Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Mucoid plaque

Who are the involved parties?
MastCell

Raymond Arritt

Nomen Nescio

Fyslee

Midgley

What's going on?
These involved parties are refusing to allow me to add what the NPOV policy calls "the minority view." In the talk page, when I requested to add the minority alternative medicine viewpoint, user MastCell claims that I am misinterpreting NPOV policy and that only the views of medical doctors, which he calls "experts," are allowed. Even more, when a guest to the talk page complains that "Wikipedia doesn't exist to present or favour one side of an argument in order to discredit something" and that somebody should "clean up the language on this page to read more neutral, add more of the other side of the argument, rebuttals, counter criticism," user MastCell responds: "The purpose of the article is not to present a point/counterpoint debate about mucoid plaque." Yet even more, when this same guest complains that "I did not search for this article to read nothing but discrediting" and that "I want to read information pertaining to the THEORY" and that "we must be neutral," user Raymond Arritt responds: "then you're in the wrong place." Specifically speaking, in the spirit of NPOV, I am trying to add Richard Anderson's arguments in favor of his theory to the article but they won't let me. I can cite his published book and attribute the arguments to the author in correct NOR fashion.

These involved parties are also refusing to allow me to take down blatantly obvious original research. For example, the wiki mucoid plaque article says: "It has also been proposed that the bentonite clay. . ." This is blatantly obvious original research using "weasel words" to avoid attributing it to a published source. Another example of blatantly obvious original research is the following: "The major criticisms of the concept of mucoid plaque are that it has never been described in the scientific or medical literature." The problem is that this is the editor’s opinion. Instead of giving links to published authors that say this, the editor gives links to a medline search or textbooks where the editor claims that he does not see the concept described. (Note that the fact that the phrase "mucoid plaque" is not used in scientific literature is obvious, but whether the concept of mucoid plaque is described in scientific literature is not so obvious. The reason being that Richard Anderson has been arguing, all along, that the concept that he describes is unwittingly and collectively described in the scientific literature).

Any attempt to improve the article by adding the minority view or removing obvious original research was always met with undue accusations of "POV pusher," "vandalism," "advertiser," or "problem editor." Wikipedia makes it clear that the NPOV policy of including both sides of an issue and avoiding original research is "mandatory", "absolute", "non-negotiable", "expected on all articles, and of all article editors" and "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Even articles about alleged pseudoscientific theories, which you may feel are repugnant, must be presented "fairly" by including "the minority view" and avoiding original research.

What would you like to change about that?
I want to be allowed to add the aforementioned minority view and to remove the aforementioned original research.

Mediator notes
If there are no objections, I will help mediate this conflict. However, I would like an edit posted somewhere of said minority view, or the revert history with the edit. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Summarily closed this. Hadn't seen that the problem dispute is months old (??) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)