The question is, can terms like "wheelchair-bound" be said to violate NPOV, and in that case would NPOV override consensus based on other arguments? Discussion at [[WT:MOS#NPOV vs Consensus]]. Comments are appreciated, thank you. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 15:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
The question is, can terms like "wheelchair-bound" be said to violate NPOV, and in that case would NPOV override consensus based on other arguments? Discussion at [[WT:MOS#NPOV vs Consensus]]. Comments are appreciated, thank you. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 15:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
== Using broad sources to determine weight at Islam in Finland ==
There is ongoing discussion at [[Talk:Islam in Finland]] as to how much space the article, which is about Muslims in Finland, should give to [[Islamic terrorism]] in Finland. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_Finland&oldid=1048962591 current version] gives 25% of prose to terrorism. {{ping|WikiDan61}}, {{ping|Dominic Mayers}} and myself believe the article currently gives too much [[WP:WEIGHT]] to terrorism. WikiDan61 pointed out that [[Christianity in the United States]] doesn't give any weight to [[Christian terrorism]] in America. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_in_Finland&diff=1049910931&oldid=1049903278#Sources_that_cover_%22Islam_in_Finland%22_broadly added a survey] of sources that treat Finnish Muslims broadly and determined the amount of space they give to terrorism. This approach is something I've discussed with {{u|Someguy1221}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=997332402], {{u|Vanamonde93}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Workshop#Weight_should_be_determined_by_broad_overview_sources] and {{u|Levivich}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Levivich&oldid=1053369045#Applying_the_principle_of_broad_overview_of_sources]. However, {{ping|Bookku}} and {{ping|1Kwords}} seem to disagree with my approach.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 21:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:26, 7 November 2021
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
The article and its reference were first inserted into the article on August 20, was removed from the article on August 21, was added back to the article by an IP, then removed removed, and then added back to the article on August 22, after which a tag for a better source being needed was added.
On August 22, a discussion was opened on the article talk page. There has not been any closing summary of the discussion added yet, though based on my read through it, it didn't look like a consensus was achieved to include the disputed content.
The page was protected by El C on August 22, leading to this back-and-forth stopping until the protection expired.
On September 25, the disputed content was removed and subsequently re-inserted, with the re-inserting editor arguing that the content "has been pretty stable" and citing WP:BRD.
I don't want to extend this reversion cycle any further, especially given that editors (including myself) seem to no longer have an agreement over what the stable version of the article was. Discussions on the article's talk page don't appear to have been able to reach consensus. So I'm appealing to this noticeboard to help resolve the dispute, via the RfC opened below. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?
Question: Is it WP:DUE to state in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article that In August 2021, Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein wrote that "sockpuppet" accounts and accounts that appeared to be linked to ASPI had edited its Wikipedia article, based off of the two references (12) present?
Discussion: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?
Not Due. In my understanding, it's atypical that a standalone opinion piece from a minor outlet would be due in an article, except when that opinion pieve is either referred to by a reliable secondary source or written by a relevant subject matter expert. In this case, the article was originally published by MichaelWestMedia and republished by APAC.news, so it might superficially appear that such a source exists. However, this isn't the case.
Certainly, APAC news's republication of a MichaelWestMedia can't contribute towards the reliability of the piece; after all, "APAC News" was created by Reubenstein in October of 2019 and is still run by him (see footer), so it's totally non-independent of the article's author.
After looking into the sources a bit, I'm unsure of the extent to which, and the previous discussion on the reliability of the sources did not appear to gain a consensus on the extent of the reliability and independence from relevant parties. It appears that MichaelWestMedia might not clearly mark what are opinion pieces as opposed to what is straight reporting (see this example of an unlabeled opinion piece, or this one, or this one, etc.). Given the listing of the article as opinion on its "APAC News" (self-)republication, I would think it most reasonable to consider it so (especially since Reubenstein both wrote the piece and edits the website).
I'm also don't think that Reubenstein is an expert on the topic of Wikipedia sockpuppetry or internal functions, which is evidenced by the numerous errors in the article about how Wikipedia functions and most egregiously evidenced in verifiably inaccurate claim regarding the identity of the suspected sockmaster of Telsho. Additionally, according to an article in the South China Morning Post, Ruebenstein's articles about Australia-China economic ties have been republished by China’s state media, and he has made several appearances on state-run China Global Television Network. He appears to (archive) have written content for China's state-run Xinhua News Agency as recently as June of 2020. The APAC news website footer (archive) explicitly notes that the APAC News website is not blocked in Mainland China. Considering the current state of affairs regarding China and ASPI, I'm not sure that using an opinion piece written by a Xinhua writer and frequent CGTN commentator for facts in the article is a great idea, especially when there are clear factual errors present in the article.
All in all, I'm not convinced as to the reliability of the publisher and the author as a source for facts on this topic, I'm rather certain that the article is an opinion piece, and I believe that the inclusion of the website's claims is undue in the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this on the NPOV noticeboard? This clearly belongs on the article talk page. Michael West Media is a relatively prominent source of news and current affairs reporting in Australia which meets our standards. The content in the article for which the Michael West Media article is a reference is easily verifiable by Wikipedia editors, and reflects a notable perspective on the article subject. This is clearly another desperate attempt to remove criticism from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a case of both WP:STICK and forum shopping. Searching the Australian version of The Guardian for "Michael West" Australia returns a fair few stories where The Guardian has cited this news website, which indicates that it's a reliable and noteworthy source. The material here is one sentence, so it's not like it's excessive! Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When there's a no local consensus after extensive discussions, the next step is to bring in outside opinions to try to work out a consensus. You're right, I should have raised the RfC on the talk page by that very same policy, and I would be happy to move it over to the article talk if there are no objections from you and the other editor who has commented thus far. That being said, this is literally the noticeboard to discuss neutral point of view, which is what WP:DUE falls under. To the best of my ability, I've informed every editor who made a related edit (in the talk or in the article itself) that this discussion was taking place here, and I've left a note on the article talk page. And, yes, one sentence given to a random opinion piece from a non-reliable author is one sentence too many. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: I have no issue with there being criticism in the article, and I've removed stuff from the article that seemed like advertorial puffery. The insinuation that I am desperately trying to remove criticism-quo-criticism is unfounded; my problem, as I've explained above, is with the particular source being an opinion article from a non-subject expert author. My own looking through sources doesn't appear to show that MichaelWestMedia is a relatively prominent source of news and current affairs reporting in Australia, and the very fact that there are basic errors that any real Wikipedian can verify shows doesn't indicate that the site places a premium on fact-checking. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to get anywhere with stating that the reference is an "opinion piece", as Wikipedia extensively uses opinion articles from reliable sources to support the inclusion of factual information. The content in the Wikipedia article is factual, not opinion. The error that you claim is in the Michael West Media article has nothing to do with the Wikipedia content that relies on it. Continuing to claim the source is not reliable is beating a dead horse, it's been shown that other reliable sources rely on Michael West Media, which is the easiest test of reliability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But Michael West Media is not a reliable source... Unless you can point to a consensus that says otherwise the horse is definitely not dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article talk page, for a start. It has been explained multiple times that Michael West Media has been relied upon by The New Daily and Guardian Australia, both of which are already considered reliable sources. There's not a particularly high barrier for it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on the article talk page... If you really think otherwise please quote and/or link it. If you want to establish MWM as a WP:RS might I suggest you open a discussion at WP:RSN to do so instead of making that argument here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No you don’t need to do that, but if you don’t do that and continue to claim that there is consensus for reliability then you would continue to lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reliable sources noticeboard is not usually relevant to talk page consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the question should be whether this is "due" or "not due", but this isn't new for Wikipedia – Saskatoon_freezing_deaths#Censorship_attempts and this Reuters report are some examples. Nevertheless, it definitely seems highly suspect that sockpuppets have tried to prowl the article of material that they found undesirable in their view. It may seem useful to keep the report based on the extraordinary circumstance. Otterslort (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Otterslort: its not a report and the forensics (if one can even call them that) on it are sloppy to the point of being unusable... For instance the sockpupper Telsho is attributed to Waskertoon when they’re actually suspected of being a Ineedtostopforgetting sock. Those sock farms have completely different political outlooks which render’s the conclusion the author draws from their misattribution of Telsho mistaken (to be polite). What extraordinary circumstance would you be referring to? The author’s incompetence? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article says nothing about which users are the sockpuppet accounts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not due, unreliable source and unreliable/non-notable author... Also appears to have been published as an opinion piece on the author’s blog ("APAC News"). Note that the Author labels their own work as commentary (Section heading is “Comment, News") but Michael West Media doesn’t... Thats an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Though they are practically the same piece, inclusion of the content relies upon the Michael West Media source (which is a sufficient source), not the APAC News source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be relying on both sources not just MWM [1]. Did you not mean to use APAC as the source as well? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can use both but the Michael West Media source is required. I didn't add either source into the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, am I reading that diff wrong? Because I would swear that the diff is of you adding the info and *both* sources to the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Onetwothreeip is saying, for whatever it's worth, that they didn't originally add both sources. Onetwothreeip has repeatedly ensured that both blogs are used in the article when other editors have removed one. [2]Cjhard (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have ensured that the Michael West Media source is used. I don't have an opinion on whether to use the APAC News source. 21:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This story was also covered here on John Menadue's blog in a piece written by Ian Cunliffe. It is still just a rehashing of the Reubenstein article though and the blog is not the most reliable but does seem to have some editorial standards/oversight. Unfortunately, this story is probably not appropriate for inclusion without wider and more reliable coverage. I say unfortunately as I think the story is hilarious, probably true and is most certainly rife across WP. We have to stick to good sources though. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One reliable source is enough for the majority of content that appears on Wikipedia, and the Michael West Media source is sufficient. This is a discussion for the article talk page though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the way this has been brought to RfC is strange and, if I didn't assume good faith in all fellow editors, would appear to be an attempt to exclude people who were already discussing this on the talk page. This has still not been mentioned on the talk page and no one involved in the discussion was pinged.Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic: just FYI those are involved editors not uninvolved editors, not an issue just thought you should know. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: thanks. I clearly mean they are as yet uninvolved in this RfC which took the discussion off the Talk page into a different forum. Otherwise I would have tagged every single other WP editor. Thanks again for your help. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Due. MWM is a popular but smaller outlet in Australia. It's more popular among younger, more informed Australians. Further, it's clear that some editors of the Wikipedia article (including some here, won't mention names) are potentially sinophobic, and favour articles that aren't neutral, and that hold biases against China. TLDR; Possible shills could be in our midst. Ultranova1337 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that we should avoid assuming bad faith, I very much agree that this is the kind of topic that will draw out people who aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. With that in mind, has anyone here noticed that the editor who added the contentious content is a single-purpose account that has NEVER edited on anything else before or since? This is an embarrassing failure of administration. Cjhard (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and so what? I've only committed a change once, everyone has a first time. Anyone can contribute to an open source project. Gatekeeping much? xD Ultranova1337 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: No, it is not due. These are blogs. Cjhard (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: Not due. As per above, weak source(s) as obvious from the inaccuracies in the reportage about Wikipedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: Not due. This is not a significant enough opinion. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just as an FYI to everyone here, since there are now editors making very brief comments here, there isn't an outcome of this discussion that would have any binding effect on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article. If you want your view to be represented in the content of that article, I encourage you to join discussion on the article talk page. Writing "due" or "not due" in bold on this page doesn't actually do anything. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that consensus achieved at a centralized noticeboard wouldn't be community consensus in any meaningful way? Am I reading this statement correctly?— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no community consensus matter here. This is about content on one specific article, and talk page discussion there takes precedence. Community consensus or global consensus is for broad principles that cover multiple articles. The community is invited to discuss the content of the article on the article talk page. Noticeboards aren't a way to appeal against article talk page consensus not going your way, which has now happened twice. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly atypical to absolutely ignore a noticeboard discussion in which there's been substantial community involvement. I don't think there's a basis for declaring that [j]ust as an FYI to everyone here... there isn't an outcome of this discussion that would have any binding effect on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article. That isn't how consensus-building works; when we are able to discern a consensus at a community level, then that consensus gets applied at a local level. This is something that happens all the time, especially on WP:RSN. And, the notion that I'm trying to appeal against article talk page consensus is bogus; there was (and remains) no consensus on the article talk page and I've explained my rationale above for why I made the RfC already and how editors were notified. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10: This is mostly just a repeat of arguments that have been made on the article talk page, not a reflection of the broader community. NPOV noticeboard isn't an appropriate place for an RfC, especially for a dispute that only applies to one article. If this was relevant to several articles it might belong on a noticeboard like this, but consensus on a noticeboard does not equate automatically to community consensus. You would be much better advised to do what was done in the preceding section, #Apple cider vinegar RfC, where the RfC is on the relevant article talk page and what is on this noticeboard is a link to it. Because a noticeboard isn't where consensus would be formed on this, editors who would provide their view on the article talk page wouldn't provide it here, and that can easily skew any apparent consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the idea that the talk page reached consensus is a very interesting reading of the discussion. Cjhard (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The content in the article is stable after numerous changes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say stable, others would say you edit-warred and stonewalled the article. Also the stability of the article says absolutely nothing about the existence of talk page consensus. Cjhard (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the litany of changes described on this page and the lack of edits being made while an RfC is pending, taken together, show that the content is "stable". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an RfC open that would impact the article, but no RfC would prevent edits being made on the article either. There were several changes that happened over two months, and this is not unusual, leading to a better version. Editors should raise issues they may have with content in the article talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I have said is directly relevant to claims made to who I am responding to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"There's nothing wrong with my editing!"Ultranova1337 (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I'm not sure this image is super productive towards discussion and (2) the image is distorting the section header below. Would you be willing to strike it? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on Etymology section of Yoruba People article
Additional input requested on above RFC concerning Etymology section on Yoruba people article, which seems to violate (WP:NPOV) policy. The content was by Oluwatalisman and can be found through link provided here[[3]]. A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link.[[4]] Thanks Ppdallo (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are way, way too many RfCs for that article right now. There should not be more than one RfC open at a time for the same article or from the same editor. If you want editors to comment, I recommend starting from scratch, as a Third Opinion (if this has only involved two editors so far), and plainly summarizing one issue in a way people can understand who aren't familiar with the content. And if needed, then it could be taken to RfC. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pyrrho the Skeptic for your recommendation. Actually no other editor has so far commented despite my having posted the RFCs on other Noticeboards. Now i can see the reason why. I will notify the other editor i am in dispute with accordingly.Ppdallo (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I came across Green Scare while browsing, and it seems to me like the article itself may be a WP:POVFORK off of Environmental_movement#Criticisms and/or Operation Backfire. I'm not sure quite how to address it; the article itself is written as if the "Green Scare" is very matter-of-fact, though its sourcing seems rather weak, and I don't think that there's a mainstream consensus among academics that opposition to the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Frontis akin to the red scare. I'm wondering if anybody with better knowledge than me of the environmental movement (and legal responses to it) would be willing to take a look at the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede seems fine to me. If it is a "term of art", Wikipedia can certainly mention that this is the thing that radical environmental activists have called the enforcement actions against them. I don't think WP is claiming that it is akin to the Red Scare in Wikipedia's voice... it looks sufficiently attributed to me. Whether it deserves a standalone article is a subject for a merge discussion, perhaps. jps (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Neutrality of a secondary research paper written by a chiropractor, but published in a medical journal.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
There is some dispute on the chiropractic talk page about the removal of stroke/vertebral dissection as risks in the article's infobox. Presently, this discussion is hinging partially on the reliability/neutrality of a source. The source is a MEDRS compliant source with in-universe authors, but published by an out of universe journal. I contend that the peer review process of the medical journal neutralizes much of the risk of bias due to an all-medical review board and that it should be included because it is MEDRS compliant. The opposing contention is that the article is unreliable because it is written by in-universe authors.
Done. Thank you. Jmg873 (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that, while reliability is certainly a legitimate question to ask, neither our sources nor content must be neutral? It is editors who must edit neutrally. Read my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The clinical training of a full time researcher who is an author on the source is not listed within MEDRS as a criteria for exclusion. Moreover, the information contained in the secondary source under question is consistent with all the other secondary sources published within the past 10 years on the topic (i.e.: [5] & [6]. I cannot think of any good reason for excluding a secondary source that is MEDRS compliant and consistent with all other recent secondary sources on the topic. 2001:56A:70E6:DB00:D11A:9841:610E:7F0D (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source pretty clearly meets MEDRS requirements and the identity of the researchers is not a valid reason to exclude it, and it amounts to insulting the intelligence of the non-chiropractic scientists who peer-reviewed the paper. MarshallKe (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above support for inclusion; the anon 2001:...:7F0D nailed it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So this isn't exactly responding about the contention, but the journal article by Chaibi and Russell is a comprehensive review (i.e. literature review or evidence syntheses), whereas the articles currently in Chiropractic#Risk-benefit (and for most of this WP article) are generally systematic reviews or tertiary sources. Within the secondary source category, systematic reviews are considered more reliable than comprehensive reviews, which is reflected in the images under WP:MEDASSESS. I would also like to point out that Chaibi is not a full-time researcher, he does work in private practise as a chiro. I don't actually think that's enough to say he can't write any research about his field of expertise. However - given that the field of expertise of the other author is actually in chronic and medication-overuse headaches, one may note that it's strange that he's writing an article about how to reduce the amount of strokes caused by chiro. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC) // Edited this to strike through the last sentence. It's an unwarranted point on my part. Xurizuri (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a respected medical journal publishes a review paper, one would expect it to be neutral. In other words, it should provide due weight to the various papers and findings that have been published in accordance with their acceptance in the body of literature. If editors disagree with the weight the study provides, they need to find similar sources that disagree and then discuss which is correct. But the credentials of the author should not concern us. The publisher is what is important. In some academic journals, the editors are not even aware of the authors' credentials before accepting their papers. TFD (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That not necessarily true. A narrative review can be nothing more than a cherry-picked survey in support of a POV, which is why methodologically sound systematic reviews are more valued. There are certainly some authors (e.g. MJ Middelveen on Morgellons syndrome) who are so bound up with suspect views that even if their work was published in a notionally respectable venue, it would be unlikely to be accepted as RS for its assertions. Wikipedia editors are not robots applying RS guidelines dumbly. (I would also add that the question here about the "neutrality" of a source is weird; the question is whether it's reliable for some specific statement. But what?) Alexbrn (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia's place to use or exclude sources based on whether we like their conclusions or not. To determine reliability based on our personal views is wrong. Don't link me to Guy Macon's bad essay for the hundredth time. Wikipedia:No. Wikipedia is NOT biasedMarshallKe (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia's place to use or exclude sources based on whether we like their conclusions or not ← good job nobody's proposing that then. But when sources have problems documented in RS, that matters. As in the case of Middelveen above, or Chinese research into TCM, etc. Not sure what's triggered you about some retired user's essay, but I don't see the relevance to this thread. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn: from reading the discussion, its ostensibly about the infobox saying that stroke and death are risks of the treatment. One side says "we have evidence saying it is" and the other side says "we have evidence saying its not". As far as I can tell, everyone's right - there is good quality evidence to say both. Like I said in my earlier comment, I think this specific journal article is of a slightly lower quality than other ones in the WP article, but e.g. the WHO has released a paper saying "look its probably fine" (it's an old paper now, but still, the WHO) so I'm just also not entirely sure why this specific journal article became the deciding factor. I don't really love having the summary of risks or benefits in an infobox for a treatment where one or both is not solidly established, because it runs a high risk of undue weight. But if we have to have them in there, I'd love if we didn't rely on non-systematic reviews. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This study is not the only thing this decision is hinging on. I apologize if I was unclear. I brought this here because whether or not this was considered a RS was the point in the discussion that we were stuck on. Jmg873 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of a source refers to the accuracy of the facts it contains, not the opinions expressed by its author. The assumption in policy is that papers published in respected academic sources are reliable. Obviously errors can occur and in those cases we can resolve the issue by looking at other reliable sources. If you think the journal was wrong to publish this paper, then write to them and get it withdrawn. In the meantime, I put getter faith in the journal's editors than in Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source is still relatively new and so its reliability is suspect until other sources indicate that its conclusions are warranted. Peer review is great, but it sometimes takes many years before we know whether a particular article is reliable or not. The article seems to have generated a little buzz so far, so hopefully some citations to it will indicate its reliability, but the few so far are not particularly encouraging [7],[8],[9], [10]. I also have a concern that T&F OA journals have had issues with uneven editorial control in the past. See Taylor & Francis#Controversies. But, even as a general principle, it's best to proceed with caution with any paper that is new. jps (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: Peer reviewed secondary sources in a reliable journal is Wikipedia's standard for high reliability. What you are proposing here is that lower-reliability sources (the links you listed) can be used to discredit a higher-reliability source. If I could edit Wikipedia based on that upside-down principle, oh, the edits I could make, you have no idea. MarshallKe (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I listed are not lower-reliability. Odd that you would think that this is the case. jps (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, are they also comprehensive reviews like the source in question? MarshallKe (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Each source, written by experts in the subject, offers either direct or indirect critique of the claimed "comprehensive review" and that serves to point out how the paper may be problematic. Obviously a comprehensive review is only reliable if it is done correctly. jps (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's standard for whether a secondary source was "done correctly" is WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDPRI explicitly states primary sources should not be used to counter conclusions by secondary sources. You don't get to define a secondary source as less reliable except with sources Wikipedia deems to be of higher reliability, per WP:MEDASSESS. MarshallKe (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't primary sources since they assess the other source. jps (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm not being clear here. My point is that you're using evidence that is considered lower quality per WP:MEDASSESS to contradict evidence that is considered higher quality. I just don't see this as anything other than calling a study bad because you feel like it's bad and therefore everything that contradicts it is good. We have standards for a reason. MarshallKe (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. WP:MEDASSESS does not consider these sources to be lower quality. jps (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now that's a bold claim. I'm definitely interested in a more generalized centralized discussion on that. That's going to have wide-reaching site-wide consequences. MarshallKe (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My claim is that competence is required and you don't seem to have enough of it to understand what I'm saying. At least, that's my good faith interpretation of what's going on. This isn't the first time you've had problems evaluating sources. Probably won't be the last. jps (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you prepared to back that up with diffs? MarshallKe (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All in good time. You've already been warned about discretionary sanctions. I can see from your actions here that you have taken on the mantle of WP:ADVOCACY that is straying into WP:SPA and WP:POVPUSH. We may see you at WP:AE sooner or later. Take care! jps (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to do anything about it, why even bring it up? I am here. I'm not going away just because some rando on the internet called me dumb and biased. Regardless, can we get back to the explanation of how the publications you've linked are on the same level as a literature review? Seems like an easy explanation, but you'd rather type accusations at me than spend one sentence explaining yourself. MarshallKe (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any issue with the source (2 years old already). The background of a researcher is not a criteria for exclusion or inclusion automatically, it is the amount of oversight of the source (in this case a journal) that carries a little more weight. Perhaps attribution and light wording would resolve the issue. The specific statement that the source is being used for by the editor matters too. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the talk page, I wanted to make a summary of what has been presented thus far. Especially to (at least somewhat) separate the two discussions and keep them focused. Please add anything I missed. Jmg873 (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Current arguments against inclusion of Chaibi & Russel 2019
The authors are chiropractors
The source is too new and must be confirmed by other sources
The source has too few cross-references
it is a whitewashing study
T&F journals have had controversy so the source is suspect
Current arguments in support of Chaibi & Russel 2019
It is MEDRS Compliant
The author should not be a relevant because it is peer-reviewed by a reliable journal
not including it because of the author suggests the peer-reviewers are unreliable.
the source's conclusion agrees with two other recent MEDRS compliant secondary published
That seems a biased summary. One of the reasons my position might seem uncertain is that, despite asking, it's unclear what specific statement is in question for which this source might or might not be reliable. Or is the OP seeking a carte blanche to use it for anything at all? Alexbrn (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not good practice to promote a false binary like this because part of evaluation of a reliable source is the context in which it is used. These aren't arguments against or in support of the source. These are editorial considerations that depend on context. jps (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn, As Xurizuri said to you above, it is being referenced specifically to be used as a source on the risk of stroke/death in the infobox; that is why the talk page is linked. Please point out what you think was biased there and I will modify it. Jmg873 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@jps, my intent was not to create a false binary. Perhaps it would have been better phrased as "users who consider/do not consider it a reliable source". If you feel there is better verbiage, I welcome it. Jmg873 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a summary of this style is useful/necessary. It tends to stifle discussion and may end up hindering WP:CONSENSUS formation. The better thing to do is let discussions run their course. An uninvolved closer can come through and summarize. jps (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to create a summary of the central ideas here and relocate this to the RS:Noticeboard where it would be more appropriate to continue this discussion. Please let me know what changes you would like to see before I post it there or if you have a better way for me to concisely convey the ideas presented here for the discussion to continue there. If you think it would be more appropriate for me to post at the RS noticeboard without referencing this discussion I can do that too, but I didn't want it to appear that I was "noticeboard shopping" or going behind anyone's back. Thank you. Jmg873 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think relocation is necessary. There are overlapping considerations. A link at WP:RSN would be fine. jps (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made a link there, sorry for the error in posting it here rather than there first. Jmg873 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons I haven't participated in any depth here is that this is the NPOV/N, not RS/N. We're at the wrong board. It should be an RfC entitled "Reliability of a secondary research paper written by a chiropractor, but published in a medical journal." Neutrality is not an issue here, unless dealing with non-neutral editing by an editor, and that is not an issue for these noticeboards. -- Valjean (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also have problems with the risks being mentioned in the infobox. That type of infobox content would be more suitable for the Vertebral subluxation article, definitely not the Chiropractic article. -- Valjean (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning against inclusion. Had the journal been nejm, lancet, nature, annals of thoracic surgery, Cell, cancer, JACC or another journal at the top of its field, I would be sure, hands down, for inclusion. But for annals of Medicine? Nope unless all other criteria are emphatically met. Cinadon36 18:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus that Annals of Medicine is unreliable, so this smacks of WP:CHERRYPICKING. The obvious problem with this sort of argument is that your criteria are subjective, personal, arbitrary, and opaque. If this has been in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, then your comment just as easily could have read "Had the journal been NEJM, Lancet, Nature, Cell, Cancer, JACC ..." omitting Annals of Thoracic Surgery. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it may feel arbitrary to you, the argument is at least well-ordered. Annals of Medicine has the lowest h-index of all these journals... by far. jps (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean h-index or impact factor? Jmg873 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
H-index at the journal level. [11]. jps (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cinadon36, Do you have any evidence that lesser known medical journals are less reliable? It seems to me that the main difference is that better known journals are able to get more interesting articles and better known writers, not that they have a better record of fact-checking. Why should we assume that lesser known journals are riddled with errors of facts? Lesser known journals may also be more specialist, which makes them less popular.
The discussion suggests that in addition to determining if a publication is peer-reviewed by experts, we should also examine its impact and the credentials of writers.
I think part of the issue is reputation… the better know journals have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that less well known journals do not have. This does NOT mean the less well know journals are bad - or even that they have a BAD reputation - since it could be that it has no real reputation one way or the other. It does mean that the well known journals are considered better sources… and in a conflict we favor the better sources (well known journals). Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree that top-tier journals are more reliable. However, in this specific case that isn't what we should be comparing to for this. The journal used for the existing information, the International Journal of Clinical Practice, has an objectively lower reputation than the Annals of Medicine. If we are using reputation as a consideration, it doesn't support the argument being put forth. Jmg873 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 Ernst articles were both published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice which has an Impact Factor of 2.503 [1] and an H-index of 98[2].
The Chaibi article is published in the Annals of Medicine which has an Impact Factor of 4.709[3] and an H-index of 112[4].
If we are going to use reputation as one of the determiners, it is disingenuous to compare this source's reputation to NEJM, lancet, etc. considering the journals that are currently being used in the article. Jmg873 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @The Four Deuces: for your question. I have to clarify. I wont ditch Annals of Medicine coz they are not as known (or have less Impact Factor) than mainstream Journals. It is that, how to put it...oh, I will use a table.
Journal
author
overall evidence
Source 1
weak
weak
weak
Source 2
weak
moderate
weak to moderate
Source 3
strong
weak
moderate
Strong Claim
Moderate Claim
Weak Claim
evidence needed
Strong
Moderate
Weak
So, in this case, since the context in question is on Risk/benefit, it needs a strong evidence. So, journal is weak, author is weak, overall evidence is weak, evidence needed must be strong, so it fails. This is how I think of it. I consider journal is week, coz, as it was said above, "Lesser known journals may also be more specialist, which makes them less popular". Annals of Medicine have a board spectrum. They do not have the reputation of being a reliable journal. It s reliability must be proven. It has not. Thanks everybody of the interesting discussion. Cinadon36 17:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claim this source is being used for is risk, not risk/benefit. How does the requirement for strong evidence reconcile with the fact that the existing evidence used for the claim is at the same level or weaker than the evidence being disputed? (see my comment above for further explanation) Jmg873 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cinadon36,I think you are conflating reliability with weight. Whether or not to report a claim is solely determined by weight. IOW we would only include claims that had received considerable attention in other sources and we would be able to determine its degree of acceptance.
When you say weak evidence, I assume you mean it is inadequate to prove the claim, rather than that it is fabricated. So for example the Wow! signal is weak evidence for extra-terrestrial life, but the signal itself was not fabricated. This is in contrast to conspiracy theory texts, which routinely include false facts or faulty syllogisms. (Example: In Israeli, most people infected with covid are vaccinated, therefore vaccination does not reduce the risk of infection.)
Cinadon36, I concur with Jmg873. How do you reconcile your argument against inclusion based on the reputation of the Annals of Medicine and not also argue for the removal of existing content in the article sourced from International Journal of Clinical Practice, which is of lower reputation than Annals of Medicine? MarshallKe (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well @MarshallKe:, I dont. I offered my opinion just for the specific source. I did not compare it with other sources at the same article or other articles (doing so leads to an endless whataboutism). But since you ask, it depends on the claim, the journal, the author, the institution of the author, and the reception from the academia. Anyway, since it is obvious I am not convincing you all for not inclusion, what about attributing it? like "According to chiropract Name Surname, writing at Journal X, the risk of .....[source]" That would be a fair way out. What do you think? @The Four Deuces:, no, I was talking about reliability. When I say "weak evindence" I mean that the source is not an established authority that its opinion could become WP Voice. @Jmg873: See my reply to MarshallKe. Cinadon36 04:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find that dismissing an argument as "whataboutism" is often used by those who don't want to accept that their reasoning is invalid and their purported standards are pure manipulation rather than actual standards. As for attributing it, I don't support "according to chiropractor". Might as well replace "chiropractor" with "liar and quack" because that's what you're really trying to do; downplay the fact that this is a peer-reviewed literature review in a reputable journal that meets all of Wikipedia's standards for inclusion except that it doesn't come to the "right" conclusions so we have to ad hominem it. MarshallKe (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support the wording "A YEAR literature review found CLAIM". Anything additional is a MOS:LABEL violation. If we're going to start witch-hunting the entire scientific community, we've got a lot of work to do. MarshallKe (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that the goal here is to highlight one source which has, even as it has been cited, received mixed reception. To pretend that this is the pinnacle of sourcing on Wikipedia (which seems to be the argument here, but correct me if that's not it) is a pretty ludicrous argument. I don't have a particular objection to the source in question, but I don't think it rises to the level of most reliable source ever and better than all others that came before or after it. That seems to be the implication of some of the arguments being leveled here. jps (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for the editor who authored this RfC, but I do not want to erase the risks section and replace it with whatever this particular study concluded, and I don't think a reasonable editor would want such a thing. Let's summarize this study, and let's summarize the studies you've linked, as well. What's the problem? MarshallKe (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question at issue is whether the study itself is reliable. The question was not whether it is possible to summarize it. jps (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have any particular objections to the source in question, and you don't think that it's the "most reliable source ever and better than all the others that came before of after it", then we are in agreement and are ready to put the source in its editorial context, as you have advocated for 8 days ago. MarshallKe (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you do that outside of the article text, that's fine with me. jps (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@jps I am the RfC author and I never suggested that the existing studies should be replaced by this study or removed. I was arguing for its inclusion. I looked through the commentary here and did not see any suggestion here that the goal is to "highlight this source above others". The only thing I could see construed as that was the discussion of the two Ernst sources (if I missed something, please let me know). My comparison of the other sources was not to suggest that they should be removed, but as a response to the argument that reputation is a reason to exclude this source. I believe those other two sources should be included in the article, as I believe this one should. Jmg873 (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "arguing for inclusion" can take many forms. There are thousands of papers that we could include that are relevant to the article in question. We obviously don't want to include all of them even as citations! But it is perfectly fine to consider them in composing article text. That is what I don't have objection to. What I don't think we have here is a necessary right of reply, for example. jps (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself unsure what point you were trying to make. Yes, arguing for inclusion can take many forms; We are specifically discussing the source in the context provided at the outset, not every possible form of inclusion. In the statement "thousands of papers relevant to the article" is 'the article' referencing the paper in question or the Wikipedia article on chiropractic? I originally went to paraphrase your comment to make sure I understood it correctly, but the more I read it, the more it confused me. Can you clarify the point your comment was designed to make? Additionally, what do you mean by saying that you don't feel there is a 'necessary right of reply'? Thank you. Jmg873 (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put words in jps's mouth, but it reads to me as "because there are lots of scientific publishings related to chiropractic, we can't just pick the first ones we stumble upon to base the article off of", and I don't know what he means by "necessary right of reply", either. MarshallKe (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair reading re: scientific publishings. My issue with "inclusion" is that, in the past, some editors have taken my statement of, "yeah, we can consider that source" to be almost a carte blanche to include a full accounting of the source in article text. This is not something I want to see happen again. My point about "right of reply" is general. There is currently text in the article that posits (A). The source you are asking about posits not(A). Just because it posits not(A) does not mean we must include it in article text. Perhaps you find that obvious, but I, again, am the victim of circumstance as there were situations in the past where this was a dispute. jps (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I understood your point, you are saying that you are potentially alright with its inclusion in a particular way, but not in "any way". If so, I am in agreement. Would an inclusion in the format MarshallKe suggested, "A YEAR literature review found CLAIM", be acceptable? To be specific, what about "A 2019 literature review found that there is no strong evidence in the literature that manual therapy provokes CAD or stroke"? Jmg873 (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is the best summary of all the available reliable sources we've been considering in this discussion. There are a number of sources which cite this review specifically which take issue with it in part or in whole either explicitly or implicitly. There are also some rejoinders to the rejoinders which are of varying levels of quality. To wit, it's not as simple as saying that this was just a literature review that uncontroversially found some result. This isn't a cut-and-dry scenario where I think we are justified in simply reporting this claim without letting the reader know about the wider context. However, I'm not sure how to write about this wider context yet or whether it is, for example, WP:DUE to go on about this. There are two options: 1) try to come up with a brief and neutral summary of a variety of sources that doesn't fall into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH but also doesn't end up WP:COAT or WP:SOAP or 2) keep this noise out of the article entirely. I have a feeling that there is a bit of concern here that this source is somehow rising above the other sources already in the article, but the wider consideration of the context around this source does not lead me to believe this is the case. In short, I don't think inclusion of the sort you are describing is the best thing here. I am not convinced that inclusion is the best thing at all. jps (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won't pretend to know the best way to include it, and I think it warrants further discussion. However, I feel we are getting away from the point of this initial post and RfC. It seems we agree that it is a reliable source, but the dispute now is how it can be appropriately used in the article, if at all. To be clear and quell your previous concerns: by saying you agree that it meets MEDRS I'm not suggesting that we have "carte blanche" to apply it in the article. If you agree that it meets MEDRS, I would like to close this RfC and continue the discussion on if/how to include it on the talk page. Let me know your thoughts on that. Jmg873 (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that the agreement that a particular source is "reliable" is typically not a very useful determination since the relevant policy makes it clear that the question of what determines that a source is "reliable" is entirely dependent on the context. What is this a reliable source for? Is it a reliable source to indicate the position of the authors? I would definitely agree to that. Is there a situation in article text where this source is needed so that the opinions of the authors can be cited? I'm not convinced necessarily, but that is certainly a fine topic of conversation. Does it meet WP:MEDRS? Again, the question is in what context? In the context of saying something in Wikipedia's voice? I would say, unequivocally "no" inasmuch as there is controversy swirling around the context in the sources. So, no, I'm not in favor of giving any sort of golden ticket or get-out-of-jail-free card for this situation. There may be situations where this source can be used responsibly, but it would be irresponsible for us to pretend that it would be impossible to misuse a "RELIABLE SOURCE DETERMINATION". That's my concern. jps (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When we talk about a source being reliable in context, it generally refers to the source's origin. For example, a peer reviewed journal on astronomy should not generally be used for medical claims. In this case, the context is, a comprehensive review about a medical treatment, specifically screening prior to administering that treatment, published in a peer reviewed medical journal. If you mean chronological context, two other secondary studies published in the preceding few years found similar conclusions. If you mean usage context, I am happy to find a place to meet on that. Perhaps just adding it to an already existing statement. Would you accept adding it as a citation for the already existing statement: There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of stroke from cervical manipulation. ? Jmg873 (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When we talk about a source being reliable in context, we also have to consider how a source is received, not just the venue of publication. I found a number of sources that I linked to which cite the source and serve to cast at least some doubt on the findings of this particular review. I would not accept your newly proposed statement as being properly sourced since no "controversy" is identified in any of the sources. It strikes me as WP:SYNTH to claim there is any "controversy". As I said, getting this right is difficult. jps (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you referring to that cast doubt? If you are referencing the criticism and cross-links you linked earlier, they all seem to support the statement that the source is being used for.
The first[5] criticized them for aspects of the recommendations they made, but affirmed what the chaibi article was being referenced for here by referencing another article. They said Church et al. [3] and Biller et al (on behalf of the American Heart Association Stroke Council and the American Stroke Association) [2] provide important analyses of the current state of our understanding of the association between manual adjustment of the neck and CAD. There is an association between manual adjustment and VAD but no causative relationship has been established. It is more likely that pain from VAD leads to neck manipulation than that neck manipulation leads to VAD.
The second[6] cited the Chaibi article for the following statement: a 2019 comprehensive review in Annals of Medicine discussed risk-benefit assessment while emphasizing the difficulty in demonstrating a causal relationship.
The third [7] references the chaibi article for its risk factors it identified, which were: Other variables thought to predispose to CAD including recent infection, hyperhomocysteinemia, low body mass index, vitamin deficiencies. However, it does support what the chaibi article was being used to reference: In the investigation of SMT-associated CADs, biomechanical research has failed to provide evidence of a causal relationship. Data provided by animal [12] and cadaver [13] studies suggest inadequate force is produced to generate dissection in healthy arteries. CAD is also unlikely induced by the anatomic displacements that occur during SMT, as the resultant facet joint movements have not been shown to endanger the nearby vertebral arteries [14]. Furthermore, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis was unable to establish a causal link between SMT and CAD and could only report a small association [15]. However, such an association has been consistently supported by anecdotal experiences within medical practice
In the fourth [8] it doesn't list the chaibi article at all, but instead references a different article he wrote regarding migraines. Interestingly enough however, it later supports what the article in question was going to be used for:
Although evidence is thin, no causal relationship seems to exist between CSM and CAD.(Church et al., 2016). Therefore, an inventory with indications of possible causations would be unreliable, as it would be based on assumptions by judgement, and not founded with criteria of causation. Therefore, this review does not contain any description or suggestions of causation related to the artery dissections
Did I miss something? You linked these and said they "cast doubt" on the findings of the article, but they all seem to affirm what the article was being referenced for. I don't understand how these do anything but support inclusion of the article for exactly what I was suggesting.
All that said, my most recent suggestion does not add a new statement to the chiropractic article. The statement you are contesting is already in the chiropractic article, and is sourced. I was suggested adding this citation to that to strengthen the existing statement. It adds nothing new to the article except additional evidence. This is the lowest possible form of inclusion. Given the above, if you are against inclusion in the way I have suggested, then it leads me to believe that you oppose inclusion of the article in any context. It also causes me to have some doubt that your arguments are in good-faith. Jmg873 (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorta against the way a lot of this is being discussed in the article as is. A larger discussion as you are initiating would be fair, but I note that your interpretation of the implications of these sources is at odds with my interpretations -- almost to the extent that I question whether you read the articles at all. We are pretty far afield right now. You asked for my opinion and I gave it. You showed that a larger conversation is possible, so that's definitely what I support. But not here, at the talkpage. jps (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cinadon36, I have trouble understanding your statement, "When I say "weak evidence" I mean that the source is not an established authority that its opinion could become WP Voice." We don't report opinions as facts no matter whose they are with the exception of opinions so widely accepted that they are treated as facts in science textbooks. We may not even mention such opinions unless we can establish their weight in the body of the literature.
Reliability is entirely about factual accuracy. Would we expect an article written by a chiropractor, fact-checked by medical academics and published in a respected medical journal, which is an established authority, to have serious errors of fact? Presumably if the paper said that the liver was located in the right foot, peer review would have corrected it or even rejected the paper.
Our best practice around sourcing holds four possible attitudes we can have regarding inclusion of a claim from a given source that determine how we should treat the claim:
Inclusion as an uncontroversial claim that can be reliably (in this case, MEDRS-compliant) sourced: we share the claim in wikivoice
Inclusion as a controversial claim that can be reliably sourced: we share the claim backed by its supporting sources with clear attribution and with documentation of the controversy
Inclusion as a controversial claim that cannot be reliably sourced but where the controversy is encyclopediac and the claim is explicitly contested by reliable sources: we document the claim backed only by reliable sources and we do not refer to any unreliable sources in a way that is misleading about their quality. Note that it's quite possible for a source to satisfy the technical MEDRS criterion regarding publication without us considering it to be a reliable source for that particular claim; it's a recurrent theme on WP:RS/N that an article might be published in a prestigious venue and still not count as a reliable source for some particular claim.
Exclusion as unverifiable: if we can't fit one of the above three cases, verifiability means we should not treat the claim at all
Jmg873's !vote analysis (15:04, 15 October) has got pushback I think because it is seeking a simple yea or nae on the source when the issue at stake really needs a resolution of which of the above attitudes we should take. I haven't looked in detail at this particular claim, but from looking over the comments, it looks we are headed for one of the middle two options. If we go for the third option, which I am leaning to following Xurizuri (05:26, 13 October)'s weighing of the kind of contribution made by the article, we probably should not include the source before we find MEDRS-quality articles that cite the article (cf. jps 03:20, 14 October). There's plenty of unretracted crap been published in The Lancet, for example, so I think fine discussion of journal reputation is a distraction. — Charles Stewart(talk) 09:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds about right - we're in danger of losing the bigger picture here. It's accepted knowledge that neck-cracking infants is a pseudoscientific endeavour, useless at best, and outright health fraud at worst. A number of appropriately-qualified commentators have also said that is poses risks, maybe as severe as causing death. Then one of the vendors of this woo writes and gets published a narrative review downplaying the risks. At the very least, Wikipedia needs to frame this with caution. Alexbrn (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basically in agreement with this assessment as well. I think a fair option would be to return to the talkpage and try to make a more complete evaluation of all these questions rather than singling out one source for discussion. jps (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Controveries section of this article seems way too long to me and the section's inclusion seems to be mostly defended by one editor (Kving) who has a stated COI regarding other software companies. It's not uncommon for internet software companies to come under scrutiny for the misuses of it by bad actors, so this long section seems WP:UNDUE. Here is an unofficial RfC on the Talk Page and it has been suggested separately on the Talk Page here that the section could be spun out into a separate article, if necessary, as one potential solution.
Either way, I think this requires the attention of other editors. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Éric Zemmour
Tensions run high at Talk:Éric Zemmour, with discussions involving several editors who are on the more inexperienced side of things. Eyeballs and input from experienced editors would be extremely welcome. JBchrchtalk 19:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is controversy surrounding the lead of the Eskimo article. The term "Eskimo" covers both the related Inuit and Yupik peoples. Many Inuit and Yupik peoples find the term "Eskimo" to be offensive.[1] The lead paragraph was originally:
The two main peoples known as Eskimo are the Inuit (including the Alaskan Iñupiat, the Greenlandic Inuit, and the Inuit peoples of Canada) and the Yupik (or "Yuit") of eastern Siberia[4] and Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, which inhabit the Aleutian Islands are closely related to both, but are generally excluded from the definition of Eskimo. The three groups share a relatively recent common ancestor, and speak related languages belonging to the Eskimo–Aleutlanguage family.
I changed it to
Eskimo (/ˈɛskɪmoʊ/ESS-kih-moh) or Eskimos is a term used to refer to two closely related Indigenous peoples: The Inuit (including the Alaskan Iñupiat, the Greenlandic Inuit, and the Canadian Inuit) and the Yupik (or Yuit) of eastern Siberia[5] and Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, which inhabit the Aleutian Islands, are closely related to both, but are generally excluded from the definition of Eskimo. The three groups share a relatively recent common ancestor, and speak related languages belonging to the Eskimo–Aleutlanguage family.
Given that the people under the umbrella "Eskimo" find the term offensive, I'd rather we didn't use it in wikivoice in the opening sentence. I also think it should be made immediately clear how the term "Eskimo" is different from the term "Inuit".
Since I changed the lead, there has been persistent reversion by Fatbatsat, a WP:SPA with less than 70 edits over two years. Recently a brand new account Akinaur (which means "to take revenge; to retaliate; to pay back" in Yupik, see [12]) has continued their edit warring. I suspect that it might be a sock of someone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been discussed on the Eskimo talk page yet I can't find it?Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long-running theme of discussion over the last year or so, see Talk:Eskimo/Archive_4#Racial_slur? for a previous major discussion around a year ago. This clearly remains unresolved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you check if I am up to speed: We are indifferent to peoples offense, see images on the Muhammad page. However, it seems Eskimo is no longer the common name (see Ngram), although it still seems strong in academia. Inuit seems to have taken over. However, Inuit only technically refers to one of the groups of the people who make up Eskimos. We have no name for this group of peoples other than Eskimo or Inuit, one is going out of fashion, the other is incorrect. What did I miss?Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really indifferent to people's offense? That's certainty not true when it comes to transgender topics like deadnaming. The point is, that we already have two articles on the two groups that are covered by the term "Eskimo", so the scope of the "Eskimo" article is unclear. Should it cover the usage of the term itself, like negro? Should it compare and contrast the Yupik and Inuit? What is the purpose of the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the ignoring of WP:NOTCENSORED, I can only justify to myself deeply upsetting so many of the people of the world by the belief that we at least try to do it without favour. I see dead naming as a red herring. That is best explained through biographies of living people and common name. If the majority of contemporary reliable references dead named people then we should use that name. However, this is off topic, if we are breaking NOTCENSORED on one topic that does not mean we get rid of the rule. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: how have sources typically characterized “Eskimo”? The above seems like an argument over the offensiveness of the term. There may in fact be groups that prefer to be called “Eskimo”, from what I can recall. In that case, we’d bridge into WP:NOTCENSORED territory. There are plenty of historical images of Muhammad on the Muhammad page, for example, despite offense caused to some modern Muslim sects. I’d wonder, though, if “term that refers to” is more commonly the expressed sentiment among RS rather than “is”. If it were, then the change in the lead would make sense. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose renaming the article to "Inuit-Yupik peoples," and then in the article mention that the term *Eskimo* has historically been used to collectively refer to the Inuit-Yupik peoples, but that its use is in decline and that the term is considered offensive by some. Dowobeha (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume that this page wouldn't exist if Eskimo referred exclusively to one or other group, it only exists because the term encompasses both. But that doesn't mean it needs an article. It should either redirect to Inuit, with a hatnote there for the alternative Yupik meaning, or it should be a disambiguation page listing the two options with no other prose necessary. — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's still a widely used word in the English language, which has a pretty clear meaning, and it doesn't have a synonym. If you think about what this means, basically you can go anywhere in the world where people speak a smattering of English and they will know what you mean by the word "Eskimo". "Inuit" not so much, let alone "Inuit-Yupik", which isn't actually in the dictionary, per se, though these days Inuit-Yupik-Unangan is a defined language group (synonymous with Eskimo-Aleut) [and to mention Unangan actually brings up another issue with the recent edits which were made by Hemiauchenia but have not in any way been justified, but I digress]. Or, folks might know what you mean by "Inuit", or think they do, but have no sense that some people have this idea that it should refer to people who are technically not "Inuit" (ancient word, not English, very specific meaning), which, I'm sure you'll agree, is kind of confusing. So what you're talking about doing is basically trying to edit reality, not editing an encyclopedia. But this question has been hashed out over and over again on the article talk page, many many archives, so I don't think we're going to come to an efficient resolution here that is also a valid one, hence the repeated request for dialogue through the usual and proper channels.Fatbatsat (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eskimo is a real term in modern academic and public usage it needs either a page or if it is no longer the common name a redirect. As Eskimo describes a group of peoples that have no other name it must be the common name. As an aside here are the google scholar hits since 2017, does not “prove” anything just part of the mix. Eskimo 15,100, Inuit 19,700 and Yupik 2,220. Romani 45,000 and Gypsy 18,000. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't see the need for this one-man pissing match, if you'll pardon the turn of phrase. No one denies there is a fair bit of controversy spinning around, and it's quite healthy to debate and discuss and change where appropriate. All that's been really asked of Hemiauchenia is that they justify their edits by reasoned discussion, use the article Talk page, which Hemiauchenia has not been doing. I'm still not sure that the particular edits in question are correct, because there are plenty of reasons (some expressed above) why the article is in it's current consensus form, and not otherwise. Thanks everyone for your input though, including you, Hemiauchenia. I appreciate what you're trying to do, I just question the way you're going about it, and I think you might not be quite as well informed on this particular topic as you think that you are. Fatbatsat (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a one-man pissing match, but a two man pissing match. At the end of the day, we are the only two people who strongly care about the lead. Nobody else has expressed a strong opinion in favour of either version of the lead. The idea that if content is "long standing " it has consensus is bogus, at the end of the day, you are the only one (outside the brand new account, who's opinion I am discounting) who is objecting to my new rewording. That said, there isn't any strong support for my position either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
>>>"This is not a one-man pissing match, but a two man pissing match."<<<
Look, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I don't think it really matters. I realize that I didn't attempt to engage with you positively as much as I could have (just busy with other things, not an intentional snub/oversight), but you also made no real justification of your edits, and, again, some of your original edits were categorically wrong.
But here is the meat of it: >>>The idea that if content is "long standing " it has consensus is bogus<<<
I mean, that simply isn't true. The lead of the article has been that way for many years, through, what, the work of a hundred or more editors? I do not know what you mean when you say consensus, but if you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, it defies belief that you do not understand that I mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus. All other things being equal, if you make controversial edits to a Wikipedia article, it makes sense to justify them, because you can be going against the work of a lot of people, over a lot of time, without even meaning to! You are one person, I agree. But I am simply trying to make sure the article content (work of many people, *not* one person) is not changed without just cause, which, again, you haven't given any cause, really, just or otherwise. And instead of engaging on the article Talk page, as I have requested, and has been encouraged/requested by CambridgeBayWeather on the Talk page, you choose to create this adversarial conflict-- and yes, it is a one man conflict, because I have no beef with you, except maybe that you were refusing engage in dialogue about the actual subject on the article Talk page, and yet persisting in changing the article. You may have read through the top layer of the Talk page, but I very much doubt you've gone through the archives, as I have. There's plenty to discuss, and it is not a one-side-or-the-other issue; it's a lot more complicated than that. Talking about it here is actually a step in the right direction, but since you're not starting from an assumption of Good Faith, I'm not going to engage here further, and I hope you'll understand that. If you are seriously interested in working on the article in a productive way, let's please continue the discussion *of the article*, without ad hominem, on the Talk page. Thanks! Fatbatsat (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in reaching a consensus with you. I am interested in reaching a concensus of the broader Wikipedia community. If you have no desire to make your case further then that's fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia's new version, to me, represents a better compromise between the various sources and better describes the controversy. We don't care about what's offensive or not, we care about summarizing the sources faithfully. And nobody cares if this was a one-man pissing contest or a two-man pissing contest, just stop pissing and act right towards each other. MarshallKe (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My issue is that Fatbatsat presents their opinion as if it has consensus when it does not. I have looked through the archives, contrary to Fatbatsat's claims, and there does not seem to be a strong consensus for the article in its current form, more like apathy to change it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the joke in big quotation marks at the top of my user page. I think generally if you find yourself reverting someone's edits repeatedly in defense of some presumed consensus of past editors, you are actually edit warring (and so is the other user). Ultimately as you progress through the consensus process to WP:RFC, consensus is determined by whoever is willing to show up and actually deliberate with other editors. MarshallKe (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Future directions
After the initial round of conversation, I think there are several actions that could be taken.
I like the idea of a little focus. I think as this began as a conversation about the lead we should start there. It feels there is a better chance for a useful compromise on the lesser issue. But I am happy with either. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ypatchasked me to provide where the source says "..."Islamist cornucopia" such as the MEK's ideology, which has been failed in delivering the utopia of the "true" Islam, will raise with another new version" and I quoted the part in the source. But then the user removed the sentence without further discussion.
Please see the other changes made, which I assume is tendentious editing:
Content removed
Altered version
Description
Pahlevun's Note
The asserted reason for them being politically unsuccessful, is that their ideology had no appeal among various social groups such as the working class, the peasantry, the bazaari and secular intellectuals among others.
During the Iranian revolution, the Mojahedin emerged as a viable and popular organization that played a crucial role in overthrowing the Shah’s government. Then Abrahamian describes the evolutionary nature of the Mojahedin’s ideology, and how its version of Shi’ism was either “too modernized, too leftist, or too religiously oriented in its political program”.
Is this removal because the source says they were politically unsuccessful and their ideology had no appeal to various social classes?
Thought the book, Abrahamian argues that the MEK has been transformed from a guerilla group established by middle-class intelligentsia (1965–1979) into a mass movement (1979–1981), and eventually evolved into an exiled politico–military sect and cult of personality around its leader, with little domestic support by 1987.
Thought the book, Abrahamian argues that the MEK had been established by middle-class intelligentsia and young people profoundly affected by the country's inequalities and oppression who played an important part in toppling the Pahlavi administration and winning the support and respect of many Iranians. Then, how after the Iranian revolution, the MEK quickly emerged as one of the biggest and better-organized parties in Iran, with their rallies drawing tens of thousands of participants. Abrahamian then explains how the Khomeini regime oppressed the MEK by executing and imprisoning thousands MEK members and sympathizers that rallied against the new regime.
The summary of the book is completely removed. Apparently the part politico–military sect and cult of personality around its leader, with little domestic support by 1987 is what User:Ypatch tries to hide.
Abrahamian describes the evolutionary nature of the Mojahedin’s ideology, and how its version of Shi’ism was either “too modernized, too leftist, or too religiously oriented in its political program”.
Abrahamian describes the evolutionary nature of the Mojahedin’s ideology, which is considered one of the most important contributions of the book. Before and after the 1979 Iranian revolution, political opponents to the MEK often stigmatized it as “Marxist or Islamic Marxist” to the point that such pejorative denominations became common in stereotyping the organization in the media and academia. According to Abrahamian, the MEK’s influence is instead better understood through the analysis of its “conscious self-idenfication with Shi’a Islam”, which had origins in Iran’s urban and middle-class culture. The MEK did support and adapted Marxist social ideas (mainly about class struggle) to “fashion a materialistic interpretation of Islamic history”, but never described themselves as Marxist. According to Abrahamian, the MEK’s revolutionary version of Islam differed sharply from Ayatollah Khomeini’s new populist Islam.
The part that was added by User:Ypatch as "Improved information", is now removed.
Anthony Hyman opined in International Affairs that "as an objective historian, the author does not seek to judge, but only to explain how the Mojahedin have since evolved into what is clearly more of a Messianic cult than a political party" and further calls the book "the most objective and comprehensive study available" on the MEK.
Anthony Hyman opined in International Affairs that “this is the most objective and comprehensive study available of this important Iranian movement from its origins to present”, where the author aims to remain objective without seeking to judge the group.
Note that how the Mojahedin have since evolved into what is clearly more of a Messianic cult than a political party is removed, a part of the quote which User:Ypatch clearly doesn't like.
According to Menashri, the book is a "pioneering study" and a "unique contribution", in particular in Chapter 10 where it discusses social bases of the group, though he finds discussing MEK's worldview and ideological tension between Islam and Marxism in Chapter 3 the "most insightful". He also maintains that Abrahamian has overestimated strength of the MEK and its role in the Iranian Revolution and criticizes him for not extensively using Islamic literature to shed light on Islamic fundamentalism within the organization, and insufficient references to other radical Islamic groups.
According to Menashri, the book is a "pioneering study" and a "unique contribution", in particular the MEK’s social background in the context of political, social, ideological, economic, and international developments. He also maintains that despite the MEK’s importance, little had been written about them, and much of it had been ‘polemical, misleading and sometimes simply wrong’. Menashri says that the Abrahamian succeeded in answering the questions that the author set out to analyse: “the social background of the organization’s founders”; “the main feature of the ideology”; “how they managed to attract ‘a mass following’ but failed to gain political power”; and “and what the appeal of Mojahedin was and what groups in particular were drawn towards its ranks”.
Is this because User:Ypatch doesn't like that the author says there were Islamic fundamentalism within the organization and it was a radical Islamic group? The main criticism asserted in the source is removed.
In 1994, the NCRI claimed that the Iranian government was in touch with some experts who had an "appeasing attitude", in an attempt to undermine the accusations against the MEK by the United States Department of State. The people who were named in the statement, including Abrahamian, then contacted the State Department and condemned the MEK.
This part completely is removed for being "irrelevant" but is actually relevant to the book. I can quote the source naming the book.
Writing for the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post, Nissim Rejwan opined "Abrahamian's book is considerably more than an account of this movement, which is also known as "Islamic Marxist." It tells the story of the revolution from the inside, and offers useful insights into radical Islamic movements of our day."
Writing for the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post, Nissim Rejwan opined that Abrahamian's book offers useful insights on the MEK movement, telling "the story of the revolution from the inside".
Again, the part of quote which User:Ypatch doesn't like is dropped.
He criticizes the book for omitting to compare the MEK, its activities and behavior with those of other revolutionary groups in different countries and also not analyzing its pro-Iraq involvement in war against Iranian forces as comprehensively as events in previous chapters.
He acknowledges that the book could have benefited from further analysis of the relationship between the MEK and Iraq or comparing the MEK’s activities with those of other revolutionary groups in different countries.
Apparently User:Ypatch wrote "the relationship between the MEK and Iraq" to hide unfavorable pro-Iraq involvement in war against Iranian forces
According to Farhand, the work "displays no grand theory of Islamist politics or Shi'i fundamentalism. Abrahamian does not impose labels on complex phenomena. He does not see political Islam per se as progressive or regressive; he neither romanticizes nor laments the Islamic tradition. Rather, he meticulously probes the anatomy of the Mojahedin and the course of its development in order to comprehend the causes behind the rise and fall of the organization".
According to Farhand, "Abrahamian does not impose labels on complex phenomena” but “meticulously probes the anatomy of the Mojahedin and the course of its development.
Again, User:Ypatch is determined to delete everything about Shi'i fundamentalism or political Islam, the very same "anatomy of the Mojahedin" per the author. My typo (Farhand, instead of Farhang) is strangely left unchanged.
Please note that there are no reliability or verifiability problems with this article, and all these changes were made with zero discussion. There are other instances too, but this will suffice for judging. Please provide a solution.
I am also notifying User:El_C and User:Vanamonde93.
Pahlevun, from what I can see, it was you who didn't respond to Ypatch's comment from Oct 15 (diff). How long are they expected to wait? And how does that align with your without further discussion claim? Otherwise, I didn't review your entire report and am unlikely to do so (long). El_C 23:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: The diff you linked was not about the bulk of content removed from the article, its subject is not even mentioned in the table above (that undiscussed changes referred to examples above). I am really grateful that you took the time to even look at here, because this has got annoying (and frankly speaking, I feel the same). I notified you only because you have followed this for the last two years, in case it was still important to you. So I don't think you and Vanamonde are required to read or comment on this, though it would be appreciated if you do. Pahlevun (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the time to investigate this situation at the moment, I'm sorry. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given how this seems to be an editing dispute that has gone on for over a week, where the tensions risk escalating and you have gone to the effort of providing a clear analysis of the content issue, I think it's time to use the dispute resolution process, not a policy noticeboard. I recommend you cut and paste the above analysis to Talk:Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin, and list a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion; WP:3O has the requirement that talk has come to a standstill, so cite the failure to get help in this discussion as evidence that normal discussion on the talk page is not making progress. It's premature for the formality of WP:DRN. — Charles Stewart(talk) 10:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle at Lake Changjin
There’s been two separate debates involving a whole host of npov issues for the movie in question which can be found here [13] and [14]. Input especially from experienced editors would be welcome. Estnot (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Garlow
Could someone please take a look at the Jim Garlow article? It doesn’t have a very encyclopedic tone—much of the article looks like it was written to preemptively defend the subject from criticism. Plus, some of paragraphs look like they might have been copied verbatim from somewhere else. The problem seems systemic and long-running (the article doesn’t normally get edited very frequently). It could definitely use a review. 2600:1014:B00B:AE90:91E8:5BD7:DB28:CE3F (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grigory Zass and other articles related to Circassia
Editor Adigabrek is personally invested in Circassian cause. He is pushing a certain POW by using questonable sources mostly from turkish media that claim mass child rapes and curious tortures by above soldiers: these actions are not mentioned in articles by other languages. Also labelling soldiers as war criminals without being convicted by a court of law is wrong.
The articles above are not the only ones edited by Adigabrek that are questonable but the most glaring examples.
Here are the points that come to my mind:
I am surprised that the NPOV notice board can be used to evaluate users. I thought it was for content. Anyway, being biased toward a cause (outside Wikipedia) is certainly not against any Wikipedia rule. I have no idea what is this cause. I say this in a very general manner. If he is paid in one way or another to edit articles, it's a different matter.
For concreteness, you should address specific content in each article. Some diffs please.
We prefer English sources, of course, but sources of all languages can be used.
The sources can be questionable, but you need to be more specific.
Some editors (myself included) are having a disagreement about the content of the lead and whether it's in line with WP:NPOV to describe the group as promoting conspiracy theories. Could probably use a set of fresh eyes if anyone is willing. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Burrobert and Kashmiri have already demonstrated that they are WP:PROFRINGE and pro-disinformation when it comes to the Syrian Civil War. The correct place to go is WP:ANI to get a topic ban for them, there is no point in reasoning with them. Hemiauchenia (talk)
The question is, can terms like "wheelchair-bound" be said to violate NPOV, and in that case would NPOV override consensus based on other arguments? Discussion at WT:MOS#NPOV vs Consensus. Comments are appreciated, thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using broad sources to determine weight at Islam in Finland
.svg)
