Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:21, 27 February 2009

• WP:POVN
• WP:NPOV/N
• WP:NPOVN

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

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 Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Misplaced Pages neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neutrality and Misplaced Pages: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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Most murderous regime

Article name is really not important. There is small dispute if we can say about state or regime that it is "most murderous". We are having 2 books which are saying that, so statement "most murderous regime" is sourced, but what is situation with NPOV rules ?--Rjecina (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Masonic conspiracy theories

A "pro-conspiracy theory" POV warring SPA is upsetting the carefully crafted neutrality of this article... remarkably conversant in quoting Wiki guidelines for someone who's account is only four days old. We are attempting to stay civil to him... he is not responding in kind. Some assistance would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I am a long time Misplaced Pages user and only recently created an account. It's possible this user is, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, User:Blueboar has demonstrated what amounts to either passive resistance or genuine carelessness. I been compared to "Masonic detractors" and Bill Clinton during the 1998 impeachment scandal. In addition, Blueboar, along with User:MSJapan and User:WegianWarrior, has engaged in edit wars, revert wars, and tag-teaming. Blueboar has cited the article's "carefully crafted neutrality" even though the article has been edited more than a handful of times, mainly by him, since my change was reverted. In addition, he has used minor edits to cover up some of his major edits. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The edits I made were done in an attempt to resolve concerns that Uku himself raised on the talk page. None were "covered up" by minor edits (in fact, I deliberately made some edits seperately from others, so that others could see that I made them)... look at the edit history... compare my actions to Uku's initial mass edit that started this particular content dispute. No, Uku obviously feels that only he should be allowed to edit the article; that it should only reflect his particular POV, and all others viewpoints are invalid. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit history will reflect changes that are still under dispute. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Real Canadian Superstore

Two related articles, Real Canadian Superstore and Loblaw Companies are close to having an edit war, and I'm trying to stop it before it happens. Two months ago, a new logo appeared in advertising for the stores, and an anon IP is convinced this indicates all the stores in the chain in Ontario, Canada are changing their name. This appears unlikely. A more reasonable explanation is that there are two versions of the store, and the new logo is for either type, for advertising only This has been explained on his user talk page by several people, but he does not appear to accept it. This situation started at the beginning of December, and there have been 13 changes and reverts to the first article, and 9 to the second. These are all from anon IPs, and 2 of the most recent and persistent, User talk:99.224.112.64 and User talk:99.224.42.232, are clearly the same person based on their posting style and similar message, stating he is getting this information from his father who works at one of the stores. (That's why I've decided to take it to the NPOV board.) I've tried taking this to Page Protection (and also asked if a block on this IP might be in order), but was turned down because there is not enough recent activity to justify action at this time. The changes and reverts have happened several times in the past 2 days. I don't know if maybe they are waiting for it to turn into a full edit war before taking action? Surely we should be trying to stop that. More info: until today, this person refused to respond on the article's talk page. Now he has done so, but still insists on changing the article, and provides no citations, only rumours and speculation. His latest edit summary says one of the stores has actually changed its sign, but I think he might be pulling my leg. I can find no press release about a name change, and the store he is talking about is about 1000 miles away from his location in Toronto. I still think page protection is the best way to deal with this. Please advise? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

An admin has taken action on this. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Masonic conspiracy theories part 2

Dispute over the title of the article. Two questions: a) Is the title POV or not? b) Is this title too ambiguous? Please opine at the article talk page. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bobak - USC Bias in deleting

I have had my posting classified as vandalism simply because they stated facts and events that are not flattering to a USC player. My mention of the circumstances surrounding the player being charged with sexual assault, and the dismissal of the case, was deleted and I was given a warning on my IP. Also, all other postings I have made since then have been deleted, on any subject. This is harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.235.184 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel Shahak - neutrality concerns anti-Semitism claims

The whole article reads like a partisan smear against a noted author and activist.

Among, but not limited to, are:
1. An entire section titled, "Accusations of antisemitism" - which refers almost exclusively to extremist or fringe sources.
2. Repeated use of CAMERA (and the like) articles which are full of weasel words to justify their POV pushing
3. WP:WEIGHT critical (sometimes slanderous) sources are quoted in full in several places, giving far more prominence than they deserve.
4. overly large section to one rather minor incident - cuppa WP:WEIGHT, anyone?

I really don't have the background and knowledge to correct this article, unfortunately. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Cohen (British journalist)

Satellite9876has removed a previous NPV dispute and has made 17 changes to the article.

Some of the changes posted are misleading and contain inaccurate informtaion.

Satellite9876 says Cohen sold his SoJewish business to Totally plc for £40,000 quoting an article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2755457/Back-to-the-real-world.html. But the article says his share of the sale of SoJewish to Totally was £310,000. It later says he sold half of his stake in Totally plc for cash at a value of £40,000.

The company he founded was sold to Totally plc for just over £4m. The company was sold of 12.5m shares worth 32.5p http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=373707&in_page_id=2&in_a_source=This%20is%20Money

Satellite9876later confuses revenue with profit, quoting http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2755457/Back-to-the-real-world.htmland to claim that his CyberBritain company made just £165 of sales per year. The article says the company made a profit of £165, very different from revenue.

(Jebuss (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

There is not in my reading of the article any NPV issue, except as introduced by one or two people that seem *consistently* to write only in a manner that favors the article's subject.

I do not "say Cohen sold his SoJewish business to Totally plc for £40,000" but rather that he sold his own shares for that amount and reference a report from one of the UK's leading newspaper's Daily Telegraph reporting on the subject of the article. The article is about him and in relation to his business affairs, and share valuations, that seems to me to be the relevant fact.

Nor did I say at all, as alleged above, "that his CyberBritain company made just £165 of sales per year". The actual quote from my last edit to the article quotes directly from the Daily Telegraph report and reads:

"...his company filed a Companies House return showing an annual income of just £165 up to March 31, 2001. (emphasis added)". To make it absolutely clear though, I suggest it be reconfigured into the article to read:

"...his company filed a Companies House return showing an annual profit of just £165 up to March 31, 2001." (emphasis added). --Satellite9876 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As for "many" of his reports being carried by CNN that has simply not been substantiated by others.

Apologies we find ourselves here, and not on my Talk page, where I would have thought this discussion more properly belongs.

--Satellite9876 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Boy Scout's Oath in Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)

There is a dispute at Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) regarding whether or not the inclusion of the Boy Scout's Oath is POV or not. All input there would be much appreciated. Thanks! --LexCorp (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, this isn't so much a NPOV issue as it is a sourcing issue. The article currently contains a statement that the Scout Oath includes phrases consistent with the "lawful good" alignment of the D&D game, as an attempt to introduce a real-world example into the article. The argument is over whether the phrases are self-evident, and if they are, whether self-evident facts nevertheless require sources.

