Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 21 July 2014 (→Intelligent design). 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.

Andrei Fursov quote at Lyndon LaRouche

LaRouche-related disputes are often messy. LaRouche's group seems to be in perpetual combat with other activist groups on both the left and the right. LaRouche typically accuses his opponents of being fascist or proto-fascist. Some of his nominally leftist opponents in turn call him fascist or proto-fascist, while his nominally rightist opponents call him socialist or communist. There have been edit wars in the past over whether to include these accusations and how much weight to give them. I think that the most reliable characterization of LaRouche comes from a recent article in the New York Times, which describes him as a "controversial activist" whose "views defy simple categorization."

The present dispute, which shows no signs of progress on the talk page (Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Fursov redux), is over the section entitled Allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism, and racism, and specifically over whether to include this rebuttal quote. My view is that the commentator is notable, and his view should be included under NPOV. It may also help mitigate any BLP problems associated with this section. Input from uninvolved editors would be helpful, since the involved editors appear to be deadlocked. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the LaRouche biography is a BLP, with the subject being 91 years old. However, there are hundreds of reliable sources which call the man "controversial" in passing, as does the recent Texas Tribune article republished by NYT. Many other sources describe LaRouche in more detail, describing what things he does that are considered fascist.

The Fursov quote under discussion here is WP:UNDUE emphasis on Fursov's opinion about Western "intellectuals who have called LaRouche a fascist" who he says should not be called intellectuals. This comment fails to rebut any particular statement about LaRouche; it is simply a put-down of other intellectuals, stated in irritation by Fursov. We don't need this quote at all in the LaRouche biography. It would be much better to have some kind of description of why Western intellectuals have called LaRouche a fascist, then possibly a real rebuttal from someone saying why he is not a fascist. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

For those of you who don't know Binksternet, he is one of the involved editors in the dispute, as am I. Input from uninvolved editors would be helpful, since the involved editors appear to be deadlocked. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not more involved than you, Joe; your first interaction with the LaRouche biography was in April 2012, while my first interaction was April 2013. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The question of who does and who doesn't deserve to be called an intellectual is a red herring, whereas Fursov's opinion that "the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics", is directly relevant to the question of LaRouche's alleged fascism and may merit inclusion. Writegeist (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Andrey Fursov has given a speech to the LaRouche-controlled Schiller Institute indicates to me that Fursov may not be a neutral, disinterested party. Accordingly, I oppose use of the quote. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the commentators quoted in the section are neutral, disinterested parties. NPOV doesn't mean the commentators are neutral; it means the article includes all significant viewpoints. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see Writegeist's point. I think that including the portion about the scientific basis, without the slam on the "intellectuals", might be a suitable compromise. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there any objection to that solution? Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is still WP:UNDUE. Fursov is of course very wrong about whether there is scientific basis for calling LaRouche a fascist. Dennis King talks about the issue in 1989's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. Helen Gilbert talks about the issue in 2003's Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Restyled for the New Millennium. Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth write about the issue in On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left, acknowledging King's book and noting the ADL's assessment that LaRouche's National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) is the "closest thing to an American fascist party that we've got." Historian Stanley G. Payne writes in A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 that LaRouche's "NCLC has only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement." In Fascism: Post-war fascisms, edited by Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, a chapter is included by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons: "New Faces for White Nationalism: Reframing Supremacist Narratives". Berlet and Lyons write about LaRouche's fascist tendencies throughout the chapter, labeling LaRouche explicitly as a "neofascist". So you can see that there is truly a scholarly interest in the issue of fascism with regard to LaRouche, with varying degrees concluded. Fursov's empty assertion is hopelessly ineffective. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Stanley Payne is a highly respected historian. The others that you cite are simply opposing activists with no scientific credentials. King and Berlet have been criticized in reliable sources for being extremists and conspiracy theorists, and all of Helen Gilbert's writings are self-published by her organization, the Freedom Socialist Party, which is fringier than LaRouche's group. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons have been published in a scholarly book edited by Roger D. Griffin (Professor of Modern History at Oxford Brookes University, and editor of the Routledge quarterly, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions) and Matthew Feldman (Lecturer in 20th Century History at the University of Northampton and editor of the Routledge quarterly, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions). The writing of Berlet and Lyons is thereby lifted up to become highly reliable. Dennis Tourish serves as Reader in Communication Management at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and Tim Wohlforth is a socialist journalist. Tourish and Wohlforth used the imprint M.E. Sharpe which is an academic publisher. Dennis King and Chip Berlet are acknowledged as the top two of the world's leading experts on LaRouche. If we compare Fursov to this crew Fursov will come out looking foolish for his empty denial of fascism. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Our opinions about who's right and who's wrong, and the effectiveness or otherwise of reliably sourced assertions, are not criteria for inclusion or exclusion. They are irrelevant. Our task is neutral coverage of the opinions—in this instance, opinions from opposing points of view re. the alleged fascism etc. Writegeist (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be the crux of the matter. Binksternet, do you have a response? Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If the general wish expressed here is to help Fursov look the fool by stating his empty assertion in contradiction to Berlet, Lyons, Tourish, Wohlforth, King and others, then let's do it. We can tell the reader that Fursov said "the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics" yet observers A, B and C have found fascist elements x, y, and z within LaRouche's initiatives and organizations. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with citing Payne, who does have scientific credentials. King, Berlet et al. are simply political activists who have been published in books, no different than LaRouche in that regard. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Fursov, but you cannot succeed in shutting out King who is very widely cited on LaRouche, and Berlet whose writings have been approved by respected academics Griffin and Feldman. These guys are not simply political activists—that's a gross misstatement. As I've pointed out to you elsewhere, the Wiesenthal Center considers King and Berlet the top LaRouche experts, joined by the newer expert, enraged mother Erica Duggan, to comprise the top three experts on the LaRouche movment. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the new text I propose to add to the article: In response to King, historian Stanley G. Payne of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement", while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Andrei Fursov has spoken at Larouche's Schiller Institute, where he was described as "Historian, Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences Izborsk Club, Russia." The Izborsk club was deliberately founded on Larouche's 90th birthday. In the speech Fursov says," The environmentalist movement of the ’60s was organized by the Rockefeller Foundation, and it was paving the way for future deindustrialization....The de-population project is financed by the same structures which financed the ecology movement, etc." These are Larouchian views not shared by the mainstream.

