Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 71

Millennials
Could some neutral, third-party editors chime in on this article please? A discussion has been started on the talk page, but a consensus can't be reached when no one is continuing to participate and discuss, but only wants to revert with vague edit summaries instead. A couple of users (particularly User:DynaGirl, User: Aboutbo2000, User: Nathan.T.Medina ) are guarding the article to prevent changes to the end dates, as seen from their edit history and reverting any changes that do not match their beliefs. These recent edits:, , when trying to expand on a reliable, in-depth source shows that they are pushing a non-neutral POV. Someone963852 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

From what I see there is big boundaries that need to be changed. There's no need to write down such specific reasons for a certain research post on this description. I will not completely delete the post but I will make big changes and even post something from the original article as well that keeps it from being very Superior to others. There are also word phrases that I would change to make it non bias as well to how its arranged. Each information should be equal to stay fair with the other information so I will make changes. I will most likely not get to this today for reasons of not wanting to be on the web right now but tomorrow. I will also like to hear from User:DynaGirl, User: Aboutbo2000 since the changes that are made needs to be fixed.--User: Nathan.T.Medina 13 April 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Make sure you discuss on the talk page first and gain a consensus before you make any changes. Someone963852 (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone963852, that result was for you, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Someone963852_reported_by_User:DynaGirl_(Result:_Warned). Other editors, including editors who come to the article through NPOV noticeboard can edit the article without obtaining talk page consensus first, although it's always good to follow WP:BRD.--DynaGirl (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV for religion in infoboxes
Infoboxes for historical persons often report religion. No problem there, it is often relevant. The issue is the lack of any coherent NPOV approach. For example, in 1054 the Christian church split into two main branches: the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Saying that someone was Catholic or Orthodox after this date is unproblematic. Before this date, claiming any historical person as either Catholic or Orthodox is not possible from an NPOV perspective. While both Catholics and Orthodox claim to be the original church, Wikipedia cannot and should not take a stance in what is a theological issue. Current practice at Wikipedia is confused. To take a few examples of people who lived long before the split into Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the infobox of Charlemagne claims "Roman Catholicism"; Clovis I - "pre-schism Catholicism"; Alfred the Great - "Christianity"; Vladimir the Great - "Chalcedonian Christianity"; Harald Bluetooth - "Chalcedonian Christianity (Pre-Schism)"; Pepin the Short - "Roman Catholicism"; Constantine the Great - "Nicene Christianity"; Justinian I - "Chalcedonian Christianity". The list could be made much longer. In short, we use a large variety of different terms for the same thing, which is confusing. Some are correct ("Christianity", "Chalcedonian Christianity", "Chalcedonian Christianity (Pre-Schism)"). Some are incorrect as per NPOV ("Roman Catholicism", "pre-schism Catholicism"). The POV ones should be replaced, and for all those that are correct, a coherent terminology would be better. My suggestion is the neutral "Chalcedonian Christianity" (already in use in many articles) for anyone adhering to it after the Council of Chalcedon. It is a term that is both correct and NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And does not really give us an indication of which branch they follow, and implies a uniform system of belief and adherence.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but that's the case regardless. It's not like everyone being Catholic today hold the same personal beliefs, same for Orthodox and every other religion/belief system. As we know virtually nothing of the beliefs of persons living over 1000 years ago (unless they expressed those beliefs in writing; religious figures often did, royalty rarely did) trying to infer what Christian church they would have believed in had that church existed in their time is rather WP:OR. In other words, the proposed change merely introduces a neutral terminology and reduces the current completely random assignment of beliefs to historical figures. Jeppiz (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it is easy, we put down either what branch they described it themselves as or what their contemporaries said it was.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the defining line is 1054 - sure that's when they excommunicated one another - but they were rifts dating back quite a bit, e.g. Quinisext Council. The question is how they are described in the sources - and there were differences between the proto-Catholic church (rome) and the proto-Orthodox church (Constantinople).Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence why I say how they described themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, I must admit I'm not quite sure what you mean by "how they described themselves". There are very few people from before 1054 (or before 1000-1030, to take Icewhiz's point about no clear break) who wrote anything. If they did, they almost never wrote about religion. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but would you care to elaborate? (Also, does anyone see a problem in using the neutral and factually correct "Chalcedonian Christianity". If so, please elaborate on the problem). Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is why I also (originally) said "what their contemporaries said it was", I find it hard to believe that someone would be notable now who no one had written about at the time (after all if they had not been written about how would we know about them?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * True, contemporaries wrote about all of the persons I mentioned (and many others), but very little about their religion. We know for almost all historical persons who converted from "paganism" (vague) to Christianity when they converted. We know if they held beliefs such as Arianism that were seen as heretical even in their time. But did any contemporary write about Charlemagne's, Clovis's or Alfred the Great's view on filioque or papal supremacy, or immaculation? Not as far as I know, which makes it pointless to even speculate 1000 years later what they might have though of later theological disputes.Jeppiz (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a really good topic for discussion and I thank Jeppiz for opening it. One of the problems we have with going with how they self identified as that terms have become muddled since then. Pretty much all Christians of the pre-Schism world identified as members of the Catholic Church. However since that time, the term Catholic (with a capital 'C') has come to be defined as being in communion with the See of Rome which depending on who one talks to might or might not have been a generally understood criteria back in the day. Also, while 1054 is an oft cited date, the fact is that it was a local schism that only gradually came to divide the Christian East and West over several centuries. Further complicating things is that most of the pre-schism saints are claimed by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Trying to find an acceptable descriptor for all of these figures is going to be an interesting challenge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what they thought of papal supremacy is relevant, peoples would have referred to their religion, and we would use that lable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Use what the majority of reliable sources discussing the subject use. If there is no consensus amongst the sources, then it's likely too complicated to be simplified in an infobox so omit it unless it's particularly relevant. If it's not mentioned in the sources used then it's not relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My anecdotal experience has been that modern sources tend to treat pre-schism non-religious figures as though they had lived post schism. Which is to say that purely for convenience they tend to be identified as Catholics if they lived in the Christian West and Orthodox if they lived in the Christian East. It gets more complicated with religious persons, especially saints. If any religion is mentioned at all in the info box I would suggest that it be along the lines of "Pre-Schism Catholic/Orthodox." -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As there are some recurring comments about "saying what contemporaries" said, I will agree with Ad Orientem about the problems with this approach. Terminology changes. To take an obvious example: "British" used to mean only the Celtic people speaking P-Celtic languages (today's Welsh language and Breton language. It was the polar opposite of their main enemies, the Germanic peoples who would become the English. If we say British today, we imply something very different from what a contemporary scribe meant when using the term. Likewise, "Scot" has as times means only those who speak a Gaelic language in Scotland, at times only those who speak a Germanic language, and at times both meanings. The same thing applies to "Catholic" and "Orthodox". Let's remember that "catholic" simple means "universal" and "orthodox" means "correct faith". As a matter of fact, the Orthodox church still refers to itself as "catholic" and the Catholic church considers its beliefs "orthodox". Though it may sound straightforward to say that if a scribe in the year 600 called someone Catholic/Orthodox then we should do the same, it's actually misleading if the scribe meant something radically different. Jeppiz (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Quartz (publication)
This article could use some eyes and edits, it has a promotional tone. "user-friendly for tablet and mobile users", "It helps journalists create" etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The article lacks a neutral point of view for many of its sections. It seems to take too much from its references without paraphrasing it into a neutral statement. It has too many quotes "The environment" is a beat, but "climate change" is a phenomenon. "Energy" is a beat,..." that makes it seem like I'm reading from an article that introduces some new startup. I agree with the statements that it is being too promotional as most of its references are from biased news sources and lacks neutrality. It should be resolved by rewriting the content and design sections into neutral paragraphs and searching for other sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_(publication) Shujins (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Rape culture
User:Rohitkiran99 insists on removing sourced content about rape culture in India, because it is not in Hindi and does not constitute a "smoking gun" proof of something. His argument seems to be a form of the no true Scotsman fallacy. I restored the content twice, and he keeps taking it out with an "I don't like it", demanding something impossible that will satisfy his standards of proof. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The removal of the information is wrong, but I do think that the text should clarify whom is asserting that the origin of rape culture in India is from Hindu beliefs, rather than factually stating that this is the case. It appears to be a point of scholarly note, but this should be clarified, especially as the sources are Western-based. --M asem (t) 18:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Crime, guns and due weight
A recent RfC concluded that firearms articles may include mass shootings committed with the weapon, and inclusion is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In subsequent talk page discussions there has been general agreement that WP:WEIGHT should be used to make this decision, but disagreement over how it should be applied. Editors have pointed out that although reliable sources often mention the weapon in articles about the mass shooting, the shooting is often not mentioned in articles about the gun. My goal is to solicit wider community input and develop a general piece of advice for applying WP:WEIGHT in this context. Can any mention of the fact that a weapon was used in a crime be used to establish weight, or does the connection need to meet a higher bar such as discussing that particular weapon's unique significance to the crime? –dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue here is that gun crimes are being treated differently than automobile crimes (as an example}. Automobile deaths are fairly common, and many are caused by criminal behavior such as speeding, driving under the influence, running a red light, failure to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, etc. Most mass shooters move their firearm(s) concealed in a motor vehicle to the scene of the mass shooting, and some motor vehicles are used as weapons by mass killers, but the Wikipedia articles about these motor vehicles seldom mention even one of these events. Such events are of trivial importance to the subjects of these articles about mechanical devices unless the source reports why that vehicle or weapon was used in preference to some alternative device. The argument that criminal users should be identified alongside professional users is ridiculous, because killers are single individuals while listing a police department is different than listing every officer of that department who carries that firearm or drives that motor vehicle. There is reason to believe a public agency makes a reasoned decision, while most killers simply use whatever is available to them. Thewellman (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "reliable sources often mention the weapon in articles" has a probem as is has been pointed out in:
 * Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
 * WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography
 * Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_58
 * Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms
 * Multiple colleagues see Problems with: WP:SYNTH / WP:NOR / WP:PTS etc. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The analogy with automobile crimes isn't a good comparison because automobiles have a valid primary use which is to move people and things from point A to point B. Use of automobiles as a weapon is very limited; this could be viewed as an esoteric use of automobiles by terrorists and crazy people. A major use, if not the primary use, of an AR-15 style rifle is to kill people, so it is perfectly reasonable to have a section listing the most notable uses. wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, and another point is that there is an ongoing debate over which types of guns should be banned or restricted (if any). When a certain type of gun is used in a high-profile crime such as a mass shooting it's highly relevant to the debate on that type of gun and, therefore, to the wikipedia article on that type of gun.  This is especially true when it's a gun (or rather, class of guns) such as an AR-15 that lies on the edge of what's currently legal (in the USA).  Relatedly, many people will come to the article wanting to learn more about AR-15s because they read about them in an article on mass shootings, and cross-referencing and confirming that it was (or was not) the type used is very useful and important for those readers.   This is all quite obvious and would be uncontroversial if the topic weren't so politicized.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You do understand that what you two editors stated are just your opinion. The laws in the US say anything used to harm or kill someone is a weapon regardless of what its original intentions were.

Proportionally there has been a lot of mass killing with vehicles. Your statement " Use of automobiles as a weapon is very limited; this could be viewed as an esoteric use of automobiles by terrorists and crazy people". This contradict your whole stance on inclusion into gun articles, as they were committed crazy people. Why is there no attention on that issue? Also the primary or major use of guns are not to kill people, do not take offense but that is something that a ill-informed person would say. There are over 10 million of these types of gun in the US, proportionally there use in mass killing is minut.

I also would disagree that the majority of the readers would be interested in the crime inclusion into gun articles. The U.S being a country of guns, proportionally far more reader come to these article with a interest in guns and not of there crime use.

This statement is just plainly wrong "such as an AR-15 that lies on the edge of what's currently legal (in the USA)" that kind of stereotyping is again a view held by the ill-informed, simple based on how they look. As far as legality the weight of the few does not out weight the view of the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72bikers (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "This statement is just plainly wrong "such as an AR-15 that lies on the edge of what's currently legal (in the USA)" that kind of stereotyping is again a view held by the ill-informed, simple based on how they look." Sorry to say so, but your statement reveals a basic ignorance of the facts.  The AR-15 was legal in the US prior to 1994, then it was banned under the assault weapons ban for a decade, and then became legal again when that lapsed.  There have been many attempts to ban it again since then.  The situation is very different from (say) bolt action rifles, which were never illegal (in the USA) as far as I know, and for which there is not a strong push for a ban.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 19:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ramming attack analogies don't make sense. In some random neighborhood, somewhere in Texas (1) a moving van goes by, obviously speeding. (2) A teenager is walking down the sidewalk carrying a black rifle. One of these behaviors is a lot more likely to result in a 911 call than the other, even in Texas, and everyone knows which one that is. Geogene (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It would appear you have ignored all the valid points I have raised, and have solely tried to attack the one thing you think you can poke wholes in. Your statement "this is especially true when it's a gun (or rather, class of guns) such as an AR-15 that lies on the edge of what's currently legal" this is just factually wrong. Something that took place 25 years ago, that was based solely on the then political ideology, is not relevant to what "lies on the edge of what's currently legal",  especially with the state of the current government. So exactly how is this a "ignorance of the facts"? That analogy is not valid to this issue. -72bikers (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This claim appears to hinge on a pre-existing bias against firearms. Saying "automobiles have valid uses" implies firearms have none. That is entirely false. Moreover, it seems to imply malicious intent just by ownership. It's perfectly possible to own an AR-15, M16, AK-47, or M1919 without any intent to harm a single living thing, let alone another person. Presupposing firearms are meant to be used to kill people is faulty reasoning, & that violates NPOV, too.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  22:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Guns, crime, and due weight: Rough draft
How about this as a start?

This is a rough draft; open to refinements and revisions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps?


 * Shorter and a tad less waffley, I trust. Collect (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 00:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been busy and largely limited to replying by phone. Much of what k.e. coffman said is similar to the project firearms recommendations but with a lower threshold. Why not stick with the project firearms current text? Personally I don't think this similar but with a lower bar addresses anything. I think we need to explore the topic in terms of context. When I get a chance I'll past more on this subject. Springee (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that any text that includes "reliable secondary source" should also include the words "neutral" and "factually correct", in that description. It's easy to find 2nd RS reporting on an incident involving a firearm, but that doesn't, or shouldn't, make it automatically and blindly acceptable. If there is any kind of anti-gun (or pro-gun) slant to the report, or errors of fact, we should not be reproducing that here in an article. - the WOLF  child  00:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The second version only describes a necessary condition for inclusion, but not what is sufficient. How about this:
 * Why would such a standard have any more sway than the long standing project recommendations? How is this different other than how the threshold is set?  Springee (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * we had an RfC where the long standing project recommendations have been soundly rejected. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly true. The RfC said the project recommendations are not binding and that local consensus is the ultimate arbiter.  The project recommendations offer a reasonable suggestion for how to read sources for inclusion but I think we can do better but we should base our suggestions on policy, guidelines, well cited essays etc.  Springee (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: The essay at WP:GUNS has often been used to exclude criminal use that did not explicitly influence legislation. This is counter to policy, consensus and what I understand the intent of WP:GUNS to be. We should be careful to clearly present legislative influence as an example, not a requirement. My preference would be to simply interpret the requirements of WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE in this context without adding any additional restrictions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Springee is right again "The RfC said the project recommendations are not binding and that local consensus is the ultimate arbiter" this is not a free rein to do whatever there side wants. A case by case consensus is not a failure to compromise and to not recognize the experts in the field and replace with political ideology. It would appear that they believe consensus is when there side all falls inline and ignores anyone that disagrees. -72bikers (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I brought this to NPOVN because suggested a different interpretation of WP:WEIGHT than I was using and frankly I'm not sure which one is "correct" or supported by the wider Wikipedia community. In many cases local consensus has been based on an essay which was written, supported and defended by a small group of editors who acted as if it was a policy that could not be "violated". My intent here is to get input from a wider group of editors. I'm willing to accept the community's policy-based consensus, even if it isn't what I agree with. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see as being "right". Their position seems to be that RS should be given no weight, except in a very narrow set of circumstances that WP:GUNS content guide deems appropriate; i.e. the long standing project recommendations. This is contrary to WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV. To borrow from 's comment, projects are given free rein to do whatever their side wants. We have guidelines and policies for a reason. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be hard to view my position as right any more than yours absent other information. My point was only that there is basically no difference between what you are suggesting and what the Project Firearms page already recommends.  Yes, the threshold is somewhat different but the line in the sand seems just as arbitrary.  Springee (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

A question of reciprocity of weight
While I think this is probably the right place for the question I don't think we are asking the right question here. This is really a question of reciprocity of weight. Note that in almost all cases the RS that mentions the firearm is an article about the crime, not an article about the gun. That is a key point and one that is often followed in other areas of Wikipedia.
 * ''if A has WEIGHT for inclusion in B, does that mean B has weight for inclusion in A?


 * ''Do facts have reciprocal weight which can be used in two separate articles?


 * ''Is reciprocal weight a valid concept?

I'm putting together essays and RfC's that seem to relate to this concept. Here is how I see it applying to many gun articles and how it was applied in three articles where something A, was a significant part of a crime B. So, should the crime, B, be mentioned in context of A?  In the case of the Chevrolet Caprice used in the D.C. sniper attacks the answer was overwhelmingly no []. This same RfC considered if the Ford F-650 article should discuss the Oklahoma City bombing. Again, the RfC said, very clearly, no. Editors clearly rejected the idea that being used in the crime had an impact on the vehicles even though many felt that the crimes (especially the bombing) were more encyclopedic than the vehicles. Another example is the 2014 Oso mudslide and a homicide that resulted from the mudslide [],[].

Rather than ask, what should be in gun articles, a question that will only land with subjective answers (as we have largely seen), let's ask what standard should apply across all articles. I've seen some essays that touch on this and I will add them as I find them again. We do see similar policies widely enforced when it comes to "trivial" and things like movie and automobiles WP:CARTRIVIA. I understand that crimes aren't "trivia" but the logic we use to govern how to read weight should stay consistent. It's "trivia" that Vanilla Ice drove a Mustang 5.0 (articles about the Mustang don't mention this thus neither does the article) but Bonnie and Clyde are widely associated with the Ford V8 coupe by sources about the car. Hence the car's article does mention the crime couple. Wikipedia editors didn't make the association, RS's about the article subject (the Ford V8 coupe) made the association for us. Springee (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well spoken, food for thought. -72bikers (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As with almost everything in Wikipedia the short answer is "it depends." A long and more detailed answer is "not usually, but sometimes yes." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Alternative to "talk" tab to introduce new material
I have just been scolded (with remarkably short latency) for improper use of the "talk" tab. Here are the two instances of my scolding:

May 2018

(1) Information icon Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Money for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. General Ization Talk 00:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(2) Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Criticism of democracy, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 00:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Distilled:

(1) Don't use the talk page for "general discussion". Begs question: What is the proper way to introduce discussion that conflicts with article, is proven, but is not "scholarly" ... i.e. hasn't floated through academia?

(2) Don't do "disruptive editing". Begs the question: If bringing up an issue in a talk page (less disruptive than editing the article) is disruptive, what is the recommended process?

Specifically: The two instances I was scolded about above were cases where I used the talk page to introduce "irrefutable concepts" that are contrary to the content of the article. If I can't bring this to the attention of the editors in a "talk" page, how can I bring it?

Impact:  Nicola Tesla would have been precluded from making edits to Wikipedia talk pages by this restriction. Heaviside (who opposed Tait ... and was correct) would have been scolded and excluded. Tesla "was not" an academic but brilliant. Heaviside "was" an academic but more in tune with reality than abstraction. Both made the "experts" and "academics" of their day look totally stupid ... Tait of the Royal Academy in particular.

Just asking.

Regards, Todd Marshall; Plantersville, TX

WithGLEE (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we see the actual examples?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, this talk page edit [] looks like a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. It doesn't appear that you are introducing new material rather just stating your belief.  That belief may be supported by solid sources but they weren't presented.  Also, the way the material was presented at the talk page comes across as telling the editors democracy doesn't work with large groups rather than saying "we should add this information to the article..." Basically the same applies to your edit here [].  I'm not sure (and haven't drill down enough to say) if just blanking the text was the correct way to deal with the edits but the were not proper talk page edits.  Springee (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So are these what you are talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Dr Max Gerson
Hi,

I tried to make an edit to make a depiction of a person's life and life's work more acurate and less biased. My edit was removed. What do I do. Essentially what is currently posted is inacurate, without evidence, and slanderous to a person who is very important to me. This person saved my mother's life. She had terminal Lymphoma. She lived 50 yrs longer because of his treatment. There are many more cases like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BalancedViewoncancer (talk • contribs) 23:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The page on Max Gerson and the Gerson Therapy already obey Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view. The simple explanation of this policy is that articles will follow what reliable sources say. If reliable sources present a singular, monolithic viewpoint on a subject, then that is the viewpoint that will be presented in the article. We do not attempt mass-media style pursuits of "telling both sides". In brief, the mainstream oncology community holds a uniform opinion of Gerson therapy, and that is what Wikipedia will represent. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires verifiable third-party information from publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's wonderful that your mother had a positive outcome, but personal testimonials such as those you have attempted to add are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither anecdotes, Amazon book ads, nor personal testimonials qualify as reliable sources. We do not rewrite articles based on these kinds of "sources" in defiance of the overwhelming body of medical scientific research. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably not the best idea add strange comments in random places in editor's talk pages.   00:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we include the "Truth-O-Meter" PolitiFact ratings?
We have already established in an RfC here that PolitiFact is a reliable source for claims made by people. However, I don't find the "Truth-O-Meter" ratings reliable, (PolitiFact publishes these ratings along with the articles factchecking various claims) as they are sometimes inconsistent. For example, the claim "Beto O'Rourke wants to legalize all narcotics" was given a different rating at two different occasions: w umbolo  ^^^  12:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But Reyes’ claim leaves the misimpression that O’Rourke favors legalizing all illegal drugs. We rate his statement Half True.
 * Cruz said O’Rourke had a resolution to legalize all narcotics. ... We rate Cruz’s claim False.
 * I don’t see the contradiction. In the first, they rated the statement: "Silvestre Reyes says challenger favors legalizing drugs" half-true. Well, he does. Just not all drugs as suggested. Half true. The claim in the second was: "Democratic challenger from El Paso made a 'radical' move to legalize all narcotics." Well, this is flatly false. He never resolved to make all illegal drugs legal. O3000 (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course the ratings are fine. The example above is poor and is not indicative of PolitiFact's flaws. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't the point of Wikipedia to give people access to the sources and show what is and isn't true? I don't see why we should outsource the verification process to PolitiFact. Present the verifiable background information they dig up? yes. Let them say what is true and what is not? No.--Carwil (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying precisely. Do you have an example in mind? When I use PolitiFact, it usually goes like this: "Politician A said X. PolitiFact found that X was "false", noting that [insert PolitiFact's reasons why the statement is false]". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should attribute a statement to the "Truth-O-Meter" but a statement that Politifact something was deemed "half true" may be OK. Keep in mind that the rating "true, half-true etc" is not encyclopedic.  Why it was rated a particular way is.  I think it would be better to simply state the reason why something was considered half true.  Offering "the statement was deemed 'false'" with including the why is really poor editing.  One of the worst things some Wiki editors do when dealing with politically charged subjects is the Wiki equivalent to the sound bite, "X source said, '[inflammatory quote without context here]'".  A classic example would be "[person/company] was accused of breaking X law".  The statement may be backed by RS but it's often a way to claim NPOV while also tainting the article subject.  It's not dissimilar from the old "Do you still beat your wife" loaded question.  So if we are going to use this sort of thing we owe it to the readers to make sure the context is included. Springee (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Here are summaries of concerns raised re the Truth-O-Meter ratings in the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Post. To give a single example:
 * "We wondered whether Navratilova was correct that 'in 29 states in this country you can still get fired for not just being gay, but if your employer thinks you are gay.' … But while Navratilova gets the number right, our discussions with legal experts produced a few exceptions to the rule … If you frame this statement in the context of blanket protections by states, she’s correct. Still, even in those 29 states, many gay and lesbian employees do have protections, either because they work for the government, because they live in a city that bars such discrimination, or because they work for a company that has pledged not to discriminate based on sexual orientation. On balance, we rate Navratilova’s claim Half True."
 * "Half True" is the least useful evaluation in that whole paragraph. Instead, I think we should go with Politifact's own advice:
 * "We don’t expect our readers to agree with every ruling we make. We have published nearly 5,000* Truth-O-Meter ratings and it’s natural that anyone can find some they disagree with. But even if you don’t agree with every call we make, our research and analysis helps you sort out what’s true in the political discourse."
 * That is, if our goal is verifiabliity, not truth, we should use Politifact as a research aid rather than an arbiter of True/Mostly True/Half True, etc.--Carwil (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You can say the same about any source. Presumably that’s why Snooganssnoogans said to use attribution. O3000 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what you mean by research aid. It's WP:OR to add research of one's own. PolitiFact is a WP:RS, so it's perfectly fine to say in Wiki voice that a statement was false, explain why and then cite PF at the end. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would say that unless others have noted what Politifact qualified a statement, it is OR and edging on NPOV to add Politifact to try to validate or invalidate someone else's opinion. We should not be trying to analyze the truthfulness of these, but determine if the question of truthfulness is brought up by WEIGHT of other sources. --M asem (t) 16:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As Snooganssnoogans pointed out, Politifact is RS and we can paraphrase their statements in Wiki voice just like any other RS. The "Truth-O-Meter" is a gimmick and generally not appropriate for Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that we can't use the connected prose as a source. Sources don't have to follow Wikipedia's rules, we can and should use secondary sources that do their own OR and synthesis. They don't have to be encyclopedic either. One of our jobs as editors is taking non-encyclopedia-style sources and using them to build an encyclopedia. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is Politifact reliable for their opinion or for the statements they make that back the opinion? I agree with the other editors who feel uncomfortable with stating the T-O-M results in Wiki voice.  I think we are agreeing here that the arguments made by Politifact are the part we should generally treat as RS but the summaries of the facts of fact (ie the meter reading) should be attributed and even then used judiciously.  Springee (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel comfortable stating it without attribution. It's not opinion, it's a fact reported by a reliable source. –dlthewave ☎ 03:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that Politifact is a reliable source for reporting, that is if PF says X happened or someone said Y then we can assume it did. However, when we say "false" we should be careful.  PF isn't 100% reliable and they are effectively making opinion type judgment calls.  Our standard practice is to attribute such statements even when they come from highly regarded sources like the NYT.  Springee (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Adverse Drug Effects of Finasteride are being systematically minimized
The finasteride article does not reflect a NPOV.

1. Finasteride is an antiandrogen, by virtue of its inhibition of the metabolic conversion of testosterone to the more potent androgen, 5-alpha dihydrotestosterone. This property of finasteride is described in the article antiandrogen. Finasteride lowers 5-alpha dihydrotestosterone to levels similar to those that occur in castrated men. The mechanism of action of finasteride is not described in the lead of the finasteride article. This is misleading, as the antiandrogen effect of finasteride contributes to the sexual side effects of the drug, including erectile dysfunction and diminished libido.

2. A high quality review by Traish describes an observational cohort study, also done by Traish, that finds that finasteride exposure lowers testosterone and worsens erectile dysfunction, as measured by a validated assessment tool, the International Index of Erectile Dysfunction. A comparison group treated with tamsulosin did not experience these toxic effects. When this information with supporting citation was added to the finasteride article, it was deleted with the assertion that a review article that references the primary publication of the author of the review article is not appropriate for citation on wikipedia. This is clearly not the case, and there are many examples where this occurs in other wikipedia articles on medicine.

3. Editors who attempt to fix errors in the finasteride article experience ad hominem attacks and use of wikilawyering to restrict or ban the editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. The suppression of androgens is the primary effect of finasteride, not a side-effect, and this is stated in the lead. The NPOV policy does not mean that every positive or neutral statement about a subject needs to have an equal number of negative statements.  Also, one particular editor's views on a subject, not matter how strongly held, do not get to decide what the "right" balance is.  You should be further aware that accusing other editors of bad-faith manipulation of a discussion can themselves be considered disruptive editing.  Confrontational approaches seldom work well in article talk page discussions. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The suppression of androgens is the cause of both finasteride's therapeutic effects (reducing prostate volume and slowing hair loss) and is also the cause of its adverse effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobuyoshi Araki
There's a Japanese IP that insists on keeping badly written and (IMHO) non-neutral content. They are a pretty experienced editor as they cite the NPOV removal reasons in their edit. I think their edit has the effect of slanting the article.104.163.159.237 (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Venezuelan elections
Recently has taken an interest in editing adticles about Venezuelan elections, specifically the last regional, municipal and the upcoming presidential ones, and there has been disagreement over if some content should be included or not. ApolloCarmb has changed several times the title "Irregularities" with "Controversies", "Election" or "Alleged irregularities": My point is that this sections must be named "Irregularities" since they specify violations of the constitution and the electoral law, besides being unprecedented and uncontested, or under the strict sense of the word, they are not regular; this is without prejudice of a split section named "Controversies". They have also deleted several quote boxes:, citing WP:OVERQUOTE, WP:UNDUE and that they're concerned it might push an "anti-Maduro narrative". ApolloCarmb has also deleted a major statement made by an opposition coalition under the same arguments, but a main difference is that this content is not shown anywhere else in the article, unlike some of the previous quote boxes. My main concers with deleting these contributions is that it seems rather a case of WP:BLOWITUP, that it may be disruptive, lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete and that there are better, more constructive ways to solve these perceived problems, such as balancing the information with contrary claims or tagging. ApolloCarmb has also argued WP:BRD, asked for consensus and to discuss in the talk page, but so far there has been little to no actual discussion at all Since there has also been little activity from other users and to prevent further disputes, I added NPOV templates to the articles affected  and I'm bringing the issue to the noticeboard.

To summarize, I would like to ask:

--Jamez42 (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) How to restore the MUD declaration and how it can be improved for it to be included. ✅
 * 2) How many, if any, quote boxes should be restored. ✅
 * 3) How to rename "controversies" as "irregularities", without prejudice of keeping a split section with the former name. ✅
 * 4) What actions should be taken to prevent disputes in the future. ✅


 * Comment – I would like to mention that has already been involved in WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WIKIHOUND behavior since their account was created a few weeks ago.[1 ][2 ] ApolloCarmb has also performed edits which were copyright violations.[3 ] Trying to maintain the quality of many articles has been difficult with their actions. As stated above, explanations of policies and attempts of dialogue have shown little fruition regarding their editing behavior.ZiaLater ( talk ) 01:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment ZiaLater/Jamez42's edit warring and attempt to bulldoze their way to get their preferred version of the article is being discussed on the talk pages (discussions they seem to have completely abandoned). I have explained my rationale for all these edits on the talk pages of the relevant articles and these users have no consensus for these changes. I have attempted to get them to discuss on the talk page but they little interest in that and hence have continued their reactionary reverting while ignoring talk page procedures. They are highly biased editors with a deep dislike for Maduro, literally every one of their edits to Venezuela related articles includes adding material that they think reflects badly on Maduro. This report is nothing but an attempt to bulldoze his own version of the article without gaining the consensus that he clearly lacks.ApolloCarmb (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Addition It should be noted that since I have made the above comment these users have finally decided to return to the talk page.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , I remind you once again as well as ZiaLater, like I did in your talk page: this is not a report such as the edit warring or the 3RR noticeboards, this is a dispute resolution board because I want to find a middle ground and a consensus, and I refrained from further revert since I commented on the noticeboard; I also refrained as much as possible to talk about user behaviour. The last edits in the talk pages seem to show the need for this. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely for being a SPA sockpuppet. --Jamez42 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

due/undue weight of the opinion of an ambassador on historical research quality.
See Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland - which despite the name (there are RS issues on using the internet portal in question and Facebook posts - but that is a side issue) - is really a due/undue question. Non involved input there would be helpful.Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone approve Michael Sonnenreich for neutrality?
Hi guys, I need an admin or an editor to confirm the removal of the POV template on Michael Sonnenreich. Lemonpasta (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Christian heresies
I'm just posting this here as I think it could use some eyes. The title seems to be problematic, especially as it then goes on to list groups that are indeed considered by the Catholic Church to be heretical, but who would obviously consider themselves to be orthodox Christians. Same with the bit about groups that traditionalist Catholics would consider heretical (i.e. the people who think Pope Benedict XVI was a heretic and traitor to the Catholic Church.) While I think there may be a place for lists such as this, I'm not sure if this title is the right place. I don't have much time to deal with it on-wiki, but I thought it important to raise. I'm also going to post at WT:CATHOLIC and one of the WP:Christianity noticeboards referencing this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And Premeditated Chaos seems to have done the bold work. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Much of the really problematic content was added by (courtesy ping) over the past couple of weeks. I have warned them on their talk page not to re-add it without much better sourcing, and preferably without discussing it with other editors first.
 * Still, some problems remain. I agree with Tony's concerns about what exactly should be on this list, although I admit to not having much expertise in the matter (it's only on my watchlist because some time ago I added several very small movements from about 300 CE to it to de-orphan them). I think the title could be worded better, but I'm not sure exactly how. "List of movements declared heretical by the Catholic Church"? Otherwise, in a sense, everyone's a heretic to someone, so everyone belongs on the list. Which is obviously not useful. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. This list is not workable under that title. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And the content has now been restored (twice). TonyBallioni (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The title is reasonably applicable to "Heresies declared under early Christian councils (pre 500 A.D.) " at best - any later "Heresies" tend to get muddled with the Reformation in general, and the Eastern Orthodox use of the word. As far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * List of Christian doctrinal disputes? It seems workable if you reframe the list to discuss the controversy - for instance by giving the "heretical" doctrine alongside the "orthodox" one. If the list is purely written from the perspective of the Catholic church then it should be framed that way, otherwise the list should reflect a balanced view of disputes between all Christian sects. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Questionable content of the Wikipedia article on Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (II)
''It is important to note that all sources in this article are purely based on 2018 reports of questionable source. The original video of her originated on a youtube channel that has a history of posting fake information. Indeed the second video posted on the channel is a cut down version of a BBC interview of Sheikh Mohammed by BBC that has been cut in a way that it distorts meaning - ripping sentences apart and thereby completely altering meaning. As briefly noted at the end of the BBC video on the alleged Dubai princess all the people involved - the French "spy" and the company "Detained in Dubai"- have previously been noted as criminals by the UAE government and therefore they declined to comment on the story. The story of an adult male supposedly dressed up in an Abaya to flee a developed country by diving is questionable.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:e914:6c00:fdec:7065:2444:71f3 (talk • contribs)


 * The article in its current and recent state is indeed rather odd. It only presents the "Detained in Dubai" side of the story, and when I attempted to add a single sentence (cited to BBC News) on what the Dubai authorities had said about it, it was promptly removed by the current article owners. Amongst many other problems, early in the "2018 disappearance" section there is some appalling WP:CITEKILL, with eleven inline sources cited for one single sentence. There are also citations to the WP:DAILYMAIL, Daily Mirror, Twitter, YouTube etc.


 * The BBC are mentioning -- repeatedly, it seems -- the official point of view that the people making the various allegations have extensive criminal backgrounds, so it seems odd for Wikipedia to WP:CENSOR the existence of that point of view as reported in reliable sources.


 * I haven't had time to watch the youtube videos and assess the extent of the alleged distorting of meaning, but the use of such primary sources in this manner is problematic anyway.


 * Would be grateful for any help in unravelling how Wikipedia is portraying this issue and how the BLP in question could be improved. Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (II) is the article in question. MPS1992 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Anyone? MPS1992 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Przytyk
Additional eyes needed regarding the appropriate weight to give to Polish far right views on an anti-Jewish pogrom.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually even Jewish community in Poland on page about the Przytyk states was economic competition and that it was more of a fight between Poles and Jews in heavily Jewish dominated town than pogrom--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if sztetl.org.pl is a RS, and the Jewish community in Poland is in quite a predicament given recent developments in Poland. However, most mainline academic sources describe this a pogrom again Jews, that began with Polish goons violently closing Jewish stalls in an organized violent boycott. I will further note that there are several high quality English RSes, there is no need, per WP:NOENG, to use Polish language sources particularly not those of dubious quality.Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually sources state that this was likely a result of economic competition in an area of extreme poverty. Since the event happened in Poland, it will be widely covered by Polish sources.Your claims about modern Jewish community being "quite a predicament" are really irrelevant to this subject and very exaggerated.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Modern situation in Poland well attested, though mostly irrelevant here. JVL is a better quality than sztetl.org.pl, as are books such as, ,. Finding the modern Polish far right account in English os quite difficult, and even in Polish it requires diving mainly into various blogs (and a discredited popular audience book by a radio personality). Whether Polish antisemitism was fueled by economic circumstances, deep hatred, or other reasons is of secondary importance to the Polish violence itself..Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well in this case we are talking about completely different situation, an economic competition in which Polish impoverished farmers and merchants were attacked by militia in 80-90% Jewish town(which was also impoverished) and struck back. There are plenty non-far right sources confirming this. Seems another Yaffa Eliach case of exaggerated claims, not really a clear case. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite a clear case, per any high quality source. Jewish "militia" were acting in self defense against Poles who were strong arming shops and stalls.Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, even a Haaretz aricle doesn't define these events very categorically --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - why not simply state that the town was the site of the 1936 Przytyk pogrom? Then the discussion can be had on the latter article, rather than the town's. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman the more straightforward resolutions are regularly the greatest ones, could you go ahead and make that change?GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a possibility, but usually we do provide a short one or two sentence summary - which should not be too hard to craft here - given the preponderance of non-FRINGE sources who treat the pogrom in a rather straightforward way.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Note - we have POV problem at Przytyk pogrom. where some editors have been using old Polish newspaper articles, far-right wing blogs, and a mass-market Polish book, rejected by most reviewers as "not a scientific publiction", "omitted all the facts that did not fit his thesis of "Polish-Jewish conflict", "dismissed all foreign publications, along with previous Polish ones, as propaganda", "a highly rationalized form of the entho-nationalist approach, justifying anti-Jewish violence as a form of national defense as the Jews are not part of the Polish nation but rather an "alien and harmful nation"".Icewhiz (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to tone down a bit from your claims, seriously.Even Israeli newspaper Haaretz admits this event is debatable as do articles by Jewish community.Constant exaggeration and sensationalist claims really don't serve well the discussion on wikipedia.If you have problem with sources, take it to RSN.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Haaretz admits nothing - merely questioning (with a "may") whether this was an anti-Jewish pogrom or an anti-Jewish riot by Poles. Use of fringe far right sources (that justify anti-Jewish violence to protect the "Polish nation"), rejected by the academic community, to present an anti-Jewish narrative in Wikipedia's voice - should not be acceptable. That is the problem here.Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Muriel Bowser
Muriel Bowser is the mayor of the District of Columbia. In my view the article reflects deep POV issues and in recent days I've been taking what - also in my view - are appropriate steps to remedy the problems. I am meeting resistance. The push-and-pull is entirely between myself and another editor. (We have substantial disagreements on this article and routinely tussle on a couple of others, and we each get a bit snipey sometimes, but this is not a behavioral complaint. He and I are fine.)  I have no specific disagreement to offer up here but rather, am asking for additional experienced NPOV eyes in the hope that we can get past what's becoming a lot of time-consuming Talk. Indeed there is no shortage of Talk, and the main issues are laid out, pretty much in chron order, on the article Talk page. I know this request is a bit outside the guidelines for this page but I could not think of a better place to ask for general NPOV help. If I've misjudged, then let me know and perhaps suggest another forum to seek help. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Founding legends of the Goryeo royal family
I would greatly appreciate any feedback or comments about a dispute going on at Founding legends of the Goryeo royal family between me and. The article is obscure and new so there aren't many people aware of it, and it will probably continue being obscure considering its topic. Furthermore, the IP has ignored my request to discuss this on the talk page, so I don't really have many other places to discuss this.

The IP first added this edit to the article, which I immediately recognized as originally posted by here. I removed the edit and asked the IP to see WP:COPYWITHIN and to post it again with attribution. The IP did so diff, and afterward I made many changes to it diff diff diff diff diff and explained my reasons in the edit summary. Then the IP reverted my edits and again copy-pasted Daboda 55's original edit, with the comment "oversimplification". In my next edit, I included additional content to cover more points diff diff diff and also wrote a lengthy post on the talk page to explain all my changes diff diff. Furthermore, I specifically wrote "please see the talk page. let's discuss this." in the edit summary. However, the IP once again replaced my edit, citing WP:OVERSIMPLIFY. I did not revert the IP's edit, and instead wrote another post on the talk page, further explaining my edits and why it's not an oversimplification.

To sum this up, the IP has stated that my edits are an oversimplification and has directed me to WP:OVERSIMPLIFY; meanwhile, I believe that the IP's edits are pushing a POV and giving undue weight. I provided my reasons for all the changes I made to the IP's edits on the talk page, going through each individual sentence. I also asked the IP to see the talk page so we can have a discussion. However, the IP ignored my request to discuss this on the talk page and completely replaced my edit. The IP seems adamant about including a passage originally made here by. There are clear problems with that edit, which I have outlined on the talk page, but the IP has been unwilling to make any changes to it and is acting single-mindedly. Thank you for reading. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Bamnamu (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The Hasidic Judaism article has no NPOV
Any attempts to address this issue are summarily shut-down. I suggest that the powers that be here at Wikipedia are knowingly the slaves of Israel, and will do whatever it tells them to do.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. This is not an encyclopedia. It is a propaganda outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.58.192 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC) : Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Edward Mordake (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the issue?Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is cognitive dissonance, plus . Guy (Help!) 12:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck edit of CU blocked sock. Doug Weller  talk 07:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Danielle Bernstein‎
Multiple factions fight around a recent controversy where Bernstein allegedly copied some jewelry designs. One faction wants to keep any mention of it out of the article, the other wants to bring their own POV in. I tried to start a discussion on the talk page about how to include the controversy in a neutral way but no seems to be interested in discussing. Having more eyeballs of seasoned editor would help I think. --Count Count (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Julius Evola
User:Grayfell is the most prominent a group of editors who seem determined to prevent any significant addition or reworking of this article, and we could all benefit from an outside opinion on this.

The main parts of the dispute are around around an unacademic source from qz.com, which is a political attack by proxy not a reasoned analysis, and Evola's status as an 'ultranationalist'. Grayfell has been labelling all Evola apologists as nazi apologists ( on his user talk page - ''I do not have any patience for Evola apologists, and Evola apologists are Nazi apologists. Grayfell (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)')and has generally being extremely uncooperative. He is unwilling to even entertain any compromise edits, and I find it impossible to resolve the situation by the normal means while trying to remain civil. He has also been employing sarcasm and personal attacks. VeritasVox (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVox (talk • contribs)


 * This comes up every few months, and I've discussed this source dozens of times. Quartz is a reliable outlet with editorial oversight and fact-checking (as far as I know). According to her profile, the author holds a master's degree in semiotics and a bachelor's degree in mass communication from the University of Bologna. The article discusses Evola's supposedly revived influence on modern US politics. The anecdotal narrative framework of Merelli's article is not relevant to its use as a citation. The source helps to summarize a significant perspective which is supported by many other sources which are already included in the article. Merelli appears fully qualified to summarize this perspective.
 * This isn't similar to Ezra Pound's sad and conflicted personal history or anything, this is someone whose entire legacy was dedicated to the total rejection of equality. I say this based on reliable sources I have read. Downplaying this legacy would be the opposite of NPOV. As I've said over and over again, I welcome additional reliable sources to help contextualize this information. There is not a huge amount of material about Evola out there, but there is more than is currently being cited. Evola is not a reliable source for anything of note, nor are his WP:FRINGE views accepted by reliable modern sources. As I've also said several times, I am not interested in legitimizing Evola's extremist ideas under WP:GEVAL, and I refuse to pretend that Evola's views are acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The only academic source that hairsplittingly argues that Evola's views weren't completely identical to misogynist, racist fascism still admits:
 * 1) misogynist, racist fascism is the closest political philosophy
 * 2) his views can only be understood in relation to racist fascism
 * 3) all other academics but him identify Evola as a racist fascist
 * To create artificial balance (let alone deny his misogynist, racist, and fascist tendencies) would completely violate WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE to a point where continued attempts to downplay those aspect of his views should be treated as disruptive censorship or even advocacy. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Merelli's article is a political attack by proxy, and saying it is a real, unbiased analysis is identical to saying Mahmoud Abbas' recent comments on the antisemitism are legitimate and without any political or ideological motivation. It is also the only source out there that says he 'advocated rape' which is vague, inflammatory and essentially meaningless. Nonetheless, these two editors have championed not only keeping this source in the article, but have resisted any attempts to remove this single opinion from the lede.

Ian, I don't think anyone editing the article has an interest in denying these tendencies. The debate is over 1. Evola as an 'advocate of rape' who 'viewed all sex as rape' which is the single sentence Merelli dedicates to her analysis of his entire work on sexuality (an entire volume, the Metaphysics of sex and viewpoints in various other works) 2. his grouping simply as a Fascist when he was never a member of the fascist party of italy, criticised fascism directly (Fascism viewed from the Right) and called his school of thought Traditionalism - particularly when in the article on his main influence René Guénon this grouping is completely absent, presumably because he hasn't been linked to Steve Bannon in the news. I think this is disingenuous. You don't have to like someone's political beliefs to strive for accuracy when depicting them, and I'm sorry to say that I think both you and Grayfell have lost sight of this. VeritasVox (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Also I would like to repeat my call for outside opinions/help on all this, as Grayfell and Ian seem to have been dominating the article's talkpage somewhat (no insult intended). VeritasVox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * His views on rape are a natural consequence of his views on women. I've examined the primary source in question and the Quartz piece presents the most obvious interpretation.  Other interpretations are intellectually dishonest apologetics.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * VeritasVox is straying into WP:NOTHERE territory by now. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

His views on rape aren't being represented, it's a political attack by proxy. You again decide to say everyone who disagrees is an 'apologetic' while completely ignoring the context of Merelli. A source's context matters as much if not more than it's content, and if it was an article from a known fascist praising Evola you would rightly call it biased. Because Merelli aligns with your perosnal opinion on the subject, you are willing to forego any critical examination of the source whatsoever. Our politics don't matter, ian. Accuracy matters. VeritasVox (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
Please weigh in. There is a discussion on the talk page about the appropriate frequency of use of the word "Russia/Russian", and also having info about a UNSC resolution proposal in the lead. Heptor (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nextdoor
This POV discussion could use more eyes: Talk:Nextdoor BC1278 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * This is a lengthy discussion, that has moved toward consensus, with really just a bit of language preventing consensus. While it's a long read from top to bottom, I think the discussion just needs a small amount of input from an editos(s) outside the current fray to conclude.BC1278 (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Davao City
A user name zzz is trying to put his point of view about Davao City and his point of views, despite of him not following the manual of style in writing here in Wikipidia.

For further discussion, see Talk:Davao City for further discussion. Bumbl_loid (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

White Helmets controversy
There is a relevant Request for Comment at the White Helmets Talk page. You are invited to participate!-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

802.11ax
Please take a minute to review WP:NORN and comment there if desired. --Izno (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Liberal bias in academia
A move to the neutral title of Political views of American academics was challenged and changed to the current title which appears to be a POV fork and also does not reflect the references, the larger RS literature, or article text. We could use experienced NPOV eyes there and on the article talk page. Thanks.  SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above message is not neutrally worded as it should be in accord with WP:CANVASS. I hatted it, but was reverted. I must remind any editors that if they participate in the discussion there as a result of seeing this notice, they should declare that fact in fairness to the process. I believe this message should be removed or hatted, because I've posted a properly neutral notice below which can be used instead. -- Netoholic @ 05:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, I've never seen such a horribly biased posting about NPOV. Natureium (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wha'ja expect? I'm an academic. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the NPOV noticeboard. If we don’t post comments about neutrality, it will be a mighty quite board. O3000 (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they should be posed in an unbiased way. The poster didn't even try to hide their bias here. Natureium (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Stating an opinion that an article title does not reflect RS is not an indication of personal bias. It is a statement that there exists an NPOV problem. NPOV is about neutrally presenting information gleaned from RS, not our own opinions. O3000 (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then it's a good things there are so many sources attached to that article supporting the title. Natureium (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that. I see sources saying there are more Democratic than Republican professors. That doesn't mean they are biased. Is a liberal math prof going to present math in a biased manner? O3000 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * O3000, the funny thing is that ten, twenty years ago "liberals" (read, deconstructionists, Marxists, new historicists, feminists, postcolonialists, etc.) were accused of having done away with the notion of objective truth (following De Saussure, Lacan, Foucault, Butler, and Derrida, I guess), and now the tables have turned completely: it's the "conservatives" (the climate deniers, the Deep Staters, etc.) that live in a post-truth world and seem to refuse to accept not just scientific consensus but also fact. To get back to your point: fuck yeah those goddamn liberal math professors! What the fuck? When I was young parallel lines NEVER MET! And now? It's miscegenation all over the place... Drmies (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies Rochefoucauld said: "A wise man thinks it more advantageous not to join the battle than to win." I’ll learn that lesson someday. As for all the names you mentioned, I think Steve Bannon follows all of them on both sides. Now that’s a dedicated truther. There's a guy in the Mojave Desert shooting himself in the sky to prove the Earth is flat. I’m not worried about falling off the edge of the Earth, I just want to avoid falling of an end of the horseshoe.. As for Euclid, he’s a bit dated. Quantum physicists say the universe may blink out of existence at any moment. Peace at last. Meanwhile, got to keep avoiding those grizzlys while swimming upstream. O3000 (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest to you,, that you read this piece: First, They Came for the Biologists. w umbolo   ^^^  10:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That opinion piece is a fairly despicable jumble of loaded language, half-truth, innuendo, and other PhD level dissembling. I give it a gentlewoman's B+.  SPECIFICO talk 14:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You might try this Guardian piece that mentions the author of your piece with some context. O3000 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The same Guardian that published a piece entitled "How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?"? w umbolo   ^^^  12:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I see your opinion piece by a disgruntled person and raise you, indeed, that Guardian article--a paper you may not like, but the article is not an opinion piece. And if you are defending this kind of article writing with that kind of sourcing, the opposite article can more easily be written with this, in an opinionated but typically reliable publication. Would you like to help out with Right-wing attacks on science and universities? But again, the very vagueness of this umbrella topic is reason enough to scrap it, and your suggestion: what do you mean with "academia"? Who are you/is she blaming? The liberal professors or the black students or whatever? No, the administration. If you do not understand the yuge cultural differences between administration and faculty in higher education, you understand nothing about higher education at all. So in addition to just freely mixing up liberal/progressive/poststructural/Democratic etc., we're now taking all of the people who are somehow active in "academia" and throwing them in the same container? And by the way, "First they came for the biologists"--sheesh. They came for her and her husband because they were biologists? (No. And who is "they"?) And isn't the very title a bit of...dare I say it...an act of appropriation? She wasn't hauled away to a camp, was she? No, she left and got a settlement. One wonders if she was already safely vested, for instance; she's a lot better off than the Socialists, the Trade Unionists, and the Jews of Niemoller's poem. So no. I know of this case and others, and I've read this, and her case does not make me happy, but the extrapolation is just too much. Hey, I know of a case where women were systematically denied promotion, raises, and tenure (and I think most everyone in academia knows one or more of those cases), but they didn't have a right-wing machine behind them that trumpeted their case and helped them get a settlement and an editorial in the WSJ. All they have is a toothless MLA, and a toothless Faculty Senate, and possibly a toothless union. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. Obviously, the title of the article is extremely exaggerated, probably even harmful. With regards to the "right-wing machines", they are still more likely to publish stories of clear-cut discrimination than the left-wing media. And the left-wing media could talk about it if it wanted, unlike Republicans who can't get anything done. Obviously I am blaming the administration; when the right-wing professors (and speakers) go away, the university is left with left-wing professors. And the HuffPost article does not mention Heying, who wrote the WSJ article. I will respond twofold to your article proposal "Right-wing attacks on science and universities". Obviously, universities would attract the left's attention, and this would not go well with the right. With the right-wing attacks on science, would you also say that the right attacks our lives, truth, and women? w umbolo   ^^^  16:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A move discussion is taking place at Talk:Liberal bias in academia which may be of interest to editors here. -- Netoholic @ 03:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has lost all semblance of neutrality as it has been stuffed with claims and logical fallacies from agenda-driven think tanks and authors. The title itself violates NPOV as it draws a conclusion and makes a derogatory claim about a group. We don't even do that in articles related to Hitler. (Yeah, yeah, I know, Godwin's Law.) O3000 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One bit of evidence is a 1955 survey in which "Lazarsfeld found that just 16% of the social scientists he surveyed self-identified as Republicans, while 47% self-identified as Democrats". No mention of political beliefs, just a weird assumption that all Democrats in 1955 were liberals, which of course anyone who knows about the politics of the American South will laugh at. It uses a number of similar polls to argue for liberal bias. Doug Weller  talk 16:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yikes. Problems there and also at the related/overlapping Academic bias article, which, just starting from the top of the article, looks to say, basically, "academia is liberal and biased against conservatives and Christians... here are some conservatives publications which verify these facts." &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * wow so conservative, that it cites The Nation and The New York Times! w umbolo   ^^^  15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, not necessarily. The second sentence of that article is which immediately takes this claim about academic bias out of Wiki-voice into attributions made from the conservative press, which for NPOV is a Good Thing (TM). --M asem  (t) 15:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. This just jumped out from the lead: "According to Academic Questions, a quarterly journal with a conservative point of view, evidence for academic bias includes the disproportionate percentage of academics who are political progressives[6][7] and/or irreligious.[8][9][10] Conservative activists, such as David Horowitz, have argued that this imbalance is due to academics creating an inhospitable atmosphere for conservatives". Academic Questions is, of course, a journal from National Association of Scholars that's less just a "quarterly journal with a conservative point of view" and more a journal published by an advocacy organization in order to publish material claiming there's a liberal bias in academia. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is far from perfect; I'd put that sentence from AQ in the body, as, as you said you took it, it does set a tone for the article. But it is definitely not at the level of simply spouting a conservative view in WP's voice. --M asem (t) 16:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would exclude any group that has a political agenda and rely entirely on published academic reviews. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A good practice but not necessary or required. Almost silly really, as that would not be done for other similar articles. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Changing the title didn't get rid of all the POV sources cloaked as "scholarly research". And lots of advocacy organizations and ideologically-oriented think tanks hire PhD's to dress up their public communications. I don't believe there's any body of real scholarly neutral discussion based on rigorous statistical methodology. Eventually, if we work through all the proposed references and their work, I think we'll find there's nothing to support either the Academic bias article or the Political views article.  SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * you would rely entirely on published academic reviews about an article about Political views of American academics? Well you better find your non-American sources. w umbolo   ^^^  14:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Right leaning academics exist, and there's no evidence that journals would refuse to accept a properly conducted study with an uncomfortable result. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Our policy holding academic sources as the gold standard does not change because subject is academics. Why would American academic sources be considered unreliable? Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They are reliable, the issue is saying anything but is unreliable. That is simply not the case, even if the source is "bias" they can certainly still be reliable. PackMecEng (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Academics acting as academics publishing in peer-reviewed media may be RS. Folks with PhD's using some of the techniques and jargon of scholarly research to promote the views of a private advocacy organization is not the same as scholarly academic research on whatever the subject.  SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Liberal bias in academia seems the proper title per WP:TITLE, WP:SURPRISE and references. The content is not talking what their Political views are or all Political views, it is talking about their bias being Liberal, regional distributions, and bias effects, plus links to bias articles and categories related to bias.   This also is the title used in link to it and matches up to similar titles for secions Liberal bias in Wikipedia, Liberal bias in American media, Liberal bias sections for CNN and MSNBC.  I could see some argument for making the article BE Political views, as that googles as a higher count, with Liberal bias being a subsection -- but that would be a different topic, differe§nt structure, and different content than what there is.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

How about the lot of you remember that this is global encyclopaedia? Any title that doesn't mention that the article is about only American academics is obviously misleading. There's also the problem of which standards those views are being compared with, purely American, or global. By global standards, American academics may well be a bit to the right. I'm not expecting the article to change, but do remember that there's an awful lot of non-Americans who read and edit this encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Medical Aid in Dying
The page did not include Information or links to organizations that oppose assisted death or acknowledge that the term medical aid in dying represents the proponents’ specific perspective by linking to the concept of assisted suicide. Ie, assisted death is not a settled issue and both POV’s must be represented in any article about the topic. I suggest that the editors enforce Wiki’s neutrality policy, by keeping information about opposition on the page, acknowleding the phenomenon of political framing and/or by merging assisted suicide and medical aid in dying into one, more linguistically neutral article with the moniker “assisted death.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progo35 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Vaccine injury
The Vaccine injury article has received significant recent changes in the form of content removals. The changes do not appear to necessarily conform with WP:NPOV. North America1000 12:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. All the removals originate with an IP, so I have reverted to the last most complete state and semi-protected the page for two days. bd2412  T 13:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative medicine
A current Slashdot thread based on a Wall Street Journal article about ArbCom contains a lot of complaints about Wikipedia editing, but few specifics. I looked at one article, alternative medicine that was mentioned by name and it does seem far more polemic than appropriate. Here, for example, is the lede: "Alternative medicine, fringe medicine, or pseudomedicine are practices that by definition do not work, and are a form of quackery or health fraud." The accompaning cite is to a single book. The talk page is full of complaints, including suggestions that even if the goal is to dissuade users, the article's tone is counter productive. A section with criticism of mainstream medicine was removed.--agr (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you want the article to say "Alt-Med is great" perhaps? We reflect what reliable sources say, according to policy. If you don't like that, try opening a section on the article talk page. Alternatively (see what I did there?) You could try to change policy so that we can use unreliable sources as well. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the complaint that was posted to Slashdot: "... Got into a long and drawn out debate over the definition of alternative medicine. Despite citing every single major medical organization in the world, and the definition that they use, a group of a couple users locked it down with the wrong definition in the lede, and have moderators ready to ban any person trying to put the correct definition in. This is despite a lack of consensus on the comments page, and despite a constant stream of people noting that the lede (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine) is inaccurate. Making edits to it, thanks to the idiocy of the arbcomm, can yield immediate banning. The talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alternative_medicine) is a constant stream of people complaining the page is NPOV, but it only ever gets more biased as time goes on, not less.'" I am not an advocate for alternative medicine, I'm very much a sceptic, but the complaint seems to have merit. I checked a few sources I consider reliable, e.g. the U.S. National Cancer Institute, https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/alternative-medicine and https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam, the May Clinic https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/in-depth/alternative-medicine/art-20045267, Merriam Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alternative%20medicine . None of them define it the way our article does and most include a more nuanced view than our article.--agr (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Always check who's making the complaint. Normally it's someone vested in a specific form of quackery. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Say what? I have great trouble viewing the Mayo cinic or the USNCI as someone vested in quackery. Markbassett (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In recent years, large health systems have been embracing alternative health methods such as acupuncture for profit reasons. Frankly, it's embarrassing to the medical community. Natureium (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * When I read the lede, I was struck by the words "by definition do not work" which were added on May 7 diff without any changes to the sourcing. If at all possible the source should be checked to ensure that it actually supports this change. The rest of the first paragraph seems to be unsourced.
 * The lede seems to be written about quackery rather than alternative medicine as a whole. "Alternative medicine" is a very wide-ranging term that also encompasses potentially viable practices that are simply untested, and certain forms of "complimentary and alternative medicine" are actually used in the medical field alongside medical treatments. The sources provided by ArnoldReinhold are reputable and support this. –dlthewave ☎ 21:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that on one hand, we have WP:NPOV (a policy), which advocates neutrality, and on the other hand we have WP:FRINGE (a guideline) which advocates identifying topics as pseudoscience when they can be legitimately characterized that way. That's fine as it goes, but problems happen when certain skeptics consider those guidelines as license to disparage and engage in name calling and polemic. Typically it occurs by someone inserting a descriptive adjective in front of a noun, and other skeptics let it slide, and subsequently object when someone comes along to bring the sentence back in line with policy.


 * A good example I recall was alkaline diet, in which the word "belief" in the lead sentence was changed to "false belief" and then met with pages of objections and debate on the talk page (spreading to other pages) when the word "false" was removed as being non-neutral. (It is now "misconceptions", which is better.) Crap like that gets added without discussion or challenge, and then it's a long painful process to get things reading more neutral agaain. A similar thing happened in Intelligent Design, in which the adjective "pseudoscientific" was used to describe the subject, which came across as sounding like a subjective opnion, rather than using the more objective noun "pseudoscience". That persisted for years, with multiple pages of debate in the archives, until the adjective was finally changed to a noun.


 * Too may editors here interpret WP:FRINGE as an exception to our neutrality policy, insisting that presenting any fringe belief in as negative a light as possible is by definition neutral because WP:FRINGE says it is. In my view, policy should trump guideline, and WP:COMMONSENSE should be used to judge neutrality. Loaded language has no place on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. Why would we concentrate on showing the falsity of alt-med claims? It's not as if people who believe them die horribly or anything. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Way to mischaracterize an argument, Guy. It's one thing to show falsity using neutral and dispassionate language. It's quite another to resort to name-calling and loaded language, essentially trolling for the kooks to come out of the woodwork. That was the point of my two examples above. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That anyone chooses to interpret "pseudoscientific" as passionate language is neither here nor there — the argument here has been about "alternative medicine does not work" — which frankly is as dispassionate as you can get.
 * As is explained in the article, this change of terminology is a tactic used to spread doubt — and not something that Wikipedia should care the leastest about. Complementary medicine is integrative medicine is alternative medicine is quackery is snake oil.
 * The fact is the kooks come out of the woodwork as soon as you say that their rubbish doesn't work. Edzard Ernst recently published a book with a 10-point list about the ways "CAM" attacks evidence against it. (p. 156-157 in More Harm than Good, Springer International Press 2018)
 * We should keep this in mind, and not concede to irrational false beliefs simply because it is convenient to do so and avoids conflict. Carl Fredrik  talk 08:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We should keep this in mind, and not concede to irrational false beliefs simply because it is convenient to do so and avoids conflict. Carl Fredrik  talk 08:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The definition of alternative medicine is indeed that it does not work. If it works, it is not alternative. The term for alternative medicine that is proven to work is: medicine. I am not persuaded by the claim that we intentionally portray fringe ideas in the worst possible light. Believers think this, but they are experiencing cognitive dissonance. It's really not Wikipedia's job to manage the fact that proponents of alternative medicine routinely make egregiously false statements and promote confused and incoherent theories. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion of Alternative medicine here. I've gotten nowhere with attempts at editing and talk page discussions, even though I made it clear from the beginning that I'm not an "Altmedist" (a false accusation made by another editor). After my unsuccessful attempt to put in a section on criticisms of medicine, another of the editors suggested to me that it would be more appropriate to write a separate article, and he made helpful suggestions. That article was deleted yesterday; it was proposed for deletion by an editor who claimed that it was written in bad faith (that I had a "problematic agenda").

As one editor pointed out on the talk page, the definition of CAM is an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. The beginning of the lede is illogical, because its definition of CAM includes unproven treatments, and then it states that there is a scientific consensus that they do not or cannot work. If it is not yet known one way or the other whether something works, how can there be a scientific consensus that it does not work?

The book Harrison's Internal Medicine, written by six extremely prominent physicians and professors of medicine in the United States, says the following about the definition of CAM:

"The phrase complementary and alternative medicine is used to describe a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that have historic origins outside mainstream medicine. Most of these practices are used together with conventional therapies and therefore have been called complementary to distinguish them from alternative practices, those used as a substitute for standard care. ... Until a decade ago or so, "complementary and alternative medicine" could be defined as practices that are neither taught in medical schools nor reimbursed, but this definition is no longer workable, since medical students increasingly seek and receive some instruction about complementary health practices, and some practices are reimbursed by third-party payers. Another definition, practices that lack an evidence base, is also not useful, since there is a growing body of research on some of these modalities, and some aspects of standard care do not have a strong evidence base."

I agree with Jimmy Wales and others who have said that when a type of CAM is rejected by scientific consensus, then the viewpoint of its defenders should not be reflected in Wikipedia. However, there are many alternative treatment modalities for which no clear consensus exists, including many home remedies and herbal remedies. Some treatments that are "alternative" in a certain historical period later become standard mainstream medical practice. In the 19th century U.S. physicians had not yet accepted antisepsis, whereas midwives (a part of alt med) did believe in cleanliness. A couple of decades ago mainstream physicians in the U.S. over-prescribed surgery for back pain, and rarely prescribed physical therapy, although physical therapy was often part of CAM at the time; at present, mainstream physicians do often prescribe physical therapy. It simply defies logic to say that no form of CAM will ever be of benefit.

As a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, I'm shocked at the stubbornness of some veteran editors on this issue. I don't think that the refusal to adhere to WP:NPOV helps the cause of combating fraud and pseudoscience, because scientists lose credibility when they get polemical and over-state their case.NightHeron (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per dlthewave's suggestion, I have requested a copy of the article's first reference via inter-library loan.--agr (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The lede as currently written could be detrimental to public health because its polemical tone, logical problems, and skewed POV could play to the advantage of promoters of harmful forms of CAM. Many people turn first to Wikipedia for an overview of something like this; Alternative medicine gets over 1000 pageviews a day. According to data in WP:CREATELEAD, 60 percent of readers don't go past the lede. Consider readers who are generally intelligent and skeptical but who, like 88 percent of Americans surveyed and probably a similar percentage of people in many countries, agree with the statement "there are some good ways of treating sickness that medical science does not recognize." Such readers are likely to react to the lede by thinking, "This is biased and polemical -- just some angry docs badmouthing the competition." Then they are likely to turn to another respected online source, such as WebMD. Please look at what WebMD says on the subject:. That article is cleverly written in a non-polemical, reassuring tone, and it undoubtedly brings many smiles to the faces and much money to the wallets of CAM promoters. This is troubling. Do we really want to drive readers away from Wikipedia to alternative sources? That's the effect of a lede that lacks credibility. This article, starting with the lede, needs to be edited so that it complies with WP:NPOV and accurately reflects scientific knowledge.NightHeron (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I just put an NPOV template on the article.NightHeron (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I much like your analysis that some editors wrongly believe WP:FRINGE to take precedence over WP:NPOV. In the area of medicine, one has to be especially careful. It is wrong to lump together everything outside current medical practice as being fringe. What counts as evidence-based is often controversial. For example, if anthropologists report that in disparate parts of the world women of certain ethnicities have their teenage daughters drink a certain tea to help prevent unwanted pregnancy (but perhaps that tea has never been subjected to rigorous scientific tests), what do we call that? Science, protoscience, or pseudoscience? If someone (a friend of mine) says, "My mother, grandmother, and I have always used moist teabags to relieve minor eye irritations, and as far as we're concerned, this home remedy is safe and effective," should that be regarded as evidence-based, or is it just pseudoscientific nonsense, as some of the editors of Alternative medicine would claim? A second problem with the simplistic POV of this article is that a viewpoint about healing that's based on an invalid theory might still lead to a better treatment than the current standard one. Examples I have given on the talk page include: (1) Some historians believe that if U.S. President Garfield had been treated by homeopaths rather than by mainstream physicians, he might have survived. (Although homeopathy theory is pretty ridiculous, in the 19th century most American homeopaths and midwives believed in cleanliness, whereas the mainstream physicians who treated Garfield had not yet adopted antisepsis and probed his insides with dirty hands looking for the bullet.) (2) In the recent past in the U.S. someone with back or arthritis pain often underwent unnecessary and ill-advised surgery, whereas in many cases CAM practitioners would have had better recommendations. (3) The current U.S. opioid epidemic is to a large extent the fault of mainstream medicine, certainly not the fault of people who promote yoga, meditation, or marijuana. As I've argued unsuccessfully on Talk:Alternative medicine, the issue is complex, and angry polemics are counterproductive.NightHeron (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what a big deal is in the difference between "false belief" vs. "misconception", or in "is pseudoscientific" vs. "is pseudoscience". That's just parsing words. Also, a shorthand guide to WP:NPOV is WP:NOTNEUTRAL: even if NOTNEUTRAL is merely an essay, NPOV says pretty much the same as NOTNEUTRAL. The difference is that NOTNEUTRAL is easily understood, while NPOV is very often misread. Also, a very relevant discussion is WP:LUNATICS. Because more often than not CAM herbal remedies have not been subjected to thorough scientific research, it is safer to say those are "not proven to work" rather than "proven not to work". So, unless one has pretty damning evidence about a CAM technique, we should default to "not proven to work". Also, per Mertonian norms science is organized skepticism, so a scientific approach to medicine is inherently skeptical in nature. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Failure to understand "what a big deal it is" amounts to an argument from personal incredulity, and is not convincing. In fact, it is a big deal how we say things, particularly in the lead, even if there are only small differences in how neutral something sounds to a wide-ranging audience. As to the suggestion: Something that hasn't been subjected to scientific research is neither "not proven to work" nor it is "proven not to work" because "proof" isn't the exclusive domain of science (in fact, science isn't about proof, it's more about amassing corroborating evidence). For example, say I know a cure for hiccups, which works 100% for everyone subjected to it. It is proven to work, but not via any published scientific study. It would be better, more neutral, and more factual to state that something "has not undergone scientific evaluation" rather than say anything about proof. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant "proven" like explained at European Medicines Agency, otherwise I know that proof is for math and whisky. My point is using language that can be understood by the ordinary reader, instead of using incomprehensible technical jargon. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

What do people think of the following draft of a replacement for the lede? I apologize for its rough form (I'm not an experienced editor). My purpose in writing it is to suggest a way to rewrite the lede so as to comply with WP:NPOV:


 * Alternative medicine (also called "complementary and alternative medicine" or CAM) is a broad category of treatments, substances, and practices that are sometimes used in place of or in addition to those recommended by mainstream physicians. According to Harrison's Internal Medicine, the defining characteristic of CAM treatments is that they "have historic origins outside mainstream medicine;" and it is incorrect to define CAM as being medicine that is not evidence based, because "there is a growing body of research on some of these modalities, and some aspects of standard care do not have a strong evidence base."  However, even forms of CAM for which there is some evidence of effectiveness -- such as many herbs and home remedies -- can be harmful if administered by someone who does not know the proper dosage or means of preparation or possible interactions with other medicines the patient is taking.  Policies toward CAM vary from country to country, and in most countries it is unregulated, adding to the risks.


 * Many medical professionals have expressed alarm at the large and increasing popularity of alternative treatments. Some forms of CAM are very profitable, are aggressively marketed, and take advantage of the uneducated and the desperate.  On the other hand, the use of certain forms of CAM might be a rational decision by people who have little or no access to modern medicine.


 * Some treatments that were once regarded as "alternative" have subsequently been tested, shown to be safe and effective, and been incorporated into standard medical practice. Some others show promise, but have not yet been adequately tested.  The forms of CAM for which there is no high-quality scientific evidence of safety and effeciveness (other than the placebo effect) include: prayer, Faith healing, Shamanism, Naturopathy, Homeopathy, most of Traditional Chinese Medicine, most of Ayurveda, Biofield therapy, Bioelectromagnetics, Chiropractic, Reiki, and Mind-body interventions.

Thank you.NightHeron (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It smacks of whitewashing. The scientific consensus that homeopathy is patent pseudoscience (meaning the extremely diluted "medicines"), many ayurvedic "medicines" are useless and toxic, biofield therapy is altogether bunk, Reiki is hogwash, etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I could add a sentence such as: "According to scientific consensus, these forms of CAM are not only ineffective but often harmful, either because of toxicity or because they delay or interfere with sound treatment options."  I'd rather stay away from unscientific language such as "bunk" or "hogwash".  Also, we should be careful not to confuse pseudoscientific theories with bad treatments.  Sometimes someone who believes in a nonsensical theory might nevertheless recommend a treatment that is better than the advice that a patient is getting from their physician.  For example, in the days when mainstream physicians in the U.S. were over-prescribing surgery for back pain, many CAM sources were recommending physical therapy instead.  Similarly, in the U.S. at present for many patients there are forms of CAM to treat pain that are preferable to opioids (which are over-prescribed in the U.S.).  So we can't say that CAM recommendations have always been worse than the standard ones (even if the theory behind their recommendations make no sense).NightHeron (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia sticks with present-day scientific consensus, in the future we'd rather be shown wrong going by the present-day mainstream than shown right going by the present-day fringe, see WP:BALL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the part of NPOV that states that equal weight should not be given to all points of view. WP:UNDUE is part of the NPOV policy. If the perceived problem with the introduction is that a) a lot of people in one specific country believe in alternative medicine (which may or may not be the case) and b) many people don't read past the lede (which is very likely the case), that does not mean that we should support pseudoscience by hiding factual statements further down in the article where many people would not see them! We need to be neutral and factual in how the information is presented, and not call the alternative theories "nonsense" however much we may believe that they are so, but stating clearly that they are potentially harmful and have never been shown to work is essential, exactly because many people only read the lede. Sometimes someone who believes in a nonsensical theory might nevertheless recommend a treatment that is better than the advice that a patient is getting from their physician - if they do so to their friends over coffee, that's nothing to do with Wikipedia, but Wikipedia can't use that kind of reasoning to promote nonsensical theories.


 * It is also worth pointing out that there has been a discussion at Talk:Alternative medicine for some weeks where a number of editors have weighed in against this kind of rewriting of the lede. --bonadea contributions talk 07:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The two categories supporters of CAM and people who believe that not everything outside of mainstream medicine is bad are very different and should not be confused. The latter group includes 88 percent of Americans surveyed, 60 percent of U.S. medical schools, health professionals working in agencies of the governments of the U.S., Cuba, and many other countries.  There are also RS galore supporting the view that some parts of CAM are not bad.  The lede in its current form violates WP:UNDUE because it represents only the minority position that everything in CAM is bad.


 * The discussion of the NPOV issue in Talk:Alternative medicine largely devolved into a debate between me and User:CFCF that was going in circles -- both of us were getting repetitious. That's why I was glad to see that a discussion had been opened here, involving a broader spectrum of editors.NightHeron (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting very tired of all this. I've tried implementing the Debunking Handbook, but my time is limited and I think it best to put my foot down now. The reason the "debate" is going nowhere, is that it is not a debate. Refuted points vaguely based upon (or which are at best referential to) a number of poor or unrelated sources — can only be refuted so many times, with so many high quality sources. At some point it should be fine to just drop the stick and move on. I think hit the nail on the head  when he mentioned whitewashing and "Wikipedia stick[ing] with present-day scientific consensus". There is just no debate to be had. Improvements can be made to the article, but suggestions like the ones above impede actually improving the article — because they are never ever going to be implemented (that is without regarding how they fly in the face of each and every one of Wikipedia's pillars). What we've been able to get out of the discussion is that we need better sections on motivation of "alt-med" usage and on epidemiology. Filling the lede with obfuscating jargon, half-definitions and half-truths; as well as hedging scientific fact with the possibility it might be wrong — is an exercise not in neutrality, but in anti-science — and it is not going to help write those sections. Searching for a WP:False middle is only going to lead us astray. I think every editor should be obliged to read the following quote from the article on evidence of absence: Carl Fredrik talk 16:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also — if you'd taken more than 5 minutes you would have seen that much of the criticism was being met, lead to changes and meant that the article was improved. The problem is when you insist on promoting what is demonstrably false — you'll get nowhere — which is as it should be. And for all means, do borrow that book — it will hopefully be very helpful reading when navigating the topic, but there are hidden sources there that support that statement, sources which have been there for years, but hidden due to previous suggestions that WP:LEDE be implemented to remove sources. So the statement that it is "only supported" by a single source is blatantly false, just look at the mark-up or go back and look at the history.  Carl Fredrik  talk 16:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping discussion civil, constructive, and mutually respectful, perhaps we could take this to mediation? Would you all agree to participate in mediation?NightHeron (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * An alternative is to acknowledge that your approach has been supported neither at the article talk page nor at this noticeboard, and to withdraw graciously rather than to press the point in yet another venue. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't notice that I wasn't the one who started this discussion on the NPOV noticeboard? Or that I wasn't the one who posted the complaint on Slashdot?  So why are you accusing me of being responsible for this issue being discussed in multiple venues?  In my last comment all I suggested doing was taking the discussion to a forum that has a disinterested moderator whose role is to ensure a civil and respectful tone and a discussion based on facts and policy, free of anger, namecalling, and accusations of bad faith.  I would be interested in hearing a calm, rational explanation for the "anti-science" accusation directed against my suggested rough draft of a new lede; the definition that User:CFCF characterized as "anti-science" is taken from Harrison's Internal Medicine, and I would be curious to hear in what way the six authors of that book are "anti-science."NightHeron (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully. I did not say that you started this discussion. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I reject the proposed change. The issue is the usual one: constant attempts to redraw neutrality by splitting the difference between what the article currently says, and what proponents would prefer it to say. Alt-med is exploitative nonsense, very lucrative for practitioners but often highly destructive for their victims. Alt-med is at the root of people dying of untreated cancer, preventable disease and many other problems. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I came to this article after reading a complaint about it on Slashdot, a widely read Website. Before jumping in to defend Wikipedia, I wanted to see what the complaint was about. What I found was a diatribe in place of an NPOV definition of the topic and discussions on the talk page that indicated little likelihood of meaningful improvement. I am not a supporter of alternative medicine, but if I were I would LOVE this article in its present state.  The first thing a proponent of AM needs to do is convince a prospective customer that orthodox medicine is incapable of fairly evaluating AM claims. They will often argue (falsely) that orthodox medicine is a guild system that protects its members’ livelihood by name calling and unsupportable claims of having scientifically evaluated all forms of AM.  The introductory section of our article is all the ammunition such an AM salesperson needs. I would urge supporters of the current text to show it to someone whose judgement they trust and ask if this writing would be acceptable in any scientific publication.--agr (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We're not a scientific publication, we are an encyclopedia heavily biased for mainstream science. I.e. we don't investigate/prove anything, we merely rely upon what mainstream science has found. By its very definition alternative medicine is unscientific (if it is found scientifically valid it simply becomes medicine). Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Both scientific publications and encyclopedias have one feature in common: they are not written in a polemical style with advocacy content. The lede to Alternative medicine is neither scientific nor encyclopedic.
 * Although we can't predict the future, we can be guided by history, in this case the history of medicine. Many healing modalities that were once considered CAM are now accepted medical practice -- for example, physical therapy or marijuana rather than opioids for pain relief.  Using history as a guide, we can assume that some standard medical practices of today will in a few decades be regarded as idiotic.  Arthur C. Clarke in the 1950s wrote that most physicians were then telling patients that it's risky and ill-advised to do strenuous exercise over the age of 40.  Some CAM treatments of today (especially herbal and home remedies) have some evidence base (see the quote from Harrison's Internal Medicine) and may soon be incorporated into standard medical practice (most likely in different countries at different times).  In the meantime some physicians recommend them in a complementary way.  Of course, some forms of CAM are dangerous quackery.  It is unscientific to lump all forms of CAM together and call them all quackery.NightHeron (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One likely candidate for a current medical practice that in the future will be regarded as idiotic is the practice of physicians of prescribing large quantities of psychotropic drugs to American children. I'm not looking into a crystral ball here, which would violate WP:BALL.  Rather, I'm guided by the writings of Marcia Angell on the subject.NightHeron (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * CAM is rife with fraud. While a small number of CAM approaches could be found to work, most of the CAM lies somewhere between danger to society and lunacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with that statement at all, although I would have worded it a little differently. A "small number" of CAM approaches being found to work is actually a big deal (it's also true that only a small proportion of pharmaceuticals that are proposed for testing are ever found to be safe and effective, but that "small number" plays a fundamental role in health care).  I've given a few historical examples of the treatments in yesterday's CAM that are today's mainstream practice, and even though they're small in number, they're of great importance.  The NPOV problem with the article as presently written is that it ignores and denies that there are any forms of CAM that could be beneficial (other than through placebo effects).  This denial is unscientific and results in a loss of credibility on our part -- that is, on Wikipedia's part.  As an earlier editor commented, this lack of credibility will play to the advantage of the CAM profiteers.NightHeron (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That position is also false, physical therapy was never "CAM" and you've so far presented not a single quality source that supports any "CAM" therapy entering into conventional medicine as based on evidence that it is effective. I quoted this elsewhere, but I think it belongs here as well.
 * To pretend that physical therapy was ever "CAM" is to engage in what Consumer Health 9th ed describes as:
 * It strikes me as extremely concerning that you ignore these statements while continuing to press anecdote without sources. I have so far been unwilling, but now feel a strong need to move this discussion to WP:AN/I on the grounds of WP:NOTHERE.
 * Carl Fredrik talk 21:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as extremely concerning that you ignore these statements while continuing to press anecdote without sources. I have so far been unwilling, but now feel a strong need to move this discussion to WP:AN/I on the grounds of WP:NOTHERE.
 * Carl Fredrik talk 21:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Carl Fredrik talk 21:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, User:CFCF, but you're the one who's forgetting or ignoring what I said on the subject. I referred to a very nice article by Steven Novella (a physician and the editor of an anti-CAM journal).  His article centers around his experience with a man who wrote him saying that, even though a skeptic, he felt that one form of CAM worked for him in a crucial way.  Namely, about 20 years earlier he suffered from back pain, but didn't want surgery, which at the time was commonly recommended for his condition.  Instead, he read a CAM book.  Most of the book didn't make sense, but the recommendation of the CAM book for back pain was certain physical exercises.  That was the recommended treatment of the author (a CAM guru of some kind).  The man did that, and it worked wonderfully.  Novella responded that, yes, 20 years ago surgery was over-prescribed for back pain, but at present Novella would be likely to make the same recommendation to his patients who had the same condition.  My conclusion from Novella's article: at one point a standard CAM book was recommending physical therapy rather than surgery or opioids, and 20 years later that treatment is part of standard mainstream practice.


 * I also wish you wouldn't threaten me. Once before you threatened that I would be "shown the door" (which I guess means banned) if I continued to annoy you, and now you're again threatening more or less the same thing. Please try to be courteous and comply with WP:GF.NightHeron (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You referred to a blog post that didn't even support your claims — sprinkled together with some anecdote. As for good faith, I have assumed it, as anyone who follows the interactions on the Talk:Alternative medicine-page can see. However in the face of evidence of the contrary — I conclude you are acting in bad faith. WP:AGF does not imply forced naïveté and we should remember that Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Carl Fredrik talk 23:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, you were courteous toward me and observed WP:GF early on, but recently not so much. What is your "evidence to the contrary" (i.e., evidence of bad faith on my part) other than the fact that I'm not convinced by your arguments, even when you repeat them multiple times?  Concerning the Novella piece, I hope that other editors read it and judge for themselves whether my reading of it is correct.  It's really worth the time to read it.  It's a nicely written popular article/blog appearing at the anti-CAM website sciencebasedmedicine.org.  Here's the citation: .NightHeron (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly it is the result of long and bitter experience with editors who appear superficially reasonable and are terribly polite but in the end truly believe that bullshit and reality deserve parity of esteem. We know why people turn to alternative medicine. In the main it is because (a) they have "symptoms of life" and the medical fraternity doesn't have the time to sit and listen to their vague complaints; (b) they have something that can't be cured and they would rather be lied to by a charlatan than told the truth by a doctor or (c) they are True Believers in conspiracist bullshit. As Phil Hammond has said more than once, most people would be better off with a dog than a doctor, and quacks are very adept at pretending that they are dogs. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify the first sentence. When who speak of "editors who appear superficially reasonable and are terribly polite but in the end truly believe that bullshit," are you including Steven Novella, the editor I cited? Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem you are butting up against is years of quackery apologists who quote mine the internet looking for stuff to water down our articles on quackery. I knew practically nothing about quackery when I started editing Wikipedia, now I am familiar with most of the well known figures on both sides including Novella and Gorski. I am also familiar with cherry picking, quote mining, cognitive dissonance, farming and a whole host of other things. Wikipedia's articles on quackery have taught me a lot. They have taught me that you could mine Novella's article to support the claim that quackery's success is down to "slick marketing, relaxed regulations, scientific illiteracy, a gullible media" (undoubtedly true). You could say that while quiacks love to describe the failures of "mainstraem" medicine (the word mainstream is redundant there) "[t]he evidence that we have, however, simply does not support this narrative", or that we should be "working toward keeping and improving what works and fixing what doesn’t, not discarding science and reason to embrace fantasy as an alternative". I am very familiar with that piece, he discussed it on SGU at the time, and you can read a lot into it if you want to. But the main message is that charlatans will sell you valid therapy plus bullshit, and if it works, they will credit the bullshit, and their victims will be complicit in this deception. Which is exactly why CAM/IM is so critical to the marketing of bullshit. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed explanation of your viewpoint. I now understand that your comment was not aimed at Novella, but rather at what you saw as "cherrypicking" his article.  However, the story he tells about his correspondent who relied on a CAM book for advice 20 years before is central to the article, not a small part that I'm taking out of context.  Originally I cited this article in a discussion of the alt med article as an example of something written in an appropriate style with careful arguments that most people would find at least somewhat persuasive.  I also wanted to make the point that I fully support well-designed efforts to combat pseudoscience and quackery, and Novella's online journal is that.  Note that Novella's tone is very respectful toward the man who told him he's a "skeptic BUT" was grateful to the CAM book for giving him good advice 20 years before.  Finally, I used the Novella article to make the point that in a small number of cases treatment recommendations that come from a CAM source in one time period might 20 years later be a standard treatment in medical practice.
 * Assuming you'll allow me a temporary dispensation to violate WP:BALL, I'd like to give a hypothetical example of how something that's CAM today might end up 20 years from now as standard treatment. If I'm not mistaken, any recommendation of yoga for medical purposes is considered CAM.  Let's suppose that in a few years researchers find that yoga can be taught to children, and that it's effective in treating ADHD with no significant side effects.  (I repeat: this is just idle speculation.)  Based on that, it becomes a standard practice in lieu of pharmaceuticals such as Ritalin.  Wouldn't this be good?  Then people 20 years from now would look back on the current common practice in the U.S. of feeding psychotropics to millions of children for a large part of their childhood as a barbaric practice of an earlier time (which would be consistent with what Marcia Angell has written on the subject).  Note that positive developments of the type in this hypothetical scenario are only possible if scientists take an openminded attitude toward certain plausible things (some home remedies, herbs, etc.) that are currently classified as CAM.NightHeron (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * User:NightHeron - comment - I think Anarchist had it right in that WP:FRINGE guideline and WP:PSCI section of NPOV can and has and will be taken as a mandate that something MUST be denounced in the article content rather than simply conveying that it is a fringe view and otherwise giving due weight information of if it is viewed as dangerous.  There seemed to be a fad several years back for sticking a vague pejorative "pseudo" and making it the first thing in many articles, and freedom or mandate to make the article be further insults.  The articles seem to wind up with contradictory polemics that might not even explain what the thing being denounced is, and the TALK tends to be dismissive and uncivil.  This is particularly problematic for AM or CAM, as those are a broad spectrum of items with some being very reputable and others being very discredited -- the use of a term as sometimes dismissive becomes in Wikipedia an always dismissive and applying to all such practices exclusive of nuance. The articles start to read as a rant, to be not informative, and in places to be contrary to actual medical practice or scientific opinions.   It would be nice if folks started with "widely rejected" or "wide range of practices, with wide range of credibility".  Perhaps a pump discussion to change FRINGE and rewrite PSCI would improve things; perhaps a request for arbitration that MEDRS be respected and denouncements too broad or otherwise contrary to actual expert opinions should be restrained.  Those are the only other ideas I have.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Some good news. Within the last day, two editors User:CFCF and User:JzG, both of whom had seemed to disagree strongly with what I've been trying to do for the last two months, have been doing significant editing of Alternative medicine to "soften it."  The lede still has the logical contradiction I mentioned below (in the "Problem of definition" discussion), but at least the tone of the article seems to be getting better.  Maybe with a little more urging, the content of the article as well can be edited to bring it into the mainstream, with all RS viewpoints reflected.  The lede particularly needs attention.  I'm not the one to do that "urging" or editing, since among the veteran editors who have been defending the POV of the present lede there seems to be a consensus that they're tired of hearing from me, and some of them have threatened to block me from any editing on med-related articles (I recently got two warning messages on my userpage, one of them from an admin).  One of my interests is abortion-related articles, and some of those would probably be classified as med-related, and so I'd be blocked.  I don't want this.  In other words, I need to back off from alt med related discussions, at least until the threat of being banned passes.NightHeron (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I continue to strongly disagree with you are trying to do . Carl Fredrik  talk 15:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I also continue to strongly disagree with what you are trying to do. My changes are along the lines of standard scientific evidence. Science does not say "homeopathy is bullshit", science says "homeopathy is implausible, its principles are refuted, and there is no convincing evidence it works". If you get out your science thesaurus you will immediately recognise that this means "homeopathy is bullshit". Guy (Help!) 15:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * User:NightHeron - If the editors are willing to call the Mayo clinic and USNCI names, I'm dubious there is appetite for something more controlled than (to use the whitewash metaphor) giant spray-painting everything black, and treating all CAM as the same thing and only allowing negatives by asserting that WP:FRINGE mandates denunciation.  It may be that acknowledging that CAM is a wide category of very different things will lead to a more nuanced portrayal that some CAM is good, some is just comforting, and that other is not at all good.  But it still seems stuck in ranting to me and the American penchants for dualism or oversimplification, and moralising things as good & evil.  It might help to reflect that being obviously bonkers seems OK in a sort of two wrongs make an almost-right of people will know to disregard the uninformative rant and go to WebMD for help or the Encyclopedia Britannica to see the historical derivation and definition of medicine classes, and even be better aware of not blindly trusting.  If the article continues to portray as urgent to denounce taking chicken soup when I'm ill and herbals of chamomile when I cannot sleep or black tea to help wake up, then I think we can rest safe that most folks will carry on regardless.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I really dislike the pro-CAM slant of the WebMD page that comes up on my google-search for "alternative medicine" above the Wikipedia article. Perhaps that means that people are consulting WebMD more than Wikipedia on that issue.  That's not good if one wants to oppose (most of) CAM.  I'm likely to be out of the picture for a while.  They're moving to have me banned for 6 months.  That's free speech on Wikipedia.NightHeron (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * — I don't really get your comment about American dualism. To me it seems the opposite is true, that things that are truly dualistic and often outrageous are allowed in American discourse under the guise of "being debated". While this is only vaguely related I think it still needs to be refuted:
 * Sometimes Americans say "America is better because we debate things, we debate enhanced interrogation techniques. In China or Russia or Iran you get torture, but you're put in jail if you try to discuss them."
 * What this misses is that the preferable situation is to denounce torture, and to denounce anyone that condones it, without debate.
 * The same is true for anti-science and pseudoscience such as alt-med. That some American institutes promote it does not make it work — and does in any way make it evidence or science based. Edzard Ernst has done some of the best work on "CAM" these last few years, once evidence started coming in. The thing is CAM at its very best will give placebo — which is dangerous when put in relation to the damage that it done by promoting anti-science nonsense. There is in fact a lot we could update the article with, but everything that has been suggested so far by NightHeron has been to the opposite effect.
 * That WebMD is wrong is an unfortunate state of affairs — but frankly quite irrelevant to Wikipedia. We do not weaken our relation to scientific fact because someone else was misguided enough to do so. Carl Fredrik  talk 22:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:CFCF That it has to be entirely one way or entirely the other is an example of dualism or in this case False dichotomy -- and that one must be entirely right and the other entirely wrong seems an example of the mentioned moralising. Simply try to imagine there are more than two things and none of them is totally correct or not and none of them is absolutely evil or perfect.  Ignoring cites to Mayo clinic or NIH or USNCI because that does not fit the 'right vs wrong' is hardly proper science or good information.  Perhaps review the topics of Multiculturalism and Pluralism of European views and politics rather than Russia and China -- and noting the United States seems OK to torture the 'bad guys', see Enhanced interrogation techniques or portrayals of 24 (TV series), this seems a poor metaphor to throw out in a discussion of dualism.  In the end discussion of Alternative medicine as a range of items with varying value would be harder -- but that seems part of what it would take to make the article reputable.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * — I am well aware of what a false dichotomy is, but what I exemplified was a moral true dichotomy, as much as I can express one. I frankly do not find it to be an issue of relevance to NPOV to say that torture is bad, as I do not find it an issue of NPOV to say that Wikipedia should follow science when covering medicine. I find the example apt, because both cases are only discussed on anywhere near equal terms in the mind of a madman.
 * Wikipedia takes a stance in its WP:Pillars for the equal rights of humans (as exemplified in the motto regarding access to knowledge), and adherence to scientific fact — to pretend that there is some from of falsehood implied by taking these tenets without debate is at the very least WP:NOTHERE. Carl Fredrik  talk 23:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * User:CFCF - Another demonstration ... "That it has to be entirely one way or entirely the other is an example of dualism or in this case False dichotomy -- and that one must be entirely right and the other entirely wrong seems an example of the mentioned moralising." I suggest looking at the article and that this thread is about the article being named in the press as a case example of NPOV issues failure to give accurate science or follow WP principles.    In some ways I can see this -- for example where the article lead is demonstrating extremism, absolutism, false dichotomy, and simply a failure to summarize the article or providing opinion adjectives instead of topical information.   That the article could better convey science and better follow WP guidelines to be more reputable seems something that should be sought, but again it seems "stuck in ranting to me and the American penchants for dualism or oversimplification, and moralising things as good & evil."    Meanwhile I'll feel free to have some honey lemon tea for a sore throat and so on, Google for more accurate and useful information, and to view on what I read (including wikipedia) with some suspicion. Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay so we're repeating the same argument again, please reread my post about why dualism isn't always bad.


 * As for whether you read science with suspicion because it does not fall in line with your preconceived notions that is neither my problem nor Wikipedia's. Carl Fredrik  talk 07:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * User:CFCF A while ago, when you were being collegial toward me, you asked me to comment on your graphics on the article. I (and a friend) looked at them, and I got back to you with some suggestions about making them more effective.  For example, I recall saying that a pill is not a good symbol for alt med, because most of the public associates pills with mainstream medicine; and I had a few other suggestions.  I said that the concept was good, but it needed improvement.  I don't think you took any of the suggestions intended to help you make your point more clearly.  Is that because "everything that has been suggested so far by NightHeron has been to the opposite effect," that is, improved clarity would have helped the altmedists?
 * Concerning WebMD, I put a suggestion on the WikiProject Medicine talk page that, if anyone knows RS criticizing WebMD's pro-CAM coverage, they might want to include it in WebMD and in the lede of that article, which at present gives no hint that WebMD might not always represent medical consensus.NightHeron (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Problem of definition
It seems to me that a central problem here is that our article currently defines Alternative Medicine as "practices that claim to have the healing effects of medicine but are disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect." Or as put it above "The definition of alternative medicine is indeed that it does not work. If it works, it is not alternative." With that highly POV definition, of course no form of alternative medicine can be useful. If it's useful ipso facto it's not alternative. But that definition is not cited in our article and is not how alternative medicine is defined by the highly reliable sources I listed near the top of this thread, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute and the Merriam Webster Dictionary. This article instead places great reliance on a single source, Consumer Health, A Guide to Intelligent Decisions, 9th Edition, a health education textbook. I have checked most of the library systems in the Boston area (including the medical schools) and the best I have been able to get is the 4th edition. The closest thing to a definition of AM I could find in the 4th is "Unorthodox health care practitioners are individuals whose philosophy and methods differ from orthodox practitioners because they are not based on acceptable scientific methods." That lacks the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose circularity of our definition and is much closer to the NCI definition. Perhaps someone can provide a quote from the 9th edition that does support our current definition, but even so a single health education textbook is not a dispositive source in the face of the highly respected sources I cited. Even our articles on specific forms of AM that I've looked at start with a neutral definition and then proceed to marshal the evidence that they don't work in most or all cases. They key point that our AM article should make is not that AM can't possible work by definition, but that many scientists have tried to evaluate various AM claims and have largely failed to come up with evidence in their favor, with very few exceptions. We don't need polemics to make that case.--agr (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I stated to you — this definition was in the article before the addition of that source, and it does not rely on that source at all. There are other sources, including ones that are hidden in the lede. The only reason that source hasn't been hidden is that it lists the page number and is different from the defined source further down in the article. Carl Fredrik  talk 09:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Of course, this is yet another example of the fallacy of “integrative” medicine, in which quackery is “integrated” with real medicine. But to paraphrase an old song, nothing plus something leaves something. Unfortunately, it doesn’t add anything to that something. As Mark Crislip once put it, “If you integrate fantasy with reality, you do not instantiate reality. If you mix cow pie with apple pie, it does not make the cow pie taste better; it makes the apple pie worse.” Sadly, CCF likes to mix lots of cow pie with its apple pie." - https://respectfulinsolence.com/2013/02/27/the-cleveland-clinic-foundation-mixing-cow-pie-with-apple-pie-in-pediatrics/ Guy (Help!) 22:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I find the tone of the definition to be polemical. Certainly we should state outright that these theories have no empirical support. But repeating that over and over again in more emphatic terms is unhelpful. I know that the theory behind homeopathy is wrong, but may want to read about it anyway in the same way that people like to read about all kinds of belief systems. Ironically, the aggressive tone actually detracts from the message. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.  TFD (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I also think that something whose theory might be wrong (or even ridiculous) might still contain some good treatments in practice. Even scientific medicine does not always understand the physiological mechanism behind a successful treatment, that is, does not always have a theory to explain why it works.  Similarly, some alternative medicine source might include a treatment that works (or works for some people), perhaps not as well as the recommended treatments of modern medicine, but okay (better than nothing) for someone who does not have good access to modern medicine.  Some might even be safe and effective enough to be tested and eventually become part of standard medical practice, possibly resulting in better treatments than we have today.  There have been such cases in the past, and, using history as a guide, it's reasonable to expect there to be more such cases in the future.  I think that's why top-notch WP:MEDRS sources such as Harrison's Internal Medicine take a non-polemical, open-minded tone toward complementary and alternative medicine.  Of course, most of it is worthless, but not 100% of it.NightHeron (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * In cases where "something whose theory might be wrong (or even ridiculous) might still contain some good treatments in practice" the good treatments have to show themselves to be good through double blind scientific testing. Two examples come to mind; first. there are drugs that we know are beneficial through double blind testing but we have no idea what the mechanism is. Second, if someone advocates hand washing before surgery in order to please the Gods, and double blind testing shows a decreased infection rate, then we accept the hand washing as a legitimate medical practice without accepting the bit about pleasing the Gods. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent example (about hand-washing), and in fact it's not too far from what actually happened in the U.S. in the late 19th century. Midwives and homeopaths were largely observing hygiene, but most American doctors (who were behind their European counterparts at the time) still did not believe in antisepsis.  The theories of the homeopaths were not much better than "pleasing the Gods," but (according to some historians) U.S. President Garfield might have survived the assassination attempt of 1881 if he'd been treated by homeopaths rather than by top physicians of the time who probed his insides with dirty hands.


 * Concerning the definition in the lede of Alternative medicine, there's a fundamental logical flaw in saying that anything that's unproven, that is, classified as CAM "will not" or "cannot" work, and at the same time acknowledging that some treatments that are classified as CAM in one time period might be classified as standard medical practice in a later time period. Am I exaggerating in saying that the logical flaw in the lede is an obvious one?NightHeron (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds somewhat revisionist to me - one of the greater exponents of handwashing was Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., who wrote Homoeopathy And It's Kindred Delusions in 1842 based on lectures he gave. It is true that homeopaths' early success was due to the fact that doing nothing in a clean hospital was less likely to kill you than bloodletting in a dirty one. But all the key figures in the development of our understanding of germ theory (people like Semmelweiss, Pasteur, Holmes, Nightingale, Snow), were reality-based practitioners, not homeopaths, and in fact heomopathy still to this day teaches germ theory denial. The example of handwashing is illustrative not because it validates quackery in any way, but because it is an example of fact inexorably replacing dogma. Pasteur's work established the nature of germs as infective agents, and the medical establishment was unable to ignore the obvious fact that hygiene increased survival.
 * And remember when that happened. Holmes died in 1894, Semmelweiss in 1865. Snow died in 1858. Evidence-based medicine only really replaced eminence-based medicine in the 1950s, but it has its roots in the mid to late 19th Century with the development of statistical methods to analyse what was, until then, indistinguishable from acts of God.Lind sowed the seeds, but Snow and Nightingale were the father and mother of evidence-based practice, in my view. Flexner, in 1910, dealt a body blow to quackery. That shut down a lot of the bogus medical schools.
 * To compare that development with some prominent forms of alternative medicine: homeopathy was invented in 1796, was known to be incorrect by the mid 19th Century, its claims as to dilutions were definitively refuted in the late 19th and the basis of Hahnemann's original false inference also proven before the turn of the 20th Century with the discovery of plasmodium falciparum and its role in malaria. Well over a century later, it is still zealously promoted because the cult of homeopathy is immune to empirical fact. The most popular homeopathic remediy is reckoned to be oscillococcinum, a product that contains none of a duck which isn't infected with the non-existent oscillococcus bacterium that doesn't cause flu. Literally everything about it ts wrong, and extensive tests show it to be ineffective, but it is still promoted. The alt-med game is a waiting game: keep selling your bullshit and wait for postmodernism to open the door to quackery. Right to try laws, anyone?
 * Or consider acupuncture. Over the past few decades it has been convincingly demonstrated that it doesn't matter where you put the needles, it doesn't even matter if you insert them or not, and yet acupuncturists interpret these findings as validating the awesome power of acupuncture, which is supposedly so amazing that even fake acupuncture "works". If this was a reality-based medical product it would be withdrawn. But there's a cult of practitioners and a lot of money in it, so instead they lobby for politicians to mandate that their quackery is funded by the VA and thus legitimised through "legislative alchemy".
 * Or consider chiropractic, where practitioners divide into "straight" and "mixer", with the "straight" community firmly in the alt med camp, believing that all disease is caused by mythical "subluxations" disturbing the flow of non-existent "innate". The entire industry is in flat denial of the extent of its medical knowledge (seeking to be classified as primary care providers) and the dangers of upper cervical manipulation, which has a documented risk of death and no objectively demonstrable benefit. We have some historical context here, in that osteopaths followed the reality-based path and now a D.O in the States is pretty much indistinguishable from an MD. Mixers seem to want to follow that path, albeit that the lure of selling supplements from the office is great (there is a reason why real doctors do not sell drugs).
 * So yes, the example of handwashing is informative, but only in as much as it highlights the way that even early medicine was beginning to accept evidence in the face of dogma. It marks a fork in the road, where reality-based medicine departed from dogma-based pseudomedicine. The refusal to accept contradictory evidence is one of the defining characteristics of alternative medicine. In as much as handwashing is relevant, it is as a signpost for the fork in the road that separates medicine from quackery. Most alternative medicines are alternative because evidence based medicine discarded them, and they still exist because they are lucrative and, in some cases, they are surrounded by cult-like communities of True Believers.
 * As to cannot and will not, the vast majority of alternative medicine is indeed in the cannot work camp, because most of it is based on refuted theories of human anatomy or biology. Homeopathy cannot work because disease is not caused by miasms. Chiropractic cannot work because there is no such thing as innate and chiropractic subluxations don't exist. Acupuncture has at least some superficial plausibility, but the claims of qi and meridians are refuted. Hence my point about separating alternative medicine (always quackery) from CAM/Integrative (quackery plus potentially legitimate practices, consciously mixed in order to allow quackery in through the back door). It's not our job to help quacks sell quackery. It's not our job to make people feel better about having been duped. The truth is brutal: alt-med practitioners are either sincere and deluded, or outright charlatans. We're not here to sugar coat that pill, any more than we would obscure the genuine problems with reality-based medicine. Would now be a good time to mention that I have had dinner with Peter Gøtzsche? Guy (Help!) 08:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your observations and analysis are interesting, and you obviously know a lot about the topic. I'd really like to discuss agreements and disagreements with you, but for the time being I cannot.  As I mentioned above, I must withdraw from any alt med related discussions, because of warnings and banning threats I've received about my earlier participation in such discussions.  Also, my impression is that people are impatient with long content discussions, since deciding about NPOV does not require such discussions, but only requires an examination of whether the article in question reflects all RS in a balanced way.NightHeron (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:JzG/help - Want modern definition. It would be good to put some of that in the history section here or the History of Medicine, showing when alternative largely referred to approaches being holistic and integrative vice partial and focused.  But for the definition in current times topic I suggest a principle of looking to paraphrase from current items such as Markbassett (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * — That characterization is absolutely false. Alternative therapies are in the vein of "spinal manipulation for everyone" which is by definition narrow. I've cited these things on the talk page of Alternative medicine. There is no support for the statement that "CAM" is in any way "holistic" beyond in name. Carl Fredrik  talk 23:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * User:CFCF - you were writing of 1842, 1898, 1865, 1859, 1910, and "historical context", hence the remark about that is around when (in Western Medicine) the holistic approach generally split off. For the thread topic here of definition I again direct your attention to suggest paraphrase from modern items such as (this time without typo) NIH.  As to whether a wide and diverse set is under the term -- well, even this article shows many (Accupuncture, Allopathy, Chiropractice, Herbalism, Meditation, Shamanism, Yoga, ...) and explicitly quotes NIH that it is "a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not generally considered part of conventional medicine".  I'm suggesting that in the end discussion of Alternative medicine as a range of items with varying value would be harder -- but that seems part of what it would take to make the article reputable.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is not based off generic NIH definitions, but specifically NCCIH, which is not nearly as reputable an organization. And there is nothing in that definition that goes against what the article currently states. Of varying value can mean varying between worthless and very harmful, which is also what it does mean, since the NCCIH has never shown anything to actually do what its said to do. The NCCIH was created through political will, it was never supported by science or scientists. If your definition of reputable is to promote pseudoscience — we aren't even going to discuss that.  Carl Fredrik  talk 07:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My holistic healer used phlebomancy and other forms of divination to diagnose coeliac in my forties. TTGA tests, jejunal biopsy, founded on a holistic review of my health history and symptoms. The claim that quackery is holistic and medicine is not, is plainly fraudulent. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think 's long comment above suggests a better way to structure this article, namely by beginning with a definition from a reliable source, such as the National Cancer Institute or a medical dictionary, e.g. Tabers. The NCI has the advantage that we can quote it verbatim without copyright concerns. The Tabers def breaks down the subject areas, which could then segway to Guy's discussion of the problems with each area. Taubers does cite the NCCIH, but regardless of any concern as to NCCIH conclusions about the value of AM, they are a reliable source for a definition of the topic. In any case we would be further relying on Tabers, a respected source. Guy's point by point rundown of the problems with each area of AM, with sources of course, is the right way to go about describing the (in)effectiveness of AM, rather than defining AM as stuff that doesn't work, a definition that enables advocates of AM to simply dismiss the article.--agr (talk)

Small Industries Development Bank of India - promotional editing
This article has been repeatedly misused as PR platform to add excessive self-sourced details and promotional puffery about the activities and financing programs of this bank (especially in the last 2 days, but also in the past - see history). The used sources are self-published, press releases, publications in associated sites, and thinly-veiled advertorials/announcements. I have tried to start a discussion at article talk, and pointed out the obvious "conflict of interest" problems from multiple SPA editors. Frankly, while some brief details could be of interest, about 90 percent of the recently added PR fluff should be deleted or needs a complete rewrite, but I don't want to start an edit-war over it and would appreciate a fresh pair of eyes from uninvolved editors on this article. I will inform the latest SPA-editor about this thread. Thank you in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) is a development finance institution in India and works for the development of Micro Small & Medium Enterprises as well as entrepreneurship development in the country. While, I was searching about SIDBI, I found lot of material available in internet in form of news item and publications but very little is available in wikipedia. So I tried to edit the same. As it was my first edit, my mistake was, as an easy & lazy method, i copied it from SIDBI website. But after reading articles in wikipedia and messages from you guys, I understood the mistake and rearranged the edits as per news items available in web. Let me clarify, this is not a PR activity nor I am getting paid from SIDBI for this. In future, I will edit other pages in banking sector in India including SIDBI, as and when I find it relevant. Thanks & Regards: Vibek111 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Vibek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibek111 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that the article is in very poor shape at the moment, containing lots of external links. I would suggest protection for a period of a few months. Deb (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I think a sockpuppetry report on User:Ppranava, User:Vibek111 and User:Rudra111 might be in order. Deb (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Numrec
We have an ongoing NPOV discussion occurring on Numrec that has the potential to affect the numerical values of countries that diplomatically recognise "states" with Limited recognition across hundreds and hundreds of articles across wikipedia. The discussion could affect articles with specific regards to the following "states"; Abkazia, Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Additionally, there is potential from this discussion to directly affect (from a POV perspective) lists contained in the following three articles: International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and International recognition of Kosovo. Participation from any editor that understands NPOV discussions well is welcomed. (See Template talk:Numrec) - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
There have been repeated claims of a lack of "balance" on this page by a few editors. They have insisted on putting the NPOV 'tag' on the page but they haven't started a discussion here, so I am. For context of the issue see:Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. I look forward to your contributions. Alssa1 (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * They are not required to, they only have to raise concerns on the article talk page (and multiple concerns have been raised). Having said that there may be merit is having the issues thrashed out here for new eyes to see the arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

So I shall start

recentism
One of the issues raised is that all of this (baring recently raised "historical" examples) is that this whole issue is really about Corbyns leadership (when the accusations first really arose) and just represents anti-corbynites attempts to undermine him, rather then a real or historical problem. Thus both the tone (and the title) of the article implies this is not the case and is thus in fact POV pushing by clamming this is a significant issue within the Labour party (as opposed to any other party), rather then a few minor incidents blown out of all proportion by the media and political opponents. That the article should do more to reflect the fact this is recentism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While this may be a recent phenomena in Labour - however British Jews overwhelmingly feel concerned by the antisemtic incidents and atmosphere in Labour.. In fact - over 80% of British Jews think so. Jews, who used to vote Labour, have stopped doing so - going down to 13%.. So while the current crisis seems to be linked to the Corbyn/Corbynite takeover of the party - it is a bona fida crisis -thas has been on-going since 2015 or so.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Check your POV... while Labour might see the disaffection of Jewish voters as a “crisis”, I doubt the other parties see it that way. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah - to be precise - British Jews are quite alarmed by the rise of antisemitism in a major political party - they've had a bad experience with such sentiments within political parties which led to real world consequences. They are registering their concern quite clearly - in the polling data above. The issue here is not the votes - but rather fear for safety and well being within this new political landscape where a major party is causing concern, to Jews, for toleration of antisemitism within its ranks.Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see that you've made your position clear; but that is a political opinion, not a source-based position. It is not for us to come up with political theories and place them on WP, nor should we go about listing the opinions of fringe groups in an attempt to counteract what the sources say. It seems that some editors are calling the "balance" of the page into question simply because it does not adhere to their preconceived political notions and theories. No one has commented as to the significance of antisemitism in Labour, and the extent in other political parties is irrelevant when the topic is about its existence in the Labour party. Alssa1 (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As this is supposed to be about fresh eyes, lets have some fresh eyes look at it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What's been happening is that any attempt to add alternative views (by Jewish left groups such as Jewish Voice for Labour and the Jewish Socialists' Group) are immediately reversed by editors who don't seem to be interested in addressing the neutrality problem. Garageland66 (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You believe there's a problem with the neutrality of the article, your solution to this supposed problem? Adding fringe groups and giving WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to them. Alssa1 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * These two groups are certainly FRINGE; adding FRINGE sources is a means to UN-balancing an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(Help!) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody has yet been able to give me an example of actual antisemitism, other than pointintg and shouting "IT'S OBVIOUS! LOOK!" Guy

Jim Morrison page is being disrupted by an unneutral editor
I am need of assistance on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Morrison My edits are sound and getting reverted by an editor who is doing disruptive edits, putting in unsourced information, and not quoting who is putting forth certain information that is not widely known or agreed on. Paltryforhire (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know about non-neutral, but certainly the additions are poorly written. But I see the page has already been protected. Deb (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And why is Paltryforhire bringing this here with no attempt to participate in the discussion which had been started on the talk page? Meters (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Inexperience? This was never the right forum in any case. Deb (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

use of Candace Owens tweets

 * Discussion on the talk page Talk:Candace Owens regarding the use of Twitter postings to support some hot topic positions (e.g. building the wall, anti-illegal immigration, joining the NRA, anti-abortion). There are about 12 twitter links not all of which should be retained but some support basic positions of hers (although one of her tweets cited to support something else mentions a fringe theory). Should we use the tweets absent any other source? Any input would be appreciated Patapsco913 (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Racist (Counter) History of UC San Diego
Is it just me, but does this entire article,, seem, well, problematical, starting from its very title? --Calton | Talk 00:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is quite an essay and it seems like an obvious POV fork. There's not even a generic "History of UCSD" article, and yet there's a massive "counter history of UCSD" with a word count equal to half that of the main article, UCSD. Half of the article is just a list of incidents that might have been related to racism and UCSD, and most of the rest is a description of how the namesakes of each of the colleges was racist or discriminatory in some way. It appears that no page numbers are given for any of the references in the entire article, so it's very difficult to even see if the sources are being accurately represented. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This looks like a class project. I peeked at another article that one of the main editors had also worked on, Compton Cookout and it was at least as bad.  Much of the article was pure WP:COATRACK that I deleted.  Even still, these articles are decidedly partisan and need significant work.  Ravensfire  (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page history, it seems that this was a student's draft created as part of a university course that was moved to mainspace despite the numerous issues pointed out by User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) on the talk page. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for tagging me to this - I'm looking into the students' additions and working with them to remove problematic content​. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Richard Noble (activist)
The articles appears to have promotion and conflict of interest issues. This concern seems to have been voiced before by (albeit in a disruptive manner ). The article has also been edited by SPA IPs, specifically, , and. The subject himself, whose user is, has apparently edited directly in his own biopgrahy; he has included his biography in his user page and has created before the article Richard Noble Day. The user has also uploaded five pictures of himself in Wikimedia Commons, including one where he explains that "I gave someone my camera and I asked them to shoot this picture for me. It was with my own camera and I own this picture.", three of which are being used in the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A nomination for deletion was started. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Tom McKillop's article has been tampered with and is not objective
Chairman of a bank that lost 60 billion dollars in value, the entire page fails to describe his career in any way relative to the bank, glances over his questioning by MP's as a side-note, and is an obscure defense of his reputation as a chairman of a bank that lost 60 billion dollars in value after he sought work there.

His previous company Astra Zeneca was also poorly run, and was heavily involved in lobbying and misinformation in order to maximize share price and arranged to sell dangerous products by circumventing pharmaco safety procedures.

The page has been written as a staunch defense of an entrepreneur with an overall wealth creation record of negative 59.5 billion dollars, it is biased and motions only to his favor. It should be supervised by Wiki to avoid future covert editing and to present a clear picture of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeinthetrees (talk • contribs) 04:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It would appear that Lifeinthetrees has a personal BigPharma axe to grind over and above any management incompetence we may have reliably sourced regarding RBS. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Pushing Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan
At East Asia, the User:PE fans keeps changing "Taiwan" to "Taiwan (Province of China)". The talk page discussion is less than coherent and not going anywhere. The editor has been going around many other articles changing instances of "Taiwan" to "Chinese Taipei" and the like (for example, 1, 2). My view is that the common English and neutral name of this sovereign country is "Taiwan" and the only reason to push the misleading "Province of China" thing is to bolster the position of the Chinese government that Taiwan is a "renegade province", contrary to our policy against political agenda editing at WP:NOT. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I was not changing “Taiwan” to “ Taiwan (province of China)” at all. What I did was changing “The ISO name for Taiwan is Taiwan” to “The ISO name for Taiwan is Taiwan(province of China)”. I was not bolstering the position of the Chinese government, but the positions of International Organization for Standardization and in the sport case, the position of the International Olympic Committee. I want the Wikipedia be strictly same as the reliable sources, for example


 * If the position of Chinese governments work, then Taiwan will be forbidden from attending international affairs. If the Taiwan independent movement works, then they will participate the Olympic game under the name “Taiwan”. The current neutral situation is between them. The international Olympic committee views Taiwan as an independent country called “Chinese Taipei”. The International Monetary Fund views Taiwan as an independent country called “Taiwan (province of China)”. If you ignore the opinions of the reliable sources, Wikipedia will not exist at all. Please stop pushing the change from the opinions of reliable sources to your original research. Thanks.PE fans (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I’m not the agent of any government or organization, when I spent several hours to create the 2004 Australian Open – Boys' Singles article using the ITF data, I didn’t receive even a penny. My motivation is simply support the Wikipedia to become a website reflecting the opinions of its sources alone, independent of any political opinions. Therefore, for example, even if you think 40 is not equal to 15 times 3, as long as the convention of the tennis score has been chosen by the ITF, WTA, ATP and most tennis organizations, you should not change the 40-15 score to 45-15. The same thing applies for the “Chinese Taipei” name. Even if you think it is not correct, as long as it is widely used by ITF, WTA, ATP and most tennis organizations, then in an article related to tennis, you have to use this terminology in order to be consistent with the “reliable” principle. Please stop changing 40-15 to 45-15 or do the similar things.PE fans (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that when choosing each score as 15 points, the common name for 3-1 is 45-15. However, in the tennis, the common name of 3-1 is 40-15. Therefore, the common name varies in different situations. I don’t agree with your proposal to change the Chinese Taipei national football team, Chinese Taipei Basketball Association or Chinese Taipei Fed Cup team because even if you think Chinese Taipei is not correct, it is the common name widely used by IOC, FIFA, FIBA, ITF and other sports organizations.PE fans (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * In WP:COMMONNAME, it says that in determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". In the case of Chinese Taipei Fed Cup team, first of all, the major international organizations like ITF prefer the name "Chinese Taipei Fed Cup team". Secondly, when I search "Chinese Taipei Fed Cup team" with English results only and exclude the word "Wikipedia" on google, there are 3,170,000 results. When I search "Taiwan Fed Cup team", there are only 815,000 results. Similarly, there are 2,180,000 results when searching "Chinese Taipei in FIFA world cup qualification", while there are only 398,000 results when searching "Taiwan in FIFA world cup qualification".PE fans (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You did not put quotes around the string you were searching for when you searched Google. Therefore Google was free o search for some some subset of the words - including Chinese which would allow a lot more matches. If you want to search for specific strings put quote marks round them when you put them in Google. When I put in ' "Taipei" "FIFA world cup qualification" ' Google says 34,700 results and ' "Chinese Taipei" "FIFA world cup qualification" ' gives 29,600 results which is about as close to equal as one will get with Google as it is only giving a very approximate estimation of what it would return and what would be in them. Dmcq (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Remark that I've changed the "country (sports)" of Hsieh Shu-ying and other tennis player into the ITF official name "Chinese Taipei". In general, the "country (sports)" simply means the national team represented by the tennis player in Davis Cup, Fed Cup and Olympics Games. For example, the "country (sports)" of Monica Puig is Puerto Rico rather than USA simply because she represents the Puerto Rico in the Olympic Games. It has nothing to do with whether Puerto Rico is a sovereign country or not. Similarly, we say the "country (sports)" of Gareth Bale to be Welsh simply because he represents the Welsh national football team, while the "country (sports)" of Andy Murray is Great Britain because he represents the Great Britain Davis Cup team. It has nothing to do with whether Welsh or Scotland is a sovereign country or not.PE fans (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sigh... sometimes I think we should just use “Formosa”... that would at least neutrally piss both sides off. Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Heck, recognize it as the capital of Israel (and Palestine, to be neutral) and really throw both sides for a loop. Call East Talpiot (discussed below) a province of China and call it a day. ;-) :-J -sche (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we state that the Torah was compiled from the writings of Moses?
At Timeline of religion and editor has added "The first five books of the Jewish Tanakh, the Torah (Hebrew: תורה‬), are compiled from the writings of Moses." I've tried to explain to User:Jh1276 (when he posted to my talk page that we can't, a response that he deleted, now restored) but he doesn't seem to get it. The talk page is dormant so bringing it here. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The current state of the document is admittedly better than before. Thanks for the improvements, Doug, and for trying to uphold the guidelines of Wikipedia. My additions and changes to Timeline of religion were made in response to what seemed to be an imbalanced viewpoint. One that, unlike the rest of the document, seemed to belittle the religiously esteemed, and scholastically-credited account of the 'traditional' Moses. Words like 'lawgiver' were used instead of prophet (though prophet was used in reference to the found of Manichaean Gnosticism), with the the subtly-injected statement (which was re-added by you after revision), 'according to legend', when referencing the giving of the Ten Commandments from Moses. Whereas other sections of the document make statements concerning religious teachers in a positive and neutral light, I found that those concerning the most internationally-renowned prophet Moses to be lacking. Rather than giving a detailed explanation for why the 'traditions' of the 'legend' Moses are simply that, the sentence was confined previously to short line that read more like the description for a Netflix Scifi / Fantasy movie than an actual academic document, discrediting without evidence the thousands of years of doctrine and archaeological evidence that supports the historic timeline of the life of Moses.

I hope all of this makes sense, and that you understand my point of view. As originally stated when my addition was first removed, Wikipedia is a place of diverse viewpoint and opinion.

Thank you again for taking the time to review my changes.

- @Jh1276 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jh1276 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would dispute the timeline there too, some of the Torah is 10th century. My 2cents - either you say "according to tradition god given at mt. Sinai" and/or you go with actual bible scholars whose consensus seems to be that the Torah (and Joshua writtren along side it) was written by several individuals/sources over the course of a few hundred years and finalized in the 6th century BCE. "Compiled from the teachings of Moses" does not jive with either the religious or the scientific view. There are quite a few doubts over the histioricity of Moses (and the out of Egypt narrative, as opposed to organic development in the Canaan highland).Icewhiz (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement in the timeline is when it was "compiled", not "bits written". The mainstream view is that it was ~probably~ compiled during the babylonian captivity, which - happily - britannica (the source cited there) gets right. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not to sure about this line either: "The biblical Israelite and Islamic prophet[17][18][19] Moses gives the Ten Commandments.[20]". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Most biblical scholars believe the Torah was promulgated around the mid to late 5th century. This doesn't deny that it grew from/was based on earlier traditions - Deuteronomy in particular had reached something close to its final form by the late 7th century, and there's an interesting theory that King Jeroboam(the one who followed Solomon in the late 10th century) was the first to draw the exodus tradition into a national foundation myth (but it's generally considered unlikely, given that a king would surely want to stress the role of kingship, which the exodus story does not do in any way). Anyway, I'd remove that line.PiCo (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And it stills states as fact "The biblical Israelite and Islamic prophet[17][18][19] Moses gives the Ten Commandments." Doug Weller  talk 09:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That line should be deleted. PiCo (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Something like "Babylonian captivity and likely composition of..." might fit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Golden Harvest (book)
Article Golden Harvest (book), disputed content diff Mędykowski, diff Loose, diff Browning, diff Waxman. Uninvolved editor input on the following issues welcome:

1. Is it neutral to state Waxman notes that Gross has at times been accused of anti-Polish bias, and according to Waxman he at times displays a lack of sympathy to the dilemmas ordinary Poles faced, however this lack of sympathy can be readily explained by material covered as it is difficult to sympathize with those who capitalized on, and even rejoiced in, their neighbors' murder. (struck portion removed) - when the source says: Gross has of course been accused of anti-Polish bias, and it is true that he does at times show a distinct lack of sympathy for the dilemmas faced by ordinary Poles under the German occupation. This has led some to question whether the stark binary between Pole and Jew is helpful, pointing to the fact that many Jews, for example, were keen to identify as Poles. Nonetheless, in practice, as Gross shows, as much the Jews wanted to be Poles, in extremis they were always Jews. When it came to it the binary distinction was real— murderously so. Moreover, any lack of sympathy is surely explained by the material with which he is confronted. It is hard to be sympathetic to those who capitalize on, and even rejoice in, the murder of their neighbors. (bolded portion related to struck out portion - quoted is the entire paragraph).

2. Is it neutral to say Browning also notes in regard to the photograph which motivated the book that it is unknown who took it, when and why? Text in source: On the one hand, the visual evidence of a photograph—such as the image of the “harvest” scene of postwar “diggers” or “gleaners” and militiamen or soldiers on the site of the Treblinka death camp that is a centerpiece of the essay—captures only a single moment in time, and key information about such photos (who took them, when and why were they taken, who is in them, etc.) is seldom known. On the other hand, written evidence...

3. Is it neutral to say Medykowski also refers to the photograph which was supposed to have inspired Gross, saying that actually it was taken by an "unknown photographer at an unknown time in an unknown place and depicts unknown figures" as opposed to Referring to the photograph that was the departure point for the book, Medykowski notes it was taken by an "unknown photographer at an unknown time in an unknown place and depicts unknown figures", however according to the Treblinka museum it is representative of the "Kopaczen" (gravediggers) who combed the area. According to Medykowski the "treasure hunt" in Treblinka is only the starting point for a wider discussion of robbery, looting, and appropriation of Jewish property.. the source discusses Treblinka museum's in the next setnence: Sein Ausgangspunkt ist eine Aufnahme eines unbekannten Photographen, die zu einem unbekannten Zeitpunkt an einem unbekannten Ort erstellt wurde und unbekannte Gestalten abbildet. Nach der Information des Museums in Treblinka stellt das nach dem Krieg aufgenommene Bild die sogenannten "Kopaczen" [Gräber, Sucher] dar, die das Gebiet durchkämmten, auf dem sich bis 1943 das Vernichtungslager Treblinka befand. . Following discussion of the photo, the source in a new paragraph says it is but a departure point for a wider discussion.

4. Is it neutral to omit Medykowski's conclusion According to Medykowski Polish society is not well informed of the past, but rather is informed on myths of the past. Medykowski sees the reviewed works as appropriate "shock therapy", destroying myths about Polish rescue of Jews. while retaining only the points he was critical of? diff. The conclusion is in this final paragraph: Es scheint, als sei in diesem Falle eine Schocktherapie angebracht, die die Mythen über die Rettung der Juden durch die Polen zerstört. Auch wenn das Bild der Okkupation, das in den einzelnen Arbeiten dargeboten wird, fragmentarisch sein mag, so zeigt es doch die dunklen Seiten der polnischen Gesellschaft in den "Randgebieten der Shoah". In den kommenden Jahren werden weitere Arbeiten erscheinen und die Diskussion über die Einstellungen der besetzten Gesellschaft gegenüber den Juden befruchten. Eines ist sicher: Diese Arbeiten ändern die bisherige Sichtweise des Holocaust als alleiniges Projekt und Werk der Nazis. Hingegen wird der Beitrag der Bevölkerungen in den okkupierten Ländern größer eingeschätzt. Sie haben in hohem Maße an der Vernichtung mitgewirkt, was auch Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber den verfolgten Juden einschließt sowie deren Existenzvernichtung durch Raub, Erpressung oder Denunziation. Deswegen setzen sich Judenjagd und Złote żniwa mit der Beteiligung der Landbevölkerung auseinander, die von den Verbrechen profitierte und sich so moralisch in die Vernichtungspläne hineinziehen ließ.. .

5. Is it neutral to include Loose's criticism of the photograph, while omitting his criticism of the critics and his description of the photo? Loose notes the starting point of the essay, a photograph of Polish farmers with bones and skulls piled in front of them, was taken near Treblinka where there was a "gold rush" atmosphere at the end of the war with locals looking for valuables in the pits that the Germans overlooked. Loose notes that there has been a public debate regarding the photograph and that Gross has been accused of misinterpreting the image, pretending to known exactly what is depicted. However, according to Loose critics of Gross make the same mistake as Gross by purporting by know exactly what the picture does not show. as opposed to Loose also notes that there is no reason to think Gross and his wife are correct in their interpretation of the photograph?"

6. Is it neutral to translate anders formuliert - sind die Schlussfolgerungen an verschiedenen Stellen wohl zu forsch to its jump to rash conclusions as opposed to sees some of the conclusions in the book as probably too rash.

7. Is it neutral to omit Christopher Browning's views on the current state of research on the subject and comments on the reception of the book in Poland? diff

8. It is neutral to omit Zoe Waxman's summary of the key point of the book? Gross sees the Polish obsession for Jewish property as a crucial point for understanding the persistent and brutal Polish antisemitism. While Gross stresses the German overall responsibility for the Holocaust, many people enjoyed the spoils of Jewish property, and this was particularly true of villagers near the death camps in Poland.. source: For Gross, the Polish obsession with Jewish property is the key to understanding the brutality and persistence of Polish antisemitism. The Poles, he argues, wanted whatever the Jews had, from their homes to the gold in their teeth. .... Although Gross is careful to reiterate that it was the Germans who perpetrated the Holocaust and were ultimately responsible for the persecution and destruction of European Jewry, there were many—not only the Poles— who enjoyed the spoils of that destruction.... Gross writes of the villagers living near the death camps in Poland: “Plundering Jewish property was an important element of the circulation of goods, an element of economic life, and thus a social fact, not an incidental behavior of demoralized individuals.” Even as the Jews were on their way to the death camps local villagers traded cups of water for their few remaining coins.

A bit TLDR - but much of it is the sources/text in question. Thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but I think User:Volunteer Marek's edits are mostly pretty reasonable and broadly improve the article's NPOV status. Deb (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And once again, User:Icewhiz magically forgets to ping me when he's doing his WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Notification posted on article TP, where discussion stalled, diff, and posted to a single board.Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

East Talpiot
A dispute has arisen at East Talpiot over how to describe it in the lead. Those in favor of is an Israeli neighborhood have said that it is factually a neighborhood and that it meets the definition of the word and that it is administered as part of the Jerusalem municipality. Those arguing against that formulation have said that while the place may well be a neighborhood it is however not in Israel, and that as it is near universally recognized as being in the occupied Palestinian territory of East Jerusalem it is inappropriate to label it as an Israeli neighborhood but rather an Israeli settlement. Academic sources have been provided for both it being in East Jerusalem and it being an Israeli settlement. The source used to justify the formulation of "Israeli neighborhood" is a Jerusalem municipal government page. Is it a NPOV violation to describe this place as an "Israeli neighborhood"? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are sources either which here in terms of labels. Please note that this particular location is special in that prior to 1967 it was neither in East or West Jerusalem - it is built upon a demilitarized zone in between the lines - and the UN controlled it. This is easily verifiable, e.g. if you goolge East Talpiot you will on google maps that this area is between two dashed lines (repreesenting the Israeli and Jordanian city lines - which in this case diverged leaving a large neutral DMZ).Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, my question here is whether or not it is a NPOV violation to claim a place not in Israel to be an Israeli neighborhood. And the sources are pretty clear on whether or not this place is, present tense, in East Jerusalem. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As many contested places it is not difficult to find sources with claims for either sides. This particular place is a special exception - it is not a normal East or West Jerusalem location, but rather it is located in a pre-1967 buffer zone or no man's land. It is not correct, in this case, to copy paste over content from East Jerusalem places - as this location is (or was) neighther east nor west.Icewhiz (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I dont see why you are muddying the issue I brought here. Well I can guess, but no matter. You want to argue something else feel free elsewhere. But here I am asking is it a NPOV violation to say that a place that is not in Israel is an Israeli neighborhood. Is there anything relevant to that question you would like to add? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA please. Whether green-line no man land/buffer zone (in the approx. 2 points where this is an issue - surrounding Latrun and this point) are in Israel or out of Israel is a complex and not straightforward question - which is quite separate from areas that are beyond the line. This particular instance is quite distinct and unique. I raised this here - as your presentation above was grossly POV, and misrepresented this very particular situation - as in this particular instance this is a strip of land neither in West Jerusalem nor East Jerusalem - and it is not NPOV to state it is in East Jerusalem as you did above.Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The following two maps - from OHCA and peace now - not pro-Israeli organizations - mark East Talpiot's very unique situation - as you can see on the map,  East Talpiot is located (mostly - there is some very new spillover to the east, and some spill over to the west) - on the diagonally shaded area  - marking the no man's land - with the green line "having a width" - or more accurately at this point there are two green lines (or city lines) - on Israeli, one Arab)).Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, nobody is saying anything that disputes any part of that. However, what is internationally recognized as Israeli territory does not include that area. That is a fact. Nobody is saying that the area of East Talpiot is in the territory that Jordan occupied prior to 1967. That has absolutely nothing to do with my question here. The issue that I am seeking outside input on, and what you have studiously avoided commenting on, is whether or not a place that is recognized as being outside of Israel can be called, in Wikipedia's narrative voice, an Israeli neighborhood. And why it should not be called an Israeli settlement when that is a common language in such sources as the BBC. Or even avoiding the issue and just removing the adjective "Israeli" from neighborhood. That is what I came here seeking comment on, not whether or not East Talpiot is in what was formerly no-man's land, an argument, once again, nobody is arguing except for you. And I dont really see a personal attack there, sorry. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether a no-man's land is inside or outside Israel (or the West Bank, or any other entity) - is not straightforward - saying this is "recognized as being outside of Israel" is not a simple assertion. As for labels in sources - just about all variations exists for this spot. Had you we been discussing a neighborhood such as Gilo - such an assertion (in regards to most in the IC) would be straightforward - in this particular case - not.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is really very simple. Is a city's website a reliable source for the fact that a certain neighborhood is indeed a neighborhood of that city? The answer just a factual one. Please also notice that the majority opinion on the talkpage is not in the poster's favor, and he is forumshopping here to push through his POV. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting to a content noticeboard is not "forum-shopping", it is part of DR. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't argue about that. I only notice that you and some other editors I know come here every time you are about to loose the argument. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a content noticeboard, kindly leave your personal remarks in untyped. Thank you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Under most circumstances yes. A primary source is usually reliable enough for non controversial information about itself. A city neighbourhood for example. Exceptions would include where that claim is controversial due to it being inaccurate, self serving etc etc. There is no situation where the Israeli party line is reliable for claims about land ownership. Especially when it comes to population areas they have illegally settled in the occupied territories. Anything sourced to a primary source in this area must be stated as opinion and the opposing view given to satisfy NPOV. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Rape cases involving immigrants
I have a current disagreement with User:Greywin about two articles: Siegaue rape case, which Greywin has recently created by translating an article from German wikipedia into poor English, and Rape in Germany, to which Greywin has recently added three specific cases concerning rapes carried out by immigrants. I am not for one moment accusing Greywin of racism. However, I do believe that, by his actions in relation to these articles, he is putting an inappropriate emphasis on crimes committed by minorities whilst ignoring hundreds of thousands of crimes committed by German nationals. I would like to hear other editors' comments on this. Deb (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , they seem to have removed the contents from Rape in Germany, so this seems fine now. However, I do agree that there is an undue focus with regards to (alleged) crimes by minorities. This may be due to a politically charged environment which results in (IMO) excessive media coverage about such cases in relation to other crime. This results in a predicament, though, with WP policy. If such cases are reported in reliable media, with sufficient depth and persistence of coverage, they are inherently notable for inclusion. If other cases lack reporting, they are likely to fail notability. In this respect, WP would be a mirror of current public perception - rightly or wrongly. As far as the top level article is concerned, I agree with you that the best approach here is to focus on an unbiased view, e.g. using longer term national statistics without turning it into a "list of..." article which will have deficiencies. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional examples - I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the actions of a few contributors and how the community should react. See the current discussion about the proposed deletion of Category:Crimes related to the European migrant crisis. How far does NPOV go? Isn't the very existence of this category a synthesis of the known facts? Deb (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The cited cases are well supported by WP:RS and have received worldwide coverage. Look at the sources: not only German sources but also foreign sources.  If any of the text by itself if NPOV, well, then, that's what editing is for!  Clean it up.   If either article cannot stand on its own, I suggest it be taken to AfD.  Otherwise, this whole NPOV claim looks quite similar to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. XavierItzm (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're kind of missing the point. I'm not talking about whether they have sources, I'm talking about how they are being used to support a non-neutral point of view. Deb (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We reflect the sources - nothing less, nothing more. If coverage in sources is perceived to be non-neutral, that's an issue to be taken up with a letter to the editor of the New York Times (or Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as the case may be).Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, and NPOV includes WP:WEIGHT. That something is covered by reliable sources doesn't mean it's automatically included if it would not have such prominence if the whole body of literature on a subject were considered. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel like I have to draw attention to this latest edit, which I'm afraid shows up a bias on the part of this contributor which is going to make it very difficult for others to accept that he understands the NPOV policy which is one of the pillars of this encyclopedia and a core content policy. Deb (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

WEIGHT of rape by immigrants in Rape in Germany article
Going to renew this concern raised above, now falling into the shadows of this page. Rape in Germany (and, likely, related pages) needs additional eyes, preferably by people with more knowledge of this subject.

As of right now, fully 25% of the bytes in the Rape in Germany article are dedicated to a "rape by immigrants" narrative, edit warred to remain included (no 3RR breaches, to be clear). Deb seems to have acceded inclusion (while adding needed caveats/contexts), so I will not continue to remove it, and would frankly rather disengage, although I remain concerned that it is seriously WP:UNDUE.

If it were a list of notable sexual assaults in Germany, or if this were a very expansive article, including something about this wouldn't be an issue, but when most of the article isn't about specific examples but about the broader subject, adding this seems to give the impression that "rape by immigrants" is a disproportionately significant part of this huge subject (a narrative we've seen efforts to overemphasize in many other parts of the world, too). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And that is indeed the view held by User:Greywin, as he has now made clear in recent comments. Unfortunately he seems unable to separate his personal political views from his editing. Deb (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * On checking the article, I am concerned that we now go too far in the other direction... by not mentioning the issue at all. Yes, we don’t want to give the issue UNDUE weight... however we do want to give it DUE weight (and not mentioning it at all is not DUE).  Find a balance. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't so much too much "rapey foreigner" content as too little anything else. Most under-developed articles have WP:DUE issues because some aspects develop at a faster rate than others. It's just the nature of Wikipedia. If the article were developed to GA status or even B-class status then this would not constitute undue weight. Time and energy would be much better spent developing the article in other respects and the balance would correct itself IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with this, in general, but it is the case that too little of anything else can make something that would be appropriate if it were a GA into something that is UNDUE at that stage. For extreme examples, maybe an article on crime in the US that only covered black-on-white violence, an article about racism in the United States that only covered Trump, an article about Christmas that had equal coverage of its history and the "War on Christmas", an article about Islam in which extremism were a quarter of the article, or, more banal, an article about software that just lists the awards it's won... there are lots of ways the development of one part of the article could make for a whole that violates NPOV, even if that development is well sourced (sorry -- I know my examples are US-centric). Anyway, that's the point I'm making in this case (even putting aside the specific edits that make that content particularly POV-pushy). UNDUE is about proportionality in the current article, not in some hypothetical future version. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The lead sentence (which should define the article) is: "Rape in Germany is defined by Section 177 of the Criminal Code of Germany." That sounds like an article on laws on rape in Germany, which seems to me like a more manageable subject. You could still have the info on prevalence, but cut the final para, which is drifting off-topic. (Could be worth keeping the note about groping becoming a sexual offence in 2016, as it might go some way to explaining the apparent increase in cases shown in the accompanying graph). And cut the para/section about WWII (there's an article on that and you could simply put the link in the See Also section).PiCo (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Slatersteven and User:GreenMeansGo have both now made substantial edits to the page resulting in considerable improvements to the balance. I'm really grateful to both of them for taking the trouble to get involved in this thankless task. As it stands, the article is far from perfect but it's certainly a lot better than it was a week ago. Deb (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Goes to show Betty Logan's contribution is right on the money and the correct approach of these sort of issues. Hers is a constructive approach: further develop the article!.   The opposite approach, consisting of deleting well-sourced material because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, is destructive, and should not be tolerated. XavierItzm (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Fountain (Duchamp)
Reliable but recent (since roughly 2014) sources have put forward the theory that Fountain (Duchamp) was the creation of another artist than Duchamp. This has been the subject of a recent burst of media activity, e.g. in BoingBoing and The Independent. Some of the editors on the talk page at that article insist that (although it is described in the body of the article) this theory must be kept out of the lead until it becomes the consensus of the art world as a whole. Additional opinions welcome. Please contribute at Talk:Fountain (Duchamp), not here. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Foreign relations of France
Significant content, including sourced content, has been continuously removed from the Foreign relations of France article by. These content removals may represent a potential lack of neutral point of view regarding the topic, whereby content may be being removed en masse to suppress it from Wikipedia's readers. North America1000 03:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Information was added to enhance the content of the France's diplomatic relations. Content that was removed is mentioned in the various individual articles regarding France's bilateral relations. Aquintero82, (talk), 21:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Charlie Engle (marathoner)
This article is advertorial to the point of parody. User:FactsMatter doesn't seem to agree. May benefit from outside input. May also benefit from FactsMatter disclosing whether they have an outside conflict of interest with the subject. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  19:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Legacy section in Nortel article
I have started a discussion on the "Legacy" section" in the Nortel article, regarding the appropriateness of referring to a specific company. I notified WikiProject Companies and WikiProject Telecommunications but so far no one has contributed to the discussion. Input in the thread on the Nortel discussion page is welcome. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional contributors to assist in forming a consensus are welcome. isaacl (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not NPOV, it's a COI I believe. 68.238.148.138 looks like an E-MetroTel corporate IP address to me. Shritwod (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of potential conflict of interest issues; however, I prefer to focus on the basic question on whether or not the content is appropriate for the article, which is a due weight/neutral point of view question. isaacl (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Reproductions of studies or other such publications
A discussion has been started about the handling of Wikipedia articles that are closely aligned reproductions of studies or papers in the public domain. As this topic seems to cross OR and NPOV, this has been published on the OR noticeboard, however I would appreciate the input of editors who normally patrol the NPOV noticeboard. The discussion has started at No original research/Noticeboard. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Edward S. Herman
This article contains multiple out of context quotes and links to anti-Herman editorials and opinions without context or relevance.

Note:the unsigned comment above was added by Prop9, a new user who has been edit warring at Edward S. Herman to remove cited material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The page is still having an edit war: c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_S._Herman&type=revision&diff=850243388&oldid=850086925. I will be happy to clarify the issues discussed in the talk page and potential WP:COI if that would be helpful. Prop9 (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It even uses an undergraduate thesis as a source of criticism. Instead of collecting out of context material from Herman's writings, you should use academic sources that analyze it. TFD (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Imran Awan
Really need some help on this one. Just look at the page and you will see what I am having to deal with. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

...And now the same POV-pushing editor is edit warring and ignoring consensus at Franchesca Ramsey. Sigh. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow in conservative politician BLP ELs
I wonder if a Rachel Maddow video segment is ever an appropriate EL? Especially of a controversial, conservative state official. But especially in this case where my removal was reverted. The rationale was that it balances the official campaign site. But I have difficulty with this logic. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed it as a BLP issue. It is very inappropriate to use an opinion piece like that as an external link on a biography. It fails WP:EL anyway, as the website is barely indirectly linked to the subject, and the argument the campaign site is giving biased coverage is a non-starter, as WP:EL specifically calls out government bios & campaign pages as an example of where multiple official EL's are allowed. So thats a non-starter. The place for Maddow would be in the prose as a reference, if it passed the requirements of WP:BLP and WP:RS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There may well be BLP reasons to remove that link... but you did not cite that policy when you boldly removed it. You cited WP:ELPOV, which would not seem to apply; that calls for not skewing the external links toward one opinion, and with the Maddow piece there was a total of one anti-subject opinion link, and certainly the campaign website is pro-subject (and this is not a subject for which opposition is so rare that to reflect it is undue.) That's the reason you got reverted, because your stated reason for deletion was found lacking. Let me suggest that you review WP:ELPOV before you invoke it again. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. The campaign site is plainly relevant to the topic of the article. An attack piece is just that. This would be like linking /r/applesucks just because apple.com is linked in its article. Please keep agenda-pushing off Wikipedia, especially BLP articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am serious. You appear to be attacking me for actually having read WP:ELPOV and knowing what it says. That's not helpful. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Restoring content that doesn't belong because someone cited the wrong policy seems disruptive. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure having political pundit videos as ELs makes sense. If there's not enough to incorporate as a source, I'm not sure that they belong. I can't think of any other controversial Republican or Democrat that has a video like that as an EL. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Millennials
Hi, I need help resolving a dispute involving me and two other editors. There has been some new research regarding millennials and my first proposal was to change the lead to reflect that. I opened up an RfC in order to resolve an ongoing dispute regarding many of the sources listed, as well as possibly changing the date ranges and/or amending them slightly. The discussion can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials#Editing_Lead_on_%22Millennials.%22

as well as RfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials#RfC_about_the_editing_the_lead_on_the_Millennials_article

Additional input is important in order to establish WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. I also want to be make clear that this should be an intelligent discussion. Avoid personal attacks or getting defensive. I am a reasonable person, and would be open to accepting new opinions, but with a decent rebuttal including evidence. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)