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

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)

I fail to see how that answers the question. It defines OM, not why sections refer exclusively to OM research. Unless a responsive answer is provided, any such sections should be removed. In other words, ISTM that only sections that rely on sources that discuss OHP are appropriate for an article on OHP. (struck, because irrelevant; Psyc12 answered it satisfactorily below.) --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 05:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope my change to multidisciplinary field of study will suffice. seems like it involves occupational medicine as much as psychology. also experienced what has commented here. two editors seem to get together to delete changes others try to make. kinda scary actually. didnt comment on wikipedia because of it.Docsim (talk) 12:05, 12 October 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)

Made correction as detailed in my comments. important to note united states of america CDC definition. firld not recognised in asia pacific region.Docsim (talk) 05:09, 27 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)

Work for Romney? Pray for Romney? Kill for Romney? It seems Romney is the sticking point here, not the politic part. 2012 is over. Still a good idea to change it to something entirely different, but I'd bet the aggressive reversion won't stop. Worth a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

An interesting dispute, but as the top of this page indicates, there should be an attempt to resolve it on the article talk page before it comes here. Adam, if there's still no resolution then you can come back with a link to the discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

The RfC concerning Westeros.org specifically [1] was closed with the result that the value of the disputed text should be addressed separately. This RfC is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. This particular discussion is about the single episode "Oathkeeper," but the outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Issues such as WP:UNDUE have been raised. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe this was already addressed in the previous RFC, but it's fine for the article to mention which chapters of the books are covered so long as it comes from a reliable source and isn't the result of original research.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought the previous RfC covered it too, @Scoobydunk:, but the person who closed it felt that the issue of the chapter-to-episode statement's value should be handled by itself. RfC's open if you want to weigh in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Baklava history section, dispute over whether only one historical theory should be presented

The baklava history section has been in dispute for three months. Two historical theories about the origins of baklava are widely supported by numerous scholars publishing through major university presses. One states that baklava originates in Central Asian traditions (this is identified with Turkish roots), the other that it originates in Roman traditions (this is identified with Greek/Byzantine roots). Although this is a food article, the nature of the two historical theories means that the dispute has a potential political component. One editor in particular, who is currently the subject of a serious sock puppet investigation, is unwilling to allow the origins to be presented as unresolved and rejects any changes that do not advance the Central Asian / Turkish origin theory as definitive. Perhaps I'm totally biased myself here, and, perhaps, I'm wrong to believe that both scholarly supported origins should be presented as equals, but I don't think so. Outside neutral thoughts would be greatly appreciated! The dispute is clear as it dominates the recent talk page and most recent edits/reversions. Here is a link to the RfC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baklava#RfC:_Outside_Opinion_for_a_Neutral_Comprehensive_History_Section.2C_Thank_you.21 Piledhighandeep (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

1982 Lebanon War casualties

Article: 1982 Lebanon War. Sentence: "In 1984, Lebanese Brig. Gen. Mohamad El Haj stated that "about 1,000 Lebanese died as a result of the Israeli invasion."

The full quote from the source is (after Haj gives this 1,000 figure): "Israeli and UN sources said it was the first time they could remember any Lebanese official using such a figure. Early casualty estimates originating in Lebanon after 1982 invasion put the figure at 15,000. UN sources said it was not clear whether El Haj's figures included the casualties during the seige of Beirut. Israel has long claimed that...about 800 Lebanese civilians were killed during the invasion, excluding deaths during the Beirut siege."

The Wikipedia article contains many sources about the casualties from reliable sources, book1, journal article 1, book2, journal article 2, newspaper, book3. Most of them give a figure in the range of 19,000-20,000 total (Lebanese and Palestinian) killed, mostly civilians. The lowest figure is 5,000-8,000 civilians (total not given). The sentence which is to be included says 1,000 Lebanese based on one single unclear newspaper report. It is not clear exactly what category Haj is talking about, nor has any Lebanese official made such a statement either before this point (as noted) nor since, as far as I know. It should not be included per WP:FRINGE. Interested people might also see this WP:RSN discussion here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not based on one report but on two WP:RS from respectful newspapers that quote words of Lebanese general and surely he wouldn't try to minimize the number of casualties.