The argument begins at Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)#Scout Oath. =Axlq 20:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To further clarify. There is opposition to the inclusion of the scout oath on grounds of WP:OR,WP:NPV and specifically WP:Substantiate within WP:NPV. Please before commenting do read the discusion to the full from the link provided above.--LexCorp (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the dispute begins at the above section entitled "orignal research/synthesis". Also there is another, older dispute about the POV further up. bridies (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

me bad. Editor bridies is right so take note and do read in full.--LexCorp (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck no. No assigning alignments to real world things without a reliable source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging resolved as discussion seem to have been, er well, resolved.--LexCorp (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant

To what extent does WP:NPOV require the inclusion of a murder defendant's theory of the case? The article widely quotes prosecutors, activists, and the self-interested trial lawyer bringing a multi-million dollar suit against the city, but there is not a full accounting of the defendant's factual arguments based on witness statements from the police investigation, and a single editor demands they be omitted because they are "emotional"--even as accusations of "execution" are in the lead of the article. Discussion at Talk:BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant#NPOV tag. THF (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably to the extent that reliable sources have published his views. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Varian v. Delfino

• Varian v. Delfino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ronald M. Whyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jack Komar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Suebenjamin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amberjacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.

User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.

(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)

The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar. THF (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rabia, Sufi Mystic Saint

The current article about this important woman in history may not be accurate. For example, in Daniel Radinsky's book "Love Poems from God" (2002), he states on pp. 1-2 that, due to Rabia's being separated from her parents, perhaps because of their deaths, she was sold into a brothel where she worked until the age of 50. To quote from Radinsky: "Many myths surround her life and poems, but one has been recently confirmed by one of the most respected contemporary spiritual teachers..." He goes on to explain the forgoing.

Some may be offended by this. Personally, I don't think it diminishes at all the wonder and holiness of this woman, surrounded by so much pain and suffering of this earthly world--none of which seemed to affect her mystical love of God. Whatever the case, there's reason for me to doubt the current author's objectivity and/or being completely informed.

Timcollardey (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is really a question of reliable sources rather than a neutral point of view. The Radinsky reference is available online and the claim is not at odds with the euphemistic "slavery" described in the article. I'd suggest proposing a specific change to the article at Talk:Rabia al-Adawiyya, with a link to the online reference, and see if there's consensus for inclusion. Euryalus (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would caution that Daniel Ladinsky may not be a reliable historical source. As far as I recall, he takes vast liberties in his translations (basically, it has been said, he sells his own poems as those of historical figures) and has been amply criticised for that; and the reference to an unnamed "respected contemporary spiritual teacher" endorsing this version of history sets off loud alarm bells. The spiritual teacher in question may be a very fine fellow or lady, but such people are not usually in the business of doing recognised historical research. Someone like Ladinsky should, if at all, be mentioned in the Reception section. Jayen466 06:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Competition law

• Competition law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At Talk:Competition_law#Reason_for_tags, I have identified forty separate problems with the article justifying an NPOV tag; a user reverted on the grounds that he doesn't like my employer, and refuses to engage with the issues I have raised on the talk page, instead launching a personal attack against me. Other than attempting to add the tags once, I have confined my edits to the talk page. Can I get a third opinion? THF (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How much debunking in a fringe theory article is allowed until it violates NPOV?

We have an article on a fringe theory that also contains debunking of this fringe theory. So far, so good. But the article seems to go out of its ways to debunk the theory such that it seems to violate WP:NPOV. In particular, it does two things that give me the impression that it is attempting to promote a POV. First, it gives a point by point rebuttals. When I look at similar articles on other fringe theories such as Holocaust Denial or Creationism they don't seem to do this. Second, the majority of the article is about debunking the fringe theory rather than the fringe theory itself. In some sections, we have 11-to-1 converage where the fringe theory gets one sentence and the rebuttal gets 11 sentences. Is that appropriate? While I'm all for educating the public, at what point does the debunking violate WP:NPOV? Do we have any policy or guideline that can shed some light on this? I've read WP:NPOV and fringe theory and I'm not sure it really answers my questions. The article to which I refer is the Apollo_hoax. It starts off OK and then seems to promote a point of view. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes more than one sentence to explain things. It only takes one sentence to say "we can't see the Lunar Module on the Moon with a telescope". It takes several sentences to explain why we can't. Otherwise the article would look like:

• There are no stars in the photos.
  • There should not be stars in the photos.
• The flag is waving on the Moon.
  • No it isn't waving.
• We can't see the Lunar Module with a telescope
  • Earth-based telescopes are not capable of seeing it.

etc. Not satisfactory, in my opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 17:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that analysis and add a comment. In general, the weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderence of scholarly backing of that perspective. For a case like this even that won't work because there wouldn't be room in the article to even describe the topic itself! This then becomes an editorial issue, in which the topic should be described as is done so by sources, while never allowing the writing to give the appearance that the relative acceptances of various viewpoints regarding the topic is anything other than what sources describe it as. The heuristic I use is to describe, not prescribe. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to keep the claim-rebuttal format, I would suggest something like this:

• There are no stars in any of the photos. The Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a press conference after the event to have not remembered seeing any of the stars despite the zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Conspiracy theorists argue that "Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam".

• • The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure, and could not detect the faint points of light. Even the brightest stars are dim and difficult to see in the daytime on the Moon. Harrison Schmitt saw no stars from the Moon. The astronauts eyes were adapted to the brightly sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars.

I think there needs to be more balance. As far as I know, we're supposed to follow NPOV even in fringe articles.

As I mentioned earlier, if you look at the holocaust denial page, they don't have a point-by-point rebuttal of holocaust denial and they do have a separate page for Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial. I think that format works quite well.

Can we split this article into two and put the detailed point-by-point rebuttals in a separate criticism article? Then it doesn't come across as so POV because it's a criticism article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

After "There are no stars in any of the photos." none of the rest of that paragraph is claimed by the hoax proponents, so I think it would be wrong to include that as a hoax claim. As far as the issue of splitting the article, that has been brought up several times and the consensus has always been clearly against the fork. Bubba73 (talk), 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I need to amend that. The sentence about the Apollo 11 astronauts saying that they did not see that many stars is currently listed in the "hoax claim", but it more properly belongs in the answer. Secondly, I don't know of a reference for the sentence about hoax proponents saying that astronomers would be able to calculate the position of stars, etc.

I'm not well-versed in the moon hoax literature, but I got that from one of the hoax proponent's website. I'm at a different computer but I can look up my browser history tomorrow. I think the URL had "UFO" and "UK" in it. Sorry I didn't include a reference in my example, it didn't seem too important to the point I was trying to illustrate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be counting sentences and saying that an equal number of sentences makes it balanced. Baccyak4H mentioned "scholarly work", and there is none of that in support of the hoax claims. By that measure, the article would not exist. But despite that, I think the article should exist. Bubba73 (talk), 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Moon hoax claim proponents have long argued the article was "not neutral" because they want the claims presented without any explanations - thus furthering their agenda that "there is no explanation". That approach, in fact, would be wholly POV-pushing. This article, as it stands now, is as neutral as anything you're likely to see on this topic. It presents the claims, it presents reasonable explanations, and leaves it up to the readers to determine if either the claims or the explanations (or both) have validity or not. You can't get any more neutral than that. Counting words is a misleading argument, because seemingly simple questions often require detailed explanations. Perhaps the questions themselves could be made more detailed, if that would quell the complaints. But taking away the debunking would render the article a total POV-push. Baseball Bugs 20:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have an exact 50-50% coverage of each viewpoint, but when you devote 92% (11 out of 12 sentences for one of the claims) to one view point, it certainly seems as if POV. This goes to the heart of my question: How much debunking in a fringe theory article is allowed until it violates NPOV? If 92% is acceptable, how about 95%? How about 99%? 100%?

Just to be clear, I am not advocating removal of the debunking. That's useful information that should be in Misplaced Pages. What I am suggesting is either one of two things. One, the claims of the proponents need more detailed so that it appears more balanced. Or two, move the point-by-point criticism to a separate article, put summary of the criticism in the main article and put a link to the criticism article for people who want more detailed explanations. Again, it seems to work well for Holocaust_denial and Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, they also put a link to the Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial at the top of Holocaust_denial so people who just want to see the debunking can go directly there, so please don't think I'm suggesting burying the debunking. There's a pominent link at the top of the page as well as the summary and link. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am against moving the replies to a different article. For one thing, it would be difficult for the reader to switch back and forth. Secondly, I think it would be a POV fork. I think it might be a good idea to list the claims on a point by point basis, organized as they are now, and put all of the replies in a lower section, in the same structure. Then the replies could be to claim 6B, etc. I think that might improve the layout and structure of the article. I'll try to comment on the example you gave a little later. Bubba73 (talk), 04:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If we move the point-by-point rebuttal to a separate article, there is no longer a need to list all the conspiracy claims point-by-point in the main article. I would think we would put a summary of the claims along with a summary of the debunking. So there would be no need to go back and forth between the two articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a separate main section (not a separate article, though) for the "counterclaims", rather than "immediate" rebuttals, could be a reasonable compromise, and might actually improve the appearance of the page - as well as reinforcing the "let the reader decide" argument. I must point out that I don't like the hypothetical comparison with Holocaust denial, which is a far more politically charged issue. Claiming we didn't go to the moon is a relatively trivial matter and is a world away (maybe a universe away) from claiming Hitler did not systematically kill 6 million Jews. Baseball Bugs 04:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several of the claims listed in that article and then there are several paragraphs counter to it. Back to what I was saying:Like I said before, the explanations take several sentences. Look at how long the explanation for the telescope is. That is better than just a flat statement that telescopes can't currently do it, but perhaps some of the details could be put in a footnote.

The issue with the Lunar rover goes back about 1 to 2 years, and I don't remember who the editor was. But that editor made a big issue out of the rover. I don't think that he realized that the rover was not essential to going to the Moon, it was only used to drive around once Apollo 15, 16, and 17 got there. It was the Lunar Module that landed, not the rover. But he made a big deal out of the fact that there are no actual rovers on Earth. Well, duh, they aren't on Earth because they are on the Moon. He also made a big deal about there not being blueprints for them. I don't know if the blueprints for the Spirit of St. Louis still exist, but that doesn't mean that Lindbergh didn't cross the ocean. In the interest of full disclosure, we tried to tell what does exist of the rovers - the training versions, models, mock-ups, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 04:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An article on hoax claims surrounding the moon landing which is 10% hoax claim and 90% debunking probably accords nicely (or is ~9.9% away from according nicely) with the distribution of reliable sources on the moon landing itself and certainly doesn't "push the POV" that we landed on the moon. We landed on the moon. That's not a point of view unless you are the moon, then it is "some guys landed on me." This article also doesn't need to be separated from its criticism to protect the reader. I don't see a problem. Protonk (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If this article was a 'normal' (for lack of a better term) article, I would agree with you. In fact, I wouldn't even mention this conspiracy theory in any of the 'normal' Apollo articles. But this is an article devoted to a fringe theory where unreliable sources are allowed. To the best of my knowledge, we're supposed to be neutral in all articles, even in articles about nonsense.

If someone can point us to a specific policy that says that NPOV doesn't apply to articles on fringe theories, then my complaint is irrelevent and I will immediately drop the subject. So far, no one's been able to cite such a policy, so I assume that NPOV applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the article violates NPOV rules is false. This is as neutral an article on the subject as you're likely to find on the internet. Baseball Bugs 14:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a "normal" article. I'm not sure where you got the misapprehension that we extend some added credulity to hoaxes in their own articles, but we don't. NPOV applies to fringe theories, but it doesn't mean that all views are displayed equally as though they are equally well regarded. They aren't. We attempt (As best we can) to cover views in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. The functional alternative is that these "Conspiracy theories about..." articles become walled gardens where the theory is regarded as though it is fact and presented as though it has some credence whatsoever in the scientific world. The moon landing hoax theories get an article because they are quite famous and quite famously rebutted. Protonk (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an article on a fringe theory where unreliable sources are allowed.

You stated that "We attempt (As best we can) to cover views in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources."

Can you please cite the specific Misplaced Pages policy that states such a thing in an article on a fringe theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you may be incorrect. "Unreliable sources" are only allowed in this articles insofar as they speak about themselves--if we want to describe the hoax claims themselves we may use the books/pamphlets/etc to do so. Otherwise the same expectations about reliable sources apply. As for my statement about proportion, I see no reason to think why it should not be true for fringe science/hoaxes when it is true for everything else. You may also want to read Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. Protonk (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bubba73 - To answer your question from yesterday, I got that quote from the following website: . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs - You said that "the claim that the article violates NPOV rules is false". So you're saying that 92% coverage devoted to a specific viewpoint is acceptable? How well do you think this would go over if this was an article on abortion, the death penality, the Iraq War or Barack Obama? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You've read WP:Undue I suppose? Protonk, above, is pretty close to your figures. That's the way NPOV works. dougweller (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight, yes, but also the point that counting words is a misleading measure of the alleged "lack of neutrality". As we've said, simple questions can require lengthy answers. A question like "why is the sky blue?" could lead to a paragraph for an answer. Baseball Bugs 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've demonstrated above, it's possible to add more detail to the claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it and it doesn't at all agree with Protonk's figures. Unfortunately, it doesn't really answer my questions but it does state that in articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the minority views can be explained "at length". Nowhere have I seen anything that states that NPOV doesn't apply to articles on fringe theories.