Obviously his comments are those of a supporter and have no weight. Whatever background Fursov may have, he was not presenting his views in an academic publication. There is no point mentioning him.

TFD (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that your comment follows directly upon the heels of this one, but no matter. Fursov is a credentialed expert, and his comment was published in a reliable source. The objection that you raise is not based on any Misplaced Pages policy that I am aware of. His point of view clearly differs from yours, but your point of view is also represented in the section under discussion, FWIW. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to use part of a footnote written 20 years ago and you have it out of context. After saying that no neo-fascist group has transformed itself into an organization that could compete for votes, Payne says in a footnote that Larouche's group has come closest. He then refers readers to King's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. So basically he is agreeing with King, whom ironically you reject as a source. King says that Larouche failed to transform his movement into a fascist movement (Ch. 20) That does not mean that he was not a fascist, merely that he was able to achieve "some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement." One of those characteristics was the support of ""leading strata of capitalists and governmental agencies" (LaRouche's words).

PS - what are Fursov's credentials and how does that make him an expert?

TFD (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a translated version of Fursov's bio in the Russian Misplaced Pages. Waalkes (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the text I propose to add to the article: In response to King, historian Stanley G. Payne of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement", while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. Are there any policy-based objections to this text? Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS says that "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions." Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Payne, Stanley G., A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, University of Wisconsin Pres, Jan 1, 1996, p. 512
2. Benedictine, Kyrill, interview with Andrei Fursov, Intellectuals who have called LaRouche a fascist do not deserve to be called intellectuals, Terra-America, April 19, 2012
3. Payne, Stanley G., A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, University of Wisconsin Pres, Jan 1, 1996, p. 512
4. Benedictine, Kyrill, interview with Andrei Fursov, Intellectuals who have called LaRouche a fascist do not deserve to be called intellectuals, Terra-America, April 19, 2012

Agree with TFD above. The quote has no place in the article. WP:CONSENSUS has some of the stupidest writing on any Misplaced Pages policy page, and also is probably the most invoked and abused of Misplaced Pages's policies. You shouldn't be able to bore people into submission.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am asking whether there is a policy-based objection. Whether Fursov is politically a supporter, or an opponent like those writers he is refuting, is irrelevant under WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources. Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, based on the discussion here it appears to me that inclusion would give too much weight to a fringe viewpoint. Gamaliel (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It could be argued that both sides of the debate are fringe viewpoints, since the question of whether LaRouche is a fascist does not come up outside of battles between him and his activist opponents. However, Fursov is not the only commentator to question the theory of King and Berlet. John George and Laird Wilcox write in American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others, p. 292: "Dennis King goes to considerable lengths to paint LaRouche as a neo-Nazi, even engaging in a little conspiracy-mongering of his own." Alexander Cockburn says that Berlet has "made a career out of anathematizing LaRouche." Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've looked over this discussion and the only person who has actually addressed the issue in terms of NPOV (this is the NPOV board, right?) is WriteGeist. Otherwise I'm seeing some POV Quatsch. Waalkes (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Living people, and territories that don't exist any more

If a territory recently ceased to exist and/or a city recently changed its name, what name should we use in an article that discusses events before & after? My understanding of best practice was that we show the contemporary name and then, if there's a big difference or if it needs to be clarified, we parenthetically give the current name. Or something along those lines. However, this edit to Arsim Abazi's place of birth suggests otherwise. That article has two sources; one says he was born in Uroševac (ie. the placename at the time he was born), and one says he was born in Ferizaj (the placename now). bobrayner (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that the place-name changed in English language sources? Formerip (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Hence our article on the town was moved, following an RM. bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's evidence that Misplaced Pages editors supported a pagemove. But it looks to me like a town that is known by a Serbian name if you are Serbian and an Albanian name if you are Albanian. Your question seems to imply that to call the town by the Albanian name back then or by the Serbian name now would be flat-out wrong. I don't know that this is not correct, but I'm querying that premise. Formerip (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Each case may be different, but generally I would use the name used in most reliable sources about the subject since the name change. Based on the lack of sources for this subject, I would say the article lacks notability and should be deleted, with would eliminate the problem. This appears to be a Balkans/Eastern European ethnic dispute and I imagine only people interested in that will participate to any extent and whichever side has the most supporters will determine which term to use - probably choosing the non-Serbian name. TFD (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Gentleman, please, the article belongs to WP:FOOTBALL and by its standards passes notability as the player in question has played for a national team, thus passes notability.

