The article and its reference were first inserted into the article on August 20, was removed from the article on August 21, was added back to the article by an IP, then removed removed, and then added back to the article on August 22, after which a tag for a better source being needed was added.
On August 22, a discussion was opened on the article talk page. There has not been any closing summary of the discussion added yet, though based on my read through it, it didn't look like a consensus was achieved to include the disputed content.
The page was protected by El C on August 22, leading to this back-and-forth stopping until the protection expired.
On September 25, the disputed content was removed and subsequently re-inserted, with the re-inserting editor arguing that the content "has been pretty stable" and citing WP:BRD.
I don't want to extend this reversion cycle any further, especially given that editors (including myself) seem to no longer have an agreement over what the stable version of the article was. Discussions on the article's talk page don't appear to have been able to reach consensus. So I'm appealing to this noticeboard to help resolve the dispute, via the RfC opened below. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?
Question: Is it WP:DUE to state in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article that In August 2021, Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein wrote that "sockpuppet" accounts and accounts that appeared to be linked to ASPI had edited its Wikipedia article, based off of the two references (12) present?
Discussion: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?
Not Due. In my understanding, it's atypical that a standalone opinion piece from a minor outlet would be due in an article, except when that opinion pieve is either referred to by a reliable secondary source or written by a relevant subject matter expert. In this case, the article was originally published by MichaelWestMedia and republished by APAC.news, so it might superficially appear that such a source exists. However, this isn't the case.
Certainly, APAC news's republication of a MichaelWestMedia can't contribute towards the reliability of the piece; after all, "APAC News" was created by Reubenstein in October of 2019 and is still run by him (see footer), so it's totally non-independent of the article's author.
After looking into the sources a bit, I'm unsure of the extent to which, and the previous discussion on the reliability of the sources did not appear to gain a consensus on the extent of the reliability and independence from relevant parties. It appears that MichaelWestMedia might not clearly mark what are opinion pieces as opposed to what is straight reporting (see this example of an unlabeled opinion piece, or this one, or this one, etc.). Given the listing of the article as opinion on its "APAC News" (self-)republication, I would think it most reasonable to consider it so (especially since Reubenstein both wrote the piece and edits the website).
I'm also don't think that Reubenstein is an expert on the topic of Wikipedia sockpuppetry or internal functions, which is evidenced by the numerous errors in the article about how Wikipedia functions and most egregiously evidenced in verifiably inaccurate claim regarding the identity of the suspected sockmaster of Telsho. Additionally, according to an article in the South China Morning Post, Ruebenstein's articles about Australia-China economic ties have been republished by China’s state media, and he has made several appearances on state-run China Global Television Network. He appears to (archive) have written content for China's state-run Xinhua News Agency as recently as June of 2020. The APAC news website footer (archive) explicitly notes that the APAC News website is not blocked in Mainland China. Considering the current state of affairs regarding China and ASPI, I'm not sure that using an opinion piece written by a Xinhua writer and frequent CGTN commentator for facts in the article is a great idea, especially when there are clear factual errors present in the article.
All in all, I'm not convinced as to the reliability of the publisher and the author as a source for facts on this topic, I'm rather certain that the article is an opinion piece, and I believe that the inclusion of the website's claims is undue in the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this on the NPOV noticeboard? This clearly belongs on the article talk page. Michael West Media is a relatively prominent source of news and current affairs reporting in Australia which meets our standards. The content in the article for which the Michael West Media article is a reference is easily verifiable by Wikipedia editors, and reflects a notable perspective on the article subject. This is clearly another desperate attempt to remove criticism from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a case of both WP:STICK and forum shopping. Searching the Australian version of The Guardian for "Michael West" Australia returns a fair few stories where The Guardian has cited this news website, which indicates that it's a reliable and noteworthy source. The material here is one sentence, so it's not like it's excessive! Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When there's a no local consensus after extensive discussions, the next step is to bring in outside opinions to try to work out a consensus. You're right, I should have raised the RfC on the talk page by that very same policy, and I would be happy to move it over to the article talk if there are no objections from you and the other editor who has commented thus far. That being said, this is literally the noticeboard to discuss neutral point of view, which is what WP:DUE falls under. To the best of my ability, I've informed every editor who made a related edit (in the talk or in the article itself) that this discussion was taking place here, and I've left a note on the article talk page. And, yes, one sentence given to a random opinion piece from a non-reliable author is one sentence too many. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: I have no issue with there being criticism in the article, and I've removed stuff from the article that seemed like advertorial puffery. The insinuation that I am desperately trying to remove criticism-quo-criticism is unfounded; my problem, as I've explained above, is with the particular source being an opinion article from a non-subject expert author. My own looking through sources doesn't appear to show that MichaelWestMedia is a relatively prominent source of news and current affairs reporting in Australia, and the very fact that there are basic errors that any real Wikipedian can verify shows doesn't indicate that the site places a premium on fact-checking. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to get anywhere with stating that the reference is an "opinion piece", as Wikipedia extensively uses opinion articles from reliable sources to support the inclusion of factual information. The content in the Wikipedia article is factual, not opinion. The error that you claim is in the Michael West Media article has nothing to do with the Wikipedia content that relies on it. Continuing to claim the source is not reliable is beating a dead horse, it's been shown that other reliable sources rely on Michael West Media, which is the easiest test of reliability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article talk page, for a start. It has been explained multiple times that Michael West Media has been relied upon by The New Daily and Guardian Australia, both of which are already considered reliable sources. There's not a particularly high barrier for it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on the article talk page... If you really think otherwise please quote and/or link it. If you want to establish MWM as a WP:RS might I suggest you open a discussion at WP:RSN to do so instead of making that argument here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the question should be whether this is "due" or "not due", but this isn't new for Wikipedia – Saskatoon_freezing_deaths#Censorship_attempts and this Reuters report are some examples. Nevertheless, it definitely seems highly suspect that sockpuppets have tried to prowl the article of material that they found undesirable in their view. It may seem useful to keep the report based on the extraordinary circumstance. Otterslort (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Otterslort: its not a report and the forensics (if one can even call them that) on it are sloppy to the point of being unusable... For instance the sockpupper Telsho is attributed to Waskertoon when they’re actually suspected of being a Ineedtostopforgetting sock. Those sock farms have completely different political outlooks which render’s the conclusion the author draws from their misattribution of Telsho mistaken (to be polite). What extraordinary circumstance would you be referring to? The author’s incompetence? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not due, unreliable source and unreliable/non-notable author... Also appears to have been published as an opinion piece on the author’s blog ("APAC News"). Note that the Author labels their own work as commentary (Section heading is “Comment, News") but Michael West Media doesn’t... Thats an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Though they are practically the same piece, inclusion of the content relies upon the Michael West Media source (which is a sufficient source), not the APAC News source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Onetwothreeip is saying, for whatever it's worth, that they didn't originally add both sources. Onetwothreeip has repeatedly ensured that both blogs are used in the article when other editors have removed one. [2]Cjhard (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have ensured that the Michael West Media source is used. I don't have an opinion on whether to use the APAC News source. 21:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This story was also covered here on John Menadue's blog in a piece written by Ian Cunliffe. It is still just a rehashing of the Reubenstein article though and the blog is not the most reliable but does seem to have some editorial standards/oversight. Unfortunately, this story is probably not appropriate for inclusion without wider and more reliable coverage. I say unfortunately as I think the story is hilarious, probably true and is most certainly rife across WP. We have to stick to good sources though. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One reliable source is enough for the majority of content that appears on Wikipedia, and the Michael West Media source is sufficient. This is a discussion for the article talk page though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the way this has been brought to RfC is strange and, if I didn't assume good faith in all fellow editors, would appear to be an attempt to exclude people who were already discussing this on the talk page. This has still not been mentioned on the talk page and no one involved in the discussion was pinged.Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: thanks. I clearly mean they are as yet uninvolved in this RfC which took the discussion off the Talk page into a different forum. Otherwise I would have tagged every single other WP editor. Thanks again for your help. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Due. MWM is a popular but smaller outlet in Australia. It's more popular among younger, more informed Australians. Further, it's clear that some editors of the Wikipedia article (including some here, won't mention names) are potentially sinophobic, and favour articles that aren't neutral, and that hold biases against China. TLDR; Possible shills could be in our midst. Ultranova1337 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that we should avoid assuming bad faith, I very much agree that this is the kind of topic that will draw out people who aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. With that in mind, has anyone here noticed that the editor who added the contentious content is a single-purpose account that has NEVER edited on anything else before or since? This is an embarrassing failure of administration. Cjhard (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and so what? I've only committed a change once, everyone has a first time. Anyone can contribute to an open source project. Gatekeeping much? xD Ultranova1337 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just as an FYI to everyone here, since there are now editors making very brief comments here, there isn't an outcome of this discussion that would have any binding effect on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article. If you want your view to be represented in the content of that article, I encourage you to join discussion on the article talk page. Writing "due" or "not due" in bold on this page doesn't actually do anything. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no community consensus matter here. This is about content on one specific article, and talk page discussion there takes precedence. Community consensus or global consensus is for broad principles that cover multiple articles. The community is invited to discuss the content of the article on the article talk page. Noticeboards aren't a way to appeal against article talk page consensus not going your way, which has now happened twice. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly atypical to absolutely ignore a noticeboard discussion in which there's been substantial community involvement. I don't think there's a basis for declaring that [j]ust as an FYI to everyone here... there isn't an outcome of this discussion that would have any binding effect on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article. That isn't how consensus-building works; when we are able to discern a consensus at a community level, then that consensus gets applied at a local level. This is something that happens all the time, especially on WP:RSN. And, the notion that I'm trying to appeal against article talk page consensus is bogus; there was (and remains) no consensus on the article talk page and I've explained my rationale above for why I made the RfC already and how editors were notified. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10: This is mostly just a repeat of arguments that have been made on the article talk page, not a reflection of the broader community. NPOV noticeboard isn't an appropriate place for an RfC, especially for a dispute that only applies to one article. If this was relevant to several articles it might belong on a noticeboard like this, but consensus on a noticeboard does not equate automatically to community consensus. You would be much better advised to do what was done in the preceding section, #Apple cider vinegar RfC, where the RfC is on the relevant article talk page and what is on this noticeboard is a link to it. Because a noticeboard isn't where consensus would be formed on this, editors who would provide their view on the article talk page wouldn't provide it here, and that can easily skew any apparent consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say stable, others would say you edit-warred and stonewalled the article. Also the stability of the article says absolutely nothing about the existence of talk page consensus. Cjhard (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the litany of changes described on this page and the lack of edits being made while an RfC is pending, taken together, show that the content is "stable". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an RfC open that would impact the article, but no RfC would prevent edits being made on the article either. There were several changes that happened over two months, and this is not unusual, leading to a better version. Editors should raise issues they may have with content in the article talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional input requested on above RFC concerning Etymology section on Yoruba people article, which seems to violate (WP:NPOV) policy. The content was by Oluwatalisman and can be found through link provided here[[3]]. A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link.[[4]] Thanks Ppdallo (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are way, way too many RfCs for that article right now. There should not be more than one RfC open at a time for the same article or from the same editor. If you want editors to comment, I recommend starting from scratch, as a Third Opinion (if this has only involved two editors so far), and plainly summarizing one issue in a way people can understand who aren't familiar with the content. And if needed, then it could be taken to RfC. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pyrrho the Skeptic for your recommendation. Actually no other editor has so far commented despite my having posted the RFCs on other Noticeboards. Now i can see the reason why. I will notify the other editor i am in dispute with accordingly.Ppdallo (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I came across Green Scare while browsing, and it seems to me like the article itself may be a WP:POVFORK off of Environmental_movement#Criticisms and/or Operation Backfire. I'm not sure quite how to address it; the article itself is written as if the "Green Scare" is very matter-of-fact, though its sourcing seems rather weak, and I don't think that there's a mainstream consensus among academics that opposition to the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Frontis akin to the red scare. I'm wondering if anybody with better knowledge than me of the environmental movement (and legal responses to it) would be willing to take a look at the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede seems fine to me. If it is a "term of art", Wikipedia can certainly mention that this is the thing that radical environmental activists have called the enforcement actions against them. I don't think WP is claiming that it is akin to the Red Scare in Wikipedia's voice... it looks sufficiently attributed to me. Whether it deserves a standalone article is a subject for a merge discussion, perhaps. jps (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
There is some dispute on the chiropractic talk page about the removal of stroke/vertebral dissection as risks in the article's infobox. Presently, this discussion is hinging partially on the reliability/neutrality of a source. The source is a MEDRS compliant source with in-universe authors, but published by an out of universe journal. I contend that the peer review process of the medical journal neutralizes much of the risk of bias due to an all-medical review board and that it should be included because it is MEDRS compliant. The opposing contention is that the article is unreliable because it is written by in-universe authors.
The clinical training of a full time researcher who is an author on the source is not listed within MEDRS as a criteria for exclusion. Moreover, the information contained in the secondary source under question is consistent with all the other secondary sources published within the past 10 years on the topic (i.e.: [5] & [6]. I cannot think of any good reason for excluding a secondary source that is MEDRS compliant and consistent with all other recent secondary sources on the topic. 2001:56A:70E6:DB00:D11A:9841:610E:7F0D (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source pretty clearly meets MEDRS requirements and the identity of the researchers is not a valid reason to exclude it, and it amounts to insulting the intelligence of the non-chiropractic scientists who peer-reviewed the paper. MarshallKe (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So this isn't exactly responding about the contention, but the journal article by Chaibi and Russell is a comprehensive review (i.e. literature review or evidence syntheses), whereas the articles currently in Chiropractic#Risk-benefit (and for most of this WP article) are generally systematic reviews or tertiary sources. Within the secondary source category, systematic reviews are considered more reliable than comprehensive reviews, which is reflected in the images under WP:MEDASSESS. I would also like to point out that Chaibi is not a full-time researcher, he does work in private practise as a chiro. I don't actually think that's enough to say he can't write any research about his field of expertise. However - given that the field of expertise of the other author is actually in chronic and medication-overuse headaches, one may note that it's strange that he's writing an article about how to reduce the amount of strokes caused by chiro. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC) // Edited this to strike through the last sentence. It's an unwarranted point on my part. Xurizuri (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a respected medical journal publishes a review paper, one would expect it to be neutral. In other words, it should provide due weight to the various papers and findings that have been published in accordance with their acceptance in the body of literature. If editors disagree with the weight the study provides, they need to find similar sources that disagree and then discuss which is correct. But the credentials of the author should not concern us. The publisher is what is important. In some academic journals, the editors are not even aware of the authors' credentials before accepting their papers. TFD (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That not necessarily true. A narrative review can be nothing more than a cherry-picked survey in support of a POV, which is why methodologically sound systematic reviews are more valued. There are certainly some authors (e.g. MJ Middelveen on Morgellons syndrome) who are so bound up with suspect views that even if their work was published in a notionally respectable venue, it would be unlikely to be accepted as RS for its assertions. Wikipedia editors are not robots applying RS guidelines dumbly. (I would also add that the question here about the "neutrality" of a source is weird; the question is whether it's reliable for some specific statement. But what?) Alexbrn (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia's place to use or exclude sources based on whether we like their conclusions or not ← good job nobody's proposing that then. But when sources have problems documented in RS, that matters. As in the case of Middelveen above, or Chinese research into TCM, etc. Not sure what's triggered you about some retired user's essay, but I don't see the relevance to this thread. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn: from reading the discussion, its ostensibly about the infobox saying that stroke and death are risks of the treatment. One side says "we have evidence saying it is" and the other side says "we have evidence saying its not". As far as I can tell, everyone's right - there is good quality evidence to say both. Like I said in my earlier comment, I think this specific journal article is of a slightly lower quality than other ones in the WP article, but e.g. the WHO has released a paper saying "look its probably fine" (it's an old paper now, but still, the WHO) so I'm just also not entirely sure why this specific journal article became the deciding factor. I don't really love having the summary of risks or benefits in an infobox for a treatment where one or both is not solidly established, because it runs a high risk of undue weight. But if we have to have them in there, I'd love if we didn't rely on non-systematic reviews. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This study is not the only thing this decision is hinging on. I apologize if I was unclear. I brought this here because whether or not this was considered a RS was the point in the discussion that we were stuck on. Jmg873 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of a source refers to the accuracy of the facts it contains, not the opinions expressed by its author. The assumption in policy is that papers published in respected academic sources are reliable. Obviously errors can occur and in those cases we can resolve the issue by looking at other reliable sources. If you think the journal was wrong to publish this paper, then write to them and get it withdrawn. In the meantime, I put getter faith in the journal's editors than in Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source is still relatively new and so its reliability is suspect until other sources indicate that its conclusions are warranted. Peer review is great, but it sometimes takes many years before we know whether a particular article is reliable or not. The article seems to have generated a little buzz so far, so hopefully some citations to it will indicate its reliability, but the few so far are not particularly encouraging [7],[8],[9], [10]. I also have a concern that T&F OA journals have had issues with uneven editorial control in the past. See Taylor & Francis#Controversies. But, even as a general principle, it's best to proceed with caution with any paper that is new. jps (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: Peer reviewed secondary sources in a reliable journal is Wikipedia's standard for high reliability. What you are proposing here is that lower-reliability sources (the links you listed) can be used to discredit a higher-reliability source. If I could edit Wikipedia based on that upside-down principle, oh, the edits I could make, you have no idea. MarshallKe (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Each source, written by experts in the subject, offers either direct or indirect critique of the claimed "comprehensive review" and that serves to point out how the paper may be problematic. Obviously a comprehensive review is only reliable if it is done correctly. jps (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's standard for whether a secondary source was "done correctly" is WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDPRI explicitly states primary sources should not be used to counter conclusions by secondary sources. You don't get to define a secondary source as less reliable except with sources Wikipedia deems to be of higher reliability, per WP:MEDASSESS. MarshallKe (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm not being clear here. My point is that you're using evidence that is considered lower quality per WP:MEDASSESS to contradict evidence that is considered higher quality. I just don't see this as anything other than calling a study bad because you feel like it's bad and therefore everything that contradicts it is good. We have standards for a reason. MarshallKe (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now that's a bold claim. I'm definitely interested in a more generalized centralized discussion on that. That's going to have wide-reaching site-wide consequences. MarshallKe (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My claim is that competence is required and you don't seem to have enough of it to understand what I'm saying. At least, that's my good faith interpretation of what's going on. This isn't the first time you've had problems evaluating sources. Probably won't be the last. jps (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All in good time. You've already been warned about discretionary sanctions. I can see from your actions here that you have taken on the mantle of WP:ADVOCACY that is straying into WP:SPA and WP:POVPUSH. We may see you at WP:AE sooner or later. Take care! jps (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to do anything about it, why even bring it up? I am here. I'm not going away just because some rando on the internet called me dumb and biased. Regardless, can we get back to the explanation of how the publications you've linked are on the same level as a literature review? Seems like an easy explanation, but you'd rather type accusations at me than spend one sentence explaining yourself. MarshallKe (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any issue with the source (2 years old already). The background of a researcher is not a criteria for exclusion or inclusion automatically, it is the amount of oversight of the source (in this case a journal) that carries a little more weight. Perhaps attribution and light wording would resolve the issue. The specific statement that the source is being used for by the editor matters too. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the talk page, I wanted to make a summary of what has been presented thus far. Especially to (at least somewhat) separate the two discussions and keep them focused. Please add anything I missed. Jmg873 (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Current arguments against inclusion of Chaibi & Russel 2019
The authors are chiropractors
The source is too new and must be confirmed by other sources
The source has too few cross-references
it is a whitewashing study
T&F journals have had controversy so the source is suspect
Current arguments in support of Chaibi & Russel 2019
It is MEDRS Compliant
The author should not be a relevant because it is peer-reviewed by a reliable journal
not including it because of the author suggests the peer-reviewers are unreliable.