If someone can point us to a specific Misplaced Pages policy that states that NPOV doesn't apply to articles on fringe theories, then the same standard that applies to all articles applies here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV applies to all articles. But there is also the undue weight issue. Neutral point of view DOES NOT mean "equal time" to fringe theories. Baseball Bugs 15:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you state that NPOV applies to all articles. Most of the undue weight policy is about undue weight in a (again, for lack of a better word) 'normal' article. But this is an article devoted to a fringe theory. Unfortunately, the guideline isn't very specific. But since it isn't, then the same standard of NPOV that applies to all articles applies to this one. As I alluded to earlier, I doubt if 92% devotion to a particular view point would be allowed in an article about abortion, the death penalty or Barack Obama. If it's not allowed there, then it shouldn't be allowed here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

This is a normal article. There will be no article written on wikipedia that gives undue credence to the ravings of lunatics and morons. Please do not continue to equate moon landing conspiracy theories with policy disputes where there are obviously two sides to a debate. Note also that there is a Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. The nature of the coverage of that conspiracy (and arguably the nature of the claims themselves) result in a literally distinct distribution of claims and counterclaims. Most of the article is a history of the claims and claimants. But in no way does the article present those claims as though they are on equal footing with the mainstream view. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Protonk has raised (I think) an interesting point (assuming I understand it correctly) so I'll repeat it here: "Unreliable sources" are only allowed in this articles insofar as they speak about themselves--if we want to describe the hoax claims themselves we may use the books/pamphlets/etc to do so. Otherwise the same expectations about reliable sources apply. As for my statement about proportion, I see no reason to think why it should not be true for fringe science/hoaxes when it is true for everything else.

Obviously, this is an article about a fringe theory so unreliable sources are allowed - I think that we agree on that point. However, Protonk seems to make a distinction between neutrality (in general) and neutrality based on what reliable sources are saying. That is to say, if all reliable sources are biased to a particular view point, then it's perfectly acceptable for such an article to present repeat that bias.

So, for example, if the reliable sources say that Apollo hoax believers are wrong, it's OK for us to do the same. That is to say, we don't have to give the fringe theory equal footing with reality even in an article about fringe theories.

EDIT: Or to put it another way, there's a difference between being biased (in a general, non-Misplaced Pages sense) and being biased according to reliable sources?

Protonk, is my understanding of what you said correct? If so, can everyone please confirm (or reject) that Protonk's point is correct?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"if all reliable sources are biased to a particular view point, then it's perfectly acceptable for such an article to present repeat that bias" - while that hypothetical is somewhat implausible ("all reliable sources"), and the choice of the word "bias" here carries connotations that may be better avoided by saying represent or reflect rather than biased to, not only is the statement true, but actually understated: not only is it perfectly acceptable to do so, it is imperative to do so. NPOV is a fundamental policy of the project. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also to make clear, the use of unreliable sources as only a source for its own opinion is not limited to only articles on fringe topics. That is their limitation for all articles. (It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one; articles about living people should really never use such sources.) There is nothing special about fringe topics in this regard. The necessity to use such sources to even write such content about such a topic is an artifact of the topic being fringe in the first place; it has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages per se. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And I say again, "92% devotion to a particular view point" is a false representation of this article. Counting words is misleading. You have a question, you have an explanation. The explanation takes more words than the way the questions are posed. You want longer questions, word them differently. But don't make the false claim about "92% devotion to a particular view point". Baseball Bugs 17:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if Protonk's point is correct (and so far we've only had one editor weigh in on this issue), then that 92% number is irrelevent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to muddy the waters a bit, here's another possible approach, for those who fear that there are too many words supporting the debunking. Part of the problem is the confrontational approach of the questions. The hoaxsters say such-and-such, and the debunkers say, not such-and-such. It could be done a different way, with this abbreviated example derived from Bubba73's comments. Each simple answer shown here would have some elaboration:

• Are there stars in the photos?
  • Hoax supporters say there are no stars in the photos.
  • Apollo supporters say there should not be stars in the photos.
• Is the flag waving on the Moon?
  • Hoax supporters say the flag is waving.
  • Apollo supporters say it is not waving.
• Can a Lunar Module be seen with a telescope?
  • Hoax supporters say they cannot.
  • Apollo suppoerters say earth-based telescopes are not capable of seeing it.

The next question is why the Apollo line always seems to get the last word. That's because the question was actually raised by the hoax supporters. They could be switched around, but the result is the same, as the Apollo explanation has already said why the hoax explanation is factually inaccurate. Hard to tell which approach is more "biased".

Baseball Bugs 18:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That's basically correct. "Neutrality" means a fair and non-biased representation of what is out there. It doesn't mean that we introduce a bias to counter an imbalance in the facts or the views on a matter. There is no equal time provision on wikipedia. We do not define neutrality on the basis of "sides" to an issue. Arguably in the Apollo hoax article we devote too much time to "debunking", but that is something that could be slightly adjusted through normal editing rather than adjusted wholesale. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you're right about it being confrontational. That's a good word to use. I think that's part of where I got my impression. Maybe it can be reworded.

But in any case, it appears as if my understanding of NPOV on fringe articles was incorrect. I thought was had to present both sides in a neutral manner, but what I'm hearing is that we only present both sides insofar as what reliable sources say. If this is correct, my complaint is baseless.

I will say this, however. We have hundreds if not thousands of Misplaced Pages. It would make me feel better if some more editors weighed in on this matter, if only to say "Protonk is correct". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just simply reread the relevant policy pages? I am not saying that to be flippant, but rather to point out that the answer to your question will be crytal clear if you do. You also won't need to wait for others to answer it for you, or feel any doubt about the credibility of any particular poster here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I appreciate your help. I am reading and rereading those articles. It just kind of blows my mind because I think we have a lot of articles on fringe topics that try to be neutral (in general) rather than neutral per reliable sources, particularly with the 9/11 conspiracy articles. I've watched the debates on these article's discussion pages and I don't recall anyone making this distinction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess it depends on the article. I have seen it pointed out in some places, and seen others in badly in need of being pointed out to some editors. Glad to be able to help. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was so dense and it took me so long to 'get it'. Thanks to everyone for their help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Larry Bodine biography at Larry Bodine

Hello, The biography of living persons (myself) has been labeled "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The biography is also a "stub."

I am the victim of a drive-by tagging, and would like to resolve the neutrality question. Also I'd like to cooperate with you to upgrade the quality of the bio so that it is more than a stub.

Very truly yours, Larry Bodine, Esq. Apollo Business Development 4601 E. Camino Pimeria Alta Tucson, AZ 85718 630.942.0977 Lbodine@LawMarketing.com http://www.LarryBodine.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.35.59 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• In cases where tags are unexplained, you can probably just freely remove them. I've done so in this case. The rest of the edit that added the tag also concerns me greatly. WilyD 17:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I just did a little more clean up on the article. It could be expanded but is not now in bad shape. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

William Dembski article

It would appear that the article on William Dembski was not written by a person with a neutral point of view. The biographical information about him largely questions his abilities and presents information in a manner that would arouse disdain by a materialist. An extended list of controversies also appears to come from this angle. This is especially evident in the "talk" tab under "Oklahoma" where the author hopes to track down articles criticizing Dembski so that it could be used as source material. This seems to violate the requirements for biographies of living persons to mock or disparage and also criticism and praise being balanced and not too one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommie113 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since Dembski presents himself as an expert in fields where he has no expertise, and is a prime proponent of ID, which is a complete fabrication and not science as he claims, I imagine there is a good bit necessary to ensure the readers don't have only Dembski's self-promotional nonsense to gauge him by. Did you have something in specific, other than your dissatisfaction with how one section of the talk page was handled? KillerChihuahua 17:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Chip Pitts

• Chip Pitts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This resume-like article is full of wikipuffery, and needs some scrubbing. I'd do it, but the article has a protective editor, and I'm trying to avoid wikidrama where someone might accuse me of pushing an agenda, so if an editor with avowedly neutral eyes could handle it, that would be good. THF (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, there was practically no sourcing at all. I'll try to find something on the man, but meanwhile, I've removed the reams of unsourced c.v. KillerChihuahua 20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of primary sourcing, now. Still a huge WP:PUFF bio (and likely autobio). THF (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics

As a result of the previous discussion on the Apollo Lunar Landing Hoax, above, I would like to clean-up our 9/11 conspiracy theories article. As it stands, it attempts to portray a fringe theory on equal footing with the mainstream view. As I make these changes, I anticipate (perhaps significant) resistance from proponents of the fringe theory. I would appreciate any advice or help on how to go about this.

So far, this is what I am planning to do.

1. Clarify Misplaced Pages's policies on the article's discussion page. I want to give everyone time to understand the policies before making any changes. I've already begun doing this .

2. In order to make sure undue weight isn't given to the fringe theory, I want to assemble a list of reliable sources that support this theory. If there are none, it makes it a lot easier to determine how much weight the fringe theory gets. If there are any, then we have a list of reliable sources that can be used as a reference for what fringe theory proponents claim.

So, in a couple weeks or so, I plan on posting something like this in the article's discussion page.

"Per the previous discussion titled "Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics", I would like to begin changing this article so that it follows Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality. As I mentioned, I don't think that there are many reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. If there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. So I think a good place to start is to find out, are there any reliable sources that support 9/11 conspiracy theories?" Then wait to see if anyone can come up with any.

3. Research the topic/read the sources.

4. Reread and analyze the article and begin making suggestions on the article's discussion page.

5. For each suggestion, if I can acheive consensus on the article discussion page, I will make the change. If I cannot acheive consensus, I'm not sure what to do.

As I mentioned, I anticipate (perhaps) significant resistance from 9/11 conspiracy proponents. I would appreciate any advice or help on how to go about this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the core problem is a misunderstanding of the presence of these articles on wikipedia. Some fringe theories are listed in wikipedia, not necessarily because there is any truth value to them, but simply because they are notable. That is, they have been talked about by reliable sources. As an example, I might cook up a theory that 9/11 was caused by a Martian invasion. That's certainly a fringe theory, but it's not going to find it's way into any articles unless reliable sources report on it. However, reliable sources have (presumably) reported on the claims that 9/11 was not what it appeared to be. Other reliable sources may tell us why the conspiracy theory is bunk. It is unlikely any reliable source will claim that 9/11 was an "inside job", they will merely report that others are saying it. Do you begin to see the distinction? NPOV does not compel wikipedia to somehow give "equal time" to the arguments of the fringe theories. Baseball Bugs 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

At least for me, my misunderstanding stemmed from the idea that in articles about fringe theories, the fringe theory was supposed to be treated neutrally (using the layman's definition of neutral). Anyway, if you go to the 9/11 conspiracy discussion page, I put up (what I like to think) is a really good explanation of the distinction. I borrowed a few parts quite liberally from the previous discussion. When you get any NPOV complaints on the Apollo hoax article, feel free to use it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're getting the point, and I added a supportive (and probably repetitive) comment. Regarding the Apollo thing, there are factors to keep in mind. One is that Kaysing was a guy who had been fired by NASA, so this whole cockamamie theory could well have been just a way to get some personal satisfaction or revenge. It also didn't come out until after the Apollo program was cancelled, so there were no more corroborating moon flights. How extraordinarily convenient for the hoax theorists, eh? Also, it was the Watergate era, when anything the government did was considered suspect. There was bitterness over the Vietnam War, for example. The JFK assassination was still in recent memory, and there were many who thought the government (and the Kennedys themselves) were hiding something. That was a widespread suspicion almost from the get-go. Yet 45 years later there is no significant evidence for anything beyond the lone-gunman theory. The public fear, on the day of the assassination, was that the Russians did it. That fear tended to keep a shroud of secrecy around it, and that combined with the Kennedys being very protective (for good reason, as we now know), it helped fuel conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories do not stand up to critical examination. But that doesn't stop them from coming - because someone always has a book to publish, some money to be made, by preying on the portion of the public that wants to believe that they are "in on" something that's supposedly a "secret". Baseball Bugs 00:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the supportive comment, even if repetitive. If we have just one editor saying something then people might think that that's just one person. But if 5 editors say the same thing, I think it carries more weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think A Quest For Knowledge needs to eat more sugar.

"But if 5 editors say the same thing, I think it carries more weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)" -- That one's from

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

So, let's see. If four people agree with you, you must be right?

Eat sugar! 191,010,000,000,000,000,000 houseflies per year per mating couple can NOT be wrong!

http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/flies/house_fly.HTM

O.K. dude. You are not talking about any kind of "fringe" movement, here.

As US News points out, we're talking about one third of the US population:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy.htm?s_cid=related-links:TOP

You are talking about, roughly, one hundred million Americans, out of 303,824,640 (July 2008 CIA estimate.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People

Time magazine says:

"Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html

The Washington Post points out that this highly significant movement is even more popular in New York City, where the WTC was located.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701669_pf.html

You might, then, ask why something YOU don't believe in should have been so wildly popular then, and, of course, increasingly popular now. It has been widely documented, in reliable sources as far away as Australia, that top officials of the Bush administration told 935 lies following 9/11, not counting any related to the 9/11 Truth movement, which these reliable sources were ignoring.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23098129-401,00.html

So, as Time continues:

"The Administration is certainly playing its part in the drama with admirable zeal. If we went to war to root out fictional weapons of mass destruction, is staging a fictional terrorist attack such a stretch?"