Now, regarding the dispute issue, there has been a long standing consensus at WP:FOOTBALL to add in the infobox a simple formula of city+country (at TIME OF BIRTH). It is just for the infobox purpose, and then in the article body one may go into further detail regarding what intermediate administrative units the place he was born belongs to, and what is called and what country belongs today. But in infobox we use a historically accurate place of birth without many complications. That is why I reverted Bobrainer and I invite him to check many other footballers biographies for plyers from former Yugoslavia and he will clearly see what the consensus is. All players from Serbia, Croatia, SLovenia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. have Yugoslavia as county of birth before 1992, without any discrimination. FkpCascais (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTBALL says, "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." If there has been "significant coverage", it would be more productive to use them to expand the article. What do recent articles call his place of birth? TFD (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOOTBALL does not own the article.

To answer TFD: The sources currently in the article give both versions of the placename. Recent newscoverage almost exclusively uses the new placename. Non-news coverage of obscure footballers is rarely good, but the new placename seems to be preferred there too (example). I think that showing only the old name of his birthplace, or only the new name, would be equally flawed on WP:NPOV grounds; a better compromise would be to show both, and that was the status quo until FkpCascais arrived. bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is that there is an agreement to use the correct place name at time of birth in the infobox (meaning, name and country at time of birth), and not to use the (present day X-nia) formula in infobox, but in body of the article.

PS. Bob, don´t missinform. The status quo everywhere for footballers in the one as in Nemanja Vidić. Do you see Serbia mentioned in the infobox as his place of birth? No. Do you see brackets saying what the country nowadays is? No. So don´t make up new rules apliying them for obscure players such as one you found here. I am only apliying the agreement reached and whitespread for all footballers of former countries. FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If there really is a guideline somewhere that says we should only use outdated placenames and not current ones, I would love to see it; since that guideline needs to be improved. Can you provide a link, please? bobrayner (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious George Washington was born in British America and not the United States, and as you can see that same article doesn´t have the current name of the country in the infobox within parenthesis. It is birthplace we are talking about for God´s sake.

WP:MOSBIO doesn´t say anything regarding the infobox. However from my years long participation at WP, I rememeber quite a lot of discussions regarding this, and besides few nationalist POV-pushers, the vast majority of editors agreed in all of them to use the correct name of place and country at time of birth (with no further info), so honestly I doubt you will change that, but you are free to try. FkpCascais (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If there really is a guideline somewhere that says we should only use outdated placenames and not current ones, I would love to see it; since that guideline needs to be improved. Can you provide a link, please? Why do you insist that other editors must back down, and follow a rule which supports your preferred style, if you can't even link to the rule? It looks like you just made it up. bobrayner (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course we use the historical names, that is WP:COMMONSENSE. Roman citizens were born Rome, not Italy, and would have visited Londinium, not London. If you want guidelines, I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Proper names#Place names (which states that "many place names have a historical context that should be preserved" before going on to give examples) and WP:MODERNPLACENAME (which states that "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts former names are used when referring to appropriate historical periods." GiantSnowman 11:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the views above that it is appropriate for the name/country at the time to be used when describing someone's birthplace in the infobox, and this does generally seem to be what happens (this is not restricted to football articles, but also appears to be applied for politicians, except for Estonian ones where a group of nationalist editors has been able to continue to conspire to edit war any mention of the Soviet Union out of the articles). An expanded version of the situation, e.g. "Person A was born in B in C (now X in Y)" is appropriate to be added to the prose of the article, but we should not be cluttering infoboxes with this information. See, for example, Anastassia Michaeli. Number 57 15:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with GiantSnowman. This has long been the approach taken on infoboxes (a more detailed explanation can be used in the body of the article). Jogurney (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems that what Bobrainer was calling a status quo, which he accused me of having changed in his comment above from _{22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)}, is quite the opposite situation. Bobrayner seems to be a productive editor in numerous fields troughout wp however, when the subject is Kosovo, he does his best to promote Kosovo as an independent nation, and, as seen by his edit summary at that article (diff), seems that infoboxes of footballers were his latest ground of promoting the cause. I don´t oppose at all to add the fact that the town has a new name and belongs to Kosovo, however that addition should be done in the proper place, the article body.

Just a few days ago I had a very similar issue with another editor, also regading the display of birthplace in footballers infoboxes. I will like to ask the community about this. Please see User_talk:Joy#Mention_federal_republic and User_talk:FkpCascais#Re:_Mention_federal_republic. There has been a consensus for players born in former Yugoslavia to add only city+country, however this user has added the intermediate administrative unit (SR Croatia) to duzens of players. Personally I wouldn´t oppose if the consensus is changed, however it implies all players from former Yugoslavia, and then all will be affected. Also, the response how the constituent republics of Yugoslavia were "countries" is very strange at least (Joy claimed that in previous discussions already ad it is a problematic approach to the matter), and also how players were young and the country of birth didn´t meant much to them is even stranger argument. FkpCascais (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As an utterly uninvolved editor who ran across this accidentally from the previous thread (and as someone born in London, England who always flinches at "London, UK"), let me offer a suggestion that probably has no chance of adoption.

