Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Use of Breitbart.com to defend America: Imagine the World Without Her

The purpose of noticeboards is to bring issues to the attention of univolved editors. This has already served its purpose as those editors are now commenting on and participating on the article's talk page. No uninvolved editor has commented on this discussion here in some time. It has degenerated to the point where only two people have been arguing back and forth between themselves for a week, so it is time for them to take it to the article talk page or their personal talk pages. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stuck  – In the past week the last 24 25 ±30 ±35 posts have been between two editors, with one side comment. All others, it seems, cannot find a breach in the WP:Wall of text with an insight which might resolve this. I suggest shutting this down and let the parties cool off before they then try another dispute resolution forum. – S. Rich (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 18:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)23:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC) 17:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Actually the discussion has been "cool" enough in the last few rounds of exchange, and has made progress on various fronts, including scooby finally acknowledging that Ben Shapiro is a "notable" person. I doubt the discussion will continue too much longer. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC) The movie, America: Imagine the World Without Her received over wheeling negative reviews by film critics. However, the article has a long quote from Breitbart.com that defends the movie. I think the source is a fringe source and the long quote is WP:UNDUE. Other editors disagree. I would ask for some input into this issue. Thanks in advance. The talk page discussion can be found here. Casprings (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC) The quote is similar in length to the negative one that precedes it, and total reception to the movie has been overwhelmingly positive, as the extremely rare A+ CinemaScore audience polling shows, along with the strong box office receipts. The negative reviews from about a little over a dozen critics are given first billing in the section, but it would be misleading and a blatant violation of NPOV for us to only give them billing. The op has failed to build an argument explaining why Breitbart is allegedly "fringe". He's conceded it's a RS for its own opinions, which is what the section is about, and the author in question, conservative Ben Shapiro, is notable enough to have his own Wiki page, unlike the negative reviewer quoted previously, Peter Sobczynski (a self described "left-wing liberal"). Since this is an explicitly political film and the reception has largely broke along party lines, it would be disingenuous for us not to include a statement from each side, particularly when the statement is commenting on the obvious political aspects involved. As I linked to on the Talk Page, Breitbart routinely does film reviews and is ranked #41 globally in news sites by Alexa. VictorD7 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC) The issue is one of WEIGHT. Breitbart.com is RS and describing the critic/non-critic as fringe does not help. After all, Rotten Tomatoes aggretates reviews, some of which may be "fringe" themselves. Whatever is put into the section should be in SUMMARYSTYLE and balanced. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC) I would certainly disagree that bretbart.com is RS for anything but its own opinion. However, I do agree that the section should be neutral in wording and look forward to more input into the issue. Thanks for providing your input.Casprings (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC) That section feels to me like FOX's version of "Fair and Balanced", where instead of just telling the truth, they have two sides argue until the space is filled, then conclude with some sort "We'll just have to agree to disagree" non-answer. If this film was good, according to a majority, the film had a positive reception. If the majority say it sucked, it had a negative reception. Whichever is true deserves the weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC) This isn't all that relevant, but a strange thing to read. Sort of relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC) The large audiences who gave the film an historically rare A+ rating vastly outnumber the "22" Rotten Tomatoes critics who mostly (but not uniformly) panned it, so by that logic we should give the weight to the former. The section is titled "Reception", not "Rotten Tomatoes reception" or even "Reception by film critics". This is clearly not a normal movie situation. The film is explicitly political so the reaction has been predictable. Most movie critics are liberal and have spent their reviews attacking the film's politics, while conservatives have generally praised it. Censoring one side down the memory hole and pretending people like Sobczynski are somehow the only ones whose opinions matter would be like MSNBC's version of "truth". VictorD7 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC) A poll will always reflect the population that you poll. It is highly likely that moviegoers that showed up for the opening weekend for "America", were motivated by political views. On the other hand, the movie critics role is to objectively evaluate a film.Casprings (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC) You've got to be kidding. Did you read Sobczynski's "review"? It was rabidly partisan and overtly political, as his reviews frequently are. Check out his glowing review of Al Gore's flick I linked to above where he talks about his own political bias. The negative reviews are from upset liberals attacking D'Souza's politics. VictorD7 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC) His glowing review of Gore's flick was probably more because that was a better film. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Or because he's a leftist hack, like many "critics" are. Either way, it's best to err on allowing the inclusion of both sides in articles covering politically charged films. It would be preposterous to purge all quotes from non liberals discussing an explicitly conservative political movie. VictorD7 (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Maybe. But erring at all is bad, especially to perpetuate the Red vs Blue war. The movie's about US politics, but that doesn't mean the critical reception section should be. We don't expect detectives to review detective movies, quirky couples to review date movies or child killers to review Elm Street movies. Not their role. The last guy even says he wouldn't normally dignify a review with a response, so why should we? (My bad, that was Reuters, sort of.) Molen's quote is just trying to appeal to emotion with political bullshit techniques, hoping to drum up fake controversy attendance. Wikipedia shouldn't stoop to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC) We're discussing Shapiro, not Molen. Molen produced the film (along with others, like Schindler's List). Shapiro actually reviews films from time to time. Either way, there's absolutely nothing in policy that says we should only quote professional movie critics in movie articles, and such articles are peppered with quotes from pundits and others, especially when they're political films. Also, it's not your role to decide whether or not the "Red vs Blue war" should be perpetuated or not. It's certainly not your role to declare the war over and insist that only Blue voices are allowed on Wikipedia. VictorD7 (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC) I'd thought we were discussing the undue weight in the reception section. Molen contributed to that. And again, I don't believe in Red or Blue people. That kind of shit is why we have a problem here in the first place. I believe movie critics should critique movies, and if I'm insisting anything, it's that they are who we should hear from there, whoever they typically vote for. Might not be policy, but it makes sense to me. Maybe starting a "Political Reaction" section is a good idea. Readers interested in that would know where to find it, and those who aren't wouldn't have to. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC) This thread was about Shapiro's quote, not Molen's. Saying you don't believe in red or blue people is awfully convenient when you're simultaneously claiming we should only be hearing from people who happen to almost all be blue. It also ignores the fact that a liberal/conservative divide really exists, as the starkly different reactions to the film underscore. VictorD7 (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC) It had an overwhelling bad reception among critics. That can be seen at rotten tomatoes. Its cinema score was high, but that is likely due to movie goers who saw the movie were ideologically likely to support the message of the movie. In my opinion, that should have little weight.Casprings (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Yes, that's very clearly not positive. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Oh, don't get me wrong about Shapiro as "RS". As with all of the critics, we get opinion, not factual material. Which critic does one favor? Too often it is the critic that agrees with our own POV. So saying this critic or that critic is fringe is sometimes saying "I like my critic more than your critic". Now some critics, like Ebert and Maltin, have more impact than others. That is a CONTEXTMATTERS type of consideration. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC) I agree with that logic. If you are going to quote someone it should be because the review is somehow notable or it helps highlight the overall consensus. Here, the consensus is the film was bad and we have a long quote that basically says it wasn't. That makes it appear there was some critical debate about the quality of the film. Moreover, the source of the review is ideologically aligned with defending the film. Casprings (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC) You're repeating a falsehood. You can't just dismiss the fact that audiences gave the film an historically rare A+ CinemaScore rating. Clearly there is not a consensus that the film is bad. You also can't dismiss the audiences as ideologically motivated and ignore the fact that the critics negatively reviewing the movie are overtly liberals. VictorD7 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Audiences often simply see things which are hyped, regardless of politics. Look at the sequels Scary Movie had. They were all popular attractions, and all terrible films. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC) And yet only 52 movies received an A+ rating from 1982 to 2011, putting this movie in exclusive company with numerous Academy Best Picture Winners. Movies good enough to earn such a rare audience rating are also generally liked by critics. Clearly the difference this time is political bias, overt in the negative reviews and arguably present among viewers (though I haven't heard about other political docs scoring an A+). Obviously the fair thing to do with this kind of split where critics per se are compromised is for Wikipedia to avoid taking sides and neutrally present both sides. VictorD7 (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC) That article says the scores "serve as a fairly reliable indicator of whether a film will fly or fizzle." That means sell well or not. Has nothing to do with its quality as art. Like the headline says, it matters for box office, not critical reception. And it doesn't jusify quoting some guy ranting about "the left" like they're an actual group. Have any of these voters written down why they liked it? That could be worth something. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC) And an "A+" isn't all that impressive when "a majority of films receive a grade in the A- to B- range." That's just a little better than normal. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Considering most of the negatives are simply those that don't appear to like his politics, that argument is doesn't really hold up. If it is really that bad, then why are there not a lot of viewers writing bad reviews to bring the score down? It is no secret that conservative films are reviewed harshly by critics, while liberal films given gushing praise. An Inconvient Truth is a great example of a film loaded with false statements and yet was given gushing praise. The viewer response was less positive than America. In anycase, it is not undue weight to present the Brietbart response. I am not even sure why this is a fight. Liberals will not go see it anyway, and conservatives will. This is quite clear given the critics responses and the actual viewers. Also, from a statistical point of view, an "A+" is a LOT better. Those scores don't fall on a Uniform Distribution. Arzel (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Politics doesn't seem as big an issue as the poor filmmaking. Ebert.com's review is clear about that. Movies can present an unpopular viewpoint and still present it well. This one seems to fail at that. I don't see anything to suggest the CinemaScore is based on reviews, rather a survey, so that would explain why people aren't trying to bring it down that way. That's a marketing thing, reviews are art things. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC) The A+ does not use a random sample and there is every reason to think it is a highly biased sample. Plus most movies get an A and the rating itself is not that well know. Casprings (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Actually, Cinescore, which does the polling, appears to do random survey's of movie goers. Of people that saw that movie, most thought it was great. When taken together with all movies, you get a distribution of scores. That distribution follows what one would expect. Most movies in the middle with a few on the extremes. That it recieved a high score relative to all the others is notable. You can not like it, but you can't use your own opinion to disregard it, unless you disregard all of the viewer responses and critics, which are also highly biased and not a random sample. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Would it be considered 'original research' for me to say that my wife and I saw "America, imagine the world without her!" and can (as armchair movie critics) that the music was great, the 'plot' was great (which plot is to show what you would expect if George Washington had 'taken the bullet' rather than 'dodged the bullet'); the camera work is great, the extras were great, real people were 'the actors'; the movie reviews should include these aspects. Instead, they miss the points of the movie. As to Breitbart, you may know there are several websites by the Breitbart team, and we consider them to be excellent, (we also consider FoxNews to be excellent.) It always amazes me that The New York Times is given greater credibility than a source that reports facts and truth. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC) That there is such a discrepancy between the media critics and the audience is itself notable imo and should be discussed in the article. Yes the A+ rating is likely from a sympathetic audience. That is going to be true of many movies targeted at a niche audience with a controversial viewpoint. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC) I'd like to note a couple of things. The specific reference to breitbart.com is regarding a quote from the producer. The "reception" section is suppose to inform readers about how the film was critically and publicly received and I don't see how Molen's criticism of a review is relevant to the purpose of a section. That quote and information seems more appropriately placed on a page about Molen. The next thing I'd like to note is the use of cinemascore. I don't have a problem with the use of cinemascore, but it should not be given equal weight to what critics say and should be identified and separated as viewer polling. The way the information is presented now, it appears the cinemascore is provided to contradict with the critic's score and that is an example of undue weight. That would be like using the opinions of civilians to contradict historians in an article about the civil war. I think the cinemascore information should be moved to its own paragraph and specifically identified as a survey of moviegoers and other viewer based reviews should also be referenced. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Actually the op was complaining about a quote from Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, a third party observer, that has since been deleted, though I sort of agree with you at least to the extent that including his quote on the political dynamic is more important than tacking on the producer's quote at the end. As for the rest, the section is titled "Reception", not "Reception by critics", and the CinemaScore results cover a lot more people than the dozen or so liberal critics who attacked the movie and are at least as noteworthy. There's absolutely nothing in policy that grants film critics such "expert" status as to make their opinions the only ones that matter, to the exclusion of all others, even when those opinions are compromised by something like political bias as they obviously are here. We aren't dealing with something like history where specialized knowledge matters, much less something involving hard science where expertise really comes into play. We're covering the subjective reception to a film, not the atomic weight of chromium. VictorD7 (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Should say something like "The movie was universally panned by critics, but gained support from some right-wing bloggers." Weight requires us to provide more space to what reviewers said than to what political partisans said. TFD (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC) "Universally panned" may be too much. Perhaps "Generally panned by film critics". "Right-wing bloggers" may be too much. Perhaps "conservative commentators" or "conservative political commentators". As the film is a political documentary, the politics of the critics and commentators can be mentioned so long as SYNTH is avoided. – S. Rich (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC) I think that is fair.Casprings (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC) In any event, the article should follow MOS:FILM#Critical response. – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC) From your link: "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited.......To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews.....Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used." And all that's from a section titled "Critical response", not just "Reception" which is the case in this article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Clearly if we're labeling we should be fair. If we're summarizing, then how about "The film received mostly negative reviews from liberal film critics but a strongly positive reception by audiences and conservative commentators?" VictorD7 (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC) How do we show that the film critics are liberal? Were there conservative film critics who did reviews? – S. Rich (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC) The same summarizing editorial judgement we use to label people like Shapiro "conservatives". Reading the negative reviews makes it clear they're liberals because they're mostly attacking D'Souza's conservative politics. I'd support letting the negative reviewer currently quoted, Peter Sobczynski, label himself: "my avowed left-wing liberal credentials". That fact that one reviewer has liberal views does not undermine the overall response from film critics. Nor does it indicate that his reviews are based on his political views.Casprings (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Surely you're joking. He's not just one reviewer, but the one whose quote we feature. His review spends most of its paragraphs directly attacking D'Souza's political views, and the review is typical. There's at least as much cause to honestly label such critics "liberal" as there is to use the "conservative" label suggested above for people like Shapiro. VictorD7 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Your perceptions of them as liberal and the inclusion of that perception in the article is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You are reading their material and making a judgement on it, then trying to include that judgement on the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC) No, it's not OR or my perception, it's his perception of himself. Excluding his self described political views while using him as the feature quote for a documentary produced by the opposing side is misleading and a violation of NPOV. VictorD7 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC) I would be happy with changing out his quote with another similarly notable reviewer. The point is to get a feel for the overall reception. If you feel that this particular reviewer is not suitable, I don't think it would be an issue to change out the quote.Casprings (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC) For example, what about this print review from the Washington Post. Print reviews are better, per MOS:FILM#Critical response.Casprings (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) I have no problem with keeping Sobczynski. Let's just be honest and neutral in how we construct this page. I've said all along that I'm fine with calling Shapiro "conservative" (which he is) if we similarly label someone like Sobczynski "liberal" (which he is, along with the negative reviewers generally). You seem to be trying to contort the article in such a way as to purge any mention of positive reception (or diminish it as much as possible) or hint that a political dynamic is potentially at play, leaving only "film critics" presenting what's supposedly an objective verdict on the film's quality without any political animus whatsoever, and without any acknowledgement of the millions of people and expert commentators who disagree. As the guideline quotes I posted above show, we aren't limited to only including commentary from professional film critics. VictorD7 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC) I am only trying to make the section meet WP:NPOV and MOS:FILM#Critical response . There is still no evidence that Sobczynski was writing as anything but a film reviewer. Moreover, I again have no problem with changing out the quote with another reviewer. However, what I don't think should be done is to give the impression to the reader that some reviewers like the film and some did not. The fact remains it was universally panned and only defended from highly right wing sources.Casprings (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC) I'll add that Jenkins is a liberal too, and his review largely attacked D'Souza's politics too (if less sophomorically than Sobczynski did). Shapiro is hardly the only commentator observing this dynamic. I'm trying to make the section meet NPOV standards. Evidence as to Sobczynski's political animus has been presented, but that question isn't relevant. What's relevant is that many people believe such critics are motivated by political bias, making that view (whether you agree with it or not) noteworthy for article mention. So far I'm the only one in this exchange to actually quote from MOS:FILM#Critical response. The page confirmed what I said about us not being required to only cover views from professional film critics. We're allowed to include audience reception (the guidelines specifically endorse CinemaScore) and the page says, "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited". I'll add that you're wrong to say it was "universally panned", as even some professional film critics praised it, and certainly vast audiences defended it via CinemScore polling, not just "highly right wing sources". The panning has come from highly liberal sources. VictorD7 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Your classification of "liberal" and "conservative" and attempt to try and discredit critic review scores based on your perceived notion of them being liberal is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Wrong. As I replied to you above, it's not OR if sources apply the labels, especially if the reviewer himself does, which is the case here. Only allowing liberal opinions about a conservative movie, while scrubbing any mention that they're liberals, is whitewashing and a blatant WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Wrong. I clearly see you and others making judgments and determinations on the contents of critics and labeling them as liberal and conservative. Furthermore, even if they are self identified liberals, the inclusion of that information to try and undermine the veracity of their review is a violation of WP:NPOV. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC) No, excluding it violates NPOV if you're only going to allow commentary from liberals about a conservative film. And I only said we should be fair regarding labels. My comments were in reply to those above suggesting the "conservative" tag. VictorD7 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC) They are just critic reviews. Your attempt to try and label them as "liberal", like you did with Jenkins, is the problem here. The aggregate of critics reviews pan this movie and the quote is representative of what critics think about the movie. Trying to undermine their reviews or what they say because of your own political perceptions is a violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, trying to give equal weight to other critics/people whose views clearly don't represent the majority of critics is also a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:Weight. Regarding the "conservative" tag used by others, this does not justify another violation of WP policy. You can't both agree to disregard WP policy by assigning your own original research tags to critics. Both labels should be removed, and that's how you make a neutral article, not by letting both sides disregard the rules.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Did you read the guideline quotes I posted showing that we aren't restricted to only presenting professional film critics' opinions? The guidelines specifically endorse including reception from audiences and notable non film critics. This particular article section isn't even titled "Critical reception", but just "Reception". So the majority of pro critics thinking something doesn't mean other views should be excluded. You also appear confused on a few points. The hypothetical labels in Wiki's voice being discussed in this tangent aren't currently in the article, so it would be hard to remove them. And, again, if sources use the label then it's not WP:OR to apply it. It may or may not be appropriate for other reasons, but it's not original research as defined by the policy. Finally, it seems to me that purging half the debate and only allowing one side of the political divide's voice into an article about an explicitly political film, while scrubbing any mention of said voice's political affiliation, is the very definition of POV. Neutrality demands both sides be presented if there's more than one significant view, as there clearly is. We can simply include coverage of both sides without the Wiki voice labels you object to. Whether or not to add them is a slightly different issue. VictorD7 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Of course we can mention various views. We can say some people think the moon-landing was faked. But we cannot provide undue weight to their opinions. Film critics did not like the movie, some right-wing bloggers did. Mind you, no one could have liked it that much, because the movie only took in $11 million, compared with The Passion of the Christ ($612 million) and the March of the Penguins ($127 million). Incidentally, don't you think calling film critics liberal is redundant? TFD (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC) <Insert> It's the 7th highest grossing political documentary of all time and has a solid chance of moving up higher, so please get your facts straight. Political documentaries don't make as much money as regular movies. Also, we're talking about audience CinemaScore grades, not box office receipts. Your own final sentence underscores the absurdity of only citing film critic opinion for an explicitly political documentary. Dismissing mainstream conservative opinion on a matter of subjective opinion by comparing it to something like moon landing conspiracy theories is reprehensible and totally without basis in policy. VictorD7 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Did you read them? It doesn't mean you get to create undue weight by including quotes from whomever. An example of what that refers to would be a movie like Gravity and supplying a quote from a scientist like Neil deGrasse Tyson that is representative of the scientific community. You could supply a quote from a political pundit, but then that would need to be countered by another opinion from a political pundit from the opposing party. So that would be a balanced approach. However, trying to supply a quote from a politically biased website/political pundit to try and contest what critics think is a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:weight. "only allowing one side of the political divide's voice into an article". Again, this manifestation of "sides" is a biased assertion and label that you're trying to assign to critics and is a violation of WP:NPOV. What you said about Jenkins is an example of original research. If another publication said Jenkins was is a liberal and you try to include that into the article to discredit Jenkins through WP's voice, then that's a violation of WP:NPOV. This article is not a debate and the "Reception" section should be representative of critic's perception of the film and it's okay to include audience perception so long as they follow the guidelines previously stated and aren't being presented as a counter to critics. They are 2 separate metrics. Trying to divide the article into what "liberals" think versus what "conservatives" think is a false dichotomy and creates a POV presentation of the article. We don't divide science articles into what liberals vs. conservatives think, and there is no reason to do it here. I've already made my suggestion regarding how the polled audience should be presented and it seems multiple people support it.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC) With respect, it doesn't seem like you did read them. The guidelines are explicitly vague and leave room for case to case flexibility. You've failed to cite anything in policy mandating that a reception section should only be representative of professional critics' opinions. The page specifically endorses CinemaScore (and not just if it agrees with critics) and goes out of its way to mention that including notable non critics is allowed. You're trying to treat film critics like scientists. They aren't. They're just people giving their subjective opinions. You're also ignoring the admitted political bias of the critics you're championing. The critics themselves tend to acknowledge the different sides in their reviews. Jenkins isn't in the article, and nothing said about him on a talk page is OR. OR refers to actual article edits. The article does cover a debate, and WP:NPOV policy mandates that all significant sides be covered to maintain article neutrality. You're trying to silence a major side, which is misleading to readers and a blatant violation of NPOV. Most movies aren't political enough for critic political bias to be much of an issue, but it undeniably is with explicitly political films like this one, particularly since it comes from the ideology the critics oppose. The fact that so many people, including notable societal observers, think that it's an issue makes it an issue meriting coverage in the article. I'll add that multiple people oppose your position here and oppose the notion of only letting a narrow, mostly liberal category comment on conservative films. See? There's a dispute here too, with more than one side. VictorD7 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC) It's clear you're not reading what I say. I've never argued for the removal of cinemascore, so for you to criticize me for not citing WP policy to make the reception section strictly for critics is fallacious and a strawman argument. Furthermore, the article is not a debate. It's simply a article about a movie. You're attempt to try and undermine critic reception by turning into a liberal vs. conservative debate is a violation of WP:NPOV. The article should reflect what the general critic viewpoint is without POV attempts to undermine, misrepresent, or contest critic's viewpoints by giving undue weight to any other source. This includes trying to present cinemascore in a fashion that contradicts critics or citing some political pundit to try and contradict critics. They can be presented in the "Reception" category, but in their own respective paragraphs so it's clear that they aren't being presented in a debate style or contradictory manner. This is consistent with WP policy. Do you read that? I said they can be included/kept and this is the 3rd time I've said that.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC) No, I cited the endorsement of CinemaScore to underscore that the guidelines make it clear that reception isn't just about what professional critics think. Since you acknowledge that, you have no excuse for continuing to make the fallacious "undue weight" argument. Whether you want to call it a "debate" or not there clearly is a stark difference of opinion about the movie and the article should reflect that. I'm not the one making it liberal versus conservative. It's a political documentary commenting on the real life left/right divide, so the political angle of the reaction is relevant. The Shapiro quote in question directly comments on the critical reception, is a widely held view, and is an important part of the topic we're supposed to be covering in the article. VictorD7 (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC) As I've said numerous times, it's only undue weight when cinemascore or any other quote from some political pundit is presented in a way to try and undermine what critics say. That doesn't mean it should be excluded, just that it needs to be clear that critics panned the movie and cinemascore is not a contradiction to what the general critical reception of the movie is. The undue weight argument is valid, if you're presenting data irrelevant to critical reception as an attempt to discredit, undermine, or refute critical opinion. This is also the 3rd or 4th time I've said this.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC) But you provided no basis for your claim. There's certainly nothing in policy excluding criticism of the critics by someone like Shapiro, especially in an unusual, politically charged controversy like this one where there's a lot more to the reception than simply being entertained or not. It's unclear precisely what you're referring to regarding CinemaScore undermining the critics. The guideline page simply lists CinemaScore as one of the legitimate sources for critical reception sections. VictorD7 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC) I have provided basis for the claim in that it's a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:Weight. Using a quote from Shapiro to try and discredit or contradict the majority viewpoint of critics is a violation of undue weight. Here are the specific area: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to...juxtaposition of statements. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. This is basically why it's unacceptable to post quotes from Ken Ham trying to discredit wide scientific consensus regarding evolution or the age of the earth on an article about evolution or the age of the earth.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC) No, you're conflating different scenarios. The lines you (finally) cited deal with situations where an extreme minority of a particulate, narrowly defined set (people debating whether or not the earth is flat or round, or what the atomic weight of chromium is) should be presented with equal representation (or at all). You're still confusing pro film critics with scientists and ignoring the MOS guidelines I quoted showing that our set in this case isn't just professional film critics (the guidelines explicitly allow non pro critics' views). Beyond that the Shapiro quote wasn't directly contradicting the critics by commenting on the movie itself, but rather the obvious political dynamic at play. There's absolutely nothing in policy prohibiting us from including quotes commenting on the reception itself (including professional film critic political bias), and Shapiro's views aren't fringe. In fact they're extremely widely held and it hasn't even been demonstrated that they're in the minority at all. VictorD7 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC) I'm not conflating anything. The majority of critics panned the movie. So including a comment from a critic that opposes the majority view is a violation of WP:Weight and if Shapiro isn't commenting on the movie but on critics in general, then it certainly doesn't belong anywhere on the article page due to being irrelevant. You're still attempting to discredit the value of critic's opinion with a quote from Shapiro and that's clearly against WP:NPOV. The majority viewpoint of critics is that the movie is bad and this is documented on multiple aggregate sites. Including a quote from Shapiro to criticize critics for their reception of the film is not relevant to the movie itself and gives undue weight to a minority opinion.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Yes you are. The majority of professional film critics panned the movie, the majority of people who viewed the movie gave it an historically high CinemaScore grade, and notable commentators have written about the reception as a phenomenon in and of itself. The article should cover all of that, per MOS guidelines. You've given no policy or even rational reason to justify actively preventing that from happening. Whether critics' negative opinions are "discredited" or not by accurately covering the issue shouldn't be your concern. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC) No, I'm not. If anything, you're trying to misuse a part of MOS guidelines to include a quote from a political blogger. He is not notable or an expert in the field of cinema or even politics. I already gave an example using Neil deGrasse Tyson on what that guideline actually refers to. Shapiro's opinion is not representative of the political spectrum and he's certainly not a notable critic, therefore it does not meet the MOS guidelines and including his opinion is a violation of WP:Weight. You even admitted that Shapiro's opinion wasn't a commentary on the film, therefore it has ZERO relevance to the article and, if anything, should be placed on an article about film critics. It's a clear violation of WP:weight as you're trying to include it to present a criticism of critic's reviews. When the majority of critics criticize a film, that's a majority view. Including a quote that criticizes a majority of critics for their reception of the film is a minority viewpoint. I've presented multiple parts of WP policy that prevent the inclusion of such a quote. You're clearly disregarding them and pretending that they don't apply...when they do.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Hogwash on all counts. Ben Shapiro is "notable" by definition because he has a Wikipedia article about him. None of the negative film reviewers currently quoted in the article have such articles, and therefore aren't notable by definition. That you start off by making such a grossly, factually inaccurate claim invalidates your whole position. Shapiro represents at least half the American political spectrum. In fact Gallup polling shows that conservatives outnumber liberals by about two to one, which is why Democrats run more rhetorically away from their base in general elections than Republicans do (the latter are certainly more likely to call themselves "conservative" than the former are "liberal"), even often echoing (sincerely or not) the type of patriotic themes espoused by people like D'Souza and Shapiro. Regardless, you can't dismiss half the political spectrum as unfit for mention. That's insane and unacceptable POV on your part. As for topical scope, my Talk Page section notes that it's routine for Wikipedia articles to cover the noteworthy or controversial aspects of the reception itself, and I list several specific high profile examples. Certainly you've presented nothing in guidelines or policy to prohibit such commentary. The fact that Shapiro's views clearly represent the vast majority of those who have watched the film further refutes your argument. VictorD7 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Simply asserting that it's "hogwash" doesn't make it so and now you're the one trying to conflate WP policy. Just because a person has a WP article about them, DOESN'T make that person notable or an expert. It simply means that the subject, which is an article about him, is notable enough for a WP article. Furthermore, Breitbart.com is a questionable source for many reasons. Directly from WP:QS "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." Here, you're trying to include a quote from a news blog and questionable source to state an opinion about critics and the media which is a direct violation of WP:verifiability. Shapiro is not an expert on media research and his blog on Breitbart.com is not a reliable source for commentary on others. So, not only is this still a violation of WP:Weight and doesn't meet the requirements of MoS guidelines, but it's also a violation of WP:verifiability as per WP:QS and other segments. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Good thing I didn't just "assert" it, but supported my claims with facts. And you're wrong. Notability policy (WP:N) does solely refer to whether someone has an article about them or not. You keep misusing the term. That he's an "expert" on politics is shown by him being a professional political pundit, one who's written multiple NY Times Best Seller books on politics and the media. He's routinely interviewed on media outlets from ABC to C-SPAN for his opinions, and he's a nationally syndicated columnist, therefore his opinion is definitely noteworthy if opinion commentary is appropriate for a section. This section is dedicated entirely to such commentary, and neither of the other two currently quoted individuals are as noteworthy as Shapiro is. Also, since you're engaged on the talk page anyway, I'd suggest that you reply to my comments there rather than here so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves on two different pages, but it's up to you. VictorD7 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC) It's clear you have difficulty reading and comprehending WP policy. I'm not wrong and this is the very first line from WP:N; "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.". It specifically says that WP:N and notability in this use are specifically to decide whether a TOPIC warrants its own article. It doesn't say anything about whether the actual person is notable, only that the topic/article is notable enough to warrant a WP presence. So in no way does that inherently make a person notable. Not only that, this doesn't make Shapiro a notable person connected to political science or market research. Being a media consultant does not make you an expert on the media. Such an expert would have published peer reviewed articles about media representation or about political science, and I don't believe he's done either of those. So his opinion on such matters, like media bias, are not noteworthy. Furthermore, you completely ignored the fact that including his quote from Breitbart.com is a violation of WP:verifiablity as per WP:QS. You keep attempting to make irrelevant appeals regarding other authors and they aren't relevant to Shapiro and would merit their own discussion. Scoobydunk (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC) You're the one with difficultly comprehending. Regarding WP:N, you're just repeating what I've been saying here and on the talk page. You're the one who raised the "notability" issue, not me, when you falsely claimed Ben Shapiro isn't notable. I just refuted your assertion. (Hint- When the topic is a person, notability means the person is notable). Wikipedia is filled with noteworthy (the word I use when discussing article content, not "notable") commentary from famous pundits on various issues in certain contexts where such opinions are appropriate. There's absolutely no requirement that someone be "connected to political science" or have peer reviewed research published about the media to give their opinion on political or media matters. You're just making stuff up as you go. That said, as I pointed out on the talk page (you should have accepted my advice to consolidate discussions; we'll be repeating ourselves a lot your way), Shapiro graduated summ cum laude from UCLA with a degree in political science. Even if he wasn't a political science by education, he's published several NY Times best seller books on politics and the media and is frequently invited to give his opinion as a professional pundit on numerous national media outlets, from ABC to C-SPAN. The section in question already includes a quote from a far less noteworthy opinion writer, Jim Gaines. The QS section you allude to covers using opinion pieces to source facts in Wikipedia's voice (or maybe quotes where such opinionated material isn't appropriate.) It's not "questionable" that the source here accurately represents Shapiro's opinion, and the section in question is explicitly for such opinions. The fact that countless pundits are quoted in Wikipedia articles underscores the absurdity of your interpretation, and calls into question your singular focus on prohibiting a pundit whose politics you oppose. VictorD7 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "(Hint- When the topic is a person, notability means the person is notable)" This is the problem. A topic being notable enough to warrant a WP article, doesn't mean that the person is notable. Nothing in the policy supports that interpretation. It only means that there is enough information and discussion out there that WP should have an article discussing it. It does not mean that the person is notable in any given field or area of expertise, which is what MoS guidelines demand and why this argument is unsupported.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC) You still don't understand policy WP:N. Being noteworthy to a particular context is different from being "notable" (though the latter may be one of the prerequisites), but WP:N guidelines explicitly describe persons who meet their requirements and possess their own article as "notable...people": "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." Clearly by "notable" they're referring to people who meet that page's criteria, and I know of no other use of "notability" in Wikipedia policy. You muddled your own argument by erroneously challenging Shapiro's notability. Whether the quote belongs on the page or not, he's undeniably notable. My earlier comments about notability were only to underscore his case in accordance with the MOS quote, and assumed his notability as a given (he's notable by definition), not to deny that he also needs to be connected to the topic (which he obviously is) or that the quote needs to be appropriate for the page (it is; the section is explicitly for such opinions). VictorD7 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I do understand WP:N policy and you're the one trying to argue something it doesn't say and make false unsubstantiated conclusions about WP:N. Even the quote you've provided says "with the exceptiopn that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people". This does not mean that every list is restricted to notable people and no where does it say that if an article exists about a person, then that person is automatically a "notable person" connected to any variety of topics. You're trying to use WP:N to substantiate a claim that Shapiro meets MoS guidelines and that's not only incorrect, it's preposterous. Also, you can't say "Shapiro is notable because he's on this WP article list" because that is an attempt to use WP as a reliable source, which is exactly why the WP:N policy does not give a person notability, it only means that the topic of a person is notable enough to merit a WP article. Oh, and no, you still haven't proven he's notable or an expert in the field that he's criticizing. Regardless, it's still a violation of WP:QS. 00:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) Wow. You're really grasping at straws now. I never said "every list is restricted to notable people" (straw man); the actual rule had nothing to do with my point. I only quoted that sentence to show that WP uses "notable" differently than you are; in WP parlance "notable persons" does refer to people who meet WP:N criteria and have (or merit) their own articles. Your claims otherwise are wrong. Period. Otherwise, provide a contrary example. That doesn't mean that articles can only cover notable people, or that a certain notable person has to be mentioned in every article. Notability wasn't the only prerequisite listed in the MOS guidelines, but you were clearly wrong to challenge Ben Shapiro's. Given that you've been so wrong on even the basic stuff it's little wonder that you're hopelessly wrong on QS and other topics. VictorD7 (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Again, I'm not the one using "notable" you're the one who's trying to use MoS guidelines to claim you can include a quote from Shapiro because he's a "notable" person. You then tried to use WP:N to infer that since he has a WP article then that automatically makes him a notable person to be reference as per MoS guidelines. This is not my assertion or use of the word "notable", it's yours and I"m telling you that nothing in WP:N substantiates your position. So instead of just projecting your behavior onto me, are you planning on actually supplying a quote from WP policy that does support your claim that since Shapiro has a WP article that he's automatically considered a notable person in the context that MoS references? Scoobydunk (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Wait...so you're still denying that "notable" in WP parlance means someone merits their own article (per WP:N)? Then what precisely do you think "notable" means in WP guidelines? Do you have a single quoted example to support your position? I've already supplied quotes supporting mine. Of course I only observed that Ben Shapiro being notable automatically fulfills the MOS "notable" condition. It's a tautology. I never said that was the only requirement involved. VictorD7 (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." I've already said this. Notability, in the context of this article, refers to whether a given topic or subject warrants its own article. This doesn't mean that the person the article is about is considered a notable person whose opinions can be plastered all over Wikipedia. The quote you gave from WP:N doesn't support your assertion that if a topic is notable then the person is notable and meets MoS guidelines. It merely mentions that some lists are restricted to "notable items or people" but doesn't define what notable items or people are or assert that they automatically qualify their opinions for articles where MoS guidelines are applicable. Also, I'm pretty sure I gave an example of how Garfield wouldn't be considered a notable person simply because an article exists about Garfield.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) We agree that a person having his own article alone isn't sufficient cause to plaster a person's opinions all over Wikipedia. Where we disagree is on what "notable" means in WP parlance. I quoted WP:N's explicit definition of notability, and its use of the term "notable persons". I have to figure that is what MOS guidelines mean by "notable", since I haven't seen any other definitions here. Let me know if you find an alternative WP definition of "notable" that could suggest MOS has a different meaning in mind. VictorD7 (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Your extrapolations are not sufficient to support your argument. You were the one arguing that Shapiro, by definition of WP:N, was a notable person, yet you haven't been able to substantiate that claim. You asking me to present an alternative is a shifting of the burden of proof. You have not proven that the "notable person" referenced by MoS Guidelines is determined by WP:N. You've even admitted that this is merely what you "figure" and not what the policy explicitly says. WP:N specifically refers to the notability of topics as WP articles and it specifically limits itself to this application. So it does not give editors privilege to use WP:N to argue what "notable" means in other areas of WP guidelines and policies since it explicitly limits itself to topics on WP.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) My "extrapolation" is limited to the fact that WP:N defines notability and Ben Shapiro undeniably meets that definition. You're contending that "notable" as used in the MOS is differently defined, and I'm hoping that you can provide some evidence of that. Again, "notable" is frequently used throughout Wiki policy/guidelines, and from what I've seen at least it's always been in the same sense as defined at WP:N. The criteria outlined at WP:N only focuses on the article level, but that doesn't mean that the same concept category of "notable persons" can't be cited elsewhere under different circumstances. WP:N itself even cites such an example (the earlier quoted lists of notable people segment, which refers to lists of people who merit their own articles). Does the MOS, or any other page, provide a different definition of "notable" somewhere? Furthermore, how narrow and convoluted would this hypothetical alternate definition have to be to exclude Ben Shapiro, given his prominence as a published, widely cited commentator? VictorD7 (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC) For the last time, WP:N defines "notablility" only as it applies to topics/articles and even that page specifically limits itself to that usage. I'm not saying MoS is defined differently, I'm just saying that your attempt to use WP:N policy to claim that Shapiro is a notable person as MoS guidelines reference is unsubstantiated. You're the one who's made the claim, so you have the burden of proof and nothing in WP:N supports your claim and even says that it only applies to topics. WP:N does not define "notable people" nor makes any attempt to setting guidelines for establishing what determine's a person's notability. It only discuss guidelines for determining a topic's notability. Regardless, even if a person is notable, it doesn't bypass WP policy pertaining to questionable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC) WP:N defines "notability" period, and no alternative definition has been provided that could support the contention that the MOS usage has a different definition in mind, which you apparently agree with. WP:N does define notable people (and items), which is why it speaks of "notable..persons" in the quote I provided. If the topic is a person then the person must be notable to get his own article. No other definition for "notable person" has been provided. VictorD7 (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC) "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list." No where does it define "notable people" and if it did then you'd be able to quote the definition and you haven't. You've even admitted that you've extrapolated the meaning, which means it's not specifically defined. While doing this you've ignored the fact that the entire article says that notability only pertains whether a topic deserves a WP article. No where does it define "notable person" so your argument is not substantiated. Again, you're attempting to switch the burden of proof and trying to pretend that your interpretation is the right one because we have no other is an argument from ignorance.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I recommend you adjust your tone, lest this discussion collapse back into incivility. Your post is more about me and what I'm allegedly "attempting" or "ignoring" than the actual topic. Clearly I disagree with everything you say about me. You accused me of "extrapolating"; I just said I "have to figure" that the MOS usage means the same as all the other uses of the word on Wikipedia, and it therefore is clearly defined. WP:N explains that "notable" means a person or thing merits its own article. It even speaks of notable "people" (per the earlier quote), and links to a Wikipedia:Notability (people) page: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."...."Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." Again, if you have a different definition, please present it. VictorD7 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for supplying an article that defines notability in terms of people instead of "figurin" from articles that strictly pertain to topics worthy of a WP article. So Shapiro might be notable in terms of having a WP article, but that doesn't mean he's a notable person connected to the topics covered in the film. Just because he's a notable political commentator doesn't mean his opinion can be quoted for topics regarding science, education, literature, market research, or any other variety of issues. Ultimately though, the specific quote you want to use from Shapiro is from a questionable source, and the MoS guideline does not bypass policies in place for questionable and self published sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC) I had already supplied sufficient evidence, but oh well. You're welcome. At least now we both agree that Ben Shapiro is a "notable" person as referenced by the MOS, and can now just focus on whether a notable political commentator is "connected" to the topic of politics, and the alleged "QS" issue. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC) That sort of notability standard for including criticism that you describe (he has an article, therefore all his comments are notable and should be included in articles) has never been a standard on Wikipedia. Otherwise, the Barack Obama article would be filled with quotes from Rush Limbaugh. Gamaliel (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Straw man. I only mentioned notability above to refute the other editor's false claim that he isn't notable. That said, we're discussing a section explicitly dedicated to opinions here, not a biography, and Shapiro is more noteworthy than those already quoted in the section. I hope you're not suggesting that as prominent a figure as Rush Limbaugh should never be quoted in any articles. VictorD7 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC) You've made the same claim repeatedly on the article's talk page as well. Gamaliel (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC) What, that he's notable? Yes, to refute the same false claims mentioned above. We should really kill this thread and consolidate further discussion on the talk page. VictorD7 (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC) The question is whether Shapiro's commentary is WP:Noteworthy, not whether he is notable. As we have an article on him, he meets "notability" standards as a topic. The use of his comments must be evaluated in context. We have lots of people who write stuff and we use their material as RS even if they are not "notable". – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Exactly. VictorD7 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Resetting the discussion I have isolated the critics responses into their own section in accordance with MOS:FILM#Critical response. It now has the Rotten Tomatoes & Metacritic data, plus one review from Ebert. The non-movie-critic responses are in a following section. IMO this "new" section will allow for discussion of the film from the political blogger/commentator points of view and avoid the unnecessarily disruptive debate as to whether Hollywood is left, far left or whatever. So, the question can get back to the original theme – to what extent should Breitbart.com and other commentators be placed in the article? – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Back to Breitbart.com as a reliable news source I strongly object to calling Breitbart.com a 'Conservative blog'. A 'blog' it is not. It has reporters, editors, and source of revenue. "Breitbart.com is a conservative news and opinion website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart,"' says Wikipedia editors in Breitbart.com which is a better description. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC) That also has a pattern of reporting false information and not correcting itself. For example, the Friends of Hamas story. There is little evidence in the past of a system that is trying to accurately report facts, which sets it apart from something like Fox News. There is a difference between a biased source and a source that has repeatedly shown no willingness to get basic facts correct. A biased source can be used to make a good article. It is difficult to use a source such as Breitbart. While I would agree they are WP:RS for their own opinion, one should at least provide the reader with the context of the opinion, if it is used in the article.Casprings (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC) As a follow up, if Breitbart is WP:RS, then is WND? If so, there is truly no standard at all to be a WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Don't forget, Wikipedia has a Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Seems the place to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC) True. But let's consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS before posting there. In this case we are asking whether UNDUE is at play when we add or remove Breitbart.com. – S. Rich (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC) I already did it. Discussion can be found here. And yes, context matters. I tried to phrase my question in such a way that it would help in this discussion. That said, if I shouldn't have posted there, I am sorry.I wouldn't have posted if I saw this first.Casprings (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Also, it is interesting to me that Dinesh D'Souza talks about the media problem in the movie. The point about Breitbart not correcting errors, I cannot speak to, but I would say I never heard of the correction they needed to make that was pointed out in the Slate blog [[1]. And the discussion about proportional or undue weight in a Wikipedia article reflects the proportion or distortion in say, for example, the 'White Hispanic' reporting of ABC,CBS,NBC,W-Post,NYTimes; as opposed to 'lesser' news outlets, re: George Zimmerman. I recognize that pointing out problems elsewhere does not excuse Breitbart.org but you can probably see my point. Also, what was the Breitbart writer's comment about anyway? It was just his opinion about the movie, as I remember. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Breitbart.com is clearly covered by WP:BLOGS. Thus it does not appear to be usable. Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC) I disagree, and the editors of the Wikipedia article, [[ Breitbart.com ]] do not identify the news website as a blog. Please take note. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC) As others have mentioned, a site like Breitbart.com can be used as a reliable source when directly attributed to the author who wrote the material. So if there was a WP page on an editor named John Smith, then we can use an article John Smith wrote for Breitbart.com to attribute something directly to John Smith. It would act as a primary source in this situation. It is not reliable for statements of fact regarding others. This is covered under WP:QS, WP:Newsblog, and WP:Newsorg. The specific article that was in contention also didn't cite any sources. It's clearly an opinion piece, and can't be used as a reliable source to push a fact about any given topic.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Actually, as others have mentioned, in this case the author is simply being quoted with attribution for his (very widely held and significant) opinion in a section devoted to opinions anyway. VictorD7 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Directly from WP:QS "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." Shapiro is making contentious claims about others and attempting to use this quote is a direct violation of WP:verifiability. It's not a matter of just direct attribution, it's a matter of the material. A quote from Shapiro can only be used on an article or topic about himself, not on topics about other people because he's not qualified to make those assertions according to WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC) They aren't contentious claims in Wikipedia's voice. The reference is simply being used to source his quote with attribution. As for whether his opinion is appropriate, Wikipedia is full of such opinions. Shapiro is a multiple time NY Times best selling author on political topics, a professional media consultant, a nationally syndicated columnist, and a routine guest on tv/radio programs. He's a very famous political commentator and his opinion on political issues, particularly ones involving the media, is noteworthy in a section dedicated to such opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC) The policy says nothing about WP voice, it says that questionable sources are not a suitable sources for contentious claims about others and the quote that you're using is making a contentious claim about others. It can not be used to do that and even before that line it explains exactly where such a quote can be used. It can be used on a topic/article about that person him/herself, not on other material. It's a blatant violation and now you're intentionally ignoring multiple WP policies to insert your own POV.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC) It doesn't say anything about "quotes" either, much less ones being added to sections explicitly dedicated to pundit opinions (it's not even worth getting into the fact that Shapiro isn't an "extremist" and this isn't a self promotion situation, which the QS section focuses on). Wikipedia is full of pundit opinion where such commentary is appropriate, and this section is explicitly dedicated to such opinion. I'm editing for neutrality, making sure all significant views are represented per our mandate (WP:NPOV), while you're imposing your POV through selective censorship in blatant violation of core policy. VictorD7 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC) This entire comment doesn't refute anything I've said about this quote from Shapiro being a violation of WP:Verafiability as per WP:QS. You're merely trying to assert this inclusion because you're claiming that WP is full of such violations, and multiple wrongs don't make a right. Furthermore, I entered this conversation a neutral third party opinion via the messageboard. I wasn't engaged in the article at all, so to assert that I'm imposing my POV is wildly fallacious and is an unsupported extreme accusation. I've been supportive of fair representation that accurately reflects critics opinions, including minority opinions. I even advocated for a separate section for other reception ABOUT THE MOVIE. The quote from Shapiro is not about the film so it is not relevant to the movie and doesn't belong on the movie article but maybe on an article discussing liberal media or film critics in general. I've stated this multiple times, so your accusation is egregiously false. Based on your own posts, it's clear that you're attempting to undermine the critical reception by inserting a political narrative into an article about a film. You're creating a false dichotomy and then asserting that the conservative side should be equally represented. That's the same as trying to label the evolution article as liberal, and then trying to include an equal amount of representation from conservative creationists.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC) False. You claimed it included a line about "where a such a quote can be used", and it did no such thing. It doesn't mention "quotes", and is obviously about citing factual claims in Wikipedia's voice from "extremist" or "promotional" sites (financial conflict of interest). If opinionated quotes from pundits were generally banned (even from sections explicitly for such opinions) then policy wouldn't have segments like this: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited." "Verifiable" there refers to confirming that the pundit actually said what's being attributed to him, not the opinion's accuracy or the pundit's own "reputation for fact checking". Even opinions from serial liars can be noteworthy. That you indicate support for including Shapiro's quote in another article, like "liberal media" or "film critics", simultaneously undermines your fallacious QS interpretation (which would ban it from Wikipedia entirely, along with almost every other pundit opinion quoted across the site), while ignoring the strong evidence I laid out showing that Wikipedia movie articles routinely cover commentary about the reception itself, particularly when there's a political or controversial angle, as there undeniably is here. There's certainly nothing in policy prohibiting that. His quote explicitly mentions the film, directly discusses the reception to it, speaks for millions of people including the vast majority to have seen it (making it a very significant viewpoint being currently excluded in violation of WP:NPOV), and is very relevant to the article. Your "evolution" analogy is absurdly inaccurate, since this is an explicitly political movie and there are unsurprisingly dominant political aspects to the reception that merit coverage. Your denial of POV pushing here is laughable considering your pattern of trying to censor out conservative commentary but not equivalent liberal commentary, and total disdain for article balance, even to the point of squirming around trying to find new rationales for opposing a segment. That you joined the debate a week or so ago is irrelevant, and certainly doesn't make you neutral. You've since become heavily involved, including on the article talk page itself. I was a Johnny Come Lately too, albeit a week or two earlier. Unlike you, I'm not going through ridiculous contortions to try and exclude material politically opposed to me. I'm fine with covering all significant viewpoints, in accordance with WP:NPOV. VictorD7 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) False, playing semantics with the word "quote" is not going to get you anywhere. WP:QS clearly says where it's appropriate to use questionable sources and where it's not appropriate. You are trying to use a questionable source inappropriately as is specifically defined by WP:QS. Your attempt to use WP:AttributePOV does not supersede WP:QS, it's merely another rule in how to appropriately attribute POV opinion but does not give license to include any POV wherever you see fit. The part of that policy you quoted says that you have to appropriately attribute biased opinions, it doesn't say where biased opinions can be used. WP:QS specifically addresses where questionable sources can and can not be used. The way you're trying to use Shapiro's quote is a direct violation of WP:QS. Also, I only mentioned "liberal media" and "film critics" as other area where such a quote would be relevant. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating it's suddenly a reliable source or that it can bypass WP policy regarding questionable sources. That portion of my response specifically addressed its relevance, not whether it met wikipedia requirements. So I didn't undermine anything I said when I made those references. I've given you multiple examples of how notable experts opinion can be used on articles. For the movie "Titanic" you can have historians and scientists comment on those respective aspects of the film, so long as those comments come from a reliable source. Questionable sources are not reliable sources and WP policy explicitly says where they can be used.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Wrong. You can't make a false claim like "even before that line it explains exactly where such a quote can be used", when we're debating whether or not it applies to quotes in the way you say it does, and expect not to get called on it when it says no such thing, and doesn't mention the word "quote". The Shapiro quote isn't a source, it's something that appears in sources. It's precisely the type of opinionated ("biased") commentary that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV explains should be properly attributed in the text. The question of whether or not to include a quote isn't an issue of sourcing, but content. The question is whether the content is appropriate. Sourcing (QS) is only relevant here in verifying that Shapiro really said what's being attributed to him, and the Breitbart.com piece, written by Shapiro, clearly isn't questionable in that respect. I never said we have license to include POV material "wherever you see fit". That's a terribly weak straw man. In this case the section was explicitly created for such pundit opinions, so the content is clearly appropriate, and excluding it, while including the POV commentary already there, is a blatant WP:NPOV violation. You're protesting and squirming a bit much regarding your self undermining, specifically worded claim that "The quote from Shapiro is not about the film so it...doesn't belong on the movie article but maybe on an article discussing liberal media or film critics in general", but I'll charitably take your word for it when you say you only meant to discuss relevance. That said, you've still failed to address the evidence I gave you showing that movie articles routinely include commentary on the reception itself, particularly when there's a political or otherwise controversial angle, or post anything from policy prohibiting such coverage, which is clearly appropriate from an encyclopedia standpoint. Unlike yours, the examples I gave you aren't hypothetical. VictorD7 (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Wrong. I didn't make a false claim and sourcing is relevant. WP:QS says that questionable sources can't be used on WP when they make contentious claims about others. It can't be any clearer than that. That has nothing to do with WP voice or drawing conclusions from sources as you fallaciously and incorrectly asserted. It has to do with whether the source itself can or can not be used. Since Shapiro is making contentious comments about critics, it is a violation of WP:QS. You can pretend all you want that I'm grasping at straws, but I'm not. It's right there in WP policy, clear as day. Including commentary about the reception itself is perfectly fine so long as it comes from a reliable source. It can't come from a unreliable or questionable sources, which is what the quote from Shapiro manifests from.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC) (Personal attack removed) Above you're incredibly still denying that "notable" in WP parlance (WP:N) just refers to someone meriting their own article. As for QS, you haven't provided any evidence that Breitbart or Shapiro are QS, or proof that "Questionable sources" refers to content rather than sources. The quote in question is content, and the section it's to be placed in is specifically for such POV quotes. At least you've conceded that a movie article covering commentary about the reception itself is appropriate, which is progress. Less clear is how you feel RS relates to subjective, differing opinions (content). Assuming whatever source used reliably provides the quote, what makes one pundit supposedly "RS" for a subjective opinion section and another supposedly not "RS"? Seems to me to be a WP:NOTEWORTHY issue, as RS is a context specific evaluation, and all the sources for the quotes are presumably RS for that purpose. VictorD7 (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I have provided evidence that Breitbart.com, where Shapiro's article is published, is considered a questionable source. Also, WP:QS directly addresses content from questionable sources when it says "contentious claims about others". Those claims are the "content" of the questionable source and that source and its claims/content can not be used in topics other than topics about themselves. Regarding your question about pundit's opinions, WP policy determines which sources can be used. If a pundit's opinion is published in a reliable source, then it can be used. If another pundit's opinion is written on a paper napkin, then it can't be used because paper napkins are not reliable sources and would likely fall under self-published guidelines. Basic policy makes that determination and the policies specifically distinguish reliable sources from questionable and self published sources to prevent the inclusion of all of the trivial biased nonsense with no factual accountability that nearly anyone can publish in their own self-published source or questionable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) When I say "Questionable sources" refers to sources rather than content, I'm drawing a distinction between the source and a particular content element, in this case a quote, that could conceivably be covered in many different sources. Obviously the section deals with content in the context of limiting what certain sources can be used for. I've also drawn a distinction between using a source for facts presented in Wikipedia's voice, and quoting someone's opinion with in text attribution. If the section explicitly calls for subjective opinions, it's unclear why fact checking is even relevant. Wikipedia quotes many noteworthy people who aren't even writers, but have their opinions covered by others, and therefore likely have no "reputation for fact checking" whatsoever, so QS obviously doesn't prohibit such quotes, even though they're frequently contentious comments about others. Such quotes are the subject covered in a source, and fact checking and QS/RS are important for making sure sources are accurately transmitting the quotes. On the other page I quoted various examples, like the Basic Instinct article including contentious, opinionated quotes from gay protesters, pundits like Camille Paglia (sourced to her own book), and the movie's director. None of the people quoted necessarily have to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, as their opinions are simply the subjects being covered, and it seems clear to me that QS would only apply to the sources being used to verify that they said what's being attributed to them. Paglia's book is acceptable, despite its obvious POV, since policy considers people to be reliable sources for their own views. That her opinion is criticizing (and praising) others doesn't mean QS prohibits it. It's only a contentious claim about others within the attribution. As for Breitbart, I don't recall the evidence you refer to, but the site is most certainly not napkin scribblings. It's one of the internet's major news/opinion sites. Shapiro himself is a multiple NY Times best seller author and nationally syndicated columnist whose writing has appeared in papers around the country. I could maybe understand if Breitbart were being challenged as a news source for a contentious claim made in Wikipedia's voice, but when it comes to an attributed quote sourced by the speaker himself in a section explicitly dedicated to subjective pundit opinions, it should be as allowable as the other sources and quotes I listed. VictorD7 (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC) I'd just like to say I've never seen such a narrow column on a talk page before. People usually outdent before this happens. Keep it up! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC) The protester's opinions can be appropriately covered in that section on Basic Instinct because the topic is about them and their activities specifically as being one of the controversies of the film. If "America" had a section specifically about "The Shapiro Controversy" then his opinion from Breitbart.com could be used since the topic is about himself. However, the topic isn't about Shapiro or his activities, it's about alternative reception. WP is very clear about not including opinions from any Tom, Dick, or Harry and that's why it has rigorously defined the different types of sources and when and where they can be used. Self published sources and questionable sources can not be used when they make contentious claims about others and can only be used on topics about themselves or their activities. I don't see how I can explain this anymore clearly. Regarding Breitbart.com, even the WP page identifies it as an opinion website. This description is specifically identified in WP:QS where it says that any source that largely consists of "personal opinion" is a questionable source. Then, there are its poor reputation for fact checking, conflict of interest, being regarded as extremist that also qualify it as a questionable source. However, the one I'd like to first focus on, which is extremely evident, is the personal opinion part.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) But Shapiro is part of those "Other responses", so the section is as much about his opinion and the millions of conservatives his views represent as the Basic Instinct "Controversy" section (which isn't just about the gay protests, but various other topics too) is about opinions from gay activists and pundits like Camille Paglia. Again, the Paglia quote is sourced by her own book. In that case and Shapiro's such opinionated sources are fine as long as they're properly attributed, because policy considers people reliable for their own views, and a quote from someone is material about that someone (what he or she said) from a sourcing/policy standpoint, regardless of what the quote itself is about. As for Breitbart, while I disagree on the relevance of this, it's a news/opinion site classified as "news" by Alexa (currently ranked the #38 news site in the world), and most news sites have plenty of opinion/analysis segments anyway. Certainly some of the sources cited in the above Basic Instinct examples are opinionated, including the Paglia book. The section is explicitly about personal opinions, as is the America section in question. I've also seen no evidence that either Shapiro or Breitbart are "extremist" (certainly no more so than the gay activists and others quoted on the Basic Instinct page, or for that matter the extremely left wing reviewers quoted on the America page), and the only complaint about fact checking a poster presented here comes from the leftist opinion site Slate. That said, even if Breitbart was considered "questionable" for being opinionated (like Paglia's writing?), at most that would just mean that it would be a less than desirable source for facts about others, not material about itself like a quote of its own author's views. VictorD7 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC) In my expert opinion, your outdent ruined the aesthetics of this discussion. No hard feelings, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Being part of those "other responses" doesn't mean that the topic is about him and therefore his opinion is not merited inclusion based on WP:QS. That's different from Paglia because Paglia's opinion comes from a reliable source that was published by Penguin Books ltd. She is not self published, therefore her opinion is not limited by the same parameters that self published sources and questionable sources are limited to. Regarding Breitbart, even your reference to Alexa says that it's an opinion site and WP:QS clearly considers such sites as questionable sources. I also don't know why you keep commenting on opinions. We know that WP includes opinions from people published in reliable sources because there is some expectation of standards associated with those reliable sources. Those same expectations aren't extended to self published and questionable sources and so opinions originating from those sources have very specific limited use on WP because they don't meet the same standards as reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Shapiro's work isn't self published either (not that it would necessarily be a disqualifier in every single case if it was). His books are published by companies, his column is printed in numerous media outlets, and the piece in question is published by Breitbart.com. He's certainly no more "questionable" as a source for his own opinions than Paglia or the other pundits we've mentioned are. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on whether a section about opinionated reactions is about the various opinionated reactions. Alexa classifies Breitbart as a "news" site, which doesn't preclude it from also being an opinion site (the NY Times is extremely opinionated too). Sourcing is typically about hierarchy rather than categorical "yes" or "no" descriptions; even the RS section describing QS uses words like "usually". An opinion heavy, blog-like news site such as Breitbart or the Huffington Post wouldn't be the ideal choice to source facts in Wikipedia's voice, but it wouldn't necessarily be inappropriate even in that case (and both sites are used as such sources throughout Wikipedia), especially if no better source was available and the material was deemed noteworthy enough by editors. Neither site is "extremist" in a Wikipedia sense (think more Westboro Baptist Church, Communist Party USA, or the typical WP examples of flat earthers), there's usually no conflict of interest (which refers to a direct financial relationship; ties in with "promotional"), and both sites are generally reliable for the hard facts presented (Breitbart especially references well). But more important than any of that is that we have a clear, fundamental disagreement on what the policy even means as it relates to opinion coverage. Your position is that we can only cover opinions of reliable sources, even in quotes, while mine is that we can cover any noteworthy opinion, as long as we have a reliable source for the quote. Your position would exclude covering the opinions not only of non writers, but writers not deemed "reliable sources" for facts generally. Certainly the gay protesters would be out, along with Paglia (your new disclaimer notwithstanding, as simply being published would also make Shapiro a reliable source) and countless subjects currently quoted throughout Wikipedia because their POVs are deemed noteworthy. Our differing interpretations on this score is the crux of our disagreement. VictorD7 (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I didn't say being published makes you a reliable source, as if the person becomes a reliable source just because they got something published. I said that quote from Paglia came from a reliable source so it can be used and it's not restricted by the same guidelines that a questionable source is. By numerous characterizations of Breitbart.com, it's a primarily/largely opinion based website and WP:QS considers such sites as questionable sources. The NY Times and many other news sites have opinion articles as well, but they are primarily/largely news sites first with opinion pieces on the side. This is not the case with Breitbart as your source even says it's an opinion site and so does the WP article. Also, it has nothing to do with whether Shapiro reliably said something, but whether he said it in a source that meets the same editorial standards that other reliable sources meet. That's why self published sources have the same limitations as questionable sources. Yes, with a self published source we can verify that a person made a claim "X". However, we can't use that source for "contentious claims about others" or "claims about third parties" because they don't meet WP guidelines and standards as a reliable source. If a self published source or a questionable source says "The Earth was created 5000 years ago" that doesn't mean we can include it on the article about Earth, even if it's directly attributed as an opinion of the author. This is the same case with Shapiro. Shapiro's opinion about critics and their bias can not be used because they are from a questionable source and don't merit inclusion. Just another note, your description on "conflict of interest" is only one of the many qualifiers. The first line for the definition reference in WP:QS is "Sources that may have interests other than professional considerations in the matter being reported are considered to be conflicted sources." It goes on to say that a conflict of interest is a situation where "other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity." Therefore, if their political considerations compromise their objectivity, it can be considered a conflict of interest. There is no doubt that it's a conservative website. Not just leaning conservative, but outright conservative advocacy and, again, even the WP article describes it as a conservative news and opinion site. Doesn't matter though, since it's considered a QS based on the fact that it's regarded as an opinion website.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Your attributed young earth quote would be about DUE WEIGHT, not sourcing per se. Its inclusion would depend on context, likely "no" for brief surveys of the mainstream scientific position but certainly acceptable for sections or articles more topically focused on such views. I totally reject your interpretation of COI. The only specific examples it gives deal with financial or personal conflicts (including spousal), not general political views. Clearly the interpretation you outline is unacceptable, as you're disqualifying any source simply for being conservative. NPOV would demand that all liberal sources be disqualified too, which would arguably leave us without any sources. That policy explicitly endorses biased sources (WP:BIASED) directly refutes such an interpretation. I'll add that the QS section you've mostly relied on appears on the Wikipedia:Verifiability page, so the overarching concern in that context is verification, supporting my position that it refers to sourcing facts in Wiki's voice or merely making sure that a quote covered by a source was actually said by whom the source attributes it to. The same holds true for RS, however. I've seen nothing in policy restricting coverage of opinions to those held by reliable sources. Source reliability is only relevant for verifying the quote's legitimacy. Whether it merits inclusion or not is governed by other things, like noteworthiness. The quotes from the upset gay activists weren't included because they were endorsed or somehow found to be accurate in opinion by a reliable source, but because their opinions were deemed noteworthy to the section. We often include quotes that the source clearly disapproves of, or at least that are accompanied by contrary quotes in the same source. Fact checking (apart from confirming who said what) or endorsement has nothing to do with sourcing subjective opinions. Besides, you're apparently claiming that Paglia's quote is acceptable simply because it was published, despite me pointing out that Breitbart's quote was also published. If you're claiming that a book publishing company somehow lends acceptability to a subjective opinion that an online news/opinion site doesn't, then are you saying that Shapiro's quotes from his many published NY Times best seller books would be acceptable? And how do his syndicated columns fit in? It still seems as if the crux of our disagreement is as I outlined above. VictorD7 (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC) This is completely not true. Source reliability is for establishing which sources are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. It's not just for verification purposes. It takes into consideration the editorial process and standards that the publication uses before publishing any sort of material. This is why peer reviewed studies released from a scholarly journals or academic press are the most reliable sources and self published sources and questionable sources are the least reliable. That's why they have their own set of criteria that specifically limits their usage. Though's Paglia's book wasn't a peer reviewed paper, it still meets WP policies regarding reliable sources and Penguin Books is certainly note covered by criteria defining questionable or self published sources. However, Shapiro's quote is from a questionable source(Breitbart.com) and therefore has very specific limitations on usage. You've omitted the fact I have specifically argued that Paglia was published in a reliable source while Shapiro was published in a questionable source. It has little to do with both of them being published and everything to with who published those sources. Penguin books meets WP standards for reliable sources while Breitbart doesn't and only meets the qualification of a questionable source. Also, the Questionable Source guidelines also appears on WP:reliable and other places, so trying to limit it to simply being a matter of verification is not representative of WP policy. Also, if this were the case, then Self Published sources would be the most reliable since we know they came directly from the person who said them without any sort of editorial review. It's not a matter of verifying if the material was said, it's a matter of the standards regarding the material's publication. This is why self published and questionable sources have different criteria, because they don't meet the perceived editorial standards that other reliable sources do, like academic presses or scholarly journals. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Everything I said was true, and you didn't answer my question about whether quotes from Shapiro's published books would be acceptable, as you deem Paglia's. Questionable and self published sources are unfit to use for sourcing facts or views in Wikipedia's voice (in most cases), but they are deemed reliable sources for certain things or else they couldn't be used at all, and you admit they can be. Reliable sources (I actually did discuss that article too) are examined (hopefully with the "common sense" that policy explicitly suggests editors use) to determine the weight of various opinions on an issue, and decide which ones are noteworthy enough to include. But what constitutes the "reliable sources" varies from specific issue to issue (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). In this case, the political reaction to an explicitly political film, it has absolutely nothing to do with "peer reviewed journals", and clearly WP:NPOV mandates that both the liberal and conservative reactions be covered. Ben Shapiro is frequently cited in ideologically diverse media sources as representing general conservative sentiment (per the NY Times example I posted), and there's absolutely no reason for his Breitbart piece to be excluded, since Breitbart is one of the highest rated conservative news/opinion sites online. You even acknowledged above that Shapiro is a "notable person" as the MOS guidelines reference. Since we're covering noteworthy subjective opinions, "fact checking" has nothing to do with what the various subjects think (any more than it does for the gay activists' quotes; for that matter Penguin didn't endorse Paglia's views just because it published them) and is only meaningful from a verification of who said what standpoint (common sense). Your post provided no explanation of how "the editorial process and standards" are relevant to this situation in practice, while mine did (verifying the quote). Again, "common sense" (WP's words) is required for interpreting Wikipedia policy. A multitude of sources can be used to gauge the noteworthiness of Shapiro's opinion in this context (significant weight), but his piece itself is sufficient to reliably source the specific quote. And again, Shapiro's article is not "self published". Breitbart is no more "questionable" for sourcing subjective opinions regarding a movie than Penguin publishing is, especially if the Breitbart author's own opinion is the one being cited. VictorD7 (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Hold it. "Since we're covering noteworthy subjective opinions" That. That right there. You are covering noteworthy subjective opinions about -the movie-. Opinions about the movie are the 'reception'. Opinions about the reception, are not, themselves, the reception. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) <Insert> Actually as the relevant talk page section shows, movie articles routinely include commentary about the reception itself when there's some controversial or noteworthy aspect to it, as there clearly is in the reaction to an explicitly political film, something Scoobydunk has already agreed with elsewhere, despite his self contradicting post below. VictorD7 (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC) @Darryl - I've already explained that to him but he refuses to listen. I also explained how WP and society in general gives value to critics opinions and that to try and use a biased opinion which aims to undermine the credibility of critics' opinions is a violation of NPOV. @Victor - I have already addressed your question about Shapiro and have said multiple times that if it's published in a reliable source then it can be used so long as it meets other WP guidelines. You just refuse to listen. Also, NPOV doesn't mandate that both liberal and conservative views are covered and that's a false dichotomy of the political spectrum to begin with. What NPOV does cover is not falsely misrepresenting a neutral topic as a political one and giving undue weight to a minority opinion. Your attempt to characterize critics' opinions as liberal opinions just so you can be justified including conservative opinions is a misrepresentation of the expertise and application of critical review. This is exactly why you can't give equal representation to conservative flat earth believers in an article about Earth. You can't falsely misrepresent an article about Earth as being a political disagreement between liberals and conservatives and that same criteria applies to this issue. Also, your comments still show that you think you get to bypass WP policies by referencing WP:Context and this is not true and has never been true. WP:QS clearly defines when a questionable source can and can not be used. That's the bottleneck of usage. WP:Context and everything else comes after the criteria determining what type of source it is. It is not used to side step the policies set by WP:reliable and WP:verify. Breitbart.com is a questionable source so quotes from it can not be used, especially if they make contentious claims about others. That's because questionable sources and self published sources don't have the same accountability and editorial standards that other reliable publications do. Nothing you've quoted overrides these basic concepts about sources used for WP. They are merely additional standards in determining when a source can be used and if it's relevant. I and others have given a number of examples that show exactly why your argument falls flat. Also, again you admit that Breitbart is an opinion website and WP:QS clearly establishes that such sites are questionable sources. That pretty much wraps it up.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Apart from your flip flop on relevance, you're just repeating the same erroneous points I've already debunked or addressed. Your denial that there's a political dynamic involved with the reception of a political movie is laughably preposterous, and your equation of conservatives with "flat earthers" casts doubt on your ability edit neutrality even if you were interested in doing so. The prism through which you view the world may not allow it. The negative critics tend to describe themselves as liberals and in those reviews frequently attack conservatives, religion, and/or the USA in general, which, among other things, has already been explained to you multiple times. Your personal musings about the political spectrum are irrelevant since the vast majority of sources acknowledge the broad "conservative/liberal" split. Your dismissal of Breitbart as RS because it's opinionated directly contradicts WP:BIAS: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Clearly being opinionated, your position's admitted chief area of focus, isn't a sufficient argument for exclusion in this context. However, this discussion has been useful in getting you to concede that you were wrong in your long running denial that Ben Shapiro is a "notable person" as mentioned in MOS guidelines, getting you to admit that Shapiro himself isn't a "questionable source", and in clarifying our differing interpretations of Wikipedia Policy. I now strongly suggest that if you want to continue this discussion we consolidate it and do so in the talk page section you started to discuss sourcing issues. After all, this subsection was supposed to be strictly about Breitbart, not the Shapiro quote per se, and we've both already made our positions known. VictorD7 (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC) There wasn't a "flip flop". Maybe there was a misunderstanding or misuse of terms, but I've strongly argued that relevance was one of the issues from the start in combination of it being a violation of NPOV and WEIGHT. My flat earth examples proves that your interpretation and application of WP policy is glaringly incorrect. Even in this last post you demonstrate the key concept that prevents Shapiro's quote from being used. Your quote from WP:BIAS says "reliable source" because it is saying that reliable sources can be opinionated and bias and still be okay for usage on WP. The problem is that Breitbart.com is not a reliable source therefore your entire reference to WP:BIAS does not apply to anything from Breitbart.com because it fails to meet WP requirements of being a reliable source. Because of this, WP:QS clearly defines where it can be used. I've explained this numerous times and nothing you're quoted contradicts this at all, including this quote from WP:BIAS which pertains to reliable sources, not questionable or self published sources. This entire portion of WP:BIAS is talking about reliable sources and then just uses the uses "sources" as shorthand for the rest of the paragraph. It doesn't mean to say that any opinion found on a napkin can be included on a WP article, it pertains to specifically reliable sources. Also, my argument has never been about the fact that the Shapiro piece is "opinionated", it's been about the fact that it's published in a questionable source and there is something egregiously wrong if you're still conflating the two. Also, I wasn't wrong about your assertions about WP:N and someone being notable. Nothing in WP:N defined what a notable person was and that was my argument. You even admitted that you had to "figure" the definition since WP:N didn't actually define it. Once you provided a source that substantiated the claim, the topic was no longer relevant, but doesn't change the fact that your original argument was unsubstantiated by WP:N. Also, I said that people can't be questionable sources but that doesn't change the fact that your quote originates from a questionable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) You outright said, "Even though Shapiro is relevant to the context of this section, disputing his inclusion on alleged "QS" grounds instead, and you failed to dispute me when I later characterized your position as agreeing with me on the relevance angle. You certainly did nothing to argue against or dismiss the evidence I presented on movie articles routinely including opinions about the reception itself, particularly when there are controversial or political aspects involved. WP:NPOV demands that we cover significant opinions like the half of the political spectrum whose sentiment Shapiro represents (WEIGHT), so completely censoring it out as the article currently does is obvious POV. On notability you outright said, "Just because a person has a WP article about them, DOESN'T make that person notable or an expert." And for numerous posts you insisted that Wikipedia drew a distinction between a "notable person" and a "notable topic". That was despite me having quoted the use of the words "notable...people" directly from the WP:N page, which in turn links to the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page. Your later acknowledgement that having an article about himself does make a person notable after all is an objective concession that you were wrong. You misquote my "figure" statement, since I repeatedly observed that WP:N does clearly define "notable". I only said "I have to figure" that MOS uses the same definition. You: "Also, my argument has never been about the fact that the Shapiro piece is "opinionated"" Earlier you said above, "This description is specifically identified in WP:QS where it says that any source that largely consists of "personal opinion" is a questionable source. Then, there are its poor reputation for fact checking, conflict of interest, being regarded as extremist that also qualify it as a questionable source. However, the one I'd like to first focus on, which is extremely evident, is the personal opinion part." Not only has your argument indeed been about that, but it's been your "focus" (your word). As for the other two aspects you mentioned, I explained that COI didn't apply because that's about financial/spousal conflicts, and you never provided any evidence on the "fact checking" or "extremist" claims. Your RS/QS arguments here are circular, and I'll respond to your sourcing argument further on the relevant Talk Page section. Since this discussion has drifted so far off topic and is largely just between us, I suggest you take my advice to consolidate the two discussions by only continuing on the other page, as that might help you better organize and track your thoughts. VictorD7 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Most of this stuff I responded to on the talk page. What you've just quoted was pertaining to how Breitbart.com is a questionable source, not about opinion pieces. I've said numerous times that WP allows inclusion of opinionated sources. This quote specifically is talking about "personal opinions" in terms of what qualifies a source as being a questionable source. That has nothing to do with Shapiro's personal opinion, but of the fact that his opinion was merely published in a source that is largely personal opinion pieces which makes it a questionable source by WP:QS standards. This is not a circular argument, it's a matter of WP policy which limits where questionable sources can be used. Also, I already refuted your COI claim by actually providing the definition from the linked reference in WP:QS. Others have pointed out Breitbart as having a poor reputation for fact checking, so I'll work on substantiating that and the extremist claims when it becomes necessary. However, it's not necessary now because simply the portion of WP:QS that identifies sources that are largely personal opinions is enough to categorize Breitbart.com as a questionable source. No need to argue tangents if Breitbart.com can be categorized as a questionable source based on the fact that it's an opinion website and meets the description provided by WP:QS. Again, instead of telling me to consolidate, you're more than free to consolidate the conversation yourself. As a matter of fact, I addressed an issue here on the Noticeboard and then you stopped responding. It was 2-3 days later that I realized that you were carrying on discussion in the talk page, so I re-engaged there. You then responded on the talk page and then jumped back here to respond on the Noticeboard after not being active for a couple of days, thus effectively splitting the conversation. So you can consolidate it anytime you want.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC) The WP:BIASED section does deal with opinionated or biased sources. Breitbart isn't a personal blog or collection of personal opinion blogs (what QS is getting at), but an opinionated news site. Most of its material covers news events, and it employs an editorial staff and reporter teams. The circular argumentation was in your last post when you kept repeating that Breitbart was limited as a source by QS because it was a QS, while distancing yourself from the "opinion" angle ("my argument has never been about the fact that the Shapiro piece is "opinionated") and failing yet again (as you have here again) to support your claims about fact checking, COI, or extremism. No, I refuted your claim about COI by pointing out that every example given in the definition pertains to financial or spousal COI, not ideology, and your insistence on the latter interpretation would grossly violate WP:BIASED and, if applied in one sided fashion, core Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy (neutrality). I initially stopped responding here because the conversation seemed played out and I hadn't seen that you had posted again here anyway, but when you suddenly appeared on the talk page (the discussion there had long preceded and sparked the one here, btw) and referenced your posts here I decided to reply. Continued relevant discussion in this section, whether conducted by us or others, should focus on Breitbart.com generally, with the Shapiro/America discussion occurring on the relevant talk page. VictorD7 (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC) WP:BIASED deals with reliable sources that are opinionated or biased. It does not allow questionable sources to be immune from the policies pertaining to questionable sources. Also, there was no circular reasoning, it's simply a matter of how WP defines and applies policies. Breitbart.com is an opinion website that largely consists of personal opinion pieces. WP policy considers this type of source a questionable source. Therefore Breitbart.com is a questionable source. This is a standard logical deductive argument in the form of A=B, B=C, => A=C. Saying that Breitbart.com is limited by WP:QS because it is a questionably source is not circular reasoning, it's a matter of defining terms, identifying WP policy, and then applying WP policy. Also, if there was any truth to your assertions about my refusing the inclusion of opinions, then I would have never have said that Gaines could be included. This part of the conversation has always been about the strength of the source, where Reuters is a reliable source and Breitbart.com is a questionable source. So I'm not distancing myself from anything. Furthermore, you're wrong about the definition of COI. "Sources that may have interests other than professional considerations in the matter being reported are considered to be conflicted sources." it goes on to say that "A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity." It can be argued that personal considerations includes political ideologies and the fact that the site has a clear conservative agenda which is also identified on the WP article and other sources. Not only that but the definition also says COI "include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promote the holding company of the media group or discredit its competitors." Clearly on the front page it promotes their holding company/partner Fox in multiple places and who knows how many articles they've written trying to discredit their competitors...here's one. Like I said, there are enough personal opinion pieces to qualify it as a questionable source alone but there are clear COI examples as well. Here's one regarding a poor reputation for fact checking and publishing articles that rely heavily on rumors, which is another thing that qualifies it as a questionable source as defined by WP:QS.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC) But WP:BIASED makes it clear that being opinionated per se often isn't grounds for disqualifying a source as unreliable, even sometimes for facts in Wikipedia's voice, which is good since arguably all sources are biased. I said a huge chunk of your earlier post was circular for reasons I already explained. Your latest one simply starts with erroneous premises. Your own quotes regarding COI underscore you're totally wrong about that. It focuses on "financial or other personal considerations", just as I said. Nowhere does it mention anything about political bias, which is covered and explicitly allowed by WP:BIASED. At least we've finally distilled our sharpest disagreement: you want to ban any conservative source from Wikipedia simply for being conservative, but apparently not liberal sources (which was my actual assertion), which is a blatant violation of core neutrality policy. Because of its personal and situational nature, COI is context specific by definition anyway, further refuting the notion that it could be applied to something as broad as ideology. All the major media outlets partner up with or are sometimes owned by larger companies. I'm not sure precisely what relationship Breitbart and Fox are supposed to have, but the notion that they'd somehow be in the tank when it comes to covering the company is refuted by pieces like this one criticizing aspects of it; indeed that argument could boomerang on your position and underscore Breitbart's journalistic integrity. Breitbart is an opinionated news site that employees an editorial staff and large teams of reporters, many of whom have extensive journalistic experience working for other prominent media outlets. It's classified as a "news" site by Alexa (currently up to #37 in the world), the most prominent internet ratings outfit, undermining your characterization that it's mostly just a personal opinion site. Your "competitor" COI rationale could obviously logically be turned around on the source you cited, and used to disqualify every source on Wikipedia that's ever commented on its competitors. In the "friends of Hamas" hubbub Shapiro only reported what Senate sources told him, qualifying the report as such. Such reporting from anonymous sources that may or may not be true happens daily from the NY Times to NBC, and doesn't appear to have been factually incorrect (caveats considered). Shapiro also laid out evidence that Dan Friedman was not only factually incorrect in his claims about being Shapiro's source, but knew such claims were false before he published them. Does that make Friedman's employer, The NY Daily News, a questionable source? If that's your best shot on the "fact checking" angle, a story that arguably shouldn't have been run but wasn't factually incorrect in that it identified them as source claims, then that would be a very poor excuse for disqualifying the news site across the board. Outfits like NBC, CBS, the NY Times, and others have been guilty of far worse, including rumor mongering (with less substantial sources than the Senate), biased editing to consciously mislead, factual inaccuracies, and major journalist fraud. VictorD7 (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC) I know exactly what WP:BIASED says and it speaks specifically to reliable sources which doesn't include self published or questionable sources. It even says that editors should verify the opinion meets WP standards of being a reliable source and Breitbart.com clearly doesn't. Your assertion that I aim to prevent any conservative opinion is fallacious and unfounded. I merely require that those opinions come from reliable sources which Breitbart.com is clearly not a reliable source and is a questionable source by multiple accounts. The alexa rating only speaks to popularity and doesn't do anything to undermine the fact that Breitbart.com heavily relies on opinion pieces. Furthermore, I've already outlined how COI isn't limited to financial or spousal conflicts and pertains to a variety of things. Having a biased opinion is perfectly fine until that bias compromises the integrity of your work, which can directly qualifies as a personal consideration. I've already linked multiple examples of how Breitbart.com has clear conflicts of interests regarding other aspects as well. Furthermore, Breitbart.com isn't a competitor to major networks because the major news networks are generally considered reliable sources and Breitbart.com is a questionable source. If it was on equal footing, then its multiple articles bashing other news networks automatically disqualifies it as a reliable source. Furthermore, the NBC article doesn't bash Breitbart.com, it merely reports on a story. This is different from what the article I linked to from Breitbart.com where they take an objective poll and use it to discredit and mock the trustworthiness of other news sites. The NBC article didn't do that in any way shape or form. Also understand, that even if it did, NBC isn't the subject of this conversation...Breitbart.com is. So your complaints about other sites doing the same thing Breitbart does is irrelevant. BTW, they don't. Breitbart.com is littered with articles on many of its front pages directed at attacking/criticizing competitors or advertising and promoting partners. Also, your attempt to argue against Breitbart.com publishing content that highly relies on rumors is fruitless. It was an article published on a proven rumor and WP:QS specifically qualifies sources that do that as being questionable. This was simply one cursory example, since I didn't even need to invest much time researching it because Breitbart.com is largely relies on personal opinion pieces which qualifies it as a questionable source. Lastly, posting another example of Breitbart criticizing another "competitor" doesn't help your argument and only shows that it's a questionable source as WP:QS clearly explains.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Your first two sentences (along with some of your later ones) repeat your circular argument, since you've been trying to use Breitbart's opinionated nature to claim that it's a "questionable source". And you clearly are trying to prohibit conservative sources, since you claimed that holding a conservative ideology represents a "conflict of interest" per QS (which is an absurd and essentially self annihilating contention). Nothing you've said about COI comes remotely close to showing that it applies to Breitbart at all, or to anything other than the type of (rare) "personal" "financial" examples the definition provides. Alexa doesn't base its categorization on "popularity". There are many popular opinion sites it doesn't list in its "News" rankings. Alexa's classification of Breitbart as a "news" site is strong evidence that we should at least be open to the possibility too. Your contention that Breitbart sometimes criticizing other news outfits somehow disqualifies it as a reliable source is absurd, as all news outfits do that, including the MSN piece you linked to earlier attacking Breitbart. I'm not sure what "NBC" piece you're referring to. Your link was to an MSN article. I posted the Shapiro response to show the other side (I tend to be fair minded and neutral like that). And, as I said, prominent media outfits routinely report "rumors" from anonymous sources. We can't logically hold that one example against Breitbart if we don't also hold it against the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, etc.. VictorD7 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC

This RfC might be of interest to people here. It is more of a WP:UNDUE rather than WP:NPOV issue, but the two are somewhat related. Kingsindian (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks for this information was very useful.Docsim (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing on Sex at Dawn

User:Pengortm is engaged in tendentious editing at Sex at Dawn. For instance, he added an Amazon.com review by Herbert Gintis to the article, but even though the review is mixed (3/5 stars), presented only the negative parts of it. I attempted to balance things out by adding the positive remarks (As you can see for yourselves, Gintis disagrees with their prescriptive claims, and thinks their writing/research style was amateurish, but nonetheless thinks their factual conclusions are spot-on and that the book is worth reading). My addition of these points was reverted by Pengortm, based on the straw-man argument that what Gintis thought of their writing style is irrelevant.

Additionally, though a positive review of the book by primatologist Eric Michael Johnson was added to the article, he is only described as a "graduate student in history of sciences." My attempts to note his training in primatology have been repeatedly reverted (most recently by Pengortm). The only explanation given for this is that, because another reviewer who is a grad student is described as a grad student, Johnson should be too. This reasoning is obviously erroneous because Johnson, unlike the other guy (who has no degree but his BA), has a master's degree in evolutionary anthropology (with a concentration in primatology), and he earned it from a top-tier university (University of British Columbia).

I'm at my wit's end here and I would like some editors who have no dog in this fight to intervene. Steeletrap (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I welcome further input from other editors on this. No doubt what we have could use further improvement and other perspectives. As I think you can see from the talk page and revision history comments from me and the other editors, these points have been very clearly discussed. It would be helpful if Steeletrap would read these explanations and engage with the editors on the talk page in a collaborative fashion (e.g. the other graduate student clearly has a masters degree as well and I noted this and linked to the information on the talk page). Please let me know if I can provide further information or explanations to help out on this. Thank you. --Pengortm (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Where do you say this on the talk page? If he has a Master's in psychology or anthropology, we should describe him as a psychologist or an anthropologist. But I don't think he does. Steeletrap (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sex_at_Dawn#Johnson_paragraph and then I mentioned that this was already discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sex_at_Dawn#Johnson_paragraph- As I pointed out already on the talk page, I don't have any strong commitments to describing them as graduate students or not--just that we keep things balanced in our descriptions. Similarly, you will see that other editors and I have engaged in discussion about whether an Amazon review is a reliable source. We would have welcomed your input in that discussion (and still do) and I think it would have been more collaborative to take part in that discussion rather than simply deleting a source we had discussed the merits of already on the talk page. --Pengortm (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As an involved editor I would like to second User:Pengortm's comments. Several editors have been discussing the sources used and best way forward regarding this page. However, User:Steeletrap has been largely absent from the discussion. The user has removed discussed changes a number of times, but has so far not engaged on the question of using self-published reviews by experts in the field such as Gintis (see: Talk:Sex at Dawn#Other potential sources to add in to the reactions by relevant experts section), or how to describe the "grad students'" credentials (Talk:Sex at Dawn#Johnson paragraph). There is a clear trail of comments on the talk page, but Steeletrap is largely absent, except suddenly in parallel to this complaint. To suddenly report "tendentious" editing here after being mostly absent from the discussion is not collegiate or constructive IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

We should note the credentials of both Johnson and Ellsworth (I'm sorry for missing your talk page comments in this regard). However, I am still very troubled by the removal of the positive material from the (mixed, 3/5 star) Amazon.com review. Can you explain the rationale for that? Steeletrap (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That discussion may be best held at the talk page rather than here IMO, as surely it does not warrant the attention of outside observers? Suffice to say here, that I am more than happy to have that discussion. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I should note that User:Gadly Circus who seems not to have the permissions to comment on this page has none the less commented on the situation, here and would like those comments taken into account. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Pengortm is adding too much unencyclopedic content especially in the coverage of the criticism. It all needs to be condensed. Pengortm has split the criticism into ever expanding different sections and wants to cover it even more exhaustively; he is suggesting further elaboration with bullet points.‎ Peregrine981 is also still adding to the size of the sections. Any real notability that this popular science book has lies in its evolutionary thesis ("Like bonobos and chimps, we are the randy descendents of hypersexual ancestors.") being accepted by academic evolutionists.Overagainst (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you can find both Peregrine981 and I expressing a similar concern about the length of this section on the talk page and in edit comments and we are trying to figure out a way to boil things down in a good way. Any suggestions on how to go about this or sources that should not be there? Some more specifics would be helpful--and unless you think this is a POV concern, this discussion would be best to take place on the article talk page.--Pengortm (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It is, to me at least, difficult to follow what is is actually going on in Talk, but you don't seem to be trying to boil things down anywhere I can see. On 4 Aug you started Sentence in the lead summarizing reception by scholars 5 Aug you started the topic 'Other potential sources to add in to the reactions by relevant experts section. Also on the 5 Aug you started the Johnson paragraph section which is just 4 seperate posts from you Pengortm, and there are a lot of abstruse issues about professional qualifications, status, publishing and exactly how they should be described. There were similar edits by you on the article about the the author of Sex at Dawn Christopher Ryan (author)'s page like this. These kind of bikeshed discussions are indicative of a POV.Overagainst (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes--lots of proverbial ink has been spilled discussing this. I'm having trouble seeing a way around this if we are to openly discuss and try to get the best solutions--especially when there are points of contention. Do you have any more specific suggestions on better ways I and other editors should be utilizing the talk page? I'm having trouble deriving anything actionable out of your above point. Also, I continue to welcome input from you on how we should condense the criticism section as you suggested above before switching your critique to how the talk page is used. --Pengortm (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Sockpuppet Overagainst will not be responding here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pass_a_Method --Pengortm (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've managed to establish I'm me. Pengortm, Talk pages are where ideas are discussed and there should be no problem with thoroughgoing debate. If you wish a practical suggestion: the article should be concise. It isn't, because you're adding wafflely accounts of the reaction to the book, instead of condensing it down to encyclopedic content. 20:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, I agree that it would be better if we can make it more concise and efficient without losing balance and the jist of things. Looking forward to working with you as you come up with concrete suggestions about how to do this--or perhaps I'll find time to do it at some point.--Pengortm (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well just leave it alone for a while. You two (Peregrine981 got a barnstar from Pengortm) are of one mind at SaD, and it could use some fresh perspective.Overagainst (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dashavatara

There is serious issue with neutrality with Dashavatara and this has been ongoing for almost a year.

While it is also noted that Balarama is the one of the 10 incarnations of Vishnu, Redtigerxyz is always removing the name from the list and falsely adds it to the first image of the article without having any sources.

Mahabharat (written before 4th century BCE) considered Balarama to be avatar of Vishnu[2] and it is commonly assumed that Buddha was getting popular so around 4th - 8th century, he was included by Hindus as one of the avatar in one or two of the Purana, though he had to do nothing with the religion. There are sources such as [3], [4], [5] that gives similar priority to both of these names and many of sources considers Krishna to be 9th and Balarama to be 8th, because Balarama was elder.[6]

It is also confirmed that sources have been misrepresented on this articles, for example, these[7] [8] sources were used in article for claiming that Buddha is 9th avatar,[9] but they included Balarama. But Redtigerxyz is still reverting to wrong information.

We previously had more neutral version for the particular list section,[10], although it seemed that only Redtigerxyz disagreed with the version, but it was still more balanced and recognizable than the current one. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Its a factual error that is being pushed in the page for a long time. According to hindu religious scriptures and according to popular beliefs, Balarama is considered as the eighth avatar of Vishnu. Buddha was born in kaliyug and hence therefore can't be classified as an avatar. According to holy scriptures there is only one avatar in kaliyug that is Kalki which is the 10th avatar. Numerous sources are presented to support this argument by various users. The Image in the page, a picture of Rajaravi varma about Dashavatara actually represents a different version that includes vithoba as the 9th avatar. It is misused to support the argument of including buddha. Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Bladesmulti: The ref book Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide you provide has following stuff. (Sorry! The book doesn't have page numbers on it to cite.)
  • The standard and most accepted list in the puranas and other texts is: Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha and Kalki. (Note the words "standard", "most accepted" and "Buddha".)
  • However, there are several different lists of ten, as well as different depictions. One list in the Mahabharata provides the following names: Hamsa, Kurma, Matsya, Varaha, Narsimha, Vamana, Rama (Bhargava), Rama (Dasharathi), Satvata (Krishna or Balarama), Kalkin. (Note the words "several different lists", "Hamsa", an "or" between Krishna and Balarama.)
  • Balarama: A deity, who is the elder brother of the god Krishna, and an incarnation of Vishnu. He was alternatively said to have been an incarnation of Ananta Naga.
  • The Brihat Samhita states that he [Balarama] supports the world on his head and lives in the nether regions, thus confirming his identity with Ananta.
  • Mahabharata describes him as "..... he [Balaram] is called Ananta."
  • In the Vishnu Purana, Samkarshana or Balarama is identified with Ananta.
  • Krishna is missing in several early Sashavatar reliefs, and in some later ones.
  • In later texts, in the list of the ten main incarnations of Vishnu, he [Balarama] is often replaced by the Buddha.
• So this book actually points out numerous references of how Balarama is related with Ananta. He also states how Buddha got his entry in the list quite later than Balarama had his.
• Another ref About.com is hardly reliable for any form of list they put. It bases its content on online websites that also include Wikipedia itself.
• Another ref book World Religions in Practice: A Comparative Introduction lists the 9th entry as "Buddha (or Balarama)" and further in footnotes writes "In some Hindu sources it is recorded as Balarama, the brother of Krishna. However, in the more common version it is the famed Indian prince who forsook the comfort of palace life, found Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, and became founder of one of the world's great religions."
• Another ref book Nelson's Illustrated Guide to Religions: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Religions of the World lists the 8th rank as "Balarama or Buddha".
• The next ref book The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots calls for Balarama as 8th avatar and Krishna as 9th. But please note that this book doesn't deal with Hinduism as the main topic but only in passing mentions this.
• Now the question is; should we put forth the most common list that has lasted for longer years or should we put forth the list that Sri Sampradaya popularizes?

• @ Rameshnta909: Which Raja Ravi Varma's painting shows Vithoba? The painting of Varma am seeing File:Vishnu Avatars.jpg shows a man in Padmasana on right top corner, who should be construed as Buddha who is popularly depicted in this asana. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I never used about.com for the reference of my information. It just happened that either redtigeryx or anyone else was misusing that source for claiming that buddha is 9th incarnation when about.com wasn't even supporting such information, same with 2 other sources. We have already agreed before that Krishna and Balarama are considered as 8th or 9th avatar.

These sources, including this [11](oxford) provided similar importance to both buddha and balarama. So why can't we? If you have to mention vithoba it can be done on subsection or we will need to provide bigger description for the 9th, right now the added introductions are almost meaningless because many of them don't mention that why they are considered as avatar. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti and Rameshnta909 both claim that Balarama is part of the popular list, but have not presented RS to support the statement. Several RS (see Dashavatara#cite_note-7) include Buddha as part of the popular list; Devdutt Pattanaik says explicitly "In the more popular list of ten avatars of Vishnu, the ninth avatar is shown as Buddha, not Balarama." as does Dalal: "The standard and most accepted list found in Puranas and other texts is: ... Rama, Krishna, Buddha and Kalki." I have WP:AGFed so far, but Wikipedia:Cherrypicking is apparent. See Talk:Dashavatara#Buddha_is_not_a_Avtar. Bladesmulti cites Dalal to include Balarama, but refuses to read the "The standard and most accepted list..." line. Another source Carman cited again and again; says "Many such lists, ... include the Buddha as an incarnation." and then lists Srivashnava version, not the "popular" version - these lines are again ignored. Also, note that Balarama is included in the Krishna para of Dashavatara#Popular_list.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How about 16 other reverts by other users or IPs made against your preferred information? You have been provided about 7 reliable sources and there is nothing like 'popular list'.. You had changed the title of the section just for pushing your own POV. Anything that you consider to be popular list is POV pushing and not neutral for this type of page. We all know that there is a list of "Avatars" and there is no established order. If you want to talk about actual order then you will have to look at the list that was presented before the addition of Buddha to the list. Buddha was added because of his popularity not because he had to do anything with religion.

Carmen clearly wrote that Balarama is Avatar, your assumptions are simply beyond the common understanding since the source is reliable. Now if someone has to comment on your sources, then it can be simply said that none of them provides any references or any meaningful understanding behind the list that they have copied from other. So just stick to content. Let me inform you that this board is not for copying and pasting your refuted arguments that you had made on the talk page. But it is for hearing the opinion from non-involved editors. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ How can anyone just 'construe' that? The avatar shown in padmasana is vithoba which is the deity's popular position in temples and murals. Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

See FA Vithoba. He is always arms-akimbo. Shocked. :O Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not like any traditional descriptions of buddha. It is more similar to Vithoba than buddha. Rameshnta909 (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Show us one definite depiction of Vithoba in padmasana and I will show you 10 with his arms on his waist. Show us one definite depiction of Buddha with arms on his waist and I will show you 10 of Buddha in padmasana. Please, we need WP:COMPETENCE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rameshnta909, Pure WP:OR. See traditional depiction of Buddha in padmasana [12][13][14][15][16] as avatar.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us talk about the actual dispute. As long as you don't provide source for any information about particular historical image, it is malformed and Original Research. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, before you allege OR and revert, do bother to see Talk:Dashavatara#V.26A_image_caption (posted 13:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)).Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz Image issue is resolved. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Other than restoring to [17] I have got another proposal. As we have to agree that there are different scriptures and they have considered various names, what if we use a template instead for implementing the different versions of list? Like we did Template:Periodisation of Indian History for different versions of dating. It can be a better option as current list has redundant introductions and it is not presenting other important versions. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose complete removal of current popular/standard list; a brief summary is needed so that the topic is understood by non-Hindu audience. Saying Matsya avatar is a fish, doesn't make any sense (Why did Vishnu take avatar as a fish? a non-Hindu may think). The reader needs to know the basic tale of Matsya in max 5 sentences IMO. Adding a scripture wise list in addition to the standard list, is a good idea. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Lynda Thomas

This article has been tagged for lack of sources for the better part of a decade. It makes assertions of notability, but most of them are sourced to Spanish-language sources I can't judge. More to the point: it is an unabashed fanpage fawning and fullsome in tone, full of namedropping and assertions that this teenaged performer I never heard of blazed a trail for pop divas now known across the planet. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Orange Mike, i just read your message, thanks for your attention, thats right, years ago, this article has been tagged for lack of sources, recently it has been provided of that, most of them in spanish language; I think the lead does mention about she had her breakout in the music scene before such pop divas did so, but, no blazed a trail for them, the article remarks she did it for later latin divas. So, I think thats not a fan page. However, i think this article can be improved in many ways, meanwhile, by my hand, I will try to fix some points that may be ambiguous or confusing and also some peacock terms.

Only I apologize if I can't answer right away, some activities absorb me all day. Greetings to all of you Ajax1995 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it neutral to say a sports team player was "poached"?

See Queensland rugby league team and its Talk page.

Simple issue really. In Australia there are four codes of football played professionally (and a few others played at amateur level). User:Gibson Flying V and I are having a discussion on whether the word "poached" is neutral, or a loaded POV one. Two Rugby league players in Australia were encouraged via lots of money to play Australian Rules Football instead. Gibson Flying V wants the article to say they were "poached". I feel that's a loaded word with pretty negative overtones. He feels it's fine, and cites a lot of media reports where that word is used.

I'm interested in others' opinions please, here or on the article Talk page. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Poached has specific negative connotations, including, but not limited to, attracting an employee from a competitor, and to trespass in order to take something. Where a less loaded term can be used, it ought to be used. "Recruit" is a general less loaded Americanism for such acts with regard to seeking employees from a competitor (to persuade (someone) to join you in some activity or to help you). Collect (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Football organisations "recruit" players from their usual talent pools routinely. If they go for the first time well outside this norm, and into a competitor's stable of established superstars, brandishing unusually large sums of money, "recruit" doesn't quite tell the whole story. This is probably why sources (on every side of the issue) consistently call it "poaching". If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck (and reliable, published sources consistently call it a duck), then it probably is a duck. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually they do not appear to be "competitors" in the sense of being in the same sport. Rather it is like an NBA team "poaching" a football player from the NFL -- that is not considered "poaching" as they are not the same specific sport. Collect (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So we're to believe that WP:SOURCES covering the topic somehow have it wrong?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen sports articles saying one team "massacred" the other. Yet we would not think of using the colourful term as a claim of fact on Wikipedia. The idea is to use wording which is accurate and represents factual claims with neutral wording. Thus we must, perforce, end up with less colourful language than some of the sources presented. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course I would agree with you wholeheartedly if the use of sports teams "massacring" one another was up for discussion, but it isn't. And I think you'd be hard pressed finding anyone attempting to use that word in that way anywhere on Wikipedia. However, the use of "poaching" in regards to athletes is already widely used here, just as it is in sources. That's because it is not over the top and falls perfectly within the bounds of its dictionary definition. For this reason it is not only used widely in news articles, but also in books.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I provided dictionary definitions in our earlier discussion. They use words like "steal" and "without permission". That clearly makes it a negative word. The activity is only a negative one when looked at from the perspective of the organisation losing those players. It's obviously a positive for the organisation gaining them. "Poached" does not have any positive sense at all. It's inappropriate. That it's used elsewhere in Wikipedia is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not proof that it's the right thing to do. We need a word that does indicate the positive aspect of the activity. "Recruited" works for me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Like the countless authors who have used the word in published sources, I too understand exactly what it means. But thanks anyway. A word being percieved as holding negative connotations for some party involved does not preclude its use on wikipedia (see "murder" vs "kill", "suicide" vs "death"). Having pointed out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I trust you'll have read the part that says, "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." What this means is that the prevalence (not isolated incidence) on Wikipedia of "poach" with regard to portspeople implies a wide-reaching consensus that it is perfectly acceptable. You appear to now be trying to change that consensus. Since you've chosen the Neutral point of view Noticeboard, the key policy (not essay) is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Let's look at the very first line: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It is quite obviously a significant view that has been published in reliable sources that Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau (along with countless other cross-code footballers) were poached, so we would be failing this policy if we did not represent that. If there are any cases in which a sportsperson is said to have been poached and there are significant views that have been published by reliable sources contradicting this, then there's a discussion to be had. When debate about whether an athlete was poached or not begins and ends with a lone Wikipedia editor and appears in zero published sources, it's a non-issue. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. You seem to agree that "poached" has obvious negative connotations, and no positive ones. That makes it non-neutral. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your own views on how right you consider yourself to be are well documented. Your argument here seems to boil down to the fact that because the word "poach" has negative connotations it follows that it is "non-neutral" and therefore obviously must be banned from Wikipedia. This is pretty fascinating, so yeah, I can't wait to see what comes out next.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Poached" has obvious negative connotations, and no positive ones. That makes it non-neutral. Discuss. (That post, not me.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

When using Wikipedia's voice, we try to use neutral language, but if a RS says "poached", we cite them accurately, trying to preserve the spirit of the source. We don't engage in censorship. If most RS use such non-neutral terms, then we can often begin to use the same term in Wikipedia's voice. It all depends.... "Terrorist" and "terrorism" are examples, which we sometimes now use in Wikipedia's voice, because RS use them. See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Follow the sources, and when in doubt, quote and attribute. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem would be determining whether it's most sources, or just a small subset. There were hundreds, possibly thousands of articles written about the move of the two players from Rugby League to Australian Rules Football. (It had never happened before at that level.) It was very controversial, and definitely upset fans of the code they left. GSV has found a handful which suit his cause. I wonder about the rest. It's also worth noting that neither of the articles on the two players involved uses the word poached or anything like it. If we get that close to the players, and the word isn't used, I suggest it's being used for POV purposes in the Queensland rugby league team article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Usage of "Cult" in Dorje Shugden Controversy article

Attempt at resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy#Protected_edit_request_on_22_August_2014

Dorje Shugden Controversy In general the concern is over the usage of "Cult" which is thrown around this article. 1. When a point isn't being made that a certain group is a cult but throw the word around casually, should we instead use other quotes to establish the same point? - E.g. According to Kapstein, the 14th Dalai Lama is '...focused upon the role of Shugden as a militantly sectarian protector of the Gelukpa order, and the harm that has been done to Tibetan sectarian relations by the cult's more vociferous proponents.[31] -It is a WP:Label and its not the main point here, just appealing to emotion. Also WP:QUOTE 4. "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."

-Robert Thurman for example states "The cult and agency attack campaign is futile since its main claims are so easy to refute."[17] Again.. the 'cult' part isn't the main part, but is constantly being edit-warred and put back into the article, even when the main point isn't relating to it.

-Thurman explains that members of the cult want: This seems like WP:ASSERT, as its implying this is a given fact, even though its just an opinion, and is manipulating a way to lead into a quote. Its just another editor's research/opinion, instead of saying Thurman explains members want.. or Thurman explains they want.

-Dodin also states that 'The NKT can be described typologically as a cult on the basis of its organisational form, its excessive group pressure and blind obedience to its founder. The organisation’s extreme fanaticism and aggressive missionary drive are typical cult features too' 1. Dodin doesn't seem qualified to say such a thing? 2. Seems like [[WP:Label] 3. Doesn't qualify these statements or cite them, as they are from a one-off interview with a blog-type website in retaliation to demonstrations going on (www.info-buddhism.com).

-A major problem also is, at least with Dodin and Thurman, is that they are deeply tied into the issue. Dodin's interview was in retaliation to demonstrations taking place in May and is a fighter for Tibetan Independence. Thurman runs into WP:IMPARTIAL , as he is a warrior in this issue, calls the group in question "The Buddhist Taliban", and tweets negative things about it. He also had an op-ed published in retaliation to demonstrations going on by the group.

-Main question: Is this use of 'cult', especially when not being qualified, a violation of NPOV and in particular WP:W2W ? It is not a 'widely used description' of the group, which seems to be a necessary aspect, and is used extremely liberally in these cases. Thanks for any help in advance. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• The use of the word cult is only being used in 3 direct academic quotes in the body of the DSC article. It is certainly not "thrown around".
• Buddhist scholars speak of cult of Amitabha, Padmasambhava cult, cult of Tara etc. And these are not even sectarian deities like Shugden.
• Similarly, Matthew Kapstein and Robert Thurman are not referring to specific organizations. The WP:LABEL subsection of WP:W2W mentions "calling an organization a cult". In these 2 instances, there is no organization being called a cult. Moreover, the policy does not seem to be about direct quotes in the first place.
• Dodin, yet another Tibetologist, does say the New Kadampa Tradition organization specifically fits the criteria for a cult, with the word cult being used in that other definition. The part of WP:QUOTE Prasangika37 cites does not apply here to Dodin. He not using "rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone". He is giving reasons why the NKT fulfills the criteria for being a cult.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Its important for others to recognize this user above has been repeatedly including this edits for months, so is not some anonymous editor helping out :) The point re: incidentally using it, further strengthens WP:W2W and WP:QUOTE listed above. Its a loaded word and should be avoided in general, unless widely used. The usage of 'cult' by Thurman is also in a section about an organization, and thus implies the organization is. We've also discussed this in the main page, so lets allow other neutral editors to lend their help. Feel free to keep the conversation going there if you would like, but I am coming here because the dispute hasn't been resolved there in the first place. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify other users involved. Read the top of the page.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: So long as NPOV, RS and V are met, which I think they are or will be, the word "cult" by itself is not the issue, it's the context: As I said on a couple places, it is OK to say "organization foo has traditionally been part of the foo cult as described by expert Schmoo."(with citation). It is possibly problematic, but acceptable if sourced and balanced, to say, "Experts fee, fie, foe and fum have called organization foo a cult due to the presence of a charismatic leader, an exclusivist paradigm, and yada, yada, yada.)with citation But on the other hand, oorganization foo says they are not a cult because yada, yada, yada..."" (with citation) It is wrong for us as wikipedia editors who use the word "cult" as a perjerative label, as in "The foo cult claims it's not a cult because..." Montanabw^(talk) 01:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Therefore my take is that the material by people like Thurman and Dodin meet RS, but we must be meticulously careful in how we use their writing and not take it out of context. While Prasangika37 calls Thurman in particular a "warrior," Thurman is a highly respected Buddhist scholar. Rather than whitewash the article of criticism, it is more appropriate to say "Thurman says X because of reasons A, B and C, but in contrast, Gyatso say Y because of reasons D, E and F."
• Further: I have become recently involved on this article in an attempt to sort out what is legitimate opinion and what is POV-pushing. My take is that there are several editors who have the suffix "37" on their names, (including Prasangika37) who are all aggressively pushing a pro-NKT POV, possibility tag-teaming. One created a sockpuppet which was blocked. In contrast, there are long term editors such as @CFynn: and @Cullen328: who are trying to keep the tone neutral. There has been a lot of work done by @Joshua Jonathan: , that appears appropriate and well-researched to RS though awkwardly written at times. VictoriaGrayson, who articulates a more pro-Dalai Lama position and has sort of been "taking point" against "the 37s" and has been targeted by them rather viciously, including a thread on my talk page (uncollapse to read). At the end of the day, I think that "the 37s" are trying to whitewash legitimate criticism of the NKT and other Shugen practitioners while misstating the positions of the Dalai Lama and the mainstream Gelug school. Montanabw^(talk) 01:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JJ: I think that Dodin's statement is relevant; it provided a context for the behavior of some Shugden-practitioners. Thurman's use of the word is suggestive, as it is ambiguous; I read it as a qualification, not as a neutral description as in "the cult of Tara". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

All three editors above are those from the discussion on the page itself (JJ, MontanaBw, and VictoriaGrayson). Is there anyone out there that isn't already involved in the discussion that could give some insight? I came to the Noticeboard for help from third parties, not to have the exact same discussion. Montana, I do see your points and think some of them are reasonably helpful and same with you JJ. I'll respond for further discussion later back on the main page. Thanks. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems everyone is actually helping reiterate the issue with the usage of the language. By demonstrating cult has different meanings (e.g. cult of Tara) and sometimes its not even intended as the main point and just used casually, it shows the word is too vague to be used. Sometimes its scholarly, sometimes derogatory, sometimes just a slur of sorts. Thus, we should use different quotes to establish similar points if the points themselves are so important. Dodin's quote is bizarre to be supported especially because it uses other W2W like extreme and fantacism. And does he mean 'cult' as in Cult of Tara or does he mean Cult as in Jonestown? This, again, is why the word is problematic.

See a quote by User:John_carter elsewhere re the word:

"There are basically three reasons, so far as I know. One is our guideline WP:W2W. The word "cult" in this context is both somewhat vague, as there is so far as I can tell no specific clearly agreed upon definition of the term, and because, at least in this content, the use of the term tends to prompt more heat than light. Poorly defined language is at best dubiously encyclopedic, and so is rather unnecessarily inflammatory language. Lastly, the academic community has stopped using the word lately, replacing it with new religious movement, so we use the currently used academic language instead."

• "Cult" should only be used in quotations, which would mean removing one use from the current protected text. To say (above) "cult is only being used in 3 direct academic quotes in the body of the DSC article..." is simply untrue - cntl-F shows 3 uses in quotes in the main text but also "Thurman explains that members of the cult want:" in Wikipedia's voice, which needs to be changed. There are a further 4 uses in quotes in the notes, plus some in the titles of sources. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Its very helpful and appreciated. Anyone else out in the Wikisphere? Prasangika37 (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hulk's here, thinking it's fine if it's a quote. Wikipedia's voice has plenty of better words to use, though. Or no words, just "Thurman explains that members want...". Readers know which members. Can't do much about the titles of sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. What about in the cases where its not the main point of the quote? Like it is just thrown in there as a random word, when the same point can be made without the word 'cult' being used? It seems to violate WP:QUOTE, no? //Also, re: Dodin, I find it challenging also because in that interview, which is done with a website with huge sections devoted to criticizing Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition, Dodin uses the word 'cult' in quite a brief interview [23 times]. There are also no citations present for the research or POV, Dodin definitely doesn't have a PHD, and perhaps doesn't even have a masters? He is called a "Tibetologist" but I am not sure what that means in this context or how that makes his POV Academic? reliable, or relevant to the situation (The New Kadamp Tradition is not Tibetan or in Tibet..) Seems like he is just someone with an agenda, no? Prasangika37 (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Academics don't advertise their PhD's. Most webpages of South Asian / Tibetan studies professors don't even mention their PhD at all. I can provide examples if you wish. Dodin is a known expert and spoke at the recent academic Shugden conference. Read the comments of Montanabw above, before you accuse Dodin of having an agenda.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Dodin quote makes entirely clear why he uses the word 'cult' - he isn't just throwing it around. And as Google Scholar demonstrates, his work has been cited in multiple academic publications. [18] As to whether he has a doctorate or not, I don't know - but he has certainly acted as a lecturer at the University of Bonn ([19] - see p 51). I can see no reason why his opinion should not be included in the article. It is about a controversy - and accordingly, our readers need to know what the controversy is about, and what the opposing viewpoints are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Sorry, wasn't clear on my part. I wasn't referring to the Dodin example of 'throwing it around'. I was talking to the Thurman and Kapstein examples where its not the main point of the quote, but just a word used casually when talking about another point. And thanks for the answer re: Dodin. Prasangika37 (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion that Dodin 'seems to have an agenda' was clear enough. As was your attempt to discredit him as a source, based on little more than supposition. There is no requirement that individual sources cited in articles be 'neutral.' What matters is that the article as a whole reflects the balance of opinion amongst relevant reliable sources. Attempting to invalidate an academic source because you don't like their opinion (which is cited as such) isn't acceptable. As for the remaining sources, I've not looked at them - but any arguments against citing them need to be based around more than vague claims of 'an agenda'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah that is useful clarification. I see that pointing out an agenda is not helpful. I've made that mistake before and I think I've gotten it down now. Sorry. So let me get this completely clear, so I don't make this mistake in the future: From what I can tell, I don't see it is as academic, but my understanding about 'academic' on Wikipedia was 1. a PHD 2. Formal training in the topic they are speaking about (widely considered a scholar). This is wrong, though, because he has edited a text that has been cited by others and has lectured at a University? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:LABEL made me think we would need more support in general to include claims of the sort, (Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution) But the fact that its a quote makes okay to use the Label even though its exceptional? Is that right? This is helpful in understanding in what is an acceptable citation or point for an article, though and will be useful in the future. Thanks for being patient. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Re the other quotes, the quotes definitely are from reliable sources. The issue is not the sources themselves, but the usage of quotes within the article. I was thinking that for NPOV we should use quotes that make the same point, but without the word 'cult' casually used. E.g. "The point the cult is making is wrong because this and that" can be replaced with "The point the organization is making is wrong because this and that", if the replacement quote exists? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues here. Do the sources cited frequently use the term 'cult', and is the usage of the term common in other sources? If the sources have been cherry-picked for isolated usages of the term, then it could be argued that they aren't being fairly represented. Likewise, if these sources have been cherry-picked for their opinions, there might be a NPOV problem. However, you will have to come up with evidence, either way - your repeated insistence that sources cited have 'an agenda' is not only entirely lacking in evidence, but it is becoming more than a little irritating. The article is about a controversy, and we aren't going to avoid citing the opinions of legitimate sources because you don't like what they say, or the words they use. Instead, you should be looking for evidence of scholarly sources representing an alternate point of view, if they exist. If they don't exist, then it would seem reasonable to assume that the existing article is accurately representing the scholarly consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Thank you for your time and help. I'll stop asking questions for now. Very, very helpful. And again, sorry for being a bit of a moron on procedure. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Aug 12 2014 "Major Edit" of Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

On August 12 2014, after several years of relative stability, most of the content of Revolutionary Communist Party, USA was replaced by a longer article.

I would characterize the new text as erudite but overly-focused on the struggle of the RCP and its longtime leader toward what one might call "revolutionary truths", as opposed to the reasonably neutral and genuinely historical, encyclopedic approach of the prior text. I raised discussion of this event on the main talk page [talk page], as well as the editor's User talk:EyesWhyde. They replied on my page [talk page]

After 24 hours — moved by knowledge that the RCP is a highly active organization at present, in the news for its organizing activities amidst the civil unrest in Ferguson, MO, among other places , , and that the edit itself was wholesale, disruptive, and disrespectful of process — I reverted to prior text. I also encouraged the other editor to work via discussion to incorporate their depth of knowledge about the internal development of the RCP into the historical overview of the existing article. In response the Aug 12 Major Edit was restored in its entirety. The diff showing the major Aug 12 revision is here diff June 26 - Aug 12 2014

Prior text excerpts, beginning with opening lines:

The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP, USA), known originally as the Revolutionary Union, is a Maoist Communist party formed in 1975 in the United States. The RCP holds that American imperialism will never end peacefully, and that the only way for people to liberate themselves is through Communist revolution....

RCP today

The RCP had recently undergone a split in its ranks, concentrated around the role of revolutionary leadership. In published documents, the RCP has characterized this split as ultimately a struggle over the character of the party, between forces dedicated to revolution and those that have given up on making revolution in a country like the US....

Avakian's "promotion and popularization"

Others have charged that the RCP has created a cult of personality around Avakian, with dissenting voices driven from the organization. The RCP has countered that....[those who left advocated] "abandoning the outlook and aims of the communist revolution, accommodating to the system of imperialism and settling for, at most, reforms within this horrific system".

New text excerpts, also starting with opening lines:

The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP,USA) revcom.us is a nationwide revolutionary communist party in the United States. Bob Avakian is the Chairman of the RCP, USA and has led the party since its founding in 1975. Avakian's body of work is taken by the RCP as its ideological and political foundation and framework...drawing particular inspiration from the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China and Mao Tsetung.

Strategic Approach to Revolution

The stated goal of the party is revolution in the United States as part of revolutionary struggles worldwide aimed at ending the capitalist-imperialist system on a world scale.... The party refers to this strategic approach as "hastening while awaiting" the changes in the objective situation which will make a revolution possible.

A Cultural Revolution Within the RCP

Avakian and the RCP openly write about and discuss the struggle within the organization over what is represented by Avakian's leadership and the new synthesis of communism.... "cultural revolution" eventually resulted in some members leaving the organization. The RCP has summed up that in its most essential aspect, this "cultural revolution" resulted in a "revitalization of the communist and revolutionary outlook, objectives, spirit and culture" of the party and a deeper unity around and appreciation for Avakian's leadership and the new synthesis of communism.

Thank you for any and all discussion, feedback, and assistance with this matter. Praghmatic (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The edit is indeed quite a comprehensive rewrite. Such a huge rewrite needs to be discussed, not imposed. I find the so called "explanation" on the talk page no explanation at all, except to insist that the edit is right. It might be right, but it has to demonstrated. To essentially rewrite the whole article and not discuss challenges, while reverting changes, is essentially to act as in WP:OWN. The editor has clearly put in a lot of time into researching and creating, but the responsibility doesn't stop there. There is a lot of material in his edit and it can still be used -- but following proper procedure.

Here is my suggestion. The starting point should be the original stable article. And one by one, some sections can be either replaced, or added or modified in line with the new text, while answering any challenges. Kingsindian (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is entirely unacceptable to have an article based mostly on primary sources as it is now. If readers want to know more about what the party says beyond what is reported in reliable secondary sources, they can click on the link to their website. I notice too that the history section is missing some important information. Avakian came from the New Left, which most leaders of communist splinter groups came out of other communist groups. Also missing is their social views - their opposition to school busing, the equal rights amendment and same-sex marriage. And allegations of a personality cult and their support of North Korea. TFD (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur with The Four Deuces' point about primary sources. Kingsindian (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur, if the content is significant, it should have been reported on by non-primary sources. This is not about plot about a fictional story, but about an organization that exist in the real world, and this is subject to WP:VER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for the additional eyes on this one. As I have already done the first revert, my understanding is that - in the absence of obvious vandalism, which this is not - for me to do the revert again would be succumbing to edit warring. If no one else feels moved to do another edit, should I consider next Wikipedia:Third opinion? Of course, I can and will also attempt further discussion. But in the meantime, the Aug 12 edit remains the text visible to the world.Praghmatic (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The prior article was not all that well-sourced, but the "bold edit" produced a longer article with worse (IMO) sourcing. WP:CONSENSUS is clearly applicable, and it is reasonable to assert the editor has not obtained a consensus for the massive edit. Collect (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Type in "Robert Avakian" to Google books. There are lots of sources and there is a chapter devoted to the party in Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe. They have been in the news lately for participating in protests in Ferguson. TFD (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Malaysian Airways Flight MH 17

I wish to raise concerns about Stickee who appears to be using the lead to give the impression that the airliner was brought down by Pro-Russian separatists when in fact an investigation is under way. They are taking sources which report 'beliefs' and trying to present these as though they are established facts. It really would take too much time to argue with him. A balanced opening should begin with facts and then have claim and coutner claim, that's neutral and responsible. Please intervene. See talk and recent edits on this article Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

First things first, it's Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, not "Malaysian Airways".

I absolutely agree that factual and objective coverage is the way to go here. But I'm just as convinced it can't possibly happen. Theoretically, sure. But it goes way beyond Stickee, Wikipedia, this plane or any one state's disinformation machine. I suggest surrender. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The bulk of reliable sources favor the widely held opinion that MH17 was shot down with a Buk missile from rebel-held territory. The sources that claim otherwise are generally the Russian media and some conspiracy-oriented web papers in the West. There is considerable opposition on the article's talk page to inclusion of any suspected cause for MH17's crash on the grounds that "not all the facts are in", etc. This is false balance and contrary to the guidelines. WP is not a court, there is no due process here, and this isn't a BLP article. There is no good reason to avoid including facts that are widely covered by RS. Self-censorship on those grounds is a terrible idea and contrary to the way we do things here. I do not oppose including Russian perspectives on the matter, but we should not even consider censoring the views of Western governments when those seem to dominate RS, whether it's for "fairness" or "world peace" or any of the other suggestions that have been floated there in the short existence of the article. Geogene (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense. western intelligence all points to russian involvement and complicity.Docsim (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Without going deeply into it, allowing all claims of how the aircraft was shot down given their due weight and clearly stating who reported what, is better than no information at all saying "the investigation isn't done yet". Allow the readers to judge for themselves after looking at the sources and evaluating it. If pro-Russian media wants to say X, state it so, if all other non-pro-Russina media wants to say Y, state they said so.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a "oh nos! They won't let me push my POV in peace kind of complaint". The current article is about as balanced as you can get, unless you think that WP:FRINGE defines the nature of an encyclopedia. Sceptic1954 just has a bit of a problem with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (as exemplified by a recent block for 3RR and talk page abuse).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any reliable sources make claims about what happened although they report opinions on what happened. And we can mention those opinions if they are properly weighted. I haven't seen the opinion expressed that the Russian government ordered the downing of the plane, although they might have provided the technology. Nor do any claim that the rebels deliberately shot down a passenger jet. TFD (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Opinions" is not the correct word here. Anyway, none of the potential theories you discuss are mentioned in the article so I'm not sure what the relevance is. But yes these kind of opinions have been expressed, by Ukrainian officials for instance, mostly based on the fact that the BUK system has Friend or Foe capability, the theory being was that the Russians were hoping to blame the Ukrainians and have a pretext for an invasion. Not saying I buy it, but it's out there. But not in the article lede. Or maybe not even in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ferguson unrest

2014 Ferguson unrest and to a lesser extend the related Shooting of Michael Brown need some new eyes and a thorough scrubbing for POV material. The 2014 article is rife with POV language and a few occasions has warped what the references say to present the "facts" towards a POV point of view. The language used tries to portray the protesters in a sympathetic light and the authorities in a negative light. IMO two things need to be done:

1. Review each source to verify the statement being made accurately, and neutrally matches what text in the article says
2. Remove all weaselly modifiers such as "peaceful" or "authoritarian" unless specifically stated in the source

It's a big plate, who wants to help take a bite?Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, happy to help a bit. Maybe not extensively, but if you post on my talk page a few directions then I can help. Thanks for the notification. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

again there seems to be a lot of emotion affecting this article which is understandable but agreed that for a NPOV emotive language should be removed.Docsim (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

Hi, Shooting of Michael Brown needs some neutrality help from some experienced editors. There is a pretty well entrenched group who are keeping the radicals at Bay, but still the compromise that has been struck retains an unencyclopedic tone and subtle bias toward inflaming passions. I've tried to work on people with the Lede, but frankly the more neutral editors are tired and a group of editors who seem to focus on current events and SPAs are pretty solidly in control. These types of article are often the first impression that people get of WP, and the reputation of the project suffers when NNPOV is lost. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I may be overly sensitive and a few other neutral opinions may be good. If I'm wrong on this, I'd like to know. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

When something's popular for being controversial, the talk page gets much bigger than popular or controversial topics' combined. When something pro-1% or pro-99% is omitted in the interest of neutrality, whichever side is going to see that omission as pointed in the other direction, because it's pointed at the center. It's bigger than Wikipedia, which may be why these types are often new editors' first impressions.

Is there a specific thing you'd like resolved? We can't make the general problem go away. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(A) I am looking for a reality check to see if there is NPOV, and (2) if I'm right, some fresh opinions on the talk page RfC or some clean up of the article. I think that the information in the lead section is basically accurate, but there is a bit of a sensationalist spin. I think it has been improving though. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and certain parts of certain articles will always appear to lean one way or another from certain vantage points. It helps to clearly define things, rather than say "bit of a sensationalist spin".

One thing I noticed, for instance, was the first sentence contrasted a white police attacker with a black male victim. That lent undue weight to one's job and one's gender. Now they're parallel, and a wider aspect of the case (the coverage) is implied to boot. But even that was (maybe still is) met with some resistance. Seems like it seemed like I was trying to say he wasn't a man. Universal neutrality is extremely difficult to achieve, especially among strangers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It has gotten better in the last few days, and I appreciate your work on this. You definitely broight some fresh ideas and style to the Lede. From the talk pages, it looks like editors are understanding neutrality better and the difference between contemporary journalism and encyclopedic tone. Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Relationship between Efforts to impeach Barack Obama and United States House of Representatives v. Obama

Is this the appropriate noticeboard to raise disputes about relatedness of article content? There is a low-participation dispute at Talk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama#"Lawsuit in lieu of impeachment" section about whether the authorization of the lawsuit in United States House of Representatives v. Obama is sufficiently related to the article to merit inclusion in the article. Everyone agrees, so far as I can tell, that the lawsuit is reliably sourced, and that reliable sources have asserted that the lawsuit was filed in order to divert pressure favoring an impeachment vote. Is the assertion in these sources reason enough to mention the lawsuit, and the motivation that the sources have asserted, in the article? The counter-argument has been made that since the lawsuit is not itself an effort to impeach, then it should not be mentioned in an article about efforts to impeach. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes as far as NPOV being an issue. But no - it is not up to Wikipedia to make a connection based on editorial opinions even from reliable sources. If and only if an effort to impeach is made, which very likely would directly mention the lawsuit, would it, IMHO, be a clear fit. Collect (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So mention should be limited to connections made by the sources themselves? bd2412 T 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason you are seeing "low-participation" in this matter is because the two Wikipedia articles you linked in your header are about subjects which do not exist (yet?). There have been no "efforts to impeach"; only rhetoric and political theater so far, and the linked article even says as much. There is also no "House v. Obama" lawsuit; only a partisan resolution in the House described as more political theater, with experts saying such a proposed lawsuit isn't likely to see the inside of a court. So your question appears to be: Can the speculation conveyed by opinion pieces about a nonexistent lawsuit be introduced into an article about a nonexistent effort to impeach the President?

If an actual effort to impeach is ever made, we certainly should have a Wikipedia article on that. If an actual lawsuit is filed and prosecuted in a court of law, we should have an article on it. If, should those hypotheticals become realities, reliable sources convey connections between events, we can include that information at the appropriate location. That is a bunch of "ifs". One serious concern right now should be that Wikipedia not be used as an unwitting participant in partisan echo chamber transmissions by producing articles based only on routine political gamesmanship, rhetoric and election season grandstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Creation Museum

Has a current RfC on the expertise of A.A. Gill to write a review of the museum. The material was deleted from "criticism" and is now in the "In the Media" section. Outside eyes are invited to note whether the A. A. Gill paragraph meets WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the concern the paragraph itself, or the section in which it now occurs? I ask because of the context. The section includes media portrayals that are sympathetic as well as critical, and if there are other sympathetic media portrayals, it might be better to add those, than to delete the critical ones. In evaluating WP:NPOV for this particular page, I think that WP:VALID and WP:FRINGE are also applicable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The actual source is (in your edit) described as "sarcastic." I happen to think sarcastic sources are not precisely the best sources for NPOV, nor does "it is a fringe topic" allow violating NPOV last I checked.

Are you asserting that

In February 2010, Vanity Fair magazine sent critic A. A. Gill and actor Paul Bettany (who portrayed Charles Darwin in the film Creation) to visit the museum on the 150^th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. Gill wrote a scathingly sarcastic account' of his visit: "now seems like a good time to see what the world looks like without the benefit of science. Or spectacles... Adam comes on looking like the Hispanic bass player for a Janis Joplin backup band, with a lot of hair and a tan... And he has what looks suspiciously like a belly button."

comports with the policy of WP:NPOV, or that the topic is simply not subject to WP:NPOV because the "Creation Museum" is so fringe as to not be subject to WP:NPOV? By the way, the section contains 31 llines of clear criticis,m .. and six lines comprising:

An 2008 episode in the first season of the TLC reality series 17 Kids and Counting (now known as 19 Kids and Counting) features the Duggar family's trip to the museum, including a personal tour they were given by Ken Ham.[128] Jim Bob Duggar, the family patriarch, said, "We wanted to bring our family here to teach our children about creation and to show them all these great exhibits of how the world was created, and also to reinforce to them the fallacies of evolution and how it was impossible for this world just to all happen by chance."[129] The episode featured interviews with several of the Duggar children, who made statements supportive of young Earth creationism, as well as other museum visitors who expressed skepticism and disbelief at the museum's claims.[130] The Washington Times reported that the episode's airing "sparked reaction on both sides of the cultural debate" on Internet message boards.[131]

Which does not appear on its face to be excessively pro-Creation Museum as far as I can tell, nor is it particularly a "sympathetic media portrayal", but apparently counts as "praise" per your comment on balance here. I am absolutely not a creationist, but NPOV does not say we ought to bash them either. Collect (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You might better help editors who look at your post by not putting in bold font things that are not originally in bold font, so that those editors can decide for themselves. It sounds to me like you are arguing that the "sarcastic" source has a POV. It does. That does not violate NPOV, when we attribute the POV to the source. And your line-count seems to me to go against WP:VALID. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see where there's a violation of NPOV here. There would be one if this was a case of trying to shoehorn obscure criticism into the article or give a particular piece of criticism undue prominence. But, compared to the other sources used in the section (for example, a college radio show and a reality TV show on TLC), an article by a well-known critic in Vanity Fair is not obscure and, since less space is devoted to it than any other source in the section, it doesn't seem to have been given undue prominence. I'd question, though, whether "sarcastic" is an appropriate characterisation for WP - skim-reading the source, I can't see any actual sarcasm in it. Formerip (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've subsequently added the museum founder's response to what Gill said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And, per what you said about "sarcastic", I changed it to "mocking". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice needs to be neutral and the "scathingly mocking" portion is a violation of NPOV. It suffices just to include that Gill wrote/said, we don't have to invoke WP:Editorial to characterize what he wrote as mockery or sarcasm. How would people against Gill's point of view feel if we characterized Ken Ham's response as "pathetic excuse making"?Scoobydunk (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, and you've made me change my mind about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Now, I have some concerns of my own. Editors seem to be battling over whether or not Gill is a Christian, and whether or not he is "notorious". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The source an editor used for saying Gill is a Christian is specifically about him being a "notorious" restaurant critic (wording from the Guardian, which is the source proffered). If we use one claim (actually an aside) from a source, it is hard to deny the primary claims in the same source. Collect (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So, you started this post at NPOVN, but now you are OK with summing up a living person as "notorious". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"'Notorious' critic" is not the same as implying he is a criminal of some sort. In fact it appears Gill quite relishes his reputation. If the source is used in a Wikipedia article, we do not "pick and choose" to elide parts of it that do not fit a desired outcome. We are stuck with the entire source, warts and all. Collect (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

He was a restaurant critic, and is now a contributing editor to Vanity Fair. We don't describe John Boehner as a bartender just because he once was one. TFD (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If Boehner still tended bar - he would be a bartender. Gill remains a restaurant critic. Actively such. VF is a side job. [20] at least as of yesterday. Collect (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I see the problem as being one of relevance and NPOV. People can merit all sorts of titles, but the titles that should be used are the ones that are relevant to the topic/article. Is this topic about food? No, so it doesn't matter that Gill was/is a food critic. People can be fathers, brothers, friends, siblings, chefs, critics, hobbyists, entertainers, jerks, so on and so forth, that doesn't mean all of those descriptors deserve inclusion into the article. The ones that do are the ones relevant and, in this capacity, Gill is acting as a journalist for vanity fair. Any other irrelevant descriptors can be seen as violations of WP:NPOV as they'd carry a certain stigma. For example, for Laura Bush quotes, if we always described her as "person killer, Laura Bush" then it would carry a clear connotation and affect the neutrality in how readers review her quote. Describing Gill as a "food critic" can cause readers to have a negative perception of his opinion because they'd feel he's not qualified to make such observations.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this violates any of the above cited policies and guidelines. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV in Al-Khair University

I came upon this article while patrolling CAT:UNCAT. It seems to really degrade the subject without mentioning anything positive, though I'm not sure if G10 is appropriate or not. I've tagged with {{POV}}, but it would be good to get another opinion. --Jakob (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The current version is a overly negative version by an ip (Diff1), which contrasts with the previous flowery version (Diff2), copied largely from the official site. A balance needs to be found.--Auric talk 11:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Men's Rights UK and Marital Rape.

Page: Men's Rights

Section:The Criminalization of Marital Rape

Talk Page:[21].

The issue is with the depiction of the the Men's Rights Movement in the UK in the following statement:-

• "Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom the United States and India."

The supporting source concerning the UK is here [22], the substantive part of which is a quoted statement from 1993, (I do not dispute Whitcomb made the statement):-

• "The conservative and unashamedly patriarchal nature of the men's rights lobby .. is well illustrated by some statements by one of its self-proclaimed spokesmen in the UK, Roger Whitcomb .. he reserved particular anger for the House of Lords ruling on marital rape in 1991 ('a long-standing feminist dream') and for the Child Support Act"

The notion that Mens Rights Activists in the UK are against the crimilisation of Marital Rape is being supported solely by a comment, made in 1993 by a person speaking for himself, who has not been politically active for a decade or more. No other Men's Rights Activists in the UK supporting this statement can be provided. The source's author is not making any claims concerning the MRM UK and Marital Rape in general. I feel that no reasonable person could claim that the disputed statement together with its source satisfies WP:UNDUE, in particular the principles outlined by Jimbo Wales:-

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Finding one person in favor of the legality of Marital Rape is not sufficient to attribute it to a whole group. Which is what we have happening here. There are also libel issues here, in particular as there is a proposed Parliamentary Party standing in the UK on a Men's Rights Platform [23].

I respectfully submit that the disputed entry does not satisfy WP:UNDUE and the reference to the Men's Rights Movement in the UK should be removed. CSDarrow (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's probably fair enough. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know why we're relying on a source from 2000. Certainly, what might have been true 15 years ago isn't necessarily true today. Don't we have more current sources for this content? Second, I don't see how the cited source remotely supports the content. Nowhere on that page does it say anything about Men's rights activists opposing the criminalization of marital rape. It's hardly even mentioned. At best, we can say, "Roger Whitcomb was angry about the House of Lords ruling on marital rape in 1991." What specifically Whitcomb was angry about, it doesn't say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• While I agree that source alone is shaky the use of this board to remove content is not appropriate. Furthermore the source is not alone in its identification of the UKMM (the organization Whitcomb belongs to -- see the pages before and after the single quote referred to by CSDarrow) as campaigning against martial rape. In fact they listed themselves as doing so. IMHO the article should use the past tense in relation to UK men's rights movements or better yet idenify the UKMM specifically rather than imply incorrectly that all UK men's rights groups currently oppose it(unless there are sources for that), however all this does not warrant removal. The point about the UKMM is corroborated by other books The New Politics of Masculinity: Men, Power and Resistance (page 60) (published 2007) and the UKMM is also reference as campaigning against rape in relation to domestic violence and family law in Feminist Perspectives on Family Law (published 2007) as well as in Violence, Gender and Justice by Wykes & Wels (published 2009)--Cailil ^talk 19:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have other sources then you should take them to the talk page for discussion. If they satisfy WP:UNDUE and are not merely reflecting the view of Whitcomb then they will be considered. The bar is fairly high to attribute a view to a group, either as a majority or a minority view. As it should be. CSDarrow (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry CSDarrow you seem to misunderstand UNDUE. A source doesn't satisfy due weight. It's how that info is presented that relates to WP:DUE, not whether or not it is included per se. Wikipedia has a crystal clear standard - it reflects information based upon its reliability, so if multiple reliable sources say the UKMM campaigned against marital rape (and they do) then the article MUST reflect that. Attempting to discredit clearly reliable sources isn't a good idea. Just BTW if in fact you're correct its best *not* to respond to every single view that disagree with you, the result will be clearer that way--Cailil ^talk 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank for your reply. The short hand intent of my language seems to be entirely clear to others. If you feel you can prove your case, then please take it to the talk page rather than try to lecture me. The intention of this discussion is clearly laid out above. I, and possibly others, are not especially interested in your off topic musings.CSDarrow (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• This content dispute is part of an edit war on Men's rights movement. Bbb23 locked the page because of the edit warring in its pre-edit war state and asked users to discuss the dispute. This does not appear to be an appropriate use of this noticeboard as it is circumventing discussion on the article's talk page. An RfC seems like a more appropriate avenue for resolving this dispute. I request this discussion be closed as it fails the very first bullet point on WP:NPOVN that states Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I just want to clarify the record here. Generally, when an administrator locks an article because of an edit-warring content dispute, they do so in whatever state it happens to be in at the time. The exception to that is if there's an obvious violation of policy, in which case the administrator can both lock the article and remove the policy violation. This article is unusual because it's subject to community sanctions. I can't say what I would have done had the article been in the "other" state because I didn't have to consider it, but the fact is that it was coincidence that I locked it in its present state.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion, which you played essentially no part in, has being going round and round for sometime. An impasse has clearly occurred. CSDarrow (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is no discussion happening on the page, merely editors who wish to keep the current flawed article state, and are displaying ownership over it. These refuse to join the conversation in a productive manner. In this case, I asked if the reference provided for the assertion that the Men's rights movement is against criminalisation of marital rape, was correc (since it didn't indicate this at all), and I am still waiting for a response. Meanwhile, the article is displaying incorrect information based on a fake reference, and has been frozen like this awaiting consensus, which won't happen because of the ownership issues and the reluctance for discussion. Outside comment is required. Zambelo; talk 20:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• I want to remind the editors here that this discussion involves the MRM. Therefore, the discussion itself and editor conduct during the discussion may be scrutinized with that in mind. I don't have a problem with the discussion at the MRM talk page having been brought here, but I'm not pleased with the repetition of the sniping at the talk page also being brought here. I am particularly concerned about the such comments as CSDarrow's response to Cailil about WP:UNDUE. Cailil's response was absolutely responsive, whether you agree with it or not. To dismissively call it "off topic musings" is not constructive to healthy discussion. I am also concerned about Zambelo's comments like "fake reference" and "ownership issues". This is fair warning. I'm cutting people some slack because this is a discussion, but I will not hesitate to sanction editors if they cross the line. Finally, just in case anyone thinks I'm posting this message because of Cailil's comment on my talk page, they would be wrong. I was planning on doing this but I was consumed by my duties at SPI and couldn't get to it until now.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I will heed your advice. I think we should all bear in mind that this is WP:NPOVN and I have made a request for an opinion, ie does a statement together with the provided source violate WP:UNDUE. This is the purpose of the discussion here, and I think it is important that we keep on track. If the consensus is no then the statement should be removed, unless in the meantime other more suitable sources are found. If after the fact sources can be found then it can be replaced.

It is important we maintain some structure to the larger discussion, else we will go round in the circles and tempers may get flared. If others have suitable sources, then they can present them under a new section in the talk page and we can discuss them there. This way we will keep various logical components of the discussion separate and avoid an unilluminating wall of text. If we have specific questions or need general clarifications of policy then we can refer them back to here. Maintaining a logical structure to larger discussion will allow us to see the wood for the trees and aid us greatly in coming to a consensus. This will also aid you in keeping track of what we are up to. CSDarrow (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

just as many topics posted in this section of wikipedia emotions appear to be taking hold rather than policy. maybe someone could simply detail the main points of dispute here and go from there.Docsim (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Women in science

Hi fellow editors. I am wondering if this article titled Women in science is expressing a POV or NPOV. I just read some interesting comments on the talk page and although I disagree with the editor stating it is POV I thought it may be good to get other peoples opinion on the article itself. As a woman and a scientist I think that the article is worthwhile. Thanks to any one who offers comments in advance.Docsim (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

i have noticed no comments on this topic so far. on that article page there is another editor complaining that there is no equivalent men in science article. not sure if this whole issue is too controversial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docsim (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any current controversy. That single talk page comment from an IP is from November of last year; I think the concern has been responded to adequately on the talk page, at this point. I don't see any serious challenge to the article as a whole, as it represents a neutral description of clear and source-recognized academic topic, based on and sourced to wide range of published and cited work from better academic sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw a number of comments on that talk page. main thing is that the editors that did comment in 2013 are wrong. the article does not seem like a POV to me either and seems very good.Docsim (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how this would work but can we show on the article page that this point has been established, other wise it may come up again on articles about women in science or women in medicine and so forthDocsim (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Docsim - seems somewhat POV to me, but mostly it seems rambling about things instead of describing the field of study or presenting RS positions with cites in proportion. The Talk has some mentions of POV concerns, mainly whether this is a topic suitable for article, whether the lead is stating opinion as fact, whether the image is misleading, and it doesn't help give impression of neutrality to have a big feminism symbol. I would look for opposing views fairly stated with proportion, but it does not seem to have enough focus or substance for that kind of a check so again I'm more at the concern that it lacks substance other than a lengthy list of names which seems better done by the Category:Women_Scientists. Markbassett (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your comments. could you please explain where/why you believe this article is POV. those other comments from last year also did not explain why or how the article was POV. i don't know how to replace the symbol. will check it again, was not aware it was a feminism symbol in any case. also you mentioned if it was a topic suitable for an article, I think it is at least.Docsim (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

would still be interested in hearing others opinions here.Docsim (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

just reread the article page and took note of comments made. for the life of me cannot see why there is any POV. okay so comments were made in 2013, but as far as i can tell noreal basis to them.Docsim (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

final words here is article may lack substance rather than POV.Docsim (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Landmark Worldwide

I have posted a Request for Comment at Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F DaveApter (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure whether I should have posted the details here, as well as just the link, so here they are:

1. Was the state of the article at 27th July [[24]] such as to justify the placement of an 'Advert' tag or a 'npov' tag?
2. Have the mass edits by Astynax [[25]] reduced bias or increased it?
3. Is the conduct on this talk page (especially that of Astynax and Lithistman, but not limited to them) in violation of the civility policy? DaveApter (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

After reading there appears to be a number of conflicts of interest at play. NPOV has been compromised.Docsim (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

michael brown RFC

The following RFC Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#RfC:_Should_article_mention_Brown_had_no_.28adult.29_criminal_record.3F could use additional input from uninvolved editors. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over POV tag on Acupuncture

Hello everyone! On the Acupuncture page there has been a dispute over the use of a NPOV tag for the article. I first became aware of the lengthy list of disputes on the Acupuncture page when I was on Project Countering Systemic Bias’s page and there was a lively discussion occurring. Then I headed over to the page and noticed a long history of unresolved disputes as well as current disputes. I made this tag and followed it up on the talk page with this list of outstanding issues. Several editors support the tag while a couple of the editors have debated the inclusion of the tag, saying either the disputes have all been resolved, and by another editor who said there are outstanding issues, but did not see that a case was made for the tag. My understanding is that the purpose of the NPOV tag is to draw in new readers who can offer suggestions to break an impasse on outstanding issues on the talk pages, but some readers believe there is no impasse whatsoever! (which certainly makes it an interesting debate for all of us!) Myself and other editors have proposed adding a different tag, and we are unsure if there is a more appropriate one to use, or if NPOV is best. Anyway, we would love any comments from anyone willing to share! And I tried to keep it short for everyone’s benefit, but if there are any questions at all, please don’t hesitate to ask! LesVegas (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything at Wikipedia is supposed to benefit the encyclopedia, so how would adding an NPOV tag at Acupuncture help? Also, why should such a tag be added? What text in the article is an NPOV problem? Why? You might have noticed that there are two irreconcilable groups of editors associated with the article—one side is led by practitioners who want to use Wikipedia to explain the virtues of acupuncture, while the other side wants to highlight its lack of scientific validation. Arguing over a tag is entirely pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, thanks for your response! I noticed you were the most recent person to remove the tag, and in your edit comment you stated that I should start a new section on the talk page explaining the POV problems. I had posted a rather long list of outstanding POV issues but I figured since I had not noticed you on the talk pages that you just never saw my list and were just acting in good faith to revert a tag that hadn't met the requirements. Now that you see there is a debate about POV issues, are you saying we don't need a tag because it's a lost cause? I think tags help us to resolve the outstanding issues! Everyone wants to get rid of the tag, the question is "how." Through substantial changes, or just simply removing them? Regular editors need to see there's a debate brewing so they can chime in! In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a professional but rather just a person who understands the science and history of acupuncture, and I see many POV issues that need correcting on the page. If I had not been part of a debate on another page, I would've never known about the POV issues on acupuncture. That's why I saw the need for a tag. I don't know if the debate is strictly one of scientific validators versus professionals, but I'll take your word for it that it is. Wouldn't we want MORE editors, people without any dog in the fight, to know there is a debate going on the talk page? Wouldn't we want their opinions? There's many excellent editors on Wikipedia and we should invite them all to join and help resolve any debates. That's the purpose for the tag, which is why I added it. Anyway, thanks again for having concern for that page, and I invite you to join us in our discussion on talk because, as I said, more really is merrier! Peace!LesVegas (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

All you are doing is demonstrating the pointlessness of arguing about a tag. To repeat myself, What text in the article is an NPOV problem? Why? (despite its length, your laundry list does not address that). There are hundreds of articles on topics without scientific validation where proponents would like to add tags to express their displeasure. The correct procedure is to argue about text in the article, not whether a decoration should be at the top of the page. Instead of this section, you might have posted a short statement of an actual NPOV problem in the article and invited people to discuss that issue—that is the way to get third parties. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Worth pointing out here that the laundry list has been comprehensively fisked, point by point, on the talk page. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, they are all over the place but here's a couple of examples I pulled from just the lede alone. For instance, on the "laundry list" we have :

• Number 4 unresolved disputes over Nature source. When reading the references at the bottom of the page, I see this source listed several times. The first appearance it makes is perhaps the most egregious violation. "TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments." yet that statement comes from one sole source, Nature magazine. This is a clear violation of NPOV and WP:OR. We cannot make broad generalizations based on a single magazine article. Anyway, going back in the talk pages I see this has been under dispute multiple times and is still, obviously, unresolved. It has been debated on talk pages here and remains in the article multiple times, which is a WP:WEIGHT violation. The article is full of these, and such disputes are hotly debated on the talk pages all the time.

• Number 7 Quackwatch as a source. In the lede there's a sentence which says, "The TCM theory and practice are not based upon scientific knowledge." and is sourced by Quackwatch. Now, I see no problem with having Quackwatch as a source on criticism of acupuncture and skepticism of TCM, because there it meets requirements for notability and is a reliable source in that context, but the statement "The TCM theory and practice are not based upon scientific knowledge," is a statement that is debated by highly credible institutions such as these [26] [[27]] Placing this in the lede would be like saying "McDonald's hamburgers are toxic and full of poison" (source: Society of Vegetarian Scientists), on the lede on McDonald's page. There's also a debate about large block quotes being used in the article, which might give it additional undue weight. Quackwatch is hotly debated and you can read more of this debate here.

Anyway, I hope these two quick disputes can suffice to attract some new eyes! Thanks everyone! LesVegas (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a little thing called science—it causes planes to fly, allows us to communicate, and cures disease. Then there is an old tradition of sticking needles into a body based on ideas that have never led to any observable outcome. The relevant links are WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG—no scientific sources support the notions that underly acupuncture, Wikipedia is not an equal-time media outlet, and no one is saying that McDonald's hamburgers are full of poison. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to let the neutral third party folks know, Johnuniq and Roxy the Dog have edited the acupuncture page and they are on one side of a group of editors over there disputing the tag. But I'm glad they're chiming in here because it gives me the opportunity to address, for instance, what Johnuniq mentioned in regard to science. Actually, yes, there are indeed plenty of scientific sources which support the notions that underly acupuncture. I mentioned two of them in my last post,The Mayo Clinic [Johns Hopkins], but there are plenty of others like [4 The National Cancer Institute][5 NHS] and even [The NIH]. Anyone is free to go to the talk pages and see many more of these. The reality is there's only a small band of skeptic scientists who fight the science behind acupuncture, but this same group also fights highly accepted practices such as [Osteopathy] [Compounding pharmacies] fruit and vegetable juicing] [Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling and vitamin C]. In comparison to the NIH, the NHS, and the Mayo Clinic, these "skeptics" are on the fringe. Anyway, that's part of the debate going on over at the Acupuncture page. We would love any additional input! LesVegas (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose the tag. Do not see sufficient justification for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The endorsements you are claiming all describe acupuncture as (partially) effective for some forms of pain relief. The evidence for this is clearly articulated in the article. So I see no justification for the tag. I have no idea what fruit juice and vitamin C have got to do with acupuncture. Paul B (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the last time I edited the Talk:acu page was on 21st July, and I last edited the article on the 4th July. I have not contributed in the current hissyfit from fringers regarding the on again off again pov tagging that happens on that page cyclically with new WP:SPA accounts, and new editors to the page. I make no apology for holding a mainstream scientific point of view, and resent the implications of LesVagus above. Other editors have noted the toxic atmosphere created by advocates of acu there, and other pseudoscience advocates at other pseudoscience articles.

I was recently tempted to support the POV tag, as the article generally gives undue weight to a false positive/favourable portrayal of acu, and not enough to the scientific mainstream view.

There is far too much WP:IDHT, far too much WP:CIR and far too much WP:COI from contributors to that article and its talk page. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

MechWarrior Tactics

The game is currently subject to a degree of controversy due to apparent closure. Some of the edits introduced to it painted an extremely innacurate portrayal of the situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MechWarrior_Tactics&diff=624796975&oldid=598981597

I have attempted to correct that and portray the information in a more neutral light: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MechWarrior_Tactics&diff=624955015&oldid=624796975

However, as a participant of the game's beta test, and one of the Founder Program clients, I am concerned about my own possible bias and COI in this matter.

Should any further changes be made for the article to be properly NPOV?

--The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

WEIGHT has come up in an RfC on Oathkeeper

An RfC at Oathkeeper was initially about whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert SPS, but it has branched out into a discussion of WP:WEIGHT.

Specifically, are the sources sufficient to justify the statement, "In addition to chapter 72 (Jaime IX), some of the content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, and 71 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI)"[28] or would including it involve undue weight?

Although the RfC is officially about Westeros.org, other sources have been offered and other arguments are made both for and against inclusion—the bullet point responses of the first four respondents summarize most of the issues very well. Links are provided. Contributions from fresh voices are welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)