Of course, the movement has also been covered by the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print

The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/23/september112001.usnews

And, of course, Rolling Stone provides some evidence that we're talking about a third of the U.S. population (even though they disagree with it):

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies

.

There you go, kid. Where are your "Reliable Sources?" 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wowest (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How many people also believe in Bigfoot...the Loch Ness Monster...UFO's? Bottom line is that some will always think something is true, even when a preponderance of evidence indicates that it isn't.--MONGO 01:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Rolling Stone, the eminent authority on world affairs. Praise the Lord and pass the Kool-Aid! Baseball Bugs 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not appropriately formatted for inclusion on the NPOV Noticeboard. If you would like assistance in resolving an NPOV dispute, you should provide a link to the talk page of the article in question and ask for other users to follow the link and provide comments on NPOV. Deleteyourself16 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Wikileaks sourced to The Register

An editor insists that the main article on Scientology should mention the availability of Scientology documents on Wikileaks: Apart from the Register, there are very few sources that have commented on this at all . Is it due weight in an encyclopedic overview of Scientology, or is it merely designed to promote the Wikileaks page? Related talk page discussion: Talk:Scientology#Removing_verifiable_content Jayen466 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have mentioned a few sources which corroborate the information in the above diff. It does not appear that the contents of the diff are meant to promote Wikileaks, but they rather comment on the significance of the Church of Scientology filing a copyright claim against it. ←Spidern→ 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins

• Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

80%+ of this article was written by SPA Eec17736 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and it now reads like an advertisement; there's not even a mention of the firm's relationship with convicted felon William Lerach. I'd do the required rewrite, but since I've testified before Congress about the scheme that sent Lerach to prison, and criticized the plea deal that spared his firm the fate of Milberg, I might be accused of a COI. THF (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Netbooks: Non neutral editor

SamJ is a biased editor. He seems to be bullying certain other editors regarding the Netbook article. Sam runs the "save the Netbooks" blog/site reference in this article Save the Netbooks and certainly should not have any nfluence over other opinions regarding the term. His bias manifests itself in a general dislike of the Psion trademark and a particular attitude that seems to make him believe that he should be able to force the issue of non-validity of their trademark claim. I believe the Psion claim is valid and the article should revert any changes that Sam has made to remove this wording. The article should mention Psion more prominently, and on winning the case, the article should be moved to whatever the new term coined to replace the Netbook is.

I would also like to call in to question the non biased nature of the Save_the_Netbooks article. It seems to me to be highly critical of a public company that has legally enforced its trademark, and has yet to be proven to no longer hold that trademark. His attempt to railroad the case is quite astounding. I believe it is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages to remove the article; it could be held to be liable for a cease and desist as it stands and also could cause legal issues for Misplaced Pages at a future juncture, should Psion win their court case{.

I call for this editor to be prevented from meddling with the Netbook related articles and for his own biased article on his blog to be removed.

Matt, seriously - give it up already. I believe the Psion claim is valid and ... the article should be moved to whatever the new term coined to replace the Netbook is.... and you claim that *I'm* biased? If that's not enough there's this: I personally belive that Psion should win., and a bunch of other rants like this thread in which you called me a moron, a cyber bully and called bullshit on .

Truth be told I actually quite like Psion, just not their trademark trolling (as I have said a number of times already). Anyway, here's some expert legal opinion I think you ought to read: FACE IT PSION: NETBOOK IS GONE

Fortunately, Misplaced Pages has due process, where you actually have to support your accusations with evidence (which I note is entirely lacking from your rant). Half of Misplaced Pages is unbiased coverage of biased subjects and I see you haven't bothered to identify a single point where the Save the Netbooks article (which clearly meets WP:WEB by the way - see here, here and here) fails to reflect reality. As for the Netbook article, it's not even me removing the Psion references. Better yet, I've actually been arguing for its inclusion. Will there be anything else? -- samj _in 14:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointing fingers and casting stones (and pasting fact tags all over the other person's comment) isn't really helpful to either of you. Please try to stay calm when editing, be civil, and assume good faith. Part of the neutral point of view policy is that we acknowledge that there may be numerous point of views towards a subject, and address all of the notable ones in turn, without giving any undue weight to a specific one. If the article has a bias in it, then please, feel free to remove it -- Misplaced Pages is a wiki after all! But you know what? It's probably _much_ more helpful to edit that section to acknowledge that viewpoint, so long as it is notable, and then provide the balance that is the counterpoint. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 09:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner post at RSN

Crossposting to my posting at Reliable Sources noticeboard, to get more responses.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart

The page has extensive discussion of criticism of Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart is also one of the most praised companies in the United States. E.g., (and this is hardly a comprehensive list, just stuff I could quickly find because I knew about it off the top of my head) Yet that praise is to be found nowhere in the article, while union criticism of Wal-Mart is prominently featured in the lead paragraphs. A single editor is edit-warring to remove the NPOV tag, with his only defense "I disagree." Can someone please restore the tag? THF (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

– None of these sources back of your assertion that "Wal-Mart is also one of the most praised companies in the US." Vedder's book does have some positive comments regarding Wal-Mart's economic contributions, though it's a tertiary reference and not a primary source, and is also published by THF's employer. The Seattle Times article does discuss Wal-Mart's effect on inflation in the US, but fails to back up the "most praised" issue. The imdb.com references a documentary of sorts that does offer positive things to say about the company, but I cannot verify that it backs up the definite assertion that Wal-Mart is one of the most praised companies in the US -- offering praise is one thing, but saying "most praised" is something totally different. Documentaries are also poor choices for references -- for the most part, they're tertiary sources, and Misplaced Pages does favor freely available text sources over videos, as well as primary sources over tertiary ones. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, and this is just off the top of my head. This is just off the top of my head.

• 1) Lead is one-sided, mentioning only criticism, without any praise. E.g.,
• 2) No mention of notable economic studies showing that Wal-Mart has single-handedly substantially reduced inflation in the United States, proving hundreds of billions of dollars of benefits to consumers. E.g.,
• 3) No mention of notable criticism of Dukes v. Wal-Mart lawsuit: the article is one-sided in presenting only the plaintiffs' version of facts. E.g.,
• 4) Disproportionate coverage of Human Rights Campaign's coverage of Wal-Mart.
• 5) "Employee and labor relations" section biased towards labor POV. Falsely characterizes Employee Free Choice Act in POV fashion.
• 6) Fails to mention Wal-Mart's generic pharmaceutical program that has substantially lowered drug prices. E.g.,
• 7) No mention of Wal-Mart's effort to compete in the banking business, and unions' efforts to punish consumers by lobbying to block it.
• 8) No acknowledgement of the economic studies that show that, given their level of skills and experience, and compared to other retail firms, Wal-Mart employees do well. E.g.,
• 9) No acknowledgement of the studies that show that health-care coverage, retirement benefits, and other benfits are similar to those of other retail firms, and very few Wal-Mart workers go without health insurance. E.g.,
• 10) No acknowledgement of the economic studies that show that communities with new Wal-Mart stores typically enjoy increased employment and incomes after the store opens. E.g.,
• 11) No mention of Wal-Mart's notable success in providing goods to Hurricane Katrina victims long before FEMA got its act together. E.g.,