¶ Almost all of those Balkan footballers were born in one of the six constituent Republics (Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slovenia & Macedonia) of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or in an equivalent part of the Kingdom of Jugoslavia; some of those born in Serbia came from one of the two autonomous regions within Serbia (the Vojvodina and Kosovo-Metohija). Similarly an Estonian footballer born between (say) 1944 and 1990 would have come from the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, one of the 15 constituent republics of the USSR. So it's hardly inaccurate or anachronistic to give a birthplace as "Tallinn, Estonian S.S.R.", "Belgrade, Serbia, Yugoslavia" or "Zagreb, Croatia (Yugoslavia)", just as I was born in London, England (UK), and thousands of Canadians hail from London, Ontario, Canada (not "London, Canada").

¶ But, as I say, I'm sure that (between nationalists, Yugoslav & Soviet loyalists, and MOS/Infobox purist-prescriptivists) this is a fairly neutral approach that hasn't a prayer.—— Shakescene (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification

The opinions (either way) of NPOV/N experts would be appreciated here : Talk:DynCorp#Neutrality_disputed_2

Courtesy notification. Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Misplaced Pages state that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is Caliph?

At the moment our article claims categorically that al-Baghdad is Caliph, with some editors also using the title in the body of the article. The title is disputed even among Sunni Muslims, with at least one t Sunni Muslim scholar, Yusef al-Qaradawi quoted as stating “We look forward to the coming, as soon as possible, of the caliphate, But the declaration issued by the Islamic State is void under sharia and has dangerous consequences for the Sunnis in Iraq and for the revolt in Syria,” He said the declaration, and the nomination of al-Baghdadi as caliph, by a group “known for its atrocities and radical views” fail to meet strict conditions dictated by sharia law. The title of caliph, he said, can “only be given by the entire Muslim nation”, not by a single group." and The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, regarded by many to be the leading authority on Sunni Islamic thought, “believes that all those who are today speaking of an Islamic State are terrorists,” his representative, Sheikh Abbas Shuman, told AFP earlier this week" Given this I believe that Misplaced Pages stating that he is Caliph is a violation of WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Doug. At one point, the infobox was even claiming the World War I era Caliph was his predecessor, which was going way too far. In my opinion, it's perfectly ok to indicate he has declared that the area that is under his control is a caliphate, and that he asserts he is a caliph, but we need to take care how we phrase this. Incidentally, I don't think this problem is due to editors supporting his side in the conflict; it's just a problem of how present the facts. PhilKnight (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The claim that he is Caliph is one (notable) POV, but not an undisputed fact - there is significant opposition to that claim. There may simply be a misunderstanding here, in that the universal aspect of the term "caliph" as single head of the Ummah is not widely understood, but word is rather considered a quaint name for a ruler, like "president" or "king". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Also agree. His claim is already being rejected even by "extremist" Islamists, and will continue to be. Throughout much of Islamic history there were two or more Caliph claimants, I believe the record was five for a while. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

PhilKnight, Johnbod, Stephen Schulz Thanks, but although we agree, the article still proclaims him caliph. I've tagged the article as pov and will start a new section to discuss rewording. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The relevance of neutrality is that we should not call him a caliph unless there is consensus in reliable sources. Incidentally, mainstream sources often refer to a leader by a title which suggests divine authority. TFD (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we call him a soi-disant Caliph? Now Look What You've Done (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Just remember Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant when making changes, and tune accordingly. Can't have a Caliphate article referring to its Caliph, but not vice versa. I don't support or oppose recognizing the state, just want the articles to support and recognize each other. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Cleveland child abuse scandal

From a cursory scan, I'm not sure this is written from a NPOV, but would like a second opinion, The talk page is worse. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article using reliable sources and a neutral point of view.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV notice on Gary Webb: Was he "vindicated"?

A Misplaced Pages editor started an NPOV inquiry into whether Gary Webb was "vindicated"? Talk:Gary_Webb#Vindicated.3F - The editor argues that the CIA internal report in the 1990s did not vindicate him. The article currently states that Webb was vindicated after the editor of the Los Angeles Times stated that the newspaper's attack on him was faulty and after something another newspaper published in the 2000s (I'll have to look)

This is an important topic so I encourage Wikipedians to give this their attention WhisperToMe (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

An article in Esquire quotes Jess Katz as saying, "Webb was vindicated by a 1998 CIA Inspector General report...." I see no reason why we cannot mention what Katz said, but before we state as a fact that Webb was vindicated we would need to show that that is the consensus among observers in reliable sources. Even if Webb's allegations turned out to be true, it does not necessarily mean that he has been vindicated. It would depend on whether he followed proper journalistic standards. TFD (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Philip Morris donation to The Independent Institute

Carlstak is persistent in adding the line "The Institute received $5,000 in funding from Philip Morris in 1995." at The Independent Institute#Funding. TII is now a $2.4 million think tank and the source of this info re the donation is a thank you letter written by TII's president. Vidmastb had removed an earlier version ("The Institute has received funding from Philip Morris.") because of a bad link. SPECIFICO fixed the link and restored it here. I removed the line here with an edit summary re the small size (UNDUE) of the donation and primary source referencing. Carlstak reverted. I revised the sentence and tagged it as UNDUE here. I then opened a talk page thread on the UNDUE issue at Talk:The Independent Institute#Funding from Philip Morris. Specifico has agreed that the line is undue. MastCell does not disagree, but has provided references from secondary sources. Following their comments, I removed the line. Carlstak reverted, saying "use talk" even though the thread had been opened. I reverted, pointing out the thread & support for removal. Carlstak has revered again, without an edit summary. Carlstak has not participated in this thread, although he was involved in earlier discussions last year. I submit that Carlstak is POV-warring for this trivial bit of information. – S. Rich (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, $5,000 is peanuts for this sort of an organization. On the other hand, the donation was covered in multiple RS. Are you sure it was just a $5,000 donation? Steeletrap (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

1. The $5k donation is supported by a single, primary source reference. 2. Another user has reverted Carlstak's edit and cited the article talk page when making the revert. This is 4 (or 5) editors who agree the mention of the $5k donation is undue. Carlstak has not edited since the last revert. Assuming Carlstak does not re-revert, I think this is resolved. 3. Any editor who wishes to edit and provide more information is certainly welcome to do so. In any event, I will await before marking it off this thread as resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In order to include this information, you would have to show that it is considered significant by showing that it is included in secondary sources about the Independent Institute. Such a source of course would put the donation in context such as by showing how this donation compared with donations from other companies. TFD (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ernesto Kreplak

This is a short and simple case. Ernesto Kreplak is a man from Argentina, involved in two political scandals, and the article says so. But some users (User:Tiopappo and some IPs) try several times to remove this information from the article, and leave just a whitewashed version that merely mentions some small pet projects he has. Note that the content being removed is the only content that cites references which are not involved with Kreplak; in fact they are the only references with a proper format (the other content may be found at the external links). As for the references I used, I consider that Clarín and La Nación are reliable: Clarín is a member of the Global Editors Network, and La Nación is Argentina's newspaper of record. I tried to discuss it at Talk:Ernesto Kreplak#Campagnoli, but to no avail: the request to discuss the problem has been ignored, and the removals of content continued. Cambalachero (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have notified all the involved users about this thread, both those who removed the portion of the article and those who restored it or discussed about it. I hope that I did the correct thing. Cambalachero (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

All I made was a grammar and usage edit, so I guess this isn't something I have to worry too much about? I don't think I have anything to offer, so I'm moving along. Baconfry (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Per and . User 1. Removed the {{reflist}} template, which effectively breaks the page's footnotes, and 2. Removed sourced content without any explanation, added his/her signature to the article, and removed a maintenance tag when (I'm guessing) it still implies. Oh, and 3. Mislabelling edits as vandalism. Since it's one of many traits in vandalistic edits, I decided to revert. Scrutiny for my actions? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 13:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Your actions seem fine to me. I have left a conflict of interest query on Tiopappo's page. If they don't answer (as they seem altogether rather unwilling to engage in dialogue), I suppose I'll have to step it up a bit. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

Extreme skeptical bias at Acupuncture

There's a WP:cabal of users hell-bent in making sure acupuncture is completely discredited and made to look like quackery. All scientific evidence of mechanism of action or recent discoveries of meridians basis in science is quickly reverted and laughed at. I tried to start a NPOV discussion but I was told that "an NPOV tag for the entire article based on a single editors vague assertion is not appropriate." It's a hopeless situation. Perhaps an Rfc could help? - Technophant (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What scientific evidence is that then? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have a name for organized skepticism, we call it empirical science. See Mertonian norms for details. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate response is covered here: WP:Lunatic charlatans-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Technophant, it's not appropriate to take your isues with Acupuncture to multiple boards simultaneously. Your ANI report is technically about QuackGuru while this complaint here is about "a cabal of users hell-bent in making sure acupuncture is completely discredited", but the meat of them is exactly the same: your dissatisfaction with the users opposing your edits at Acupuncture. Please review Misplaced Pages: Asking the other parent: It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. I'm not sure where this comment goes best, but, since you haven't linked to your other complaint at either of the noticeboards, I suppose I'd better put it on both. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC).
• I woud suggest that indeed an RfC at the talkpage rather than working the notice boards is the proper way to build consensus in most cases where the disagreement is over content.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: To the extent that properly peer-reviewed and reputable scientific journals are removed while self-publishing blogs and newspaper comments of skeptics are introducted to the article, I would say that OP may have brought up a valid point. -A1candidate (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There is in some cases involving modern science a reasonable question regarding potential suppression of dissident views taking place. The same of course happens in other disciplines as well. Professional advancement and reduced or cut-off research funding can be threatened. Money can be a big motivator on both sides. If peer-reviewed journals are being removed for blogs, depending of course on the quality of the peer review and the identity of the blogger, there could be good cause for an RfC. But it is also true that some sources that say they are peer-reviewed forget to indicate all the peers involved are, um, dubiously rational. Details matter a lot in cases like this. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@user:A1candidate, exactly. There's been discussion at Chiropractic and Acupuncture Talk Pages about the usage of blogs as a source. As I disagreed with Bullrangifer's view of blogs as a source, he brought up public suspicions that I might be a "reincarnation" of another user without providing any support for his claims. Well, that's just to demonstrate all that heat around the discussion around the usage of sources. Bullrangifer, don't worry. I'm not mad at you :) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about the removal of high-impact scientific journals of reputable publishers such as Elsevier, Springer Science+Business Media, and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins along with the addition of self-publishing blogs with colorful cartoons on their homepage as if they were designed for children under the age of 6. As a serious scientific researcher, this is simply beyond belief.

