Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:22, 8 October 2011

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

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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Political positions of...

I think all of our Political positions of... articles violate NPOV because "neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints," while these articles encourage editing from one viewpoint. Similarly, WP:RS says we should include "all majority and significant minority views". What all these articles should be are Reception of... articles, such as this one on an organization. Reception articles would lead to a neutral article with encyclopedic value that encourages contribution. A comparison between an October 2010 and a current version of Political positions of Barack Obama is not inspiring. Consider, in contrast, how many words have been published in reliable sources analyzing his positions/performance. And the scant discussion at Talk:Political positions of Newt Gingrich was dominated by Gingrich's own communications director. These articles are all unencyclopedic soapboxes. Jesanj (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I am afraid there is no systemic solution for it. "Politics of" and "Reception of" articles can be WP:COATRACKs or they can be legit WP:SUMMARY articles - this needs to evaluated on a case-by-case basis - we should be vigilant of coat-racking, but also understand that not all forking is bad, or that because some articles are forked it means all articles should be forked, as you seem to suggest. As to the Newt Gingrich COI issues, a quick look tells me the comm director for Gingrich is DOING-IT-RIGHT - and while we should be careful in the edits, his edits are indeed helpful and real improvements. NPOV never implies a "equal time" for all POVs, it implies a need to cover all views. For example, in the case of the edit regarding health care, correcting the reported position of Gingrich on the issue was a necessary edit, as indeed the article said something the source didn't say, however it could be tempered by commentary on this position that is sourced and verifiable saying this was not the case. Just because one has a COI it doesn't mean one cannot do good edits, it just means that the edits will never be in other direction of NPOV, it is up to other editors to provide the appropriate policy-based editing responses. I care very little for Gingrich, but we have a responsibility to make an NPOV encyclopedia, and that includes providing a fair view on his politics as he understands them, tempered by a due-weight response both in the form of criticism of these positions and support for them. --Cerejota (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

But my point is that these articles do not allow tempering "by a due-weight response both in the form of criticism of these positions and support for them" because they encourage editing from only one viewpoint—that of the subject. Jesanj (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, but I think you are wrong in this appreciation. They encourage editing on the topic, period. And there is nothing not neutral about the title "Politics of Candidate X". If someone argues there should be no criticism because criticism is outside of the topic, laugh at them, and then tell them to read WP:UNDUE. Its really like that, there is no way anyone can argue, sucessfully to keep criticism away under any rule in wikipedia. Even areas with "Reception of" or "Criticism of" generally do so as per WP:SUMMARY for article size reasons, not as coat racks. And the worse coat-racking usually gets resolved via AfD. My point is that unless you provide a specific incident to attend to, there is no systemic solution, because we already have the tools to deal with this bias. We just have to use them - and that in the only specific example you provided (gingrich), there seems to be no bias drifting that cannot be addressed - rules are no substitute for WP:BRD.--Cerejota (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Jesanj has a point: for instance the Political positions of Barack Obama article has a sub on Energy policy of the Obama administration which has a section Energy_Policy_of_the_Obama_Administration#Reactions_and_Analysis_of_Energy_Security which does not include much in the way of alternate opinions. I would think that on such a very notable topic, Misplaced Pages would have more to offer. Article naming is an important way to focus the content of an article. Content may be rejected or included purely because of the title. But what's lacking here is suggestions on what else we might call such an article which would allow or encourage more discussion of the debate-matrix surrounding Obama's political positions. B——C_{ritical__Talk} 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Cerejota: When you said "I know", did you conceed that the titles do not "encourage multiple viewpoints"? I think there is a big article title-NPOV improvement with "Politics of..." instead of "Political positions of..." articles. Reliable sources can publish many perspectives on the politics of a candidate, but much less so on what the political positions of a cadidate are. I know you said criticism of political positions can be and should be included in those articles, and I would agree with that argument, but by that standard can you point to one neutral article here? If not, then I'd just reiterate my main point that these articles suffer from POV titles which encourage editors to find one viewpoint. Even if a news story contained a political position that was completely ignored by the outside world, it would be suitable for inclusion in one of these articles. I don't believe that is the kind of editing a neutral article name encourages. (I still think a Reception of... article would be the most encyclopedic. They could cover things like speaking style , or mannerisms, etc., other things voters care about.) Jesanj (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the article title "Reception of the political positions of X" could be split off of "Reception of X" articles if necessary. Jesanj (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If no source (newspaper, organization, think-tank, academic, opinion piece, etc.) mentions a political position taken by a politician by demonstrating a reception to it, then I think that position is very likely unencyclopedic. Jesanj (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, because of the non-neutral titles (is this disputed?) I think all Political positions of... articles should be moved to Reception of... articles and tagged with the following template:

This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Misplaced Pages's quality standards, as the previous title did not encourage editing from multiple viewpoints. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions.

