Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 21 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & 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

RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines[edit]

May I ask for comment on the neutrality of proposed edits at Talk:Sugar#RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines?

Sérgio Moro[edit]

Please check:

The section being removed is terribly biased as it ignores all of Moro's highly popular and praised merits in leading the Operation Car Wash, even ignores his most famous case in which he convicted Lula, and instead focuses entirely on leftist rhetoric and on disqualifying him over criticism that comes exclusively from biased editorials. I've got my account blocked because of this so is there any experienced editor who can give a throughout check? The section they want to keep clearly violate NPOV and doesn't give its due weight. Besides, it's not even in the Portuguese Wikipedia.

Acupuncture article.[edit] say that something is not effective because no one has managed to produce evidence is nonsense...; we get you. Bye, WBGconverse 10:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
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.

The article on acupuncture does not have a neutral point of view and is very biased against acupuncture. A few people have reported to me that they have tried to edit it and their edits have just disappeared or they have been dismissed. As Wikipedia's policy is to have a neutral point of view, surely this article should be itself more neutral, just stating facts rather than pressing the point that the writer believes acupuncture doesn't work. Yes there are some studies that suggest it doesn't work in those cases but there are plenty of studies that say it does, and there are more positive ones now.

The same with the Homeopathy page. This page is also very biased against Homeopathy and indeed claims false "facts".

Please could you assure us that if these pages are fairly edited, they will not be changed back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaderon (talkcontribs) 18:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Both articles are far too biased towards these fake practises. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Shaderon: If you think there is false information in an article, you need to be more specific about what you believe to be false in the article, and make sure to cite reliable sources for medical content. If reliable sources say that acupuncture doesn't work, then the article should say so, this doesn't necessarily mean it is biased.
@Roxy the dog: Dismissing a new editor's concerns as "nonsense" and responding to a vague claim of bias with your own vague and opinionated claim of the opposite bias is not helpful. Shaderon may well be wrong, but when a new editor sees comments like the one you just made here it only makes them think of Wikipedia as unpleasant and biased. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Haha. You are calling me opinionated. Haha. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: This is exactly what I mean. There are opinions and evidence both ways but any evidence with reliable sources (and by the way the statement "The conclusions of many trials and numerous systematic reviews of acupuncture are largely inconsistent, which suggests that it is not effective." is a biased point of view, to say that something is not effective because no one has managed to produce evidence is nonsense. No proof of a thing is not proof it doesn't exist and if something only works sometimes, this suggests that it might work in some cases so therefore to say it doesn't work at all is AGAINST the evidence. So bias is already evident in this article.
Also to say "Medical" evidence is against acupuncture in itself because most people in the "Medical" industry (I'm talking Western Medical) do not consider Acupuncture medical, however people in the TCM acupuncture industry consider Western Medical to be "masking symptoms"... who is right? Again opinion. So any evidence given in a medical setting, is going to be like proving that a cat can bark. It's just not made that way, Acupuncture and the Western Medical industries do different things so can't be proved using each other's methods.
It's going to take a lot of fairness from now on to convince myself any many other users (who I have talked to so therefore I personally have evidence) that Wikipedia is a trusted source of information because of biases just like this in many articles and in fact there is a rumor beginning that the people behind Wikipedia may just be paid off to take a biased approach. I think that in general, not just this article, but many others need looking at for just this type of bias and experts in the relevant subjects approached for any evidence to support instead of letting the noisy people who are editing articles dismiss any facts because they don't believe them. I understand that this is a public domain but Wikipedia does have people checking for fairness, so maybe these people need a more thorough understanding of scientific principle and bias. BTW I trained in scientific argument and I could tear holes in ANY experiment or study, as every single one can be disputed in some way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaderon (talkcontribs) 19:20, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished beliefs, however lucrative they might be for fake doctors. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 14 December 2018]]
I totally give up! This has convinced me that the editors in the BIAS section ARE BIASED!
Wikipedia is biased because of this alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaderon (talkcontribs) 19:28, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, we are biased in favour of empirically established fact. The core claims of acupuncture and homeopathy are wrong. They are founded on vitalistic models of human physiology which have been disproven. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but you don't know enough about the subject Guy. You are a really bad person to have on this board, you are not open minded and being very fast to answer there I suspect you either work for a pharmaceutical company or something like it. I bet you know know that the majority of doctors take kickbacks which are worth a lot more than any money that an acupuncture therapist earns, so your argument of it being luctrative is ridiculous. Also the western medical model of human physiology is starting to PROVE the Chinese one, maybe you should read up and research new evidence as the medical industry is doing before dismissing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaderon (talkcontribs) 19:38, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
@Shaderon: You seem to be dismissing the possibility of anything being a proven fact by saying BTW I trained in scientific argument and I could tear holes in ANY experiment or study, as every single one can be disputed in some way. But then you say Also the western medical model of human physiology is starting to PROVE the Chinese one so are you saying that studies and research are only true if the agree with your beliefs? if not, what are you trying to say? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.[edit]

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1][2]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an RfC relevant to this topic at - the COI noticeboard Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The critics of Acupuncture miss the point, which is that an article should describe the practice and what it purports to do, then cover the opinions for and against, with refs. The same applies to Naturopathy or any other therapy; a neutral article will describe the subject and what it purports to do, then discuss the arguments for and against, with refs. That is neutrality. To say something is "pseudoscientific" or whatever is expressing an opinion, otherwise known as POV. Sardaka (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Failing to report what reliable sources say would mislead readers. Acupuncture is pseudoscience and should be reported as such. Wikipedia is not an equal-time media outlet where everyone's opinion is of equal validity. Here, the only opinions that matter are those of reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
What Johnuniq said. Sardaka is arguing directly counter to NPOV policy, specifically WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. Basically we call bullshit out for what it is. Alexbrn (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