Unfortunately, admins at ANI failed to take any action and a recent RFC was answered by exactly the same group of editors who are part of the problem, but my hope now is that this NPOV noticeboard may actually restore any dignity Misplaced Pages may have left to claim. -A1candidate (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If by blogs you mean QuackWatch, then, yes, the Misplaced Pages consensus is that it is a reliable source. This has been debated many times, and always it has come up as reliable. Of course, it has to be used with some caution since it isn't infallible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that it is essentially a self-publishing website with no formal peer-review process. The articles are not indexed in any major scientific databases and most importantly, the blog has a very respectable impact factor of, well....zero.

Let's not even mention that funny duck cartoon on its homepage that cracks me up whenever someone says QuackWatch is an acceptable source because the "consensus" on Misplaced Pages says so.

Believe it or not, I actually have proper scientific research to tackle and I don't have time to argue whether a self-publishing cartoon website for children meets WP:MEDRS or even WP:RS. To those who still care for the dignity of Misplaced Pages, please settle it among yourselves because I'm done with this noticeboard for now.-A1candidate (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is why debunkers are needed:

Now from time to time, scientists sit down and read a bunch of research papers, and they think about it, and they write what we call "reviews", where they try to fit all the primary research together, into a story that makes sense. The scientist doing the review will generally pick up and cite the primary studies that are part of the story that is making sense. Generally, reviews do not go so far as saying things like "the paper by that guy — that paper is bunk. We are going to ignore it." Instead, they just ignore papers that turn out to be false leads. This is really important. Only egregiously bad papers are actually retracted; there are loads and loads of papers that draw conclusions that turned out not to be true, but that remain in the literature. People who are not experts in the field have no way of knowing which research papers have been left in the dust by the scientific community. These papers are not retracted nor are they tagged in any way. They just sit there, ignored.

— User:Jytdog/Why MEDRS?

The answer can be found from the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study. Nothing esoteric there. There is still a chance that many statistically insignificant reports have been left out to emphasize your own findings (who wants to publish a review that shows no statistically significant difference to one way or another?) but again, that's not a subject of interest here in Misplaced Pages.

Now, in science you don't usually read papers labeling other scientific papers as pseudoscience or labeling therapies as quackery. This sort of judgments should be left to those who have build a reputation for debunking quackery, in this case skeptics associations and QuackWatch. I did not say that their judgments would be holy writ, but they give a quick insight into what is nowadays considered quackery. Misplaced Pages simply recognizes that some people are experts in debunking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that it is essentially a self-publishing website with no formal peer-review process. The articles are not indexed in any major scientific databases and most importantly, the blog has a very respectable impact factor of, well....zero.

Let's not even mention that funny duck cartoon on its homepage that cracks me up whenever someone says QuackWatch is an acceptable source because the "consensus" on Misplaced Pages says so.

@user:A1candidate Yeah, exactly. Non peew-reviewed, self-published, non-indexed ... and doesn't look very convincing either. What else?

By the way, ideally, scientific community doesn't put any weight on authority. In the very basics of scientific method, "Popper argued that science is fallible and has no authority." Sure the reality must be different since if you as a junior researcher attack against an eminent professor, you probably are making an academic suicide. But should we straight away make such policy decisions that "let's believe all this notorious guy is telling to us!" ? No way. Especially when it comes to sources that has not gone under any sort of peer-review, ones where they have been able to publish whatever they desire. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The editors job isn't to figure out what is true, it's to make sure the information is verifiable. - Technophant (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the editors job does not stop at merely verifiable, editors are also responsible for ensuring that it concurrently meets the other content requirements - in this case particularly WP:NPOV and its subsections under WP:UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And certainly pretending that C6 solutions have a therapeutic effect requires and even bigger leap of faith than trusting QuackWatch. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, lacking these the effects of such solutions remain pseudoscience no matter however many times statistically significant results are found to support them. We default to skepticism whenever their effectiveness claims rely on magic, ancient clairvoyance, supernatural, vitalism or such nonsense as water memory (if water has memory, just think how many animals have pooped in the water you happen to drink and how many corpses have rotten in it). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The OP’s reference to WP:Cabals seems important. Following alt.med articles reveals a group of editors, including admins, who frequently edit together and who appear to share a very negative point of view toward alt.med, so instead of simple statements of fact such as “this is not supported by medical evidence” you get articles full of “this is quackery” or “this is pseudoscience”. There’s a serious problem with NPOV in alt.med articles and this appears to be playing out on the acupuncture article now. Perhaps it arouse innocently, as reaction to WP:FRINGE, but it’s swung too far and is now in non-neutral point of view territory imo. I’m not sure what can be done to counter this, absent getting much wider community attention on this issue and these articles.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! On myofascial meridians @User:QuackGuru gets into an edit war regarding recently added sources. After he is reverted several times then @user:Jmh649 reverts me , then after a few more minutes and an added source @user:BullRangifer reverts me, then a few hours and a few new sources @user:Jmh649 reverts me again. I do not think this is by coincidence. Neither Jmh649 nor BullRangifer had ever edited the article before. Jhm649 tracked me down and took a shot at me here as well. I do feel that this a true cabal. - Technophant (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with BoboMeowCat here. Perhaps the best way to get the problem fixed is to get a larger group of people involved into editing the article. Perhaps that helps to come over these wikigangs. Heh, I guess I have used a bit too much of my time to follow up a few articles, but it seems a bit sad that some editors are using many hours a day to fighting at couple of rather marginal articles. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So what happens is that you make questionable edits in one spot. Started a bunch of discussions on multiple boards. And then the regular editors looked at your work not just within the first article but across all articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, what happened was that he raised a valid issue that was dismissed by the same bunch of involved editors so he went to the next noticeboard but was dismissed again by the same bunch of involved editors. -A1candidate (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, he raises issues which are shown to be without merit or based on lack of understanding our policies. He doesn't like the fact that his issues are shot down and he starts shopping for other places where he hopes to get support. There he gets more input, including from different editors, again with the same result. He then repeats the process, ad nauseum. This is extremely tendentious, IDHT behavior which indicates an unwillingness or inability to learn, IOW a lack of competence. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So if QuackGuru also incompetent editor for his recent forum shopping and misuse of administrative noticeboards? ^^ Well, I don't know the backgrounds of this case, I'll have no say there. Just here to comment few things before my summer shall continue! ;) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's getting worse

