyny on the page Femininity? Thanks --Aronoel (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for NPOV review

• Recently an editor has raised concerns regarding NPOV with some articles I had worked on prior to an extended wikibreak.
• I have committed to no longer edit or watch these pages.
• However, I would appreciate it if others could look them over with NPOV in mind, and discuss on their talk pages and make appropriate changes if need be.

Here are the articles:

1. Joel Anderson
2. Jose Peralta
3. Hiram Monserrate
4. Corbin Fisher
5. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day
6. Knight and Day

I will not object to any changes proposed, discussed, or implemented.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This "request" is way too much work. Please choose something specific if you have a genuine question, and ask that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

My quickie look-over of one article suggests the Joel Anderson article about a California state-senator is way too long for its importance -- that is, my guess is that a state senator should merit perhaps a few paragraphs at most, not a novel. My sense is the article is essentially an advertisement for a candidate running for office. The pictures of the candidate with his family -- essentially political WP:SPAM.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's weird that you would put so much work into these articles to not participate in discussion on whatever improvement may be sought (I have merely looked over the articles by now). And not objecting to any changes is weird, especially since changes are not improvements by default. Where there any edit-wars going on or what else happened? It's a little puzzling. Hekerui (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hekerui.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it has something to do with this comment and resulting discussion on Cirt's talk page (User talk:Cirt#Advocacy concerns), and the subsequent ANI discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't scrolled up far enough on Cirt's talk page to see that big discussion. As for the notice given, it doesn't seem like a specific task for this board, but something for people interested in checking out the specific articles in detail. Hekerui (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial" in first sentence of lede

A number of editors have been insisting that the first sentence in the lede of an article describe an individual as a "controversial" religious leader, because one source says he described himself that way. They argue that, despite WP:LABEL specifically stating one should not use the bare word "controversial", he did a lot of controversial things, and we do have one source in which he describes himself that way, so it must go in the first sentence (or at least the lede). A larger number of more experienced editors disagree, and have further argued that the insertion is WP:UNDUE, but so far have made no headway. If possible, it would be very helpful if members of this board could express their views here and at Talk:Elazar Shach#Shach - "controversial and divisive"?. Jayjg 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephen C. Meyer

There's a discussion on WP:RSN that also concerns issues related to WP:NPOV. Editors from this board are invited to join the discussion here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Woods Coffee NPOV

There is a reversion spat about this page. Anonymous user from several IP addresses (most notably 140.160.###.### at Western Washington University in Bellingham) persists in having the most prominent information on this page be about the criminal background of one of the owners. That information is not relevant to the day-to-day functioning of the 10 or so Woods Coffee shops. I have visited Woods Coffee many times in many of their locations and have never encountered the person in question. By featuring that information first and not mentioning any of the positive achievements of the same person, the page does not have a neutral point of view.

I have made a number of comments on Talk:Woods_Coffee suggesting adding information or moving to a Biography of a Living Person. The only response is for the other editor(s) to revert and badmouth me.

As can be seen in the Revision as of 22:59, 5 May 2011 by 140.160.168.111 and more current reversions, IP 140.160.###.### adds nothing to the discussion beyond reverting and commenting on this talk page and on my user talk page User talk:Dubyus.

It can be seen from Revision as of 20:12, 25 April 2011 by 140.160.117.250 what the underlying issue might be. In an entry later reverted by another user for lack of references, anonymous user at 140.160.117.250 made the following edit...

"Boycott

"A Bellingham coalition consisting of gay-rights advocates, fair-trade, anti-censorship, pro-choice and peace groups started a boycott of Woods Coffee in mid-April, 2011. The boycott organizers cite several concerns with Woods Coffee, including their banning of a gay-rights bulletin, The Betty Pages, and the Cascadia Weekly from their locations for ideological reasons. According to the chair of the Whatcom Human Rights Task Force and the former director of the Whatcom Peace & Justice Center, Woods Coffee refused to participate in both the Bellingham Fair-Trade campaign and the UN's International Day of Peace. More allegations concerning political contributions by the Herman family to conservative slush funds and campaigns have surfaced since the beginning of the boycott.

"This comes partially as an extension of the Bellingham-based campaign against The Woods Coffee's corporate art public scandal, involving a sculpture commissioned by the Herman family of a giant Woods Coffee cup dumping plastic coffee on the public sidewalk, which was eventually scrapped." (Incidentally, Woods Coffee voluntarily changed their sculpture plan, which was the result of a public contest.)

The essence of the conflict is that anonymous user at 140.160.###.### wants to have a say in how Woods Coffee is operated--what newspapers they carry, where the owners donate money, and is trading in rumors to bring pressure. The efforts of anonymous user at 140.160.###.### includes vandalizing the Woods Coffee wikipedia page and not engaging in reasoned discussion about what should appear.

I request that the Woods Coffee wikipedia page be stabilized with NPOV information that reflects Woods Coffee, and that a separate page be created if necessary according to the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Dubyus (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional conflicts with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP guidelines from anonymous user @ 140.160.11.220:

• "You are the only one playing games here. Wes Herman is a convicted felon, and as such, is not allowed to vote or own a gun. He also does not pay his taxes. He engages in censorship. He makes his employees conform to his ridiculous interpretation of Christianity. The man is a con. But that is not what the website says. You have a personal problem here. Stop your disruptive editing and move on with your life. 140.160.11.220 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)" Removed from Talk:Woods Coffee. I am not affiliated in any way with Woods Coffee except as a customer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubyus (talk • contribs)

Pages on Law firms

I have been in the processes of removing, what I think are promotional sections from a number of Law firm articles, some of (but not all) have been edited by members of the firm.

The sections in particular are :

• Lists of offices, with colourful flags, that mimic sections of a corporate brochure and in my eyes do not have a place in an encyclopaedia
• Lists of non-notable "awards" that the firm has "won", again which do not have a place in an encyclopaedia.

However someone (User:Rangoon11) disagrees with me on the following :

• Linklaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DLA Piper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Norton Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Clyde & Co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Clifford Chance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Berwin Leighton Paisner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Allen & Overy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding the office lists User:Rangoon11, claims (on his talk page) that the lists are "encyclopedic and appropriate" and "The locations of the offices help the reader to understand the subject better" he goes on to say that "removing this content would be pure censorship". I contend that they are not encyclopedic, it may be appropriate if in was conveyed in prose eg :" Company A, has its head office in B with another x offices in country C. It also has offices in y other countries covering z continents." providing that can be sourced to a reliable source.

Regarding the lists of non-notable "awards" since this is an sector that hands out awards like confetti so in the end everyone has them and most of them are meaningless I think that unless a third party is writing about the awards (in which case they pass WP:GNG and an article can be written about them) then they should not be listed.

Can I have other editors views on this please.

Mtking (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

N.B. The offices issue is primarily being discussed here: Talk:Linklaters#Offices_Section. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also some discussion between myself and Mtking here: User talk:Rangoon11#List of Offices and Award Cruft. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Article on 2011 Energy Crisis

The article on 2011 energy crisis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/2011_energy_crisis

Claims that capitalism as we know it will soon end, and that most jobs in the financial sector will vanish. The only source cited on this is an opinion piece here: http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/8133-the-peak-oil-crisis-2011--a-pivotal-year.html

The article states no alternative to this prophesy.

