Talk:Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

This article was nominated for deletion on July 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This environment-related redirect is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles

Climate change

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Oregon

	Oregon portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Neutral

This article is phrased in a "they claim" sort of voice, has no references and is a cut down copy of the Disinfopedia. I'm not saying outright it has problems, but I would like someone to check it... 68.39.174.238 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a copyvio, copy-and-paste from this site. Katr67 05:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's copy/pasted. But it's from a copyleft wiki, so I don't think that's a problem. Oren0 03:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon user was talking about the violation of NPOV. Katr67 and Oren0 talking about the origination of the material still fail to address the NPOV issue. --Knowsetfree (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for expansion

Jacoby, Jeff (November 5, 1998). "Scientists don't agree on global warming". The Boston Globe. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Hill, Richard L. (May 10, 1998). "Iconoclastic researcher warms up the debate". The Oregonian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Controversy?

I came here after reading this http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Oregon-Petition I'm surprised the article is so tame. 71.193.243.8 (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliably sourced content about the controversy is needed. Meanwhile, I removed a statement that it's unaccredited. That's true, but since they don't pretend to enroll students or grant degrees, in my judgment it's not relevant. --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who put in the line about accreditation I'm OK with that. They call their staff "professors" so I thought people might confuse them with an actual institution like a university. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Short Brigade Harvester Boris, do you any information from a reliable source which shows that the staff are not "professors"? There is a person at my local public library that everybody calls "Dr." but he is not an MD, or a researcher, and he only heads the library. Also, Jimmy Carter is still often referred to as Mr. President. Please provide us with any reliable source which could show that the prof title is inappropriate.--Knowsetfree (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirmed the definition of faculty at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faculty as well as the definition of institute. Cleaned up the article and removed the POV quote on "faculty". As Wiki editors we should try to avoid a bias restricting the concept of scholarship to those institutions that are directly and indirectly federally funded. --Knowsetfree (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... we "restrict the concept of scholarship" to institutions that actually perform research and/or enroll and teach students. Because that's the commonly understood meaning of the word. As to your earlier point, people called Julius Erving "The Doctor", but it would be ludicrous if our Wikipedia biography left people with the idea that he held a doctorate. MastCell ^Talk 01:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MastCell. Your analogy doesn't work. "Dr. J" doesn't actually hold a PhD. There are plenty of PhD's who don't work at universities, yet they still deserve to be called Dr. Do you have a trusted source or official wiki policy which holds that we "restrict the concept of scholarship" etc. so as to prohibit the use of the word institute outside of acredited scholarship? And perhaps you could elaborate on who you mean when you declare we. The english language generally holds otherwise, but I'd be willing to review any reliable source that you can provide. I already provided one source that confirmed my prior understanding of the word faculty, there are similar broader meanings for the words institute and study and research. College even has a broad meaning that extends beyond the academic industry. The fundamental point is that a number of wiki editors are attempting to insert negative connotations by pointing out that this particular institution is not a traditional federal or state subsidized college. We need to remove all content that is not NPOV. I intend to correct the content that is not NPOV, but am eager to hear any explanation or justification that you may have. If there isn't agreement, we could always ask for administrator assistance. But to be clear, at this point I don't ascribe any weight to your assertion "we restrict the concept of scholarship to institutions that actually perform research and/or enroll and teach students." --Knowsetfree (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an example of another "institute" which is profiled in a wiki article: Open_Society_Institute. This entity was established by George Soros, a wealthy hedge fund manager and currency speculator who has become politically active through a number of organizations such as moveon.org. Notice that the article on Open_Society_Institute makes no mention of the difference between that organization and a traditional university. In fact, the POV for that article goes beyond neutral and is in fact positive. Clearly, the wiki article on Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine fails NPOV and is negative. But I'm still willing to review trusted sourced material which restricts the use of the words faculty, and institute. --Knowsetfree (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this entire section from the article. While it may be true (and I suspect it is), we don't disparage institutions or people without firm, reliable sources. As it was, the section (even when the section header was removed) was unsourced OR. If there is real criticism of this institution then I'm sure you can find some good sources documenting it. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved negative pov to controversies section

Hi User:William_M._Connolley. I deleted the negative POV implying that an institute and faculty can only exist at large scale universities, such as those that are publicly funded by federal, state, and tax subsidies. You reversed it, asking why it wouldn't be relevent. Please read the discussion already ongoing on the talk page for the answer to that question. While I don't think it belongs anywhere in the article, the most it could possibly deserve is mention in a controversies section. Please William, in the future, check the discussion page where your questions may already be answered. --Knowsetfree (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For definitions of terms is helpful to consult a dictionary. Upon doing so one finds that "faculty" is defined as "a. Any of the divisions or comprehensive branches of learning at a college or university: the faculty of law. b. The teachers and instructors within such a division. c. A body of teachers." It would appear that Dr. Connolley's concerns are well justified. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negative point of view description

The article uses quotes to establish a doubtful point of view:

It describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging."

Wiki articles are supposed to be neutral POV. This is a clear violation. --Knowsetfree (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF. Negative can be earned not just "neutral". Sometimes the bird you are is not the one you hear.

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced Assertions

As an article that is under probation, this WP page obviously should have special diligence for providing references. I'm dismayed to see the same unreferenced assertions about Dr. Westall are being posted over and over again, in an edit war. Stop this childishness! If it isn't referenced, then don't post it! BobbieCharlton (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in concurrence on this. Any new materials on this page must have references. TheSwitzerdude (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]