Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise. Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation. Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

Oldenburg Baby article

I'm having issues with the Oldenburg Baby article. Compared to the German version of the article it seems extremely biased towards a pro-life position. For example the article fails to mention the mother's preexisting condition of mental instability and her threat to kill herself should the abortion be denied. It also makes it seem as if the mother killed herself solely because of the events of the failed abortion. Also the time frame given ("the procedure took place less than four hours later") seems highly unlikely, isn't cited anywhere and gives the decision for abortion yet another negative spin. Could someone else look at this and tell me what they think?

Is Wikipedia pro-Evolution?

The article Creation Museum contains the following statement: "In particular, exhibits promote the false claim that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted, and dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark." A select group of users are trying to keep this statement in the article. Is Wikipedia pro-Evolution? As it stands, nearly 2/3 of Americans believe in Creationism, and there is much evidence for it. I'm not trying to say Creation is the truth and Wikipedia should state Evolution is false, but I've always believed the Wikipedia foundation shrived to be neutral on the matter. I'm also not creating this topic to debate Evolution vs. Creation, but simply a question: Is Wikipedia endorsing the Evolution point of view, and saying Creation is false? Is this POV allowed? Should the statement be kept in the article, and in similar articles? Thanks. American Eagle (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources say, and I don't think you will find a reliable source saying that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. How could they possibly have done so? I would be OK with changing the above to something like "the idea, not accepted by scientists, that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted", but it needs to be discussed on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What Americans believe to be true is not a reliable basis for a global encyclopaedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If we go by reliable sources, I'd go with "the absurd idea that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted", maybe with a footnote on cladistics and Aves. This is not even a question of evolution, but of basic geology and paleontology - claiming this as a pro-evolution issue assumes a wrong dichotomy.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said. If Wikipedia existed in the 15th century, we would be having this discussion about the flat Earth theory :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed pro-Evolution, but it has to be because literally no scientists take into account creation in their publications. IOW from a scientific perspective, the debate on creationism ended decades or even 150 years ago, and current debates over creationism are social or political issues and not scientific. However, I do think that the statements included in the creation museum are trying to ridicule creationism. There has been a similar ongoing controversy whether the creation myths article should automatically assume that all creation stories are myths. The pro-Evolution crowd believes that every religious creation account is indeed a myth despite the fact the billions of people believe some of these creation stories to be true. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is definitely pro-evolution, because evolution is scientific fact. The saddening statistic that 40% of the American public deny evolution is because of public ignorance, not a scientific dispute. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no legitimate debate regarding evolution in any vetted scholarly text or legitimate scientific organization. The circumstance illustrates what concerns me most about how Wikipedia operates -- if Wikipedia is governed by consensus, and a frighteningly large multitude of editors believe in delusions that directly contradict all scientific evidence, then isn't Wikipedia necessarily bound to legitimize absurd "theories" by giving them equal voice? The democratization of fact is a dangerous thing... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of these comments are somewhat missing the point. The article in question is about the museum, not about evolution. The museum presents the stories and "legends" of a particular ethnic group (albeit a comparatively large group). I wonder how the above commentators would feel about an article that read "The creation story of the Lakota people presents the false beliefs of a primitive group and has been disproven by the scientific community; in particular, the backward-minded natives promote the idea that..." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite the same thing, since there is no organized political movement pushing for Lakota creation myths to be taught alongside evolution in science class. On the other hand, I don't like the "false claims" wording either - it's intrusive. If people seriously need to be told editorially that dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist, then they are probably a lost cause - or at least beyond persuasion by a Wikipedia article. No one is going to come to the Creation Museum article with an open mind about the question, and then say: "Oh, Wikipedia says it's a false claim... now I get it." MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The wording isn't neutral, and the clear condemnation in science can be well-presented neutrally.- Sinneed 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia also is pro-round earth, pro-gravity, and pro-cell biology. And that's okay with me! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's okay with me as well... As a Christian I have no problem with Wikipedia being "pro-evolution" -- it's a matter of reputable science. However I have a HUGE problem with Wikipedia being "anti-religious". I know I can't stem the tide by posting this comment, but it is obvious to me from reading the replies above, most editors would rather consign belief in religion to a series of "delusions that directly contradict all scientific evidence" (while providing no actual evidence for this incredibly outlandish claim). Evolution does not shake the foundations of religion any more than heliocentrism did in the 16th century... and the sooner we ALL realize that, the sooner reasonable discourse and dialogue can resume. Awayforawhile (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading. Yes, many of the commentators would probably see creationism consigned to the dustbin of history. But, while scientific explanations satisfy many, there is no conflict between science and a sufficiently unobtrusive religion. It's only when a religion make claims about the physical world that science and religion potentially clash. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I would be saddened to see Christianity or ANY honest religion reduced to being "sufficiently unobtrusive"!! God have mercy if we truly start believing our own science is the answer. Awayforawhile (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't neglect context here the way you're doing. I would not go to a physicist or a chemist for advice about a moral dilemma, and I would be appalled by a physicist or chemist who insisted on pushing a mechanical or chemical solution to a moral problem (and yes, I am frequently appalled that way, both by people who think we can solve political problems with better weapons and people who think we can solve personal problems with better drugs). Religion and faith have an important place in our world, IMO, but are not well-designed for telling us about the nature of physical reality. It's religion's job to tell us what we ought to do with the world as we understand it; It is not religion's job to dictate how we should understand the world, and certainly not against all reason. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer is yes, obviously, Wikipedia is pro-evolution in the sense that it's pro-gravity, pro-round earth, and pro-science, and in a way that contrasts with its distinctly ambivalent stance on religion. A general purpose encyclopedia without a strong pro-science stance is about as much use as a chocolate wristwatch, and an encyclopedia with a religious bias would inevitably encounter problems upholding the neutral point of view. --TS 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement labeling dinosaurs and humans coexisting should not be labeled as false, since the article is about the museum. Criticism about said museum I'm sure is present within the article. Ngchen (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)

Note: This issues is currently invalid as one of the contributors Redheylin wanted his statements out of the table. I'll pursue this in another way later. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Issue being debated: Whether or not to insert a mugshot (see left) of Osho at the section of the article about his arrest:

• File:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) - Mug shot.jpg
• Caption: Osho's mugshot after he was issued a thirty-five-count indictment in Multnomah County, Oregon on 28 October 1985 for immigration violations, making false statements on his visa application. He agreed to pay $400,000 in fines and was deported from the United States

The insertion of the picture itself (not the caption) is disputed. I'm ok with whatever caption they want to use as long as it summarizes the Arrest section.

Against	For (response)
(1) The picture is not free or (2) A mugshot "often comes across as a cheap shot and is somehow not very aesthetic."	We use non-free mugshots all the time at Wikipedia and we use them if there's a need (Koren Robinson, Bill Ayers, Yasmine Bleeth and so on)
**	He was convicted and given a 35 count indictment and entered the same Alford plea that drug dealers, murderers (e.g. Darren Mack, for murder of his wife; Lee Boyd Malvo, the student of the DC sniper who was executed) and rapists have entered in the past and he pled guilty
**	Having a picture in the relevant section about his arrest does not imply that he was notable only because of the arrest. Rather the picture is being used in the section that describes the arrest.

I have attempted to summarize the Against arguments but I'm sorry if I missed anything from them. The full debate can be seen here on the article's talk page: Talk:Osho_(Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh)#Mugshot

In the light of the above for/against arguments, do you think its wrong to insert the picture in the arrest section? We would like to hear some more opinions in order to decide consensus. Thank you. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a significant part of the individual's history and biography, and as such I'd say that the photo is indeed highly relevant, and appropriate in the article about the subject. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there are three people that did not support the addition of this booking shot and the talkpage comments are worth a read to assist in formulating an opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've summarized the arguments from both sides and have already linked the talk page (twice) and invited people to take a look there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added notes to the relevant talk page advising user Matt57 that I feel he has misrepresented my remarks on that page and here and that he has failed to assume good faith and to show civility. I trust he will take steps to rectify this. Redheylin (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(1) I've been as civil and nuetral as possible. Could you quote me and tell me where I havent been civil? (2) I've allowed anyone to edit the table above as you can see. Feel free to edit the "against" column of the table in case you thought I didnt put in your views correctly.

