Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/stonecarver

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer:Yes

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer:content dispute

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer:I have tried providing content that would answer the objections of the opposing parties (mainly JG) on the talk page.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer:help in establishing NPOV on the article page

Summary:
At least one person early on the talk page also recognized the bias in the article. There was an invitation on the talk page to bring NPOV to the article. I carefully cited sources and they were removed by JG without comment. He did not comment on why until I started a thread on the talk page. His dismissal of my contributions are complete. I am arguing that the phrase 'junk science' is in use by scientists meaning deceptive or deeply flawed scientific claims. JG insists that 'junk science' is only a legal/political rhetorical device and carefully deflects all my citations to the contrary. I have produced many citations to support my view. But, I assume if I put up NPOV in the article again, JG will just remove it again.

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer: Yes.

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer: Yes.

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer: 5

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer: 3

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer: 4

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * Accept / Fred-Chess 13:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Closed due to lack of activity from the advocee. / Fred-Chess 11:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)