Jesanj (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And I see that there is a way to request multiple page moves, but I'm asking for neutrality/(appropriateness) of article titles at this point. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In contrast to Political position articles, I think the article title of Political thought and legacy of Khomeini is neutral and encyclopedic. Jesanj (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Political positions of..." is a fine title. It's just that some editors working on those articles (and subsections of biographies) forget that all Misplaced Pages articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. I agree that positions which haven't been mentioned in secondary sources should receive little or no attention. But adding "Reception of..." to the titles would just make them longer without changing their intended focus.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I was suggesting renaming them to Reception of John McCain, instead of Political positions of John McCain, for example. If the rewritten sections on political positions grow to justify splitting as one article (perhaps doubful), I still think Reception of the political positions of John McCain, though wordy, would change the focus. The focus would then be on what others said, instead of what McCain said. Jesanj (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with "Political positions of politician X"... it's a valid topic area. I would agree that such articles should include a section on "Criticism of X's positions". Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It absolutely is a valid topic area, but I'm arguing the title is not netural because it does not encourage multiple viewpoints. I challenge anyone here to find a Political positions of... article that is neutral by the standards we have all agreed on. A "Reception of John McCain" article would necessarily cover the topic by instead encouraging multiple viewpoints and encyclopedic writing. Jesanj (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's really a very different focus. "Reception of..." indicates that it is entirely about how people perceive the subject, including personal issues, campaign style, etc. "Political positions of..." is clearly about just the policy statements and actions taken by the subject, reported through the filter of secondary sources (like any article).   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that that goal is unencyclopedic. I don't understand why an encyclopedia would attempt to collect "just the policy statements and actions taken by the subject" in one article. That doesn't encourage editing from multiple viewpoints. Jesanj (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. That's the inherent problem with such articles. However, as noted elsewhere, WP:CONSENSUS currently states that these articles may exist on Misplaced Pages, despite the clear non-neutrality and soapboxing permitted by same. As it stands right now, the ONLY way to move such articles back to a more neutral stance is to ensure that EVERY major or significant politician has such a page, and that each such page be written with extremely close attention to WP:NPOV. The biggest pitfall any editor can run into when creating or working on these articles is the incredibly tempting urge to move away from simply stating what the verifiable sources state and move into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory. This gains even more emphasis when one looks at how polarized American politics have become over the past decade. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that POV-"consensus" can change. We could move them all to "Politics of..." instead, as mentioned below. Would you support that? Jesanj (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Politics of...

As political position articles tend to suffer from a dominance of one viewpoint (the subject in the title), how about we, in order to "encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing", discuss the neutrality of renaming them to the more general "Politics of..." When named this way, authors will no longer have the incentive to incorporate only what the politician says (one viewpoint). Instead, authors will have the incentive to add new viewpoints, such as analysis on the why and the how of the politics of a politician. Jesanj (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To my ear, "Politics of..." sounds like it would be mostly concerned with political deal making. That might be an appropriate topic in and of itself, though the sources may tend to be even more partisan than those talking about mere political positions. What about "Politics and political positions of..."? That covers the widest scope, though perhaps it'd be too broad.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of politics in the general sense. Analysis of their communication style would be fair game in my opinion, as a politician's communication style is one part of their politics. And political positions would fit in too, as would a reception section, if needed or desired. I think the long name would be too wordy. Jesanj (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, I did not perceive a serious problem with the wording, but after reading through this discussion, I understand how it could present issues. However, I am not sure how I feel about goals such as "analysis of their communication style". I may be taking the word "analysis" too literally, but that seems to saunter rather close to NPOV. Although there are problems with the wording of "political position" articles as is, I don't think anybody is arguing it's not an encyclopedia topic, and it at least has a clearly defined scope. Kansan (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have noted elsewhere, I find the political articles on Misplaced Pages to be all too frequently affected by "political silly season" editing, where those favouring a politician seek to show the person in the best light, and those opposing - the worst light. Reaching an actual balance is nigh impossible, and I think it ill-serves the readers to see any such articles - there are plenty of other places to see campaigning, and Misplaced Pages ought not be used as "campaign literature" at all. Unless and until Misplaced Pages installs a true mechanism to control such pages, I fear I dilike them in the first place, and likely would support a special committee (not just "the closest admin") to rule on all disputes therein, with actual teeth in their mandate (and mandibles). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

@Kansan, I am arguing it is unencyclopedic, due to its non-neutral (and overly narrow scope) title. Jesanj (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states

Has a POV tag. And no one who supports the POV tag has given any actual suggested edits (well - one seems to have an ultimatum that the lede must be written in a specific manner to reflect his own POV) (IMO, but his points are all thoroughly covered in the body in any case). Consensus oterwise is that the "tag in perpetuity" concept has outworn any utility on Misplaced Pages. Would additional neutral eyes kindly weigh in here? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I see quite a few POV#Impartial_tone, WP:ALLEGED, MOS:NOTED, WP:EDITORIAL problems that need to be addressed, the way it is now, it reads like anything but an encyclopedic article.

Some examples to illustrate, on their own they're not really remarkable, but the article is full of them:

• followed by their forcible and illegal incorporation into the USSR as internationally unrecognised constituent republics.
• the Soviets pressured Finland and the Baltic states; The Estonians had no choice but to accept
• but still intended to rule through puppet regimes
• The Soviets organised a press campaign against the allegedly pro-Allied sympathies of the Baltic governments
• Lithuanian government had no choice but to agree to the Soviet ultimatum. President Antanas Smetona proposed armed resistance to the Soviets but the government refused
• new "popular front" governments were formed in each Baltic country, made up of Communists and fellow travelers.
• Under Soviet surveillance, the new governments arranged rigged elections for new "people's assemblies." Voters were presented with a single list
• The Baltic states, recently Sovietized by threats, force, and fraud, generally welcomed the German armed forces when they crossed the frontiers.
• The area was ruled by Hinrich Lohse who was obsessed with bureaucratic regulations
• the Nazis managed to provoke pogroms locally
• the Baltic states had no governments in exile located in the West. Consequently, Great Britain and the United States lacked any interest in the Baltic cause while the war against Germany remained undecided.
• The discovery of the Katyn massacre in 1943 and callous conduct towards the Warsaw uprising in 1944 had cast shadows on relations; nevertheless, all three victors still displayed solidarity at the Yalta conference in 1945.
• The period of stagnation brought the crisis of the Soviet system. The new Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and responded with glastnost and perestroika. They were attempts to reform the Soviet system from above to avoid revolution from below.

To clarify my objections to some examples: elections with one list and opposition excluded, that's pretty obvious without mentioning "rigging the election" (especially when it doesn't even fit the description in the wikilink); no choice when they refuse an alternative? "Germans managed to provoke pogroms", denying responsability a bit?

The use of wikilinks is problematic, too many, and frankly, I got the impression I was reading the encyclopedia of communist terminology. And it doesn't help your NPOV claim when the wikilink calls it "a pejorative term" (fellow traveller).

You probably can defend every example I give in some way, but you cannot call this non-judgmental language. And that has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the article. DS Belgium (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean no POV - but rather "no net POV" -- the examples you give fall on both sides of each issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that partial tone and loaded language is ok when it's used to represent both sides? Not to mention that there are no two sides to this issue imo.

I also notice that most of these seem to come from Hiden & Salmon (1994). 30 references, from page 110 up to 191. Is it coincidence that the style is so consistent, or are these lines taken verbatim from the book? DS Belgium (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no diea about that comment. WP:NPOV however is clear. representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources means that POVs are to be presented, the requirement is that no specific POV be given disproportionate weight. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process clearly stresses that the balancing process is achieved by adding material with other points of view, not by removing all points of view with some sort of magic wand. If you find a copyright violation or plagiarism, then it is proper to note that on the article talk page, on a copyright noticeboard, or simple excision of such violations entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you just being stubborn? I'm talking about the TONE of the article, not the content! And I don't have the book, so I can't check if these are verbatim quotes, but they read like a book, not an encyclopedia. DS Belgium (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, the tone of the article is set by its sources. If one dislikes the POV of the sources, NPOV says to add other sources. Meanhwile there are certainly disparate sources with disparate POVs in the current article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. I've got better things to do. No one else is interested, so you win. Seems most people who believed in the NPOV policy have left years ago. Cheers... DS Belgium (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a discussion about your comments on the article's language. GreyHood 20:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have to get this foot out of my mouth first .. DS Belgium (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to acquaint yourself with Baltic history. "Occupation" is a "bad" word, is judgemental, et al. has been used in the past to attempt to reduce representations of the Soviet assault on the Baltics as less bad than it really was. That's a bit of an old trap you step into. As I have explained at the article, there is no kinder gentler middle ground between two accounts of history, Russian nationalist-patriotic versus Russian liberal-democractic, Western, and Baltic, which are irreconcilable. Using words as they are used in reputable and reliable sources is the appropriate "tone" for an article. That said, if you have reliable/reputable sources which navigate a middle ground, those are welcome as are all reputable sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is not over the term "occupation", but over the term of "annexation" (or lack thereof in the title). Annexation seems a very reasonable middle ground between the Russian "joined freely" and Baltic "got occupied". How many reliable sources do you need in support of the use of the term "annexation"? (Igny (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

Annexation appears where appropriate in section titles. I've already explained why "annexation" does not belong in the title and why there is no artificial fictional middle between "joined freely" (legal) and "occupied" (illegal) in examining, in particular, the official Russian position regarding legality according to international law. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rosalind Hursthouse

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

User:Conservative Philosopher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lone editor battling to include the highly subjective phrase "Hursthouse... is the world's best-known virtue ethicist working today." Managed to finally find out that the statement does exist, in the compilation of essays called "A Companion to Philosophy in Australia & New Zealand" which is fortunately available online in full from the publisher's site. Its also the only source currently being used for the article; I would like to cleanup and expand this article but am stymied by the owner of this article who simply blind reverts any edits I try to make. We are now hung on this one bit of hagiography. Quote is from Daniel C. Russell, an associate professor of philosophy at Wichita State University. He's written two books; one I could find no reviews for and the other I found a lengthy review which was through, and serious, and was not very complimentary. Russell fails WP:PROF and does not have his own article. The issue, of course, is that it is an extraordinary claim; it is clearly a statement of value and as such must be both clearly sourced and attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. User:Conservative Philosopher wants to include it as a statement of fact. I personally think that even including it as per policy as "Daniel Russell, associate professor of philosophy at Wichita State University, has stated that..." would be biased; it gives undue weight to the opinion of someone who is clearly not a leader in his field; but CP won't even discuss the matter. Note that although a Google search will turn up repeats of this claim, they are all Misplaced Pages clones or quotes; the book is the only source. Hursthouse, although notable and well-known, is not even mentioned by some sources regarding virtue ethics; she is granted mention in others; she is given prominence in this one instance. See talk page for more. See also other contribs for CP, most notably this gem here. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua provides a biased and one-sided account of this dispute. She is as much a "lone editor" at that article as I am, and no one has taken her side in the content dispute between us. I am glad that she has finally succeeded in finding Daniel Russell's statement that Hursthouse is the world's best-known virtue ethicist working today, but I note that she has falsely accused me of adding my "personal analysis or commentary" to the article. Inasmuch as the statement that Hursthouse is the world's best-known virtue ethicist working today is backed up by Russell, it is not my personal analysis or commentary, and KC's caution on my talk page was out of place. Note, incidentally, that KC's statement that I have reverted all her edits at Rosalind Hursthouse is false; I have reverted many of them (because they weren't good edits), but not all of them, as anyone who checks the article's edit history carefully will see. I would be happy to have some sort of compromise at the article to resolve this issue, but KC is having none of it. KC is also trying to drag in unrelated issues at other articles; I find this regrettable (and think it borders on a personal attack), but I'm not going to respond to it. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing "personal analysis or commentary" is from a standard user warning template which was placed on CP's page by me, a {{uw-npov2}}. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP:PROF deals with whether professors deserve their own articles, not whether they can be used as sources, so I do not think it is the best tack to be used (and KC's comment implying that the Wichita St. professor is a bad professor was certainly unfortunate, as "rate my professor" type sites are far from reliable sources, and a few undergraduates' opinions of their professors have no bearing on the work of said professors). Having said that, I agree with the argument made on the talk page to the extent that being the "world's best known" is somewhat subjective, and if only one individual is saying that, it's not enough if it's being challenged. I think the word "prominent" is more objective, and still accurately describes the individual. Kansan (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I am well aware of what Prof is for; this is why I continued "...and does not have his own article." Perhaps you missed my meaning in your distraction over my comment on talk regarding Russell; the point is that he's not an authority about ethics and ethics philosophers so his singular and extreme view should not be given prominence in the article. I sincerely hope this has cleared up your misunderstanding abotu my meaning. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For a compromise, perhaps could we introduce wording similar to that of "Professor XXX of YYY University has described her as the world's best known..."? That would not extrapolate beyond what he said (as I certainly would not approve of simply citing him as one with the authority to speak for the entire field). Kansan (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have in fact suggested that two or three times already. I do not think it is the best approach, but I have suggested it as a compromise. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 23:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this issue has more or less been resolved. ArtifexMayhem has resolved the sourcing issue (correcting the inept and destructive editing being done by KillerChihuahua), and I am prepared to live with the result. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I will add that I am glad that someone has chided KillerChihuahua for her unfortunate comments about Daniel Russell, and her use of a grievance-mongering website to attack him. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is not determined by the notability of the writer but by the reputation of the publisher for fact-checking. Sources of course can be wrong, but the correct approach would be to find another source that claims something different. TFD (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment, but I believe you have misunderstood the problem. In this instance, that approach is useless, as the statement is a value judgment. In other words, an opinion. Thus, it is owned by, and relates to, only the author (or speaker) of the opinion. If the statement were spoken, we might want to know the reputation of the publisher, if there were any question that the person actually has that opinion. However, as he wrote it under his own byline, that is not a question. The opinion of citizen X is exactly as notable as X in that field, neither more nor less. Hence, the author's level of authority is of paramount importance. We must attribute the statement, as it is a value judgment, something CP has not discussed doing, although I brought it up several times. He wished to include the statement as fact. This is not permissable, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And we cannot "fact check" an opinion, except to confirm someone actually holds a stated opinion, and this is not in question. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is exactly the situation described in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. That policy is very clear: we shouldn't make subjective judgments (e.g. "world's best-known virtue ethicist") in Misplaced Pages's voice. We have the choice of either a) attributing the view (e.g. "one essay describes Hursthouse as the world's best-known virtue ethicist"), or b) excluding it completely if we feel that the source in question isn't particularly strong or notable. I don't know which of those is the correct approach, since I'm not familiar with the source or subject. MastCell  16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this and wanted to chime in. It's unclear to me why Conservative Philosopher is so anxious to promote a claim about Hursthouse's notability. However, contrary to what some editors have claimed, I don't think that the statement in question is either a "statement of value" or a "subjective judgment" (if the term "subjective" is being used the way I think it is). On the contrary, it is a matter of empirical — social-psychological, to be specific — fact whether Hursthouse is the best-known virtue ethicist: the statement is true if and only if more people are familiar with Hursthouse than with any other virtue ethicist. Of course, I doubt that anyone has actually conducted a scientific survey to test the statement, but that does not change the statement's status as a social-psychological (as opposed to value) statement. The problem isn't that the statement is a value judgment or a subjective judgment. Rather, the problem is that it is, as some here have pointed out, an "extraordinary claim". As such, it must be either left out until a large number of sources can be found for it or clearly attributed in the body of the article to its source.

Of course, the dispute seems to have been resolved by now, so this comment comes a bit late. I just want to caution people to be careful when using terms like "value" and "subjective". --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states

Has had a POV tag. The rationale for which has boiled down to

I have looked over the long discussion on the POV tag above, and have failed to see that the dispute was resolved. If anything, it demonstrated that several ways to resolve the dispute was rejected by the pro-Baltic-POV editors here. I guess we would have to wait for more reasonable editors join the discussion to break an apparent impasse. (Igny (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Query: Is an eternal POV tag (for well over a year) which has been discussed at length on a talk page, and where clear and substantial consensus is that the POV tag is not warranted, proper where the real argument is clearly stated - that the tag sttays until the "pro-Baltic" editors are someday outnumbered in some distant future? And that the current editors and their consensus is not "reasonable"? I note that I am not "pro-Baltic" and added an edit specifically suggested by Igny, and which he apparently finds quite insufficient. I would also note that the number of POV tags placed by some of the participants here on other articles is substantial, and might indicate that the POV problem does not necessarily lie with the "pro-Baltic" editors. Noting that the aim of the POV pushers is to state that there was an "annexation" of the Baltic states by the Soviets in accord with the wishes of those states as stated by:

However, the USSR never formally acknowledged its presence in the Baltics as an occupation, and considered the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics as its constituent republics. The Russian government and state officials maintain that the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was legitimate

Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Aspartame Controversy

Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and No Original Research are the 3 basic principles of Misplaced Pages. I maintain the NPV basic principle is violated in the article titled “aspartame controversy”. One side of this controversy is that there are many government and industry supported studies that show that there is no harm from the use of aspartame. This side is covered very well. It does however have a bias in that a paper published by Ajinomoto (a manufacturer of aspartame) is referenced 20 times.

The other side is the tremendous number of people who have had what they profess are bad experiences with aspartame. Your reference 8 ( from many years ago) mentions 3340 people who have sent complaints about ill effects and 250 who claim to have had seizures. In addition there is research that supports the assertion that aspartame is dangerous. The problem aries when the NOR principle is used to block the personal testimonials of people about items that were never intended to be research. In this case the NOR causes the NPV principle to be ignored.

Thus if I stepped on a rattlesnake, got bit and got sick from it i would be banned from advising others on Misplaced Pages to refrain from stepping on rattlesnakes. This does not make sense. I maintain that there is a difference between original research and testimonials acquired from life's everyday experience when no specific outcome is desired but it occurs anyway. Furthermore I am not advocating broadcasting the principle that steeping on rattlesnakes is bad but only wish to be heard and have my point considered.

I believe the health of people should be the driving force and while published peer reviewed articles are of much importance They should be balanced with articles that amount to testimonials from thousands of people who have had serious health issues from using aspartame. In a court of law testimonial evidence is admissible yet Misplaced Pages does not allow it’s use. Instead it adopts the term antidotal to suppress the fact that these are personal testimonials.