The first journal article is from 1983 it far more closer to the event then the 1984 also the picture there is far more clearer.The Fisk as he not historian is not reliable as was mentioned by some uninvolved editors.--Shrike (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The 5000 figure is only from Beirut Siege while 1000 figure is probably not taking the siege in the account as the source notice.So there are not contradiction here and WP:FRINGE argument is irrelevant.--Shrike (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for outside editors to weigh in; I will just comment that those are irrelevant arguments. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned the Sabra and Chatila massacre on the RSN page, the death toll there alone was 1,700 persons, and it was "a result" of Israel's invasion. The siege of Beirut was also "a result" so those deaths need to be included as well. On the other hand, casualty figures are often disputed and different numbers are bandied around. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Haj's figure is only including those killed by Israeli troops does not mean it has no value as an estimate. Multiple news organizations reported Haj's estimate, made as part of an official Lebanese demand for reparations, and specifically connected it to earlier Israeli estimates with which it matched up exactly. (In addition, his estimate was cited by the "polemical book" discussed at RSN.) In sum, hardly fringe.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with including different casualty figures, one is already included in the section (by Richard Gabriel). As TTAAC's comments have demonstrated, here and elsewhere, they wish to add this because "it matches with the Israeli estimate" of about 1,000 killed. The Israeli claim is already mentioned. There are probably 10 sources on the talk page which give an estimate of 19,000 killed, and many others can be given. One does not just add an unclear isolated statement in a newspaper, saying 1,000 killed just because it happens to match. This is the definition of cherry picking. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Texas abortion law

In the pre-Roe v. Wade environment, is it more neutral to refer to Texas's "pro-life laws", or to "Texas's abortion ban"? (Abortion was illegal in Texas, including in cases of rape or incest, with an exception for cases where pregnancy threatened the woman's life.) Article: Norma McCorvey. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And when our sources refer to them as "pro-life" Padresfan94 (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That isn't true, the sources refer to them as "antiabortion statutes" and "criminal abortion statute". The 1998 book by McCorvey is a primary source by someone who had since become an anti-abortion activist, so I know you can't be suggesting we take our cues from it. But please don't make up things. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

By the source that you cherry-picked, maybe. Padresfan94 (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Which are the cited sources that refer to "pro-life laws"? I don't even find this language in conjunction with the topic in a Google search, much less in the cited (and reliable) sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless citing a source, Wikipedia's voice should be neutral and use the latter. WP:NPOV is policy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Native American mascot controversy - Could someone please take a look

No I have not tried to resolve anything and at the moment I have not touched the page at all. But I went there tonight looking for a reference for the Native American point of view on the subject and was unable to find one. There is only one Native American publication in the list of references and it is an expired link. The ACLU is heard from and so is the rationale of every team that has a mascot and everybody that thinks that that mascot is OK, and some social workers who are worried that maybe they are damaging. How about some input from the many very vibrant Native American cultures who know that they are, hmm? The talk page shows that there have been some ugly-looking disputes. Indian Country Today is a good place to start if anyone wants to work on this or the Native American Studies curriculum at University of New Mexico. I really can't work on this right now but I will if the issues persist unresolved. However I only have half a clue on the subject.Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 08:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the Native American viewpoint can be described in the article also based on suitable high quality non-Native Americal sources, in case your search for Native American sources has come up dry. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Elinruby, keep in mind that Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress. Many articles can have issues, if so, the best way is to be WP:BOLD and fix them. It would be better to first try to make changes and discuss on the article talk page, before coming here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As a major contributor to the article, I know there are several Native American writers cited, one (Stephanie Fryberg) is a Psychologist and publishes in peer-reviewed journals, while others are in mainstream newspapers. There has been a lot of scholarly work on the topic, and while not Native American themselves these psychologist and sociologists have summarized the Native point of view in the form that best fits the WP guidelines for reliable, unbiased sources. I made the some reply to Elinruby's posting on the article's talk page, but there was no response.FriendlyFred (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Indigo children

WP's "indigo children" article, as it currently exists, is a case of poor form at best. Please note that I agree wholeheartedly with the editor's opinion, but WP articles aren't supposed to have a thesis, and this one does. For example, the terms "pseudoscience" and "New Age" (as an apparent insult) are employed right in the lead. The text goes on to speculate on the motivations of parents who subscribe to this theory, citing the alleged authority of "retired professor of philosophy and skeptic Robert Todd Carroll". This is unscientific at best and poor forensics to boot. A similar tone prevails throughout the entry.

I was going to raise these points on the Talk page, but the long scroll of similar complaints and snarky rejoinders there, as well as implications of homesteading and edit warring, suggested it was time to kick this one upstairs.

WP contains thousands of articles on more contentious issues than this one, and they manage to be dispassionate and factual. The Talk page contains liberal protestations that the bias here is in compliance with WP guidelines -- which I doubt, given its inferiority to the norm -- but in any case its neutrality could and should benefit from a hearty injection of scientific distance. Scrape out the loaded language and red herrings -- even if, as the editor insists, they're "allowed" on WP -- and let the facts speak for themselves. Laodah (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires articles to generally follow the general position of the available reliable sources. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article, including tone and major positions. If the sources call it pseudoscience, the article does. If the article does, the summary of the article in the lead shouldn't dance around that label (which seems like a pretty good summary of many of the article's cited claims). Disclaimer: I've been occasionally involved in the article/talkpage. DMacks (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE requires describing fringe or pseudoscientific as such as well. The authors claiming Indigo children exist make scientifically testable claims regarding behavior and intelligence that test false, as is shown by reliable sources in the article. If you want the article to reflect your belief that ADHD is magical: Find academic sources (such as peer-reviewed scientific journals) that specifically state without addition or alteration that Indigo children do indeed test differently in terms of behavior, intelligence, or mutant superpowers -- It's that simple, and yet no one is doing it.

It isn't like (most) religious claims, which are simply not scientifically confirmable or deniable, the claims regarding Indigo Children are demonstrably false. Those are the facts speaking for themselves, instead of telling children that their perfectly normal behavior is some sort of superstitious mutation that they're not responsible for. WP:GEVAL requires that we do not create false balance between science and non-science (which is why our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe).

It's pretty easy to get snarky when a bunch of true believers more concerned with pushing their agenda than actual research.

Disclaimer: I'm regularly involved in the talk page, and even left a FAQ for people who believe they're Indigo Children.

Counter disclaimer: the OP started her talk page notice with "Hello, Indigo children," indicating a clear bias on her part. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Did my last edit seem a little WP:POINTy?

A little over a year ago, the now-blocked User:Enkyo2 violated WP:POINT by creating the article Japan Encyclopedia in direct response to me asking whether the Encyclopedia could be used as a source on Wikipedia. Enkyo filled the review with (out-of-context?) quotations from reviews that look to be glowing and positive. The only one of these reviews I could trace was the Richie one from The Japan Times, an unscholarly publication for popular consumption by expats in Japan; it seems pretty likely that the late Donald Richie was too busy to examine the book in detail, though. The only scholarly review of the book that I have found online is one by R. A. Miller. If I hadn't been able to find this I probably would have AFDed the page for the same reason I gave for that equally-faulty History Channel documentary.

But does anyone think my summary of Miller's review was a bit harsh/pointy?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the reason Enkyo2 and I initially came into conflict was the former's misrepresenting sources and WP:SYNTH, which is why I'm suspicious that the offline "positive" reviews might have actually been more negative than they were made to seem. Also, I was very tempted to quote Miller's not-so-subtle allegation that HUP published the book to get French government money. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Washington Redskins name controversy

There have previously been two POV tags placed on this article without generating much discussion, even from those that placed them. However recently there was a brief discussion Talk:Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Sneaky_POV_editing_.28FriendlyFred.29 that touched on the basic issue. It began with the usual statement that equal weight was not being given to both sides of the controversy, and when I said that was because one side is represented by academic studies published in books and jeer-reviewed journals, while the other is what team supporters say in newspapers, it was questioned whether the scholarly point of view is neutral. In particular there seems to be an assumption that because the "keep the name" advocates are in the numerical majority, their opinions deserve equal weight alongside "change the name" advocates. Reading the NPOV guidelines, I had always though that scholarship, in particular when there is no controversy within academia, is the definition of neutrality. The relevant disciplines such as sociology and psychology have reached an unequivocal consensus that all Native American imagery in sports is a form of hostile ethnic/racial stereotyping that should be eliminated. This consensus is clearly stated in the resolutions issued by the national professional organizations representing these fields of study. I was not familiar with the issues when I began editing these articles, but I know think that if anything this article and Native American mascot controversy are too careful presenting the "keep the name/mascot" position, implying it has validity in spite of all the academics that say otherwise.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because there is academic scholarship on a subject does not mean it is "accepted academic scholarship". If there are large numbers of people don't agree with the scholarship (such as in this case assuming there are large numbers of people who disagree), it is not neutral to present one side as "right". Instead examine the WP:RS, how to they treat the subjects? Can you find significant viewpoints on both sides in the WP:RS? Then both viewpoints should be represented fairly with an impartial tone as to which is "right". --Obsidi (talk ) 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Obsidi, could you please try to focus more on mainspace contributions to Wikipedia rather than wikilawyering about policies and guidelines on talk pages and noticeboards? Per WP:UNDUE, both viewpoints do not have to be represented fairly, as that is a false balance. I get the sense that are you trying to deliberately undermine the NPOV policy in several discussions at this time, and your overall contribution history lends weight to this opinion. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is exactly "false balance". There are no opposing viewpoints within academia, so "fairness" in stating any non-academic POV is giving it undue weight. If any of the arguments made by the general public are specifically address and refuted by scholars, I would be remiss in not including both. Yet the article is already called "biased" on a regular basis. My inclination is to start a new article containing only the scholarship, since I am getting tired of keeping up with the daily repetition of the same oversimplified nonsense in the media on both sides of the "controversy".FriendlyFred (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the examples of false balance "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience" These are all examples of fringe theories, and if a "large numbers of people" agree with the theory (as the original post claimed), then it is not WP:FRINGE. As WP founder Jimmy Wales said: "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it."[2] If you are really claiming it is WP:FRINGE, then you must be saying that no reliable source would think it is true (is that your claim? Because as a factual matter I would disagree, that's not a policy issue.) Otherwise it is just a minority view, which (if it is a minority view) shouldn't get as much space as the majority view, but shouldn't be eliminated entirely. Both should be given in a neutral manner such that both sides can agree that those are the positions of the various sides. That is at the heart of WP:NPOV. (Viriditas can you stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, thanks :).) --Obsidi (talk ) 03:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

PS. You keep claiming things about "no opposing viewpoints within academia" the question is how do WP:RS treat it? Are there no WP:RS which disagree? The balance on Wikipedia is based on the balance among WP:RS, not academia. (mind you peer reviewed scientific research is given a very high presumption of validity, but even then we usually like to see some WP:RS comment on the subject, and it is the WP:RS's views that are important). Also if you do wish to make the claim that the other theory is WP:FRINGE find a WP:RS that says that is the scientific consensus as per: WP:RS/AC --Obsidi (talk ) 03:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

History intro of Catholic Church article, doctrine vs. historicity

The intro to the history section of the Catholic Church article presents doctrine (or the Catholic church's view of its history) without historical analysis or even brief counterpoint. Currently the two paragraph intro contains only Catholic doctrinal statements, generally beginning with "the Church teaches." This perhaps belongs in a doctrine section, not the history section. I have suggested, at the least, that some counterpoint (three prominent secular history scholars, that I've cited, and a religious authority from another church, also cited) be included to render the presentation NPOV. My suggested text for insertion at the end of the second paragraph (after being corrected by comments from another editor) is only two sentences. It reads,

"The historicity of these claims is debated by other churches as well as historians. According to several historians, including Bart D. Ehrman, Peter was never a bishop, or leader, in Rome, and there were no formal leaders in Rome to succeed to that title, or claim it, for a century."

The same issue occurs for the intro to the history article, History of the Catholic Church. The same user strongly opposes the inclusion of non-doctrinal counterpoint in both historical sections. I have opened a discussion on both articles talk pages, (Catholic Church article, history section historicity discussion and History of the Catholic Church historicity discussion

Any thoughts would be much appreciated! Piledhighandeep (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I can't be bothered to look at it, but I expect some changes are needed. But your replacement is unlikely to be better. Ehrman is no historian, has his own strong religious POV, and tends to be over-used in WP, I presume because his books are used in undergraduate courses. Most specialist historians are much less dogmatic in interpreting the very slim evidence on what happened among Christians in 1st-century Rome. You can find "several historians" to support almost any position on such matters; we should attempt to give the consensus among contemporary specialists, if there is one. That would I think give a rather different formulation on this point. Yours suggests that there were such things as bishops, but Rome lacked one. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

Page: Christian terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This article continues to attract dispute.

A standard text, Aubrey's The New Dimension of International Terrorism, says "Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely commanded purposes, often targeting broad categories of foes to bring about sweeping changes." (p. 44)[3] Several editors reject this definition because it "draw[s] bright lines",[4] yet fail to provide any alternative definition.

They present Mark Juergensmeyer and Jessica Stern as authorities that terrorism in Northern Ireland and other places is religiously motivated and think that should be presented as a fact rather than an opinion. Juergensmeyer is a highly respected authority on terrorism, but his opinions are not widely accepted. A writer in The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research, for example, says "A narrower analysis of the new terrorism can be found in Mark Juergensmeyer's 'cosmic war' hypothesis. Juergensmeyer's hypothesis was driven by two trends in religious violence: a tendency towards mass-casualty violence, and an apparent lack of grand strategy in the employment of violence. His answer to these puzzles was that the 'new terror' was an example of 'cosmic war', which in turn was an outgrowth of 'cosmic struggle'.... [His] testing of his theory is plagued, however, by conceptual stretching that calls into question his findings. First, his case studies span Aum Shinrikyo, Al-Qaeda, Babar Kalsa and the Irish Republican Army (IRA). While the first is only nominally political...the last two might be only nominally religious, drawing into question whether their actions can be ascribed to 'cosmic warfare.' Certainly those of the IRA cannot." (p. 233)[5] Stern was a terrorism expert in the Clinton administration who argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda.

Mainstream sources identify the Crusades and the Gunpowder Plots as examples of Christian terrorism and state that Christian terrorism still exists, yet do not provide any examples.

I recommend that we remove any statements that the IRA etc. were Christian terrorists and instead mention that a minority of experts view them as such, provided that sources exist. We should remove references to groups such as the National Liberation Front of Tripura, unless sources claim they are Christian terrorists. Tripura is a ethnic nationalist group in India whose ideology is Maoism and most members are nominal Christians, although 20% are avowed atheists or belong to other religions. I do not think we should call them Christian terrorists just because they are mostly Christian and engage in terrorism - we need a source that makes the connection.

I may not have accurately reflected the views of other editors but I have presented them as I see them. If I am wrong I apologize, but they have the opportunity of correcting me.

TFD (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Weight issues with religious views sourced only to a Youtube video

This is about possible weight issue with this specific part of the Neil deGrasse Tyson page:

Tyson has collaborated with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and presented talks with him on religion and science. When asked if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded: Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of all religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence.

This is sourced only to a youtube video. The youtube video is from the account of the University at Buffalo. Neil deGrasse Tyson gave a speech at the University at Buffalo, in which he took audience questions. One of those questions from the audience is the content of the above youtube video. Neil deGrasse Tyson's answer to the question was not included in the post by University at Buffalo on the subject ([6]), nor have I been able to find any reliable sources which talk about this answer to the audience question (a variety of self published/blogs do talk about it, but are not reliable sources). Now the University at Buffalo I would consider a reliable source, but other then hosting the event, and posting the video of the event I don't see any commentary on the importance of this quote by University at Buffalo. I don't dispute the verifiability of the quote, it is clearly one of his views on religion.

It seems, to me, that it is impossible to given an accurate weight to the above quote without any reliable source commenting on it. As such until that time that a reliable source has commented on it, I think policy dictates that it should be left out of the article. In the talk pages I was told by the editor Objective3000 "You simply do not understand that this is NOT an article about a news story. Religious views are extremely common in bios." Along with Viriditas, they dismissed of any undue weight problem. Still how are we to decide between this religious view of his, and his other comments on religious views without a reliable source commenting on it? Can a youtube video of an impromptu answer to an audience question alone be used to give weight (even if the youtube video is from a reliable source)? I look forward to your comments.

--Obsidi (talk)04:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much sourced to YouTube as it is to Tyson, as a primary source. YouTube's just the messenger. By my reading of WP:PSTS, a primary source can generally be used for facts which require no interpretation. Quoting him like this only needs an editor to turn sound into letters, which most people can do if they need to verify it.

As for weight, it holds more than what someone else says he thinks, in any source, but if he's said other things which complement or contradict this, those have just as much. Certainly doesn't have enough, without secondary coverage, to warrant a section for itself or much more than a straight quote, but a person's publicly stated opinion on his own faith seems reasonable to expect in a bio.

Combining that with his association with Dawkins leans toward synthesis. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

I see it as a weight issue. If no secondary sources commented on it then it is insignificant. As for the argument "Well he said that and he is a reliable source for what he said", an interview is not a court of law. All of us frequently say things that if they were played back to us we would wonder why we said them in the first place.

This article btw is about a person who has come to attention in the echo chamber and there lots of edits that violate neutrality.

TFD (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind, nobody is saying anything about why he said what he did, so whether he'll wonder why he did doesn't matter. If the article said "Tyson believes in a higher power" or "Tyson wants to seem open-minded about God", with that as a source, that'd be bullshit. A straight quote isn't, and is relevant to a "Views on Spirituality" section, because it posits a view on spirituality.

But yeah, that talk page looks crazy echo chamber-like, and I think I'm done touching this. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

I brought this up on the talk page a little while ago as part of a general issue I observed on the page. Namely that there was quite a bit sourced only to YT videos without any other RS's which would say that this was of importance. I believe it falls under WP:OR as well because it requires a WP editor to view the video and then determine what, if anything, should be pulled from the video. In essence, WP is saying that this quote is important, yet no RS's have summarized the video and come to that conclusion. Arzel (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from there. In my eyes (and my eyes aren't policy), having a section on something indicates Wikipedia thinks that topic is important. The details of the section, if relevant to the topic, inherit that importance by virtue of relating to it. Also the way editors (both "real" and Wikipedian) determine which parts to pull from public sources. Maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

• YouTube is not a reliable source in itself. Is the video in question acknowledged to be genuine by the subject? If not, this fails BLPSOURCES and can never be used on a BLP (think how easy it would be to fake such a video!) If so, it becomes a primary source and only fails WP:WEIGHT. If these views are important enough to record on Wikipedia, reputable third-party sources will have picked it up. Have they? --John (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)