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

NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"

We have been over it many times in the Talk page and getting nowhere, so I am seeking other opinions. At present Electronic_harassment is written in the majority view which is to say: "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." (TIs being people who believe they are subject to covert targeting.) This assumes the psychiatric opinion as fact. However, there has been a significant Washington Post article on TIs, Mind Games, which, it seems to me, says that there may be something really happening to these people, that they may not be deluded. I would like to see the EH article incorporate what I see as the opinion of the Washington Post, which for starters would not have written such an article if they thought that TIs were entirely delusional, they would have written an article on a disturbing mass delusion. There are many points made in that article, and the two other similar articles cited, that support the view that, whilst the article should state the psychiatric opinion it should only state it as an opinion, not as a fact. I will go through the points from those three articles one at a time if that is necessary.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Working through the Mind Games article for instances that support my position that the EH article should be written as an open question as to whether there is real targeting happening, not just delusions, extracts from the first few paragraphs say: "IF HARLAN GIRARD IS CRAZY, HE DOESN'T ACT THE PART. .....At 70, he appears robust and healthy -- not the slightest bit disheveled or unusual-looking. He is also carrying a bag.

Girard's description of himself is matter-of-fact, until he explains what's in the bag: documents he believes prove that the government is attempting to control his mind. He carries that black, weathered bag everywhere he goes. 'Every time I go out, I'm prepared to come home and find everything is stolen,' he says.

The bag aside, Girard appears intelligent and coherent. At a table in front of Dunkin' Donuts inside the train station, Girard opens the bag and pulls out a thick stack of documents, carefully labeled and sorted with yellow sticky notes bearing neat block print. The documents are an authentic-looking mix of news stories, articles culled from military journals and even some declassified national security documents that do seem to show that the U.S. government has attempted to develop weapons that send voices into people's heads.

'It's undeniable that the technology exists,' Girard says, 'but if you go to the police and say, 'I'm hearing voices,' they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation.'"

The Washington Post obviously is of the opinion that Girard might not be crazy and is giving him the space to say that he thinks the government is doing something to him. This surely is saying that the WP is of the opinion that it is an open question not definite evidence of delusions? My first attempt to post the above led to it disappearing on clicking "Save Page" Jed Stuart (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence is too much. Seriously though the article acknowledges the experience of voices etc is real. There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used. (and the second is important - we would need both) Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no real dispute in the WP sense here. We have an WP:SPA editor pushing a WP:FRINGE idea, and everyone else telling this editor to please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart, you may find the page at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP, a polite but inexperienced WP:SPA, has been told many times by experienced editors that this will simply not fly, but unfortunately has failed to understand. I'm afraid that Jed is coming from an In-Universe POV, and the crowbar of understanding is so far simply not working. We need a bigger crowbar, and a very firm foundation for the fulcrum. Guy's essay ought to help, and WP:OUCH may also be pertinent. I, on the other hand, think it may be too late. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Replying to all: I am not an SPA. I have 3 separate areas of interest and experience, however I have only done two edits in WP in the 'electronic harassment' article. Both edits are now gone so I have effectively done none. For now I only have limited time for participation and decided to use it to attempt to get that article NPOV rather than 100% weight to the psychiatric opinion and 0% weight to the claims of TIs. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact in that way is to entirely negate the claims of TIs, which seems inappropriate. I am only attempting to integrate the view of the Washington Post article Mind Games which gives the TI claims a 'might be something in it'. I think those claims should be described as a conspiracy theory (although I would prefer conspiracy belief as they are not seeming to come at it from a theoretical perspective, but more from an attempt to describe weird experiences). To pitch the article as psychiatric opinion vs TI conspiracy theory is not to push a fringe idea as is claimed that I am doing. TIs seem to be always willing to admit that they have no hard evidence but nevertheless their claims are gaining considerable traction in alternative mass media. e.g. Coast to Coast AM, Jessie Ventura. So it seems that Alternative View - TIs Conspiracy Theory, or some such, would be appropriate, and not Fringe Delusion.

The article WP:1AM is interesting, but that has not been the situation for long. There have been many other editors on my side of the debate contributing to the Talk page, and who have given up in frustration at the immovable block of editors insisting that TI claims MUST be described as definitely delusions. My attempts to set up mediation only resulted in a fake mediation which was closed before I had the chance to reply. Yes, I was slow to get back to the mediation, but they should be fully aware by now that I only contribute every 2-3 days.

As to the point by jytdog "There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used." The 'Mind Games' article goes in depth into the question of technology and the possibility that something like an extension of the MKUltra project has been in operation since MKUltra was exposed and closed down. The latter point is consistent with the WP article Project MKUltra section 12 Aftermath [[1]] Jed Stuart (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart It doesn't matter how reasonably well you argue. As stiff as it is, this article (as well as others involving Government crimes) are in the hands of conservative groups, probably a joint of real undercover agents (would you ever believe wikipedia had undercover agents editing it?.. I still have problems believing this but I'm trying to not exclude it) and wannabes trying to "do the work better". Either that, or it's a matter of fact that the vast majority of people cannot accept the chance that Federal agencies are still onto MKUltra and COINTELPRO alike programs. Everyone is entiteld to their opinion and, to quote a good one, "I would give my life to protect your right to have one", but hey.. sources speak clear at loads that Electronic harassment is an open question, not a verified illness. I'm sorry if you feel offended but I really have no personal hate towards any of you thus I don't consider it a personal attack (not to mention I'm doing it for a better wikipedia). This article should be taken to WP:ANI or WP:AE because indeed it is a matter of behavior in a too disputed argument. It's so disputed that even opening a case at WP:MEDCOM would ultimately be justifiable. Specifically WP:Civil POV pushing is what I broadly would invite to look into, but the problem sets immediatly as: how can ANI, AE and MEDCOM be free of "whitewashing agents" looking to basically protect their reputation?

The editors involved in the writing of this article are generally not looking to discuss, they are whether purpotedly or not willfull in coordinating denial over the chance Electronic harassment is an open question which, according to wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it results as such. Yet we have this undercover conservative editors and admins looking after their clerk editing wikipedia reputation, denying vital info that could even alleviate the pain possible victims may be really going through the way it is claimed, which soundss absolutely detestable and repugnant. The way the article is written is unacceptable considering the many sources available. Also every source keeps on being rejected with inconsiderate nonchalance and often bad faith. About bad faith for example, how can you consider alien abductions notable enough to be compiled into such a biased article? How can you compare the chance of State terrorism with that of extraterrestrials abducting humans? Why are you so keen on trying to fool us (editors and especially readers), regular unknown people, simple internet users that never did you any wrong? Let's face it, building 7 could not come down the way we are told. And neither the twins. I must be taking myself too seriously in trying to subvert this specific wikipedia censorship.. but the point I guess, is that I always related to knowledge with pure openness, thus it must hurt to see wikipedia being gamed by a bunch of who knows who nobodies.

However, I'm not here just to shout wishy-washy, I would like to point to the lack of hystorical perspective, mentioned with other words by Jed Stuart in the above comment. There have been many "attempts" to correct the censoring POV of the article throughout the last months/years, but I never came accross anyone mentioning WP:RECENT, a decently important essay. WP:RECENT is spot on firstly because COINTELPRO and MKULTRA are hystorial heavy weighting notable and verified clandestine projects which should be more seriously taken into account, and secondly because fundamentally the whole present bias is based on contemporary years's mainstream news about a modern phenomena revolving around internet communities that show traits of mental illnesses. Nonetheless, various reliable sources indicate the existence of weapons meant to induce mental illnesses thus it really is a gigantic mistake to propose the mental illness theory as fact.

There would be more to discuss about, but it's just too frustrating for anyone to be maliciously outnumbered the way it happens all the time. I guess that's why the degree of incivilty is non-existent on the side of the civil (indeed) pov pushers. What about the pointlessness in WP:SPA accusations? Do you think everyone can dedicate their working day to editing an encyclopedia? Let's resume good ol' Aaron Swartz for a minute:

Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.

On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.

Other encyclopedias work similarly, just on a much smaller scale: a large group of people write articles on topics they know well, while a small staff formats them into a single work. This second group is clearly very important — it’s thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone — but it’s a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia. One imagines the people running Britannica worry more about their contributors than their formatters.

What about that argument about pseudoscience detracting from notability?.. Have a read at what's written at the bottom of this for instance. The point with pseudoscience anyway, is like the one with comparing alien abductions to State terrorism: there are reliable sources citing the existence of these exotic weapons just as we have prove of, at least past, State terrorism (it always shows up after a while for some reason, and it's always about other countries, other cultures, other languages), while on the other hand there are no reliable sources citing the existence of extraterrestrials anywhere close enough to our planet, not to mention the abduction part. I know you will keep on stonewalling anyway, I already came to the understand there's no chance of having a un-POVed debate on this article, thus why am I trying my best to contribute to this article? Probably just because Jed is being treated unfairly. Have a good evening all. 82.59.56.100 (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since mentioning sources, is this one from 2008 relevant in your opinion? Peer reviewed by a University. The author is an academic definitely in good-standing even to date and mainstream nonetheless, Kingsley Dennis. What else is needed to accept Jed's suggestion of writing the Electronic harassment page as an open question? 87.1.117.202 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What would it take for us to conclude that the reality of electronic harassment is an open question?

1. It would have to actually be an open question, which it is not. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fringe theories and pseudoscience.
2. Your "reliable source" would have to actually say what you claim it says, which it does not. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#First Monday (journal)

Might I suggest [ https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/ ] as a more appropriate place for your theories? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Continual assertions that it is not an open question followed by directions to those Wikipedia policies that we are fully aware of in this discussion and are interpreting differently, says absolutely nothing. Referring to an article that is in question as to whether it is a reliable source, but which nobody has used in the EH article, is confusing the issue. It is the Washington Post article "Mind Games" which has been cited in the article and which is the basis of my opinion that the article should be written as an open question.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless 87.1.117.202 is you editing while logged out, I wasn't responding to you. 87.1.117.202 referenced the First Monday journal in the post I replied to.

As for Mind Games you have received your answer multiple times, the latest at [ Talk:Electronic harassment#open question that covert targeting could be happening? ]. One comment in that discussion stands out, and I agree with it 100%:

"Jed, you have cited that same quote from the Washington Post article on these Talk pages twice before here and here. Both times, the reasons why it does not justify giving credibility to the fringe theory have been patiently explained to you. You ask over and over again why we can't treat the topic as "an open question", and over and over again it gets explained to you. You repeatedly ask why the article can't balance psychiatrists opinions with delusional people's opinions, and it is repeatedly explained to you why our policies can't permit that. Your account is 4 years old, and your only interest on Wikipedia is this one topic. Although you have been polite about it, even politely asking the same questions over and over again is a form of WP:DISRUPTION."[2]

Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe we are going nowhere because this is a case of collective prolongend whitewashing (censorship), either because of unconscious (you can't accept the chance it could be happening) or conscious (wikipedia is flooded with conservative individuals who purpotedly deny the chance it could be happening) psychological mechanisms. I understand, the anxiety can be terrifying when it comes to these arguments. However, I'm gonna give the debate a chance if you wish, Guy Macon.

1. The first statement is your own opinion lacking corroboration other than pointing to a section of the WP:NPOV policy which states:

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.

Thus the question is: what is the majority viewpoint of scientists? And if there is one: how surpassing is it compared to the minority viewpoint (in order to determine the respective weights, correct?)?

2. So you deny "my reliable source presents the chance of electronic harassment happening"? You are stating it doesn't represent the simple view proposed by Jed Stuart? Then explain to me these quotes from that source which, let me remind you, it is authored by a scientist in good-standing (actually of mainstream media good-standing nonetheless), and peer-reviewed by academics with no bias on supporting conspiratorial claims. I will bold and underline the significant parts:

Increasingly there are indications that the uses of wireless technologies have been developed to target an individual’s biological body, with specific focus upon the neuronal functioning of the brain. In this paper I examine how some of these uses have had detrimental effects, and what this implies for both present and upcoming developments for particular wireless/sensor technologies. I consider whether this is not shifting dangerously towards a psycho–civilised society, where greater emphasis is placed upon social control and pre–emptive strategies. [..] Examples of unplanned attacks on the body’s data–processing capability are well–documented’. He (referring to Military strategist Timothy Thomas) references a Russian military article on the same subject which declared that “‘humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war’ with the mind and body as the focus”. [..] The “data” the body receives from external sources — such as electromagnetic, vortex, or acoustic energy waves — or creates through its own electrical or chemical stimuli can be manipulated or changed just as the data (information) in any hardware system can be altered. [..] Documented and declassified evidence shows that what may have begun as a program in standardized propaganda and psychological warfare has now developed into research on wireless information targeting and ‘psychocivilized’ control practices. To this effect the term ‘psycho–terrorism’ was coined by Anisimov of the Moscow Anti–Psychotronic Center and Anisimov admits to testing such devices as are said to ‘take away a part of the information which is stored in a man’s brain. [..] Although neurotechnologies are likely to be put to therapeutic and medical uses, such as for improving emotional stability and mental clarity, they also open opportunities for intrusive strategies of control and manipulation. [..] Part of this paper has been focused on the dangers of an increasingly wireless world. These dangers may include the potential for invasive technologies, based upon transmitted/received signals and wavelengths, to shift social order towards a psycho–civilized society. By psycho–civilised I mean a society that manages and controls social behaviour predominantly through non–obvious methods of psychological manipulations, yet at a level far beyond that of the ‘normalised’ social manipulations of propaganda and social institutions. What I refer to are the technologised methods of psychological interference and privacy intrusions in the manner of creating a docile and constrained society. [..] What are the moral and ethical implications of using wireless scanning surveillance technologies for evaluating pre–emptive behaviour based on thoughts and intentions alone? Is this not a dangerous path towards psycho–terrorising the social public? As Thomas (1998) reminds us, the mind has no firewall, and is thus vulnerable to viruses, Trojan horses, and spam. It is also vulnerable to hackers, cyber–terrorists, and state surveillance. Whilst this may sound a little too far out, they are reasonable questions to ask if technologies are racing ahead of us in order to better get into our heads. [..] This may herald the coming of a ‘wonderful wireless world’, yet it may also signal unforeseen dangers in protection, privacy, and security of the human biological body within these new relationships.

— Kingsley, Dennis, First Monday (journal) of University of Illinois at Chicago at webaddress

.

What's your answer? Does it present it as an open question? 87.3.90.35 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

My answer (and the answer of at least a dozen other experienced Wikipedia editors who have examined this) is "no". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Guy. Jeh (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Me too. Wikipedia is not the place for this stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And me. Mr. Dennis appears to be commenting from a different reality than the one in which we exist. You need to stoppit Jed, and all the SPA IPs that have magically appeared around this topic since you were told it will never fly. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

To Guy Macon: That is the first time I have quoted that bit from the Mind Games article. The one I was being taken to task about and did end up quoting 3 times due to not being able to get editors to really discuss the issue, was the one where they state their opinion that there could be something in the accusations of covert targeting. I did quote it 3 times in the attempt to get editors to really deal with the issue instead of just repeating assertions and grandstanding as the absolute experts on Wikipedia and I a newbie should piss off or be sent to AE. I have no desire to hit your horse carcass with a stick but surely it is time to bury it.Jed Stuart (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that those wanting to state the psychiatric opinion as fact have put up no arguments to back that, just assertions that I am pushing a fringe view. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact is to contradict the first point made in the NPOV article "Avoid stating opinions as facts" . Perhaps this does not apply to a mainstream well established institution, psychiatry/psychology? In a communist or fascist regime that could easily be the case. However, Wikipedia is a product of liberal democracy and so describing the various is the standard. tolerance of different opinions, pluralism etc That rather than adopting one side of a difference of opinion. So what would it do make the change that I seek. The psychiatric/psychological view would still have most weight, my guess about 80-90%, and the not at all well established view of those who believe that they are subject to intensive covert assaults would get a foot in the door, getting about 10-20% of the weight, just a little "might be" that is all that would be. There is no proof, just a lot of people with compelling anecdotal evidence, enough to get the Washington Post to give a small slice of that considerable attention. It does say something though that my attempts to get this stated appropriately result in such a concerted effort to stop such a little change in the article in order to bring it into line with the Wikipedia policies you lot keep throwing at editors that disagree with you, and don't seem to understand yourselves. Jed Stuart (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough WP:IDHT. I'm done responding. Read the Discretionary Sanctions notice at User talk:Jed Stuart. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have expected more comprehensiveness. Some argumentation. Can you provide those? I think it's very important.. otherwise what's the point in being at this noticeboard nonetheless? This is on even a higher level than a Talk page, thus I suspect we should debate. What you keep on doing is stonewalling mine and Jed's suggestions. But I still have an idea of the why this happens constantly: anxiety towards these unsettling shoking circumstances is the reason, and choosing to be conservative (read as, "in denial") is the safest refuge. I have no idea on what level of your consciousness is happening, I don't know you and I'm not a psychoanalyst. But I can't pretend I don't know there's the seed of psychology here, making a certain form of ethics (the plant) grow, and that it ends producing political results (the fruits) which speciously flow into far-fetched conservative consensus.

Yes, this is about politics, and it looks even Aristotele is on mine and Jed's side, as His philosophical eternal work on politics ends declaring that

the inquiry into ethics necessarily follows into politics

Pretty obvious. Have a good day all, especially Jed though. Note: I'm open to debate majority and minority viewpoints as well as about their weight. But remember you can't write an article on tobacco or alcoholic beverages without giving them hystorical perspective and touching upon production and the harmful health effects. Some things are just too obvious that maybe can slip out of our minds, but they shouldn't. Also, you don't give the same weight to the chance of Political repression via emerging technologies (not pseudoscience) and the chance of being abducted by aliens. 87.6.112.110 (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See [ User talk:87.6.112.110#This IP is a duck ] and [ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit filter? Range block? ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have challenged the editors block at Talk:Electronic Harassment to come here and state their case for violating NPOV as described. It seems to me they have only come here to cast aspersions on my behaviour rather than address the issue. I asked them again and here is my statement and their reply:

"So are any of you going to put up a case for stating the psychiatric/psychology opinion as fact? So far it has been: I am inexperienced, I am pushing a Fringe theory, an SPA, etc. None of you has yet stated that you think the NPOV policy "Avoid stating opinions as facts." should not apply when the opinion is of a well established mainstream institution and the other opinion is just a minority alternative view. You have continually thrown up the NPOV policy article as if it justifies your position, but you fail to say why you think that is so at the NPOV noticeboard. It is not about me, it is about stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. If you don't clearly make your case soon I will attempt to make the change. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Review Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_3, Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_4, and Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_5 for all the many ways you've asked this same question and all the many ways it has been answered for you. Please stop this sea-lioning, it's disruptive. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)"

As it is a one against many there, and quite stressful, please someone convince me that I am wrong. They certainly wont. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Most all experienced editors have been on the losing side of content discussions at one time or another. We learn that we don't have to be convinced that we're "wrong," but that we do need to abide by consensus, and move on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC):

Interesting. Jed Stuart says "it is a one against many" but has not followed the advice I gave at WP:1AM... --05:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have read your document again. It is clearly thought through and communicated. But, to refer to it without saying which section you are referring to gives me nothing as it describes many situations. The one I can most relate to is: "When you think there is a policy violation.In a "one-against-many" dispute, you (as the one) might be upholding a Wikipedia policy or guideline against a majority that isn't following policy. If this is the case, the one prevails over the many. The problem is that for every case where the one is upholding policy, there are at least a hundred cases* where he only thinks he is." I invited you all at EH, who seem to think I am not upholding a policy, to come and state your case. So far it has not been about that at all it has been about my behaviour, which I invite you to take me to ANI over, the appropriate place is it not? Jed Stuart (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

To Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Yes, I will have to move on soon. The reason that I am persisting is that what I see as the NPOV dispute effects the sense of the entire article, and will have negative impact on those vulnerable people, who are claiming to be targeted, if it continues to promote one side of the controversy and negate the other. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If then, as you claim, there is a policy violation, how then do you explain your utter failure to convince even a single other person that the policy violation exists? It certainly isn't from a lack of trying. I and others have looked at your arguments and found them to be less than compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That's easy. You all have the same perspective on the subject. Bye for now. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I challenge the assertion that I and everyone else except you have a perspective that prevents us from seeing clear policy violations. I personally have on multiple occasions removed material that I would have really liked to see stay -- if it violates Wikipedia policy, out it goes whatever my personal feelings. You simply have not made a convincing argument that any policy violations exist in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will try again. Is it not true that it is a NPOV policy to "describe disputes not engage in them" and to "Avoid stating opinions as facts." . Both are prominent statements at the NPOV article. However, it says about the claims of people that they are being covertly targeted: "These experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis," and "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." Both statements are the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists well cited there. However, there is a growing conspiracy theory that disputes this opinion. The TI opinion and of those supporting them is that they are not deluded etc. For the article to be stated in terms that it is a fact that they are deluded is both taking a side in the dispute, resulting in lots of attempts to disrupt the article, and stating an opinion as fact. Thus the article should not say "The experiences of TIs are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders." It should say "It is the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists that the experiences of TIs are hallucinations...etc" or some such. The same for the TIs claims. They should not be stated as facts but as their opinion. I am not that good a communicator, but I think that is my best shot at it. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did indeed try again, in classic sea lion fashion. And, once again, you failed miserably, because your argument contradicts the policy (WP:NPOV) you selectively quoted. The relevant section of WP:NPOV is WP:PSCI, which clearly says:

"Fringe theories and pseudoscience

Further information: Wikipedia:Fringe theories and § Due and undue weight

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked."

I hope this helps but I know that it won't. Please drop the stick. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks as you are playing the skeptical but beyond reason part and accountably, as the conspiracy is quite unbelievable at first glance, while Jed Stuart is being open minded yet reasonably because electromagnetic weapons not only are far from being pseudoscience, they are actually authorized for use since time ago. I consider pseudoscience flat earth and extraterrestrial life and parapsychology, but modern weapons why should we? Also reliable sources are all but poor in supporting the validity of electronic harassment. I'm following this debate and I agree with the open minded side. 149.254.224.221 (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The issues raised at the top of this section have been addressed and consensus is against a change. Per WP:NOTFORUM this page is not available to endlessly debate mind control or other WP:FRINGE stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not. In either case, you keep on failing by recognizing it a pseudoscientific topic which clearly it isn't. Thus what has actually been addressed? 149.254.235.50 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

yes, the issue I have raised has never been addressed by the editors at EH. I am not for one moment attempting to debate whether what TIs claim is true or not. That will play out in the mass media and relevant government processes eventually, if it is true, and if we still have democracy. I am simply attempting to get a balanced and neutral statement of the situation at present as described in the reliable sources cited. That has nothing to do with a pseudoscience. It is about claims of harassment and worse. It also has nothing to do with giving equal weight to those claims vs psychiatric opinion. You are just attempting to gag the discussion of the NPOV issue by suggesting this is becoming a forum about mind control. Since I started work on this issue it has been about one smart manoeuvre after another and none have ever put a case for stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

To 149.254.224.221: False equivalency. The fact that other flat things exist is not evidence for a flat earth that violates the laws of physics. Likewise the fact that directed-energy weapons exist is is not evidence for a mind control device that violates the laws of physics. Every directed-energy weapon works by emitting some form of electromagnetic radiation, be it microwaves, infrared lasers, or X-Rays. Electromagnetic radiation is easily detected. Likewise, all of the non-energy weapons use the some sort of matter, whether it be air vibrating (acoustic weapons) germs, gas, or the kinetic energy of a bullet or bomb. NO UNDECTABLE MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY EXISTS. If a mind control technology did exist, I or any other competent engineer would be able to detect and measure the output of the alleged weapon, just as we can with any other weapon.

To Jed Stuart: Go away. The next time you post your theory that the professional opinions of mental-health professionals are no more valid that the untrained opinions of the delusional people they treat, I will bring this to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have never posted such a theory. It is about the way the article is written not about your or my beliefs about mind control technology. That is all irrelevant. Take me to ANI then. If they are still with the basic principles of Wikipedia I will win. That will be interesting to learn about and find out. I did fully intend to leave it there, but you had to keep going with another challenge and your stuff about sea lions etc. I did check out that sea lion article, but it looked like scorpions poo, so I did not read much. As for you, you are a palaverer. Me, I am a TI supporter attempting to get the article as clear and straight as possible. There is a long way to go. Jed Stuart (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear what I am thinking is appropriate in the EH article. It is not that the claims of TIs are of equal weight to mental-health professionals. I think the reliable sources put the view that there might be some form of covert targeting happening. Which, if there is would lead to some re-thinking by those professionals as to how to categorize and treat people who make such claims, not to TIs taking over the asylum or some such. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:Neutral Point of View is a matter of WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research, especially on medical claims. So it's not clear, how the article can be so supportive of the psychiatric opinion. If I read all the sources and put them in context according to content policies and guidelines and then read the article I find it embarrassing. There is no space to state the claimants of electronic harassment are delusional as a fact, not to mention tagging the article as related to pseudoscience.. it's a conspiracy theory and there's no point in fast-fowarding to debunk it. 149.254.234.126 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What I mean is that medical statements and articles in general, should reflect reliable secondary sources and scientific consensus, and instead the electronic harassment article is based on the so-called psychiatric opinion that claimants of EH are defenately delusional. There is no reliable secondary source stating so, let alone any recognized scientific consensus. On the other hand reliable secondary sources speak of claims with due detachment. The most compelling source used to support the so-called "psychiatric POV" is the paper published in a reliable journal about experimental psychiatric diagnoses which is very attentive in declaring the study was conducted on internet based communities and that it's the first of its kind, but especially it is clear in concluding the claimants are only potentially delusional. So this is basically a reliable source stating something else, and primary nonetheless. And then there are a bunch of news articles or blogs which are full of opinion content used to support medical claims, and according to WP:NEWSORG these sources are to be considered primary, generally not reliable as statements of fact (let alone medical statements). The Washington Post article cited by Jed Stuart is actually the one lacking biased opinion content, but even more the one written with greater insight and offering a neutral analytic standpoint.

Despite all this you have other reliable secondary sources speaking of it in terms of something potentially happening but which get rejected, favoring an accountable yet uncalled, against content policies and guidelines, "debunking POV". 149.254.235.157 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Extensive quoting from a propaganda source: the Wehrmachtbericht in articles on World War II German officers

Many articles on German military men of the World War II era contain verbatim quotations from German Armed Forces High Command's communiques, the Wehrmachtbericht. It's based on the (inherently unreliable) war-time Nazi propaganda, and I believe does not belong in the articles on this basis alone. But I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy may be applicable. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify?

This appears to be either WP:NPOV or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. Or perhaps this is WP:NOR? Please see example 1 or example 2. Please also see discussion and more examples at Wehrmachtbericht transcript, take 2, on the Field Marshal Rommel's talk page. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have renamed the section so that it's clearer which propaganda source is meant. The title is a bit unwieldy but I hope it may attract other editors to comment. I'll provide a fuller comment soon. Roches (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: You make a very good observation ïn the talk page about Rommel: "Articles on Allied military units and individuals don't include the text of mentions in dispatches or communiques, and rightly so." As I see it, these are the possibilities for quoting the Wehrmachtbericht in the future:

• State only that the individual was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, with no quotations, as in the Rommel article.
• Permit brief quotations, as in Michael Wittmann: "on January 9, [Wittmann] destroyed his 66th enemy tank with his Tiger on the Eastern Front."
• Permit full quotations in German and English, as in Georg von Boeselager.

I do not think it is best to delete the existing quotations. Content would be lost which had to be gleaned from a German source and then translated. (There are alternatives, like moving the quotations to Wikisource.) Roches (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Roches: It appears that you advocate keeping the existing Wehrmachtbericht transcripts. What would be the policy or guideline that would support keeping this material? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like WP:OR -and- Primary to me. As interesting as it is, if your description of the source is accurate, the quotes should all be deleted. The material needs to come from reliable secondary sources, such a historians. The one you mention hardly sounds like such. Based on what has been stated here: I vote DELETE. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely must not be used as a source for facts. Might in some circumstances be used to source claims with attribution that makes it clear that a Nazi propaganda outlet is being cited. Remember that all sources are reliable for their own content, including fictional sources, so it can come down to whether a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht is notable. Zero^talk 02:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you cite the sections of policy and guideline that are the basis of this, especially where you say that claims can be attributed to the primary source about itself? In the Séralini affair I am pretty sure this was rejected, where it was claimed that the "Study itself is not a source for the lede" [3]. A number of editors here at the talk page agreed that Seralini's studies were not RS for the article about Seralini's study. The only thing that mattered is what his critics had to say. If for example, the author never said in the study that GMOs caused cancer, that did not matter, what mattered was not what was actually in the study, but what the critics said was in the study, and so reference to the study itself was relegated to the bottom of the article. Seralini's own opinions (and those of his supporters) about the matter about him were, therefore, considered either WP:fringe or WP:undue and buried among the criticisms. Does that approach seem consistent with your view of how to address the reliability of a source about itself? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the quotes should be removed. Doug Weller talk 07:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: You can read at WP:ABOUTSELF that sources can be used about their own content, even if they are unreliable about things other than their own content. In case my intention isn't clear, two examples. (1) "Generalleutnant Schultz captured Stalingrad single-handedly" (source Wehrmachtbericht by date) is not acceptable since Wehrmachtbericht is not a reliable source. (2) "The Nazi propaganda communique Wehrmachtbericht claimed that Generalleutnant Schultz had captured Stalingrad single-handedly." (source Wehrmachtbericht by date) is 100% within the rules if it can be verified that Wehrmachtbericht indeed claimed that. It would be better if (2) could be cited to a secondary source, but there is no rule against citing primary sources directly. I'm not willing to investigate the Seralini article, but your description of it sounds rather shocking. Zero^talk 13:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The Wehrmachtbericht is not being used as a source; the articles contain verbatim quotations, such as below.

Wehrmachtbericht samples

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
Saturday, 22 June 1940	[In den Kämpfen der letzten Tage haben sich durch unerschrockenen Einsatz in kühnen Einzeltaten besonders hervorgetan: der Oberst und Kommandeur einer Schützenbrigade Neumann-Silkow, der Oberleutnant und Chef einer Reiterschwadron Freiherr von Boeselager, der Leutnant Michael in einem Reiterregiment und der Leutnant Meder in einer Panzerjägerabteilung.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	In the fighting in recent days, in fearless action in bold individual acts have particularly excelled: the colonel and commander of a rifle brigade Neumann-Silkow, the lieutenant and chief of a cavalry squadron Freiherr von Boeselager, the Lieutenant Michael in a cavalry regiment and the Lieutenant Meder in an anti-tank battalion.
1 September 1944 (Addendum)	[In den schweren Abwehrkämpfen zwischen Bug und Narew hat sich die 3. Kavallerie-Brigade durch unermüdlichen Angriffsschwung und Härte ausgezeichnet. An ihrer Spitze fand der bereits Anfang 1942 mit dem Eichenlaub zum Ritterkreuz ausgezeichnete 28jährige Brigadekommandeur Oberstleutnant Georg Freiherr von Boeselager den Heldentod. Sein im gleichen Frontabschnitt kämpfender Bruder, Ritterkreuzträger Major Freiherr von Boeslager, hat sich erneut durch höchste Tapferkeit hervorgetan] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	In heavy defensive fighting between the Bug and Narew has the 3rd Cavalry Brigade particularly excelled by showing relentless momentum and hardness. In the lead, already in 1942 decorated with the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross, the 28-year-old brigade commander, Lieutenant Colonel Georg Freiherr von Boeselager found a heroic death. His in the same sector of the front fighting brother, Knight's Cross bearer Major Freiherr von Boeselager, again excelled with highest bravery.

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
5 July 1944	[Südlich Minsk kämpfen sich unsere Verbände weiter zurück. Nordwestlich der Stadt wurden heftige Angriffe der Bolschewisten abgewiesen. Hier schoß eine Panzerkampfgruppe unter Führung des Generalleutnants von Saucken in beweglicher Kampfführung in der Zeit vom 27. Juni bis 3. Juli 232 feindliche Panzer ab.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	In retreat, our units keep fighting back south of Minsk. Northwest of the city the violent attacks of the Bolsheviks were repulsed. Here an armoured battle group, under the leadership of Lieutenant General von Saucken, destroyed in mobile warfare in the period from 27 June to 3 July 232 enemy tanks.
9 May 1945	[Dem Oberbefehlshaber, General der Panzertruppe von Saucken, wurden als Anerkennung für die vorbildliche Haltung seiner Soldaten die Brillanten zum Eichenlaub mit Schwertern zum Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes verliehen.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	The commander-in-chief, General of Panzer Troops von Saucken was awarded the Diamonds to the Oak Leaves with Swords to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in recognition of the exemplary attitude of his soldiers.

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
Thursday, 10 April 1940	[Die militärischen Maßnahmen zum Schutz der Neutralität von Dänemark und Norwegen wurden am 9. April von starken Einheiten des Heeres, der Kriegsmarine und die Luftwaffe unter dem Oberbefehl des Generals der Infanterie von Falkenhorst, von Seestreitkräften unter dem Befehl des Generaladmirals Saalwächter und des Admirals Carls und von zahlreichen Verbänden der Luftwaffe unter Führung des Generalleutnants Geißler in engster Zusammenarbeit durchgeführt.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	The military measures for the protection of the neutrality of Denmark were carried out on 9 April from strong units in close cooperation of the Heer, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe under the high command of General of the Infantry von Falkenhorst, of naval forces under the command of Generaladmiral Saalwächter and Admiral Rolf Carls and from numerous Luftwaffe units under the leadership of Generalleutnant Geißler (sic).

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
Friday, 31 October 1941	[Von deutschen und rumänischen Truppen scharf verfolgt, ist der Feind auf der Krim in voller Flucht. Damit haben die langen und schweren Durchbruchskämpfe ihre Krönung gefunden, mit denen die Infanteriedivisionen der Armee des Generals der Infanterie von Manstein im Verein mit dem Fliegerkorps des Generalleutnants Pflugbeil die schmale Landengen bezwungen haben, die zur Halbinsel führen.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	Sharply pursued by German and Romanian troops, the enemy in the Crimea is in full retreat. With this, the long and heavy breakthrough battles have found their coronation. The infantry divisions of the army of General of Infantry von Manstein in conjunction with the Air Corps of Lieutenant General Pflugbeil have concurred the narrow isthmus leading to the peninsula.
Saturday, 30 May 1942	[Die Luftwaffenverbände des Generalobersten Löhr und des Generals der Flieger Pflugbeil unterstützten in schonungslosem Einsatz die Kämpfe des Heeres in der Abwehr wie im Angriff und schlugen die feindliche Luftwaffe aus dem Felde.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	The Luftwaffe forces under the leadership of Generoberst Löhr and General der Flieger Pflugbeil supported in ruthless commitment the defensive as well as offensive combat of the Army and forced the enemy air force from the battle area.

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
18 August 1944	[Soldaten aller Wehrmachtteile, unter ihrem Kommandanten Oberst von Aulock, haben hier dem Ansturm stärkster feindliche Kräfte in fast dreiwöchigem heldenhaftem Ringen standgehalten und dem Gegner hohe blutige Verluste fügt.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	Soldiers of all Wehrmacht branches under their commander Oberst von Aulock, have resisted here strong enemy forces in nearly three weeks' heroic struggle and have inflicted high, bloody casualties on the enemy.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping @David Tornheim and Zero0000: -- wanted to clarify that the transcripts are not used as a source; they are reproduced within the articles as shown above. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see now. I also note that the German wiki doesn't have them. It seems to me that they fail WP:UNDUE without a secondary source indicating them as important. Zero^talk 13:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zero0000. I had seen the transcripts before I commented the first time. If the secondary source is discussing them, then the quotes make sense; otherwise, no. 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Simpleshow foundation

A brief video summary about Michael Jackson.

A simple video explanation of German reunification.

I am not sure what to think of some videos being placed all over by the Simpleshow foundation. I am very concerned with OR and neutral POV with some of these clips. These clips have not been vented by anyone from what I can see. Not sure the child like format is what we are looking for aswell.....looking for more input here. !!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted some of them. We don't need a video explaining Mother's Day, however well-intentioned, and instructions on writing cover letters aren't encyclopedic. I have a serious concern about setting a precedent for adding in videos, as I think it's a way around the collaborative editing process. If this group wants to partner with the WMF or make some other such official arrangement, that's out of our control, but this is spammy to me and I have a problem keeping them in the articles. Katie^talk 23:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's simply spam. Katie put an excellent explanation of other problems at her talk (a little more detailed than the above). Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps these are appropriate at the Simple English Wikipedia. I watched the one on German reunification. It's dangerously oversimplified in parts. It doesn't seem to show the actual East German flag, and it shows the West German flag in black and white; the black-red-gold flag means something very different than the older black-white-red flag. It presents the reunification as the fulfillment of a historical imperative, which is the point of view of an American high-school history textbook: capitalism is good, communism is bad, and there is nothing bad about capitalism or anything good about communism. What is powerful about Wikipedia is that every claim it makes can be further explored via wikilinks or references. These videos don't have that. I think that makes them spam on English Wikipedia, however well-intentioned they are. Roches (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Further objections, already raised: it circumvents collaborative editing and creates ownership of content. Roches (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I watched the one on the solar system; I'm better able to comment on science than on German history. It, too, is excessively simplistic. It tries to address the question "Where did the solar system come from?" but does not address other basic questions. What are the other planets like? How big are they? What are they made of? Are there other solar systems? I can see the value in describing the size of the solar system in astronomical units only, but it doesn't mention kilometers, or even the speed of light. (An astronomical unit is 499 light-seconds.) It doesn't describe the shape of orbits or show the solar system in scale. One of the videos is about veganism. It is not NPOV; it even says that "when people inform themselves," they become vegan. Roches (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent bias in high-quality sources

I've put a lot of work into Psychology of eating meat, and have ambitions to make it a GA. Editors have expressed concerns that it expresses an anti-meat POV; I can see their side, and especially since I happen to be vegan I want to be vigilant about NPOV. The article currently uses a lot of "pseudo-secondary" material cribbed from primary research papers' reviews of previous work; I was planning to go back and rewrite the article according to information in real review papers, hoping that would solve the problem.

Fortunately, several objectively good sources have recently been published. The following are the academic review articles or scholarly (not popular) books discussing psychological research on meat eating, from the past 5 years, published by mainstream academic journals or presses, that I could find:

Sources

Bastian, B.; Loughnan, S. (2016). "Resolving the Meat-Paradox: A Motivational Account of Morally Troublesome Behavior and Its Maintenance". Personality and Social Psychology Review. SAGE. doi:10.1177/1088868316647562. Amiot, Catherine E.; Bastian, Brock (2015). "Toward a Psychology of Human–Animal Relations" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 141 (1). American Psychological Association: 6–47. doi:10.1037/a0038147. Loughnan, S.; Bastian, B.; Haslam, N. (2014). "The Psychology of Eating Animals" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 23 (2). {SAGE: 104–108. doi:10.1177/0963721414525781. Forgas, J.P.; Jussim, L.; Van Lange, P.A.M. (2016). The Social Psychology of Morality. Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology. Taylor & Francis. p. 280. ISBN 978-1-317-28825-1. Clark, Beth; Stewart, Gavin B.; Panzone, Luca A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, Lynn J. (2016). "A Systematic Review of Public Attitudes, Perceptions and Behaviours Towards Production Diseases Associated with Farm Animal Welfare". J Agric Environ Ethics. 29 (3): 455–478. doi:10.1007/s10806-016-9615-x. Font-i-Furnols, Maria; Guerrero, Luis (2014). "Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: An overview" (PDF). Meat Science. 98 (3). Elsevier: 361–371. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.025. Leroy, Frédéric; Praet, Istvan (2015). "Meat traditions. The co-evolution of humans and meat" (PDF). Appetite. 90. Elsevier: 200–211. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.03.014. Vartanian, Lenny R. (2015). "Impression management and food intake. Current directions in research" (PDF). Appetite. 86. Elsevier {BV: 74–80. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.021.

So, what's the problem? The first four sources make statements which seem to endorse the idea that there can be moral problems with eating meat. One quote each:

Quotes showing anti-meat perspectives

"Meat-eating, like other forms of morally troublesome behavior, conflicts with deeply held moral principles, yet people seek to justify these self-serving behaviors so as to protect their own interests." (Bastian & Loughnan) "The ideological beliefs that legitimize the negative treatment of animals by humans to maintain dominance over them may have deep roots." (Amiot & Bastian) "Factory farming raises the specter of cruel and inhumane conditions in whicn animals are both raised and slaughtered for food." (Forgas et al.) "Despite this suffering and premature death conflicting with peoples’ beliefs about how animals should be treated, most people continue to eat meat." (Loughnan et al.)

My concern is that incorporating such sources could make the article "a cherry-picked nightmare of vegan-chauvinism opinions", or open it to that criticism in a GA review. But excluding MEDRS-compliant sources on the basis of their author's position seems contrary to WP:BIASED. Is there a good answer here? Of course I'm planning to WP:WFTE as much as is appropriate, but I'm not sure that will be enough. FourViolas (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead appears to be non neutral and vague: "Because meat eating is widely practiced but sometimes considered morally ambivalent...." -- Considered by whom? "Sometimes" -- how often? "Morally" -- how specifically? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The quotes in the note at the end of that sentence offer different ways of making that less WP:WEASELly, I can work on that. A direct quote for that sentence might be Research into meat consumption has risen in recent times, particularly in terms of cognitive dissonance investigation, from Ong et al (context discussing "moral concern for [meat] animals"). But, sorry for being unclear, I was hoping for advice specifically on how to treat the apparently-biased sources as I begin a general rewrite. FourViolas (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

These appear to be opinions; I believe they should be attributed inline; i.e. so and so [researcher / scientist / etc] argues that: "Meat-eating, like other forms of morally troublesome behavior, conflicts with deeply held moral principles, yet people seek to justify these self-serving behaviors so as to protect their own interests." (Bastian & Loughnan) "The ideological beliefs that legitimize the negative treatment of animals by humans to maintain dominance over them may have deep roots." (Amiot & Bastian); etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Good advice, thanks: that matches WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I was actually not planning to include those opinions at all—just wondering if the fact that they're present means I shouldn't cite those papers for other information. FourViolas (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You could also look up WP:BIASED as I believe this applies. In this case, disclosing the bias (i.e. this researcher believes that eating meat = "a form of morally troublesome behavior") may be helpful to readers to put the research results into context. I'm not sure if WP:Fringe may apply as well, as equating meat eating with being "immoral" sounds pretty fringy to me. There's a noticeboard for that :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll do that. Equating meat eating with being "immoral" would probably be fringe, but this is studying the relations between eating meat and thinking about moral issues. In any case, ideas published by multiple academic experts in the top journals of their field (the first three sources are in journals ranked #1, 3, and 10 in Psychology, Social by JCR) can hardly be called outside the scientific discussion. FourViolas (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Huey P. Newton Gun Club

We need eyes on the page for the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. It's full of weasel words, red links, and reads like it was ripped from the group's website. I mean, look at this:

"The club was formed as a response to police terrorism, which garnered national attention in August 2014 for its "open carry patrols""

142.105.159.60 (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've fixed that and one other statement that was highly POV. I think it's in good shape now. Toddst1 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

German virgin birth POV violations on Assault Rifle article

Editors are suppressing reliable sources and editing based on their own unsourced opinions on the Assault rifle page, even summarily removing the POV tag against instructions. Editors are pushing an apocryphal "virgin birth" alternate-history of the assault rifle saying that the assault rifle was created from whole cloth in world war 2 germany. Editors are also making a zealously defending several other assertions that are bizarre and proven false, furthering this narrative, making it more and more convoluted. Editors are defending statements that the 7.92 kurz cartridge is revolutionary, and the first "intermediate cartridge". This is false. Editors are defending the statement that the StG-44 is the first rifle with an over the barrel gas system. This is false. Editors are defending statements that the assault rifle was first developed in germany in world war 2, this is subject to debate, and editors are suppressing edits the belie this narrative.TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• See Talk:Assault rifle where TeeTylerToe has been pushing all kinds of fringe ideas, without getting support from any other editor... Thomas.W ^talk 14:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I discussed the issue at length on the talk page. The only other editor that chose to discuss the issue was Herr Gruber. As anyone can see we came to a consensus. After I edited the article to reflect that consensus, my edits were summarily reverted. The editor that reverted my edit does not seem willing to even discuss the issue, and the other people participating in this dispute have not, as far as I know, cited any sources to contradict the sources that I have presented, or challenged the validity of any of the facts or sources that I have presented.

• See Talk:Assault rifle where TeeTylerToe has been pushing all kinds of fringe ideas, without getting support from any other editor... --RAF910 (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Glitch in the matrix?TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• See Talk:Assault rifle where TeeTylerToe has been pushing all kinds of fringe ideas, without getting support from any other editor... --Pete (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This is sort of what I'm talking about. Three editors making the same claim that anyone can see is not true. I discussed this at length with user Herr Gruber and came to the agreement. I posted ""I would say it's best to characterise the StG as the first mass produced assault rifle and the first to actually use the name, since neither is particularly contentious, and list earlier examples that fit or sort of fit the category in a "history" or "early examples of the concept" section without asserting they're they first either." that seems like a good consensus view. Less of this AR originated in ww2 germany false narrative.", Herr Gruber responded "Given we're largely agreed here, I'll wait for other input." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assault_rifle&diff=728574831&oldid=728557889 TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

And you got the input from other editors: no. An answer you refuse to accept... Thomas.W ^talk 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Their argument was just them posting their POV opinion in bold text, and I posted 10 sources contradicting the opinions they posted.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with you is that you refuse to listen and refuse to respect the opinions of others, since you're bringing the undisputable TRUTH to the virtual pages of the online encyclopaedia called Wikipedia, instead repeatedly claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is having a POV opinion. And you're not only doing it on Assault rifle but also on other articles, causing massive disruption and irritation wherever you go here, and generally speaking just being one big unproductive time sink... Thomas.W ^talk 20:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) requested move

A discussion that is a direct result of Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#RfC: Does the title, hatnote, and lead of this article adhere to the neutral point of view policy? is taking place at Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#Requested move 16 June 2016. Input was requested for that the RfC, and is also welcome at the requested move. Thank you, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced claims of "False advertisement"

In this edit,[4] User:Denniss claims "false advertizing[sic] is a fact", but none of the sources in the article show anything other than an ongoing lawsuit. Google [ Nvidia GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation ] for details. It looks like the case is ongoing, with the latest filing two days ago.[5] We should not use Wikipedia's voice to accuse Nvidia of false advertising when no court has returned a verdict on the issue.

Normally I would try to discuss this with the editor in question before posting here, but his edit history shows many many reverts and no substantive discussion about any of them other than an occasional word or two on his talk page, and often not even that, so I don't see any point in trying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You either have not read the section or failed to understand it. It was falsely advertized as having the same back-end configuration as the GTX 980 which is now known to have been a lie (in nvidia terms this was accidentally presented this way on their website, ads and review docs). Plus the memory issue (not really true 4 GiB but 3.5 + 0.5). --Denniss (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Fun Fact: "Advertizing" is technically OK in American English, sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

Denniss, you keep asserting that, but do you have a citation to a reliable source to back up your assertion? See WP:NOTOPINION. Also see [6][7][8][9][10]. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Its technically true (that the technical details were not as presented). 'False advertising' however both implies (and is generally used) as a indication a company intended to mislead in their marketing. Nvidia claims it was unintentional. Hence the lawsuit. So while it is a 'fact' that the description in the marketing was not correct, absent a resolution of the court case/admission by Nvidia, it cannot be described as 'false advertising'. Although in the UK a judgement by the ASA would be enough to describe it as such. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sunni Template

There's a dispute on Template:Sunni Islam. I believe WP:UNDUE mainly a "prominence of placement" issue as Traditionalist Theology or Athari is being presented along side the orthodox Sunni theologies (Ash'ari and Maturidi). [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Traditionalist theology is followed by a minority who support the extreme right by rejecting reason as opposed to the Mutazila extreme leftist rationalists. Mainstream Sunnis have accepted the middle path by synthesizing reason/traditionalist views by producing Ash'ari/maturidi.

Traditionalist theology should be moved to the other bracket as not to come across as mainstream. [16] Traditionalist position is basically to oppose reason held by by Ash'ari/Maturidi therefore it can be termed anti school-school, that is just another reason why it may not even belong in the theology section but probably under movement. However Eperoton seems to imply that it doesn't matter in the discussion [17] Would like outside editor opinion on the matter. Misdemenor (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There are two major RSs cited in the relevant discussion thread to support prominence of traditionalist theology and two others to support its classification as Sunni. These citations come from a methodical approach to establishing due weight by reviewing standard academic references, and not from a Google search. There are obviously more RSs to that effect out there. Based on these results, I see no rationale for moving traditionalist theology to the Other section, which contains extinct schools that I don't even recall being called "Sunni" in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

They are reliable sources doesn't matter if its from google. Inserting it into the other section does not diminish the fact that it is still Sunni, I mean the template is called "Sunni Islam". The other section should not only be interpreted to mean extinction, but also to present minority viewpoints. Misdemenor (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it matters for WP:WEIGHT. The goal is to reflect viewpoints in "proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". A systematic review of academic references based on pre-determined selection criteria makes an estimate of that proprotion. Simply googling up some sources to support one or another viewpoint does not. In this case, you haven't even done that to support your assertion that tradionalist theology is not "orthodox" or "mainstream". You've just been referring to the Amman Message. I disagree with your reading of it, but that's not even relevant to this discussion. The Amman Message is a statement by a group of religious figures and as such a primary source that can't be used for weight estimation per WP:PRIMARY: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source". In fact, I just came across another statement contradicting your argument while reading a chapter from the The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology that I had skipped during my source review: By the end of the tenth century, the broad outlines of the developed Sunnī orthodoxy had taken shape. This orthodoxy was structured around several established schools of law, which defined right action, and the three main “schools” of theology (Ash‘arīs, Māturīdīs and traditionists) that defined right belief. Ahmed El Shamsy. The social construction of Orthodoxy. The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology (p. 107). Eperoton (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That Cambridge source is based on classical theology and its referring to the 10th century not modern attributions. I have not used the Amman message as a basis. Following source "Yet extreme forms of Traditionalism of Ibn Hanbal was seen as too austere and rigid and the rationalism of the Mu'tazila and their supporters among the ahl al-ray as too libertarian.. It was the midpoint between the two movements that constituted the normative position of the majority; and it was from this centrist position that Sunnism, the religious and legal ideology of the majority of Muslims was to emerge"-Roots of Radical Sunni Traditionalism-p.9 [18] Another source explains on p.199 the mainstream view of Sunni Islam (ashari/maturidi). And on page 200 how its been hijacked by a minority (Hanbali-Wahhabis) funded by oil revenue.[19] The useage of the term "Traditional Islam" in this source is not to be confused with "traditional theology/athari". Sunni establishment goes through a consensus process before a view can be deemed mainstream, for example even though Hanbali school of law is the least followed in the Sunni sphere, it is still considered Sunni. From the 16th century traditionalist/athari was finally condemned after centuries of debate. Following source: "They considered Ash'arism, along with the Maturidi school, the only valid standard bearers of Sunni Islam, with harsh condemnations of Ibn Taymiyya and other proponents of similar strains of athari theology. Their Ash'arism was married to the logic of later logicians, indicating that opposition to syllogistic logic in Asharite theology grew more and more rare".-The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology-P.537 [20] Misdemenor (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

In order:

1) El Shamsy's statement is not limited to the 10th century. His chapter deals with Islamic history into the modern era and he's talking about emergence of "developed Sunni orthodoxy".

2) I've looked up the book by Hallaq that the discussion in the "Roots" essay is based on. It's possible that he means something concrete by "normativity" here, but it's impossible to tell what it is exactly, since the book is about law and he only alludes to theology in passing. I've also read a couple of other books by him, and I'm not aware of him going into more detail on this topic.

3) The "Traditional Islam" essay discusses the views of an English-language current in Sunni Islam, adopting the name it uses to refer to itself. So what? Ironically, the quoted polemic against traditionalist/Hanbali/Salafi theology calls it "the new “default Islam”". Not the message you want to convey here.

4) The Oxford Handbook essay discusses the views of a particular group of early modern scholars. Likewise, so what?

More generally, there is a complex history of varying manifestations of mutual tolerance and polemics between kalam and traditionalist theology, and also of waxing and waning influence of the latter (distinctly waxing over the last century). It should be adequately reflected in the various relevant articles. I believe the prevalent treatment of the topic in RSs does not support relegating traditionalist theology to an "other" tab. This opinion is based on a number of academic sources I've read over the years. It was confirmed by a controlled source review I've done to convince other editors, originally for an article naming discussion. It clearly hasn't convinced you in this case, and googling up a couple of sources that support a different view isn't going to convince me, on the policy-based grounds mentioned above. As there doesn't seem to be a point in continuing this argument between the two of us, I'll set it aside for now and rejoin it if you manage to get any support for your position. Even more generally, current academic practice tends to be wary of treating competing claims of orthodoxy in a way that appears to support one side in de-legitimizing the other, and, if anything, the WP community consensus is even more wary of that. Eperoton (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would many respectable outlets including Britannica forget to name Traditionalist theology as a orthodox Sunni school? Are you telling me they were just ignorant of the issue? Academics listen to the majority of Sunnis when it comes to defining it, if this is not done then we cant define this sect as there's many different viewpoints. The traditional islam article makes sure to note that the so called current "default islam" has no scholarly backing therefore Sunnism has been hijacked by fringe groups because of wealthy backers. All academics label groups associated with Salafism/athari/traditionalist theology as "reform movement" deviating from traditional islam. For example Indonesia's Nahdlatul Ulama is traditionalist as oppose to its rival Muhammadiyah & in South Asia Barelvi is traditional compared to reformist Deobandi. Just by looking at the number of adherents on the traditional groups proves whats mainstream/majority view. Misdemenor (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Heath W. Lowry

There are multiple NPOV complaints about the article on Heath W. Lowry. One editor thinks the article is too critical of Lowry, another thinks the article gives too much credit to Lowry's research and opinions. I think this version of the article is fairly neutral.

Specifically, a dispute has arisen over this edit. The editor claims that these changes will improve the neutrality of the article, which gives too much credit to Lowry's claims and research as it is now. However, the information is factual and well-referenced, and it does not overly represent Lowry's work as the academic consensus on the subject. In fact, the criticism section is fairly detailed and well-documented, so it's not as if an average reader will miss the fact that Lowry's conclusions have been contested. Lowry is also already categorized as an Armenian genocide denier.

Additionally, I think the editor's recent editing history suggests WP:POVPUSH. These edits include mass deletion of information on biographical pages within the Armenian genocide denier Category with the same copy-pasted explanation "too much weight placed on revisionism not taken seriously". --Iamozy (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone. About this issue and other similar articles, I am of this view. Massive deletions with minimal explanations cause to many complications. I do agree that some of these articles need a bit of fine tuning. And that's what the talkpage is about. These articles are about individuals who yes have engaged in denial of the Armenian Genocide. But to then delete parts of the article which discuses(or deals with) and has views from others (in their own words or from scholars overviewing them) is also a issue. The reader needs to know what that individual has espoused as views and based on whatever they have based it on. Yes it may be or is unpalatable, but these articles already are complex to begin wit, due to their controversial nature. I would say to the editor who wants to push through with much of these changes that they need to make use of the talkpage and place suggestions for changes here or there, and possibly much of those changes may go forward. But through discussion, not big deletions outright. Doing the latter is not acting in good faith. I am willing to work in the spirit of cooperation and robust, yet polite and respectful discussion. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)