NVIC motto[edit]

At the NVIC article as well as FTN[3] there has been extensive debate, going back a year, over whether to include the NVIC's motto/slogan and mission statment in the infobox. The mission statment parameter was removed from the infobox template, but an RfC was just closed with no consensus for the removal of the "motto" parameter[4]. JzG has strenuously objected to the inclusion of the motto parameter, while I feel his arguments have mostly been POV. Guy Macon has suggested that the motto be included only if independent sources can be found for it, while I was initially OK with this, we do have a primary source (NVIC) that establishes what NVIC's motto is, so it passes WP:V, and I don't see how it can be undue to fill all infobox parameters. Me and JzG going back and forth will get us nowhere (well maybe ANI, but no one wants that) and Guy macon's attempts to diffuse our dispute are appreciated, but we need more editors to weigh in on this. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Exclude – slogans and mission statements can be useful for some larger organizations, especially when they have been discussed in independent sources. In this case, we're dealing with National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine organization with the motto "Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice." That's just soapboxing, and it has no business here. Bradv🍁 03:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Using our judgment of what is a legitimate motto based on whether the organization is good or bad seems to be an unacceptable POV standard, and do we really need secondary sources to establish that it is WP:DUE to fill an infobox parameter? Tornado chaser (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Tornado chaser, then explain who is helped by including the motto, other than the organization. Bradv🍁 03:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bradv: Allowing infobox parameters to be selectively included based on whether the organization is good or bad is a dangerously non-neutral precedent to set, if there is a consensus that all infobox mottoes need secondary sourcing I am fine with not including NVIC's motto, but we can't just exclude mottoes because of whose motto it is or what the motto says. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Tornado chaser, you're ignoring my question. Bradv🍁 04:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand how "who is helped by including" is a legitimate way to determine whether to include content, if the content is factual, verifiable, and WP:DUE than it is included, right? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Tornado chaser, my objection is that it's soapboxing. It serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to promote the subject. I'm talking about specifically this article, not mottos in general. Bradv🍁 04:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bradv: Aren't mottoes always self promotional? can you give me an example of a motto that you would not consider soapboxing? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Tornado chaser, I would say most mottos are promotional, although some of them are independently notable. Interestingly enough, the two examples I thought of, Microsoft's vision of "a computer on every desktop" and Google's "don't be evil", aren't included in their respective infoboxes. Bradv🍁 04:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bradv: But what would be wrong with adding the mottos to these infoboxes? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Tornado chaser, presumably there were discussions on those articles that led to a consensus not to include. Perhaps some of those editors pointed to WP:SOAPBOX or WP:NPOV. Regardless, I don't see you getting anywhere with this, and I'm very concerned by how hard you're trying to push this issue. Bradv🍁 04:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
───────────────────────── @Bradv: I just realized corporate infoboxes don't have a motto parameter, "motto" is only a parameter on the infobox for nonprofit organizations, so you can't compare the NVIC infobox to the microsoft infobox. Are you saying that all mottos need secondary sources in order to be included in the infobox regardless of what the organization promotes? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Tornado chaser, you're changing the subject. I have considered your proposal to include this motto on the article National Vaccine Information Center, and I am opposed based on the reasons I stated. Bradv🍁 05:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude Please stop using Wikipedia to promote anti-vaxxers. There is no policy that all sides get equal time and there is no reason to promote their nonsense in a prominent position. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please comment on content, not contributors, I have no desire to promote antivaxers, and I am aware of the problem of false balance (if you don't believe me my userpage essay criticizes false balance) but we need a reason other than opposition to NVIC or disagreement with their motto to exclude it from the infobox. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Welcome to Wikipedia, you might like to browse WP:5P and let me know which pillar requires the promotion of blather-speak pronouncements from those who promote anti-science. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: NPOV is a pillar, and it requires that our standard for including mottoes is not based on whether the organization is good or bad, if we only include independently sourced mottoes, that would be fine, but we can't just say "antivaxers are bad, so exclude their motto". Tornado chaser (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tornado chaser: NPOV is indeed a pillar, and for dubious stuff it guides us to "omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it". Inclusion would give this twisted motto undue legitimacy. I am troubled by your zealous push for inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Your reasoning that the motto is "twisted" is another NPOV violation, like the ones that Guy Macon refers to in his comment. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm I actually quoted NPOV to you - as other NB participants have been trying to tell you, Wikipedia is biased against dodgy stuff like this and in its terms that is neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be misstating our policy through selective quotation. The policy in context is:
"Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."
Your "this twisted motto" argument goes against the policy you quoted. You are clearly "taking a stand on these issues". The word legitimatize in the policy does not encourage you to take a stand on these issues by excluding what you don't like, but rather that they should not be "legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship".
I also think that your personal comments about Tornado chaser are out of line. He is standing up for NPOV. You are ignoring NPOV. Care to describe me as being pro-fringe, considering my record of edits on fringe topics?
If the most vile organization imaginable has a completely deceptive and evil motto or slogan, and multiple reliable secondary sources discuss it at length, it merits inclusion. If the most good and pure organization imaginable has a motto or slogan that everybody likes and agrees with, but no secondary source discusses it. It should be excluded. This is not optional. WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV requires that we put aside or personal prejudices and describe even the most evil organizations from a neutral point of view. There are always secondary sources that make the "this is evil" point. It is our job to simply report what those sources say. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid to say I think you are completey wrong in your reading of policy. No, "we" (Wikipedia) doesn't take a stand "for or against", but we "omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it". I am not saying the article should take a "stand against" the motto, but exluding it is explcitly in line with the word of policy. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Seriously? You think an antivax organisation with a slogan plainly based on the lunatic ideas that vaccines are more dangerous than infectious disease, and that not vaccinating has no impact on anyone but you, is somehow not twisted? You really think that? Guy (Help!) 15:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@JzG: Thats not what I said at all, I am saying whether a motto or organization is "twisted" is a matter of opinion and our opinions must not guide our editing. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Of course it is twisted. That doesn't give you a free pass to ignore NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