The article needs to present both sides of this controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What you are asking for would require fundamental changes in the way wikipedia assesses the merit of sources - and this is governed by policy. If you wish to argue for such changes of policy, this isn't the place to do it. And were you to propose such changes, I suspect that there would be vigorous opposition - it would open up the project to all sorts of dubious claims from snake-oil salesmen and the like, all of which can supply 'testimonials' in bulk. Anecdotal evidence is quite rightly rejected by science as it is self-selected, and incapable of objective assessment. If you want to campaign against aspartame, Misplaced Pages isn't the place to do it. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How would I get a second opinion? Arydberg (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You can get more opinions here. I agree with Andy, and would also point out that your rattlesnake example isn't all that good, because Misplaced Pages isn't here to give health warnings. Does anyone have a different take on this? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that, Judging from the comments on Talk:Aspartame controversy, I've already given you one - or more likely a third or forth opinion at minimum. Numerous contributors have indicated what Misplaced Pages policy is regarding this issue - and as I say, if you want policy changed, this isn't the place to argue for it. Still, if anyone disagrees with my interpretation of policy regarding the use of anecdotal sources regarding medical issues, they can of course reply here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I gave you my perspective at your talk page, but I thought Andy's answer was sufficient, so I didn't bother saying anything until you asked for a second opinion. Jesanj (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg was topic banned from aspartame related articles for three months after prolific WP:TE. This has been explained to him multiple times but he doesn't seem to grasp it. Third opinions, forth opinions and tenth opinions will tell you the same thing, if you can't edit Misplaced Pages without obsessing over aspartame then we're going to have an issue again. Nformation 16:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And he has been told a large number of times that testimonials are useless, and that we don't do 'present both sides' when the evidence suggests one side is not correct and has no data to back it up. However, he keeps this up, this is tiresome in the extreme. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not refering to postings I have made. I am refering to postings others have put up. I do have data to back up what I say from Harvard, Government Reports, NIH and others.  : here here here here here here here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 03:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Second link is http://www.health-report.co.uk/aspartame-toxic-effects.htm Arydberg (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE. STOP THIS PLEASE. I encourage others to read the talk page archive of Aspartame Controversey.Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would very much like to stop. It’s just that i cannot when accusations are made against me that are demonstratively false. Also, Would someone kindly tell me why this thread does not appear until the user signs on, Does Misplaced Pages have two active versions of this thread?Arydberg (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the NPOV noticeboard. You asked why anecdotal evidence wasn't permitted in the aspartame controversy article, and policy was explained (again) to you - it doesn't matter who is trying to incorporate it, it still isn't going in. If you have concerns about 'accusations' being made, you should raise them on the appropriate noticeboard, rather than here. As for your problems with seeing the thread, I'd suggest you ask at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) - it sounds like a glitch to me, probably something to do with purging the cache or the like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes you explained it and I was remiss in not thanking both you and Jesanj. Thank you. It was the statement that said “ He has no data to back it up” that was untrue and prompted me to post links. Was I out of order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As someone wholly uninvolved, the simple fact is that first-person testimonials are never reliable on Misplaced Pages. A small number of people disagree with this, but, it is probably one of the most widely accepted requirements on Misplaced Pages (that is, the WP:OR and WP:V policies). But if you want to know why, think about it this way: in your example, you assert that it's okay to mention on the Misplaced Pages article about rattlesnakes that you stepped on a rattlesnake, and got hurt, so people should be careful not to step on rattlesnakes. Would it also be okay for me to add a statement that says that I stepped on a rattlesnake, it bit me, and then after that I became significantly stronger, healthier, and more morally upright? And what if I had thousands of people that said the same thing? Because, in fact, some Christian groups, who practice snake handling, claim exactly that. Would that be okay to include in the article on snakes? No, certainly not, except perhaps as a minor, single sentence, pointing out that the practice exist, just like in Snake#Christianity right now. The key question, which WP:NPOV addresses, is that we may only represent information in proportion to its real life importance; and, for medical articles, we have the stricter standard that medical info should whenever possible come from secondary "meta-studies" and research reviews. Now, you may not like this policy, and if you want it to change, the place to go is WT:V or WT:OR, and ask for some sort of special exemption written in for personal testimonials. Of course, you'll never get the community to agree, but technically that is what you have to do. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can accept that OR is and will be ignored. I understand that you really mean well in implementing this rule, but the links I posted strongly suggest that the use of aspartame may be dangerous. I simply want to suggest that an article titled “controversy” you tell both sides of the controversy . Again this thread disappears when I try to access it and do not sign on? Arydberg (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Are Becker's Hospital Review lists worth including at hospital pages, and if so, how much weight is due?

Becker's Hospital Review seems to have nowhere the level of acceptance as U.S. News and World Report hospital rankings, so I'm of the opinion it's probably not worth including (until other reliable sources give us an independent assessment of its worth). I looked for such an assessment in newspaper archives and google scholar but came up empty. If we do include it I think giving it equal weight with U.S. News and World Report is undue. A google scholar search comparison of "Becker's Hospital Review" hospital rankings vs. "U.S. News & World Report" hospital rankings yields 1 hit from a random website vs. many hits in respected medical journals. Sure, some of those hits in medical journals could criticize U.S. News and World Report, but it appears nearly no one cares about Becker's to cite it. So how can we cite it without being undue? I had a previous discussion with a new editor (User talk:Tgoldst5) about this and I just saw this version of a hospital page, prompting this thread. Jesanj (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Query concerning article talk page post

shows what I think might be an interesting way of handling POV accusations at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Is such a post a proper means of handling a NPOV dispute where the person does not have nor does he seek WP:CONSENSUS for his edits?

If no fresh arguments will be presented in close future, I'll revert the changes made with violation of the edit restrictions. If these changes will be restored, the AE request will be filed against the editor who restored them. We already have an opinion of one experienced admin that confirms that the procedure had been circumvented by the users who made this edit, so the request will likely be successful.

This is a query and not a complaint, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Is the term "perpetrator" in Maxim restaurant suicide bombing for the person who committed a suicide bombing WP:NPOV, as in this edit ? The term "perpetrator" usually applies to someone who committed a crime. I think it could be replaced with the more neutral term "bomber". What should I do to avoid an edit war? --Nbauman (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If this were within the prose, it would probably be best avoided, but I think the word "perpetrator" is okay within the infobox, as it clearly indicates the intended information and communicates that it is a non-military bombing. There appears to be plenty of precedent for the term elsewhere on Misplaced Pages; for instance, see the infobox on September 11 attacks. Kansan (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A perpetrator is someone who commits a crime. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Perpetrator http://en.wiktionary.org/perpetrator This is inherently WP:NPOV. It's like WP:TERRORIST; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

You seem to be saying that WP:NPOV is acceptable in the infobox. Is that right?

September 11 attacks is not a precedent for other articles. ] --Nbauman (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I frankly do not see what on that FAQ page corresponds to this particular situation. Kansan (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Priority for the concept of the constant speed of light

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A discussion has occurred on the talk page of the speed of light article, about who has priority for the idea that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the source or inertial frame of reference. We have a reliable source showing that Lorentz was the first to deduce this and show its relevance to relativity: "Lorentz was justified in asserting that: . . . the chief difference that Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced ...". In fact the only significant difference between Lorentz' 1904 paper, "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light", and Einstein's 1905 paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", is that Einstein formally discarded the concept of the ether. Whether or not the ether is exists is irrelevant to whether or not the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the source or inertial frame of reference, as Poincare published in 1889: "It matters little whether the ether really exists: that is the affair of the metaphysicians. ..., whereas, no doubt, some day the ether will be thrown aside as useless." Thus, Einstein's paper is not notable for making a significant step forward regarding the subject of this article, which is the speed of light.

Another editor and I have attempted to demonstrate this point on the talk page. The discussion has devolved to editors refusing to engage in discussion, and simply editing what they want to see into the article without sufficiently demonstrating its validity. It would be helpful if some outside eyes could review the situation and at least restart discussion. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You might actually want to read footnote 30, of the source you quote. This states quite clearly, that although Lorentz could have deduced that the speed of light is independent of the frame of maotion from his 1904 paper, he didn't do so until 1909. End of discussion.TR 11:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact it was Maxwell that first deduced that the speed of light was constant, as the lead states: "In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore traveled at the constant speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism." The lead then goes on to state:"In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that "the speed of light with respect to an inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source", and explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the special theory of relativity and showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism." The constant speed of light (which by definition is independent of inertial reference frame) was taken as a postulate by Lorentz and used to derive his theory of relativity in 1904, ie. "showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism", as can be seen by his use of the constant throughout the paper, in 1904. This sentence is demonstrably misleading. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the worst part of that quote is crediting Einstein with "showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism." This claim is also repeated later in the article. Einstein did not do that at all in his famous 1905 article. Poincare did. Poincare used c for clock synchronization in 1900, said that c was an upper bound for all velocities in mechanics in 1904, and said that gravity waves propagate at a speed of c in 1905. I inserted a sentence about Poincare, but it was removed. Roger (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that much can be said against Stachel's quotation, resulting in the well referenced phrase": "In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that "The speed of light with respect to an inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source."" Hundreds of references can be found for this to demonstrate the validity of the particular statement in the article. I also don't see what this has to do with wp:NPOV. On the contrary, from your edits, it looks you (and Schlafly and some 'passerby' anon) are pushing some kind of minority view on the matter. DVdm (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Stachel quote is correct, and is better than the previous text that misstated the postulate. However I also think that it is very misleading to imply that the constant speed of light was something new in 1905. My textbooks all say that the crucial experiment was in 1887, following theory by Maxwell. I am not pushing a minority view. While those books sometimes criticize the views of Lorentz and Poincare, they all agree that Lorentz and Poincare were explaining the 1887 experiment and constant speed of light before Einstein. Roger (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• User who opened this thread blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing to see here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biography of Hans Eysenck.

Hans Eysenck was a controversial German/British psychologist.

• The most recent modification is biography has added material which appears to me to be a) POV, containing phrases such as 'recipients of Pioneer Fund grants reads partly like a "Who's Who" of scientific and political racism', and b) irrelevant, since such comments belong (if anywhere) in the article on the Pioneer Fund and not Eysenck's biography.

• I have attempted to revert this edit, but my revert has been overridden.

• To avoid an edit war, I therefore request adjudication by an independent referee.

Thank you. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution