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

Featured Anarcho-capitalism article is being held captive to left-anarchist editors.

Anarcho-capitalist editors are underrepresented among so-called "anarchist" editors, and the latter (more properly "left-anarchists") have been holding the page captive for several months to inclusion of their POV about anarchism "proper". This does not necessarily imply that anarcho-capitalists are a documentable heterodoxy (which would be irrelevant anyway, since anCaps have no desire to be counted among them), nor that there even exists an official definition of "anarchy" (which, even if it were the case, would not apply to an article that is not about anarchism "proper"). The early POV subtly writes off anarcho-capitalism as "illegitimate".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=607632560&oldid=607397020

Currently there is a NPOV tag gracing the article (which as of now is, I believe, npov)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=616525121&oldid=616514970

and edit protection expired today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=618531990&oldid=616619670

While I have made every effort to resolve the conflict by attempting to clarify the nature of the dispute - not only in the body, but already in the lede - they insist that their definition of "anarchism" is "correct", since various prominent left-anarchists claim the title, and that said POV be included in the lede. My hope is that objectivity ultimately takes precedence over majoritarianism.

While I believe that mention of the conflict among anarchists need not be included in the lede in order to satisfy npov requirements, the following compromise text addresses the issue of definition to the extent possible in a few lines without compromising neutrality:

Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who typically reject private property and market processes, in favor of collective ownership arrangements. In contrast to left-anarchists, who believe that economic relationships tend to be hierarchical, anarcho-capitalists believe that hierarchies can only be flattened in a naturally competitive marketplace to the extent that states and state-sponsored monopolies are abolished. As a result, there is disagreement between anarcho-capitalists and left-anarchists over the nature of "anarchy".

JLMadrigal (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Our friend JLMadrigal has put so much spin on the dispute that the true problem is blurred. JLMadrigal uses the label "Featured article" to lend an air of high respectability to the current version of the article, which is however very, very different from the 2006 FAR version, the version which resulted after a lot of different viewpoints were applied to the article during the 2006 FAR discussion. After the 2006 discussion, the article was eventually taken in hand by ancap adherents who gave it a much more subjective and promotional tone. This discussion started by JLMadrigal should instead have the heading Featured article Anarcho-capitalism has been changed to a subjective in-universe style and is being vigorously defended by adherents of a minor viewpoint.

To anyone who asks nicely I will say that I am a fan of big government—a strong central government—for reasons having to do with historically ugly social problems such as racism, sexism, and economic inequality. So to find myself characterized by JLMadrigal as a "left-anarchist editor" is entertaining if not ridiculous. This shows the degree of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude which has been applied by ancap adherents to the dispute. During the dispute, one such editor was blocked for 36 hours for "personal attacks, incivility and battleground behaviour". None of the mainstream editors was blocked.

Instead of being a battle between ancaps and leftist anarchists, the problem here is one of the article having lost its former objectivity, having lost touch with the mainstream literature. The dispute is between ancap adherents and everybody else in the world, that is, the general mainstream viewpoint. The current dispute is about beginning to restore a mainstream viewpoint, and it is just a start. If ancap adherents are resisting this strongly then we have a real neutrality problem. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

After briefly skimming the talk page for the article, it will become immediately apparent that the disputed text is just as I described it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarcho-capitalism JLMadrigal (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is just as worthy of the honor it has received - if not more so today - and continues to evolve. It is exemplary of encyclopedic text. JLMadrigal (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the phrasing of this thread as opened should clear up any confusion as to where the neutrality problems lie here. As noted, "neutrality" does not consist in having a page written to the perspective of adherents of the philosophy it describes (nor of course does it consist in having it written to the views of opponents – which no one is asking for). Instead it consists in having third-party description and analysis in reliable and authoritative sources noted and reflected with due weight, which is all that was being asked for here, in respect of simply one or two sentences, relating to the fundamental definition and classification of the topic. JLMadrigal also conveniently forgets to note that there was an RfC about the disputed text, which closed in favour of including it. Since then, they and "User:Knight of BAAWA" have tried to reignite a tedious edit war and to remove or change that text. People seeking relief really ought to come with clean hands, as they say in the legal world. And, finally, no, the article is not FA worthy. With or without the disputed content, it is badly written, sprawling, confusing, full of badly sourced material etc. After all the absurd fuss over this one sentence, I'm loath to institute another formal process in the form of an official FA review, but I'd happily have an FA reviewer look at it, even informally, and assess whether it is "exemplary of encyclopedic text". Oh, and I'm not an anarchist either. N-HH talk/edits 10:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I am an involved editor who disagrees with JLMadrigal's portrayal of the situation. It appears that there are a few editors on the Anarcho-capitalism page who believe the subject needs to be composed from an anarcho-capitalist POV: [1] [2] [3]

The Talk page is also filled with uncivil remarks toward dissenters: [4] [5] [6]

These same editors have marked content removals—the same content in dispute—as minor edits: [7] [8]

Contrary to JLMadrigal's claim that we "insist that [our] definition of 'anarchism' is 'correct'", it is JLMadrigal who wants additions to be couched in his POV: [9]

When it comes to verifiability, robust secondary sources on anarchism explain that anarcho-capitalism is a relatively recent, US phenomenon that opposes much of traditional anarchist theory (see Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism and Colin Ward's Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction; Daniel Guérin's Anarchism: From Theory to Practice, written in 1970, doesn't even mention anarcho-capitalists). This dispute is not about sources or relevance; it's about anarcho-capitalists wanting a fluff piece in place of an academic encyclopaedia. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And now, we have those same editors reverting inclusion of the disputed material after a RfC was closed in its favor. No discussion, just reverting. [10] [11] [12] — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nor are the most comprehensive secondary sources on anarchism sufficient for Netoholic, who demands an extra guarantee that these sources aren't "cherry-picked". — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! We should not host a fluff piece as if it were Featured Article quality. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, back to the issue. Discussion of the debate among various anarchist strains IS included in the article. Not advancing it to the lede does not compromise neutrality. Further, a clear definition of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is prerequisite to an understanding of the differences among the schools of thought in question. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The headline of this section is basically correct. The fundamental problem with the (left-)Anarchists here is that they misunderstand, or are intentionally misrepresenting, the root word of "anarcho-capitalism" which is "anarchy" (a society which rejects rulers or governments), not "Anarchism" (the political movement). Anarcho-capitalists advocate anarchy, but do not claim to advocate for the Anarchist movement (which traditionally has been anti-capitalist). As far as I know, there is no AnCap literature that attempts to imply that AnCap is a sub-type of the Anarchist movement, so all this defensiveness from left-Anarchists is unwarranted... its pointless and misplaced to refute something which is not even being proposed. The issues here would clear up if, instead of trying to shoehorn even more anti-capitalist disagreement into an increasingly diluted and unclear article, we clarify the terminology and explain that the only thing AnCaps and Anarchists have in common is the desire for anarchy. Let this article stand on its own two feet and be a clear explanation of the philosophy, without putting tripwires of unfounded disagreement in every section which come off as Anarchists inserting "Nuh-uh!" every few lines. -- Netoholic @ 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

To rectify Netoholic's incorrect statements: 1) the root of both anarcho-capitalism and anarchism is ἀναρχία (anarchia), meaning "without rulers" or "without leaders" and 2) the article states clearly that the founder of anarcho-capitalism believes his philosophy to be the "true anarchism" ("In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." [source]). — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Its adherents make the claim, and the page as written clearly asserts anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism (ie the political theory/movement, if we're going to get into semantics). Did people miss the huge "Anarchism" template plonked in the lead? Or the first sentence which explicitly says "also referred to a free-market anarchism, market anarchism .." etc? The idea that the page can state all that while ignoring the significant dispute over that classification/description noted in third-party objective sources beggars belief. Also, did people miss the fact that at least two people commenting here, myself included, have explicitly said they are not anarchists? The very fact that this is persistently being cast, by the latter, as a dispute between left-anarchist and right-libertarian editors is part of the problem and says more about those who seem, for some reason, to think that that is what is going on here than it does about those who are in fact arguing for genuine neutrality and objectivity. N-HH talk/edits 10:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should state explicitly that I am a "left-anarchist" (not really a notable term, but whatever), but only added the article to my watchlist after witnessing the uncivil comments and battleground behavior from the three aforementioned editors (on 20 June 2014). — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to this debate and am neither an involved editor nor an anarchist of any sort. I'm puzzled by the notion that acknowledging that debate exists as to whether an-cap is an expression of anarchism amounts to an endorsement of the view that it is not anarchism (which is what the originator of this post seems to believe, though the originator apparently does NOT believe that all of the descriptors noted by N-HH above amount to an endorsement of the view that it IS anarchism). It appears that the argument against including the debate in the lead amounts to: "An-cap defines itself as anarchism, so its view and only its view should be reflected in the lead; reflecting any other views amounts to diluting the description of an-cap." But that (1) isolates the legitimate purpose of defining the topic to the exclusion of other purposes of the lead, which include "establish[ing] context"; and (2) assumes that NPOV requires that descriptions of an ideology are made only by adherents of that ideology. Both of these are counter to Wikipedia policies, as other editors have noted. Dyrnych (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet

Binksternet is right. The issue is not one of so-called left-anarchists holding the article hostage, but of anarchocapitalists apparently demanding ownership of the article. The timing of this report shows evidence of forum shopping. A Request for Comments was open with two parts, one on an expansion of the article, and one on a sentence in the lede stating that other anarchists did not consider anarchocapitalism to be anarchism. On 25 July, I closed the RFC, with no consensus on A, and a weak yes on B, the sentence in the lede. The RFC was intended, like any RFC, to determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community, not of a political movement. On 26 July, after the RFC was closed, this report was opened. It appears that the right-anarchists or right-libertarians didn't like the consensus and chose to forum-shop rather than either to accept consensus or request closure review. At about this point, also, edit-warring began, and a Featured Article Review was initiated. In my opinion (and my involvement was limited to the closing of the RFC), the anarchocapitalists are seeking ownership of the article. At least the edit-warring appears to have ended. There was an RFC, and weak consensus has been determined, unless closure review is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert, I concur with your assessment; I am now curious as to what can be done about it. I asked an admin for assistance and was told that few of these NPOV noticeboard discussions receive official closure. If this is the case, how do we resolve this situation? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A helpful measure would be topic bans for disruptive editors. Another would be for someone to rewrite the article in userspace, and initiate an RfC on the article talk page as to whether the mainspace article should be replaced with the user draft. Or this second suggestion could be implemented piecemeal such that specific sections of the article are tackled one by one. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

JLMadrigal on the issue of neutrality

If you review the article Anarcho-capitalism as it is written, without any prejudice, you will find that nothing in the lede in its current format is slanted away from the topic of anarcho-capitalism, and that other schools of thought are presented in the body in a neutral way. Currently there are neutrality tags on these sections that clearly don't belong there. The topic of left-anarchism needs to be treated (where it is relevant to an understanding of anarcho-capitalism) as an ideology distinct from anCap. Anarcho-capitalist never make the claim that anarcho-capitalism is part of the leftist school - as these editors posit. Anarcho-capitalists seek to eliminate the collectivist state. Left-anarchists seek to eliminate capital - which anarcho-capitalists believe would require a state. To anarcho-capitalists the premise of left-anarchism is contradictory (which is explored in the article along with the views of opposing schools). JLMadrigal (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, no one has argued that "anarcho-capitalism is part of the leftist school." That's absurd. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

JLMadrigal: is it your contention that the lead should reflect only views of an-cap that are held by its adherents? Dyrnych (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As I stated on the FAR, anarcho-capitalism is not presented as a "form of anarchism" in the lede. It would be premature to commence (much less settle) the argument before it is adequately presented. JLMadrigal (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The opening line of the lead reads, in relevant part: "Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism, libertarian anarchism)" (emphasis added). There is an anarchism sidebar on the article. I and other editors have noted that this does in fact present anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. How would you characterize these indicia if not as presentation as anarchism? Dyrnych (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism is held, by Rothbard and others, to be the fullest expression of anarchism (and anarchism the fullest expression of capitalism) - which is discussed in the article. This concept (along with opposing concepts) is explored in detail in the body - once the anCap definitions of "anarchy" and "capitalism" (and opposing definitions) are clarified. JLMadrigal (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So it is anarchism? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That would depend, MisterDub, on how one defines the term, "anarchy". If the absence of the state is the determining factor, then yes. If suppressing capital is required, then no. The sidebar includes a broader definition of anarchism in general as used by anarcho-capitalists: "Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion (includes opposition to the State)" JLMadrigal (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... you're arguing here that anarcho-capitalists believe they are anarchists (perhaps even in a purist sense), but the article does not present their political philosophy as anarchism (despite the many signs) because there is an internal controversy over the definition of anarchy, with anarcho-capitalists disagreeing with all other anarchists? But you object to introducing this crucial point in the lead? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 01:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of resources." JLMadrigal (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone ever look at this?

Is there ever going to be a resolution for this ongoing issue? Why the hell would anyone bring their POV problems here if no one is going to do address them? This is extremely frustrating! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

God knows how you lot would have got on at the Ebro _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebro??? That's a new one for me. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Just re: the topic, nothing imparticular. Por vida!!!_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears we have finally resolved this dispute amicably, despite a complete lack of attention here. Feel free to close this thread. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent... then our work here is done. Good job all.

I am actually serious in that... this is a noticeboard, not a formal dispute resolution board. Most of the editors who respond to posts here are not admins. The purpose of the noticeboard is to get help, advice and neutral third party opinions... all of which has occurred. The notice board actually did what it was supposed to do. so once again... good work all. Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I may have spoke too soon, as the content in question is being contested again (and I highly doubt the few comments from outside parties affected the outcome at all). It seems that I had incorrect expectations from this noticeboard—if this isn't the place to seek admin attention for a POV issue, where would that be? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology article grossly biased

The occupational health psychology article is grossly biased in mine and other independent editor's opinion. I have tried discussing issues on the talk page, to no avail.

4 months ago, a number of independent editors had all agreed that the article needed to be completely re-written. Nothing was ever done. I have tried to detail my concerns as per Wikipedia policy, again, to no avail. Some of the main reasons why I believe it to be biased and written from a POV perspective are these: It is a non-neutral article, that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. No other editors can add reliably sourced material, without it being blocked by iss246 & colleague psyc12. It has been written solely from a USA perspective, from a USA OHP Society perspective only, without providing a worldwide view on the topic. It does not present the controversies surrounding OHP. Controversies of origin and overlap. Presents OHP as a distinct field within psychology. It does not give due weight to other reliable secondary sources. Points of view are not recognized internationally within the psychology community. I tried adding alternate titles, as is commonly found in other Wikipedia, (also known as occupational health: psychology and management 'United Kingdom' and occupational health, safety and well being psychology 'Australia'). But iss246 quicly censored these reliably sourced, neutral titles also. Posting here is a last resort. This extremely controversial coatrack article desperately needs to be entirely re-written, or even deleted?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This "occupational health psychology (OHP)" seems to be about the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health type in particular. If that's the case, it should be US-centric, because that's a US federal agency. If the article is meant to have a broader scope, the definition in the lead shouldn't be sourced to the American one. I've explicitly mentioned NIOSH in the lead now, to give context. That doesn't mean I think it should be that way, but if it is, it should be clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree and the change is fine with me. The whole article is written from a USA perspective. I just added the UK and Australian titles often used. Hope this brings some solution at least to the different titles used worldwide. However the US definition remains a major concern if the article does not clearly specify it is a US-centric article only.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In a sense, a lot of the content isn't particular to one state or the other. It's more about very specific groups of humans that other specific people observe and report upon, hoping to gain insight into general human behaviour. If other governments have similar concepts, I'd think they'd be deserving of their own articles, but it's not like Australians or Cameroonians can't learn something here.

A problem I've noticed is the article tends to relay what studies "suggest" as what studies "show" instead. You can't learn anything for sure about the US (or Zaire or Italy) by looking at a sample. It's a little more complicated than just changing those words, more of a running theme here. But I'll change those exact words, for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

Fair points. I'm also wondering why entire sections (eg.Occupational stress and 'cardiovascular disease') of the article are based solely on research quoted from other disciplines, while the authors of this article refer to this research as being "OHP research" or "OHP researchers" etc. Examples are research drawn from separate fields such as occupational medicine? Also, as far as I can tell, the field began in 1990? (it looks like)? but again, the 2 main article authors psyc12 & iss246 quote research from decades before even, and again call it OHP research? Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm missing something here? Would appreciate other editors points of view. I would really like to work through these issues and bring the article up to standard, if possible.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The term OHP is not just American, but it is used/recognized throughout the world, e.g., the UK journal Work & Stress refers to occupational health psychologists on the inside cover. NIOSH cannot be equated with OHP--it is just a government funding agency that has funded some OHP grants in the U.S. There is no NIOSH, Society of OHP or American-specific versions of OHP, and this OHP article includes references from all over the world.

InedibleHulk. I would delete mention of APA and NIOSH in the opening paragraph of the article. Their involvement in OHP is just in the U.S.--they had nothing to do with development of the field in Europe and elsewhere. It adds clutter to the opening which is rather cluttered now, and there's repetition between the first and second paragraphs. The article now mentions them in the history section, which seems to best place. Psyc12 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally disagree. I think this edit is fine. It also highlights the obvious point that this article is almost entirely USA-centric. NIOSH, CDC. You and your close friend/colleague outside of Wikipedia, have authored this grossly biased article from start to finish. You are both from the US OHP society. How on earth is this article representative of a worldwide view psyc12?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The OHP entry is built on research from Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, the US, and elsewhere. The entry is not narrowly focused on a US point of view. I remind readers that US researchers, like researchers in other countries, do not have one point of view on any topic. That the definition from the CDC was settled 7 months ago. Iss246 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I ask why entire sections (eg.the Occupational stress and 'cardiovascular disease' header) of the article are based solely on research quoted from other disciplines, while the authors of this article refer to this research as being "OHP research" or "OHP researchers" etc. Examples are research drawn from separate fields such as occupational medicine?

I answer your question. Occupational medicine has traditionally been concerned with physical factors that affect health (e.g., heavy lifting; exposure to toxic chemicals). OHP is concerned with psychosocial factors that affect health (e.g., decision latitude; the supportiveness of coworkers). Iss246 (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can tell, the field began in 1990? (it looks like)? but again, the 2 main article authors psyc12 & iss246 quote research from decades before even, and again call it OHP research? Am I missing something here?Mrm7171 (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12 & iss246. These 2 questions/points are left unanswered still? They are in addition to the other clear points above that I have specifically detailed, outlining exactly why I believe the article is biased. However you both keep avoiding answering them and then say I don't give reasons why I believe the article is biased? Very odd. Will await your detailed reply please. As a courtesy please don't remove correct tags from the article until these issues are fully resolved.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. Research on OHP topics is done by people in different disciplines. For example, Tores Theorell is a Swedish physician who does research on occupational stress and health. Citing him in the article does not reflect an American bias--he's not an American. As for work prior to 1990, the study of OHP topics goes back well before the term came into use. Barling (a South African now in Canada) and Christie in their "A Short History of Occupational Health Psychology" (In A-S Antoniou & Cooper New Directions in Organizational Psychology and Behavioral Medicine) traced some "of the most seminal contributions to the field" that predate 1990. This included Robert Kahn's work on occupational stress in the 1960s, Jeffrey Greenhaus and Nicholas Beutell's work and family conflict in the 1980s, and Dov Zohar's work on occupational safety climate in 1980.

Citing work outside of psychology or work published prior to 1990 does not constitute an American or Society of Occupational Health Psychology bias. Furthermore, you have not given us any evidence that such biases in fact exist. Apparently, Houdmont and Leka (from the UK) don't seem to think it exists. They say in their 2010 book Occupational Health Psychology, "debate on the nature and scope of OHP has crystallized and consensus has developed among academics and practitioners on its aims and objectives" p. 2 and later "despite the absence of a shared heritage across the international OHP community, broad agreement on the nature of the discipline can be found in the definitions advanced by the discipline's European and North American representative bodies." p. 5.Psyc12 (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171 was blocked for six months for edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

a similar discussion is being held at wikiproject medicine and relates to health care planning. certainly important to include other countries perspectives in articles is it not. looks like this article is based on the united states of america and does not include other countries. niosh is a united states of america organisation like the editor pointed out above. reading through this debate seems like the issue is that it has been written only from that perspective. maybe this could be stated more clearly.Docsim (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

is this field specific to the united states of america. if so, looks like this point needs to be made clearly would be my suggestion. is it represented in asia pacific. i dont think niosh should be mentioned at all if it is actually an international disipline which it does not seem to be. maybe others may have some better solution here.Docsim (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Read through this article again as it relates to my field of medicine and my husbands physio profession. as commented earlier i think it is written with a united states of america slant. for example in the asia pacific niosh is not at all recognised. i will note that in the article i think.Docsim (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

first line in article needs to be changed to reflect american influences from united states niosh. not applicable to asia pacific region. will do so. also appears that some conflicts of interest in this article are at play after reading thru history on talk pages. can others comment here.Docsim (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this field is from a range of disciplines and mostly based in the united states and from a united states of america perspective. should be made clearDocsim (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over POV tag on Acupuncture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Number 7 Quackwatch as a source. In the lede there's a sentence which says, "The TCM theory and practice are not based upon scientific knowledge." and is sourced by Quackwatch. Now, I see no problem with having Quackwatch as a source on criticism of acupuncture and skepticism of TCM, because there it meets requirements for notability and is a reliable source in that context, but the statement "The TCM theory and practice are not based upon scientific knowledge," is a statement that is debated by highly credible institutions such as these [13] [[14]] Placing this in the lede would be like saying "McDonald's hamburgers are toxic and full of poison" (source: Society of Vegetarian Scientists), on the lede on McDonald's page. There's also a debate about large block quotes being used in the article, which might give it additional undue weight. Quackwatch is hotly debated and you can read more of this debate here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Ossetia

Up until 3 September, the section on the 2008 war in the South Ossetia article was fairly balanced. The 28 August version starts by stating that both sides have been accusing each other of starting the war. Then it gives both Russian and Western estimates on the number of troops amassed. It includes information on both Russian/South Ossetian shelling of Georgian targets and vice versa. The ethnic cleansing of Georgians by South Ossetia is addressed. It concludes by recounting the EU's fact-finding mission's conclusion that both sides were to blame.
Now, without prior discussion, the text has been changed by User:UA Victory to a blatantly pro-Georgian version of events, solely portraying South Ossetia and Russia as the aggressors and portraying Georgia as merely defending itself against this aggression. A prominently used reference for this narrative is RFE/RL, which is hardly a neutral and reliable source. All mentions of the OSCE's and EU fact-finding mission's findings that called into question the Georgian narrative have been removed. The paragraph now concludes with a remark about the supposed ongoing Russian occupation of Georgian territory.
I have tried reverting the heavily POV version back to the more NPOV original, but my attempts have been thwarted by User:UA Victory and User:Kober, who ironically now accuse me of POV pushing. Your assistance, please. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The version this user tries to defend was outdated and I tried to update it with recently available sources and information. There was nothing to discuss as the section seemed clearly outdated and pushing pro-Russian POV. As far as I know, any media outlet is considered reliable source. There were also other sources cited that supported the facts. But this user kept insisting against RFE/RL. I removed the paragraph about EU investigation because there are more recent scholar studies available that date the start of the conflict differently. To include only EU report would not be NPOV; since this is short summary section, it would be impractical to include other conclusions too.

This user tries to push pro-Russian POV that Georgia suddenly attacked innocent South Ossetia. Compare the old version with the new one and draw conclusions yourself. Old version: "On 7 August, Georgian and Ossetian forces agreed on a ceasefire.[58] However, in the first hours of 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a massive attack." New version: "On 7 August, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, ordered a unilateral ceasefire at about 7 pm.[57] However, Ossetian separatists intensified their attacks on Georgian villages.[58][59][60] Georgia launched a large-scale military operation against South Ossetia during the night of 7-8 August 2008.[61]" The facts are supported by numerous reliable sources.

This user is engaged in edit warring. I gave this user a warning in the talk page, but he/she removed it, claiming it was vandalism warning, when in reality it was disruptive editing warning.--UA Victory (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is fine to make WP:BOLD changes to articles, but if they are challenged, one must talk about those changes. While discussion is going on, the previous stable version has priority. If there are good sources that state that Ossetian separatists continued attacks, they can be added, without removing the EU sources. I am a bit concerned that two of the three sources for the attack are from the Jamestown foundation. I have no idea if Jamestown foundation is considered WP:RS. But that probably belongs on WP:RSN. One is a newspaper report, which is fine, though usually newspaper reports can be sometimes faulty because of time issues. Also keep in mind WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

From the talk page, neither party has discussed anything on the talk page, while trying to use edit summaries to discuss. This is not proper procedure. The talk page exists for a reason: use it! Kingsindian (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that the Jamestown Foundation is the reputable and reliable source. I can provide more recent source, where you can find this: "August 7-8, 2008 - South Ossetian separatists begin attacking Georgian peacekeepers, ending a ceasefire." Another source suggests that the South Ossetian separatists were first to attack the Georgians: "In July and during the first week of August 2008, a number of confrontations took place in South Ossetia after attacks by Ossetian separatists on Georgian positions." EU sources were outdated. Even the link leading to the main article on the subject was outdated. --UA Victory (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

These things belong on the talk page. The comment about Jamestown foundation was just a parenthetical comment. The main issue is that the talk page should be used. If any edit is challenged it must be defended there. A mutually accepted text should be found for various sections. While discussion is going on, the stable text should be kept. Kingsindian (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I know what the purpose of the talk page is, however it was the other user that challenged and reverted my edits with illogical explanation. He/she should have explained better his/her concerns on the talk page. He/she does not have any sources to prove his/her point, only keeps saying that the cited sources are not reliable. It seems to me that the user was interested in keeping the old pro-Russian version that Georgia attacked South Ossetian civilians out of nowhere, which is not true. --UA Victory (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it very strange that still there is nothing on the talk page, while the edit war is continuing. Things should be discussed there first, and not brought to noticeboards pre-emptively. It doesn't matter if the person who reverted didn't go to the talk page. If one's edit is reverted, one has to start a discussion on the talk page and find consensus, not simply reinstate the edit, per WP:BRD. I hope my contribution has been useful. I have nothing further to add, except that everyone is potentially getting into trouble by continuing the edit war. Kingsindian (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently there is no edit war. However, yesterday some IP editor removed the reliably sourced content that didn't fit his/her POV, so it had to be reverted as vandalism. Your contribution was quite interesting. The clashes were already discussed on the talk page of the main article. Several neutral editors supported the sources as reliable, while pro-Russian POV pushers couldn't provide any reliable sources that contradicted the cited facts. --UA Victory (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

michael brown RFC

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

MechWarrior Tactics

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

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

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

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

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

Sarcasm in lead: 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

A lead sentence in our article on the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine states, The Russian government maintained that all Russian soldiers in Ukraine either inadvertently crossed the border or were off duty and "on vacation".[60][61] I objected on the talk page here because it appeared as though these and other quotation marks were being used to invoke a sarcastic tone while describing Russian viewpoints.

I removed quotation marks and epithets from the lead here and here, but User:Volunteer Marek restored the "on vacation" quotation and text attributed to the Russian government, while arguing somewhat paradoxically on the talk page that The person who made the "vacation claim" was the leader of the militia. The quotes are there not as sarcasm, but because it's a quote.

The sources provided for this text are an article in the Washington Post and another in The New York Times, both of which show that there is no quote being cited. Here's the full text from the WP:

A separatist leader in Eastern Ukraine has a secret he’d like to share. There are Russian troops inside Ukraine fighting alongside the rebels and against Ukrainian troops. But wait. They’re really just freelancing while on vacation, according to his comment in a Reuters report. “Among us are fighting serving [Russian] soldiers, who would rather take their vacation not on a beach but with us, among brothers, who are fighting for their freedom,” Alexander Zakharchenko said in a reported interview with a Russian state television station.

And here's the text from the NYT:

Mr. Poroshenko scrapped a trip to Turkey to deal with the crisis and called an emergency meeting of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council. He dismissed Kremlin claims that any Russian soldiers in Ukraine were volunteers who had sacrificed their vacations to help the heavily pro-Russian east suffering oppression from the Kiev central government.

The NYT text goes on to quote from rebel leader Zakharchenko, as did the WP.

Obviously, the quotation marks in the lead don't serve to reproduce a quote from the Russian government, because the quotation is attributed either to rebel commander Alexander Zakharchenko or to U.S. media sources, and the "quotation" isn't anything of the kind: the exact text is quite different. But now, due to repeated efforts and despite available sources and talk page discussion, the lead of the article either sarcastically describes an official Russian government position, or creates a false quote and attributes it to the Russian government instead of to a rebel commander. Comment would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This was already discussed. It isn't "sarcasm". At least, no one's "implying" sarcasm, you're just "inferring" it. "On vacation" is what Zakharchenko said, and given that it's a strange (and notable) thing to say, it's got to be in quotation marks. I guess we could change it to "(on) vacation" rather than "on vacation" if we want to be pedantic.

I don't get this part of Darouet's statement: " But now, due to repeated efforts and despite available sources...". The reason I don't get it is because he is exactly quoting those sources saying the exact thing (in small type). So the quotation is there *because* of the sources, not "despite" them. Likewise "despite ... talk page discussion" really means "I didn't get my way and now I'm going to play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT." Volunteer Marek  21:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The "vacation" claim deserves all the sarcasm it has and it is pretty clear that the Wash post report is talking sarcastically. The quote itself does not talk about being "on vacation". It says that soldiers have sacrificed their vacation to be with the so-called "freedom fighters" in East Ukraine. It might be fine for Wash Post report to engage in sarcasm. However, I do not see why Wikipedia must do the same. It is not clear to me that this belongs in the lead anyway. It is just one comment, out of thousands. The basic claim that Russia/rebels are making: these are volunteers and not officially sent (whether it's true or not), should be presented, without these sarcastic remarks, attributed. Readers can judge for themselves whether the claim carries any credibility. Kingsindian (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that the statement as currently present: "The Russian govt. states...on vacation" is clearly incorrect, because the claim comes from the rebel leader, not the Russian govt. In sensitive areas like this, it is best to just stick to the source and leave out the sarcasm. Kingsindian (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. Source says "He dismissed Kremlin claims that any Russian soldiers in Ukraine were volunteers who had sacrificed their vacations to help the heavily pro-Russian east suffering oppression from the Kiev central government". Yes Zakharchenko said it, but Russian government echoed these claims.

The claim that these are "Russian soldiers on vacation" is notable and important for several reason. First, it's an explicit admission that there are in fact Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine. Second... well, it's precisely because it's just brazen bullshit that reliable sources are highlighting it.  Volunteer Marek  00:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a quote, and yet Marek you insisted on maintaining quotation marks around text from a WP journalist writing sarcastically, while attributing the text to a statement from the Russian government, on the basis of a NYT article that quotes a rebel commander. You reverted efforts to remove the sarcasm (and false quote), place in the correct quote, or correctly attribute the statement. Now you've accepted that the rebels made the statement, but still are using a false quote. Why is this so difficult? -Darouet (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

To Marek, as noted, the whole sentence is in quotation marks, which is nowhere present in the sources. And a quite different quote is attributed to a rebel commander, not the Russian govt. The "Kremlin claims" from the NYT source is very different from the quote now being used. The "Kremlin claims" sentence is talking about Russian claims that the soldiers were volunteers, and while on vacation, had chosen to go to Ukraine. Whatever you might think about the silliness of the claim, it is not an accurate paraphrase. Kingsindian (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody following these events seriously believes that Russia is uninvolved, or that Russian forces aren't active in Eastern Ukraine. But that involvement and those activities can be described with the neutral objectivity of an encyclopedia: snark or moral outrage can be left to readers as they like. -Darouet (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The use of "scare quotes" is to cast doubt on what is said, that is, to say it is a claim that may not necessarily be true. Since saying the Russian government "maintained that" already qualifies the claim, the use of scare quotes adds a degree of derision, which implies that the statements are false. Note that the reliable sources we use do not use scare quotes even though they are hardly pro-Russian. This type of polemical writing has no place in Wikipedia. Ironically the display of obvious bias by writers alienates readers and make them question the veracity of what is written in the article. If anyone wants to say "Whoa! No way does what the Russians are saying make any sense", then find sources that say that rather than inject one's own analysis into the article. TFD (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Marek refuses to allow removal of the "on vacation" sarcasm "quote," and I'm not really sure where to take this. The whole article is full of this stuff, and I haven't been able to address even the most glaring problems in the first paragraph of the lead. -Darouet (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current version is a bit better than the original one: it at least attributes the "on vacation" claim to the rebel leader. With a bit more effort, this can be improved. Perhaps it is best to simply quote the rebel leader? "There are active soldiers fighting among us who preferred to spend their vacation not on the beach, but with us, among their brothers, who are fighting for their freedom" Kingsindian (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems important to note that "on vacation" claim, as said by the rebels, does not mean that Russian soldiers were vacationing in Ukraine, like one vacations in Bahamas; it means that they were on leave and chose to come to Ukraine. Again, whatever one might think about the silliness or credibility of the claim, it should be rendered accurately and neutrally. Kingsindian (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Kingsindian. Following posts here, Mondschein and Sayerslle improved the text according to recommendations, but Marek partially reverted and re-introduced "on vacation," writing, "just sounds weird."

I again made an effort to remove the false quote (with incorrect punctuation as you can see), but Marek again reverted, writing, "clarify who."

Marek had already reverted my third effort to fix this problem writing, "undo some pov pushing," after I had explained the problem with using sarcasm in the lead on the talk page. Before that, Marek reverted a different possible solution to maintain "on vacation" and remove the quote parameter from the source, after having already reverted my first effort.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here. The text and policy are clear, it seems as though you and TFD are in agreement, and even Sayerslle, with whom I rarely see eye to eye, has been willing to help. But Marek has insisted on returning "on vacation," attributed either to the Russian government or rebels, five times in the last week, and as you note above, it's not even clear this statement should appear in the lead, even if correctly sourced.

This article is under sanctions, talk isn't accomplishing anything, and if we can't make headway on something so simple in the very first paragraph, how am I supposed to even attempt to edit the rest of the article? The whole environment on the page appears almost painfully mean spirited. Do you either of you think it'd be possible to call in a series of WP:3O editors to try to make some basic lead edits for style and neutrality? I don't know if that's beyond the scope or mandate of third opinions... -Darouet (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Darouet: I am afraid that is not a matter for this noticeboard. The best way is to have two separate sentences, and have an RfC to decide between them. Or use WP:DRN. The main thing to do is to relax. Nothing Earth-shaking will happen if the article is inaccurate for a few more days. Kingsindian (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain this again. The quotation marks are not "sarcasm". That's your, idiosyncratic interpretation of the quotation marks, which says more about your approach to the article than about any actual substance.

Now. Here is why the "on vacation" part needs to be in the article; the rebel commander said it and it was very very very widely reported by reliable sources. I'm just speculating here, but probably because pretty much every major newspaper and magazine reported on it was because 1) it was an outright admission that Russian soldiers WERE in fact fighting in Ukraine and 2) the excuse - "on vacation" - is so ridiculous that that in itself makes it noteworthy. Like "I did not have sex with that woman" etc.

Here is why the "on vacation" part needs quotation marks: precisely because it's such an absurd claim. If we omit quotation marks a reader might think that this is just some silliness that Wikipedia is making up, or maybe someone vandalized the article page and no one's caught it yet. Because the claim is so ridiculous. Including quotation marks - not sarcasm - is a straightforward way way to let the reader know that, no, this is actually what the guy said.

Here is why it should be "on vacation" rather than the full quote or whatever. "On vacation" is how secondary sources paraphrase the rebel leader. For brevity and because it gets at the essence (though some of them seem to like the part about the "beaches" too). So the quotation marks are there because we are quoting secondary sources, not the primary sources.

As to the lede - I'm fine with this not being in the lede. But it needs to be in the article as it's quite a noteworthy statement that got a lot of media attention. Volunteer Marek  07:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a comment. "On vacation" seems not to be a direct quote. As I noted above, "on vacation" has an ambiguous quality: it can mean that they were vacationing (like tourists in Ukraine), or it can mean that they were on vacation from the army and went to Ukraine. It is pretty clear that the rebel leader said the latter. This is how most people describe it. (my methodology is just a google search) he described them as volunteers who were using their vacation time, Russian soldiers who have used their vacation time to battle Ukrainian troops., The broadcasts repeated the official line that the troops are "volunteers" or travelled to Ukraine on leave. Only the Wash post sarcastically describes it as "on vacation". Maybe the solution is to use "on leave" instead of on vacation? Kingsindian (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

it is pretty clear from the quote as relayed by the washpo imo that he means the former precisely , rather than the latter , theyd rather 'take their vacation not on a beach but with us, among brothers' - that doesn't indicate a sabbatical , that indicates their hols merely - (this argument is getting like how many angels dance on the head of a pin ), - Sayerslle (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Only the Wash Post interpreted it like that. I gave 3 examples of the converse. The NYT source cited in the article also interprets it in the latter way. The first way makes no sense to me: why would anyone vacation in a war zone? Presumably this interpretation is why the Wash Post was sarcastic. If there is consensus not to include it in the lead, I suggest just quoting the damn thing. Kingsindian (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

yes I thought just quote the damn thing too - that's what is there for the moment - its all written on water isn't it reallySayerslle (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you say the words "on vacation" need to be in quotes because "the claim is so ridiculous." Sarcasm is defined as " the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say especially in order to insult someone, to show irritation, or to be funny."[15] IOW you want to use "scare quotes" to show sarcasm. If you want to tell readers the claim is ridiculous, you need to provide a source, not just express your opinion. TFD (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Recreational drug use

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

---

Page has been subject to 500+ changes by one user:signedzzz within the last 12 days. When content is reverted back to original non-biased content, all changes are immediately reverted by the same user without any explanation.

Changes would be too numerous to list on this section as the entire article has been dramatically altered to a very biased opinion on recreational drug use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorLut (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a user conduct problem rather than a POV problem; this user is refusing to engage you in discussion on the talk page. If you haven't already, contact this user and start a talk page discussion. If the user still ignores you, seek AN/I for admin intervention. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• The article is now protected and there seems to be consensus on the talk page--this does indeed look like a user problem. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

WEIGHT has come up in an RfC on Oathkeeper

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

Specifically, are the sources sufficient to justify the statement, "In addition to chapter 72 (Jaime IX), some of the content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, and 71 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI)"[16] or would including it involve undue weight?

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

Landmark Worldwide

Lithistman maintains that the text reinstated here is neutral. I disagree, and I affirm that the statement is NOT [thanks Xenophrenic] neutral:

An investigation involving the use of volunteers was also conducted by the US Department of Labor in 2006. The company agreed to pay overtime for a non-exempt salaried employee, but denied that their volunteers were employees.

It seems to me that this investigation is brought up to suggest a. that the company (Landmark is some sort of, well, I don't know what to call it--see the article) has reverted the unfair treatment of a worker, paying someone overtime to whom it was unfairly denied and b. that they treat their volunteers in a way that only employees should be treated. I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it if this had secondary sources which can offer an interpretation of the basic facts as found by the Department of Labor but, more importantly, if such secondary sources could prove that this factoid is worthwhile mentioning in the first place. But no secondary sources were ever cited.

There is a lot of back history, 29 archived talk pages worth of it, and non-neutral editing (from both sides, I think) has been all over the place. Here's one little sentence we can do without. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• As an editor who recently removed that statement from the article in question, I would say that while the language of the statement itself may be neutral, without context it doesn't convey anything neutral at all. The reader (at least I) is left not knowing if this is a significant thing or a routine matter. My initial read whilst cleaning up the article was that this was a significant legal issue. Finding no secondary sources and examining the primary source provided, it looks more like a regular administrative matter. Does the US Department of Labor perform a few of these investigations or many thousands? Was a crime committed? It looks like no penalties or punishments were decided, but the reader has no way of knowing. So, without appropriate interpretation or context, it is not neutral. Tgeairn (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tahirih Justice Center

I've declined a speedy deletion on this one, but the tone is very promotional, and since I believe in what they do very strongly I don't know that I can be a good editor. Could we get a few fresh eyes on it? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is a Featured Article--the version that was promoted (saw one typo immediately) isn't all that different, but I can't say the review looks very thorough, though it's signed by some seasoned editors. But that was 2006. A spam tag is really out of order (come on DrFleischman), though.

  Still, I see the non-neutral point: there is far too much description of activities and of the background. Look at the "Continual success" paragraph--it's based on primary sources and makes very lofty claims that need, at the very least, a whole bunch of "according to the organization" phrases, besides secondary sourcing. And the first sentence in that same section ("Growth") makes a claim about the organization's growth--but I can't tell (p. 526 is not accessible to me) whether that reference verifies the growth claim or the "widespread abuses" part--and at any rate, p. 526 comes after the acknowledgements and contains the first part of a list of advocacy organizations--so how that page could have text truly verifying either claim is not clear to me, not at all. In that same section, "its cases are representative" is referenced to another primary document by the organization, and the intermediate material is not about the organization but about the evil they are fighting. In other words, I am sympathetic too, but I see great problems with the article. A peer review is in order, and in its current state, with our current guidelines, I do not believe the gold star is valid. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have very little experience in whether this is FA-worthy or not, but the last paragraph of the "Growth" section is pretty bad, based almost wholly on primary sources. There are similar paragraphs elsewhere, relying wholly on primary sources for claims. Too much for my taste. Much of the article follows the pattern of describing some abuse, citing how widespread it is using UN sources etc., but when it comes to talking about the organization's role in it, it falls back on primary sources. Kingsindian (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, there is all sorts of positive value-laden language sourced to nothing or sourced to the organization's own website. The overwhelming amount of independent RSs support content that is about gender-based violence, not about Tahirih, which suggests to me that there may have been an attempt to mask a possible lack of notability. And, by the way, Tahirih has done some great fundraising work and here are some links to their website about it! (Fundraising content should never be sourced by WP:ABOUTSELF sources as it's inherently self-serving.) Looking in more detail at the FA review, there were multiple concerns raised over neutrality and I can't tell whether anyone really went back to make sure they were properly addressed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

After looking at this it seems these concerns were not addressed properly. maybe someone can do that still. looks like a worthwhile article but promotional in parts.Docsim (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

#Gamergate article

The GamerGate article, after a few days of a mostly balanced article after a few weeks of protection, has fallen into editwarring again. Personally I consider just one of the other editors unbiased enough so far (Masem), the rest are either trying to force the 'misogynist and harassment' discussion as the sole discussion onto the page, or are trying to make it solely about corrupt journalism and improper behaviour in the gaming industry. While both angles have being discussed by RSes - granted, 'misogeny' and 'harassment' more due to the fact it came up first (gamers being accused of 'white male misodrygenist pigs') and due to the fact the mass-media have started to copy&paste accusations of that kind by the gaming media, while the corruption&behaviour angle is less discussed on RSes, and more on blogs of independent game developers and social media.MicBenSte (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

MicBenSte is under the misunderstanding that we must treat all sides of the debate equally, rather than the policy requirement that we treat the sides as the reliable third party sources treat them. The third party mainstream sources focus almost exclusively on the harassment and with any coverage of "the gamergate side" being relegated to an afterthought ""The most frustrating aspect of this, I think, is that there is a scintilla of truth and merit to some of the Gamergate complaints...." If you want to be seen as individuals, well, stop calling yourself gamers. Come up with some other means of self-identification. Because as of right now, the worst people standing behind the mantle of gamer have spoiled it for all of you." - which is in fact covered in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

South African farm attacks

I have been watching article since last December. It's had a history of WP:NPOV associated with it. There are not many reliable sources on the topic, which is highly controversial. The claim of the article is that white South African farmers have been killed in large numbers by black South Africans. The problem is that there is little or no evidence for this claim in reliable sources. At the very least, the article should express this uncertainty. Its notability is questionable.

Over the years, IP and SPAs have repeatedly inserted non-neurtal material based on blogs. Currently, an IP has again inserted blog material and non-neurtal content. I have reverted them twice and I'm not going any further. I think the article should have some other eyes on it to assess the situation. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. Let me offer an editorial suggestion first: that lead needs to be rewritten completely. The Terre'Blance material was cut from the lead in these edits, but I disagree with that--though the removal of the "Ethnic cleansing" category was a step toward neutrality. This revert also is a mixed bag--the lead is improved (and "slave-owning EU parliament" was a bunch of nonsense, of course), but look at the categories that were reinstated (Seaphoto, did you see that?). In this edit content is removed where rephrasing was a better option, and the edit left the first and second sentence completely unconnected--since the first sentence does not point at any racial background, real or imagined, anymore. This one (yours, I am One of Many) reverts the IP (I suppose) you're talking about--again, note the categories you left intact, though you did remove some pretty POV content (the crosses for the "loved ones", etc). That EU condemnation, I'd like to see a better source for it. The "Kill the Boer" content may well be valid, but all of it needs to be couched in the appropriate encyclopedic phrasing. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a huggle NPOV revert - the unreferenced "slave-owning EU parliament" caught my eye. I would recommend a semi-protect on the article and more use of the talk page to resolve this as there are only a few paragraphs from the last year or two in the discussion. Seaphoto^Talk 19:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Do grammar articles need politics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verb_phrase_ellipsis&oldid=627081752&diff=prev

It seems odd, in a grammar article, to find unnecessary, and mildly partisian references to recent American politics right in the lead, and for user-constructed examples. Attempts to neutralize it have been very aggressively reverted, however. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor seems to have inserted this example in 2012. And now is too attached to it. Perhaps some ownership issues. But seems harmless enough. Should be changed to some generic name, but meh. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Good old elliptical ownership. Is it any wonder that Commanism is a red link? Anyway, It seems likely there are politicians named Smith currently running for something. Using a name that isn't on a ballot (as far as I know, anyway) seems the least influential option. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

why not use an example not related to politics. that would solve the needless conflict im sure.Docsim (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)