Line 241: | Line 241: | ||
:::::Well, point taken, but since we are dealing with an article on an organization, one should take care to see that political positions by great powers do not exhaust the lead description of its nature. Drsmoo's argument is that one should state the political angle and remove the analytic angle. Definitions in this kind of area tend to highlight the political, except when that is embarrassing. [[Al Nusra]] was deemed a terrorist organization, as was al Qaeda, by the US, but it still furnished arms to the former while its regional ally, Israel, has put neither on its designated terrorist lists, and actively helps the Islamic army groups, for a simple reason: they oppose Syria's Assad, and the fall of that dictatorship is in Israel's interests. Since the concept of 'terror organization' is supposed to use some form of objective criteria (as both the EU court and the Advocate General to the EU said the Hamas classification lacked, being based on a dossier of internet citations without institutional review), and nations are inconsistent, one has to be very careful in articles that aspire to NPOV not to give political spin the weight it has here while cancelling out a simple note that even [http://faculty.nps.edu/vitae/cgi-bin/vita.cgi?p=display_vita&id=1023568011 Department of Defense Analysis /Rand Corporation experts like Glenn E. Robinson] question its empirical value. Nearly all government policy comes from forward papers done by a coalition of bureaucratic/academic area specialists, and the distinction academic (wanker) and government experts breaks down. Finally, leads summarize the body of the article. The second suggestion you make is that the area specialist view point should be down in the body of the article, but no allusion should be made to it in the lead. That is obviously, from a technical point of view, anomalous. I can hardly shift an extensive series of citations down, in a section on 'Terrorist designation', point out the controversy, and not allude to this in the lead? |
:::::Well, point taken, but since we are dealing with an article on an organization, one should take care to see that political positions by great powers do not exhaust the lead description of its nature. Drsmoo's argument is that one should state the political angle and remove the analytic angle. Definitions in this kind of area tend to highlight the political, except when that is embarrassing. [[Al Nusra]] was deemed a terrorist organization, as was al Qaeda, by the US, but it still furnished arms to the former while its regional ally, Israel, has put neither on its designated terrorist lists, and actively helps the Islamic army groups, for a simple reason: they oppose Syria's Assad, and the fall of that dictatorship is in Israel's interests. Since the concept of 'terror organization' is supposed to use some form of objective criteria (as both the EU court and the Advocate General to the EU said the Hamas classification lacked, being based on a dossier of internet citations without institutional review), and nations are inconsistent, one has to be very careful in articles that aspire to NPOV not to give political spin the weight it has here while cancelling out a simple note that even [http://faculty.nps.edu/vitae/cgi-bin/vita.cgi?p=display_vita&id=1023568011 Department of Defense Analysis /Rand Corporation experts like Glenn E. Robinson] question its empirical value. Nearly all government policy comes from forward papers done by a coalition of bureaucratic/academic area specialists, and the distinction academic (wanker) and government experts breaks down. Finally, leads summarize the body of the article. The second suggestion you make is that the area specialist view point should be down in the body of the article, but no allusion should be made to it in the lead. That is obviously, from a technical point of view, anomalous. I can hardly shift an extensive series of citations down, in a section on 'Terrorist designation', point out the controversy, and not allude to this in the lead? |
||
:::::I should add that I have no interest in defending Hamas here. It engaged intensively in terrorist operations for a decade. I just think political judgements by interested powers, whoever they are, are not necessarily useful to understanding the nature of their designated enemies,(with notable exceptions, WW2 etc.)[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC) |
:::::I should add that I have no interest in defending Hamas here. It engaged intensively in terrorist operations for a decade. I just think political judgements by interested powers, whoever they are, are not necessarily useful to understanding the nature of their designated enemies,(with notable exceptions, WW2 etc.)[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::My read is that it was not neutral to compare the countries that have positively labeled Hamas as terrorists to academics that have expressed concern on that choice; it's apples to oranges. The lede needs to split the comparison up, something like "Hamas has been classified as a terrorist organization by the United States, (list...) , while other countries like Russia, China, (list...) have opted to not to categorize the group as such. The act of labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization is a point of debate in political and academic circles." It keeps the intent there, but it avoids what could be seen as a non-neutral comparison. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:39, 11 October 2016
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
James Watson
The current stable version of the lead of James Watson describes certain controversial comments that led to Watson's resignation in 2007 thusly:
- He was then appointed chancellor, serving until 2007[1] when he resigned his position after making controversial comments claiming a link between intelligence and geographical ancestry.[2][3][4][5][6]
Over the past months several editors (most recently myself) have attempted to change this wording to one which they argue more accurately represents third party coverage of Watson's comments (diffs: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]). Suggestions have included:
- ...after making controversial comments claiming a link between race and intelligence.
- ...after making controversial comments about the intelligence of Africans and people of African descent.
- Watson resigned this position and was widely shunned after making comments implying black people are less intelligent than others.
These changes have been reverted by others who argue that they imply Watson is racist, and that this violates WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and/or WP:ARBR&I. Numerous discussions on the talk page have failed to resolve the dispute, most recently Talk:James Watson#"Geographic ancestry" - is that like being descended from an atlas?, and I think a wider discussion amongst uninvolved editors is sorely needed.
The references below are a good summary of the sources on the issue, but a google search will turn up many more. Pinging @Zaostao, Carwil, Collect, Klortho, Landerman56, and Ianmacm:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Roe (talk • contribs)
References
- ^ "Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory James D. Watson". cshl.edu. 2013. Archived from the original on May 24, 2013. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ Crawford, Hayley. "Short Sharp Science:James Watson menaced by hoodies shouting 'racist!'". New Scientist. Retrieved 24 April 2014.
... he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really".
- ^ Watson, J.D. "James Watson: To question genetic intelligence is not racism", Independent, October 19, 2007. Retrieved October 24, 2007
- ^ Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. October 18, 2007. Statement by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Board of Trustees and President Bruce Stillman, PhD Regarding Dr. Watson’s Comments in The Sunday Times on October 14, 2007. Press release. Retrieved October 24, 2007. Template:Wayback
- ^ Wigglesworth, K.DNA pioneer quits after race comments, L.A. Times, October 26, 2007. Retrieved December 5, 2007
- ^ ""Nobel prize-winning biologist resigns."", CNN, October 25, 2007. Retrieved on October 25, 2007.
- The claims which some seek do not have a WP:CONSENSUS and make claims which are not found in the reliable sources. It is not an NPOV issue as such. Collect (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Collect, you yourself have repeatedly invoked NPOV to revert changes and on the talk page: [11][12][13]. Of course there isn't yet a consensus, that is why I have brought this to the noticeboard.
- I can understand your argument that overemphasizing Watson's comments on race may run afoul of NPOV and WP:BLP, but I really don't see how you can in good faith assert that the claim that he was talking about race is not supported by RSs. To quote just a few that are currently cited in support of the phrase in question (my emphasis):
- "...until he resigned over the controversy surrounding his racist comments." [14]
- "...uproar over racial comments he made recently." [15]
- "...painful decision to retire in the aftermath of a racist statement he made" [16]
- "Watson was promoting 'personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science.'" [17]
- "Nobel prize-winning biologist resigns from his job after making racist remarks" [18]
- "He also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically" [19]
- Please, let's try an actually form a consensus here, rather than simply use the word to shut down discussion. Joe Roe (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- The point here is that this is the "Neutral Point of View" noticeboard, and your problem is that not only are issues raised other than that of NPOV, that you do not state the other issues clearly here, and that a genuine issue is that 'no reliable source makes the claim you wish to make. I suggest you set up an RfC rather than forumshop on only one of the issues involved. This is not "trying to shut down discussion" - it is that there is an ongoing discussion on the article talk page, that this board is not the venue for the discussion, that there is procedure of RfC which is preferable, that any discussion here would not settle the issues at hand, and that you appear not to have read WP:CONSENSUS. By the way, sine the most salient issue is whether the claim you wish to insert is backed up by a specific source, and is not of undue weight, that is likely the basis for the RfC which you should start. And please do not open discussions at each noticeboard on each issue - others will deem it confusing.
- With regard to CNN - the quotes you most like are not part of body text of the article, but essentially "story highlights" written by a headline editor. The LA Times article does not ascribe words directly to Watson - but as what his "former protégé" says Watson said. (his former protege Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe wrote) So sorry - the fact is when the person has made other comments specifically disavowing the "quotes", it appears that using those words to define him is UNDUE from the beginning. Calling anyone a "racist" and wikilinking to Race and Intelligence is intrinsically a contentious claim as it is sought to be averred. Collect (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for posting this here on the NPOV noticeboard. It seems an important and disputed question of content in that article. It's important to be accurate and to not whitewash anything. From one CNN article:
Watson was quoted as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really." He also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically, and that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."
and from this CNN article "Nobel winner in 'racist' claim row":
The American professor's words have been roundly condemned as "racist," with fellow scientists dismissing his claims as "genetic nonsense." "He should recognize that statements of this sort have racist functions and are to be deeply, deeply regretted," said Professor Steven Rose of the British Open University.
There it does seem the use of the term "racist comments" is justified from these sources. SageRad (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Collect: Posting a dispute to a central noticeboard is not forum shopping. It is precisely why these noticeboards exist. Yes, there are other issues involved than NPOV, but based on your own comments I judged that to be the main one. What else should I have done? There isn't a "complex issues involving several policy areas" noticeboard. I considered an RfC, but thought I would try a more targeted venue first.
- How can you possibly argue that the claim is not supported by RSes when I have provided six direct quotations that use exactly the same wording? You are splitting hairs by arguing they're in the 'wrong' part of the source: they are what the source says. I completely agree that it would be undue weight to define Watson as a racist. I have never suggested that. All I am saying is that we should describe Watson's comments straightforwardly, using the wording ("race") that nearly every RS on this topic uses, rather than an awkward euphemism ("geographic ancestry") that literally nobody else―not Watson, not any of our sources―employs.
- P.S. I would appreciate a ping if you reply here, as I don't watch this noticeboard. Thanks. Joe Roe (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a "central noticeboard". It is directly only to discussions concerning WP:NPOV - which is a non-negotiable policy. The issues are discussed on the article talk page where I make the point that opinions must be cited and ascribed as such, and that making claims about living persons in Wikipedia's voice which are opinions per se is improper. Joe Roe Collect (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
New eyes are very much appreciated, but unfortunately posting to this noticeboard hasn't brought any besides your own! To that end, I've taken Collect's suggestion and started an RfC at Talk:James Watson#RfC on comments leading to Watson's resignation. Joe Roe (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is presenting her as a saint. Its one thing to present the evidence, it is another to promote on a page with hash tags. Also, unrelated information is posted about the farmer- I disagree with the fine being posted. I don't understand how that adds to her case (or improves it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.7.14.241 (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article is about the case, not about Krajnc. The farmer is the person who brought the case. The case is about his livestock and his business practices (and how Krajnc interacted with them). His past convictions regarding his business practices with his livestock are relevant, and have been mentioned by an independent reliable source as such. MPS1992 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" - if it is about the case only, as you have stated, then you must remove from Anita Krajnc Case's talk the box that says it is part of a biographies of living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.253.130.36 (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC) What a crock of Sh**. If it was strictly about her case it would be a boring article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.84.127.159 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anita Krajnc has an article that redirects to the case article, so perhaps the said template. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- The article is a representation of reliable sources. It is requested that specific changes be suggested or the tag may be allowed to be removed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Anita is in the news again! http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/woman-already-on-trial-for-giving-water-to-pigs-arrested-after-pig-truck-rollover-1.3791972 Make sure to include she has been arrested again for obstruction of a police officer. Thanks, since I can't add it myself. Get rid of farmer fine too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.253.131.44 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- The sourced mention of the arrest has now been added to the article as requested. MPS1992 (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Joseph Conrad
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.
At the moment, the article on Joseph Conrad says "Though he did not speak English fluently until he was in his twenties, he was a master prose stylist who brought a non-English sensibility into English literature". I can hardly imagine a clearer violation of NPOV than that. I tried to amend it to say that he was regarded as being a master prose stylist, which complies with NPOV and V. However, for reasons that have not been made clear, my edits have been undone, and the talk page discussion I started had been deleted, several times. I assume that no-one would argue that the current line is neutral. Thus, I hope someone will go and make the necessary changes. On the other hand, if you can think of a serious argument that this text does in fact comply with NPOV, I'd love to hear it. 82.132.240.93 (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- That seems neutral, as well as consistent with my recollection from English lit classes. It's not saying Conrad was bad at English. It's saying he used English in valid but non-standard ways that were considered interesting and stylish. Rhoark (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood. Indeed it does not say Conrad was bad at English. It says "he was a master prose stylist". Are you really saying that you think that's neutral? If so, can you explain further how you come to that conclusion? 82.132.212.183 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's a problem here that the IP hasn't mentioned. The page has been protected because of repeated attempts to make this change (5 times since the 16th) by the IP hopper Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP making the same change, eg 5.151.178.168 (talk · contribs) (now blocked), 82.132.217.191 (talk · contribs) ditto, 82.132.239.50 (talk · contribs) (blocked by me), 82.132.236.91 (talk · contribs) (not blocked, just 1 edit) and now this one, which I won't bother to block at the moment.
- There's been no attempt to discuss this on the talk page. My belief is that whatever we say needs reliable sourcing and probably attribution. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously, WTAF? No attempt to discuss on talk? You deleted my attempt to discuss on talk! To pretend otherwise is just bizarre. Why do that? And your edit summary talks about me trying to "force this into the article". What, exactly, am I trying to force into the article? Perhaps if I explain again what I did in very, very simple terms, you might even grasp it:
- "He was a master prose stylist" is not neutral!
- "He was described as a matter prose stylist" is neutral!
- I made the sentence neutral!
- Seriously, WTAF? No attempt to discuss on talk? You deleted my attempt to discuss on talk! To pretend otherwise is just bizarre. Why do that? And your edit summary talks about me trying to "force this into the article". What, exactly, am I trying to force into the article? Perhaps if I explain again what I did in very, very simple terms, you might even grasp it:
- Why don't you want the article to be neutral? Why are you disrupting the encyclopaedia by deleting talk page discussions and then immaturely pretending they didn't even take place? 82.132.246.95 (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood. Indeed it does not say Conrad was bad at English. It says "he was a master prose stylist". Are you really saying that you think that's neutral? If so, can you explain further how you come to that conclusion? 82.132.212.183 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The opinions of editors on this matter is not what's important to determining content -- it's what good reliable sources say about this matter that can be brought to support the content. Please find good reliable sources to describe Conrad's use of language and this is what we include. SageRad (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC
- Who are you talking to? Me? Because I am trying to edit the article for exactly the reasons you say. I suspect that, like several other people, you haven't really understood the situation and you just think it's fun to act superior.82.132.246.95 (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It's extremely possible that I'm missing something, but where is this user banned? Arkon (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- See above Best known for sock. I have re-archived this as unlikely to go futher. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am the user who filled this report. I am not and never have been banned. I have no idea why anyone would think I had been. I also have no idea why people like Doug Weller would like about me, deleting my attempts to resolve the situation on the talk page and then claiming I hadn't used the talk page. I am trying to correct blatantly obvious and blatantly unacceptable bias, and the response I am getting is completely mystifying. Why is an arbitrator so keen for the article on Joseph Conrad to violate core policies? It is completely bizarre. 82.132.227.248 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The community reassessment could use input on the neutrality of the article. The discussion is happening here: GAR: Joachim Helbig. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Terrace Theatre (Minnesota)
Another editor had placed a notice on this page: Unbalanced scales.svg This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (September 2016)
Yesterday, I added information to the article per that editor's good suggestion, and noted so on the article's talk page. This morning, I deleted that notice. Being new to Wikipedia, I just want to be sure I have acted properly in this instance.
