Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 49.198.21.145 (talk) at 03:27, 27 February 2019 (→‎Talk:Venezuela#POV_-_food_waste). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    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:
    Start a new discussion

    "Pro-India" branding

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

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

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

    • Sorry I don't have much time today to check in. It is always imperative to read a review as a whole and not in parts if the underlying point is to be understood. It appears to me from whatever has been quoted so far that Mahendra is saying that Parshotam has synthesised his conclusions in such a way which would lead the reader on to favour the Indian position while ostensibly claiming to allow the reader to form their own opinion. Hence the link with "readers judgement." I hope this resolves your dispute. If not I am happy to mediate. Dilpa kaur (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your kind offer Dilpa kaur. But mediation is generally offered by WP:UNINVOLVED editors. You are welcome to give your comments on the article talk page of course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dilpa's offer. WOW.
    I will take a look and mediate; as to this specific locus. ∯WBGconverse 16:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you read the book? There are no conclusions, as such. ∯WBGconverse 13:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Australian paradox

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

    Acupuncture's relative popularity in Europe

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

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

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

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

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

    Your conflict of interest means that you should not be involving yourself in Acupuncture or related articles. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I do not have one according to the recent RfC which has closed with a "No" finding (three admins closing). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    No, not so far. Is Fraser Institute not ok? For an assertion this uncontroversial (of course acu is popular as CAMs go)? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The source looks extremely in-world. Taking that bit of information from it, presenting it out of the context of the source, and putting it in Wikipedia's voice seems questionable. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Looks like a flimsy source, and the use smacks of WP:ADVOCACY, so not NPOV. What we need is a reputable independent source giving some context to why acupuncture is "popular" (assuming that's true) in Europe - and of course in health matters "popular" is often synonymous with "dodgy" (see popular diet). Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Popular among CAMs (as noted 2x previously). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 02:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As is too often the cases in this area Middle 8 is misrepresenting the discussion for his own ends. When he wrote that the source "RS isn't disputed" what he should have written is "RS hasn't been disputed". Why bother fighting about the RS value of content that is undue anyway?AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban please. Middle 8 has wasted hundreds of hours of the community's time pushing back against his relentless attempts to boost his admitted commercial interest in acupuncture. I think ost of us are completely bored with this by now. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Said one of the editors who wasted so much of the community's time on a gratuitous RfC that was never going to get the desired result (although I was surprised it actually boomeranged, but at least now there's no excuse for further such drama). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire source of the problem is your relentless attempts to boost your financial interests by editing Wikipedia. Stop doing that, the problem goes away. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like that "obvious COI". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    "If there are no other significant views then there are no significant views at all." -- the logic underwhelms. You can't cherry-pick without there being other cherries (sig views) to pick from. Editors are making the mistake of assuming that the claim being made is at all controversial (news flash -- some CAM's are more popular than others -- but maybe the news hasn't made it all the way out to Boise). But whatever, happy to find a better source. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC); undo improper revert of non-personal-attack but also strike as courtesy and to de-escalate, 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are happy to find a better source then why did you even open this discussion? AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Adding back the personal attack is a funny way to de-escalate.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I thought we might get fresh eyes. But alas. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    For my own amusement I tracked down where this supposed information originally came from. Its a pretty good illustration of why we should use think tanks with care. [1] AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry - I have to say that the idea that anything "boomeranged" as it's understood by Wikipedia, is an utter joke. You are presumably referring to the RfC in which the question was (duly) asked, "Do practitioners of alt med have a COI when editing topics within their field"? I personally believe that they do and that they should be kept away from those articles with a large club, but I voted "no" in the RfC because Wikipedia COI policy must be kept flexible in cases where experts contribute to a field, and that the recursive impact on policy would out weigh the benefit of further distancing practitioners of fake treatments from the articles they want to whitewash. That being said, I also voted no because we have more than sufficient policy based reasons to prevent articles from being whitewashed by SAPs. Nothing boomeranged here. Wikipedia prior to that RfC was intolerant of efforts to unduly add spurious material to medical articles, and it still is. If you want to see what boomerang means, keep wasting time thusly. Edaham (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2206228/

    SPA activity from User:Heveeobjex

    User:Heveeobjex continues to demonstrate questionable WP:SPA activity on the subject of Ron Nirenberg and articles related to him, especially 2017 San Antonio mayoral election and 2019 San Antonio mayoral election. He continues to replace a valid cited image of Nirenberg already uploaded and properly licensed to Commons with one he claims he took or another image he claims to have taken but has conflicting metadata. He has continued to display COI issues with other edits on these topics as well. His issues were discussed on the talk page of Ron Nirenberg about 6 months ago but he stopped editing at that time and has only recently resumed. His activity is questionable at best. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the account. I can't see any good faith explanation for edit warring to add images with dubious copyright, combined with no edits to any other area of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Venezuela#POV_-_food_waste

    the Venezuela article describes reclaimed food waste as garbage. I believe this to be POV pushing. The international political situation in Venezuela is currently volatile and so the article is locked so i cannot mark the relevant section with a POV tag. I believe the labelling of reclaimed food waste as garbage to be politically motivated in order to further inflame the situation.

    Australia is one of the most highly ranked countries in the world for standard of living on the OECD rankings[1] yet Woolworths has donated an average of a million kilograms of 'food waste' a year for distribution by charities.[2] a report from the Australian Government stated, "Food rescue organisations contribute to reducing wasted food that is suitable for human consumption. In rescuing food that would otherwise be thrown away, these organisations provide those in need with a meal, partly addressing food insecurity. A range of people access food relief in Australia. The number of people receiving food relief is high. One food relief organisation reports that each month 652,000 Australians receive food relief, with over 27 per cent of these being children."[3] It can thus be concluded that food deemed suitable for human consumption remains food and not garbage. the USDA further explained the reasoning behind the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and encourages the distribution and consumption of "food waste","Donations of non-perishable and unspoiled perishable food from homes and businesses help stock the shelves at food banks, soup kitchens, pantries, and shelters. Donations of perishable prepared foods, typically collected from restaurants, caterers, corporate dining rooms, hotels, and other food establishments, also play an important role in feeding families in need..." [4] yet nobody is claiming that there is a humanitarian crisis requiring immediate military intervention in the U.S.A. or Australia because their citizens are forced to eat garbage.

    Thusly, I argue that editors should refrain from using inflammatory language such as describing reclaimed food suitable for human consumption as garbage as it violates wiki policy by distorting the information at hand and POV pushing. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that wording here means the noun form of "garbage", being trash, disposed-of food, etc. that has ended up in trans bins, waste dumps, etc, as opposed to "bad tasting food" eg "this food is garbage". A spot check of sources shows clear patterns that many VZians are forced to turn to trash dumps and the like to find food, and so while that certainly would meet a broad definition of "reclaimed food waste", it still is from garbage piles. I do not see anything with VZ that is comparable to the reclaimed food programs in Australia. --Masem (t) 01:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    from the Venezuela article, "...resorting to eating wild fruit or garbage..." I believe they are using it in the noun form.

    the exact wording used in the poll is, "mediante residuos de comida que desechados por establecimiento commerciales".[5] chile uses the same terminology in spanish to refer to food waste fit for human consumption. they are drafting laws to forbid companies from throwing away food waste fit for human consumption.[6] I can get you a stock picture of my hands in a trash bag for you to look at with the australian reports if that makes them easier to compare. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ "Australia's Better Life Index is among the highest in OECD countries". Australian Trade and Investment Commission. December 1, 2017. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "https://www.austrade.gov.au/News/Economic-analysis/australias-better-of-life-index-is-among-the-highest-in-oecd-countries" ignored (help)
    2. ^ "Woolworths​ ​and​ ​Foodbank:​ ​15​ ​years,​ ​15​ ​million​ ​kilos". October 17, 2017. {{cite web}}: zero width space character in |title= at position 11 (help); zero width space character in |url= at position 50 (help)
    3. ^ "NATIONAL FOOD WASTE STRATEGY" (PDF). Commonwealth of Australia. November 1, 2017. p. 13.
    4. ^ "U.S. Food Waste Challenge:Resources". USDA. Retrieved February 27, 2019.
    5. ^ http://media.diariolasamericas.com/adjuntos/216/imagenes/000/773/0000773755.jpg?. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    6. ^ http://senado.cl/supermercados-deberan-donar-la-comida-por-vencer-o-mal-rotulada/senado/2018-08-31/104735.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=885290721"