Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Countering systemic bias
WikiProject icon This page is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 

Question book-new.svg

Please read the associated WikiProject Page before posting here. If you notify the project, please be prepared to show how any potential bias could be resulting in a lack of balanced coverage, or some other omission, as described on the WikiProject Page.

Contents

Help requested at Myriad[edit]

We can consider this board to have been informed. Future discussion should happen over there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's been a bit of a fracas over at myriad. Long story short, I could use some help from people Til doesn't assume are fire-breathing, Eurocentric bigots that:

(a) He needs to assume good faith of his fellow contributors. BRD involves responding to the points being made and the policies discussed, not falling in on ad homs and personal threats (all the moreso when confronted with Wikipedia policies he is forgetting.)

(b) Requiring reliable sources for information on Wikipedia is not a conspiracy of bias and bad faith, but a necessity. Systemic bias specifically means that we can't assume our average editor has a knowledge of, e.g., Urdu or Telagu and it may be necessary to source them in articles unlikely to draw the attention of native speakers. Fighting systemic bias doesn't mean failing to check our info; and failing to check our info is not a "win" for fighting bias.

(c) Wikipedia is not all things and, specifically, it is not a dictionary. Laundry lists of translations belong on the left side as interwiki links and at wiktionary, not in the encyclopedia articles. That has nothing to do with systemic bias but with the simple project of running an encyclopedia. People who support that idea are not bigots but simply rational about what encyclopedia articles are and aren't.

I've been over it (looks like for several hours now) and don't seem to have made any headway, but maybe one of you guys can have better luck. Regarding his specific issues with myriad, there was a laundry list of translations of the word. Like I've told him since he started reverting, (1) there's no info being lost, since I ported everything over to wiktionary; (2) the list definitely needs sourcing if it's going to stay here, esp. since wiktionary suggests that several of the entries are wrong or misspelled; and (3) it could really use more detail and needs to stay on topic. The treatment of "myriad" in Europe is obviously on topic; East Asia's "万" is closely connected, often translated as myriad, and well-sourced; but none of the other translations can say the same thing. They need someone to give them some sourced cultural background and connection to the article's topic, even if only via common translation.

Til has been busy yelling at me but, if someone interested in including the content could address those concerns, that'd be great. I'd like to see a longer, more inclusive, and accurate article, too. — LlywelynII 15:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoah there tiger. Please read WP:CANVASS, I'm going to administer a trout for that massive violation. If you ask for help, please do so neutrally, and you can lay out your concerns there - but the above just screams "non-neutral notification".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "User:Til Eulenspiegel" is not an acceptable subject header for this CSB board. Welcome to the CSB board. The systemic bias, as I tried to explain to our friend here, involves the EXCLUSION of valid information by the biased parties. He is excluding information on foreign language equivalents for the word "myriad" because he said he finds them "too obscure". He apparently doesn't find the Chinese equivalent "too obscure" and has a whole section dedicated to it, but the Hebrew, Albanian, Mongolian, Telugu, Afrikaans equivalents - well, Llywllyn doesn't know so much about them, so he edit wars to remove them because to him these languages are "too obscure" and require PROOF that they really are what they say they are. Does anyone see the SYSTEMIC BIAS here? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way it is quite normal for articles on "terms" to have sections giving the equivalent in other languages that have that same concept, and I intend to replace it, because that's exactly the sort of information I look for in an article when I use wikipedia. Two examples that come to mind are Tomato and Pomegranate. Now we have someone who finds it "obscure", so he doesn't want YOU to see it there, either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Missing-from-Wikipedia script[edit]

I just wrote a script that takes a file of pagenames, finds out which names do NOT have Wikipedia entries, and then spits out that resultant set to a file. It's optimized for people's names right now. Feel free to use it and to let me know what other features/improvements you want, although I cannot make promises. Sumana Harihareswara 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(I suspect that this duplicates existing functionality someone has already written! But it was fun to write. Sumana Harihareswara 13:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC))

There are no East-European Roma[edit]

Consensus has been reached on Talk:Roma (Romani subgroup) that East-European Roma do not exist and therefore there should not be an article about them. I realize I will probably be accused of canvassing and "whacked with a trout" for posting this here. But I actually realize that the decision has been made and there is nothing to do about it at this point. I'm asking for advice about how to deal with similar situations in the future. (I tried asking for advice at Teahouse as well, but got no response.) Namnagar (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of possible interest[edit]

There is a move discussion at Talk:Australia_national_association_football_team#Suggested_move about renaming the article to include the name men in the title to better reflect WP:NPOV and WP:V. This may be of interest to some participants. --LauraHale (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Naming conflict: Australia national association football team[edit]

Due to no consensus on the previous discussion, there is a second discussion open here: Talk:Australia national association football team#Suggested move discussion #2. Any contributions are much appreciated. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Cunt[edit]

I'm not sure there's much you gals can do, but the page is currently suffering from a profound case of WP:BIAS, imposing the American term's vulgarity on the rest of the world. (Not that it's 'clean' or something you'd call your mum, mind, but it's hardly "...widely considered to be extremely vulgar" outside of the States.) That point, btw, is cited to an editor at Wiktionary.

There are genuine citations, which is what will make this a slog for you to fix. They've got one by "Scholar Germaine Greer" who said "it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock". I'm sure that is something this person said and that it's true among women in the US. Putting it into the lead of this article and waiting halfway through the page to get to "...caveat...qualifier...the word has an informal use, even being used as a term of endearment" is WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS. The later is its normal sense for wide swaths of the English-speaking world.

Anyway, something to keep an eye on. — LlywelynII 10:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of citations in the article testifying that it is extremely vulgar, including the UK's Guardian newspaper. I'd be interested to see your proof that it isn't! Sionk (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
And the article also acknowledges the "positive" meanings in the second para. I can't see a big problem here. Germaine Greer is an Australian who has mostly worked in Britain, by the way. Barnabypage (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Native American languages with mobile apps[edit]

Category:Native American languages with mobile apps has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Djembayz (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Duck Dynasty comments on African Americans ignored[edit]

I'm sure they were a reason for the firing and some, including CNN's Don Lemon has commented on that, but it seems to be another article where it's not considered a big deal. Just in case someone wants to deal with before I get around to it. Duck_Dynasty#Phil_Robertson.27s_GQ_Interview Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiBigotry[edit]

Based on recent experiences and my impressions of this project, I was inspired to write this essay. Your comments (good, bad, or indifferent) are welcomed. I will admit to borrowing some passages (in support of this project), but substantial portions are mine. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Good job, I can endorse that! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You might want to add something like "Be careful linking other editors to this essay as direct accusations of bigotry can be interpreted as hostile, even when justified" I have seen that on some other comparable essays Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah! Excellent idea, disclaimers never hurt. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
With regard to systemic bias (mentioned in the above linked essay), I see it more as a WP:Due weight matter...which is a part of WP:Neutral. Too many editors forget (and too many don't know) that with regard to sourcing a topic, Wikipedia gives priority to the majority (how a topic is generally reported in WP:Reliable sources). But I suppose one can state that the sources are an aspect of systemic bias. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your observation. My example of source based "WikiB" refers to how the source is used, abused, or if its diligently avoided or bashed. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I left some comments on the talk page about bigotry against people with certain ideas and against women, leading to the gendergap in Wikipedia. FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Anthropic Bias}}[edit]

Template:Anthropic Bias (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been nominated for deletion; this appears to be for discussion and not articles? -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a completely different use of the word 'bias', isn't it? Sionk (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It depends on whether countering bias based on being human versus non-human is something needing countering. (ie. the current discussion occurring at talk:overpopulation (biology) is a human v non-human bias consideration) -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This Wikiproject is concerned with human (i.e. Wikipedia editors) bias. No non-humans or inanimate objects edit Wikipedia, as far as I'm aware. Sionk (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
True, but that does lead to bias, as is a "femur" a bone in animals, or a specific human anatomy article on the human version? And should articles be structured to present the general form first, before delving in depth into human forms, or should human forms, where much more information is present, become subarticles of a more generalized form? And other such issues dealing with a human-first world view versus a human-agnostic world view. (The Earth is the only world for humans, but the Universe is not centered on Earth. Thus the scientific debate with geocentric views of the universe and bias resulting from such.) -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This topic was discussed in a WP:RfC at WP:Anatomy; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 5, though, as that Close discussion shows, I'm not in complete agreement with that close. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference given to a reference that doesn't apparently exist[edit]