I attempted to put a npov-section tag on the section I'm most concerned about, Acupuncture#Scientific view on TCM theory, and it was reverted with edit summary "Rm. disruptive tagging." I had also tried to discuss this first on the talk page but I was ridiculed and the right to make the protected page request was denied for being not un-controversal. I moved the request to another section but it's been ignored. Could an un-involved editor please put the tag up for me?

Also, there's several editor telling me on the talk page that ALL edits must be done by consensus. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. This edit by @User:Six words and this edit by @User:Adjwilley stand out as being threatening. - - Technophant (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what User:Six words said. They were talking specifically about the case of WP:Full protection when all changes to the article do in fact need to reflect consensus. (Read the link, it's there.) My comment was not a threat, I was just informing you how things work in hopes that you will change your current trajectory. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how this comment of mine could be seen as threatening (I'm not an admin, so what would I threaten anyone with?), but I think you fundamentally misunderstand either WP:BOLD or the meaning of uncontroversial (maybe even both). We're talking about an article that was protected from editing because you and others couldn't agree on changes like this one (which, I might add, you have inserted again after protection was lifted). Like it or not, WP:CONSENSUS is one of our core principles, and ignoring it again and again is the difference between being bold and disruptive. --Six words (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: Misplaced Pages is not the right place to tell the world about the benefits of alt-med. By definition, if a procedure is effective and reliably sourced as effective, that procedure would be mainstream and not alt-med. The comment at 02:17, 21 July 2014 just above has severe misunderstandings that have been mentioned. Another is that while an individual edit does not require advance consensus, for the edit to be retained, consensus is required. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Johnuniq, I guess you meant: "if a procedure is effective and reliably sourced as effective, that procedure shall be used in Misplaced Pages", right? Personally, what I do care is the sources, sources and sources, and of course them to be reliable. Any irrational shortcuts as "it's tagged alt med, it can't be effective." doesn't fit my logic. Why wouldn't you just please act according to the sources, not any already existing classification? There are no Popes in science, not even wiki classifications. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Bump to on the request to have the npov-section tag added to Acupuncture#Scientific view on TCM theory. There are reliable secondary sources saying contradicting this section. They are on the article talk page. - Technophant (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How would a tag help the encyclopedia? Looking at Talk:Acupuncture#Proposed pov-section tag for "Scientific view on TCM theory" just shows standard behavior that applies to hundreds of articles—the statements that a gushing report by a health columnist is not a medically reliable source are obviously correct. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the facts. A scientific review of evidence shows that there is known mechanisms. The sources used to say that none have ever been found (or ever will be) are outdated, unverifiable, or highly dubious. - Technophant (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For those who are not aware, the OP Technophant has been indef topic-banned from alt med topics, as per this ANI posting. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Struggle between NPOV and MEDRS in alt-med articles

There really seems to be a problem here. My edits are being reverted and being called "fringe". There's a major issue with the interpretation and application of WP:MEDRS and Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories. This debate is going on in myofascial meridians, acupuncture, referred itch, and Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

• Here's the version of the article I prefer: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Myofascial_meridians&oldid=617688415
• Here's the stripped-down version: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Myofascial_meridians&oldid=617677973

In Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience it's decided that "1a) Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."

Is it possible to reach a compromise that can permit fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy? - Technophant (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes there are significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy, while sometimes else there is a clear case of quackery or pseudoscience. Arguing about Qi as the mechanism of why acupuncture would work denies almost everything that modern science stands for, namely providing falsifiable rational explanations relying upon natural causes. All appeals to mystical energies are by default condemned to dabble in pseudoscience. Now, if you have a rational explanation, a 0.05 significance could plausibly be attributed to a confirmation of the explanation. If you have a mystical explanation, a 0.05 significance could be attributed to mere chance (i.e. every one time in twenty trials you get a significant result just by chance). That's what "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" means in this context. Or Occam's razor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually never argued that there scientific evidence of Qi nor did I find evidence of such. What I argued is that the physical correlations between acupuncture points and meridians and physical/physiological structures. If you don't believe that this evidence exists (sources are in the diffs above) read this: "Many of the 365 acupuncture points correspond to nerve bundles or muscle trigger points. Several meridians track major arteries and nerves." from Finding Science in Acupunture - WSJ. This source was presented on the talk page but rejected because of MEDRS. - Technophant (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to use only ideal sources per WP:MEDRS as content pertaining to controversial topics is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James, can you explain how you feel about this controversy? - Technophant (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I wish all topics had similarly strict sourcing standards as MEDRS. In medical articles it is absolutely necessary to follow the strictest possible criteria of sourcing because people's lives are on the line, as many people rely on wikipedia for medical information and decisions. So yes there needs to be a strict and consistent representation of which medical treatments have scientific support and which havent. So in short, no.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• The premise of this section is faulty. there is no issue of "struggle between NPOV and MEDRS in alt-med articles". There is the scientifically proven in effects (or in the case of alt med quite often non-effects) that are recorded in MEDRES and then there is the other junk. We provide the MEDRES validated content and treat the other junk as junk as is clearly outlined in WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. " legitimate scientific disagreement" occurs in MEDRES sources, content not in MEDRES sources is not "legitimate scientific" disagreement, its just disagreeing with legitimate science which is not the same thing at all.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, that is not completely true. For instance at Organic food MEDRS-sources have a complete stranglehold over the article. Positive information published in agricultural magazines, even when published by universities, is routinely removed as being unreliable and not MEDRS-approved. The Banner talk 11:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yup when you are making health care claims you need health care source. This positive 2014 systematic review has stuck Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Nope, also other claims were remorselessly removed. Like chemical analysis (minerals etc.) of organic food. That is no health claim. The Banner talk 11:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Consider the Lyme disease controversy. There is a significant minority of doctors and researchers (such as ILADS) who disagree with findings of the mainstream doctors and researches of the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDS) and the CDC. The latter is better funded and has the louder voices so it seems that the side that is "right" and the other side is "fringe". I personally have Lyme disease and I can tell you that it IS a persistent, difficult to treat infection which came back 10 years after a 1 year course of antibiotics infecting my heart. You'll also see that because I don't have a NPOV I have avoided making controversial edit to that article. The mandate of WP is reliable, NPOV, and verifiable. It's not up to the editors to figure out what's "right". Every time I'm labeled as fringe or ignorant, or I see a medical system being labeled "pseudoscientific phiffle" I see the true bias and ignorance of the editors who choose to take such position and still try to edit anyway. - Technophant (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Who is Thomas Myers? Why should this article promote his ideas? Why are terms like "tensegrity" mixed with "connective tissues" with no MEDRS to make the connection? Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So, Technophant, you're going to be hard at work putting the "minority" view into altmed articles such as Homeopathy, Therapeutic touch, Burzynski clinic, etc. where the "piffle" is clearly described as just that? NPOV means identifying nonsense as nonsense when the mainstream RS plainly views it as such (as you've been told repeatedly in different ways now). Alexbrn 11:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I can clearly see who my critics are. Attack the messenger, ignore the message. BTW: I do think homeopathy is nonsense. I think that any editor who has a topic-wide bias either declare themselves or be outed and topic banned. - Technophant (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"I do think homeopathy is nonsense" ← So when you say you object to "a medical system being labeled "pseudoscientific phiffle'" you mean only certain medical systems, including – in your case – acupuncture. But homeopathy has a really very similar kind of advocacy base and quackademic support infrastructure as acupuncture, and is viewed with similar skepticism by the mainstream. If you approve of the NPOV treatment of homeopathy, then our NPOV treatment of acupuncture is surely good too. Alexbrn 11:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: The questions in my comment are serious and warrant an answer. There was no attack on the messenger. Johnuniq (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We do have to take context into account here. The topic of the article matters. DUE WEIGHT is different from one topic to another. I think it appropriate to give a fair amount of coverage to fringe views in an article about those fringe views. Covering "piffle" in an article about "piffle" is appropriate. For example, it is appropriate for an article about Homeopathy to discuss the various beliefs within the Homeopathic community... and to do so in some depth. The key is to describe these views as beliefs... and to not present them as science. If the mainstream calls something pseudoscience, it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to call it pseudoscience as well. Doing this gives the reader complete information. The reader learns a) what those who believe in homeopathy actually believe, and b) what the scientific community says about those beliefs.

That said... we also need to remember that not all fringe views are equal... there is such a thing as "fringe within the fringe". These views don't rate being given any coverage. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no conflict between NPOV and MEDRS. MEDRS is merely a guideline that helps editors meet NPOV and RS policy. Arbitration distinguished between "significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy" and pseudoscience. These alternatives are hypotheses which can be tested and may replace the orthodoxy. Pseudoscience OTOH presents theories that cannot be tested and hence are not scientific. TFD (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For those who are not aware, the OP Technophant has been indef topic-banned from alt med topics, as per this ANI posting. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design

I have serious questions which I have raised on the talk page regarding whether the article adheres to WP:WTW and also about the broader neutrality of the article and also some expressed concerns regarding conduct matters. Additional input there would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the discussion thread about "Words to watch" - what words are in violation of it? Scientists have rejected ID as a scientific theory because it cannot be empirically tested. As an analogy, your house may be haunted with ghosts causing creaking signs at night. But all scientists can do is attempt to rule out various natural causes. TFD (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution