Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:01, 28 February 2010

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:Alternative medicine

It is proposed that a new section be created: "Alternative medicine as mainstream". Brangifer (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Biofeedback

I would like the Task Force on Nomenclature's definition restored in place of a contributor's personal definition that was sourced from an Abnormal Psychology text. The official websites of the three main international biofeedback/neurofeedback organizations, AAPB, BCIA, and ISNR have published this consensus definition that their Boards approved. —Fredricshaffer (via posting script) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Deforestation by region

This page, as well as all pages within Category:Deforestation by region use a standard naming convention that was created without discussion/consensus between 2007 and 2009. During the GAC for Illegal logging in Madagascar, a scope issue led to a discussion for renaming the article. Forest management in Madagascar was suggested, but the scope would be identical to Deforestation in Madagascar. As Casliber put it, ""deforestation" has a negative connotation - the meaning of the word is literally the removal of forests and it is almost as if there is no reason attached to it (i.e. mindless removal). "Forest management" implies the use (and also the protection (and in this case violation thereof)) of forests as a resource. Even though it is a bad reason, everyone has a reason for removing forests and using the products."

The question is this: Should we rename not only the article under GAC to Forest management of... but also this page, the category, and all similarly named articles? – VisionHolder « talk » 09:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Lindzen

In the talk page above, as well as in a number of independent discussions in the archives, it has been argued that allegations against Dr. Lindzen -- first published in a 1995 article by the environmentalist and journalist, Ross Gelbspan -- are seen now in 2010 to fail our weight guideline such that they should not be included in the biography of a distinguished living scientist. Readers should consider policies, WP:NPOV subsection WP:WEIGHT; WP:NOT#NEWS; and most importantly WP:BLP, noting that many, many editors have objected in the past in good faith to inclusion of the section.

Please also review the above discussions.

Other editors have argued that the material has weight in reliable sources, and must be included. It has been asserted that there is a great volume of coverage of this material in reliable sources, but no evidence has been brought forth. My own searches suggest that aside from Mr. Gelbspan's own repeated coverage of the allegations (e.g. in a subsequent book; and on ABC Lateline), and a PBS documentary by de Granados, there is in fact very little coverage of the material in strictly reliable sources. Further, this material is not connected with Dr. Lindzen's notability.

The material was removed a few weeks ago here and inclusionists have since gone silent. My concern is that without a community consensus logged, preferably including uninvolved admins, it will be readded in the months ahead, and argued that there was no consensus for its removal.

Alex Harvey (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute

Issues as Framed by Keepcalmandcarryon

• WPI is known in the media for one paper: a 2009 report in Science that a retrovirus is associated with and may cause chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Much of the coverage of WPI mentions the controversial nature of this and past viral association claims, and the controversy was heightened in January with release of a contradictory study finding no evidence of the retrovirus in CFS patients. Is it appropriate to characterise (as in this previous version of the lead) the report as "controversial"?
• WPI is currently a "small private pathology laboratory" according to The Guardian (see this article). The Institute's website seems to indicate that the Institute has only two PhD scientists. Is it appropriate to mention the Institute's current size alongside its plans for expansion in future?
• According to The New York Times, the scientific director for WPI, Judy Mikovits, was was hired as a direct result of an introduction made by a client of a yacht club bar where she was working as a bartender (see this article). Is it appropriate to mention this fact briefly alongside the scientist's previous employment history?
• When scientists from two UK universities published results contradicting WPI's virus claim, the lead investigator for WPI explicitly accused them of doctoring their experiments; paying to have their publication expedited; and of being part of an insurance company plot to discredit her institute (see the Reno Gazette-Journal). Is it appropriate to summarise these comments as "accused the British team of scientific fraud, paying to publish their results and participating in an insurance company conspiracy to discredit WPI"? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk)

Alternative Framing of points by TerryE

• Should we be using the word controversial in the second sentence of this article to describe a paper published in Science, when none of the cited references describe it thus? There is a full section following which describing the controversy as reported in the media.
• Should we be describing an institute using a derogatory description in the first sentence of this article? Yes this description is by one RS compared to the hundreds which haven't. It is also factually incorrect. The point is also addressed later in the History section.
• This article is about an institute. When discussing its science director should we limit description to their technical qualifications for the role, or can we introduce a factually flawed anecdote from a single RS then rephrase it in such a way as to create a derogatory impression about this scientist?
• When two teams of scientists ill-advisedly use the press to trade insults against each other, should we

1. rap these up in a blanket statement "Supporters of the two teams traded accusations of conflicts of interest, technical sloppiness and failure to care about patients" with a selection of references;
2. join in the exchange by picking a balanced set of accusations from both parties;
3. remove all criticism of one party, but find the most damning quote from the other then rephrase it to spice it up further? -- TerryE (talk)

22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Push-button telephone

Please indicate which of these versions is more encyclopedic. --Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:High-speed rail

As discussed above I'm of the view that Misplaced Pages should have an internal definition of what counts as high-speed rail, so that we know what content to include in this and related articles. As fudoreaper said:

As a hypothetical example, if Vietnam now has 120 km/h trains, which is high-speed compared to the 60 km/h trains they had before, should that be included? In other countries, like Germany, a 120 km/h train is just regular speed. This suggests the need for policy to guide us on what we should be discussing when talking about 'high-speed rail'.

Comments? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette

See User talk:Mariociccolini for the main discussion that's occurred up until now. Mario thinks that the term "e-cigarette" is linguistically inaccurate and shouldn't be used, because the "e-" prefix denotes software rather than hardware. He therefore thinks the term should be "ecigarette" instead. My stance is that "e-cigarette" (with the dash) is the way the media refers to the product, so that's the name we should be using in the article, rather than questioning its linguistic accuracy. I know it seems like a silly thing to argue over, but we haven't been able to make much headway. Hoping some outside input will help. Thanks. Equazcion 03:56, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients

Clearly restricting this to wiki-notable instead of notable—in the plain English sense of the word—software is counter-productive. The purpose of a page like this is to be more comprehensive about this kind of software, but still not indiscriminate. The distinction between these notions is in the depth of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources. This is acceptable per WP:LSC: "exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles". I propose the following criteria, in line with WP:V, WP:NNC, WP:DUE, WP:LSC:

Typical examples of WP:SECONDARY WP:RS would be book mentions, e.g. , , . Thoughts? Pcap ping 14:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)