You keep asserting that I am ignoring NPOV. That is false. UNDUE is part of NPOV. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The mistake I think you are making is saying that something is UNDUE because it is an antivax group, content may be UNDUE if it is self sourced opinion, but that applies equally to self sourced opinion from anti-vax groups, pro-vax groups, republicans, democrats, nazis, civil rights activists, ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not a mistake. The group's marketing slogan is Orwellian. It is also a great example of begging the question. Assuming that vaccines cause mass harm (which they don't), that the government has no authority to coerce behaviour in support of public health (which they clearly do), and that the choice of whether or not to vaccinate your child has no effect on anyone other than you (which it clearly does), then it's your health, your family and your choice. But since none of the base premises are true, it's propaganda and stating it gives undue weight to their objectively false assessment of vaccine safety, risks of infectious disease, and their obligations to society and their children. And any choice made on the basis of the kind of disinformation that NVIC put out is not an informed choice. In fact I have yet to see a single antivaxer provide a fact-based argument for their opposition to vaccines: almost all of them cite autism, for example, which is not correlated with vaccines, let alone caused by them. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Whether the government should have any given power is a matter of opinion, so is any claim of "obligations to society". Tornado chaser (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
There is ample precedent for the government having the right to intervene when people make dangerously incorrect health choices on behalf of their children or themselves. There is ample precedent for obligations to society (e.g. Typhoid Mary). Guy (Help!) 00:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
───────────────────────── Yes there is precedent that the government has these powers, but whether it is moral/ethical for the government to have such powers is a matter of opinion and therefore not something wikipedia can take a side on. NVIC is saying the government shouldn't have these powers, we as editors are free to personally disagree with them, but not to treat our opinions as facts, we can't take a side on what the law should be. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Exclude and consider a TBAN. Marketing slogans are bad enough when they are anodyne, this is an Orwellian slogan for an organisation whos purpose is in effect the promotion of preventable infectious diseases. Every mainstream source identifies NVIC as a propaganda outfit. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Exclude. Why on earth would we want to parrot an antivax slogan? There seems to be some dogged WP:PROFRINGE here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Don't care about the motto itself, but excluding the motto must be for a reason unrelated to what the organizations promotes, if we don't have the same standard for mottoes regardless of the purpose of the organization, then we set a bad precedent in favor of editorial bias, which is likely to spill over into other areas of the encyclopedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: Most of the exclude !votes should not be counted because they are based upon reasoning that are clear NPOV violations. Tornado chaser is correct; we can't just exclude mottoes because of whose motto it is or what the motto says.
In particular, the following comments contain arguments that are clear violations of NPOV:
  • "In this case, we're dealing with National Vaccine Information Center."
  • "Explain who is helped by including the motto, other than the organization."
  • "My objection is that it's soapboxing. It serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to promote the subject."
  • "Please stop using Wikipedia to promote anti-vaxxers."
  • "There is no reason to promote their nonsense in a prominent position."
  • "This is an Orwellian slogan for an organisation whos purpose is in effect the promotion of preventable infectious diseases. Every mainstream source identifies NVIC as a propaganda outfit."
  • "...blather-speak pronouncements from those who promote anti-science."
No such arguments should be counted. I would also advise ignoring any arguments to the effect that WP:WEIGHT does not apply to mottos in infoboxes. That policy contains no such exception. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes they should, per WP:PROFRINGE. Neutrality is not the average between liars and the truth. We have plenty of precedent for not including counterfactual self-descriptions of liars. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
"Slogans, Mottos, Mission Statements, and all similar infobox parameters should only be added if they are (1) discussed in at least one reliable secondary source (actual discussion, not just a mention in passing) and (2) discussed in the body of the article (which they shouldn't be unless they are discussed in a reliable secondary source)".
I would also be OK with requiring multiple sources instead of "at least one".
I have seen zero evidence establishing this for the motto in question. so it should be excluded until someone provides said evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I would be fine with excluding the motto if there is consensus that even mottoes need independent sourcing(regardless of whether it is a pro-or anti-vax org), I have no interest in including the motto for it's own sake, I just want an NPOV reason for whatever people want to do. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude: including a self-serving motto with no context in an infobox for a fringe organization is clearly profringe. Including mottos in infoboxes at all seems a little odd (similar to trying to include movie tag lines), and while there could potentially be situations in which you might want to include one in an infobox, an anti-vaccine group isn't one of them. --tronvillain (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have decided to Exclude the motto as long as there are no secondary sources for it, as Guy Macon has said that infoboxes are not exempt from needing secondary sources, and I have no reason to distrust him. However, this decision should not be misconstrued as condoning any of the numerous blatant POV arguments made by many editors on this thread. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Update, I did find this secondary source for NVIC's motto[5]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Include:To repeat my stance: would removing the "motto" parameter from this infobox contribute to better articles on Wikipedia? From one view, I would say it doesn't. Mottos can be very indicating for the identity and purposes of the organization. This even goes for the antivax group: in a rather cynical way, the motto Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice. tells people it is their choice to keep their children vulnerable for, among others, polio, measles and diphtheria. This is Orwellian indeed, but I would say that it is easy to be seen through. On the other hand, mottos also can be a load of hot air, and they may change from time to time. Considering all this, I believe that keeping the motto-parameter is the best option, although I wouldn't make much objections when it will be deleted after this discussion. And as a side-note: as the person who inserted the motto in the NVIC article, I would have appreciated it if I was informed that this discussion was going on. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff5102: I thought of telling you, and maybe I should have, but I was afraid that telling you would be seen as canvassing. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe you should have done that. If I would make an “expand NGO-articles with info-boxes”-round on Wikipedia, I wouldn’t like to be surprised. However, I found out in time, so there is no harm done. All the best and kind regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You are probable right. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger: Your edit was good because the slogan was in the wrong infobox parameter (the website infobox lacks a motto parameter), and because the motto was unsourced, but I don't see how this discussion gives you any further justification for that edit. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I read "If you are receiving this transmission, You are the Resistance" as a similarly promotional statement. Is that a fair interpretation? — Newslinger talk 03:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger: Your edit was correct, but I don't think this discussion should be used to justify any edits until it is formally closed, as there is disagreement about what !votes should even be counted. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I've corrected the edit summary with a dummy edit. — Newslinger talk 03:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude: undue & promotional mission statement. If secondary coverage about the mission statement exist, then it's best contextualised in the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude: unduly promotional and lack of independent coverage. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)[edit]

Evans has recently been involved in what the Washington Post and pretty much all the other local media outlets in D.C. are characterizing as a major scandal (see [6], [7], etc.), and some editors have been trying to add additional information about the scandal to his page. However, to do so would require overturning a consensus to only briefly mention the scandal, which was reached before as many elements of the scandal were known. Most of the editors participating in the discussion (including Evans himself, who is an editor) have been involved with the disputes on the page going way back, and they are (somewhat reasonably) asking others who want to jump in to go through all the history of the discussion, but since few are willing to do so, this has essentially had the effect of limiting the discussion to only a small circle. The discussion could use some more attention from uninvolved editors willing to familiarize themselves with the situation and then offer comment. - Sdkb (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

First, thanks to Sdkb for a neutrally stated, un-inflammatory request. This particular episode was the subject of a BLPN posting in August, archived here. A discussion ensued, archived beginning here, and spilling (after some intervening discussion) in the subsequent archived section as well. Rather than me try to summarize the issues and their resolution at that time, I would simply encourage any newly-arriving editor to review the material. I'd add though that the only element of the scandal that wasn't known in August, which is known now, was captured in a recent Washington Post article from a week or so ago, linked above. A Talk page discussion was immediately begun in order to see if the prior consensus should be revisited. That discussion begins here. Finally, while not essential to the immediate matter, I think it would assist the disinterested editor to understand that the page has, over the years, been subject to a lot of push and pull from parties with one or another axe to grind, including Evans himself (who, as a condition of having his most recent block lifted, has pledged to stop editing the page directly). A different, 2015, BLPN posting is illustrative. This is all reflected on in the Talk page archives. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC about The Washington Times and climate change coverage in Lede[edit]

This RfC[8] may be of interest. The question is about whether it is due weight to mention the newspaper's climate change coverage in the lede paragraph. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marquis de Faux. Just noting that the sources used for the claim that the newspaper "has published many columns rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change" only involve a few articles. For instance, the New Yorker article only cited or focused on Richard Rahn's op-ed. The ClimateFeedback source only cited one article and the case is the same for the Los Angeles Times story. Moreover, these articles did not refer to a pattern of climate change rejection in "many" of The Washington Times columns. I am not saying that this claim is not true, only that the sources used do not reflect the insinuation. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Darwin Naz, please post this on the RfC on that page, not here. Best regards, Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, done. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check[edit]

Can I have a little help from you guys reviewing an article that I created and has subsequently become a hotbed of conflict? For a little bit of history, the article is Media Bias/Fact Check. The original version as finished and published (before other editors showed up and started removing material) can be found here. Following a protracted period of instability, the last version that I would support as being neutral in POV would be this. The article subsequently had much of its sourced content removed to the point that the article is now almost entirely negative in its coverage of the topic. A couple of editors are quite fond of an article written by the Columbia Journalism Review ([9]), which discussed MBFC briefly in a paragraph or two in a wider discussion on measuring media bias. This particular author was generally critical of measuring media bias, and also wasn't impressed by MBFC, describing it as "an amateur attempt". I was not aware of the CJR article when I wrote the original version of the article. As I said, the two editors in question are fond of this source's general reliability, considering its viewpoint to be so significant that the article has now been essentially paired down to only contain negative coverage of the website in line with CJR's assessment of the website. In the last 24 hours a large amount of what I would consider fairly well-sourced content has been removed with various explanations that can be seen on the history page (I won't comment further, please draw your own conclusions).

This article wasn't really ever visible in the New Pages Feed, as I have the autopatrolled flag, but I would like some input on it at this stage. I'm asking for a bit of help reviewing the article (both the original version I created, the most recent version I supported, and the current version as it stands now).

I've basically given up on the article, and even removed it from my list of created works, as it has little to nothing that I wrote left in it; but I'd like some feedback and a few other opinions on the situation and how it went down so that I can learn from it moving forward and possibly learn where I went wrong here. Thanks all, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 01:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

More eyes would indeed be welcome, as would more sources that are about the subject. I like MB/FC and am struggling to find good sources that show it in a positive light. Guy (Help!) 01:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I feel some of the content removal is reasonable , JzG's concern about making the site seem reliable in WP's voice when it really shouldn't be is very right on target. But once the site's notability is established and avoiding the use of primary sources for that, the other content such as the methodology section in the original is fully appropriate to include from the primary source, as long as the lede makes it clear about the site's unreliable nature, and the article's content is not excessively weight on the primary sources. Also, RSOPINION is perfectly valid here for sources like the HuffPo piece that was removed, as long as it is expressed as criticism. I do feel the edits to prune out material are trying to paint the site as negatively as possible. We want to point out the negative criticism but we shouldn't be focused on only that. We want a comprehensive article and the removal strips out what I would considered appropriate material. --Masem (t) 01:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Came here via my lurking on ICPH's talk page This pretty closely reflects my thinking. If I had been patrolling the article I would have likely commented on the MOS:LEADCITE which was, in my assessment, WP:OVERCITE. The citations which have been removed did not show anything beyond some sources using the website. That feels a bit of a bank shot way to show notability and unnecessary given other available sourcing. I definitely think adding back, probably unsectioned given the current article, the two sentences about how it works, is appropriate. Otherwise the sources now present a more encyclopedic version of the website. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Masem&Barkeep49 Some general comments about my dissatisfaction as to how the article has been rewritten.
I don't claim that my original version was in any way perfect (in fact I didn't know of the CJR source at the time and the Poynter Institute one hadn't been written yet).
CJR said that it was 'subjective' "Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation... Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in." Similarly the Poynter Institute says "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."
These are essentially saying the same thing, that the ratings will be subjective to some degree, which MBFC does not dispute and agrees with this in their own description of their methodology, and points out that of course, any media bias judgement will be inherently subjective to some degree by the nature of what bias is.[10] There is no reason that all this can't be written about in a neutral way, but currently the article has basically just been gutted of all other sources, which does the topic no good at all.
Their methodology is actually rather transparently discussed on their site,[11] but this as well has been removed from the article. While a primary source, it is still useful info that should be relatively uncontroversial. For this type of info, affiliated sources are usually considered fine to use, though others have objected here.
The CJR and Poynter Institute sources actually only briefly mention MBFC; the Inside Sources article [12] was the most comprehensive review of the site, though others aren't satisfied with that source (personally after having a look at other articles on the site, it looks pretty middle of the road for a low traffic news site, not sticking out as 'unreliable' in any way).
The references to the MIT project that used MBFC data have been completely removed by JzG, which included sources from Popular Science. His excuse was that PopSci and others [13][14][15][16] commenting on the same story all referenced another source as a primary source, which somehow makes all their secondary coverage inappropriate (?); This removal I don't really understand at all and can't see a justifiable reason for cutting all these sources and coverage. Weirdly, he left the second sentence of the article referencing this with no sources left in the article citing it.
I'd also like to discuss the removal of references to who has cited MBFC when discussing other sources. Lots have, including BBC [17], Newsweek [18][19], The Spinoff [20] as well as Op-eds in LaTimes [21] and Forbes [22]. All these sources and references to the use of MBFC by all these organisations has subsequently been removed from the article.
There is another story by PBS NewsHour about how an algorithm was trained to identify Russion bots, partially with help from MBFC data.[23]. This source was also at one point in the article but has been removed.
There are also a few sources that didn't like MBFC's assessment of them, and wrote hit pieces against MBFC. These were covered in the first iteration of the article and might have been a bit too much coverage in the article, but I think these could probably be discussed somehow. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, we don't include any hit pieces right now. My objection to "X has been mentioned by Y, source, Y mentioning X" is constant across all articles and certainly not specific to this one. Here we actually went further and made statements that major news orgs had used MBFC as a source, cited to three articles which represented the sum total of all the times both of those orgs had even namechecked MBFC. I don't think I am alone in thinking that gives undue weight. The solution is to find better substantive sources that are about MBFC, rather than mine the web for mentions.
I don't think Inside Sources counts as a RS. We only have 23 cites to it as of this writing, and I think that should be closer to zero. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
In topics that relate to the media, I would think that identifying how a yet -proven source has been incorporated by other more established sources gives weight to its reliability, which balance against other source discounting the site as being reliable. We are putting the existing evidence of what is our there on the table to let the reader judge due to a lack of a consistently authoritative source on how media sites should be treated. (If that existed, determining RD would become trivial). --Masem (t) 13:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


This article is a blatant example of POV. It doesn't even pretend to be impartial. It adopts the attitude that naturopathy is bunk right from the start, with the statement that naturopathy is "pseudoscientific", without even a ref. Whether you believe in naturopathy or not is not the point; the point is that the article is biased.

The NPOV approach would be to describe the subject and what it purports to do, then provide arguments for and against, with refs. The article does not even attempt to do this. It is completely biased, and it is impossible to change it because the protectors of the article delete any attempt to make it more NPOV. I have tried lately, but even the slightest change is reverted almost immediately. Sardaka (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That's because you are adding nonsense to the article, and obviously it will be removed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The neutral point of view is the one that is taken by the vast majority of relevant experts, as described in secondary, peer reviewed literature (or other as permitted by WP:PARITY). In the case of naturopathy, that point of view is rather monolithic: that naturopathy is a haphazard collection of pseudoscience. The neutral point of view is not an exercise in false balance, or a requirement to be generous to the subject of an article. You are interpreting "neutral" to mean "non-negative" or "as much negative as positive". You are wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The balance of the article is right, as pointed out above, that the bulk of reliable sources in medicine have determined naturopathy to be psuedoscience, so this article is going to be weighted against the views that think naturopathy is effective. That said, there's ordering of information (outside the lede) that rushes in to discount naturopathy too soon. There should be a neutral section that isn't written in an accusational tone to lay out the foundations of what has been published of what naturopathy is, where it was established, and what types of practices it suggests. After that brief section, then its time to lay out the scientific and medical evidence against it. I point out that this is within the body: it seems right and proper that the lede call out the pseudoscience and the medical claims against this. That way, a user reading the article from the start will understand it is a questionable area of medicine in the lede, and so when they get to the section that goes into the details of naturopathy that does not include criticism against it, they're still aware that this is all under psuedoscientific merits. --Masem (t) 17:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The lead does not reflect the entire article. It is overly negative, repeating the point that it is unscientific over and over. It has psedoscientific practices, methods rely on folk medicine rather than evidence-based medicine, relies on unscientific notions - these same points are all used in one paragraph. One would think that this is not a lead but a warning. The content could be confined to a Criticism section. While it is probably undisputed that it is a pseudoscience, why not just state it once in the lead but also outline other information that represent other contents in this very long article? That would be more helpful to people who want to know more about this subject. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
No. Accurate assessments as established by credible sources shouldn't be confined to a criticism section, as seen in WP:DESCF. --tronvillain (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The neutral approach is to report what various experts have said about the subject, not to actually adopt their view. If the article adopts their view, it is POV. I might add that even experts can be biased, and there are plenty of doctors who are biased against natural therapies. Sardaka (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Expert (sources) are good, so long as they are reliable for their purpose and WP:FRINDependent (so no in-universe blather about "natural therapies" thank you). We must WP:ASSERT things which are not seriously disputed like, for example, that Naturopathy is a pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." It is not controversial in medical or scientific literature that naturopathy is pseudoscience. The fact that people exist who dispute this does not make it controversial. The number of people who dispute this does not make this controversial either. When virtually 100% of reliable sources state that something is true and scientifically uncontroversial, it would in fact be POV of us to dilute that to an opinion or legitimate controversy. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The "experts" in question are doctors, who are notoriously conservative and prejudiced against anything off the beaten track. Modern medicine isn't dominated by science, it's dominated by the pharmaceutical industry, which has no interest in alternatives to drugs. The article will never change because it is controlled by a cabal of gatekeepers who make sure the article stays the way it is, and who can be extremely unpleasant towards anyone who tries to change anything. Most of them are probably doctors or have connections with the pharmaceutical industry. As it stands, the article doesn't read like an encyclopedia article; it's more like an article in a tabloid newspaper. However, the cabal who control it are only fooling themselves, because the average reader who uses Wiki is capable of recognizing bias when they see it. Sardaka (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggest this thread is closed as it's gone silly. NPOV policy has been explained, if not accepted. Alexbrn (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem with the EROEI article[edit]

Hi guys,

I'm having some trouble with the article about EROEI.

For anyone not familiar, the topic of EROEI is mired in pseudoscience. It has been used to predict the imminent collapse of civilization, over and over again, since the early 1970s. I take a lay interest in this fringe group.

Odd material is creeping into the wikipedia article about the topic. A fringe paper is being given its own entire section. That paper has conclusions which drastically contradict the conclusions of hundreds of other studies. The paper was roundly criticized and labelled "refuted" by leading researchers in the field. This paper is given its own section, when meta-analyses of dozens or hundreds of legitimate studies are reduced to a single line.

I have deleted the offending section, but it's just re-added by another editor with whom I appear to be in dispute.

The new disputed section includes totally unacceptable sources. For example, the two most recent sources are a one-page undergraduate paper for an introductory college course, and a political blog of some kind where community members can contribute. Both sources simply repeat the fringe material they have read, and so do not represent independent sources.

This appears to be devolving into an "undo war". I'd appreciate it if some other people could show up and weigh in.

The discussion about this issue can be found here.

Thanks, Thomas pow s (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, why as a lay reader you needed to take this, to this venue and we couldn't discuss your POV.
But seen as you decided to bring it here. For anyone who is unfamiliar, this debate is not new; there is an ongoing debate over the distinction between two accounting methods, the physical content method and the substitution method. Suffice it to say that each calculation has its justification and merits because each measures something slightly different. Importantly, the share of renewables looks bigger in one method;[now guess which one User:Thomas pow s advocates to have sole recognition in the article?] and in the other method, they look smaller.
Now with that in mind. The specific paper Thomas pow s continually censors out of the article, is one of the most cited in the field, it has over one hundred citations, which anyone worth their salt can go check. With those citations, ten of them, continuing up to as recent as last year, not bad for an alleged fringe paper from six years ago. By contrast most of the papers that User:Thomas pow s holds up as the truth aren't anywhere near as influential. Though those with a particular POV are rarely accomodating to others. Lastly, the addition of the mentioned stanford university webpages that summarized the highly influential paper, which are notably behind a paywall to most, are merely courtesy references to those without subscription access.
Boundarylayer (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll chime in, though in transparencya and disclosure, I'm in content disputes with this same editor elsewhere.
(A) Like many of Boundarylayer's barrage of edits across articles broadly related to nuclear power, the sentence construction is crap. So for starters, the first sentence (in this version) is an incomprehensible run-on sentence fragment that lacks a verb. According to a transatlantic collaborative research paper on Energy return on energy Invested (EROEI), conducted by six analysts led by German academic D. Weißbach, and described as "...the most extensive overview so far based on a careful evaluation of available Life Cycle Assessment
(B) In a word, the text discussed in (A) is pure WP:PUFFERY
(C) The second phrase is also a non-sentence and is also puffery. Published in the peer reviewed journal Energy in 2013.
(D) The fourth sentence is at least a sentence but it is a darn near incomprehensible run on for a highly complex topic The buffered (corrected for their intermittency) EROEI stated in the paper, for all low-carbon power sources, with the exception of the only two baseload energy supplying systems of biomass and nuclear, were lowered considerably due to weather variations, a reduction of EROEI proportional to how reliant these other energy sources are on the embodied manufacture of back-up energy systems, such as industrial sized batteries, the construction of a pumped hydro storage facility etc.
(E) Citation count is moot as related to Google-Counting. See WP:Arguments to avoid in discussions.
(F) I don't care about the original paper. It's a WP:PRIMARY source and its presentation here is being challenged. So we need the best WP:SECONDARY sources to shed light.
(G) CONCLUSION - Obviously if this section remains it needs a total re-write, but before that, Please provide a bullet list containing urls of the best SECONDARY sources to evaluate this dispute?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC) PS @Thomas pow s: that also means I'd like to see RSs for your claims this paper is fringe and debunked.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy,
There is a source already included in the article for the ERoEI of solar PV. It is a meta-analysis which includes 25 separate studies, all of which yield broadly similar results. In contrast, this study is a far outlier, even before taking into account buffering. This paper arrives at a figure that is approximately 1/3rd or less that of all the other studies. By itself, this means that the outlier study does not warrant its own entire section when dozens of other studies are reduced to a single line.
There was a rebuttal of this one outlier study, posted in the same journal by leading figures in the field. I no longer have access to it, but here is a link:'Energy_intensities_EROIs_energy_returned_on_invested_and_energy_payback_times_of_electricity_generating_power_plants'_-_Making_clear_of_quite_some_confusion
An IEA task force, established to create guidelines for LCA Life Cycle Assessment NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC) analysis, concluded the following about that study: "regrettably (LCA) has sometimes been the object of misguided interpretation in the existing literature [Weißbach et al., 2013]".
As a result, this paper is a far outlier which was refuted. It cannot be given its own section when dozens of other studies that reach a starkly different conclusion are reduced to a single line.
Thomas pow s (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The same Weißbach et al. article was in dispute resolution in 2014. Back then the issue was closed without any decision. --TuomoS (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── In the big picture, Thomas, my impression is that there might be an ongoing debate in the sources about how to calculate the numbers. Our article might do well to focus on the opposing views without trying to find TRUTH in a discrete list of numbers. And you'll get a lot farther by finding secondary sources, especially ones that are not paywalled. For example, instead of reporting numbers from the Weißbach paper, do you understand their criticism of prior approaches? Write it up! And contrast the criticism of the rebuttals. Best if you can use non-paywalled secondary sources to do it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thomas is doing the work of acknowledged solar advocates with a well regarded troublesome POV in the scientific literature, as linked to below. The work of a group affiliated with the industry that they then publish glowingly about and attack everyone else. It's an actual travesty that this is allowed to continue but there you go. In that they are attempting to censor what the founder of the field of study has routinely reported on Solar PV. As the IEA are not neutral but subject to industry lobby committees, one of whom being Raugei, Thomas's favorite solar advocate. By contrast there are multiple WP:SECONDARY sources such as these IEEE researchers, who, present the controversy and the EROEI of solar photovoltaic(PV) as likewise almost identical to the value of the transatlantic team a year before them that Thomas has censored out of the article and is the focus of this proceeding. Thomas does not want this information or controversy known, instead they want only what the glowing industry affiliates say about Solar PV, to be viewable to readers in the article.
I am especially concerned about this conduct both here and in the article as it is essentially the turning of wikipedia into a solar PV WP:PROMOTION arm. Instead of a place for, you would hope, readers could see a controversy for what it is and decide for themselves. Thomas does not want this to be possible, they instead censor out the only independent assessments that involve real world analysis. That the founder of the field of study endorses. Thomas instead has removed this data from view, depriving everyone to see the discrepancy. With wikipedia now only a platform for what the advocates and affiliates of the industry say. This should make us all concerned.
Here are some secondary sources.
Thomas is also engaged in attempting to frame anyone who publishes on the matter, that is not getting industry money, as fringe. Though it is actually the industry advocates which are regarded as fringe. The particular and consistent inversion of matters like this, is common with someone with an axe to grind.
To elucidate. IEA = methodology employed by the International Energy Agency and Ext = extended boundary as described by Murphy and Hall, 2010 [2,3].[Charles Hall is none other than the founder of the entire field of study but Thomas would have you believe he is fringe? These independent researchers?] The difference [and there are many] between the two is essentially that the IEA is tending to focus on the energy used in the factory process while the extended methodology of Murphy and Hall, 2010 includes activities such as mining, purifying and transporting the silicon raw material.
Thomas' favorite solar advocates consider solar modules to instantly produce electricity, akin to a kind of magickal spontaneous generation once they leave the factory. They apparently do not need any supporting equipment at all, just like when you manufacture nuclear fuel and it leaves the factory, it does not need a power station to work with...oh wait..Would you trul buy that if someone was peddling that analogous thing to you? In reality every energy system needs a support structure.
The fact that one captive organization pushes fantastical values that skew to unrealistically glowing, should be presented to readers. Thomas however seems stuck in a WP:IDONTLIKE agitation and as we see here, will even start spurious procedings like this venue to force their industry-seal-of-approval view, onto the article.
When an appraisal of the literature shows as, I quote, results "from [A]Battisti et al., [B]Ito et al, [C] Meijer et al. and another paper from [D] Alsema are all cited by and in good agreement with the paper by the 6 scientists(Weißbach et. al) at the heart of this POV proceedings, values of 2.2 to 8.8 for solar PV of the more common silicon type, are what are realistic. Most recently [E]Palmer, [F]Charles Hall, Prieto and [G] | Ferroni, Hopkirk et. al have similarly determined values, if not lower or negative values in the latter case. A clear scientific consensus has formed. While the statistical massaging done by Raugei, which Hopkirk above, like everyone else, has to routinely and explicitly dismiss as advocates, with their values over thirty, are in reality who and what is truly considered fantastical and fringe.
Similarly, Weißbach's team in their rebuttal of the raving bands of solar advocates described Raugei as producing - "politically motivated energy evaluations".
P.S by the way, Thomas' favorite author, this Raugei individual is based in Oxford Brookes University UK (not to be confused, with the real Oxford Uni of which it has no academic connection. The IP address which I remember likewise got involved with the familiar censorship-swinging over the addition of Weißbach, years ago and then took the opportunity to promote Raugei, the editor | is incidentally geo-located where? Can you guess? Honestly you can't make the yarns of these folks up.
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

McConnell's reputation as a master tactician[edit]

There is a dispute on the Mitch McConnell article over whether we can include a sentence that qualifies McConnell's reputation as a master tactician. The bold sentence is under dispute, with some editors claiming it's not NPOV:

  • McConnell has gained a reputation as a skilled political strategist and tactician. However, this reputation took a hit after Republicans failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2017 during consolidated Republican control of government.[1][2][3][4]


  1. ^ Steinhauer, Jennifer (June 27, 2017). "McConnell's Reputation as a Master Tactician Takes a Hit" – via
  2. ^ "Mitch McConnell: 'The man in the middle' of U.S. healthcare war". Reuters. 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2019-01-09.
  3. ^ Jentleson, Adam. "The Myth of Mitch McConnell, Political Super-Genius". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved 2019-01-09.
  4. ^ Berman, Russell (2017-08-09). "Mitch McConnell, Under Siege". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2019-01-09.

Additional sources that use this language:

  • AP: "casting doubt on his reputation"[24]
  • Bloomberg: the essence of the article [25]
  • The Atlantic: "The majority leader’s reputation has been tarnished"[26]
  • Politico: "bruised reputation"[27]
  • 538: "cut against McConnell’s reputation"[28]
  • BBC News: "whose reputation as a master tactician has been dented"[29]

Is the bold sentence a violation of WP:NPOV? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The "take a hit" language is a bit of a colloquialism, as well as directly out of a headline from the NYTimes pieces - we have long determined headlines alone should not be taken as "reliable". Something that says his reputation was diminished or dimmed seems more in line with the sources and a bit more professional. --Masem (t) 22:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that "dimmed" is the best phrasing. That was how it was originally phrased. After an editor sought to remove the content, I opted to change it to "took a hit" just to mirror the source fully (my experience is that editors who scrub RS from articles often seek to justify the removal if a source does not mirror the language verbatim). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
That's understandable, I just would avoid touching language that appears only in the headline and not the body. Headlines are meant to draw in a reader and thus may use over-dramatic or unprofessional language. You have more than enough sources here that anything along the lines of dimmed, diminished, reduced, etc. should be completely fine. --Masem (t) 22:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Close as premature The discussion just started on the article talk page. This appears to be forum shopping. Someone else started the discussion and Snoo appears to have wanted to frame it a certain way from the start.--v/r - TP 22:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Based on the diversity and extent of coverage, the sentence does not appear to violate the neutral POV policy. If there are a number of sources expressing a contrary viewpoint, that would be a consideration for how it is written. Omitting this material in some form could actually affect NPOV negatively. However, I agree with Masem that the "take a hit" is not the best choice of wording.- MrX 🖋 22:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Digital dependencies and my POV/ COI[edit]

Hello by placing these notices I am not trying to "forum shop" I am trying to achieve consensus, and I am trying to avoid canvassing by asking medicine to get involved rather than just anthropology and sociology. I hope this doesn't break guidelines they kind of appear to be in conflict here for this I'm not quire sure.

I would like to add this to the digital dependencies and global mental health page, under a new section called psychiatry under psychology, and have RfCd it for linguistics and sociology due to the linguistics and sociological components of both the statements and the research. I have left open for discussion around WP:MEDRS under the social media addiction page, which is a proposed merger. WP:SYNTH needs discussion.

Psychiatry Psychiatric experts have called for further studies to explore psychiatric correlates with digital media use in childhood and adolescence. "Over the past 10 years, the introduction of mobile and interactive technologies has occurred at such a rapid pace that researchers have had difficulty publishing evidence within relevant time frames."[1] An "important contribution" of "a large, well-designed longitudinal study[2] taking into account multiple sociodemographic confounders" was published in 2018, relating to Angry Birds and Pokemon Go, a game and a social media application that "reached adoption by an estimated 50 million global users within 35 and 19 days, respectively, of their release." [3]It was "a longitudinal cohort of 2587 15- and 16-year-olds who did not have self-reported symptoms of ADHD at baseline, self-reported higher-frequency digital media use was associated with self-reported ADHD symptoms over two years of follow-up. The frequent distraction and rapid feedback of digital media may disrupt normal development of sustained attention, impulse control, and ability to delay gratification. In addition, digital media may displace other activities that build attention span and executive function. It remains to be determined whether symptoms that develop in response to media use require or respond to typical ADHD treatments."[4] The National Insitute of Health stated that "study represents a starting point, and there are some potential caveats to the findings," commenting that it only shows association, but not causality. "Nevertheless, the findings suggest that the recent rise in popularity of digital technologies could play a role in ADHD. The findings also serve as an important warning for teens, parents, teachers, and others as increasingly stimulating forms of digital media become ever more prevalent in our daily lives."[5]

Thanks what do we think? 07:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 (talkcontribs)


  • @E.3: Are you actually an author or otherwise involved with those papers? Is it your institution? I didn't see your name at first glance. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @JzG: No. I just know and have discussed these papers with these and associated experts a little. And because of this I am considered to have POV or break MEDRS repetitively Special:Diff/873276519E.3 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Global catastrophic risk[edit]

Editors interested in neutrality reporting in scientific topics may be interested in the fracas at the talk page for Global catastrophic risk. More the merrier! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)