the source's conclusion agrees with two other recent MEDRS compliant secondary published
That seems a biased summary. One of the reasons my position might seem uncertain is that, despite asking, it's unclear what specific statement is in question for which this source might or might not be reliable. Or is the OP seeking a carte blanche to use it for anything at all? Alexbrn (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not good practice to promote a false binary like this because part of evaluation of a reliable source is the context in which it is used. These aren't arguments against or in support of the source. These are editorial considerations that depend on context. jps (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn, As Xurizuri said to you above, it is being referenced specifically to be used as a source on the risk of stroke/death in the infobox; that is why the talk page is linked. Please point out what you think was biased there and I will modify it. Jmg873 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@jps, my intent was not to create a false binary. Perhaps it would have been better phrased as "users who consider/do not consider it a reliable source". If you feel there is better verbiage, I welcome it. Jmg873 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a summary of this style is useful/necessary. It tends to stifle discussion and may end up hindering WP:CONSENSUS formation. The better thing to do is let discussions run their course. An uninvolved closer can come through and summarize. jps (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to create a summary of the central ideas here and relocate this to the RS:Noticeboard where it would be more appropriate to continue this discussion. Please let me know what changes you would like to see before I post it there or if you have a better way for me to concisely convey the ideas presented here for the discussion to continue there. If you think it would be more appropriate for me to post at the RS noticeboard without referencing this discussion I can do that too, but I didn't want it to appear that I was "noticeboard shopping" or going behind anyone's back. Thank you. Jmg873 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons I haven't participated in any depth here is that this is the NPOV/N, not RS/N. We're at the wrong board. It should be an RfC entitled "Reliability of a secondary research paper written by a chiropractor, but published in a medical journal." Neutrality is not an issue here, unless dealing with non-neutral editing by an editor, and that is not an issue for these noticeboards. -- Valjean (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning against inclusion. Had the journal been nejm, lancet, nature, annals of thoracic surgery, Cell, cancer, JACC or another journal at the top of its field, I would be sure, hands down, for inclusion. But for annals of Medicine? Nope unless all other criteria are emphatically met. Cinadon3618:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus that Annals of Medicine is unreliable, so this smacks of WP:CHERRYPICKING. The obvious problem with this sort of argument is that your criteria are subjective, personal, arbitrary, and opaque. If this has been in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, then your comment just as easily could have read "Had the journal been NEJM, Lancet, Nature, Cell, Cancer, JACC ..." omitting Annals of Thoracic Surgery. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it may feel arbitrary to you, the argument is at least well-ordered. Annals of Medicine has the lowest h-index of all these journals... by far. jps (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cinadon36, Do you have any evidence that lesser known medical journals are less reliable? It seems to me that the main difference is that better known journals are able to get more interesting articles and better known writers, not that they have a better record of fact-checking. Why should we assume that lesser known journals are riddled with errors of facts? Lesser known journals may also be more specialist, which makes them less popular.
The discussion suggests that in addition to determining if a publication is peer-reviewed by experts, we should also examine its impact and the credentials of writers.
I think part of the issue is reputation… the better know journals have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that less well known journals do not have. This does NOT mean the less well know journals are bad - or even that they have a BAD reputation - since it could be that it has no real reputation one way or the other. It does mean that the well known journals are considered better sources… and in a conflict we favor the better sources (well known journals). Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree that top-tier journals are more reliable. However, in this specific case that isn't what we should be comparing to for this. The journal used for the existing information, the International Journal of Clinical Practice, has an objectively lower reputation than the Annals of Medicine. If we are using reputation as a consideration, it doesn't support the argument being put forth. Jmg873 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 Ernst articles were both published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice which has an Impact Factor of 2.503 [1] and an H-index of 98[2].
The Chaibi article is published in the Annals of Medicine which has an Impact Factor of 4.709[3] and an H-index of 112[4].
If we are going to use reputation as one of the determiners, it is disingenuous to compare this source's reputation to NEJM, lancet, etc. considering the journals that are currently being used in the article. Jmg873 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @The Four Deuces: for your question. I have to clarify. I wont ditch Annals of Medicine coz they are not as known (or have less Impact Factor) than mainstream Journals. It is that, how to put it...oh, I will use a table.
Journal
author
overall evidence
Source 1
weak
weak
weak
Source 2
weak
moderate
weak to moderate
Source 3
strong
weak
moderate
Strong Claim
Moderate Claim
Weak Claim
evidence needed
Strong
Moderate
Weak
So, in this case, since the context in question is on Risk/benefit, it needs a strong evidence. So, journal is weak, author is weak, overall evidence is weak, evidence needed must be strong, so it fails. This is how I think of it. I consider journal is week, coz, as it was said above, "Lesser known journals may also be more specialist, which makes them less popular". Annals of Medicine have a board spectrum. They do not have the reputation of being a reliable journal. It s reliability must be proven. It has not. Thanks everybody of the interesting discussion. Cinadon3617:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claim this source is being used for is risk, not risk/benefit. How does the requirement for strong evidence reconcile with the fact that the existing evidence used for the claim is at the same level or weaker than the evidence being disputed? (see my comment above for further explanation) Jmg873 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cinadon36,I think you are conflating reliability with weight. Whether or not to report a claim is solely determined by weight. IOW we would only include claims that had received considerable attention in other sources and we would be able to determine its degree of acceptance.
When you say weak evidence, I assume you mean it is inadequate to prove the claim, rather than that it is fabricated. So for example the Wow! signal is weak evidence for extra-terrestrial life, but the signal itself was not fabricated. This is in contrast to conspiracy theory texts, which routinely include false facts or faulty syllogisms. (Example: In Israeli, most people infected with covid are vaccinated, therefore vaccination does not reduce the risk of infection.)
Cinadon36, I concur with Jmg873. How do you reconcile your argument against inclusion based on the reputation of the Annals of Medicine and not also argue for the removal of existing content in the article sourced from International Journal of Clinical Practice, which is of lower reputation than Annals of Medicine? MarshallKe (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well @MarshallKe:, I dont. I offered my opinion just for the specific source. I did not compare it with other sources at the same article or other articles (doing so leads to an endless whataboutism). But since you ask, it depends on the claim, the journal, the author, the institution of the author, and the reception from the academia. Anyway, since it is obvious I am not convincing you all for not inclusion, what about attributing it? like "According to chiropract Name Surname, writing at Journal X, the risk of .....[source]" That would be a fair way out. What do you think? @The Four Deuces:, no, I was talking about reliability. When I say "weak evindence" I mean that the source is not an established authority that its opinion could become WP Voice. @Jmg873: See my reply to MarshallKe. Cinadon3604:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find that dismissing an argument as "whataboutism" is often used by those who don't want to accept that their reasoning is invalid and their purported standards are pure manipulation rather than actual standards. As for attributing it, I don't support "according to chiropractor". Might as well replace "chiropractor" with "liar and quack" because that's what you're really trying to do; downplay the fact that this is a peer-reviewed literature review in a reputable journal that meets all of Wikipedia's standards for inclusion except that it doesn't come to the "right" conclusions so we have to ad hominem it. MarshallKe (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support the wording "A YEAR literature review found CLAIM". Anything additional is a MOS:LABEL violation. If we're going to start witch-hunting the entire scientific community, we've got a lot of work to do. MarshallKe (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that the goal here is to highlight one source which has, even as it has been cited, received mixed reception. To pretend that this is the pinnacle of sourcing on Wikipedia (which seems to be the argument here, but correct me if that's not it) is a pretty ludicrous argument. I don't have a particular objection to the source in question, but I don't think it rises to the level of most reliable source ever and better than all others that came before or after it. That seems to be the implication of some of the arguments being leveled here. jps (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for the editor who authored this RfC, but I do not want to erase the risks section and replace it with whatever this particular study concluded, and I don't think a reasonable editor would want such a thing. Let's summarize this study, and let's summarize the studies you've linked, as well. What's the problem? MarshallKe (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question at issue is whether the study itself is reliable. The question was not whether it is possible to summarize it. jps (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have any particular objections to the source in question, and you don't think that it's the "most reliable source ever and better than all the others that came before of after it", then we are in agreement and are ready to put the source in its editorial context, as you have advocated for 8 days ago. MarshallKe (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@jps I am the RfC author and I never suggested that the existing studies should be replaced by this study or removed. I was arguing for its inclusion. I looked through the commentary here and did not see any suggestion here that the goal is to "highlight this source above others". The only thing I could see construed as that was the discussion of the two Ernst sources (if I missed something, please let me know). My comparison of the other sources was not to suggest that they should be removed, but as a response to the argument that reputation is a reason to exclude this source. I believe those other two sources should be included in the article, as I believe this one should. Jmg873 (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "arguing for inclusion" can take many forms. There are thousands of papers that we could include that are relevant to the article in question. We obviously don't want to include all of them even as citations! But it is perfectly fine to consider them in composing article text. That is what I don't have objection to. What I don't think we have here is a necessary right of reply, for example. jps (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself unsure what point you were trying to make. Yes, arguing for inclusion can take many forms; We are specifically discussing the source in the context provided at the outset, not every possible form of inclusion. In the statement "thousands of papers relevant to the article" is 'the article' referencing the paper in question or the Wikipedia article on chiropractic? I originally went to paraphrase your comment to make sure I understood it correctly, but the more I read it, the more it confused me. Can you clarify the point your comment was designed to make? Additionally, what do you mean by saying that you don't feel there is a 'necessary right of reply'? Thank you. Jmg873 (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put words in jps's mouth, but it reads to me as "because there are lots of scientific publishings related to chiropractic, we can't just pick the first ones we stumble upon to base the article off of", and I don't know what he means by "necessary right of reply", either. MarshallKe (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair reading re: scientific publishings. My issue with "inclusion" is that, in the past, some editors have taken my statement of, "yeah, we can consider that source" to be almost a carte blanche to include a full accounting of the source in article text. This is not something I want to see happen again. My point about "right of reply" is general. There is currently text in the article that posits (A). The source you are asking about posits not(A). Just because it posits not(A) does not mean we must include it in article text. Perhaps you find that obvious, but I, again, am the victim of circumstance as there were situations in the past where this was a dispute. jps (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I understood your point, you are saying that you are potentially alright with its inclusion in a particular way, but not in "any way". If so, I am in agreement. Would an inclusion in the format MarshallKe suggested, "A YEAR literature review found CLAIM", be acceptable? To be specific, what about "A 2019 literature review found that there is no strong evidence in the literature that manual therapy provokes CAD or stroke"? Jmg873 (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There’s been some ip users who have been making highly non neutral edits to the article recently and i was hoping if an administrator or anybody else could perhaps lockdown the page so that only verified users could edit it. Thanks in advance Estnot (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Controveries section of this article seems way too long to me and the section's inclusion seems to be mostly defended by one editor (Kving) who has a stated COI regarding other software companies. It's not uncommon for internet software companies to come under scrutiny for the misuses of it by bad actors, so this long section seems WP:UNDUE. Here is an unofficial RfC on the Talk Page and it has been suggested separately on the Talk Page here that the section could be spun out into a separate article, if necessary, as one potential solution.
Tensions run high at Talk:Éric Zemmour, with discussions involving several editors who are on the more inexperienced side of things. Eyeballs and input from experienced editors would be extremely welcome. JBchrchtalk19:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is controversy surrounding the lead of the Eskimo article. The term "Eskimo" covers both the related Inuit and Yupik peoples. Many Inuit and Yupik peoples find the term "Eskimo" to be offensive.[1] The lead paragraph was originally:
The two main peoples known as Eskimo are the Inuit (including the Alaskan Iñupiat, the Greenlandic Inuit, and the Inuit peoples of Canada) and the Yupik (or "Yuit") of eastern Siberia[4] and Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, which inhabit the Aleutian Islands are closely related to both, but are generally excluded from the definition of Eskimo. The three groups share a relatively recent common ancestor, and speak related languages belonging to the Eskimo–Aleutlanguage family.
I changed it to
Eskimo (/ˈɛskɪmoʊ/ESS-kih-moh) or Eskimos is a term used to refer to two closely related Indigenous peoples: The Inuit (including the Alaskan Iñupiat, the Greenlandic Inuit, and the Canadian Inuit) and the Yupik (or Yuit) of eastern Siberia[5] and Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, which inhabit the Aleutian Islands, are closely related to both, but are generally excluded from the definition of Eskimo. The three groups share a relatively recent common ancestor, and speak related languages belonging to the Eskimo–Aleutlanguage family.
Given that the people under the umbrella "Eskimo" find the term offensive, I'd rather we didn't use it in wikivoice in the opening sentence. I also think it should be made immediately clear how the term "Eskimo" is different from the term "Inuit".
Since I changed the lead, there has been persistent reversion by Fatbatsat, a WP:SPA with less than 70 edits over two years. Recently a brand new account Akinaur (which means "to take revenge; to retaliate; to pay back" in Yupik, see [12]) has continued their edit warring. I suspect that it might be a sock of someone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you check if I am up to speed: We are indifferent to peoples offense, see images on the Muhammad page. However, it seems Eskimo is no longer the common name (see Ngram), although it still seems strong in academia. Inuit seems to have taken over. However, Inuit only technically refers to one of the groups of the people who make up Eskimos. We have no name for this group of peoples other than Eskimo or Inuit, one is going out of fashion, the other is incorrect. What did I miss?Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really indifferent to people's offense? That's certainty not true when it comes to transgender topics like deadnaming. The point is, that we already have two articles on the two groups that are covered by the term "Eskimo", so the scope of the "Eskimo" article is unclear. Should it cover the usage of the term itself, like negro? Should it compare and contrast the Yupik and Inuit? What is the purpose of the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the ignoring of WP:NOTCENSORED, I can only justify to myself deeply upsetting so many of the people of the world by the belief that we at least try to do it without favour. I see dead naming as a red herring. That is best explained through biographies of living people and common name. If the majority of contemporary reliable references dead named people then we should use that name. However, this is off topic, if we are breaking NOTCENSORED on one topic that does not mean we get rid of the rule. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: how have sources typically characterized “Eskimo”? The above seems like an argument over the offensiveness of the term. There may in fact be groups that prefer to be called “Eskimo”, from what I can recall. In that case, we’d bridge into WP:NOTCENSORED territory. There are plenty of historical images of Muhammad on the Muhammad page, for example, despite offense caused to some modern Muslim sects. I’d wonder, though, if “term that refers to” is more commonly the expressed sentiment among RS rather than “is”. If it were, then the change in the lead would make sense. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose renaming the article to "Inuit-Yupik peoples," and then in the article mention that the term *Eskimo* has historically been used to collectively refer to the Inuit-Yupik peoples, but that its use is in decline and that the term is considered offensive by some. Dowobeha (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume that this page wouldn't exist if Eskimo referred exclusively to one or other group, it only exists because the term encompasses both. But that doesn't mean it needs an article. It should either redirect to Inuit, with a hatnote there for the alternative Yupik meaning, or it should be a disambiguation page listing the two options with no other prose necessary. — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's still a widely used word in the English language, which has a pretty clear meaning, and it doesn't have a synonym. If you think about what this means, basically you can go anywhere in the world where people speak a smattering of English and they will know what you mean by the word "Eskimo". "Inuit" not so much, let alone "Inuit-Yupik", which isn't actually in the dictionary, per se, though these days Inuit-Yupik-Unangan is a defined language group (synonymous with Eskimo-Aleut) [and to mention Unangan actually brings up another issue with the recent edits which were made by Hemiauchenia but have not in any way been justified, but I digress]. Or, folks might know what you mean by "Inuit", or think they do, but have no sense that some people have this idea that it should refer to people who are technically not "Inuit" (ancient word, not English, very specific meaning), which, I'm sure you'll agree, is kind of confusing. So what you're talking about doing is basically trying to edit reality, not editing an encyclopedia. But this question has been hashed out over and over again on the article talk page, many many archives, so I don't think we're going to come to an efficient resolution here that is also a valid one, hence the repeated request for dialogue through the usual and proper channels.Fatbatsat (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eskimo is a real term in modern academic and public usage it needs either a page or if it is no longer the common name a redirect. As Eskimo describes a group of peoples that have no other name it must be the common name. As an aside here are the google scholar hits since 2017, does not “prove” anything just part of the mix. Eskimo 15,100, Inuit 19,700 and Yupik 2,220. Romani 45,000 and Gypsy 18,000. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't see the need for this one-man pissing match, if you'll pardon the turn of phrase. No one denies there is a fair bit of controversy spinning around, and it's quite healthy to debate and discuss and change where appropriate. All that's been really asked of Hemiauchenia is that they justify their edits by reasoned discussion, use the article Talk page, which Hemiauchenia has not been doing. I'm still not sure that the particular edits in question are correct, because there are plenty of reasons (some expressed above) why the article is in it's current consensus form, and not otherwise. Thanks everyone for your input though, including you, Hemiauchenia. I appreciate what you're trying to do, I just question the way you're going about it, and I think you might not be quite as well informed on this particular topic as you think that you are. Fatbatsat (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a one-man pissing match, but a two man pissing match. At the end of the day, we are the only two people who strongly care about the lead. Nobody else has expressed a strong opinion in favour of either version of the lead. The idea that if content is "long standing " it has consensus is bogus, at the end of the day, you are the only one (outside the brand new account, who's opinion I am discounting) who is objecting to my new rewording. That said, there isn't any strong support for my position either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
>>>"This is not a one-man pissing match, but a two man pissing match."<<<
Look, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I don't think it really matters. I realize that I didn't attempt to engage with you positively as much as I could have (just busy with other things, not an intentional snub/oversight), but you also made no real justification of your edits, and, again, some of your original edits were categorically wrong.
But here is the meat of it: >>>The idea that if content is "long standing " it has consensus is bogus<<<
I mean, that simply isn't true. The lead of the article has been that way for many years, through, what, the work of a hundred or more editors? I do not know what you mean when you say consensus, but if you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, it defies belief that you do not understand that I mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus. All other things being equal, if you make controversial edits to a Wikipedia article, it makes sense to justify them, because you can be going against the work of a lot of people, over a lot of time, without even meaning to! You are one person, I agree. But I am simply trying to make sure the article content (work of many people, *not* one person) is not changed without just cause, which, again, you haven't given any cause, really, just or otherwise. And instead of engaging on the article Talk page, as I have requested, and has been encouraged/requested by CambridgeBayWeather on the Talk page, you choose to create this adversarial conflict-- and yes, it is a one man conflict, because I have no beef with you, except maybe that you were refusing engage in dialogue about the actual subject on the article Talk page, and yet persisting in changing the article. You may have read through the top layer of the Talk page, but I very much doubt you've gone through the archives, as I have. There's plenty to discuss, and it is not a one-side-or-the-other issue; it's a lot more complicated than that. Talking about it here is actually a step in the right direction, but since you're not starting from an assumption of Good Faith, I'm not going to engage here further, and I hope you'll understand that. If you are seriously interested in working on the article in a productive way, let's please continue the discussion *of the article*, without ad hominem, on the Talk page. Thanks! Fatbatsat (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in reaching a consensus with you. I am interested in reaching a concensus of the broader Wikipedia community. If you have no desire to make your case further then that's fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia's new version, to me, represents a better compromise between the various sources and better describes the controversy. We don't care about what's offensive or not, we care about summarizing the sources faithfully. And nobody cares if this was a one-man pissing contest or a two-man pissing contest, just stop pissing and act right towards each other. MarshallKe (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My issue is that Fatbatsat presents their opinion as if it has consensus when it does not. I have looked through the archives, contrary to Fatbatsat's claims, and there does not seem to be a strong consensus for the article in its current form, more like apathy to change it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the joke in big quotation marks at the top of my user page. I think generally if you find yourself reverting someone's edits repeatedly in defense of some presumed consensus of past editors, you are actually edit warring (and so is the other user). Ultimately as you progress through the consensus process to WP:RFC, consensus is determined by whoever is willing to show up and actually deliberate with other editors. MarshallKe (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Future directions
After the initial round of conversation, I think there are several actions that could be taken.
I like the idea of a little focus. I think as this began as a conversation about the lead we should start there. It feels there is a better chance for a useful compromise on the lesser issue. But I am happy with either. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There’s been a heated debate involving a whole host of npov issues over the summary of a film review for the movie in question. The discussion can be found here [13] Input especially from experienced editors would be welcome. Estnot (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