It doesnt look like we've had any input on this matter from other editors so maybe we need to do something else like mediation. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt57 As stated above, I have addressed these issues on the relevant talk page and you have failed to respond there. I have pointed out that I am neutral on the matter of this pic and entered in order to mediate and explain why it might be summarily removed, that I object to your using these words of mine as a "case against", particularly in view of the fact that you have alleged bad faith and NNPOV on my part. Please remove my contributions from this page and answer this on the talk page, Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly said I've given anyone permission to edit the table. I dont remember who wrote what so go ahead and delete whatever you like. This section doesnt matter anyway because no other editor has given any input here so maybe the next step (mediation?) is needed. We didnt get any input probably because its obvious to others that the picture should belong there in the section about his arrest. I'll reply the rest on the other talk page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Complainant has not removed info but says he withdraws. I have removed the info myself. Redheylin (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Geibeltbad Pirna

The article Geibeltbad Pirna looks like it has been written by a company employee (with a very poor knowledge of English, maybe using Google translate or something...) I marked it for NPOV but should it be deleted? There is a similar article on the German Wikipedia.--Lidos (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would mark it for PROD - unless you can find some references to it on Google, it looks like just another swimming pool. JMHO Riverpa (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless more sources come out this does not look like material for an encyclopedia. Ludlom (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Southern Legal Resource Center

Needs some eyeballs on it. I did a cleanup of the article today, but I believe there is still much left to be desired. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My first stumble came from the term "Confederate Southern Americans". Is there a definition somewhere for this? I think it really needs to be included. After all, there is no Confederacy to belong to any more, does someone have to be born in the South, descended from ex-Confederates, what? The cited instances where they have defended the display of the Confederate flag help, but there must be something more substantive to the definition other than overt behavior. I hope, anyway. Riverpa (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

BHRT is the subject of an editing dispute between three editors - myself, Hillinpa (talk · contribs) and Riverpa (talk · contribs). There is extensive discussion of BHRT in many reliable sources, including many position statements by medical organizations, the majority of which are skeptical and critical. There have been repeated accusations of bias on the talk page. Anyone external input would be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you summarise the points of contention, because it's a long article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WLU believes that this article should only address "BHRT", the treatment method using bioidentical hormones that is covered in the popular press, uses compounded hormones, saliva testing, and tries to establish a pre-determined level of hormones in the body. This has been popularized by books written by Suzanne Somers, and is touted on the internet by compounding pharmacies. There is a great deal of skepticism and criticism of this methodology in the medical establishment. Therefore, WLU believes that the article should be entirely critical and skeptical in reference to any mention of bioidentical, notwithstanding the fact that there are many bioidentical hormones used in FDA-approved and regulated prescription drugs, and that there is some (though little) research that indicates that they may be preferable to the more commonly used Conjugated Estrogens. I would prefer that compounded "BHRT" be addressed separately from the FDA-approved bioidentical hormones.

When looking at the article you may want to look at this [1] version, which is what the article was when this posting was put up and I put a POV tag on it. WLU has been trying to make it more neutral ever since then by including references that he would not allow anyone else to cite in the past, by deleting any changes made. Sorry for the state of the article, I know it is hard to read, but most of the improvements I make are soon reverted. Please see the Talk page, too. Riverpa (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources and professional bodies are skeptical of the many claims made for bioidentical hormones. There are a very small number of positive sources (three) that claim scientific research supports the use of BHRT over conventional HRT. Against considerable opposition, I have edited towards featuring the mainstream position of skepticism and criticism. Re-reading the page and reworking the sections, as well as making time to re-read one of the "pro" sources, I have expanded the relatively sparse praise of BHRT today. Hillinpa (talk · contribs) (a single-purpose account on this issue) and Riverpa (talk · contribs) believe the page is unfairly critical. I believe it places due weight on the majority sources. Hillinpa is also of the opinion that the article should cite primary sources dealing with individual bioidentical hormones (progesterone, estriol and estrodiol I believe) to prove they are superior to conventional HRT. I believe this is inappropriate per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS (specifically the the emphasis on secondary sources in the latter) as well as ignoring the implications of the many, many critical review and opinion articles and position statements by the various governing bodies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you go to this cite referenced in the article [2] you will find a fairly comprehensive review of the issue. Cirigliano is a balanced literature review cited in the article. As WLU has indicated, he is the only one making significant changes to the article because he apparently feels he is the only one qualified to do so, without trying to reach any kind of consensus. Riverpa (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested in getting a substantial understanding of the topic should go to the article. There are 44 separate references, of which that article (which I have used extensively and I will point out is three years old and aimed at a popular audience) is one. Many are freely available from the web. The FDA and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ⋅have also released 2009 documents which reiterate past points - BHRT is unduly promoted as a miracle cure, without evidence. I believe what Riverpa wishes is that the article deal with the risks and benefits of specific bioidentical hormones - estriol, progesterone and estradiol - using primary sources to demonstrate their benefits. I have repeatedly pointed out that we are to use secondary sources and the body of literature to determine the overall direction of the page. But at this point I've lost the plot, all I know is that when a statement is challenged, I can usually find several high-quality sources to support it, within less than an hour. I would recommend Chervenak, 2009 (PMID 19766414 or I can e-mail it) as a good and brief review of the skeptical position. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that there are two meanings for "bioidentical hormones". 1) hormones that are created to be or happen to be bioidentical and 2) hormone treatments marketed as bioidentical. Is that right? If so, the article should make that clear early on. Then it should not really go into 1) in much detail, because the detail will be covered anyway in hormone replacement therapy. It should deal with 2), and thus will necessarily reflect the mainstream sceptical view of these treatments. Hope that makes sense. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your view of the current POV of the article? Riverpa (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your view does indeed make sense which is why I have been trying to get some differentiation between the FDA-approved hormones, and the compounded hormones for some time now - I made this RfC [3] but no one commented. One of the previous editors declined to comment because there was so much POV-pushing going on in the article from before I arrived. I made a proposal to put most of the current text of the article under a heading Compounded BHRT, with the addition of another small section to cover the FDA-approved version, but WLU will not cooperate with that request, and won't let me edit the article significantly. In addition to the POV, I consider the article badly structured and in need of copyediting, yet any time I try to improve layout or style, it is soon revised back to what appears to me to be a badly written diatribe against compounded BHRT, without even explaining its basic concepts, much less its more radical concepts, which should be covered in this article. Some of this is indicated in Talk here. [4] You should understand that I am not a proponent of compounded BHRT, I simply think this article is not a good example of a NPOV informative piece, reflects poorly on WP, and is being propagated into the world under WP's aegis. Riverpa (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If the previous editor that declined to comment is User:SandyGeorgia, she does not say who is POV-pushing link, and both this and a previous comment suggests we should be editing according to WP:MEDRS - respecting secondary sources and the general scholarly opinion. The critical sources do not say "compounded BHRT is terrible, but if they just took away compounding and saliva testing everything would be great". There is never a statement in the critical sources that give a blanket endorsement to bioidentical hormones as superior to conventional hormones. There are many to say that BHRT should have the same risks and benefits as conventional HRT, and that CHRT has the benefit of being well-studied and tested. That section of the talk page is actually a pretty good indication of what I would consider to be the inappropriate push that is being made:

1. An insistence that we review individual bioidentical hormones (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)
2. That we use "The evidence for and against estradiol and progesterone" (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH again, as well as WP:MEDRS - specifically that we use secondary sources, which the page is primarily based on)
3. That we should use published reviews to counter statements by three different governing bodies (WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and more than a bit of WP:TRUTH)
4. That we should review evidence for different types of delivery mechanisms for specific risks like breast cancer (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)
5. That we should do the above because it is "the primary issue of concern to women" (WP:SOAP, WP:TRUTH, WP:UNDUE)
6. That the current article is "the majority view of the drug-company funded organizations" (WP:FRINGE, specifically the "conspiracy to silence" line - without specific, reliably-sourced statements that BHRT is being kept down by the drug companies, this objection isn't even worth discussing)
7. That we should not deal with compounding in great detail (Every critical source mentions compounding as a significant part of BRHT, WP:UNDUE)
8. That we should include "pro-compounding" (and apparently pro BHRT) sources (many if not most sources mention that compounding is unnecessary)
9. That somehow the current version doesn't include "high-quality reviews or studies, or statements from prominent organizations" (33 of the current 44 sources are to a peer-reviewed journal article or a statement by an authoritative body).

I see this as both non-negotiable (these changes would place far more emphasis on the clearly minority viewpoint that bioidenticals are superior to conventional hormones) and by using primary sources and ignoring secondary sources and statements by authoritative bodies the edits would lead towards an inappropriate conclusion that there is much merit to bioidenticals. There are lots of sources that deal with bioidentical hormones as a class, so there is no need (and we shouldn't anyway) build the page using primary sources about hormones that are not bioidentical. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and it's clearly verifiable that right now, BHRT is not seen as a good thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WLU, you are going to have to provide some diffs that show that I am asking for or claiming all of those things that you have listed above, because I believe that you have created most of them out of thin air. Riverpa (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And if you can't post the diffs, I think you should strike the comments immediately and consider why you are posting them. Riverpa (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, this is a article about a medical topic, therefore the most reliable sources are articles in the peer-reviewed literature and statements from major medical organisations, such as the CDC, NIH, AMA or NHS. To follow NPOV, editors cannot use their own interpretations of terms or select primary research articles from the literature, instead the article should accurately summarise the mainstream view put forward in secondary sources, preferably review articles written by experts in the field of endocrinology. The article may note a minority view put forward in less-reliable sources, such as the popular press or books published by reputable publishers, but such a summary should not be presented as to give it undue weight versus the majority view among experts in reliable secondary sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim, one of the greater issues we face is whether this is actually happening. Undue weight is certainly one of the trickier areas to navigate on wikipedia, requiring both an open mind, the ability to read and understand sources (subject expertise), and the willingness to let the sources decide the issues. As an experienced editor, I think the above nine points are obviously problematic. Equally obviously - there is disagreement and we are no closer to a permanent consensus version. I would be more concerned about my own edits if it were not for the tremendous ease with which I can find multiple citations to support the statements made. In fact, about the only non-problematic way to edit the page is to use three or four citations to support a single sentence.

Riverpa - the comments I made were based on Hillinpa's initial comments in the section you linked to: thus. It's not about you, it's about the page. At no point did I say "Riverpa is responsible for all these evils", my statement was that the section referred to (by you) was indicative of the problems with the page, and why they were problematic. It was added by Hillinpa in this edit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at those comments I think they do pose a problem, particularly the idea that Wikipedia should classify the topic into sub-sections such as "Pharmacy-Compounded Bioidentical Hormone Therapy" that are novel classifications. If expert reviews do not make such a distinction, neither should we. The core problem seems to be whether or not to classify estradiol and progesterone as part of "Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy". For this, just follow the sources - do expert reviews on bioidentical hormone replacement therapy discuss these compounds as part of this topic? If they do, so do we, if they don't, then neither do we. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim, that is the basis of the entire debate here - as can be seen on the majority of the talk page currently. I contend that the great majority of the sources differentiate between compounded bioidentical hormones, (usually explicitly, in their introductions), and the FDA approved variety, when they usually explain that their articles are about compounded hormones. And as they progress into their content, they usually drop the term compounded. Sources vary. Given that the term 'bioidentical' itself is contentious, FDA used to be quite specific in referring to compounded bioidenticals when they referred to them at all - now they do not ever use the term bioidentical. Cirigliano is consistent in referring to compounded bioidenticals throughout. A consumer oriented column from Mayo Clinic is the only source that does not use the term compounded. So if you pick and choose among sources and quotes, and do not refer to the context of a sentence, you can write the entire article without using the word compounded. I think that this in itself is POV, since most sources differ substantially in their treatment of compounded and manufactured bioidenticals. Given the confusion in terminology (which is well documented in many articles), I have pressed for a consistent usage of the term compounded throughout the article in referring to compounded hormones, to differentiate from the FDA-approved product. If multiple well-qualified sources do not agree, I feel the proper course should be more specificity. I do not know how else to resolve the issue. Riverpa (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Do any sources use the term "manufactured bioidenticals"? I can't find any. In the context of the topic of Bioidentical Hormone Therapy (BHT), the term "bioidenticals" seems to me to be used synonymously with "compounded bioidenticals", in that BHT is usually used to refer to this set of questionable practices. Essentially, BHT seems to be a marketing term. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

They tend to use the term FDA-approved, rather than manufactured. I used the term manufactured because, in reality, the compounded drugs are created from FDA-approved bulk hormones. BHT may have been co-opted as a marketing term for the alternative treatment, but bioidentical has been used in hormone packaging for years, and has come into common use as meaning identical to endogenous hormones, as seen on the NAMS website definition.

Just to give you a bit of background - as the article is currently structured, it primarily refers to a treatment methodology termed "Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy" or BHRT, popularized by Suzanne Sommers in her books, and now by Oprah. I have been advocating that the article reflect the dual use of the term. WLU writes on the Talk page "Bioidentical hormones" as molecules exist and are used, but "bioidentical hormones" as a set of unsupported claims, unnecessary compounding, unclear testing and an unethical marketing concept is what people are pissed off about and what most of the publications are about."

• • Point 1 of NPOV: I do not dispute the preceeding comment, however I still believe, that however marginal, the theory, basis of the treatment, and expected results of compounded BHRT deserve to be coherently explained in the article before they are criticized and condemned.
  • Point 2 of NPOV: However, if you look at the FDA-approved BHRT, there is no condemnation, there is some positive evidence, and I think that needs to be included, too.

WLU basically does not agree with either of these points, and edits the article against them. In order to reasonably include either of these points, the article would need some serious re-writing and re-structuring. I don't think that the content of the article should be guided by the content of best-selling books or what people are pissed off about, I think it should be guided by actual research. Many critical literature reviews were written in response to the popularity of the treatment method that uses compounded BHRT: as WLU says, people were pissed off, but that should not weigh against legitimate scientific inquiry into the bioidentical hormones. Riverpa (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to write about progesterone, estriol or estrodiol, then do so in these specific articles. However, I don't think it would be a good idea to, for example, cite a study on progesterone that doesn't mention bioidentical hormaone replacement therapy in the article on BHRT. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood, though that is kind of hard, given that the "Boothby table" has multiple items that refer only to the individual hormones progesterone, estriol, and testosterone (which is the only mention of testosterone in the entire article, though it used in BHRT compounding as that is the only way it can be dispensed for women, which I think should be mentioned in the article). Does that mean that the refs to individual hormones in the Boothby article need be deleted? Or is is more along the line of, if the reference article addresses compounding, and also individual bioidentical hormones, it it acceptable? Riverpa (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Boothby article is a secondary source aimed at summarizing and evaluating specific claims, made by specific individuals, about specific bioidentical hormones, within the context of the bioidentical hormone debate, in a way that addresses the evidence basis for these specific claims. Again, I'd refer interested readers to the Boothby article itself (e-mail me for a pdf copy). This article looks at whether the claims made for bioidentical hormones as a class are meaningful. That table could be replaced with a blanket statement of "bioidentical hormones are not better than nonbioidentical", but that's a bit to blunt and lacks nuance.

I've removed the testosterone bit, it does stand out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

However, the table and article both lack the Boothby (p 403) finding "Micronized progesterone and pregnane derivatives (Table 2; [23–26]) were not associated with an increased venous thromboembolism risk, whereas norpregnane derivatives (e.g., nomegestrol acetate, uromegestrol acetate; see Table 1; were associated with increased risk of thromboembolism (odds ratio (OR) 3.9; 95% CI 1.5–10.0). Thus, certain progestins are associated with increased cardiovascular risk, whereas pregnane derivatives and micronized progesterone neither increase nor decrease cardiovascular risk in the doses studied.", where the "certain progestins" are non-bioidentical and micronized progesterone is bioidentical (or as Boothby's table specifies, Structurally identical to human endogenous progestin). I don't think you should put in all the negative individual hormone findings and leave out the positive finding from the same reference, that is cherry picking. And I am not trying to get you to remove the testosterone listing, it is considered by some to be an integral part of the whole compounded BHRT treatment, as well as DHEA. I just need to know how these situations should be addressed going forward. Riverpa (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is about the neutrality or lack thereof of the overall page. This is a specific factual claim, and the above statement is more than a little problematic if read in context of the whole article (both Boothby and BHRT). I've replied here, but we should restrict the discussion here to NPOV questions. To address the situations moving forward, a referral to the main source with the full context is the best way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is going to take some time to get into shape, even assuming a reasonable level of co-operation between editors coming to it from very different viewpoints. First it has to start off with a much clearer explanation of what it actually is. I'm very confused by the way "compounding" is used for example. The linked article compounding is not in good shape either. Although I understand that "compounding" means basically processing items together in order to make a pharmaceutical product, I am not getting a clear explanation of whether BHRT is more compounded or differently compounded than conventional HRT. The basic explanation section is not going to be the easiest one to write, because the sources probably assume knowledge that you should not assume on the part of a WP reader. After that, I advise that you agree further subsections without POV-forking. In other words, absorb the criticism section into the rest. So that you go: "it supposedly does this (source), but apparently it doesn't (source)" throughout. (Unless of course there are some agreed points, when you will say "it does this (source, source)". Remember that the purpose of the encyclopedia is neither to promote nor to debunk, and stick to the scientific sources for the science, to news sources if you need news, e.g. about marketing. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

BHRT didn't exist before it started getting promoted as a miracle answer to the Women's Health Initiative study arm that indicated the use of hormone treatment for the relief of the symptoms of menopause increased the risk coronary heart disease, breast cancer, stroke and pulmonary embolism. Bioidentical hormones were siezed as an answer to these claims - advocates thought that the problems were caused by nonhuman hormones, not by hormones period. Bioidenticals were then launched as a whole package with a lot of marketing towards specific points - they're "natural"; they're "safe"; they're better than safe - you'll look younger, feel sexier and live better; and they're "customized" - this is where compounding and saliva testing comes in. Saliva testing is used to estimate levels of hormones in the body and which ones are "deficient" (which assumes an ideal level exists, and that the saliva tests are worthwhile - they aren't). Compounding is used so "customized" formulations can be created (based on tests). This is the main way that BHRT hit the public stage; the Wiley Protocol can be seen as an extreme microcosm of these issues. This whole package was highly criticized (witness the many sources on the page). Some promoters (Holtorf, Schwartz and Moskowitz) published articles (and popular books) saying that because bioidenticals are the same molecules as those produced in the body, they are inherently better; they also attempted to decouple bioidenticals from compounding and saliva testing. Most of the articles explicitly criticize compounding and saliva testing, some refine their criticism to focus on the research behind bioidentical molecules explicitly (and generally say "it's not tested, so there's no reason to think it's more effective than Premarin or other well-researched preparations, and by the way there's nothing to support the crazy claims about being a 20-year-old again). A very small number address claims specific to bioidentical hormones as molecules, not as a therapeutic package. But again, if you read the sources, it all comes down to a general convergence that BHRT isn't a panacea, it's expected to have risks, and there's no research- or results-based reason to believe they're any better than what's available on the market today. The end result is a lot of articles which state that there's no reason to believe the hype about bioidenticals (but nor is there a reason to conclude with certainty that they're bad either). What I think Hillinpa and Riverpa see as lacking on the page is a statement saying "bioidentical hormones stripped of compounding, saliva testing and hype is better". Well, none of the critical articles say that. A few noncritical articles make the claim, but a few critical ones also state that the research is problematic.

Regarding compounding specifically - any drug can be compounded to remove colourants or allergins for instance, or increase a dose, or turn a pill into a lozenge. Generally this is done rarely, by trained pharmacists, in response to specific needs (like allergies or difficulty swallowing), based on a prescription. BHRT took it a step further to say all BHRT should be compounded to "individualize" treatment. Critics responded that it adds to the expense, quality control is lower and there doesn't seem to be a need (or at least the question hasn't been studied). A couple point out that the high doses used can result in problems like endometrial hyperplasia, and when the FDA tested some compounded products they were way off in terms of potency and I think purity.

Compounding and BHRT are strongly conflated; there's justification in both conflating them, and criticizing the conflation because the don't need to be linked. BHRT doesn't need to be compounded, but based on what BHRT has meant in the past, it has been more compounded than CHRT.

I really urge anyone interested to actually review the source material - it's pretty accessible and illustrates the slippery point that was originally raised - is the article NPOV in being mostly critical, or fairly representing the scientific consensus? People criticize creationism for being NPOV, but is it really? That's a hard question to answer since it's not really a scientific issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Judith, I am working on an explanation of BHRT, I have done some work, though more needs to be put in. Here is a link to some text that describes BHRT history and methodology.[5] Please feel free to comment, I have started a section on the Talk page here [6] for that.

And PS, thank you for taking your time and energy to do this.Riverpa (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fairfax county public schools and Kilmer middle school

Both these articles have a section called " no physical contact policy".

I believe the article should stay as it was where it simply stated that there was a no contact rule policy. However, two editors want to add why the other side believes the rule should exist.

At first I was okay with this. But then they wanted to add more and more quotes "against the rule". The problem I have with this is that it becomes biased towards one side. Information is not presented that states why the rule is a poor rule( which the experts from CNN gave plenty of).

The article is a touchy subject( no pun intended)the same as apartheid or slavery would be. However, I don't think we would see coverage of why apartheid was good, now would we? Having a rule telling boys they can't shake hands or girls they can't hug is...?

68.119.67.94 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An Editor keeps adding one side of argument only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comment at Wikipedia:Editor assistance --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth_E._Hagin article

One line reads "Hagin chose not to litigate against these reckless and false claims, as would have been his right, as these claims were hearsay meant to damage him apart from a factual basis."

This is clearly biased. The article really needs to be cleaned up.

Philovino (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Supposed POV dispute at Iraq War

An editor has come to the Iraq War page and tagged it for neutrality on the grounds that "it makes the US and her allies seem like bad guys." No specific examples of NPOV language or sections, or undue weight have been listed. The editor has admitted to not reading the entire article. I've tried removing the tag until issues are listed, but another editor has replaced it on the grounds that "the neutrality has been disputed." Is there a policy specifying requirements for tagging? It seems to me that while two editors are simply replacing the tag through brute force and without listing any issues for editors wishing to remove the tag to work on, there is no way to get it removed and thus the article is permanently flagged for POV whether or not any issues actually exist. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad you asked: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Best practices in heavily monitored articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What about when no consensus can be reached as to whether or not there is an issue? This example being that exact situation. One editor says "article is POV." I removed the tag and said, "we need specific issues before we tag the article." Another editor said, "because the first editor said the article is POV, there is a NPOV dispute." And then a fourth agreed with me that specific issues were needed to justify the tag. In that case we have 2 for and 2 against the tag. Do we default to tagging or no tagging? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're supposed to explain to the editor why it's not in violation of NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely that's not so, you're suggesting that in the face of such arbitrary and unsupported persistence an editor's response must be to prove a negative. Furthermore, to do so for an article of hundreds of sentences, thoroughness would require proving that negative about every sentence, no? Wouldn't the onus be on the person(s) making the claim of POV in the first place? I'd say more than three solid examples in such a long article. I'm not suggesting the article is not POV, and I've certainly seen Wikipedia articles that are, I'm just being logical here. Abrazame (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)]]

Who said Wikipedia's rules were logical? AFAIK, this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and everyone's views are considered equally valid. If someone says there's a NPOV violation even without merit, then there's a POV dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If an editor doesn't specify exactly what is disputed there is no dispute. The guidelines are clear that it's the responsibility of the person placing the tag to explain why. Everyone's views are not considered equally valid. The statement, 'this is biased' has no validity whatsoever without evidence to support the assertion. People say 'this are biased' all over the place here. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"The guidelines are clear that it's the responsibility of the person placing the tag to explain why". Can you please cite the section of the policy or guideline that says such a thing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DRIVEBY and the template documentation. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to have no requirements for tagging. There would be nothing stopping bad faith editors from tagging any article with impunity. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Daily Mail

The BBC describes the Daily Mail as having "Political allegiance: Right-leaning with traditionally conservative values." Does saying this as the "political" aspect of the paper in the newspaper infobox make any imputation of political bias in its stories? One editor asserts "We should be very careful before accusing newspapers of political bias." Many thanks. Collect (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion: I think the problem here is that the word "bias" has a pejorative connotation ("accuse"), whereas those who align themselves with a given opinion may perceive this "bias" as "straightforward common sense". Yet the above BBC description is RS and is balanced in the article by the statement that the Mail itself considers the BBC leftist. I'd say statements such as "pro-fascist in the 1930s" and "anti-EU" accurately and reliably describe opinions that are normally categorised as "right-leaning". It leads us to expect a given slant on the world but is not an "accusation of bias" as regards any particular story, providing one does not say in wiki (as one might say in the world!) "but that's just the Mail" or similar. Obviously, a specific accusation or imputation of bias should only be made in a particular case by referring to a particular authoritative source-critical statement, preferably one dealing with that case. But please note, though I read the policy pages before answering, this statement is only a single opinion of a single humble user, and carries no further authority. To prove it, here's some OR. Last year I stopped by the library to give the local paper the two minutes it deserves. A fellow came to the table and asked "does anyone have the Mail?" After a long silence I said "nobody wants to admit it...." The round of laughter was gratifying and revealing, if inappropriate to the location. Hope this helps! Redheylin (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion: The political field of the Template:Infobox newspaper was created in order to identity newspapers that identified with a political party. Many newspapers were founded as organs for political parties although this has changed over time. Today newspapers are largely independant businesses, with some exceptions including radical publications. Most newspapers claim to be politically independant. While it is appropriate to discuss the political viewpoint of newspapers in their articles, it is not appropriate in the infobox. There is also a question whether the political field refers to editorial policy or news reporting. While the Daily Mail has been disparaged as a "Tory rag", it has in the past supported New Labour and claims no political allegiance. Use of this field has lead to major disputes over the New York Times and Wall Street Journal articles. I notice that this issue has been raised in many fora in the past although I have not participated. Perhaps Collect could provide us with further details because he appears to have participated in many of these discussions. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As I found no such basis in any discussion on the infobox for the assertion that the infobox was for newspapers only identifying with a particular party, and the Daily Mail use specifically does not so assert, I fear you may be inserting your own opinion rather than fact about that template. Indeed, I found no such assertions regarding the origins of that template. As for making personal comments about me, I find such a means of discussion objectionable and would ask you refactor such remarks. Collect (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Conservative" with a small "c" is not a party, neither is "right leaning". Four Deuces, if you have an equally RS source with a different "alignment" description, I'd suggest bringing it forward to the talk page. And you can also campaign to have the field removed, but this is not the right place for that. As things stand the field is standard and correctly filled in. Please contact me if I can help. Redheylin (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Protestantism in the Holy Land

Is "Holy Land" a universally accepted term for this territory or Protestantism in the Holy Land is a biased title/article? -- Marawe (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Used by Christians, Jews, Moslems -- seems ok to me. Collect (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the term is sufficiently widespread to be acceptable, though the Systemic Bias/Worldwide view guidelines recommend that the term be explained to the rest of the world (by linking to Holy land). It might have been clever to have avoided it in the title but it's done now. Suggest dreaming up other places readers may look and installing suitable redirects. More bothersome is that the article lacks context and possibly notability (decided minority) and contains only one further statement that is pretty loaded (Muslim mafia) and does not explicitly refer to Protestants. It might have been better to include the info in existing articles. I also note that all the refs are to other Wiki articles, which is unacceptable. The article may be deletable if these things are not corrected. There is already an article Palestinian Christians. Redheylin (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lots of issues here:

1. The article seems to refer to Palestine, not the "Holy Land" at large.
2. All the references are to other WP articles.
3. Seems to overlap an existing article (as Redheylin points out)
4. Meaning of Holy Land is not clear; the article Holy Land states that term is another name for Levant, Canaan, Land of Israel, and Promised Land.

I wouldn't know where to start fixing this one... AFD? T34CH (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD is not necessarily the most appropriate solution. Either stub it right down to the one or two things that aren't referenced to WP, or merge back into Palestinian Christians. If you tag it for merge and start a discussion then some editors may be able to expand it with references. But anyone could just boldly do the merge without a discussion. There must be info out there, e.g. names of churches and their leaders from the international websites of major Protestant denominations and churches. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it up like you suggested, and it looked so pathetic I redirected it to Palestinian Christians. T34CH (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why we are allowed boldly to merge. Someone can break it out of Palestinian Christians again at a later date if more material emerges. I'm sure you made the right decision for now. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Critical psychology attribution?

A few days ago I asked at the RS board if this article from this textbook was a RS for this edit. There was no objection, but the issue of attribution was raised.[7] Can I get some input on this before I take it to the talk page: Does the fact that this otherwise mainstream psychologist--educated at mainstream universities, taught at mainstream universities, published in mainstream journals--has one article in a textbook on critical psychology (suggested by the WP article to be anti-mainstream) mean that we need to attribute this source as a critical psychologist? I'm bringing it here first because of the highly contested nature of this article and the speed with which the edit was removed (twice). T34CH (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It was me that raised that, but I'm not an expert on either this psychologist or the field. I'd say that, since he is published in "Critical Psychology", on the face of it I think the attribution would be appropriate. However, if you can bring evidence that he is not, then OK.

From what I do know about this, Critical Psychology, although maybe it can be described as "anti-mainstream", is a generally respected school (ie the fact that the writer is well-qualified and has published in mainstream journals is not evidence against him being a Critical Psychologist). --FormerIP (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else? Does this need to be attributed to a Critical Psychologist? T34CH (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology. --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign Citizen Movement

As one who has edited this article in the past, my own neutrality may be questioned, so I'm requesting a sanity check. To me, this relatively brief text appears to be the last "neutral" or "impartial" version, while this next, much longer version seems to be cruft, highly partial to the SCM POV.

The edit summary makes a point of having multiple sources, but some are cited in a curiously uncheckable way. Example: text "according to the C.I.A. figures" is footnoted "Tim Turner of www.AmericaCanBeFree.com and curent Secretary of State for the newly formed Republic of the United States, Freedom Conference presentation, Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2009, Oakland, CA". Dubious source to cite for "CIA figures"; and where is the text of this presentation? Other cites-in-full include: "Redemption Method Handbook"; "Constitution of the united (deliberate lower case u) States of American" [sic]; "'The Creature from Jekyll Island'"; "'Bank Act'". (Google of course does not care whether "united" is capitalized; and "Bank Act" is just as uselessly vague.)

Would it be over-bold to remove this "sourced" text by simply reverting to that prior version? Would that fall afoul of our respect for references? Is any other forum more appropriate than here to ask? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to Dec 1 version. Riverpa (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate vs "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident "

The ongoing debate regarding the title of this article should be reviewed by neutral editors, and a consensus decision reached. It seems (to me) that the story centers on the content of the hacked emails and not the hacking itself. Thus although the term "Climategate" may be suggestive, it is more accurate and far better-known than the current title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmote (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there is absolutely no solid evidence that the emails were hacked, and the only anlysis I've seen is that the emails were probably collected together by the University probably in preparation for an Freedom of Information release - which for some reason did not happen until they were released by person(s) unknown. So even saying "Hacking incident" is very likely to be POV. I just checked an there are 23million google hits for "climategate". Personally, the only way I can find the article is by looking for "climategate" because the present title has no meaning at all, and is not the way I've seen any commentator refer to the scandal - and the whole point about the event is the the scandal in the emails. The mechanism of their delivery is totally almost completely irrelevant to the article. They could have been delivered by flying pig and the basic article would be the same (although I could provide a nice graphic!) Isonomia (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Inonomia is not a neutral person on this subject, and his opinion contradicts current policy and guidelines. As the article FAQ makes clear:

Article names are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality to satisfy Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. The use of "scandal" or "-gate" frequently implies wrongdoing or a particular point of view. Such terms are words to avoid and should not be used in article titles. Climategate is a redirect to this article, so users typing that in the search box will be directed here. You are not prohibited from proposing a rename, but renaming an article requires consensus. Proposals to rename the article to "Climategate" have consistently been rejected in the course of multiple discussions.

Reliable sources support the idea that the term is inherently biased. One source, Time magazine, noted the distinction: "Skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud, refer to the incident as "Climategate," with obvious intimations of scandal and cover-up. Advocates of action on warming call it "Swifthack," a reference to the 2004 character attacks on presidential candidate Senator John Kerry by the group then known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — in other words, an invented scandal propagated by conservatives and the media that does nothing to change the scientific case for climate change."[8] Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the dispute over naming the incident should be covered the same way as any other dispute - by summarizing what reliable sources have to say on the topic. This source actually spends its first paragraph or two talking about dueling names for the incident, and might be a useful starting point. The name of the article itself seems somewhat less important, since I assume redirects are in place and anyone looking for it, by whatever name, will find it. I'd be more interested in a neutral, well-sourced treatment of the dispute over naming the incident. I guess I'd throw out a few additional suggestions, since "hacking" seems to be a bit controversial; you could try "Climatic Research Unit email controversy", for instance... MastCell ^Talk 00:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no real controversy in reliable sources about hacking; it's been described in those or similar terms by the police and the university, and it's being investigated by Scotland Yard's e-crimes (i.e. anti-hacking) unit. A few bloggers and op-ed columnists have speculated about "whistleblowers" but there is no indication of this from anything said by the parties involved - i.e. the police and the university - that this was anything other than a hack. The RealClimate website was also hacked, which has been described in some detail by one of the website's administrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, beyond speculation by some bloggers (and sadly, on Wikipedia, too, though we're supposed to know better than that), there is no suggestion of another explanation of the incident than hacking. To state that use of the word "hacking" is controversial is to ignore what all the reliable sources are saying--as well as what they are not saying. --TS 12:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with TS and ChrisO. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) The use of the term "Climategate" is restricted to a group of people who believe that the e-mails provide evidence that climate change science is a hoax. Since that point of view has not gained wide acceptance, the name "Climategate" is not neutral. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we should stick to the neutral and supported name of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident per CO, TS, TFD, etc. Verbal chat 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not in support of changing the name to Climategate, but I cannot let the above two statements stand unchallenged. It is categorically false to claim that the term is only used by those who think climate change science is a hoax. A simple Google News Search will identify its use in hundred of newspapers, virtually all of which reject the notion of a hoax. Second, it is false to claim that the current title is neutral and supported. There is quite strong disagreement over the inclusion of “hacking” though I’m not one of them, and quite strong disagreement that the title should refer to e-mails, given that a substantial portion of the material was other than e-mails. Various attempts to find better terminology have failed, in large part because no one alternative achieved significant acceptance, but the sheer number of attempts belies the claim that the current title is both neutral and supported. I’m not proposing that anything need be done at this time, but I don’t want the record to erroneously conclude that the lack of a change is because the existing term is neutral and supported.SPhilbrickT 17:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the term "Climategate" is inappropriate for the article and that the term is used only by AGW skeptics, but accept WP policy in the matter. I believe that (after contentious debate) consensus is forming on a new, more neutral, article title. Nightmote (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell's assessment of the situation. We should be following reliable sources in determining the article's title. The simple fact is that overwhelming majority of reliable sources on this topic are focusing on the e-mails, not the initial hacking. As for "Climategate", per WP:AVOID, "-gate" is a word to avoid. "Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy" is probably the best name we can come up with. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Inhofe

There is a current dispute on the Jim Inhofe page which has resulted in full protection of the article. The issues at hand appear to be inherently revolving around WP:NPOV arguments. See the discussion at and around [9].

I believe that the POV template {{POV}} should be placed on this article until such time as the dispute is resolved. What do others think? --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Jim Inhofe#Aviation should be significantly expanded. (Probably not what y'all are arguing about though.) -Atmoz (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For reference, Jim Inhofe, is more than likely up to his armpits in the shit stirring of climategate, so there is likely a connnection between this and the climategate referral above. Isonomia (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

IN Page

The Indian Navy page has been reverted by user:Bilcat. The agreed upon term that was in use was decolonization, is it possible to use non-controversial terms other than invasion or liberation in the page? Or why not just use the operations name?Bcs09 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the article neutral?

Comments are solicited here. The article is fortunately referenced almost entirely to linked Google Books, so it should be easy to read the sources and see if they are being properly represented, or in a biased way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Confused about flagged page

Resolved

I've added mostly third party references to Gamma Rho Lambda's article, but I'm confused if I need to remove ALL self-published references (there are 4 of them out of 13). If so, do I remove all content as well that is taken from the organization's website?

Also, I'm confused about the notability issue on the flagging. Is there a way to resolve that now that the dead links and additional resources have been added, or does it just get reviewed in time? I realize this isn't the place to get feedback on that, but I'm not sure where to ask.

I've also created a Talk section for the topic: Talk:Gamma Rho Lambda

Cindy B. (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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

This article appears to be being used by some people as a tool to attempt to further their own views and opinions. There is an apparent bias towards the "Knox is a poor innocent American girl abroad" view and tendency to derogate the Italian legal system and certain of it's officials. Evidence for this situation can be seen in the article's talk page.

I feel that this article is obviously very emotive for certain sections of society and would benefit from the attentions of editors well versed in projecting a neutral (or at least balanced) point of view. Such a revision would stand a good chance of being respected and accepted by all and prevent any tendency for an edit war to occur. rturus (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article appears unbalanced but would add that this bias is evident in both directions, depending on which section you're reading. There are also a number of factual errors including misrepresentations of some of the cited references that undermine the credibility of the article, on the whole. Given the emotions surrounding this case someone really needs to address this as well as the over-reliance on conflicting news sources rather than official records. -christaltips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christaltips (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Frank Chopp

The article Frank Chopp, about Washington State's Speaker of the House, is under attack by an editor who insists on inserting extreme POV attacks.

I have tried to restore some semblance of neutrality, but this person keeps putting it back (and accusing me of BEING Frank Chopp, in the body of the article, which is ridiculous). For instance, he continually changes his occupation from "Community Organizer" (Chopp has worked for a Seattle non-profit social services agency for 30 years) to "Developer", which is simply not true. He also continually refers to the Building Industry Association of Washington as "extreme right wing", which also isn't true; they're pro-development, and can certainly be criticized for that, but not in this article! The editor is obsessed with Chopp's position on the Alaska Way Viaduct replacement plan. I don't know how to do more to stop this POV stuff. Help! \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 21:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fnarf999, I have worked on re-writing the article to stop the NPOV problem. However, do understand the BIAW *is* extreme right wing. Please read the BIAW article.  kgrr ^talk 14:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not "extreme right wing". They are extreme pro-development, which is not the same thing. They support both Republicans and Democrats; that's not right-wing. They have never as far as I know taken a position on any of the social-values "hot button" issues, such as abortion rights, same-sex marriage, welfare, health care, drug decriminalization, public display of Christian symbols, ad infinitum. That's not right-wing. They ARE absolutists on the subject of development: anything that helps the construction industry in any way is good, anything that hurts it in any way is bad. That's anti-environmentalist to be sure, but it's not right-wing. If you made a list of positions that qualify as "right wing", they would get a checkmark on exactly ONE of them. They're doing exactly what one would expect them to do: applying special-interest pressure as strongly as they can. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The wedge issues you mention are not the definition of "right wing". Certainly the BIAW gets checkmarks next to economic freedom, property rights, free markets, free trade and full-fledged laissez-faire economics. Where do they stand on political reform? for change or for status quo? They certainly don't want Retro reform or Election reform. Which checkmark do they get for pro / anti union? Anti-union. Taxation policies? Low taxation. A collection of individuals or a society? A collection of individuals, etc, etc. Who are the candidates they are electing? Right wing candidates. Certainly they don't stand behind pro-development Democrats, but fund campaigns of the Republican instead. Certainly builders want to make a good profit on selling a home. But the BIAW is against public schools. Having good schools is essential for good property values. Pro-development or Pro-conservative?  kgrr ^talk 02:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ferrihydrite

The third paragraph on the article dedicated to ferrihydrite is a blatant break of the neutral point of view rules by the editor, Alain Manceau. This paragraph describes his work on this matter and the evidence in its favour is overblown. The final sentence 'A new structural model was proposed in 2007[17], but shown to be incorrect.[18][19][11]' is not at all the case. There is still much debate in the scientific literature on the structure of this phase and the model proposed by Michel et al (ref 17) is seen by many as a viable alternative to the so called 'standard model'. Wikipedia is not the forum for this kind of debate and for the editor to make it sound like the issue is settled is nothing more than propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81Rich (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor not allowing sourced, scholarly information that goes against her thoughts on race

• CreativeSoul7981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - She has also been removing a paragraph from the Semitic article describing how Northern Semites and certain Indo-Europeans (Iranians, Armenians, Kurds) share some genetic similarities that indicates a common ancestry because (as she said in the talk page) "Most Iranians, all Kurds, Armenians, etc. NOT Semitic." In the talk page for the article She brings up that 1 of the 28 professors that is present in only 1 of the 3 studies cited had a completely different paper rejected as justification to remove a section still well sourced by the other two studies. She has yet to bring any sources that tie genetics (what the sourced section is about) with culture (what she has otherwise been using to justify removal of the Semitic para) to the point were cultural studies would trump genetic studies. Also, in the Magi article, she was removing the line "It is, therefore, quite likely that the sacerdotal caste of the Magi was distinct from the Median tribe of the same name" without providing any thing to counter the source it comes from (an Oxford scholar). She claims the sentence is "inflammatory." In the talk page, she did bring in two sources: one was about the three wisemen, included quotes from Marco Polo, and really didn't have anything with the subject (it was about 1500 years too late); the other was a new-age website. In the talk pages, she has also gone on a bit about how she is descended from Iranian Zoroastrians and how Zoroastrianism is related to Christianity (when those have no bearing on the subject). While an editor's ancestry and religion should not be an issue, he refuses to allow certain scholarly findings into the Magi and Semitic article that do not justify her idea of Iranian racial and cultural purity. Removing info that doesn't justify one's personal views on race is not NPOV. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see what you mean. The user challenges one source and it is worth addressing that. I know it was a different article that was the subject of criticism in Nature, but this is highly unusual and may cast a shadow over the scholar's other work. And he was the lead author of the source being questioned. Do you actually need that source? I see two other academic sources supporting the same point. You may want to raise the issue at RSN. On the user's general approach, I think you need to continue to assert, politely but firmly, that we are not interested in her own ethnic origin and we don't want to read long personal outflowings on talk pages. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Henrik Svensmark - Undue weight

The excessive linking to the Real Climate blog, supported as a RS by User:William M. Connolley raises the concern of undue weight. In total there are 4 references to Real Climate sources in the article, of which only one is peer reviewed. The other 3 are granted their own section - "Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays" - as the last word in the article and are blog posts. This also leaves the user with the impression that there is a consensus against the subject of the article when, in fact, it is only two authors who collaborate on the RC blog.

Redacted: User:William M. Connolley a core member of the RC blog - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/william-m-connolley/ - I'm not sure I understand how someone can vouch for their own blog in this manner, which is why I brought it up here.

The article does quite well in my reading, without the disputed section, of informing the user of the debatable nature of the subject's work and conclusions.

Arnold.A.D. (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the blog. I *was* a member of the blog [10]. You need to argue this on its merits William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

William, the link - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/william-m-connolley/ - does not make it clear that you have cut ties to the site, at least, not in my reading. As linked on your talk page - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/goodbye-to-all-that/ - I no longer take issue with your association with RC and will happily withdraw that assertion from my complaint if allowed. I do think the link I posted to on RC could be made clear that you are not currently working with that site, it comes up on a cross-reference, your goodbye post does not. I can assure you that this error was made in good faith.

I have updated the title and italicized the redacted section of my original inquiry. I still believe the section in question gives undue weight to the RC blog postings, especially when the same source is already referenced earlier in the article. Arnold.A.D. (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, but with the RC association issue put to bed we might want to consider just moving this over to the discussion page. Your thoughts? Arnold.A.D. (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henrik_Svensmark#Recent_Warming_But_No_Trend_in_Galactic_Cosmic_Rays if you'd like to discuss Arnold.A.D. (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kent Hrbek

There appears to be an issue here regarding the infamous play made during the 1991 World Series between Hrbek & Gant. User User Talk:Marlin1975 (with whom I've having a hard time continuing to assume good faith, as he appears to be following my edits since he lost an argument over on the FOX News Channel article) is claiming that I am attempting to push a particular point of view by insisting that the article reflect the official scoring decision of Major League Baseball, rather than the Atlanta fan decision that Hrbek lifted Gant off the bag. If you look at the edit history, you will see that my edit contained the phrase "controversial play", and gave the sides of the issue, and even his primary reference contains the phrase "And, in what appeared to be a pretty nifty move -- for wrestling -- Hrbek seemed to..." lift Gant, and so on. That source works fine for the official decision as it contains the fact that Coble called him out. His secondary source is an opinion piece on ESPN regarding how good the series was, and has one sentence regarding the issue - but no facts. In order to avoid 3RR I'm bring the issue here.
How should an encyclopedic article portray this issue: As a controversial play but from the point of view of the final decision? Or should it present the view from the point of view of the team that the call went against? To me, that's pretty simple - an encyclopedia goes with the official scoring decision and allows for the fact that it was controversial. Rapier1 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems the reason the incident can even be sourced is that it was controversial, that Gant was called out but (presumably) shouldn't have been. So saying he was called out should not be a problem, and describing the opinion that he shouldn't have been shouldn't be either, especially if that opinion is widespread (can be sourced well). That said, the current wording in the Hrbek article is quite nonencyclopedic. I would drop the "Fans may remember..." phrase, and the commentators' weight analysis altogether. I would much prefer a neutral opinion, sportscasters say, than fan opinion about the call, even if fan opinion can be sourced (think about it, how often do fans think their team got the raw end of a call?) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Half of the REFs for this one say Gant was lifted. These REFs are not from a Atlantas newspaper and/or fan but one is even a NYTIMES piece done the day after the event, and even the commentators at the game saw it the same way. To say it happened like mr jedi likes to phrase it would be inserting his POV which by looking at his edits is very common. --Marlin1975 (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and look here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Minnesota_Twins#Kent_Hrbek Looks like Jedi Rapier1 is trying to get others to jump in here from the Minn. Twins section. Even calling my a Atlanta fan. Kinda funny, guess I should burn my nationals hat and move south. :) It just shows he only wants his POV in there and not the facts that are listed in 50% of the REFs. The 4th REF was not a BLOG/Opinion site as he seems to want to lead to but from a reporter... "Jim Caple is the national baseball writer for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer" --Marlin1975 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I actually let the usergroup that focuses on this area know about the discussion and asked for "any input". That's definately a sign of "inserting POV". Since you are making it a habit of commenting on the editor, as opposed to the edit, I'll point out that you seem to have a history of edit warring, even to the point of being banned at one point. It appears to me that because you lost a single argument you are now focused on following my edits and trying to raise any issue you can. This also appears to be habitual behavior for you. Again, I'm putting in the "point of view" of Major League Baseball. This wasn't an issue where instant replay can decide the call, it's purely judgement by the closest umpire, and that judgement was that Gant would have been out due to forward progress, not that Hrbek pulled him off the bag. If you want to make a page for the "Kent Hrbek - Ron Gant Controversy of the 1991 World Series", that might be a better place to add all this detail. For that matter, it should be edited to show on Ron Gant's page that it "appeared" that Hrbek pulled Gant off the base, not that he "did". The only opinion that matters is Drew Cobel's, he made up his mind 18 years ago, and trying to rewrite history now to indicate otherwise is editing in bad faith, period. Rapier1 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This discussion is so toxic that I think y'all ought to head over to mediation. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. How about it Marlin, would you agree? Rapier1 (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

POV problems

I want to know what to do when an article has been hijacked by a group of people who are using it to promote their political interests and using numbers to disregard the guidelines of Wikipedia in regards to pov, unverified claims and third party publications.

The tenants of the article Persian people and it's Pov fork Persian speakers of Iran are based on unverified and false claims that are contradictory to third party publications such the CIA Factbook, the UNHCR, the Joshua project and countless other Iranian publications. All sources that contradict this scheme is simply ignored or suppressed,

Some of the unverified claims included:

• “The Persian peoples emerged as an eclectic collection of groups with the Persian language being the main shared legacy”

• “Numerous dialects and regional identities emerged over time”

The main function of the article is to deny, distort and dilute the ethnic designation of the Persian people by making a series of unverified claims and exploiting the fact that the Persian language was used by several different ethnic groups thus diluting the Persian ethnic identity by lumping Tajiks and Hazaras into the article, despite the fact that the aforementioned groups have their own article that refutes the claims that they are Persians.

Persians like several ethnic groups are not an ethno-linguistic group as their native tongue is not used exclusively by them. According to the 2007 report by the Organisatin Internationale de la Francophonie, an estimated 115 million African people speak across 21 Francophone African countries can speak French as either a first or a second language. But no third party publications consider those Africans as ethnically French.

Other factors must be weighed in when considering the collective identity of non-ethnolingustic groups such as culture, heritage and identity.

I have tried to edit the article but the interest group used editing warring and socked puppery to prevent all edits from lasting.

Danz23 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Building Industry Association of Washington

Appears to have some substantially non-neutral statements in it, and uses what appears to be editor opinion concerning the organization in the wording of section names and in the use of "counter-balancing" section content. It also makes claims about legality of actions which have not even been the subject of any lawsuit. I marked the worst sections for POV, but this appears to be a difficult case (see the Talk page to see editorial POV).

Examples of section titles: "Anti-union" "Anti-public schools" " Anti-tax on builders" "Anti election reform" "Anti Retro-reform".

Examples of "blancing statements" include "BIAW has put proposals before the Washington State Building Code Council to remove the mandatory statewide fire sprinkler requirement for new homes.[30] On the other hand, the United States Fire Administration in their position paper states that sprinklers should be required: It is the position of the U.S. Fire Administration that all citizens should be protected against death, injury, and property loss resulting from fire in their residence. All homes should be equipped with both smoke alarms and automatic fire sprinklers, and all families should have and practice an emergency escape plan. The USFA fully supports all efforts to reduce the tragic toll of fire losses in this nation, including the proposed changes to the International Residential Code that would require automatic sprinklers in all new residential construction.[31]." "The BIAW is Washington state's biggest lobby against climate change, open space, and other environmental legislation. The group's newsletter has gone so far to equate environmentalists with terrorists." And so forth.

I believe that this article needs strong looking at for POV problems. Collect (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Research (journal)

This article is ostensibly about a scientific journal, but 2/3 of its content is devoted to a scientific controversy, which seems very coatracky to me. There is disagreement on whether to remove it. --TS 12:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've written most of the article, as I said on the talk page there doesn't appear to be much else to write about this journal other than the controversy surrounding one paper that was published in it and I believe that it is written from a WP:NPOV. It seems absolutely essential for this to be included in the article and for it be neutral I think that as much information needs to be included as possible. I've looked at WP:COATRACK and can't really see how it applies, looking at what is not a coatrack it looks like the present article is at least fairly reasonable. I would of course welcome any further information that could be added about the journal, I've looked myself but can't find anything except for information about this one paper. Just in case no-one noticed this is related to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Smartse (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the article informative and it helped me know more about CR. Yes, it needs filling out with more details to balance the incident described, but to remove it is patently absurd. ► RATEL ◄ 15:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If the scientific controversy merits an article, it might be better to produce an article specifically on that subject. If it doesn't, perhaps a section on Global warming controversy might be merited. I don't think we should remove all reference to this controversy, which resulted in half the editorial board walking out and the publisher eventually repudiating the paper in question. But 2/3 of the article ostensibly about one subject should not be devoted to a single related subject. --TS 15:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The controversial article is already mentioned at Sallie Baliunas#Controversy over the 2003 Climate Research paper. I would shorten the discussion in the CR article and provide a link to the Baliunas article. Meanwhile the article should contain more information about CR. Most publications have had controversies of this nature. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the NPOV noticeboard -- and the article appears reasonably neutral. It is not up to us, but to the editors working on the article, to determine how many words on any given topic in the article, but it does not have a POV problem. Collect (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It most emphatically is up to use to decide how much weight to give to a topic in an article. That is very much why this noticeboard exists. If I wrote a 400-word article about the British Royal Family and included in it a 300-word discussion of the theory that Princess Diana was murdered, tht would be undue weight, and would constitute a violation of the neutral point of view policy, even if the treatment of every single item was absolutely neutral. Weight does matter. --TS 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore - Many found refuge in the National Guard or Reserves.....

My comment is regarding the article on Al Gore's decision to join the military. There is a quote from The Washington Post that is being taken as fact. If using this quote, you should preface it with, "one controversial view, demonstrated in an opinion article from The Washington Post..."

I take great issue with the assertion that someone volunteering to serve their country in the National Guard or the Reserves is seeking "refuge" from service. This is not only an ignorant statement; it is also insulting to all military veterans. I was active duty but I have many friends who served in the guard and reserves. Many of our troops in the guard and reserves have served bravely in combat, defending our country and deserve our respect. It would appear the author is taking a shot at former President George W. Bush because he chose to serve in the National Guard rather than be drafted, but in attacking Bush the author has insulted all military veterans. I find this extremely offensive.

It may be useful to indicate what article you are referring to. --FormerIP (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

knowing what article would be very helpful in fixing the problem you are referring to, but as a general statemeent you could not be more correct. Attempting to claim that anybody that volunteered for National Guard or Reserve service as "attempting to find refuge from service" is a blatant insult to hundreds of thousands of soldiers. That type of wording has absolutely no place in any civil discourse, much less an encyclopedia. Rapier1 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends, Rapier. It could be in a useful quotation, or be representative of a POV relevant to the article, for example. Also I'm not American, so I don't wish to cause offense. But explain two things: (1) is it the case that some avoided the Vietnam draft by joining the National Guard or Reserves? (2) If so, why is it wrong to call this "taking refuge"? --FormerIP (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) saying that someone joining the guard is "taking refuge" is like saying someone joining the Coast Guard is "taking refuge". You are not "taking refuge" when you volunteer to serve your country. Moving out of the country to avoid being drafted is "taking refuge".

I think, though I'm open to counterarguments, that simply using "avoided Vietnam" vs. "taking refuge" would be accurate and less POV. It's a known that joining the National Guard was a relatively easy way to avoid service in Vietnam (this is no longer the case since the U.S. started using Guardsmen in overseas actions, but it was true at the time when the draft provided sufficient manpower to avoid tapping the Guard). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The section being talked about appears to be Al Gore#Vietnam War and journalism. The phrase "took refuge" is in a sourced quotation, so it wouldn't be correct to alter it. You could rephrase the whole thing, I suppose, but this would probably end up quite awkward, and I think using the actual quote is usually better, because faithfulness is guaranteed. To my mind, if you have two options and you take the one that doesn't involve a high risk of death or serious injury, then "taking refuge" is not an unfair discription. So I don't think there's any NPOV issue here at all. Or, at least, if there is one it should be taken up with the Washington Post rather than WP. --FormerIP (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Context is everything. I was able to find that this was in artile Al Gore It says... "Some took refuge in the National Guard or the reserves, options that might save them from Vietnam. A few resisted, became conscientious objectors or left for Canada." In that context I do not see a problem as its in a place that is talking about Vietnam and is using it in correct context. Now that same line outside of that area I would also say should change, but for this page I think it is fine. --Marlin1975 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To the comment on 16:57, 17 December 2009, nobody has suggested altering the sourced quotation. The problem is the quotation is from an opinion piece about Al Gore. The quotation is not preceded by a statement that this is opinion, so the reader is to take this statement as an agreed upon fact. It is not agreed that joining the National Guard/Reserves during the Vietnam War was “taking refuge”. Actually, this assertion is found incredibly offensive by most Americans who have served in the military. I sincerely request that this quotation be removed, replaced or add a preface to it, i.e. “one opinion regarding Al Gore’s decision is…”

But the quote doesn't offer an opinion about Gore's decision, it just tells us that it was an unsual one for his peer-group. The quote is attributed, so there is no suggestion that it is agreed-upon (assuming there is anything in it to agree or disagree about). --FormerIP (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I question why this entire section is in the article at all. I'm no fan of Al Gore, but is it really necessary to go into such detail as to why or why not he was to go into the military? Seems like undue weight given to a particular episode to me. Simply state that "Like many people of his generation he questioned the validity of the Vietnam war, but eventually chose to serve..."blah blah blah. The same references could be used, and if people want to delve into these issues they are free to read them. Rapier1 (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but that should be discussed on the article talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Something Awful

It would be helpful if uninvolved editors would take a look at Something Awful. This page is about a website, and the page seems to be edited mainly by editors who are members of that website, and who may, perhaps, be hostile to material that does not have a positive POV. I have been criticized at that website, so I probably have a POV of my own, and so it would be good if editors who are neutral could take a look at the page with fresh eyes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Government in Exile - Taiwan/ROC

Does it violate WP:NPOV to describe the ROC as a government in exile, rather than noting the complicated debate over sovereignty in terms of the political status of Taiwan? Ngchen (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Its straight forward according to WP:NPOV "describe the ROC as a government in exile" according to whom? And in case there are any conflicting perspectives it needs to say "ROC is not a government in exile" according to...? Regarding governments in exile in general than most often its the best to list by whom the government in exile is recognized and by whom not. Its because only the word "government in exile" refers to an existence of 2 governments where both of them are in a dispute over the legitimacy of the governance of the disputed territory. And WP:NPOV just requires that you describe this dispute, not engage in it.--Termer (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Female Dominance/Femdom Page

I believe that the Female Dominance article, especially the content under "Misconceptions about femdom," is very biased and lacking in inline citations so sources are unclear in the first place. It seems to devote unnecessary amount of attention to the supposed risks of this activity, one of them being dependency on this activity for arousal--which can be said of any specific sexual activity, even "normal" ones. It's not clear how scientifically "abnormal" femdom is because the only thing in the current DSM that matches is Sadism, but that is only considered as a diagnosis if the presence of urges bothers the sufferer or interferes with her/his life. When it comes to male dominance, especially with regards to sex, no one thinks it abnormal in the least. I call bias. Thanks and sorry if I was too wordy this is my first post. '_'; --BunnyCatz (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added NPOV and Unencyclopedic tags. not really my field of expertise, so I don't know what I can do to improve it (save remove some of the more obvious psychologisms). I suspect it will be a hard article to balance: there won't be a lot of middle ground between the people who want to demonize it and the people who want to exalt it. --Ludwigs2 09:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Armond White

Armond White is being used as an example of an "opposing" critic in multiple film articles. When we have so many film critics to rely upon, I'm curious why White, a critic known for his bizarre, contrarian, and even trollish POV (according to Ebert) is acceptable to use as a typical opposing view. White's views are often extreme and out of step. Shouldn't our opposing critical views best represent the most authoritative opposing views on the subject? In other words, why are we relying on White to represent this view? For example, if most opposing critical views say that a particular film fails because the acting was poor or the directing lacked focus, or the story was weak, why should we rely on White, who will often say something strange like "This film is terrible because the white man feels guilty for his imperialist crimes." Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Using such a person as a source for "opposing views" opens the door for a question as to whether such a single person is though multiple articles thus having undue weight given his opinions. I would suggest that, given his reputation, that his opinions then fall into the "fringe" exception regarding RS. If any other negative opinion about a film, but from a less fringe source, can be found, then substituting the less fringe view would be superior. NPOV only requires that we try to present negative opinions, not that we present fringe ones as dominant. Collect (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, but the problem is complex, because, as a result of these strange, but unique views, it becomes possible to argue for their inclusion! White's film criticism is so "unique" he often generates media coverage. For example, White received a lot of buzz when he tried to give District 9 (2009) a negative reivew, and a mild controversy erupted with Ebert. Now, with Avatar, White is doing it again. By writing off-the-wall reviews, White receives notability, while standard, opposing reviews go unnoticed. So what is happening here is that we are including "fringe" reviews only because they are notable for being...fringe. It's a great marketing concept, but where do we draw the line? How many articles will we have where White represents the opposing, contrarian view, when all we really need is a conventional "negative" review? I don't know the answer to this problem. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dies not require including outre reviews -- just that where negative reviews exist, that a representative negative one be cited. Nor does RS require that fringe sources be granted special status for inclusion. Collect (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but someone can easily argue that it is a significant view that received notable coverage due to its controversy. My point is that this is true of many of White's reviews, and seems to be the only reason for inclusion. The real question then becomes, what kind of review should film articles seek to represent? I suppose this question lies outside the scope of this page. On a similar note, Rex Reed has gotten in trouble due to some strange reviews as well, but do we consider him outre? Where do we draw the line? What is a representative negative review? Can we find one? I'm questioning my own questions, that's all. I don't see any easy answers to this. On the one hand, we can label White as outre, but then what about Reed? Where do you draw the line? Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A review used with regard to a film is included not because the review has attracted attention from others, but only for the opinions expressed in the review. The fact that a review has been covered by others does not increase the value of opinions expressed in it -- the review is not giving facts about an article, but it is only allowed in order to state that a particular person (the reviewer) has a specific opinion, thus notoriety for the reviewer has no reasonable basis for making his review more necessary for any article. I would suggest that the Rottentomatoes usage for its major reviewers provides a clue here. I would use it to locate what appears to be a representative negative review from a major reviewer as a first step (the review is what would be cited -- RT is only a tool to find reviews categorized as positive or negative). Collect (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular editor pushing Armond White's reviews? One could object to his reviews on the grounds they are fringe and possibly self promotional especially if a discernible pattern develops. Other editors should understand. Lambanog (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Perennial critics should be treated as WP:WEIGHT would warrant their opinions. If they are being cited in other third-party sources as representative views, then they can be used. If, however, they are just being included in Wikipedia articles to attain "balance", it should be noted that WP:NPOV is not about "balance". The term "balance" was actually removed from our policy on neutrality some years back. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

List of nu metal bands

The article List of nu metal bands was previously tagged for being heavily derived from a singular source. I've also found that several sources don't back up what the editor who added them claims that they back up. I've repeatedly removed several inclusions which are backed up by misrepresented sources and have sources which state that they are not a part of the genre that is the subject of this list, but the editor who added these bands has repeatedly added them back to the article, claiming that the sources are not misrepresented. One example, an Allmusic review is a clear example of misrepresentation, as it does not actually state that the band reviewed is a part of the genre. Several times, the same citation is used for multiple bands when it only refers to one band, owing to the fact that the person who added these citations did not pay attention to add the chapters that actually referred to the bands in question, or, more likely, did not even look at the sources claimed at all. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

That argument is somewhat let down by the inclusion of the relevant page numbers for the book you're referring to, of course. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As stated, several citations repeat for the wrong chapter in reference to multiple bands when the chapter only refers to one band. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Paid Editors

I am not a wiki-editor, it has taken me a while to grasp the complexities of the rules and systems. From what I have seen today I am unlikely to contribute as I now convinced that there is a systemic problem with WP itself being edited by those who are well resourced and co-ordinated enough to promote a non neutral, mainstream POV.

In this instance[11], there are what I consider to be heavy enough voices in five continents repeating the conflict of interests (Business Standard, The Australian, Times of India (publish his public renouncement of the claim), India Express, China Views, The Telegraph, Canada Free Press) and the fact the conflict is raised this time by Monckton and Fielding appears to be used as a diversionary tactic by these people.

If one takes the time to look a little closer it appears that they are editors with the resources to generate 1000's of (often well considered) edits per month that promote a POV which is clearly aligned with the so called 'normal' views punted by the mainstream media. A identifiable variety of tactics are used to revert and discredit views and if one tactic fails another is used until the required POV is expressed. I cite my edit today, where ChrisO misuses the BLP rule but is rapidly supported by another editor using a different tactic.

Other examples numerous and widespread. On the topic of anthropogenic climate change, the battle to mention the term 'Climate gate' let alone call the article by its more popular title. Again the 'normal' POV is promoted by the misuse and apparent promotion of the term 'hacking' (over the more accurate AND neutral term 'cracking') and please note that 'hacking' is used even whilst there is *no evidence* of actual 'cracking' yet (which most significantly leaves the possibility of the email release being whistle-blowing rather than criminal).

I am most distressed by this this threat to WP neutrality on important current issues and pray that WP can find a way to cure what appears to be a systemic problem. I can only hope that the WP foundation takes note of the tens of thousands of editors who have already left in protest this year due to this problem and that this problem is widely publicised and that as a result WP:Foundation strive to find a rapid solution so that good editors can edit without having to do battle with those that *somehow* have the resources to promote their own agenda.

I am a keen FOSS advocate and love that WP came out of the Free Software meme. I share your vision of access to the sum of human knowledge. However I cannot think of a solution and wonder what you think. 94.168.189.5 (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)