For these eleven reasons, I am placing an {unbalanced} tag on the article. THF (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC), updated with cites 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really have a true NPOV case here at all. It should be noted that THF has disclosed that he is employed by AEI on at Talk:Wal-Mart (AEI is a conservative think tank with a clear political agenda, and it's the publisher of Vedder's book, which he is advocating adding a citation to the article). I will acknowledge that some of the things he mentions would improve the article, but I don't see any NPOV issues whatsoever (except maybe in THF's egotistical mind). Dr. Cash (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides the uncivil personal attack on my "egotistical mind" (which is strange, since I haven't suggested citing to any of my writings on Wal-Mart), Cash provides no reason why these eleven problems should not be resolved by edits to bring the article into NPOV compliance. Vedder's book (which is independently notable )is only one of over a dozen different possible cites I suggested; it's a tertiary source, and one can use the secondary sources of the economic studies he cites to. (Can an admin remind Cash that WP:CIVIL applies to conservative editors, as well as the ones he agrees with?) THF (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at this page rather expecting to find a one-sided article and instead find something that while not perfect, does not seem grossly unbalanced. The bulk of the article is about the company as a successful business, which is to be expected. The criticisms do have some balance and mostly include Walmart's responses. Nevertheless, much of what TDF is suggesting here could be included. As this is a content dispute, discussion belongs on the talk page. Can I suggest both sides stop taking potshots at each other here and concentrate on trying to find consensus on the talk page. By my reading of the talk page, where discussion is taking place, I expect this should be possible. Dean B (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Naturopathy

This article violates the term Neutral. There are comments made in the article against the Naturopathic doctor community. Not only are these false, providing a reference by someone who is also bias does not mean one can use an Encyclopedia to state ones opinion or degrade ones profession.

To call Natural care dangerous is to persuade the public to view a Naturopathic doctor with caution suggesting they are not capable in their chosen field. I have edited this article twice and explained it to the editor. Unfortunately this seems to keep popping back up in the article. This should not be allowed to be printed. When one reads an article about an MD or the conventional medical profession in an encyclopedia, It is not noted that 100's of 1000's of people die each year due to the mis-diagnosis or wrong prescriptions given to them by conventional doctors. This is however written in available prominent periodicals such as "The American journal of Medicine" Where people are seeking this kind of information.

There should be no arguments or opinions between Natural medicine and conventional medicine. Just the facts when writing in an educational article. This article otherwise appears to be neutral. Please edit these two comments as to allow the public to decide for themselves based on a neutral article whether to use natural care as a means of healing themselves, and so that children reading this encyclopedia do not form negative opinions of Naturopathy early on, by a respected source such as Misplaced Pages.

Following are the negative and or non neutral aspects of the article:

1. Naturopathy relies on scientifically unproven treatments, including homeopathy, which is often considered a form of pseudoscientific quackery.

2. Naturopathy is viewed with skepticism by critics who contend that it relies on unproven and controversial alternative medical treatments. Certain naturopathic treatments, such as homeopathy and iridology, are widely considered pseudoscience or quackery.

Dr. Stephen Barrett (of Quackwatch and the National Council Against Health Fraud) has stated that the philosophy of naturopathy is "simplistic and that its practices are riddled with quackery."

K. C. Atwood writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine, "'Naturopathic physicians' now claim to be primary care physicians proficient in the practice of both "conventional" and "natural" medicine. Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care. An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices."

Harmonica5 23:57, February 23, 2009 (UTC)

The user has received a vandalism warning, as well as a welcome message with lots of good information, on his/her talk page. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

In our article on the September_11_attacks, there is a lot of debate as to how much weight should be given to conspiracy theories and whether any possible undue weight is in violation of WP:NPOV. I would like some assistance in resolving this WP:NPOV dispute. Can some other editors follow the link and provide comments on WP:NPOV? The relevent discussion is here . Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman

I have tagged these two articles (and many more) with the peacock tag as they contain the following lead sentences:

• Dustin Lee Hoffman (born August 8, 1937) is a two-time Academy Award-, six-time Golden Globe-, three-time BAFTA- and Emmy Award-winning American actor.
• Eugene Allen "Gene" Hackman (born 30 January 1930) is a two-time Academy Award-winning American actor.

Both sentences blatantly violate WP:PEACOCK and also infringe upon violating WP:NPOV. Calling someone "Academy Award-winning" provides zero context. I have stated that the lead sentence/paragraph needs to be reworked to expand upon the awards, and eliminate the "award-winning" gibberish. Binksternet has begun edit-warring on these articles, removing the maintenance template without reason, claiming "award-winning" is acceptable. I am requesting third-party assistance.

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're completely in the wrong on this. PEACOCK is for unsourced adjectival phrasing that doesn't add information: i.e., "renowned," "notable," "famous," etc. The fact that someone is Academy-Award-winning is a notable fact, and an entirely appropriate adjective to include in the WP:LEAD. Please self-revert your edits immediately. THF (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. See the examples given in PEACOCK. While "award-winning" is a peacock term (because that truly does not have context), "Academy Award Winning" is very specific and factual, and not the sort of unqualified opinion that PEACOCK looks to eliminate. Arakunem 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not remotely specific. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is. An Academy Award is a specifically identifiable, verifiable, and notable achievement. Saying someone is an Academy Award winning actor is much more specific and significant than just saying "award-winning actor". The latter is likely to get a "cite needed" or "vague" tag thrown on it, as well as the Peacock tag for the article or section. Again, see the examples given in PEACOCK. That tag is for "saying something is important without saying why it is important". Saying that Hoffman is "one of the most important/influential/etc actors of our day" is PEACOCKy, saying he is Academy Award-Winning is a verifiable fact. Arakunem 16:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought a lead sentence was to include a brief and not-too-specific introduction to the subject, with details (such as specific awards) to be found below in the article with all kinds of other relevant details. Thus my little contribution to the "warring" today. for which it seems I should now apologize (?). 217.209.96.84 (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. See WP:LEAD for discussion of standardization of the lead paragraph. Because the lead is to indicate what makes the subject of the article worthy of note, it is appropriate to mention specific awards when they are the highlights of a person's life. THF (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree that these qualifiers are appropriate for the lead, as they are sourceable and assert notability, per Arakunem and THF. As to whether all of the awards for either, Hoffman in particular, are best all written out as per the OP, that is a matter of editorial judgement, but some specific reference to some of these particular awards would seem desired. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the placement of the "two-time Academy Award-winning actor" sort of thing in lead sentences; it is the essence of logic that success in one's vocation is the basis of most performers' encyclopedic notability, and such nominations and awards as they may have received are one notable and specific measure of that success. Yet it does seem like enumerating four or more such awards in a lead sentence is peacockery in spirit and in common sense if not by the standards or examples currently discussed on the WP:PEACOCK page. For context, I'm not one of those people who goes about asserting excessiveness or non-notability when it comes to awards, nominations, charts, lists, etc. Arbitrary or defensive limitations can prevent a reader's assessment of relative success between artists or between a given artist's various efforts. But such an assessment need not be made from a reading of lead sentences and at some point these enumerations seem clumsy and gratuitous when so many are crammed into those leads. They are more appropriate for further into the article and/or a chart, list, etc. By placing four of these awards in the lead, the effect to me becomes more one of jockeying to advertise which awards have a capacity to bestow prestige than of acknowledging the work that won them. I'd say three citations of awards a person has been nominated for or won is plenty for an opening sentence. (Having said that, most artists and/or their critics would tell you the work they felt was their greatest achievement was not one for which they won the biggest awards or fanfare, and their most popular may be yet a different one, and either valuation, if citable, seems equally reasonable to mention—more obviously so for those who have not won major awards.) While the unqualified "award-winning" has been declaimed here as peacockery, if it is backed up by the mention of these awards elsewhere in the body of the article, it is both true and citable. Far from being peacockery it would be its opposite, demure restraint, by comparison. (Etymologically the argument is not that a peacock doesn't have all those feathers, the point is or ought to be that one needn't array its full plumage up front.) As far as being vague, there is only so much specific detail a well-written lead sentence can be expected to encompass. If this weren't so, much of the article would be redundant elaboration. It seems to me that excluding any allusion to awards in the lead whatsoever is as extreme and as erroneous an interpretation of what should be allowed under WP:PEACOCK as including too many. Abrazame (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the sentiments of several other editors I know and the reason why I made the change (above) for which I subsequently agologized (in error?), which apology was accepted by THF. Thank you so much Abrazame for taking the time to put all this into words so comprehensively and comprehendably! 217.209.96.84 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi, Swastika References Being Deleted from Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Cited references from reliable sources describing the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi past and swastika flag are being systematically purged. This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Histopher Critchens is using reliable sources to support a point that is uncontroversial in the historical community outside of Syria, i.e., that the Syrian Social Nationalist Party was a facist movement modeled, to a significant degree, on German National Socialism. In the 1930's, facism was popular. Many countries, including England (British Union of Fascists, had such parties. The repeated reversions of Histopher Critchens edits are sadly typical of the reaction of too many Misplaced Pages editors to material that, in their eyes, reflects badly oon a nation they love or support. Aggressive editing by enthusiastic nationalists unable to bear the reality that all nations have a chequered past is one of the great flaws of Misplaced Pages.Historicist (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Energy Accounting

Could someone have a look at the article Energy Accounting? I think it describes the concept not in a NPOV, but instead have undue weight to the views of TechInc. That's not how a WP article should be written. Also we have had a quite heavy dispute of whether to put up a POV-tag or not, and some more things - see here for a summary I've written of the whole conflict at WP:EA (no editor assistance was provided there though). Mårten Berglund (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot conspiracy theory

Additional eyes needed for this fringe theory. I've rewritten the lead, but the main text needs a thorough scrubbing. Very vociferous editor who is confident of the WP:TRUTH at issue. THF (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Note below. Some of the same participants in all Bush-related articles. Some footwear is likely involved. Collect (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Skull and Bones

Recently, User:Collect inserted a sentence from a NY Times article used as a source for the Geronimo lawsuit section. It says the lawyer for the family has acknowledged he has no hard proof. I believe the result for anybody reading this after the edit is that the lawsuit is described and then it says the lawyer has no hard proof. So I saw it as a violation of NPOV.

Collect seemed to have a hard time understanding this, claiming that since WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied how can including the "view" of the family laywer be against policy? I then emphasized that we cannot just include anything, even if it satisfies V and RS, since that could violate NPOV, but I seem to have trouble getting through. I also think the phrasing of the sentence as the lawyer "acknowledged" is important. It's more along the lines of, if pressed on it, yes he'll admit they have no hard evidence. But obviously he must think there is merit to the case, otherwise why would a former US Attorney General bother representing the Geronimo family?

Rather than fighting on it, I sought to make the summary of the NY Times article closer to the perspective of the journalist who wrote it. In apparent retaliation, Collect has rather cavalierly inserted a long rambling quote from a Cecil Adams Straight Dope article.

Discussion is here: Talk:Skull_and_Bones#Insertion_of_Clark_quote --C S (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice "neutral" presentation, eh? The NYT is cited for saying a US ATTORNEY GENERAL is filing the lawsuit (Ramsey Clark) the article cited makes it clear that Mr. Clark says he has no hard evidence for the suit. Since the person citing apparently felt it important to mention the lawyer, clearly the article's comments about the lawyer are RS and meet WP:V. As for this being aPOV issue, I am bemused indeed. The NYT article is intrinsically NPOV, and the quoted sentence is NPOV. As for making attacks on good faith edits using RS (Cecil Adams is RS for his opinions on the matter which he researched), that is bad etiquette at best. By the way, I am amused with the assumption that lawyers only take cases they feel have merit <g>. And keep PA stuff out of requests for opinions. Collect (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

NB Ramsey Clark hasn't been an attorney general in over forty years, or credible in over thirty. The fact that he has taken the case is almost prima facie evidence of its meritlessness. THF (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my "personal attack". It's clear to anyone what happened. You even made the comment to me about your Cecil Adams edit: "I trust you will enjoy it." While I suppose I could assume this was a good faith comment and you really really did wish I would enjoy the edit, I chose not to make that assumption. Especially since it's such a crappy edit to begin with. You lifted a huge quote from Adams, with apparently no thought to editorial concerns like NPOV.

I think if you take the viewpoint that the NYT is "intrinsically NPOV" , you will find yourself in a minority of one here. In any case, as I said repeatedly, your edit is grossly negligent to the NYT article perspective. So please don't pretend like somehow you've subsumed the reliability of the NY Times into your editing simply because you copied over one sentence and inserted it in a rather sloppy, careless manner. --C S (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to support what C S is saying here as Collect has been inserting that very same Cecil Adams Straight Dope blog in several other articles where it doesn't fit in at all and it certainly is POV pushing the way Collect applies it in this article. Abbarocks (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Adams' columns are not a "blog." And they are cited in many places on WP. And as for making charges against me, this is not the venue or form for that at all -- this is for discussion of the issues. Collect (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution