Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:01, 14 January 2015

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

Kurds/Iran

I have posted an RFC on the Kurds article talk page. There is an ongoing debate as to whether Kurds are Iranian, and I have been trying to invite discussion on the issue, but re-reversion has become an issue. I invite any and all editors to comment on the matter. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

International Christian Church

International Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Many sections in this article are preposterously biased. Neutral edits would be welcome. I tagged the article until the problems can be fixed.

jps (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Faithful Word Baptist Church

Editor(s) potentially connected with the church are making POV edits like this one Valenciano (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This is moot now. The IP has been blocked for abusive use of an open proxy.- MrX 00:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#RfC:_.22conspiracy_theorist.22_in_first_sentence

Question: is it correct for WP to refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first line in WP's voice, as we do the article currently does?

Thank you, Atsme☯ 19:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion took place at WP:FTN () and BLPN (), the latter started by Atsme -- one presumes it didn't lead to the result this editor was hoping for. Forum shopping, anyone? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

actually posting the RfC to any board is fine, in my view. The more voices the better. I fixed the link in the header so it goes to the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog. As it appears you are aware, it is a recommended action in WP:RfC. I previously advised Nomo to stop his attacks, but based on his comments above and false accusation of forum shopping, my advice is being ignored. Atsme☯ 23:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

For an RfC and just letting folks know about it, this is perfectly fine. There are some previous actions Nomoskedasticity is referring to in the past that could give some legitimate concern for forum shopping, but this isn't one of them at all and is how things should be done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in the past that could give "legitimate concern" for forum shopping if your comment is in reference to me. I have asked both of you nicely to stop making spurious claims against me. Atsme☯ 00:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Spiked Online and Death of Leelah Alcorn

can I use an opinion piece from Spiked Online to extend the following piece in the Washington Post in Death of Leelah Alcorn?. Editors in the article talk page have disputed the inclusion because of WP:UNDUE which I in return dispute because the harassment of Alcorn's Parents was already talked about in the Washington Post article. I have been directed to post here.Avono (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

seems to me that the various perspectives are covered already. there was endless commentary on these events (dozens of passionate opinion pieces) and it is unclear to me what this one in particular adds. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So should I just leave it with the Washington as a more neutral summary? I just wanted to use this because I saw many opinions of Alcorn sympathies present and wanted to therefore add a more critical counterweight. Avono (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Expert commentary on risks of living in a household with guns

Sources

1. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 24592495, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=24592495 instead. Free full text; abstract excerpt: "Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide " (This is a WP:MEDRS-grade WP:SECONDARY reliable source, the fact of which is not in dispute.)
2. This question is about an accompanying AIM editorial which makes a strong case that the risks are actually substantially higher because of clear flaws in studies finding low risk. The author is David Hemenway, the Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the author of a monograph on the topic which meets the WP:MEDRS criteria in its own right. Hemenway's opinions are congruent with the conclusions of the MEDRS-grade review of U.S. statistics at PMID 19606921.

Article

Gun politics in the United States, as discussed at Talk:Gun politics in the United States#New WP:MEDRS-grade systematic review and meta-analysis

Content question

Does Hemenway's opinion, that the risk of living in a household with gun(s) is actually greater than indicated by Anglemyer et al's WP:MEDRS review and meta-analysis because studies which find less risk are methodologically flawed for the reasons he indicates, carry enough weight to be noteworthy and included alongside the MEDRS source's results? EllenCT (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The editorial clearly fails even WP:RS. I've stated my opinion that the article also violates WP:RS, but that is disputed. Others will have to comment on weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

On what grounds and where has your opinion about the article been stated? EllenCT (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page; the authors and the journal are experts in epidemiology, but there is a real dispute as to whether gun violence can rationally be analyzed by those methods. (It can obviously be analyzed; the question is to whether the results of the analysis have anything to do with reality.) We might as well discuss whether an article in a mathematics journal which covers language propagation and diffusion could be considered reliable without evidence that historical linguists were on the peer-review board. (I've read one recently; I have no intention of using it as a source without verifying the review.) In particular, there are various confounding factors which are almost always ignored by epidemiologists, although obviously relevant. Among those factors are whether the victim is a known criminal, whether he had been previously threatened, and, if the perpetrator is known, whether she had previously been threatened, whether he and she knew each other, whether one had previously threatened the other—and that's just the factors I can think of with a couple minutes thought. (I use he for the victim and she for the perpetrator, so I can use pronouns in the sentence.) Even if the experts here would use those factors if they were to do their own study, they almost certainly would not consider a failure to use those factors a weak point in a study. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How could a study measuring the risk of completed suicide and homicide (dependent variables) in relation to whether there is a gun in their household (independent variable) use factors such as victim's legal status, history, or the perpetrator's history? How could those factors affect the numeric relationship between the dependent and independent variables? EllenCT (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

By confusing people. Formerip (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(to EllenCT) those factors affect both the supposed independent variable (possession of guns) and dependent variables (possibly "suicide", but certainly "victim of homicide"). For what it's worth, I have little doubt that actual access to guns increases the probability of a suicide attempt being successful, and any other factors are unlikely to reduce that effect on suicides overall. However, there are a number of correlative factors for homicide which are almost always ignored by epidemiologists, as they are not used to working correctly with situations where the "independent factor" is a decision by a person. I seem to recall a correlation between weight and general health which turned out to be more than 100% accounted for by a correlation between exercise and general health, weight being a dependent factor. In this case, gun possession is likely a dependent factor, and a competent statistician would attempt to determine independent factors. Correlation does not imply causation, and when the "independent factor" is a decision which is affected by the "dependent factors", it is a particularly bad situation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A particular correlative factor would be if a neighbor was recently a victim of homicide. That would, assuming rational behavior, cause gun ownership, and would likely be correlated with the person being a victim of a homicide, due to other common factors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source which critiques any epidemiological reviews, saying they are flawed because they don't include victim, perpetrator, or neighborhood histories or legal status? EllenCT (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The 1993 NEJM study was discredited except in the opinion of gun-control advocates. I don't know if the misapplied methodology is still in use. I would hope not, but I don't know. Because of that, if a study is mentioned in a pro-gun-control, but generally reliable, publication, the study must distinguish itself from that 1993 study, or it is almost certainly too biased to use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine

https://en.wikipedia.org/Ayurveda

3rd paragraph of introduction

I see WP:YESPOV to the statement - There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease. Reference: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/ayurvedic-medicine, is an opinion of an organisation and this is not the fact. The website cites no references to this statement. They come into Misplaced Pages:PRIMARY sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Statements from major medical bodies (of which Cancer Research UK is one) are preferred WP:MEDRS sources. Their statement can be simply WP:ASSERTed if it is not in serious dispute. If there are countering sources of equivalent strength, they should be provided. Alexbrn 12:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

yes see in particular Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Laura Owen

An IP editor and a couple of newly registered editors have shown up to delete large parts of the article about Laura Owen, including most of the information about her tenure as Kansas Secretary of Commerce. The subject's notability was debated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Laura Owen, and facts that contribute most substantially to her notability are among those that are being removed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

that's mighty suspicious activity - looks sock-y. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

. . . and now they've blanked the page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting additional parties to weigh in on abortion-related article

R v Morgentaler is a 1988 Canadian Supreme Court case which ruled unconstitutional the part of the criminal code concerning abortion. Back in June I noticed that someone had changed the lead from

R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

to:

R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

This struck me as quite POV. Included as a citation is a letter to the editor at The Guardian. The author of the letter is a legal authority, but nonetheless written as a letter to the editor, arguing against what for the purpose of our article seems like a strawman (i.e. there is no claim that this decision means "a constitutional right to abortion" nevermind "abortion on demand", nor is there any claim that the court had "no interest in protecting the unborn").

The text was originally added in May by 99.224.218.198 and since my first revert the same user has periodically restored the same text another five times. I hoped being a contentious subject that others would get involved, but nobody has. Uncomfortable continuing a months-long edit war, I turn here. --— Rhododendrites \\ 02:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not neutral. Spumuq (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

First question - why is this particular SC decision notable? Was it a landmark case in Canada? Second question: Is the text that was added from a RS, or is it an editor's "interpretation" of a primary source? WP:NOR states: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; I don't think this is an issue of NPOV as much as it is NOR. Atsme☯ 19:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. It seems both of these questions are answered above (though I admit my original post is rather long). It's indeed a notable case as a supreme court case (i.e. the highest court in Canada) ruling particular laws unconstitutional (both of these factors are typical indicators of notability in their own right, but there are also plenty of sources). And the source provided is linked above along with the context of its use. There's no original research involved. It's most definitely an NPOV issue (and perhaps a RS issue). --— Rhododendrites \\ 19:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites Seems reasonably NPOV about conveying the item. The Guardian article subheader reads "All judges in 1988 Morgentaler decision acknowledged state has legitimate interest in protecting unborn", so editor 99.224.75.219 "All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn" is faithfully conveying that and properly cited it. It seems to belong in the body not the lead though as it is not frequent or major part of article itself. The lead has other NPOV issues in lead like "violated a womans right" as not summary of the article and not supported. The phrasing 'violation' and as a 'womans' right seem neither from the article nor accurate. Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Markbassett: The question, as far as I'm concerned, isn't whether the source is properly conveyed -- it clearly is, to the point of possible copyvio issues. It's more about whether it's appropriate to include using that language from that source (an interpretation via Letters to the Editor section). That it's in the lead is all the more problematic, indeed. --— Rhododendrites \\ 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites - It is satisfying WP:NPOV when it presents fairly the views published by reliable sources, and that language was specifically highlighted by the source publisher making it the subtitle, not by the wiki editor or by the supreme court judge who provided the text. NPOV here is just to show that language fairly which to me seems to be well handled by including the text the source highlighted and have it cited. Interpretations in RS do seem to vary to significant amount. A check of google books shows me thoughtful books stating the decision is is narrower than generally reported and not 'right to abortion' or 'freedom of choice' and problematic role of Charter in judicial usage; or as the outcome making 251 unconstitutional yet having fragmented set of opinions and saying that a minor rewording would be constitutional block to abortion. So yeah, put in Globe and Mail or Guardian and simply note different interpretations about the outcome exist in notable amounts -- which should be no surprise to anyone. Markbassett (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't 'the decision is is narrower than generally reported' imply that this perspective is actually a minority one? And wouldn't it be preferable to cite a better source than the letter page of The Guardian if it is available? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. Ten points for Andy! :) MastCell  17:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No Andy, it does not. The book saying the decision is narrower than generally reported was referring to over-claiming it, particularly the Globe and Mail, and the Guardian material from legal expert is basically in line with clarifying that situation. No statement was made about percentages or polls, just that fragmentation of views is a common theme starting with the transcript itself. Markbassett (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to bring other sources into this discussion, please cite them properly. The material being discussed here is sourced to the Guardian, and nobody can respond to vague assertions about things found via Google. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - NPOV is most certainly not just about fairly representing the text in a given source. That's a single component -- an important one, but an irrelevant one here.

The goal is to present different viewpoints or different aspects of a subject with respect to their weight/presence across the body of reliable sources. The decision struck down a particular law, and that's what sources have talked about, by and large. The reason the source at hand is a minority viewpoint is because it's talking about what the law doesn't do as well as aspects of the case that are not the actual impact of the case. That judges said something to the effect of "the court has an interest in protecting the unborn" might be worth mentioning if that aspect of the case received attention from a reasonable number of reliable sources, but it would be presented with proper weight somewhere in the body of the article; certainly not in the lead offsetting that actual significance of the case.

That it's a letter to the editor does matter, even if in the Guardian. That doesn't mean it's necessarily unreliable, but does mean the language used will be appropriate for a letters to the editor section or an opinion column rather than an actual piece of journalism. More specifically, those parts of the paper are assumed to not be neutral and it's accepted to use non-neutral language for the purpose of making a point. It's fine for a polemic, but not fine for an us. We have to use encyclopedic writing, not opinion column writing. --— Rhododendrites \\ 18:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

following on Andy's message above - there are court cases that are widely misunderstood, especially within activist communities. In my world, the decision in India about Gleevec was touted by anti-pharma activists as a huge blow when it was a very narrow decision that grew out of weird timing (patents filed at the same time that the law was changing), and the Monsanto v Schmeiser case is widely described by anti-GMO activists to be about genetically modified seed patented by Monsanto blowing onto a farmer's field, when in reality the farmer had intentionally planted a bunch of GM seed he had intentionally saved. Court cases are "used" all the time in inappropriate ways. But the point that there should be responsible reporting in reliable sources that accurately describe the decision, and perhaps even mention the decision being widely misconstrued, is great - if those sources don't exist, that is a sign that the claim of mis-construing is not accurate, or is a fringe view. A letter to the editor is a lame source. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The second version distorts the case. Legal precedents are important for the precedents they set, not for commentaries that have no bearing on the outcome of the case. Ironically, the only use of the term "legitimate interest" was a reference to the finding in Roe v. Wade, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned U.S. abortion laws. TFD (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree - a comment on a newspaper letters page, even if coming from a legal expert, is of very limited relevance when assessing balance. If this is the best source that can be found making this point, it is entirely undue to give such commentary such prominence in the article lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:Rhododendrites my input for you on the topic is still in vein of accept this is a significant aspect that belongs here somewhere and is not a POV creation of that wiki editor, it actually looks like part of larger legal expert consensus runs other ways. If you'd rather have book cites like I mentioned then I suggest you add them to the other editor material. If you feel the paper did inflammatory headline then I think that's in line with the whole 'decision is narrower than commonly portrayed' bit and you can wordsmith that aspect in as well as wordsmith something else if it conveys the position fairly. I already gave things a try by moving it to a line near bottom. Markbassett (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I just want to note, that the source being discussed was used as follows:

"The extent and nature of the Morgentaler decision remains in popular discussion, e.g. in a recent Guardian letter by Gerard Mitchell.

1. Mitchell, Gerard (22 May 14). "Clarifying facts on Canada's abortion law, or lack of". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 Jan 15. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Content says nothing (and even that nothing is unsupported by the source) and appears to be just some kind of WP:COATRACK to bring in the source. I removed it. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, The assertion in the latest edit, that "The extent and nature of the Morgentaler decision remains in popular discussion" is unsupported by any source. And Markbassett, please cite books here so we can all look at them - this isn't a private conversation between you and another contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

what is confusing to me in this whole discussion, is that I read our article, and it very clearly describes, that all the decision did was invalidate a piece of Canadian national law that criminalized abortions done outside of some committee approval. That's it. The article no where leads the reader to believe that the decision was broader than that, and only just now was any content introduced that said that the case was ever construed more broadly than that (and that is based on a single line of a book from 1989). I don't even get what our retired judge is railing about in his letter to the editor. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Going back to the top, to the purpose of this thread, I agree with Rhododendrites that the insertion of the content based on this source violates NPOV - it is essentially stuffing an "right to life" view into the lead, by arguing against some supposed misconception. There is insufficient support in the body of the article for the misconception, that would rise to this being discussed in the lead. And really importantly the content being added about what the judges wrote, is not found in the in the body of the article, in the detailed discussion of the various opinions that were part of the decision. As far as I can see, who ever keeps adding this is both a lame and lazy WP editor, and a POV-pusher just interested in seeing "right to life" issues in the lead of the article. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Is edit #641543166 at Bitcoin article neutral?

The neutrality of Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme dispute section contents has been disputed at Talk:Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme dispute. The dispute was announced using the "NPOV-section" template, started on 2 December 2014 and ended up finding a consensual wording of the section on 9 December 2014. After the dispute ended, the wording of the section was updated, deleting the "NPOV-section" template.

On 8 January 2014 an edit #641543166 changed the consensual wording of the section. The problematic and nonneutral aspects of the edit:

• The edit "classifies" professor Eric Posner as (a member of) "Various journalists" group.
• The edit reinterprets the opinions of professor Posner, economist Nouriel Roubini, and head of Estonian Central Bank Mihkel Nommela as if they were identical, which is both untrue and unnecessary, since the correct citations of their opinions are present in the section.
• The edit changes the order of claims in the section, the consensual order was based on source dates.

Proposal

The proposed action is to revert the edit #641543166. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion involved a separate sentence in that section, your edit went beyond the scope of the discussion and removed a wording that was the result of a previous consensus. There is a discussion on the talk page explaining this and specifically why it was reverted beyond the lack of discussion, which you have not responded to. "the consensual order was based on source dates" is inaccurate and makes no sense for an NPOV wording, starting the section with no context and defending bitcoin against a claim without first explaining what the claim is, that is a POV edit. Starting a section explaining what the claim is and who made it, and then following up with detailed sources explaining why it's not the case is hardly a violation of NPOV. - Aoidh (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"The discussion involved a separate sentence in that section" - the discussion established a complete consensual wording of the section.

"starting the section with no context and defending bitcoin against a claim" - this is a misrepresentation of the claim. The claim is a citation of a report written in 2012 by the European Central Bank. A characterization of it as "defending bitcoin" is rather subjective, why should the European Central Bank be accused of "defending bitcoin"?

The claim is providing the necessary context presenting a fact that there are sources finding it hard to determine whether bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme or not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless there's some archived discussion you're referring to, no, the discussion currently on the talk page did not involve the changes I reverted, please provide a diff if you believe otherwise. "The claim" is not a citation, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here especially with ECB defending bitcoin part, so I don't know how to respond to it. ECB is defending nothing, but placing the quotefarm (which is another issue entirely) in the order you did created a number of issues as was explained on the article talk page. The current wording, which was arrived at by consensus, is not a violation of NPOV, as I explained above. Your edit starts the section with zero context; the section should not begin with a favoured conclusion before even explaining what the issue the section details even is. The current wording essentially boils down to "This very prominent economist accused bitcoin of something, but a prominent financial institution and others have investigated these claims and concluded otherwise." In no way is that a violation of the NPOV policy. The tag you alluded to was for a separate issue was questionable in terms of NPOV, and was addressed. The content you're referring to does not create an NPOV violation, and your claim about "reinterpreting the opinions" holds no water when you actually look at the content in question. - Aoidh (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No NPOV question. This doesn't seem to be stating an WP:NPOV concern for input, and the edits seem to have reasonably conveyed content of cited sources. What order it appears in or arriving at consensus phrasing is not NPOV. Please clarify what is the WP:NPOV question if any. Markbassett (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Prager University

You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at WP:ELN#Linking to Prager University, which addresses the allegedly non-neutral creation of external links to Prager University, a website associated with radio host Dennis Prager. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Economic growth#Income equality

Could we please get some more eyes at Economic growth? People have over the past four or five months been slowly trying to include obscure primary source studies of relatively tiny datasets to try to imply that inequality causing economic growth is still a viable theory. These studies have huge caveats that went unmentioned in the inclusions. And now User:Volunteer Marek is trying to claim that Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) aren't primary source studies, and that my insistance on agreement with secondary sources is against consensus because "at least one other user objects" to my edits. EllenCT (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

These are neither primary sources nor are they "obscure". They are regular academic studies published in top economic journals. If these were "primary sources" then something like 80% of cited papers would have to be removed from the article, including most or even all of the ones that EllenCT added. And if you want to see "obscure" than a much better candidate (than papers published by NBER or Economic Inquiry) would be this paper. Economic Inquiry is ranked 107, Investigaciones Regionales 857 ; personally I actually think that mid and lower tier journals often publish more exciting and noteworthy research than the top ones, but if we're going to use "obscure" as a criterion, then EllenCT has it exactly backwards.

Looking over the edits it seems to me like EllenCT is just labeling studies which reach conclusions s/he personally disagrees with as "primary" (and throws in "obscure" with a few other false adjectives in there too) while ones she agrees with are "secondary".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not proposing removing primary source studies (i.e., studies which do not reach their conclusions based on literature reviews) when those studies agree with the consensus of recent literature reviews. I would not object to them if they were empirical studies based on datasets even half as large as those which contradict them. But I can not abide by including studies which say "oh by the way, if we could get the rest of the data we requested from the IRS, our results would be negated." EllenCT (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One more time, these are not "primary source studies". They're regular academic studies published in top ranked journals. The idea that they contradict something or other, is entirely your own. I.e. "original research". As is your interpretation and evaluation of the conclusions they obtain. So you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, by labeling studies you don't like as "primary" and those you like as "secondary" even when there's absolutely no difference in their quality, and by trying to exclude some working papers (even though published later) because some other working paper reached a conclusion which *you personally* think contradicted it (actually in this particular case, the methods really aren't comparable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, you do realize that IMF Staff Discussion Notes are not anymore "peer-reviewed" than NBER Working Papers, right? They are published "to elicit comments". You are trying to remove another paper, an NBER Working Paper, based on the fact that it's not "peer reviewed" even though the same paper was shortly later published in another top journal (nevermind the fact that NBER is a highly prestigious organization, and one NBER working paper is worth a dozen published papers).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it's easier to get published by the NBER than the IMF? What is your source for the statment that "one NBER working paper is worth a dozen published papers"? Berg and Ostry have been treated favorably in reviews. If you are so determined to include something implying inequality causes growth, then you need to find a paper with a larger data set or favorable treatment in a literature review. EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the other way around. Most likely NBER is harder, but there's a lot of overlap between these folks. But virtually all NBER WPs end up in top journals while a lot of IMF papers stay IMF papers, often for internal consumption. My own impression is that there's a lot more variance in quality in the IMF publications than the NBER ones. Anyway. That paper was published in a top journal so the issue is moot. And I am not determined to "include something implying inequality causes growth". The Barro paper in particular, the NBER one, later published in a top ten journal, doesn't imply anything of the sort (you seem to be a bit confused on this point). The other two papers might, but I wish to include them not because of the conclusions they reach, but because they are legitimate, secondary, sources published in top journals. I have no idea where you've gotten this "larger data set" criteria from, certainly not from Misplaced Pages policy (and outside of Misplaced Pages, larger data sets are only better other things equal).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Has it occured to you that IMF Staff Discussion Notes are only authored by IMF staff? The NBER puts out something like 200 working papers per month. EllenCT (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it has occurred to me but I'm not sure what your point is, and like I said, the issue is moot (unless we want to argue about excluding the Berg and Ostry paper) since the Barro paper was later published in a top journal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

“studies which do not reach their conclusions based on literature reviews” ← that seems like a quirky definition of what a primary source is. What (if anything) in economics is a primary source? ... if some authors produced a dataset and then did an analysis of it maybe? Or some microeconomic theory proposed from scratch? If sources are drawing on third-party material and offering commentary and analysis, then they are secondary. How much weight they should be accorded is a different question, and should be determined in the usual way (prestige of publishing venue, impact, etc.). Alexbrn 07:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you asked an economist what they consider a secondary source? EllenCT (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you've asked one. And you got the answer. Just not the one you wanted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Secondary sources in economics have literature reviews, or are literature reviews. Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) do not have literature reviews. They are primary theoretical speculation and tiny dataset results with huge caveats which were missing from the article. EllenCT (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I have no idea where you got this idea from. Secondary sources in economics are regular published papers. Primary sources are things like data sets or methodological contributions. The stuff about "primary theoretical speculations" and "tiny dataset" is your own idiosyncratic evaluation of the works. I.e. original research. Both these paper cite the literature extensively. They just don't have a section entitled "Literature Review". So what? That has no bearing on their status as sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What is your source for those assertions? What is your source for the implication that secondary sources in economics don't need to include or be literature reviews? EllenCT (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What is YOUR source for the idea that an article from a top journal needs to have a section explicitly labeled "literature review" or it isn't secondary? That one is just completely pulled out of thin air.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd be worthwhile, they'd be bound to disagree. What matters here only is what Misplaced Pages considers secondary sources. Alexbrn 08:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you arguing for inclusion of Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009)? With or without their caveats on including public sector spending in the utility function and their results being negated if the IRS would give them information on people who don't make enough money to file a tax return? EllenCT (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No I'm just responding to the query brought to this NB. Alexbrn 09:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is wise. bobrayner (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

None of the above? Third party just weighing in, and what strikes me is the whole subsection seems undue weight, going off to topic too much and put too high in presentation. Suggest that it be reduced to scale of other factors, circa 200 words, and similar nature of just say WHAT it is rather than trying to detail out all research, then maybe this question would not even come up here or could be at the main article of Economic Inequality. For level of weight here -- I typically see Economic Growth mentions interest rates, resource costs (e.g. oil price), government policy (taxes, regulation, stability), or aging population. Or I see heirarchy types of determinants, breaking factors to Economic (Capital, Resources, Agri Surplus, trade conditions...) and Non economic (Education, Freedom, Corruption, Social Organisation...). Just sayin Markbassett (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with that and that would be my preferred solution. While there might be some relationship between inequality and growth, generally that is not one of the major factors that is stressed. I would like to see the whole section reduced to a discussion of, say, five or six, main sources, and/or about two paragraphs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the section. You need sources that explain the literature, how it has changed, which studies were most important and how modern economists view them. Choosing a number of studies and reporting what they said will inevitably go against neutrality, because it means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Often btw research papers will begin by explaining all these issues before presenting the authors' personal views, and can therefore be helpful. TFD (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

We could really use more eyes and help on the article. I find the situation intolerable and the other editor simply impossible to get through.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Matthias Kuhle's Tibet glaciation hypothesis

A couple of users, namely Tigona (talk · contribs), Zeog (talk · contribs), and several IPs, some or all of which may be Matthias Kuhle himself, are pushing this academic's obviously controversial idea that the Tibetan Plateau was covered almost completely by an ice sheet in the last glacial period (and probably earlier glacial periods), and that the Tibetan Plateau is itself the cause of the glacial periods, or the current ice age, on the pages Ice age, Geography of Tibet, Matthias Kuhle, and possibly elsewhere, by presenting the hypothesis as accepted, or even majority consensus, and the opponents as mere dissenters. The glaring (and formerly, when Geography of Tibet contained virtually Kuhle's whole bibliography, clearly extreme) over-reliance on Kuhle's own (numerous) publications, together with the quite apparent fact that there are numerous opponents, makes me almost certain that this narrative is wrong and biased. If it were true, it should be easy to cite supporters, instead of citing Kuhle himself dozens of times (note the borderline citebombing in Ice age#Uplift of the Tibetan plateau and surrounding mountain areas above the snowline, where all footnotes are citations to Kuhle's own publications). It appears that Kuhle is using Misplaced Pages to promote, and defend against criticism, his pet hypothesis to laypeople after it has been rejected by the relevant expert community (compare this dissertation), trying to short-circuit or circumvent the scientific process. This pattern is, unfortunately, all too common with cranks in academia. In this case it is difficult to see who else would have an interest in promoting this particular hypothesis – it appears too obscure and unexciting to garner much attention and fans compared to other fringe hypotheses, and outsiders would find it difficult to assemble the man's whole bibliography, so I'm hard-pressed to assume good faith. This looks like a classic case of WP:SELFPROMOTE, with the tell-tale sign being the liberal use of WP:SELFCITE. I note that Talk:Matthias Kuhle lacks a COI note currently, even though it is pretty much obvious that some Misplaced Pages editors have an undisclosed personal affiliation with Kuhle. (Also note that Kuhle's page has only narrowly escaped deletion, due to lack of any clear consensus on his notability.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

After seeing this I took a look at the Matthias Kuhle page and indeed noticed some problems. Firstly that his ideas are presented, many sources are cited criticizing them, and it appears there's a back and forth over rebutting those criticisms matter-of-factly ("These doubts, however ignore earlier geomorphological evidences and are mainly based on numerical datings, which up to now lack a reliable calibration technique") by citing Kuhle's own work (my revert just now). Unless, of course, those many citations cited as criticism are presented without proper context or are otherwise misrepresented (i.e. assuming there's a legitimate basis for including it -- which is to say that it's due, without issuing a scientific judgment), we'd likewise need secondary sources to counter the criticism. I also removed a glut of journal publications and conference proceedings per WP:PROMO and WP:NOT (Misplaced Pages is not a CV). Also tagged the article for expert attention, etc. because I'm not at all equipped to parse the factual content. --— Rhododendrites \\ 07:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

After reading this section I searched for secondary literature dealing with the Tibetan glaciation theory. I found many textbooks, which described this theory as well (i. e. J. Ehlers 2011: Das Eiszeitalter, cf. http://www.springer.com/popular/book/978-3-8274-2326-9.; Anderson, Goudie, Parker (2013): Global Environments Through the Quaternary: Exploring Evironmental Change, page 86-87, cf. https://books.google.de/books?id=lFP1CdFDkIMC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Global+Environments+through+the+Quaternary+kuhle&source=bl&ots=Qrz9AuLgzQ&sig=_22DYGYmK1VJ1UqxvBDCZdnLGd8&hl=de&sa=X&ei=_fCzVP7vBYnyPPLxgNAJ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Global%20Environments%20through%20the%20Quaternary%20kuhle&f=false) and Nesje, A. & Dahl, S. O., 2000. Glaciers and Environmental Change. Arnold, pp. 1-203). Furthermore I found several articles which described the lack of calibrated numerical dating samples in High Mountain Areas (also Tibet) (i. e. Chevalier et al. (2011): Constraints on the late Quaternary glaciations in Tibet from cosmogenic exposure ages of moraine surfaces, cf. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110004014; Schröder, N. (2007): The discrepancy between the method of Cosmogenic Nuclide Exposure Dating on moraines and morphodynamics, weathering, glacierdynamics, erosion and global climate, page 369 cf. http://palaeoworks.anu.edu.au/pubs/INQUA2007abstracts.pdf). Consequently the last sentence of this author page should be corrected into: These doubts, however ignore earlier geomorphological evidences and are uncalibrated numerical datings, which up to now lack a reliable calibration technique. --— Tigona \\ 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

AFAICS, even if this may be so, it does not follow from this that Kuhle's hypothesis has any merit. Also, you seem to be engaging in WP:SYNTH to defend it. Moreover, some of these sources are poor (Spiegel Online? Seriously?). We should use only high-quality academic sources for a controversial scientific topic like this, not journalistic pop-science portrayals, which are often insufficiently critical. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Inspecting Tigona's edits, I remain convinced that this is a WP:SPA used to promote Kuhle's highly idiosyncratic or controversial (or both) hypotheses on Misplaced Pages. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

yes while I approve of Tigon's signature :) and appreciate efforts to pull together secondary sources, it does seem like he/she is only interested in promoting Kuhle to the point of edit warring. Perhaps he/she could comment as to any possible conflict of interest and engage in discussion without editing until a consensus emerges. --— Rhododendrites \\ 17:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. I am not in any conflict of interest dealing with the site of Kuhle, but sometimes I am dealing with the topic of science and "Against Method" (see: Paul Feyerabend). Florian Blaschke please specify and prove your assumption (see: "highly idiosyncratic or controversial (or both) hypotheses"). As a wikipedia user you should know: Sometimes theories affected by scietific revolutions (Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.) and sometimes they are affected by political motivations of scientists (Paul Feyerabend: Science in a Free Society). All kind of these processes we find in every scientfic community, especially in some well known scientific journals. You wrote "it has been rejected by the relevant expert community (compare this dissertation), trying to short-circuit or circumvent the scientific process". I do not understand what you mean with the "relevant expert community", please specify the experts of this community.Tigona (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"I am not in any conflict of interest dealing with the site of Kuhle" – and I am the Emperor of China. Why should I put any trust in such a bald assertion when the evidence rather suggests otherwise?

The relevant expert community is, of course, glaciologists. I have also checked QEN and it is not favourable either. That tells me that Kuhle's ideas are not widely accepted in glaciology, and typical fringe hypotheses. Your name-dropping of Feyerabend and Kuhn is irrelevant in this context. Fringe hypotheses are not necessarily useless; Misplaced Pages acknowledges this by allowing them to be mentioned (and even to have their own articles if they have been discussed widely). However, WP:UNDUE emphasis is considered POV-pushing. Opinions need to be placed in context and the reader must be made aware in no uncertain terms that Kuhle's views are not in good standing and rather isolated in the scientific community. Although they seem far-fetched considering the way glaciers work in reality, Misplaced Pages's policy does allow readers to learn about Kuhle's views after all, just in case there should be some substance to them against all probability. But not without some kind of warning. This is what NPOV is all about. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be so kind and compare the maps of different authors dealing with the glaciation of High Asia during LGP (free available see: http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780444534477/). Furthermore you can find a summary and discussion about the former glaciation in High Asia in J. Ehlers (2011): Das Eiszeitalter (see. page 169 - 173 in http://www.springer.com/popular/book/978-3-8274-2326-9).Tigona (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Schröder, N. (2007): The discrepancy between the method of Cosmogenic Nuclide Exposure Dating on moraines and morphodynamics, weathering, glacierdynamics, erosion and global climate, Quaternary International 167–168, page 369.
2. Kuhle, M., Kuhle, S. (2010): Review on Dating methods: Numerical Dating in the Quaternary of High Asia. In: Journal of Mountain Science (2010) 7: 105-122.
3. Chevalier, Marie-Luce; et al. (2011). "Constraints on the late Quaternary glaciations in Tibet from cosmogenic exposure ages of moraine surfaces". Quaternary Science Reviews. 30: 528–554. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.11.005. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 81 (help)
4. Seidler, C., (2011). http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/riesige-sonneneruption-kosmischer-streifschuss-fuer-mutter-erde-a-767415.html
5. Seidler, C., (2014). http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/swarm-esa-satelliten-messen-magnetfeld-der-erde-a-976116.html

Jim Webb, current U.S. political candidate

This article on a 2016 presidential candidate in the U.S. has been a long-term problem with NPOV. The lede read like a campaign bio, one editor using the name Webfooter has been editing at length (including changing "politician" to "statesman"); etc. I would like some eyes on this, preferably including some that admire Webb more than I do. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted a link to here, at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jim_Webb. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Here I am with my hands up. Don't shoot! I left a message on the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard. I am now concerned that there may be a conflict of interest, since you say that you don't care for him, OrangeMike, and Jytdog describes himself as a "Clinton Democrat." Is there anyone who may be more neutral who could handle this? You have all the power, of course, and I'm just a person trying to accurately portray an individual. (By the way, I said "noted author" because it was less puffy than "Pulitzer Prize" nominated author. I said "statesman" rather than "politician" because of his career path, entering politics later. However, I can see that politician would fit at this time.) I used Hillary Clinton's Misplaced Pages page as a guide. Today you deleted all but a small paragraph in his introduction, Orange Mike. Hillary's introduction contains five well developed paragraphs. Nothing you deleted was fake or puffed up. He just happens to be a man who has had many accomplishments, which should noted in an introduction and then in more detail in the article. (Webbfooter (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for voicing your concerns here. Just a point of clarification regarding Misplaced Pages, though: Although people with strong opinions on a given subject are advised to keep in mind Misplaced Pages core principles like those related to neutral point of view and to be mindful of the extent to which their own beliefs may be influencing their editing behavior, it's not reasonable to prevent editors with opinions from participating. Most people interested in a subject to the extent that they're editing the article are going to have an opinion of it, so in a way it's better to have those opinions on the table for the sake of transparency rather than make people afraid to disclose their opinions. Conflict of interest (see WP:COI for a more thorough explanation) is more about having a connection to the subject rather than having an opinion. That means people who stand to benefit or anyone with a personal or financial connection to the subject (personal as in a friend, co-worker, family member, etc.). --— Rhododendrites \\ 04:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Webbfooter declared at COIN that he is related to Webb. And Webbfooter - newbie mistake to "counter-attack." The problem here is your behavior. Per the note I left at COIN, please do not directly edit the article going forward, but instead suggest changes on the Talk page using the "edit request" function. And I haven't touched the article other than to tag it for your COI - I generally stay out of articles about politics on Misplaced Pages. I do care about COI in Misplaced Pages, so please follow the rules going forward. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

ETA

An i.p. is constantly adding to the lead of the article that ETA is a group "known for targeting civilians." A statement like that, besides being unsourced, is questionable. The group, I would argue, is better known for waging a violent struggle for Basque independence, during which, as always occurs in conflicts involving paramilitary groups, civilians died. In some cases, these were after explosions targeting infrastructure, where there were disputes over the customary telephone warnings given. Those attacks, while criminally reckless, are not the same as "targetting civilians." Others were politicians, members of political parties or people working on military bases, who supporters of such groups would argue were "legitimate targets" rather than "civilians." Either way, the vast majority of those killed were not civilians, using either definition. Ultimately, it's not our job at Misplaced Pages to decide whether they were or not, we simply state the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. In the ip's edit summary, they say: "a non NPOV editor is making a concerted effort to whitewash this article as compared to the more official Spanish language version." As all I've done is revert to the longstanding consensus version of the lead, this is not correct and besides that, the Spanish language version of the article is no "more official" than ours and says nothing in the lead about the group being known for targeting civilians. Valenciano (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The ip has now made further additions, totally misrepresenting a source, which seems to conclude the opposite of what they've said, as I've detailed at Talk:ETA#Changes_to_lead. Valenciano (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy of Baby It's Cold Outside

Content:

In recent years, there has been criticism of the song, stemming from a modernistic reading of the wolf/mouse dynamic as being sexually predatory. While traditionally interpreted as the mouse wanting to stay and putting up only token protests for the sake of appearance, some commentators perceive the lyrics as the "mouse" as genuinely wanting to leave but being stopped by the "wolf" being coercive in his pleading. These readers cite certain lines as being questionable, including "I simply must go", "The answer is no", "I've got to go home". There is also the line "Hey, what's in this drink", which is seen as implicative of alcohol affecting the "mouse's" judgement or that they have been drugged. However, many movies, at the time the song was written, used a similar line to refer to someone behaving in a different manner than they expected and blaming it on the alcohol.

"‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ was once an anthem for progressive women. What happened?". The Washington Post. Hannun, Marya (11 December 2013). "'SOUTH PARK' Takes on Bill Cosby ... BABY THERE'S AN ASSAULT OUTSIDE". TMZ (11 December 2014). "8 Romantic Songs You Didn't Know Were About Rape". Cracked.com (13 February 2010). "“Baby It’s Cold Outside” Isn’t About Date Rape!". Salon (website) (19 December 2012). "Is "Baby, It's Cold Outside" a date-rape anthem?". Salon (website). Deusner, Stephen (10 December 2012). "Baby, It’s Just A Song". The Federalist (website). Magness, Cheryl (3 December 2014). "Christmas songs that illustrate the worst in humanity". George Ouzounian (19 December 2012).

These are some of the proposed sources for and against the date rape implications surrounding Baby, It's Cold Outside. We are determining if these are propaganda or satire, and if so, which ones fit RS guidelines. Timeraner (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources all appear OK, especially WP and Salon. Doesn't this more belong at WP:NPOV/N?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll move it. Timeraner (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RS/Noticeboard. Timeraner (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

per WP:UNDUE we represent the various views as best we can in proportion to how those multiple views represent significant groups. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, TMZ The Federalist and Cracked are not generally valid sources. TMZ is just gossip and prurient rumormongoring, Cracked is humor and Federalist is hot air blowhards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of other sources being discussed on the article talk page. IMO the standard for inclusion here is (correctly) pretty low. We are not talking about any BLP issues, or statements of fact. Its "What are the opinions about this song". Interestingly for the federalist, their article largely argues against the "rape" interpretation, so removing them removes one of the better soured counterpoints to the controversy. This hasn't gotten "Tier 1" coverage like the other controversial Christmas song Do They Know It's Christmas which has been covered by NPR and BBC, but its still a pretty notable controversy, and there is not a really widely discussed counterargument Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really relevant to this discussion board, but there is no exception to WP:RS for items that dont receive coverage in adequately reliable sources to use non-reliable sources instead. That would kind of make WP:RS pointless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I take that back, here is an NPR story http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2009/12/baby_its_cold_outside.html Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

While these are mostly "reliable sources" in the strict sense, WP:DUE would require that their opinion not be dealt with too extensively. For example, while an article in Salon is just fine as evidence for criticism, who really cares? It does not say much about the overall reception of the song. More than a short note, then, is not warranted. Broad coverage of an opinion generally requires better sources. Knight of Truth (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution