Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Problem with the EROEI article

• Energy returned on energy invested (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi guys,

I'm having some trouble with the article about EROEI.

For anyone not familiar, the topic of EROEI is mired in pseudoscience. It has been used to predict the imminent collapse of civilization, over and over again, since the early 1970s. I take a lay interest in this fringe group.

Odd material is creeping into the wikipedia article about the topic. A fringe paper is being given its own entire section. That paper has conclusions which drastically contradict the conclusions of hundreds of other studies. The paper was roundly criticized and labelled "refuted" by leading researchers in the field. This paper is given its own section, when meta-analyses of dozens or hundreds of legitimate studies are reduced to a single line.

I have deleted the offending section, but it's just re-added by another editor with whom I appear to be in dispute.

The new disputed section includes totally unacceptable sources. For example, the two most recent sources are a one-page undergraduate paper for an introductory college course, and a political blog of some kind where community members can contribute. Both sources simply repeat the fringe material they have read, and so do not represent independent sources.

This appears to be devolving into an "undo war". I'd appreciate it if some other people could show up and weigh in.

The discussion about this issue can be found here.

Thanks, Thomas pow s (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, why as a lay reader you needed to take this, to this venue and we couldn't discuss your POV.

But seen as you decided to bring it here. For anyone who is unfamiliar, this debate is not new; there is an ongoing debate over the distinction between two accounting methods, the physical content method and the substitution method. Suffice it to say that each calculation has its justification and merits because each measures something slightly different. Importantly, the share of renewables looks bigger in one method;[now guess which one User:Thomas pow s advocates to have sole recognition in the article?] and in the other method, they look smaller.

Now with that in mind. The specific paper Thomas pow s continually censors out of the article, is one of the most cited in the field, it has over one hundred citations, which anyone worth their salt can go check. With those citations, ten of them, continuing up to as recent as last year, not bad for an alleged fringe paper from six years ago. By contrast most of the papers that User:Thomas pow s holds up as the truth aren't anywhere near as influential. Though those with a particular POV are rarely accomodating to others. Lastly, the addition of the mentioned stanford university webpages that summarized the highly influential paper, which are notably behind a paywall to most, are merely courtesy references to those without subscription access.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll chime in, though in transparencya and disclosure, I'm in content disputes with this same editor elsewhere.

(A) Like many of Boundarylayer's barrage of edits across articles broadly related to nuclear power, the sentence construction is crap. So for starters, the first sentence (in this version) is an incomprehensible run-on sentence fragment that lacks a verb. According to a transatlantic collaborative research paper on Energy return on energy Invested (EROEI), conducted by six analysts led by German academic D. Weißbach, and described as "...the most extensive overview so far based on a careful evaluation of available Life Cycle Assessment

(B) In a word, the text discussed in (A) is pure WP:PUFFERY

(C) The second phrase is also a non-sentence and is also puffery. Published in the peer reviewed journal Energy in 2013.

(D) The fourth sentence is at least a sentence but it is a darn near incomprehensible run on for a highly complex topic The buffered (corrected for their intermittency) EROEI stated in the paper, for all low-carbon power sources, with the exception of the only two baseload energy supplying systems of biomass and nuclear, were lowered considerably due to weather variations, a reduction of EROEI proportional to how reliant these other energy sources are on the embodied manufacture of back-up energy systems, such as industrial sized batteries, the construction of a pumped hydro storage facility etc.

(E) Citation count is moot as related to Google-Counting. See WP:Arguments to avoid in discussions.

(F) I don't care about the original paper. It's a WP:PRIMARY source and its presentation here is being challenged. So we need the best WP:SECONDARY sources to shed light.

(G) CONCLUSION - Obviously if this section remains it needs a total re-write, but before that, Please provide a bullet list containing urls of the best SECONDARY sources to evaluate this dispute?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC) PS @Thomas pow s: that also means I'd like to see RSs for your claims this paper is fringe and debunked.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy,

There is a source already included in the article for the ERoEI of solar PV. It is a meta-analysis which includes 25 separate studies, all of which yield broadly similar results. In contrast, this study is a far outlier, even before taking into account buffering. This paper arrives at a figure that is approximately 1/3rd or less that of all the other studies. By itself, this means that the outlier study does not warrant its own entire section when dozens of other studies are reduced to a single line.

There was a rebuttal of this one outlier study, posted in the same journal by leading figures in the field. I no longer have access to it, but here is a link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271132547_Rebuttal_Comments_on_'Energy_intensities_EROIs_energy_returned_on_invested_and_energy_payback_times_of_electricity_generating_power_plants'_-_Making_clear_of_quite_some_confusion

An IEA task force, established to create guidelines for LCA Life Cycle Assessment NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC) analysis, concluded the following about that study: "regrettably (LCA) has sometimes been the object of misguided interpretation in the existing literature [Weißbach et al., 2013]". https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324727300_Task_12_Methodological_Guidelines_on_Net_Energy_Analysis_of_Photovoltaic_Electricity

As a result, this paper is a far outlier which was refuted. It cannot be given its own section when dozens of other studies that reach a starkly different conclusion are reduced to a single line.

Thomas pow s (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The same Weißbach et al. article was in dispute resolution in 2014. Back then the issue was closed without any decision. --TuomoS (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

In the big picture, Thomas, my impression is that there might be an ongoing debate in the sources about how to calculate the numbers. Our article might do well to focus on the opposing views without trying to find TRUTH in a discrete list of numbers. And you'll get a lot farther by finding secondary sources, especially ones that are not paywalled. For example, instead of reporting numbers from the Weißbach paper, do you understand their criticism of prior approaches? Write it up! And contrast the criticism of the rebuttals. Best if you can use non-paywalled secondary sources to do it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thomas is doing the work of acknowledged solar advocates with a well regarded troublesome POV in the scientific literature, as linked to below. The work of a group affiliated with the industry that they then publish glowingly about and attack everyone else. It's an actual travesty that this is allowed to continue but there you go. In that they are attempting to censor what the founder of the field of study has routinely reported on Solar PV. As the IEA are not neutral but subject to industry lobby committees, one of whom being Raugei, Thomas's favorite solar advocate. By contrast there are multiple WP:SECONDARY sources such as these IEEE researchers, who, present the controversy and the EROEI of solar photovoltaic(PV) as likewise almost identical to the value of the transatlantic team a year before them that Thomas has censored out of the article and is the focus of this proceeding. Thomas does not want this information or controversy known, instead they want only what the glowing industry affiliates say about Solar PV, to be viewable to readers in the article.

I am especially concerned about this conduct both here and in the article as it is essentially the turning of wikipedia into a solar PV WP:PROMOTION arm. Instead of a place for, you would hope, readers could see a controversy for what it is and decide for themselves. Thomas does not want this to be possible, they instead censor out the only independent assessments that involve real world analysis. That the founder of the field of study endorses. Thomas instead has removed this data from view, depriving everyone to see the discrepancy. With wikipedia now only a platform for what the advocates and affiliates of the industry say. This should make us all concerned.

Here are some secondary sources.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-value-of-solar-focuses-on-spain

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6860364/

Thomas is also engaged in attempting to frame anyone who publishes on the matter, that is not getting industry money, as fringe. Though it is actually the industry advocates which are regarded as fringe. The particular and consistent inversion of matters like this, is common with someone with an axe to grind.

To elucidate. IEA = methodology employed by the International Energy Agency and Ext = extended boundary as described by Murphy and Hall, 2010 [2,3].[Charles Hall is none other than the founder of the entire field of study but Thomas would have you believe he is fringe? These independent researchers?] The difference [and there are many] between the two is essentially that the IEA is tending to focus on the energy used in the factory process while the extended methodology of Murphy and Hall, 2010 includes activities such as mining, purifying and transporting the silicon raw material.

http://euanmearns.com/the-energy-return-of-solar-pv/

Thomas' favorite solar advocates consider solar modules to instantly produce electricity, akin to a kind of magickal spontaneous generation once they leave the factory. They apparently do not need any supporting equipment at all, just like when you manufacture nuclear fuel and it leaves the factory, it does not need a power station to work with...oh wait..Would you trul buy that if someone was peddling that analogous thing to you? In reality every energy system needs a support structure.

The fact that one captive organization pushes fantastical values that skew to unrealistically glowing, should be presented to readers. Thomas however seems stuck in a WP:IDONTLIKE agitation and as we see here, will even start spurious procedings like this venue to force their industry-seal-of-approval view, onto the article.

When an appraisal of the literature shows as, I quote, results "from [A]Battisti et al., [B]Ito et al, [C] Meijer et al. and another paper from [D] Alsema are all cited by and in good agreement with the paper by the 6 scientists(Weißbach et. al) at the heart of this POV proceedings, values of 2.2 to 8.8 for solar PV of the more common silicon type, are what are realistic. Most recently [E]Palmer, [F]Charles Hall, Prieto and [G] | Ferroni, Hopkirk et. al have similarly determined values, if not lower or negative values in the latter case. A clear scientific consensus has formed. While the statistical massaging done by Raugei, which Hopkirk above, like everyone else, has to routinely and explicitly dismiss as advocates, with their values over thirty, are in reality who and what is truly considered fantastical and fringe.

Similarly, Weißbach's team in their rebuttal of the raving bands of solar advocates described Raugei as producing - "politically motivated energy evaluations".

P.S by the way, Thomas' favorite author, this Raugei individual is based in Oxford Brookes University UK (not to be confused, with the real Oxford Uni of which it has no academic connection. The IP address which I remember likewise got involved with the familiar censorship-swinging over the addition of Weißbach, years ago and then took the opportunity to promote Raugei, the editor |161.73.149.112 is incidentally geo-located where? Can you guess? Honestly you can't make the yarns of these folks up.

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(outdenting) Hi NewsAndEventsGuy,

Perhaps I should summarize this issue, and better explain my position.

The paper includes EROI figures for solar PV which are totally discrepant with the non-fringe consensus.

These ideas cannot be presented as factual in wikipedia. Furthermore, they certainly cannot be given vastly more weight than non-fringe papers on the topic. This paper is a far outlier and is referred to as "refuted" by leading researchers. Furthermore, the calculation of the minimum net energy for civilization to exist is nonsensical.

I realize there is a debate about this topic. However, the mere existence of a debate indicates nothing whatsoever. There is a debate over whether the Earth is flat, and will continue to be a debate until nobody in the world advocates that position any more. The mere existence of a debate indicates nothing. The question is the WEIGHTING being given to various sides in this debate.

There are more than 250 studies on net energy of solar PV. They all reach broadly similar conclusions except these two far outliers which are championed by a bizarre fringe group. I am pointing out the NUMBER of studies here. Why should a single far outlier be given its own SECTION while 250 studies by reputable researchers are reduced to a single line? Why should a single study which is repeatedly referred to as "refuted" by the leading researchers in this field be given its own section, when 250 other papers are reduced to a single line?

It is not necessary for the editors of wikipeida to evaluate this issue or take sides in the "debate". I am raising the issue of UNDUE WEIGHT, not correctness. How much weight is appropriate for a single outlier paper repeatedly referred to as "refuted" by the leading researchers in the field, when 250+ papers have are represented by a single line above?

There are three papers recently which are meta-analyses, and which summarize the results from HUNDREDS of papers on this topic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116306906

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211500146X

None of them reach conclusions similar to that paper.

Thomas pow s (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

McConnell's reputation as a master tactician

There is a dispute on the Mitch McConnell article over whether we can include a sentence that qualifies McConnell's reputation as a master tactician. The bold sentence is under dispute, with some editors claiming it's not NPOV:

• McConnell has gained a reputation as a skilled political strategist and tactician. However, this reputation took a hit after Republicans failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2017 during consolidated Republican control of government.

References

Additional sources that use this language:

• AP: "casting doubt on his reputation"[1]
• Bloomberg: the essence of the article [2]
• The Atlantic: "The majority leader’s reputation has been tarnished"[3]
• Politico: "bruised reputation"[4]
• 538: "cut against McConnell’s reputation"[5]
• BBC News: "whose reputation as a master tactician has been dented"[6]

Is the bold sentence a violation of WP:NPOV? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The "take a hit" language is a bit of a colloquialism, as well as directly out of a headline from the NYTimes pieces - we have long determined headlines alone should not be taken as "reliable". Something that says his reputation was diminished or dimmed seems more in line with the sources and a bit more professional. --Masem (t) 22:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "dimmed" is the best phrasing. That was how it was originally phrased. After an editor sought to remove the content, I opted to change it to "took a hit" just to mirror the source fully (my experience is that editors who scrub RS from articles often seek to justify the removal if a source does not mirror the language verbatim). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That's understandable, I just would avoid touching language that appears only in the headline and not the body. Headlines are meant to draw in a reader and thus may use over-dramatic or unprofessional language. You have more than enough sources here that anything along the lines of dimmed, diminished, reduced, etc. should be completely fine. --Masem (t) 22:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Close as premature The discussion just started on the article talk page. This appears to be forum shopping. Someone else started the discussion and Snoo appears to have wanted to frame it a certain way from the start.--v/r - TP 22:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Based on the diversity and extent of coverage, the sentence does not appear to violate the neutral POV policy. If there are a number of sources expressing a contrary viewpoint, that would be a consideration for how it is written. Omitting this material in some form could actually affect NPOV negatively. However, I agree with Masem that the "take a hit" is not the best choice of wording.- MrX 🖋 22:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Really? Seems to me he is just good at persuading his fellow Republicans that they have more to fear from a Koch-funded right wing primary than from the general electorate. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking system

There are several open RFCs at Talk:Electric smoking system - it's very confusing what is actually being proposed, and I feel that some of the possible changes might violate NPOV. Readers of this noticeboard may be interested in participating in those RFCs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Jill Stein

Is the following text a violation of WP:NPOV?:

• In December 2018, a report commissioned by the US Senate found that the Russian government's interference in the 2016 election included boosting Stein's candidacy through social media posts. This disinformation effort targeted African-American voters in particular. NBC News noted, "There’s nothing in the reports to suggest that Stein was aware of the influence operation, but the Massachusetts physician has long been criticized for her support of international policies that mirror Russian foreign policy goals."[7]

An editor on the Jill Stein page keeps removing the second part of that NBC News quote (citing WP:NPOV), so that the text reads:

• In December 2018, a report commissioned by the US Senate found that the Russian government's interference in the 2016 election included boosting Stein's candidacy through social media posts. This disinformation effort targeted African-American voters in particular. According to Robert Windrem, an investigative reporter with NBC News, "There’s nothing in the reports to suggest that Stein was aware of the influence operation..."[8]

To me, it seems that removing the full NBC News quote is the NPOV violation. Additional input would be helpful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I am the editor in question (was not notified, thanks user:Snooganssnoogans). What I deem editorialization on the part of the NBC reporter is the implication that Stein's "international policies [that] mirror Russian foreign policy goals". No evidence is presented and this is just one quote in one story by on report. It seems that the editor (and journalist) supporting this quote is cherry-picking sources to try to implicate Stein in Russiagate. Removing the latter portion to me (which is an opinion, not a fact) is the only way to use this quote in Stein's biography. Moreover, as TFD wrote on the page's talk page, the quote is full of weasel words.--TM 13:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In the NBC report, after the quoted part, it goes on to explain where her past campaigned had connections to Russian media outlets, etc, to justify that criticism. Our article also mention some of these. The NBC language is appropriate, but it is a matter of word and phrasing order as that part comes out of the blue in our article, even though it follows up immediately. I'm not immediately sure how to do it. --Masem (t) 15:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the quote should be included in full, except that we need to say "NBC News said" not "NBC News noted" so as to avoid stating NBC's conclusions in wikipedia's voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• The full quote provides important context as to why the Russians would choose Stein and supporting the idea that Stein would be a likely target (in a way that Johnson might not be). It also fits with the well known fact that she was photographed at a gala with Putin and Michael Flynn in 2015. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• The full quote is important and indeed required for context. In-text attribution (either to the source or to the author) is unnecessary because this is a straight news piece, rather than an op-ed, editorial, or column. Attributing to the author is particularly weird. I would go with a paraphrase supported by the source rather than a direct quote, reading something like: "The Senate-commissioned report does not suggest that Stein was aware of Russian efforts to boost her candidacy, although Stein's views on U.S. foreign policy have often reflected Russian positions and talking points on international issues." Neutrality^talk 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• The has long been criticized part of the quote does not belong on wikipedia. It is a very vague statement, and NBC neither specifies where the criticism has come from nor do they provide a source for it. If we include information about such criticism, which is okay if properly explained and sourced, WP:NPOV require us to also include information countering that criticism. Masem: The fact that a political campaign has contacts to Russian media outlines certainly does not justify the quoted criticism. In general, a politician interacting with a media outlet says nothing about the politicians support for that media or the owners of that media. That is simply a ridiculous assertion, and if politicians became afraid of such guilt by contact, it would be dangerous for democracy. Martinogk (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• I also agree that the NBS News quote should be included entirely and I believe that NBC wording in this case is very much welcomed, because it would help to tackle the issue multidimensionally. However, if there is a criticism in the article it should be thoroughly followed by some concrete examples. --Jeremydas (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Nicotine research

Nicotine is a chemical. There's biomolecular research that is related to nicotine effects that's not done in clinical settings and not on humans. But an editor repeatedly deletes that research without regard for this fact, referencing first its primary source nature as reason, as if that research was a medical/health information, and then referencing the WP:MEDRS, whereas it has nothing to do with medical research. At one point, that editor WTF'd part of that research wording on the Talk page and deleted it rather suggest wording improvement. I even tried to improve and to clarify the research is non-health in a section heading, but that got deleted in the same manner.

That article is about a chemical, but there have been changes on the page skewing its focus toward a drug infopiece (for example, the Infodrug template does not contain Material Safety Data Sheet field), and now the editor is invoking medical research policy to block content on non-applicable grounds. That chemical is a substance that generates high revenues for businesses, so it is plausible this article needs to be involved in a neutral point of view discussion/maintenance to assure moneyed interests do not interfere with the WP:NPOV that the world comes to appreciate about Wikipedia.

I'm not sure how to notify the editor Seppi333 using NPOV-notice. User109012 (Talk) 05:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is that we need a separate page for Nicotine (drug) and a separate page for Nicotine (chemical). User109012 (Talk) 06:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice to see what he is removing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Browsing the history, I see an edit like this, and this makes me think that we do want to have a strong delination between the chemistry aspects of nicotine (which should not be covered by MEDRS), and the biological aspects which would have stricter MEDRS adherence (moreso than other chemical articles, given its usage). Whether that means splitting the article or regrouping to clear the non-medical basics of the chemical first before delving into the drug-like and health issues, I don't know, but I do think that this is a case MEDRS cannot apply 100% to all content on the article when it is talking non-medical aspects of the chemical. --Masem (t) 15:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I know about other stuff exists, but here there is an issue of consistency, do we do this with other similar chemical compounds?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

First example I could think of was Caffeine which is treated as a chemical first and foremost since it is a naturally-occurring thing. It does seem to mix up things, but without a detailed check , it doesn't seem like MEDRS is expected to apply to the entire content of the article, just those where health effects come in. --Masem (t) 16:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Kiki Camarena conspiracy theories.

Darouet keeps adding fringe conspiracy theories to the Kiki Camarena article, whenever i undo his edits he adds them back. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't add this material: it was present for at least a year [9] until Jaydoggmarco removed it. The content was sourced to an article [10] in Spain's most read and respected newspaper, El País, but as I pointed out [11] at Talk:Kiki Camarena, there are multiple sources including university books, scholarly articles, and reviews that should be referenced.

For instance in "Eclipse of the Assassins. The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía," by Russell H. Bartley and Sylvia Erickson Bartley, University of Wisconsin Press, 2015, the authors write in the book's conclusion,

The preponderance of evidence... persuades us beyond any reasonable doubt that Manuel Buendía was slain on behalf of the United States because of what he had learned about U.S.-Mexico collusion with narcotics traffickers, international arms dealers, and other governments in support of Reagan administration efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Camarena was... killed for the same reason.

Reviewing the book, professor Wil Pansters, head of the Department of Social Sciences of University College Utrecht, writes in Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe (Amsterdam Iss. 103, Jan/Jun 2017, pp.143-155) that

In May 1984, the influential journalist and columnist Manuel Buendía was brutally shot in the back in the centre of Mexico City... In a painstaking investigative process, the authors along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked, and much of the book is about the Bartleys trying to put the different pieces together. The most important element is that the interests behind both killings go beyond criminal interests and reach into the political domains on both sides of the border. In the mid-1980s, Mexico's one party regime confronted serious challenges, while the Reagan administration was deeply involved in a Cold War battle against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Buendía and DEA agent Camarena had each separately discovered that the CIA was running a dark network, which involved Mexican and Central American drug traffickers that imported cocaine into the U.S. and facilitated the movement of arms to the contras. Nicaraguan contras were trained at a Mexican ranch owned by one of the country's most notorious capos. CIA pilots flew many of the planes. The DFS functioned as the go-between, and hence involved the Ministry of the Interior. The Mexican army provided the necessary protection, and got a bite of the pie. Since the overriding concern of the CIA was the anti-Sandinista project, it trumped the DEA's task of combating drug trafficking, and covertly incorporated (or pressured) parts of the Mexican state into subservience. Buendía had found out about the CIA-contra-drugsDFS connection, which seriously questioned Mexican sovereignty, while Camarena learned that the CIA had infiltrated the DEA and sabotaged its work so as to interfere with the clandestine contra-DFS-traffickers network. They knew too much and were eliminated on the orders of the U.S. with Mexican complicity. Later official investigations attempted to limit criminal responsibility to the dirty connections between drug traffickers, secret agents and corrupt police, leaving out the (geo)political ramifications.

Jaydoggmarco is removing sourced content with false justifications, does not understand how WP:RS and WP:V work, and probably shouldn't be editing this article. -Darouet (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

El Pais is actually considered by many to be the Fox News of Spain, They were responsible for publishing a false picture of a dying Hugo Chávez in 2013 and they are notorious for their support of fascism and opposition toward the democratically elected left-wing governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been open for some time at Albania-Greece relations. Input from this noticeboard's participants is welcomed to help achieve a consensus [12]. Khirurg (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

"Pro-India" branding

In a scholar biography page for Alastair Lamb, an editor has added the label of "pro-India" for one of the book reviewers (Parshotam Mehra). The editor has provided a quote from a book review of Mehra's own book (not Alastair Lamb's) that says:

• the author [Mehra] has not only abdicated his responsibility as a scholar but also made himself vulnerable to the charge that he has indirectly tried to reinforce the official position of India under the garb of academic objectivity.

The "abdication of responsibility" apparently refers to the fact that Mehra did not relate the history covered in his own book (not Alastair Lamb's) to the present-day border dispute between China and India. Instead he left it to the reader "to form his own judgement". I can't see how any of this warrants a branding like "pro-India". The talk page discussion is here. Can somebody take a look and give us their view? Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry I don't have much time today to check in. It is always imperative to read a review as a whole and not in parts if the underlying point is to be understood. It appears to me from whatever has been quoted so far that Mahendra is saying that Parshotam has synthesised his conclusions in such a way which would lead the reader on to favour the Indian position while ostensibly claiming to allow the reader to form their own opinion. Hence the link with "readers judgement." I hope this resolves your dispute. If not I am happy to mediate. Dilpa kaur (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer Dilpa kaur. But mediation is generally offered by WP:UNINVOLVED editors. You are welcome to give your comments on the article talk page of course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Dilpa's offer. WOW.

I will take a look and mediate; as to this specific locus. ∯WBG^converse 16:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Have you read the book? There are no conclusions, as such. ∯WBG^converse 13:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole disruptive editing on Catholicism

Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs) has recently ramped up his disruptive editing of topics related to the Catholic Church and homosexuality. In particular, at Catholic Church and homosexuality and Political activity of the Knights of Columbus, among other articles, he's attempting to insert promotional material even in cases where consensus has explicitly rejected the specific wording he is proposing. At Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus, for instance, FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs) and Doniago (talk · contribs) very explicitly rejected the euphemistic "support marriage as the union of one man and one woman" and "culture of life" in favor of the clearer "oppose same-sex marriage and abortion" (alongside myself and Contaldo80 (talk · contribs) who were already editing the article. A month later, Slugger continues to attempt to add that exact wording and pretend that there was no voice against it. Here, among other NPOV violations related to promotional content and WP:WEIGHT, he insists on vaguely writing "In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically on issues of importance to LGBT people" in place of the more clear and source-supported "against LGBT rights," insisting that to say "rights" would violate NPOV and, nonsensically, that because LGBT people are also interested in other matters, "rights" is overly narrow. (Here's the only other user in the discussion besides myself, Contaldo80 (talk · contribs) specifically rejecting this proposal.)

I have no taste for an edit war but I don't know how to proceed when this user refuses to listen to anyone who disagrees with him even in cases where formal procedures like 3O have been followed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Only part of the story is being told here. If you search the archives of the talk pages for both the main Knights of Columbus article and the daughter article on their political activity, you will see that there has been extensive discussions on how to phrase some of these issues, and a consensus has been reached. The public record will also show that I have been vocal about my willingness to collaborate and compromise, and have publicly thanked other edits with whom I often disagree when they make substantive contributions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Dispute resolution help? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It may. A further review of the record will show that I've requested outside opinions on multiple occasions, and respected the consensus even when I disagreed with it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: can you elaborate on your suggestion? Since this is a case of one user attempting to insert his POV against the explicitly expressed opinions of other users, whom he pretends did not express those opinions, it seemed like more of a user behavior issue rather than a case of needing broader input per se. How broad do you think the DR would need to be? Is it more like separate DRs for each article, or more like "DR: Slugger O'Toole and homosexuality"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Australian paradox

I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Australian paradox about an article with multiple issues including NPOV, and I invite any and all interested parties to contribute there. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Acupuncture's relative popularity in Europe

Resolved

 – Happy to find a better source to keep everyone happy. Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) (as thread-starter), 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Can the statement "Acupuncture is one of the most common alternative medicine practices in Europe" be properly sourced to a monograph on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Policy in Canada (Ramsay 2009, p.45), which says "The three most commonly used alternative therapies in Europe as of 2007 were homeopathy, acupuncture/[TCM], and herbal medicine"?

That the source is RS isn't disputed, but there are other objections (my responses follow):

• That the statement is argumentum ad populum.
  • RESPONSE: Argumentum ad populum takes the general form "X is popular, therefore it is good/true", but here we are only citing a sourced statement "X is popular (and that only relatively, among alt-meds's in Europe)"
• UNDUE: "The source is about Canada and the content is about Europe. That is already a red flag that cherry picking is going on."
  • RESPONSE: There are no other known "sig views" on the subject of which are the most popular CAMS in Europe, so there's no UNDUE problem and no cherry picking.
• UNDUE: "European Acupuncture was part of a list an not even mentioned by itself."
  • RESPONSE: Cf. above, there are no other known "sig views", so being mentioned by itself or as part of a list makes no difference where NPOV is concerned.
• UNDUE: "The wording was almost a complete rehash of the source. If that is the best paraphrasing you can do then probably you are doing something wrong."
  • RESPONSE: Irrelevant; as long as there's no copyvio, closeness of paraphrasing isn't a problem for NPOV or anything else.

Discussion is at Talk:Acupuncture § Popularity in Europe but I think the above about covers it. Editors have declined to discuss further, hence this post. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 18:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest means that you should not be involving yourself in Acupuncture or related articles. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I do not have one according to the recent RfC which has closed with a "No" finding (three admins closing). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The source seems questionable to start. Is there some discussion on its reliability already? --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No, not so far. Is Fraser Institute not ok? For an assertion this uncontroversial (of course acu is popular as CAMs go)? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The source looks extremely in-world. Taking that bit of information from it, presenting it out of the context of the source, and putting it in Wikipedia's voice seems questionable. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Looks like a flimsy source, and the use smacks of WP:ADVOCACY, so not NPOV. What we need is a reputable independent source giving some context to why acupuncture is "popular" (assuming that's true) in Europe - and of course in health matters "popular" is often synonymous with "dodgy" (see popular diet). Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Popular among CAMs (as noted 2x previously). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 02:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

As is too often the cases in this area Middle 8 is misrepresenting the discussion for his own ends. When he wrote that the source "RS isn't disputed" what he should have written is "RS hasn't been disputed". Why bother fighting about the RS value of content that is undue anyway?AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban please. Middle 8 has wasted hundreds of hours of the community's time pushing back against his relentless attempts to boost his admitted commercial interest in acupuncture. I think ost of us are completely bored with this by now. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Said one of the editors who wasted so much of the community's time on a gratuitous RfC that was never going to get the desired result (although I was surprised it actually boomeranged, but at least now there's no excuse for further such drama). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The entire source of the problem is your relentless attempts to boost your financial interests by editing Wikipedia. Stop doing that, the problem goes away. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like that "obvious COI". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If there are no other significant views then there are no significant views at all. If the best you can come up with is an aside, in a list, where the source is about another country on another continent, from a think tank then you are cherry picking and not representing a significant view.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"If there are no other significant views then there are no significant views at all." -- the logic underwhelms. You can't cherry-pick without there being other cherries (sig views) to pick from. Editors are making the mistake of assuming that the claim being made is at all controversial (news flash -- some CAM's are more popular than others -- but maybe the news hasn't made it all the way out to Boise). But whatever, happy to find a better source. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC); undo improper revert of non-personal-attack but also strike as courtesy and to de-escalate, 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are happy to find a better source then why did you even open this discussion? AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Because I thought we might get fresh eyes. But alas. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For my own amusement I tracked down where this supposed information originally came from. Its a pretty good illustration of why we should use think tanks with care. AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

References