In the second paragraph of the lead, a reference is given to <ref name="Simonite-2013" />. However, there appears to be no such reference name within the page, and no link or other bibliographic information is given for this essay. I mention this as I was interested in reading the essay, only to find that the reference contains no actual reference information. Can someone update this by providing a proper reference, or a link to the essay instead of the reference? Or, if I'm completely blind and somehow missed it (entirely possible), please point it out to me? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WP Countering Systemic Bias in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Help at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Representations of Latinos in media ?[edit]

The comment below is reposted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latinos. Djembayz (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is a great idea, something we're really missing (unless there is such an article I'm just overlooking) but the submitter has written more an essay than an article. If anyone is willing to drop in and help him out, it'd be great to get this article up and running rather than let it fall due to a novice writer's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal[edit]

I would like to invite members of this group to this discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Neutral Editors. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Plymouth"[edit]

The usage of Plymouth (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) is under discussion, see talk:Plymouth -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling African history wikipedians[edit]

Dear all,

I have recently come across what I believe to be the worst, high-importance article in WP:Africa - the History of Liberia. Not only is it badly sourced, but much of the prose is extremely poor and it does not cover the topics it should. I have hacked away at the section on the period 1847-1980, but that it where my sources and expertise run out. The rest is pretty much as-was. Can everyone have a look and see if they can do anything to improve it? Brigade Piron (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we a "no action, talk only" WikiProject?[edit]

When this WikiProject was featured in the SignPost, my answers to the interview questions included the following:

Reading the WikiProject talk page may give the impression that this WikiProject is a NATO (Singlish for "no action, talk only") that only exists for people to rant. That the explanation of systemic bias was moved to a subpage makes the main WikiProject page far less helpful. Of course, we want more editors to get involved in countering systemic bias, but the WikiProject already has four hundred members. To me, the most urgent need is meaningful communication between the four hundred members, to set concrete directions and goals that can be worked towards.

Collaboration is needed to coordinate efforts to counter systemic bias, but there is hardly any. Other WikiProjects should conduct CSB drives. For example, WikiProject Film could compile a list of 100 historically significant movies from Asian countries, or WikiProject Schools could identify 50 highly notable special education schools, then aim to bring at least 10 of their articles to GA status within a year.

Perhaps you should ask, and we should discuss, which policies are more prone to systemic bias. One obvious example is the policy against open proxies, which hinders editors living in countries where such proxies are needed to circumvent government censorship. That the policy on the use of sources in languages other than English is also unclear may lead to uneven notability guidelines and unfair deletions. In addition, the policy that Wikipedia is not censored has been interpreted in a manner that deters participation by editors from more conservative Asian cultures. Policy pages should also be rewritten to be more understandable by contributors for whom English is a second language.

I hope that members of this WikiProject would act on the above feedback. --Hildanknight (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Start with Admins. I had to point this out to an admin:
"Seriously? You took part in a discussion here Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Branding individuals as bigots via Templates. Did you happen to notice the irony of condoning "Branding individuals as bigots" on a Neutral point of view/Noticeboard?" USchick (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC) --USchick (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You may also be interested in this discussion [1] USchick (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
One question which I feel this project should wrestle with is how far should it go. Is it enough to identify problematic articles/policies, or should it go further and suggest recommendations, or even further and become a major player when issues arise? My personal feeling is that as a start, it would be nice if the project could formulate a checklist where editors could do a self-check to examine whether their (or others') points of view might contain bias. Other ideas? -- kosboot (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest we start by cleaning up the key pages of our WikiProject. As mentioned above, moving the explanation of systemic bias to a subpage made the main WikiProject page much less helpful. Some key subpages are horrendously outdated. With our policy against open proxies colluding with the Great Firewall of China, I highly doubt that Wikipedia covers East Asian topics better than Latin American topics. The idea of a checklist to examine views for bias is an excellent one and could be included in the cleanup of key WikiProject pages.
In the long run, I would like our WikiProject to make policy recommendations and coordinate article writing drives. For that to happen, we need to foster meaningful communication and collaboration between our members. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If nobody objects within a few days, I will readd a summary of the explanation of systemic bias to the main WikiProject page. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I also intend to create two pages for developing the proposed article writing drives and policy reviews. Should I place them in my user space, as subpages of this WikiProject or as regular Wikipedia space pages? --Hildanknight (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

All Action No Talk?[edit]

Contradicting my own point: The editors who are taking action are not in discussion here ... they are out stopping systemic bias. On Saturday you will see only females mentioned on the main page Did You Know section. All the way through March you will find that there are slightly more females than usual for Women's History Month. I'm off to do some more editing .... could you help those who are taking action? Talk to me or @Rosiestep, @Ipigott or @Mandarax and others. If you dont have time then at least have a look on Saturday and this month and hand out some barnstars. Someone could give a barnstar to every female based hook on the main page this month??? Victuallers (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Well done and keep up the excellent work! I am also out there, writing Singapore-related good articles and polishing potential Singapore-related GAs written by others. In fact, I believe editors from the Lion City have done an excellent job of countering systemic bias against our little red dot and in future, may share about how we do so. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hildanknight, please forgive my ignorance but is Singapore actually badly covered? Compared to its neighbours for instance? Brigade Piron (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: Singapore is certainly better covered than other countries in the Malay Archipelago and the rest of Southeast Asia, but badly covered when compared to Western countries where English is the dominant language. --Hildanknight (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Hildanknight "Little dots" are a good way of spreading the good news. When the volunteers wrote 1,000 new articles about everything? notable near Gibraltar they also did the nearby "red dot" of Ceuta, the north coast of Africa and the southern tip of Spain. IN the same way WMAU's Freopedia has spread to two nearby towns. Victuallers (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Victuallers: Just to clarify, "little red dot" is a nickname for Singapore. --Hildanknight (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Hilda - the vidence of the hundreds of articles this month is here Victuallers (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Victuallers: You deserve a hundred barnstars! I hope effort has been made to include Chinese, Indian, Muslim and African women (in short, women from all over the world, not just the Anglosphere). --Hildanknight (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh there are quite a few of us, but thank you. You will see lots of unusual countries - I use this list but there are lots of international dancers. If you are familar with DYK then have a go at approving some hooks or maybe someone reading this will dish out some barnstars to the main editors. Victuallers (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Connecticut a country?[edit]

As a Singaporean reading Congress Street Bridge (Connecticut), I almost thought so. --Hildanknight (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess one has to know that in the US, states are given a lot of freedom to rule and express themselves as if they are independent countries (and Texas and Hawaii once were independent countries, and Puerto Rico seems as if it is). -- kosboot (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't assume special knowledge on the reader's part. I'm no fan of nationalism but a substantial article on a piece of infrastructure really ought to mention what country it's in. bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree 100%. This is a global encyclopaedia. We should always include the country in the first mention of any location in an article. HiLo48 (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I informed the primary contributor and he added "United States" to the first sentence of the lead section. There seems to be consensus here that the first mention of a place name should mention its country. Is there any policy or guideline which states that? To avoid being a "no action, talk only" WikiProject (see above section), could we propose a policy change? Of course, there would be exceptions where the country is obvious from context. --Hildanknight (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm absolutely with you on this. One of my primary irritations here are biographies which have just the state/county and town in the infobox as birth and death places...Brigade Piron (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: Then could we propose a policy change? How about identifying articles with this problem and going through them to add the country? --Hildanknight (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hildanknight: In regards to policy I believe Wikipedia has naming conventions. Where they are hidden is another question, LOL. Maybe in wp:MOS? Or maybe contact User:B2C. XOttawahitech (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: The issue is not naming conventions, which deal with article titles. I am arguing that first mentions of places in the article itself (usually the first sentence of the lead section) should mention the country. --Hildanknight (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Misnomer "St. Patty's Day" in article infobox[edit]

As this is English language Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia... Could use some more eyes on this: Talk:Saint Patrick's Day#St. Patty's Day. - CorbieV 16:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurse scheduling problem[edit]

Can somebody that a look at this debate, and add some input? Bearian (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

James Arthur Ray[edit]

Could use more eyes on James Arthur Ray. I have attempted to clarify that what Ray led was not an actual Native American ceremony. Putting the same name on it doesn't make it the same: what Ray led was a heat endurance event by non-Natives, for non-Natives, that violated all sweatlodge protocols. This is supported in the WP:RS and WP:V sources where Natives wrote or were interviewed. But as there are also WP:V sources, often more mainstream ones, that didn't bother to talk to Natives, in some places the article has been based more on Ray's self-reporting than on reliable sources on the topic. As often seen in articles in this area, what may be WP:RS for non-Native issues may not be a reliable source on Native cultures. - CorbieV 19:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Women Scientists Worklist[edit]

Hi all, I'd love some help clearing the worklist of possibly notable women scientists without articles! I'm getting through it slowly but some help would be great. Sam Walton (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Countering systemic bias kit[edit]

Hello, I thought you all might be interested in the systemic bias kit development that I'm currently working on. A draft of the kit will be posted on Meta/Commons very soon, and results will be in the midpoint report that is being published now. I would love to involve the members of this project in tweaking the kit! Thanks for your attention, Keilana|Parlez ici 04:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"Merging" (aka Deleting) categories[edit]

There is a discussion on merging Category:American women philosophers, Category:Asian American philosophers and Category:African-American philosophers into Category:American philosophers which would, in fact, lead to their deletion. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation (pro or con), go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 17#Category:American (x) philosophers. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Darlene Johnson[edit]

I happened to see this article is up for deletion and was wondering which systemic bias WikiProject would be appropriate for it? It is about Darlene Johnson, an Australian filmmaker and actress from the Dunghutti tribe. XOttawahitech (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/History[edit]

A new page that not everyone here might have noticed. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'm a little disappointed that the discussion focusses on World War 2; of all conflicts, we already have most high-quality content on this one. Systemic bias? Hmmm. bobrayner (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Bikini image for Wikipedia photo of the day.[edit]

Just letting ya'll know about this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Discussion_regarding_possible_picture_of_the_day:_Michele_Merkin. SarahStierch (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Some are using the need to avoid the impact of our systemic bias as a reason to oppose the use of that image. I'm a massive opponent of systemic bias here, but support the use of that image. HiLo48 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
There is an issue here.I think this project is about countering systemic bias - not stopping it per se. We need to get more positive images and biographies on the main page. We cannot pretend that the world does not include glamour models and that there is a bias towards female models - and we have mostly male editors. What we can do is help to counter this. If we have a dozen glamour models queueing for the front page then that is a bias that this project should counter. One picture is not systemic. Victuallers (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

History of Malaysia[edit]

The image has been changed (thankfully) since I posted. The image shown here is not the one I originally referred to. Red Slash 04:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Hey all, could you have a looksee at History of Malaysia.png? I'm pretty sure it's inappropriate but would appreciate your feedback before I send up an RfC... Red Slash 20:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

maybe you can explain why it is inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.159 (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Umm, because it uses the British flag as its primary visual motif, and it was a British colony for less than a tenth of its history? Red Slash 03:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a systemic problem on Commons, where people can create any picture they want without any references, and it's not considered OR. They even invent maps that never existed before and then claim it as a new reality. According to policy it's perfectly appropriate. This needs to be addressed at the policy level. USchick (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Forgetting the existence of the image for a minute, the real problem is the image's presence at Template:History of Malaysia, where I would support its removal. Sam Walton (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with both Samwalton9 and USchick. bobrayner (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Why does it need a picture at all? Most countries (Indonesia is a notable exception) just use the flag. IMHO, it is just unnecessary.Brigade Piron (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The image may not be perfect, but I disagree that the image is as inappropriate as claimed. First of all, I'd like to ask where the estimation of % history is coming from. I assume the end of it is now, but at what point did history begin? Red Slash argues that having a Dutch flag for Indonesia is more acceptable because for "1/5 of the history of Indonesia, it was a Dutch colony". That gives history a beginning point of about AD300 (taking Dutch presence to be 1602-1949 , roughly 350 years), for which Britain controlled parts of Malaysia for just over a tenth (1786-1963, 177 years). I find two issues with this, firstly I don't understand why history here starts at AD300, or anywhere at all. I also don't see why 2/10 is somehow acceptable but 1/10 is cause for such "disgust".
As history doesn't really have a clear start date (start of human habitation perhaps, or the introduction of writing?), we should look at Malaysia. Malaysia's borders are defined by colonial borders. Its northern limits are where Britain established protection from Thailand, and its southern limits are where the British met the Dutch. The separation line east was where Spanish claims met British claims. The modern form of Malaysia (along with some of its legal systems, much of its Ethnic composition, the prevalence of English etc.) is a product of the history of British (and other) colonialism. That West and East Malaysia are united at all has a lot to do with British pressure for this to happen.
Does this justify a union jack background? It's clearly not a motif many like, but it doesn't entail the instant removal of the image just because it exists either. The picture was an attempt to emulate the (apparently acceptable) Indonesia template by creating an interesting header, and such attempts are positive and worthwhile. It's worth having a discussion about improvement and replacement if anything better exists of course, but that's different from just taking it out. I prefer it to a simple flag; it at least shows a bit of history (colonialism and independence), and a map. CMD (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's highly inappropriate. If there is any flag in the background, it should be the flag of Malaysia. Malaysia is wonderfully multicultural, combining Malay, Chinese, Indian, Nyonya, indigenous Borneo, etc. cultures. Having a British flag in the background of that is an embarrassment. Good catch. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Not sure exactly how the country being multicultural is directly relevant to a history template, but anyway, what would you suggest replace the flag map of Malaysia if the background was the Malaysian flag? What would a Malaysian flag in the back convey about history? CMD (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
All those are tangential questions. The fact is, the image is very inappropriate and should not be used and should be deleted. There is no real need for an image on the article(s) and template; a mere flag will do if someone wants something there at present. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
They're less tangential than multiculturalism. Can you elaborate on the reasons you feel it's so inappropriate it should be deleted? It is because, as Red Slash notes, the area was British for 1/10th of the time since AD300? CMD (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's that the topic is the history of Malaysia -- which as you can see from the History of Malaysia infobox on the right, stretches from 100 BC to the present -- not the history of the UK. If any flag should be in the background, it must be the flag of Malaysia. Compare History of Indonesia, History of India, History of Hong Kong, History of Kenya, History of Ghana, or history of other country or territory that was a protectorate, territory, or colony of the British Empire for some fraction of time. It's preposterous (and embarrassing to Wikipedia) to have the British flag as the background for this topic. Softlavender (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
If you read the above, you would note that this picture is based on the Indonesian one which you bring up as an example. It just uses a forwards-in-time motif (colonisation --> independence --> modern Malaysia) rather than Indonesia's right-in-time motif. They both even use the same idea of colonial flags and modern flags, the difference being Malaysia places the modern flag on top of the colonial flag, whereas the Indonesian one places the modern flag around a central colonial flag. CMD (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
My error, strike that example, as Indonesia was for a time a Dutch colony, not a British one. That image needs to be changed as well; thank you for bringing it up. (However, the Indonesian one does not "place the modern flag around a central colonial flag".) Softlavender (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Well that's a more standardised position than expressed above. What do you mean by "the Indonesian one does not "place the modern flag around a central colonial flag" "? That's exactly what it does with the Dutch and Indonesian flags. CMD (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't, really. There is some sort of synthesis between the two which is unclear except upon close and knowledgeable analysis ... the white "blending" or "airbrushing" or "cross-fade" effect at the lower corners just looks artistic; there is no specific indication that it is intended to be part of a flag and no distinct indication that there are two separate flags in the image. Softlavender (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Well that's what happens when you have a white flag. There definitely are two flags there, however airbrushed at the bottom, with the Dutch one in the middle around the VOC logo, and the Indonesian one surrounding it on both sides. That is why the red goes further down on the sides than in the middle. CMD (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is silly. Sure, the region has a history going back at least 10,000 years and the Malay people have been there for at least two thousand, but if we are talking about the history of Malaysia, that is a post-colonial nation with less than a hundred years of history. See the post above from User:Chipmunkdavis for a good summary on border questions. Much of the multiculturalism of which Malaysia is rightly proud was also created by migrations in colonial times. A Union Jack in a historical article is entirely appropriate. Pashley (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Americans[edit]

At the top of this article there is a gallery with images of 24 Americans. Only one woman, Marilyn Monroe. Input would be useful at Talk:Americans#Women?. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Very unfortunate. I also notice that every African-American other than Martin Luther King is a late 20th century entertainer, and that none of the images depict native Americans. Some suggestions off-the-cuff include Jane Addams, Sacagawea, Billie Holiday, Margaret Fuller, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emily Dickinson, Mary Cassatt, and Louisa May Alcott. Many of the current choices seem arbitrary or worse; why Cobain and not George Gershwin or Scott Joplin? Why Spielberg and not Groucho Marx or Charlie Chaplin? Why Henry Ford and not Booker T.Washington, Henry Ozawa Tanner, Louis Brandeis, Thurgood Marshall? Why Ronald Reagan and not Teddy Rooselvelt? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Those "pictures of famous people that represent country X" are a systemic bias nightmare, I think we should do away with them completely, or use a randomized algorithm that would look at articles of people from country X with page views greater than Y. They are a constant topic of dispute and it's frankly time-wasting, especially since we're trying to sum up Americans with 20 photos.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
While visually attractive, I also lean towards removing all images of people from the head of that article. The vast majority of Americans are neither famous nor as affluent as the people depicted. -- kosboot (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

additions to intro[edit]

Thanks for the additions to the intro but I have some concerns about them - wouldn't it be better to put such material in a mainspace article about systemic bias and let the larger group of editors hone them rather than having that exposition live here - and potentially exposed to the systemic bias of participants in this very project?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the WikiProject page used to have an explanation of systemic bias, which was later moved to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. I would prefer the explanation be merged back. If that is not possible, then a summary of that explanation would be better than the introduction that was just added. --Hildanknight (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I think some of that content is problematic. It reads more like some POV article with cherrypicked examples, than a dispassionate discussion of what we can do to improve wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
These additions to the intro have just been trimmed by another editor who removed politics and big-business as two sources of possible bias. Separately, the difference between 'selection bias' and 'systemic bias' is an important one which is not presented on this project's page. The subsection just added on the topic of this difference is a short summary to add some referenced information about which one of these two forms of bias is more significant to this wikiproject. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Research idea of interest and a request for help[edit]

You may be interested in my idea at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Extracting_biographical_data_from_Wikipedia. Should be able to produce some nice graphs, illustrating the "gender inequality in country x" series, and more. I do need some help extracting data from Wikipedia dumps, however. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The mainstream press has been covering the gender-gap Wikipedia events over the last two or three months, publishing that the current gap is at about a ten to one ratio for English Wikipedia. If you need these url's then let me know. Do you know what the current variation is for the Wikipedia gender gap in Germany, Italy, etc? Could you list any of them here for reference. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
That's the thing, we don't know since nobody as far as I know did the breakdowns per country. Or century - both of those are what I am proposing to do, if someone can give me a data dump boiled down to relevant parameters in a csv file... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Here are some of the urls for the gender equality edit-a-thons[2] and the gender articles from the NY Times[3] which elsewhere mentioned a Maastrich University study on gender. I am assuming you are doing this as part of Susan's project to attain 25% female enrollment by 2015, which does not seem possible unless a pro-active plan is adopted at this point. The only active program being pursued now seems to be the "Mobile edits" program with similar demographic issues. Interwiki Language Projects may also have some data if you post on their messages board. Maybe this will give some sources. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Countering Systemic Bias at Wikimania 2014[edit]

[[

File:Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png|thumb|right|550px]]

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion, requesting your input[edit]

Hello. Editors are welcome to comment on a discussion re: scope of a task force at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#Keep_categorization_in_scope_for_this_project --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "she" for ships[edit]

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A much gentler proposal about changing the Manual of Style to deprecate the use of "she" for ships. As it concerns the intersection of grammatical gender with actual gender, I thought some of you might be interested. --John (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Signpost article: Indigenous Peoples of North America[edit]

Members might be interested in looking at the July 2 Signpost report on Indigenous Peoples of North America. --kosboot (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Systemic Bias? Stoners allowing their articles to "go to pot"[edit]

I was reading the Marijuana article and see many issues with it. First off, it has multiple notice tags at the top and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. The article is critically lacking in many areas and is fraught with issue after issue. It appears that potheads are the only ones who care about the article, but are too stoned to do anything about it. When edits are made, it's non-drug users doing the editing, so, of course, they come at it from a completely different perspective. LesVegas (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually being serious, by the way. LesVegas (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If I may kindly suggest for the future, perhaps eliminating characterization of people ("potheads," "too stoned") might be appropriate. (Btw, I'm a virulent anti-smoker of any kind.) -- kosboot (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes LesVegas, your post is effectively a slander of everyone whose name appears in the editing history of this article. It could be deleted under WP:BLP. If you can make well sourced improvements yourself, please do so, but keep the commentary on other editors out of it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey man, come on, I have a joking style. Where's everyone's sense of humor? Perhaps, on Wikipedia, there's systemic bias against humor and sarcasm itself since all of our communications are text-based and devoid of inflection and tone! By the way, I smoke every now and then myself (always in licensed and purely legal situations) and have edited the article recently and, for the record, I'd never, ever insult or slander myself. But in all seriousness, I think it only stands to reason that many editors might be chronic chronic smokers. If there's conflicts and arguments about whether a sentence ought to end in an exclamation point or a period, there's probably an interesting and vociferous debate on the far reaching cosmic effects of punctuation, but I'd imagine the non-smokers would see their edits through, no matter how "right" they may actually be. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I'm a fool, but that's why I think there may be systemic bias. Anyway, I did make some edits, but it's has a long way to go, and there's only one of me and many pounds of Grade A Blueberry Yum Yum on my living room table...(calm down, only joking, only joking)....LesVegas (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias in Wikipedia guideline[edit]

I have illurstrated that WP:TITLE has WP:NPOV issue in Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: When COMMONNAME depends on country, culture, or demography (this link will soon become Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 46#RfC: When COMMONNAME depends on country, culture, or demography or there abouts) that consideration to minor view points is lacking in the guideline. I am convinced that a change to WP:Title will not succeed through a proposal because of systemic bias coming from Wikipedia editor demography, so am not proceeding. This is just to call your attention to the matter for the record. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias in Eastern Medicine subjects[edit]

Hello all, I was just reading the article on acupuncture and noticed an interesting example of systemic bias. Many strong claims are made, sometimes supported by reviews from good peer-reviewed journals. On Western medicine related subjects, articles/studies from such publications are considered the gold standard in sourcing. However, when it comes to a subject like acupuncture, I think they actually fall quite short. There are reporting standards, for instance, such as STRICTA which, if followed, mandate that studies/reviews note things like "who is performing acupuncture? Is it a nurse? Is it an MD? Is it a non-healthcare professional? Or is it an acupuncturist with more than 10 years experience?" or "depth of needle insertion" or "needle retention time". Western journals, because they are ignorant of attributes such as these, often don't care about these details. They can often, perhaps unwittingly, publish low quality studies and reviews because it is not their field of expertise. While we may regard these journals as high-quality on topics ranging from albuterol to zygomycosis, I would suggest editors here to take a look at the page and join my efforts in making corrections to it, as necassary, so as to avoid systemic bias on topics such as these. 166.147.123.168 (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey bro, I know quite a bit about eastern medicine. I studied Chinese in college and lived in China for a little over two years, then wandered around in various parts of Asia for several more. Their medicine is legit, it saved my butt on more than one occasion. People in the US live in a tiny bubble and haven't experienced the rest of the world. They have opinions, but don't know what they don't know. I haven't heard of stricta but I'll look into it. I just looked at the acupuncture page you're talking about and it does have a strong western bias. I'll give me my 2 Lincoln's. LesVegas (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Be careful not to conflate bias with correctly dealing with pseudoscience and fringe theories. Reliable scientific journals are what medical articles MUST be based on. Sam Walton (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the point was reliable scientific journals aren't reliable at all when it comes to subjects which their editors aren't familiar. If we're not gonna have systemic bias, shouldn't sources meet a better standard for reliability? I was reading about STRICTA today and here is the Stricta checklist which is all common sense. If studies can't meet those standards, they're not reliable. I'll read about this some more before I edit. There's idiots everywhere on wikipedia attached to their opinions, I want to make sure I'm not one of them. LesVegas (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Chinese research tends to be ignored, both by Wikipedia editors and Western journals. --Hildanknight (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
On what basis are you assuming that the scientific journals used in, for example, the acupuncture article are not familiar with the subject? Because that's quite a big claim. Sam Walton (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
What Sam Walton is saying is quite reasonable from Western common sense, and a part of me agrees with them. However, this is the talk page for the project to fight systemic bias. As such, we need to take a step back and examine if what we take for granted are colored with systemic bias. From this stand point, I support 166.147.123.168, LesVegas and Hildanknight.
Moreover, WP:MEDRS is a guideline, and its first line says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense". (and WP:COMMON says " Wikipedians come from diverse ethnic, religious, political, cultural and ideological backgrounds and have vastly different perceptions") On the other hand, unlike a guideline, WP:NPOV is a policy all editors MUST follow, which requires us to recognize and present minor view points (including Chinese common sense). Japan has over 120Million population, and China has over 10Million English speakers. Yiba (talk | contribs) 07:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I've been doing research on the subject of STRICTA and came across this review from the British Medical Journal, who has adopted STRICTA's reporting standards in acupuncture research. It showed how even Cochrane Reviews are sub-par. Not when it comes to Western research, it's the gold standard there. But Eastern medicine, specifically acupuncture, they don't value robustness in reporting. And that's a problem in a field like that. You've got to have some sort of reporting standards, and if you don't then it's clear you don't understand the subject. LesVegas (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Be aware that there has been systematic boosterism of various areas in medicine and science, and some of these we know about but are still picking up the pieces of. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC).
May be we should add the subtitle "boost the knocker" to this project, or use it as the slogan :) Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah man, boost the knocker! I like it. Now, as for what Rich said, I just noticed how an active editor on the acupuncture pages has just been topic banned. The only real thing I could see he did wrong was to edit war, although other editors were doing this as well and have emerged unscathed. On the one hand, I see many problems on that page and while I want to help, I don't want to be bullied by some of the editors who have seized pages like this and act like they own it. On the other hand, I think bias will only get out of control if we don't stand up to it. Is there another way of proceeding, other than going over there and getting into an edit war and eventually getting topic banned ourselves? That article, and articles like it, need major work to free them from bias, but there has got to be a better way than fighting to go about it.LesVegas (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No evidence for any systematic bias by "western journals" has been presented here. The STRICTA list of participating journals is over 50% published in countries traditionally considered to be "Western" culture. One of which is PLoS, one of the largest "western journals". And editor LesVegas said that British Medical Journal, one of the most respected "western journals", has also adopted STRICTA. It would seem obvious to me that any favoratism of "Eastern Journals" over "Western Journals" would only lead to systematic bias. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey DKriegls! Thanks for contributing to this discussion here bro. I appreciate your comments and you're right about Plos and BMJ. Now, you said no evidence has been presented here, and I can see how you would certainly come to that conclusion if you didn't notice this link I posted previously. And sorry, man, I've probably also talked too abstractly, but anyway the argument I've come to understand here is extremely complex, and it didn't make complete sense to me either at first. But basically it's this: reporting standards exist, for example, for acupuncture. This ensures that we, or the reviewers of studies or of systematic reviews, know exactly what occurred in a study. For instance, some studies don't report how long needles were left in someone's body. Or they don't report who did acupuncture and what their qualifications were. Or they don't report how deep the needles were inserted, or what the retention time was. Or all or even any details about the placebo control. Now, I can certainly forgive some Western journals for publishing studies that don't have this information. They aren't as familiar with acupuncture as western medicine, and to them a study that says, "acupuncture on these points yielded x result versus sham placebo" seems reliable so they publish it. Afterall, that's how Western studies are designed. A drug is a drug is a drug. And we don't need to know if the sugar in the placebo came from refined cane sugar or from beet sugar or was a crop from Cuba or from the Honduras. It doesn't matter. But deeper details matter in something like acupuncture, and they could matter a lot. So anyway, we've got Cochrane Reviews that don't even adopt reporting standards for acupuncture. That's a problem and it's not just us saying it, the BMJ even says Cochrane is publishing subpar information on acupuncture. It stands to reason that we need evidence of the highest quality to make our claims. So Western journals like Plos, BMJ, etc and respected Eastern journals which also subscribe to these reporting standards would be the ones we should use to make our boldest claims, and perhaps most claims. So you're right in a sense, Western journals could be good ones too, we just have to make sure they're reporting with robust evidence. LesVegas (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I did actually read that link and as a researcher myself, understood it fine. I don't see where it demonstrates bias, only that there are different (and possibly less rigorous) science standards. Asserting that Western Journals "aren't as familiar with acupuncture as western medicine" is an actual assertion of bias, but you have not provided any evidence of that as there are plenty of "Eastern Journals" that also don't report STRICTA standards with their publications. Since STRICTA standards are not a standard research practice, our Wikipedia NPOV approach would be to include reference to all current research on the topic, but add mention of the difference in STRICTA reporting. As there are no current systematic reviews which only look at STRICTA reporting studies, the best systematic reviews out there are what we report. On a side note, I would think this is a discussion better suited for the Acupuncture talk page where editors are more familiar with STRICTA and Acupuncture; and would only make sense to bring up here after editors at said talk page rejected the inclusion of STRICTA reporting methods due to some apparent bias. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey DKriegls! Thank you kindly for giving us your insight as a psychology researcher. That's exactly why I didn't want to take this topic to the acupuncture talk pages just yet. I thought about it, but to me, it's better to get these insightful and broader views first. Now, when I said "Western journals aren't as familiar with acupuncture" I should have qualified it by saying they aren't as familiar if they don't use well accepted reporting standards, which STRICTA clearly is. If a Western journal publishes a study on acupuncture which says x, but it doesn't say how long needles were retained, or if they were stimulated or not, or who inserted them, then our argument is there's a problem with reliability. Or Eastern journal for that matter! To me, what matters most is: is the study or review reporting all the facts or not? If not, I don't see how we could allow the source to make a bold claim. Neutral claims, yes, but bold claims one way or another should only be made with sources using some sort of reporting standards. Since you're an expert in the psychology research field, I'm curious if you value more robust reporting or is it not that important to you? If a bold claim were made about, say cognitive behavioral therapy not yielding any results for patients with, say, anxiety when administered weekly over the course of 1 year, would you be skeptical of the claim if they failed to report whether or not they used psychologists actually trained in the method? If you're busy, I understand, but hopefully you can provide some expert nuance here because now I only see it black and white,(and that's notable since I'm an ENTP to the extreme!) Anywhoo, I thank you again for offering your valuable insight!LesVegas (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh,sorry, I just noticed where you said you didn't see the demonstration of bias. This is a specific type of bias we're claiming here, systemic bias, which I'm sure you know is the inherent tendency of a process to support particular outcomes. As Yibal said, MEDRS is a guideline not a policy. By using just peer reviewed journals to support any claim, journals without reporting standards, we create systemic bias. Or at least that's what we're thinking is going on here. LesVegas (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There's a lot to respond to here, not sure I will get to it all. Perhaps your last statement is best addressed first. Yes, there is lots of bias in research. However, citing non-uniform (even poor) standards is not evidence of systemic bias. It makes it harder to prevent bias, but even STRICTA standards are likely to leave room for the type of systemic bias currently found in scientific reporting. Bias in science can be identified in many ways. For instance, STRICTA in no way limits a widely recognized systematic bias currently troubling scientific publican. Called Publication bias, it has wide ranging implications and is the bane of every researcher trying to improve scientific reporting. But it does exist and we identify it through statistical trends like the Decline effect. So for instance, if you were to argue that studies reporting STRICTA (and to be clear, STRICTA is just about reporting and not reporting doesn't mean not using) were more reliable than non-STRICTA reporting studies, you would need to demonstrate that by discovering a difference in outcome between the two groups. This study on publication bias in video game research is an example of what that would look like. In contrast, this study you refer to from PLOS doesn't show anything like that. In fact, it actually shows that randomized controlled trials (RCT) published after 2005 were extremely likely to used STRICTA reporting standards. Your referenced study's critique was that the Cochrane Reviews of those very RCT studies were "16% less likely to report the acupuncture-related items of STRICTA than RCTs". Meaning Cochrane Reviews used STRICTA compliant studies, but 16% of the time didn't report all the STRICTA variables. This is not evidence of any systematic bias and is actually counter evidence to your claim that STRICTA isn't being used as even the Cochrane reviews were only 16% less likely to use it. While I don't see any evidence that a distinction actually exists between "Eastern" and "Western" journals in general, I do know that studies originating in certain countries do have a well know publication bias on the subject. This review of 252 acupuncture studies found that "No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective". Statistically speaking, this is an improbability even for a highly effective treatment. Just by chance some studies of very effective treatments statistically vary from the norm. This study suggests similar "highly positive" publishing by Chinese journals in other medical subjects as well, so I assume this is a systemic publication bias, and not just a preference to accept acupuncture as effective. But even given this publication bias, I would not assume systematic bias in research until I had a solid set of higher quality studies that showed significantly different results. Publication bias does not equal research bias. A scientific conclusion is like a brick house that you never finish and can't discard the bricks you start building it with. You only build a stronger base round the weaker base, and you always live in an unfinished house. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Now with that said, this list originally think that STRICTA wasn't widely excepted. However, after more closely reading the STRICTA/Cochran review, reading the BMJ uses it even though they weren't on the STRICTA list of users, and inclusion by NIH here, I think you made the case that STRICTA is widely accepted. However, this apparent wide acceptance makes me now doubt if it isn't already included in all the articles cited on the acupuncture page. I think the next step would be to review the studies cited and see if they are not. Unfortunately, after reading the STRICTA/Cochran review study, this isn't guideline they say they have followed, they just follow it and you have to find the data points to see if they have. I could be wrong, but that was the impression I got. Better to ask someone on the Acupuncture page. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again DKriegls! You have given us some excellent things to think about. I have run across some stricta content you might not have been aware of which addresses some of your concerns, it'll just be a matter of me sifting through them. There's a lot of data there! Anyway, I again appreciate you lending us your expertise! LesVegas (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just read through this thread. Some comments. Please excuse the length. Feel free to ignore, of course. First, overall tone. While it is very true that WP has systemic biases, in my mind it would be a mistake to conflate the general controversy in the field of medicine over the validity of acupuncture, with systemic bias in WP. Those are two separate issues and the relationship & distinctions between the two should be discussed carefully.

I want to say a bit more about controversy in the field of medicine over the validity of acu and what that means in WP. Acu is grounded in traditional, pre-scientific notions of the body. Because those notions of the body (qi, etc) are not grounded in science, the same is true for interventions based on those notions of the body. Specific interventions can be tested using the scientific method for sure, and there is scientific research underway to determine scientific bases for why acu could work. But (and here it comes) the lack of grounding means that in WP, the field is defined as pseudoscience. This is a serious and important thing in WP. Efforts to address systemic bias without acknowledging that, and trying to address the pseudoscience classification in inappropriate venues (article Talk pages are not appropriate for that!) will, in my view, probably lead to failure, frustration and drama all around, and even topic bans. I'll return to this at the end.

Along those lines, LesVegas mentions the editor who was recently topic banned. The description of why Herbxue was topic banned is wrong. The actual AE is here, and you will see that Herbxue was topic banned for more than edit warring - mostly for uncivil behavior, losing his temper.. things like that. If you go and actually study his interactions, you will see that H refused to really grapple with the "pseudoscience" issue and this often led to him getting angry and frustrated. (I was trying to help him grapple with it, when he wrote something here about how "outsiders" choose to interpret things that I still don't understand. (I tried to discuss it with him here)) But in my view, one of the reasons he crashed and burned is that he looked only at bias and didn't deal with the problems with pseudoscience and got frustrated with editors who were dealing with it.

That said, there are editors who work on TCM on the "skeptic" side who are incredibly difficult to work with. For the most part I have stopped working on TCM articles because the POV-pushing from both sides makes it impossible to get nuanced content into WP. Anyway, enough on that.

I also want to discuss STRICTA a bit. If you study the evolution of STRICTA... it came into being in 2002 (see here and it only became an official extension of the overall CONSORT standard in 2010 (see here). It is still fairly new, and there are many published trials that didn't report according to it, and some that still don't report according to it. Here is a published editorial by a guy who led the Cochrane review of acu in fibromyalgia who describes how much work it took to get information required by STRICTA from authors, that they didn't include in their publications, so he could do his review well. Things are messier than LesVegas would make them out to be.

And I want to point out that when LesVegas writes things like "BMJ says X" this is ... unfortunate (more on that in a minute). The corresponding author of the article in BMJ Open (which is not "The" BMJ) is Professor Jae Dong Lee of the Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea. It is accurate to write that BMJ Open published an analysis of Cochrane reviews written by professors of acupuncture and to later refer to it as "the BMJ Open article". Something like "BMJ says X" would only be accurate if the editors of the actual BMJ wrote and published an editorial and said X (which would indeed be a powerful thing), but is just not the case here. On the "unfortunate" thing - this way of describing published work -- which arises from ignorance, sloppiness, tendentiousness, or a combination thereof, - and deploying the mangled description to make strong rhetorical points -- discredits those who do it and inflames people "on the other side". It is profoundly unhelpful.

As I wrote, I pretty much stopped working on TCM-related articles due to POV-pushing on both sides. There is too little space in the middle for careful, nuanced work that would lead to really good WP articles. It is a great thing to address systemic bias, but beware becoming a POV-pusher for acu. Acknowledge the lack of scientific basis for acu; describe sources and what they say carefully and accurately; deal honestly with the messiness all around - what we know and what we don't know, and overall, with the limitations of any human editor and with all human endeavors, including medicine and TCM. Addressing systemic bias is important and will cause drama. Please don't undermine those efforts by POV-pushing for acu at the same time, in a conflated way. That will doom the efforts to failure and cause confused, unnecessary drama. The last thing we need is more POV-pushing editors who view themselves as righteous and the world as black and white. Anyway, those are my two (really twenty) cents. You can do with them as you will. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog gives great advice here, and I agree with most of it. A couple things I would like to clarify (and I will bring it back to systemic bias). I was banned for uncivil behavior and failure to AGF. In regards to my failure to grapple with certain issues, my reading of the source used to establish using a pejorative label in WP's voice was supported by several impartial editors at two separate noticeboards. I disagreed with the dominant POV of the culture in those articles, and was actually getting traction with neutral editors at places like project medicine and reliable sources noticeboard. I blew it because I wasn't keeping track of how much snark and anger I had been putting out there, and kept doing it.
To tie it back to systemic bias, I was banned (rightly) for being a jerk, but other editors who added and defended a misrepresentation the conclusions of a systematic review did not get as much as a warning. The literature may be imperfect, but I agree with those that say we cannot privilege, for example, Chinese literature because it will create bias (we cannot exclude that literature either). The real bias we have that could be addressed is the occasional misreading and misapplication of reliable sources, or inflating the message of certain sources, or giving certain sources undue weight to push a POV. I will not comment further, but wanted to clarify why I was banned because you guys brought it up. Herbxue (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

LesVegas, I haven't had time to read through all the comments here, but If you are concerned about systemic bias against eastern medicine, I'd think you’d need evidence beyond just acupuncture related. I don’t follow eastern medicine pages closely enough to comment on any potential systemic bias there, but will add a few to my watchlist. However, I do have several noticeboards on watchlist, and seem to recall reports regarding Traditional Chinese Medicine page, so you might want to look into any similar bias issues/concerns there, if you are interested in pursuing this. Also, Technophant was apparently recently blocked indefinitely for what appeared to be relatively minor infraction, so can understand what you say regarding wanting to avoid getting “bullied”. Unfortunately, that might be legit concern. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of good advice from Jytdog, Herbxue and BoboMeowCat. I have one comment on Jytdog's "the lack of grounding means that in WP, the field is defined as pseudoscience. This is a serious and important thing in WP". I am not disputing the comment as a fact in en.wikipedia, but from the traditional Chinese common sense, or point of view, TCM is validly grounded (as LesVegas stated, "they don't value robustness in reporting" and value other grounds more). The concept of 'science' and 'grounds', etc. have different meanings in different cultures, and the fact en.wikipedia uses English language does not mean it can always apply English meaning or definition on the concepts (as it is often illustrated in the handling of American, Irish or Scottish concepts). It is in violation of WP:NPOV to ignore and not present the relevant point of view (Traditional Chinese point of view in cases of TCM subjects) even if (especially if?) it contradicts Western (or American, Irish, Scottish, or any other country) belief or common sense.
It is this "doubting our own common sense" side that I value in this project to fight against systemic bias. Yiba (talk | contribs) 10:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry but Yiba, this is a dangerous mythology. Science is science, including in China and other developing countries. China is striving to excel in science. See this article for one tiny example of reporting on this. The mythology is dangerous, as you would have China (and other developing countries that are now emerging) remain in some kind of prescientific backwater drowning in poverty and ignorance, and is basically a form of Orientalism wrapped up in a confused nationalism. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no reason why properly referenced Eastern claims should not be included as claims, i.e. not as "the Truth according to Wikipedia." Subject matter should be properly balanced, and since acupuncture came out of the east, the eastern viewpoint should at the very least be summarised in the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This is accurate yes - describing how things work in various TCM and other traditional modalities is good and appropriate, with inline attribution (e.g. "In TCM, "qi" is ......"), not in WP's voice (e.g. ""Qi" is ..."). Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
We are not talking about modern day Chinese science or modern day Chinese medicine. Please take a look at Traditional medicine, and hope you'll see it is far away from mythology. As I so stated, I am talking about "Traditional Chinese point of view" in the articles on Traditional Chinese Medicine subjects. What Simon Burchell stated is not only agreeable or 'fine', but is required by WP:NPOV. We need to present views on the subject based on all the relevant points of view with due weight. In my mind, the difficulty in finding good sources aside, traditional Chinese view should carry a considerable weight in the Wiki articles on TCM. Wikipedia article on TCM should not be "TCM as viewed or judged by Western standards, or common sense", but rather it should be "TCM as viewed by traditional Chinese view point, modern day Chinese view point, Western view points and all other relevant view points in a balanced manner." I am not a Chinese speaker, and so I am not claiming that I can do this difficult task on TCM articles (I would guess there are many people in HongKong who could help.) I'd think that this basic NPOV requirement (which carries more weight than any Wiki guideline) is ignored too often, and the ignorance is creating a serious systemic bias. Yiba (talk | contribs) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are talking about discussions of TCM or other traditional medicinal practices and theories from an anthropological/historical perspective -- sure those should be discussed as clearly and sympathetically as possible, like any anthropological matter. It is a different story if are talking about claims of actual efficacy of TCM and other traditional medicinal approaches. Those are subject to science, which is the same anywhere you go. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
"talking about claims of actual efficacy of TCM" is a very good example of the problem I am talking about. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal or research paper, and as an encyclopedia, we the editors should leave the judgments on efficacy or true/false to reliable sources. So "if the claimed efficacy is valid" is not, and should not be, our primary concern. Instead, we should pay more attention to "are the points of view presented in the claims by reliable sources balanced?".
Meaning of 'science' has evolved over time. The earliest teachings of European universities were monastic, then scholastic science acted as the precursor to modern day science. It is well known that Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton had strong alchemy backgrounds. Some claims of acupuncture efficacy may be proven or disproven in the future, but so are the claims of efficacy on today's modern medical practices in the advancement of technology. "Proven valid" is always within the limitation of the proving methods used. So encyclopedia editors should not be concentrating on right/wrong, but rather on balancing the presentation of claims made by reliable sources, which may or may not be 'valid'. WP:NPOV applies to all Wiki articles regardless of context or perspective. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yiba, yep, acu may or may not be shown to have a scientific basis in the future. As of 2014, for no lack of trying, there is none. That is what we report here. That is how things work here - what you are describing is not a matter of bias and is indeed not a matter of right/wrong. If you don't want to hear, there is nothing more I can do. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yiba, Jytdog is correct. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We depend on RS, not on speculations about the future. We are, and must be, "behind the ball" at all times. We report after the fact. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I am saying we should stay behind the ball. Judging everything according to the currently accepted common sense is refusing to accept that the ball has been, and will be showing new things at all times, and that common sense has been and will be evolving, and that there are and has been many versions of common sense in the world. We need to accept the fact what we believe in will change in the future, especially in discussing topics based on the past or foreign points of view. Refusal to accept that is taking the future in our own hands, and is like placing ourselves above the ball, or history. Wikipedia:Systemic bias#The nature of Wikipedia's bias says "Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and no incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic." We need to take that statement to the heart. Choosing to ignore the entire Wikipedia:Systemic bias may be left to the freedom of Wiki editors, but not to those of us who participate in the discussions on this talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Wikipedia is not in the business of making judgments. Yiba (talk | contribs) 07:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
How is the quote you provide above relevant to the discussion about TCM and science? Jytdog (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate's observations[edit]

I have been closely following this thread for the past few days, and I think now is the time to drop some observations since the discussion above appears to have gone off course.

My first observation has got to do with the remarks of Simon Burchell, who says that:

"Acupuncture came out of the east, the eastern viewpoint should at the very least be summarised in the article."

This is an entirely reasonable position and it is what Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV requires us to do. However, the Eastern viewpoint is extremely difficult to represent because there are often conflicting views even among Eastern researchers themselves. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the main philosophical theories behind Traditional Chinese medicine are inadequately summarized in our TCM articles. If you compare the difference in length and content between official Chinese sources on TCM philosophy such as this one and our main article on Traditional Chinese medicine, there are indeed remarkable differences as well as many instances of crucial philosophical theories being left out completely and ignored.

So, the question is why is this happening to our TCM articles? Are Western sources doing a poor job of objectively investigating the field of TCM? Is Yiba correct to make such a statement as shown below:

""Wikipedia article on TCM should not be "TCM as viewed or judged by Western standards, or common sense", but rather it should be "TCM as viewed by traditional Chinese view point""

The simple answer to this is a straightforward "No". I deal with Western medical literature everyday and I can honestly tell you that a perceived "bias" against TCM in Western sources is much less common than you would like to think. In fact, the mainstream scientific consensus in the Western world is actually for, not against, the traditional medical beliefs of the Eastern world.

It's difficult to present the most widely accepted Western viewpoint on a topic that still remains controversial, but the Journal of the American Medical Association (one of the most highly regarded medical journals) recently made a very good observation about the general attitudes in the in the United States towards non-Western medical therapies:

"For some mind-body approaches, however, there is mounting evidence of usefulness and safety, particularly in relieving chronic pain. A few examples include acupuncture for osteoarthritis pain; tai chi for fibromyalgia pain; and massage, spinal manipulation, and yoga for chronic back pain.
Increasing comfort with this emerging evidence is reflected in practice guidelines from the American College of Physicians, the American Pain Society, and the Department of Defense. (link)"

Outside the United States, the mainstream scientific consensus is just as strong, if not even stronger. In Great Britain, you can literally see the scientific consensus changing when it comes to the empirical validity acupuncture, as demonstrated by the country's National Health Service (NHS):

How the NHS viewed acupuncture before 15 July 2014[edit]

What is acupuncture?

"Acupuncture is a form of ancient Chinese medicine"

Can acupuncture be considered a part of mainstream Western medicine?

"It is a complementary or alternative medicine (CAM). This means that acupuncture is different in important ways from treatments that are part of conventional western medicine."

Is there a mechanism for acupuncture?

Some scientists and acupuncturists believe that acupuncture may stimulate nerves and muscle tissue, and that this may be responsible for any beneficial effects.

What are the indications for acupuncture treatment?

"Currently, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends acupuncture as a treatment option only for lower back pain."

Source: (Archived link)

How the NHS views acupuncture after 15 July 2014[edit]

What is acupuncture?

"Acupuncture is a treatment derived from ancient Chinese medicine"

Can acupuncture be considered a part of mainstream Western medicine?

"It is often seen as a form of complementary or alternative medicine (CAM), although it is used in many NHS general practices, as well as the majority of pain clinics and hospices in the UK."

Is there a mechanism for acupuncture?

"Western medical acupuncture is the use of acupuncture after a proper medical diagnosis. It is based on scientific evidence that shows the treatment can stimulate nerves under the skin and in muscle tissue."

What are the indications for acupuncture treatment?

"Currently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) only recommends considering acupuncture as a treatment option for chronic lower back pain, chronic tension-type headaches and migraines."

Source: NHS

These guidelines are also supported by the text of many authoritative medical textbooks, such as Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine and Practical Management of Pain. (In fact, health authorities must stick to scientific consensus otherwise there will be a horrifying publish backlash if they issue a statement that turns out to be quackery)

And finally, the scientific theories of acupuncture discussed by the NHS have been discussed in numerous mainstream medical journals, including the The New England Journal of Medicine (link), but surprisingly, none of these findings can be found on Wikipedia, so we finally come to the crux of the problem: The true source of systemic bias are not "biased" Western sources, but those who despise the process of scientific inquiry and adhere to pseudoskeptic beliefs.

There are people who have spent their entire careers fighting quackery (or what was once perceived as quackery), and they have every incentive to disprove what they originally fought against. If you write a book claiming that acupuncture is a fradulent treatment, your entire reputation is at stake when you fail to persuade mainstream scientific consensus to agree with you.

And these are the people that are the true cause of what OP incorrectly describes as "systemic bias in Eastern Medicine subjects". It is not about "Western" medicine against "Eastern" medicine. It is about mainstream science being usurped by WP:FRINGE blogs and self-published sources such as Quackwatch and the personal website of Steven Novella, as well as those who view themselves as quack fighters and quack experts.

The fact that meta-analyses and reviews in high impact factor journals are repeatedly removed by Wikipedia editors who cite the lowest quality, self-published sources speaks volumes. If there are systematic biases to be found in Eastern medicine, they are certainly not caused by Western sources but rather those who oppose the process of scientific inquiry and have an utter disdain for mainstream scientific consensus. -A1candidate (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Above you make a claim about JAMA, but it's not the AMA who made what you call "good observations", but two people expressing their POV in a "viewpoint" article. Those two people are very strongly invested (their income is dependent on promoting AM) in alternative medicine (AM):
Viewpoint | August 21, 2013
Perspectives on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research
Josephine P. Briggs, MD1; Jack Killen, MD1
Author Affiliations
1National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
So, we have an unsurprising opinion. Big deal. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, what a weak argument... NCCAM is a part of NIH. Every researcher's income is dependent upon their research. -A1candidate (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
A1, just as LesVegas did above when he cited "the BMJ" and attempted to leverage the prestige of the journal itself for his argument, you did the same thing with "JAMA" (and you do the same thing with NEJM). That is not valid, and Brangifer rightly called that out. I think your main point is very worthy of discussion, but you shoot yourself in the foot when you overstate things like this. It is unfortunate. Generally the best thing to do to is acknowledge mis-steps, strike the bad bits and turn the focus back to your main point. Your choice to give a dismissive response to a valid critique undercuts your effort yet further. Unwise. I am also not sure that you can support your claim (which is a strong one) that "meta-analyses and reviews in high impact factor journals are repeatedly removed by Wikipedia editors who cite the lowest quality, self-published sources speaks volumes." (I am pretty sure that if high-impact meta-analyses or reviews have been removed, it has been with justification such as WP:INDY and isn't completely arbitrary as you make it seem) I am also pretty confident that your claim that acupuncture, broadly speaking, is now within "mainstream scientific consensus" is unsupportable. (the quotes from Harrison's being discussed at the acu article do not support this claim, for sure, and neither do the NHS quotes above, which support limited use only) And really, is this, which pops up in the first page of a google search for "cancer acupuncture", mainstream medicine in your eyes? (that is a real question)
Both statements (removal of good sources, acu is within mainstream consensus) are too starkly black and white and will collapse when dug into. Again, I think your main argument is important... but to the extent you distract from it with unsupportable claims that put a pro-TCM advocacy dress on it, you are 1) distracting your key audience - your opponents - from your main argument and 2) being part of the problem, not part of the solution. The terrible irony is, that the harder pro-TCM advocates push in an advocate-like way, the more they justify the stance of quack-fighters and support for them (even the most abusive of them! see the last paragraph here). These quack-fighters are committed to remaining on the front lines to keep quackery out.
I am grateful for the handful of editors who man the front lines. The amount of quackery that people push into WP every day is mind-blowing - a key problem we have to deal with in this "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". In my view, project medicine takes its responsibility (created by huge readership of health-related articles) seriously, and generally is conservative and cautious, and the underlying consensus there seems (to me) to be that it is better to have a crappy health-related article with a cautious, pro-science bias than a crappy article that pitches health woo. To the extent that you, A1, and other TCM advocates refuse to deal with that larger picture and refuse to acknowledge that wider problem, and again - to the extent that you make unsupportable arguments and advocacy-like claims - you make it way more convenient for project medicine to pick the low-hanging fruit off your statements, discredit them and thus the whole argument, and move on to deal with the next advocate pushing woo, of which there is an exhaustingly endless supply. Can you not see that? (real question!!) If you want to be taken seriously and open space for a different kind of coverage for TCM related topics, your argument needs to be conservative, limited, and reasonable, and you must deal with the bigger picture of keeping quackery out of WP, including TCM-based quackery, of which (I hope you can acknowledge) there are mountains. You must show you are here to build an encyclopedia, not just to push your POV, and your solution cannot open WP to buckets of woo (acu as an actual treatment for cancer, magnet therapy, homeopathy, "detoxification", etc etc infinity). Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible v Tanakh[edit]

Can I encourage interested parties to weigh in on this merge discussion. Personally, I can't see that the term "Hebrew Bible" implies anything other than a Christian spin on a Hebrew field of study, which already has a perfectly good name. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

in the scholarly world, it is called "Hebrew Bible" which i understand evolved as a way to a) avoid any religion's name for the field and b) avoid limiting the field to any particular canon. It's an entirely appropriate title for an encyclopedia article. "Tanakh" is a particular canon of books for Judaism, just as the Roman Catholic "Old Testament" is, and just as the mainline protestant "Old Testament" is. I don't know why you post this here but I am glad you did or I wouldn't have seen it.Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruption of Gender Gap Task Force[edit]

We're just getting organized and already having problems at WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force with individuals who obviously don't like the project and/or some of the individuals involved.

One participant had known Mens rights issues and he and others have been warned that Community Sanctions on that topic does apply narrowly. But the admin who warned them said it did not necessarily apply to others who have not been involved in that issue previously and/or may have other disruptive agendas. Any help encouraging them to cut it out appreciated.

Also, is there some sort of guideline applying to this sort of thing? Upon a quick skim, Wikipedia:General sanctions doesn't seem to have anything that applies. Or should it just be taken to WP:ANI for community sanctions and pray the community doesn't OK disruption of Wikiprojects in general and this one in particular. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)