I think an editor might want to have a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.23.4 (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tdl1060

This editor is showing a pattern of extremely selective editing on Wisconsin politicians, specifically those involved on either side of the upcoming recall elections in Wisconsin, apparently with the intention of making the Democrats look as good bad as possible and the Republicans as bad good, at least by his lights, as can be done by cherry-picking votes from VoteSmart that fit his agenda. Since I have strong opinions on these matters, I've reverted my latest edit, but feel his edits should not be left to stand. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that the votes which I have added to Democratic state rep. Sandy Pasch's article add undue weight to make Pasch appear in too favorable of a light you are free to add votes which you feel may be less popular. The votes which I added were selected because they are more notable and have received a greater level of press coverage than other votes that I did not include.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but my response stays the same. The votes that were added are notable, and if you feel that there are other votes that she has taken that are either more or less popular that are worthy of inclusion, you are free to add them yourself.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Such lists are not customary content for state legislator articles, due to the temptation to pick and choose among votes to fit an agenda. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not customary content? Numerous articles of legislators including some state legislators list notable votes and positions that they have taken. And secondly, unless a policy or guideline exists that you can point to, wouldn't your argument be merely a deletionist version of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added secondary non partisan sources from notable, respected newspapers and TV stations to illustrate the notability of the votes that are included and to remove any problems which may arise from reliance on primary sources. Hopefully this will clear up any remaining objections. --Tdl1060 (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I feel that the selectivity of the votes picked is a clearcut violation of WP:UNDUE. On a global basis, her vote on raw milk is incredibly trivial; but it might annoy a few farmers (or raw milk advocates) in her district, and cost her a few votes. These edits seem clearly hand-tailored in an effort to alienate as many people as possible in her district, and to ignore other votes less controversial among the swing voters necessary in order for her to win her election. The same goes for the other Wisconsin articles you've edited, each related to the recalls and the candidates therein. If I were not so close to the subject, I'd be much more agressive in this matter; but I'm typing this a few hundred yards from the boundaries of her district, and look forward to the elections with great glee; so I felt that other non-involved editors should be judging the merits of my interpretation of your edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your own statement undermines your claim that my edits are made with the intent of influencing the election, as there are no farmers who would live in Pasch's district, and very very few farmers in Alberta Darling's district. There are certainly not enough farmers in the 8th district to make any difference in this election. However I have provided a reference (and could provide more if need be) to show the issue regarding the legality of raw milk has emerged as an issue both nationally and in Wisconsin in particular due to its status as a dairy farming state. Maybe the way that a Wisconsin lawmaker voted on the legality of raw milk may be trivial on a global basis, but the legality of raw milk is not only being debated in Wisconsin . Secondly; you have raised the issue of other edits to articles related to Wisconsin politics. Yet aside from Sandy Pasch and Jennifer Shilling, what edits have you found objectionable, to support your claim that I have demonstrated a "pattern of extremely selective editing"? --Tdl1060 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to Dan Kapanke seemed rather disingenuous, since the tenor of the discussion made it pretty clear that the intention was to distract the Democrats, delay the election, and make it easier for Kapanke to beat the recall. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the wording and choice of the text at Sandy Pasch is intended to be negative, more so than a neutral telling of her political record. For instance, one of the votes makes it appear that Pasch is against "businesses who create jobs in Wisconsin". This is utter tripe, of course; the vote in question was about tax incentives which would have allowed some businesses to put less money into the state budget. Also, Pasch is painted in a bad light for not censuring Jeffrey Wood, with Wood's full ugliness trotted out to smear Pasch in its filth. Pasch isn't even mentioned in the Fox News bit about the Wood censure.
To make the choice easier of which votes are described for the reader, each vote must be accompanied by a news or editorial connection to Pasch's vote. The use of the Project Vote Smart website, a raw accounting of how Pasch voted on an issue, is not enough to establish that Pasch's vote on the issue was significant. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed the poorly supported voting records from the Sandy Pasch and Jennifer Shilling biographies. The guideline I quoted was WP:SYNTH in which we are instructed not to cobble two sources together to make a new argument that neither source makes. The combination of a news source saying that the legislation was important, combined with a raw voting record of the legislator taken from Project Vote Smart, is not enough to say that the legislator's vote was significant. The legislator must be mentioned in the news regarding her vote. The news sources that Tdl1060 added were ones without a connection of the vote under discussion made to the legislator. Pure synthesis, and unsuited to a BLP. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a concern for BLP and reliable sourcing, I have raised a related question about Project Vote Smart at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Project_Vote_Smart_and_politician_voting_records. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC notice

There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Proposal to rename.2C redirect.2C and merge content that may be of interest to editors here. Dreadstar ☥ 18:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Office of Public Diplomacy

• Office of Public Diplomacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Moved here from talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The page "Office of Public Diplomacy" relies upon a single source and makes statements without citing its sources. For instance, it claims that stories about the Sandinista government receiving Soviet MiGs turned out to be a hoax, without citing its sources that it was a hoax. In the case of the Soviet MiGs, several sources have confirmed Soviet intentions to bring MiGs to Nicaragua's air force, such as Christopher Andrew in The World Was Going Our Way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.58.204 (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Forged picture

The article Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism is illustrated by a forged picture showing Hitler and Stalin together. Does it detract from neutrality to use the picture without discussing its origins or does that promote the view that Nazism and Stalinism are comparable? The picture was created by Adolph Hitler's personal photographer, Heinrich Hoffman. TFD (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The montage was not created by this photographer, only Hitler's photo have been made by him. However, I agree that the image should not be used, because it is an allusion to the well known Communist propaganda image of Marx-Engels-Lenin (which has been inspired by the image of five Decembrists, executed by Tzar Nicolas I). In both cases the image imply closeness between the persons they depict. By contrast, the article, is supposed to discuss both similarities between these regimes and dramatic difference between them. In addition, the fact that these regimes were the ideological enemies should also be discussed there. In connection to that, the image created a highly one-sided impression that these regimes were the twins and the allies, which is not mainstream. In other word, usage of this image in this article is a serious violation of our neutrality policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Paul Siebert, there's no benefit to using this and great potential for misunderstanding. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What a POV introduction. "Forged?" The composite is based on a similar book cover and is clearly a composite. There's no "forgery" or attempt at deception. The juxtaposition is totally appropriate to a review of scholarly investigation comparing of Nazism and Stalinism. "Ideological enemies" is irrelevant and completely (!!!!) ignores the Hitler-Stalin cozy period of mutual invasion, occupation, and division of Eastern Europe between the two powers. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you to be careful with your edit summaries. What is "lopsided" in my presentation? That there are both similarities and differences in these two regimes? In addition, I also agree that the image was not "forged", however, that has no relation to the neutrality issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"Lopsided" would refer to

1. "the image created a highly one-sided impression that these regimes were the twins and the allies, which is not mainstream. In other word, usage of this image in this article is a serious violation of our neutrality policy" — the regimes were certainly allied for a period, which you patently ignore
2. "both similarities between these regimes and dramatic difference" — juxtaposition is essential to subsequent comparison, whatever it brings; the composite illustrates that; there is no implicit equating in creating a composite; similarities and differences also must be measured by effect and commonality of victims; clearly, as the article stub indicates, both Hitler and Stalin were inimical to Eastern Europe and comparison of the regimes is therefore not only inevitable but essential (and perhaps not as "dramatically different" in their effect as you suggest)
3. lastly, juxtaposition of images is nothing new for stimulation of critical thought (and one cannot pass mention that Stalin, for one, added and subtracted individuals at will in "historical" images); the Marx-Engels-Lenin montage (sample) you mention is no different in stimulating critical discourse on who begat what philosophies and actions; and they certainly were not triplets (per extension of your logic)

I hope this answers your question on "lopsided." On the other, I don't take well to implied threats (I should "watch" my edit summaries). Please don't do that again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Re 1. No. The fact of an alliance has no relation to the similarity issue: for instance, the USSR, the USA and the UK were both military and political allies during 1941-45, however, that adds no arguments in favour of a "theory" of similarity between Western democracy and Stalinism. In addition the ides that Hitler and Stalin were allies is not supported by many mainstream historians.

Re 2. Whereas juxtaposition is essential to subsequent comparison, I do not see why the image that emphasised the former and totally ignores the latter is consistent with neutrality policy.

Re 3. No. The infobox image is supposed to summarise the article, and this image is totally misleading in that sense. There is no analogy between this montage and the Marx-Engels-Lenin: whereas Leninism was seen as a logical development of the Marx-Engels' doctrine, there were no such connection between Hitlerism and Stalinism.

In summary, you failed to justify the correctness of the usage of the term "lopsided". I would say the opposite, your attempts to overemphasize the similarity between these two regimes, and to ignore the differences is similar to the ideas expressed by some western writers (Courtois et al), which have been extensively criticised as one-sided. In other words, this term is more applicable to your viewpoint than to mine.

Re my alleged "threats", as I already informed you, I have no desire to take any actions against you in any event, so I simply do not understand what threats are you talking about. However, I have to inform you that your edit summaries are sometimes rather rude and uncivil, so, as an editor who is under formal notice per WP:DIGWUREN you may be sanctioned for that. Take it as an advice, not as a threat.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the montage was created by a Misplaced Pages editor. There is a new version that adds Barack Obama. Faking pictures that present a POV is unencyclopedic, please see WP:Files for deletion/2011 June 12. TFD (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Bringing up someone adding Obama is a red herring. There is serious comparative scholarship on Hitler vs. Stalin and Nazism vs. Stalinism, therefore the illustration is not POV. There is no serious comparative scholarship on Obama as compared to Hitler or Stalin or the platform of the U.S. Democratic Party versus Nazism or Stalinism. Please try to come up with examples which apply. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, straying from the picture for the moment:

1. Of course the fact of an alliance has complete bearing on the similarity issue particularly given the division of Eastern Europe and the universal oppression of its citizenry under totalitarian (both) regimes by their prior agreement; bringing up that the US and UK were subsequently allied with a totalitarian power has, to my knowledge, produced no serious scholarship on similarities of totalitarian or other aspects of the US, UK, and USSR in the mid-20th century; your simile is pointless.
2. Scholars who have written on the topic have certainly juxtaposed Hitler and Stalin; your definition of "neutrality" appears to emphasize their rhetoric of enmity against each other while I would advocate that "neutrality" requires an objective and dispassionate examination of the actions of the regimes both against their own citizens and the citizens of other nations; it is your approach which is less than neutral, not mine.
3. So far all we have is a stub and a lead. As far as I can determine, especially given that objective scholarship includes a strong focus on the actions of the two regimes during WWII in Eastern Europe, there is no "misleading." Feel free to expand the article with reputable scholarship which highlights the "dramatic differences" you allude to; I should mention that Hitler and Stalin winding up enemies neither adds nor detracts from those differences or similarities. If "mainstream" scholarship conclusively demonstrates that differences truly far outweigh similarities to the degree you imply, I'll be the first to advocate that the image should go. Until then it is a useful tool to illustrate a mainstream scholarly concept.

Lastly, if you have issues regarding my conduct, please follow standard procedure, that is: (a) feel free to contact me at my talk page to discuss; and failing to reach a satisfactory resolution, (b) file an enforcement request. Do not wave DIGWUREN sanctions in my face as if you are the WP:POLICE. That is not advice. Moreover, my labeling your view of history as you have expressed here "lopsided" is not offensive in any manner whatsoever; "lopsided" is merely another word for "POV." You have yours, I have mine. That you yourself ascribe yours as pro-Soviet by necessity to counter other editors' bias (I'm assuming that would include myself at this moment) is what constitutes poor behavior, as I consider that a personal attack against any editor you consider a carrier of (alleged) historical myopia which prevents them from seeing the Soviet legacy in a more positive light—whom you have taken as your personal editorial mission to "balance" to ostensibly protect WP from their bias.

P.S. A picture is not an "infobox." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• TFD's claim that this "forged" picture was created by Adolph Hitler's personal photographer, Heinrich Hoffman is hilariously funny. Is TFD seriously claiming the person who uploaded the image AniRaptor2001 (talk · contribs) is Hoffman? A similar image was nominated for deletion Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_20#Stalin_Hitler_photomontage.png and the result was keep. As one of the editors said in that case: "No valid reasons for deletion. Nomination is the case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The image is encyclopedic, because it illustrates a concept already present in reliable sources (see , for example)". The same applies to this image. --Martin (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@PЄTЄRS J V.

1. Your argument is quite illogical: division of Eastern Europe as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is per se not more an indication of similarity between these regimes then the division of Europe as whole between the USSR and the USA/UK as a result of Yalta agreement.
2. This is your standard mistake: when you see that some scholars do some claim, you believe you may ignore the opposite claims. In actuality, the scholars both juxtaposed and contraposed these two regimes, and the image totally ignores the latter fact. Therefore, it is not neutral and should not be in the article.
3. The stub is misleading per se. Taking into account that it was me who proposed to discuss Stalinism and Nazism comparatively (although I suggested to do that as a section of the CCAH article), you are perfectly aware of my vision of this article: both similarities and differences should be discussed there. However, I see a strong tendency to make a stress on similarities, and on the Eastern Europe, which is a double bias.

Re my advice, you are free to reject it. I have no desire to file anything against you, however, I am not going to give you any advises in future. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, I admire your capacity to bring up examples and construct implications which don't apply regarding political systems and regimes; allow me to restate in plain words my perception of your position stated here and you can tell me where I am misrepresenting it ("I" refers to yourself):

1. The US, UK, and USSR were allies, I don't see any comparative studies on them; similarly, comparative studies of the USSR and Nazi Germany are equally non-sensical and non-mainstream, besides Nazi Germany and the USSR were sworn ideological enemies, not allies
2. The US, UK, and USSR divided up Europe at Yalta the same way the USSR and Nazi Germany divided up Eastern Europe according to Molotov-Ribbentrop; neither "division" implies any similarities between the regimes involved
3. Studying the impact of the Nazi Germany and Soviet political regimes on those who were victims of both (i.e., Eastern Europe) as a means of comparative analysis is biased by definition, as opposed to fundamental information essential to any comparison of the two.

These positions are all syllogisms or attempts to suppress (my perception) content which deals with the effect of the Nazi and Soviet regimes on Eastern Europe. Had Hitler and Stalin both mutually occupied Ireland, that would be another area for comparison, however, they did not. Your portraying discussion of Soviet aggression against Eastern Europe as being fundamentally and unfairly biased against the Soviet Union is the true bias here. Since we are no longer discussing the illustration—which applies until you can show mainstream scholarship which demonstrates that juxtaposition of the two is (a) a syllogism or (b) examination of said juxtapositioning is not a topic of serious scholarship (unlikely, we know such scholarship has accelerated since the fall of the USSR with the availability of new archival materials)—we should continue this at article talk so as to not further enervate the audience here. You've stated some of your vision here; I've stated my vision there—a vision which is in no way slanted toward merely examining mutual aggression against Eastern Europe and debating which was the more brutal. Perhaps you would see fit to respond there. On the other, our not offering each other advice in the future will promote our sticking to the topic at hand. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The image is fine, there is nothing wrong with such an image being used in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Images should be used to illustrate what is said in the article. So the question here is: what text in the article is being illustrated by this particular image? Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a stub/lead at Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism which is consistent with the illustration. If more effort were expended on content as opposed to arguing, we'd have something more substantial to discuss. I posted my vision for content at the talk page some days ago with no response so far. Basically a stub was created, the usual piling on of immediate accusations regarding content ensued, and here we are with more accusations. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

1. "Official Facebook Site, Boycott The Woods Coffee". Retrieved April 25, 2011.
2. "The Woods Coffee Scraps Sculpture Plan". The Bellingham Herald. Retrieved April 25, 2011.

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