Thank you. KIRTIS (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Malia Bouattia
The subject is a British student politician who identifies as black based on her Algerian (North African) heritage. Whatever we might make of her racial identification in the United States, there is precedent in Britain for classifying North Africans as black.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people#Northern_Africa and black British; the latter page notes "[t]he term "black" has historically had a number of applications as a racial and political label, and may be used in a wider sociopolitical context to encompass a broader range of non-European ethnic minority populations in Britain. This is a controversial definition.[6] "Black British" is one of various self-designation entries used in official UK ethnicity classifications."
Moreover, Bouattia is classified as black in almost every reliable source in British media. See her wiki page and check out the sources in the lede. A minority have criticized her identity on the grounds that she is not sub-Saharan African, and these sources are covered in the article. In light of this, the best approach seems to be to describe her as Black British while covering the controversy about her racial identity.
Instead, some editors are insisting that all references to her being black (apart from the criticisms of her identity) be purged from the article. This is bias and, exasperated at the need to do periodic reversions on the page, I'm flagging it. Steeletrap (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion is not about NPOV, and is progressing on the article talk page where it belongs. I find a great many sources stating the people of Algerian ancestry are not generally called "black", just as Japanese and Chinese people are rarely called "black" and so on. This is a matter of sources, and not a matter of neutral wording, and is not a topic related to the purpose of this particular noticeboard. The "periodic reversions" admitted by the OP are edit war as admitted. Collect (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Algerians are mixed and consequently vary in appearance. Most look brown; but some would look black to Americans (others would look white). I have no doubt that many sources say they are not black. But this is all OR! What matters to us what reliable sources say about Bouattia: the vast majority say she's black.
- Her racial identity is a matter of controversy; we shouldn't take sides in the controversy. Instead, we should reflect the majority-view in RS (that she is black) while also covering the significant minority view (that she isn't black since she's not of sub-Saharan ancestry). Why is this controversial? Steeletrap (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- If it's not an NPOV issue then what is it? I think it's relevant here. If not here. Where else do you go when you have such meta-issues on an article's content? SageRad (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Ebrie people
The lede of the Ebrié article says "Originally called the "Tchaman" or "Achan" (both of which mean "the chosen ones" in the Ebrié language), the name Ébrié was given to them by the neighboring Abouré people. In the Abouré language, Ébrié means "dirty" or "soiled," and was given to them after a military defeat."
Wouldn't it be better to move the page to the name which is not derogatory? I am seeing them referred to as "Achan" in at least one article about Abidjan that seems to be written by somebody local, so it's not an obsolete name.
However, I am not at all a subject expert or all that familiar with WP policies on page moves so I thought I would ask here. I propose moving the page to Achan annd giving the Tchaman alternate name, then further down (not in lede, maybe in history) saying oh and the neighboring Abouré gave them a rude name when they defeated them (be nice to know when) in year whatever. They called them Ébrié, which means "soiled"...Elinruby (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC) PS the name is spelled wrong in addition to being derogatory; there should be an accent aigu on the capital E. This does matter. Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
RFC: On inclusion vs. exclusion of the viewpoint that the Aquatic Ape Theory is pseudoscience
Participation in the RfC at Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis is requested. The RfC asks whether presented sources require that the article should include the viewpoint that the theory is a form of pseudoscience or whether this viewpoint can be excluded entirely from the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Troy Southgate (far-right personality)
I came across this article via the edits of an IP editor (Special:Contributions/94.60.196.117) inserting neo-Nazi publications into articles. The article is in need of a cleaning up and could use some RS. I cleaned up the lead, but it was a drop in the bucket due to the amount of neo-Nazi fancruft.
In addition, Jonathan Bowden is part of the same far-right cluster, where Southgate was used as as source: diff. More eyes on this article would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Luftwaffe.cz (fan site) used as source
I would appreciate another set of eyes on the article where an editor restored removed material stating that the web site is suitable to use as a source. Please see: Talk:Günther_Seeger#Recent edit. The material reinstated is not NPOV from my reading of things. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Morgellons Disease
I'd like to draw attention to this page, as it appears to have attracted some deletionist/revertionist editors, one who has stated he wanted to delete the page and put it under the heading of delusional parasitosis, when there has only been one study by the CDC with a small sample size and they only used that term once in their report. Now I am being told that the only large scale scientific study is not even MEDRS, according to Jytdog
And the present wikipedia article, as it stands is not a good understanding of what morgellons is, and does not even reflect in tone or attitude articles such as this published in Newsweek. (of which there are many I have linked in the Talk:Morgellons page)
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/morgellons-skin-disease-485638.html
This article has been labelled as a fringe topic, even while it has received a lot of relatively unbiased mainstream media coverage.
The raging antonyms of advocacy seem to have run amok here, and this page does not seem to me to effectively communicate much in the way of a NPOV which provides much useful information to the users of wikipedia.
Probrooks (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- The CDC had a small sample size because it is a non-existant disease claimed by a small number of either deluded, under the influence or plain cranks. Personally I dont think it should be merged completely because while it is completely made up rubbish, it is notable rubbish which has been covered by reliable secondary sources, the CDC was forced to investigate just in case there was something in it (the result being, no there wasnt). Being labelled fringe does not mean it has not had significant coverage, it just means it does not reflect the mainstream thought on the subject. Which in this case is: The people who think they have something called Morgellon's dont. They either have nothing, or something else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- The article as it is doesn't even reflect mainstream thought on the subject (which I find more openminded and more neutral in tone than the present article). I am certainly open to being a non-existant disease, and being a delusionary disease, but I can't see how people can so blithely make their mind up, when how can they really know? One small scientific study? But also, anyone can see photos of these people's sores, the strange pictures of these fibres and also take note many people are simply reporting they FEEL sick.
- Yes, but wikipedia can say that after the CDC study, they could not find a conclusive cause, didn't find out what the fibres actually were and still call it an unexplained dermopathy. That's just called reporting the facts. There does not need to be any statement "but just maybe there's something to this" as the CDC report does not use that kind of language, but makes it very clear much is still unknown.
- Three things.
- 1) here is what I actually wrote. As I noted there, I don't intend to actually try to do the merge, and even if I did, it would be done through a merger proposal, not unilaterally.
- 2) for the zillionth time, the article does not cite the CDC report to support any WP:Biomedical information. Instead, there are five literature review articles - strong sources - that are cited: PMID 24005827, PMID 22250620, PMID 19878403, PMID 19822895, and PMID 19681520.
- 3) Newsweek is not a MEDRS source; i cannot fathom why Pobrooks is mentioning it here after they have been told many times that we use MEDRS sources to support biomedical content. Ignoring the strong sources that others bring and demanding content be added based on weak sources, is itself a violation of NPOV and a hallmark of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- The first paper is an evaluation of delusional infestation. No mention of Morgellons.There is no text on this page. Why should it be quoted here?
- The second paper is about dermatological infestations., no mention of Morgellons.
- The third source says “As an example, we discuss a 55-year-old woman who complained of Morgellons disease and was treated as if she had DP.” This is the only paper with the hypothesis that Morgellons is delusional parasitosis.
- The fourth source is a paper about delusional infestation, with no mention of Morgellons.
- The fifth paper is for nurses and is about how nurses can care for people with morgellons.
- And these five papers are being used to support the heading Medical description? and the diagnosis that morgellons is Delusional Paratosis?
- I cannot see how anybody could consider these sources “strong” or reliable.
- The CDC study is the only half decent scientific study on Morgellons and even that study was did not firmly state that Morgellons is delusional paratosis.
- WP:MEDRS is a guideline for content, I am mentioning the newsweek article to point out mainstream consensus on this matter, which is not trying to tell people Morgellons is delusional paratosis as you are so insistent that it is must be.
Probrooks (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Where do we start...Let's go through those papers: 1) This paper is explicitly about Morgellons - you clearly didn't read it; 2) This paper is explicitly about Morgellons - you clearly didn't read it; 3) Yes, you actually read this one it seems! (or at least you read the abstract); 4) This paper is explicitly about Morgellons, a word that is used in the text about 100 times - you clearly didn't read it; 5) This one does equivocate on the cause of Morgellons, but that part of the article is terrible. Specifically, it presents a false equivalence between high-quality published research claiming Morgellons to be delusional parasitosis, and several opinion pieces by chronic lyme disease quacks. It should probably be removed from the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I read the abstracts, and am not able to find decent links to the meat of these primary sources. Yes, I made a mistake about 4 not mentioning morgellons, it was mentioned once in the abstract. As I am not able to read these papers or your average wikipedia user is not able to, how useful are they anyway?
- It seems to me the CDC web site is more user friendly and actually based on real science.
- I do also want to point out that other scientific studies have been carried out on Morgellons, which contrast to the CDC position, most mainstream articles about Morgellons mention this research.
- WP:MEDRS states "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers."
- According to Wikipedia's reliable source guideline, there is no requirement that a source be freely available online. Now, it's certainly difficult to have a conversation about a source that one person can't read, though how I accessed them is nothing special - I got them through my library. Regarding the CDC, let's see what it says:
This comprehensive study of an unexplained apparent dermopathy demonstrated no infectious cause and no evidence of an environmental link. There was no indication that it would be helpful to perform additional testing for infectious diseases as a potential cause. Future efforts should focus on helping patients reduce their symptoms through careful attention to treatment of co-existing medical, including psychiatric conditions, that might be contributing to their symptoms.
- It sounds like they've pretty much in line with the other sources, just less assertive. The PLOS one paper is more of the same, but in much greater detail. I would summarize it as (not for the article, just this discussion), "CDC researchers have not jumped on the delusional infestation diagnosis, but they have also rejected apparently everything else". Now, regarding the "other scientific studies" is there any particular one you'd like to discuss, that comes to a different conclusion? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Someguy, thanks for your input. If you review the Morgellons talk page, you will see that for this fringe-y condition, people show up and advocate making changes to content based on weak sources (primary sources in the scientific literature or the popular press); one of the reasons why MEDRS insists on literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical/scientific bodies like the CDC itself (not the PLoS paper which is a primary source) -- is exactly so we don't get into "duelling primary sources" content disputes with advocates; it goes no where fast. MEDRS sources are where we find "accepted knowledge" about biomedical information; there is a hierarchy in the literature about health. you are free to do as you want of course, but asking Pobrooks, who is refusing to deal with the five MEDRS sources - or any MEDRS sources - to bring some primary source is going down an unproductive path..... Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I was just looking at some of the papers at the link Pobrooks provided. All primary sources, all written by the same group, and half in predatory journals with no editorial standards. Looking into the PI for this group, the NIH actually put out a report accusing him of scientific misconduct (that also cost him a job), and Morgellons isn't the only fringe disease he publishes on. Yeah, nothing to see there. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Someguy, thanks for your input. If you review the Morgellons talk page, you will see that for this fringe-y condition, people show up and advocate making changes to content based on weak sources (primary sources in the scientific literature or the popular press); one of the reasons why MEDRS insists on literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical/scientific bodies like the CDC itself (not the PLoS paper which is a primary source) -- is exactly so we don't get into "duelling primary sources" content disputes with advocates; it goes no where fast. MEDRS sources are where we find "accepted knowledge" about biomedical information; there is a hierarchy in the literature about health. you are free to do as you want of course, but asking Pobrooks, who is refusing to deal with the five MEDRS sources - or any MEDRS sources - to bring some primary source is going down an unproductive path..... Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia's reliable source guideline, there is no requirement that a source be freely available online. Now, it's certainly difficult to have a conversation about a source that one person can't read, though how I accessed them is nothing special - I got them through my library. Regarding the CDC, let's see what it says:
Hamas
The lead for the Hamas article currently includes this material: "Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, and Japan as a terrorist organization. Others regard this classification as problematic, simplistic or reductive.[49][50][51][52][53]" However the "others" being referred to are cherry-picked academics found in Google Books. Given that the entirety of the paragraph (minus this exception) is focused on international positions, the inclusion of this remark misleadingly makes it seem as if these "others" were other countries, and this random "counterpoint" is non-neutral. There can be a separate section for academic views of Hamas. Drsmoo (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, the way it is phrased implies the critical points are other nations but if they are just random academics (even if authorities in the area), this is the wrong way to introduce them. Either that should be removed, or a statement that summarizes the general academic take on how the classification is taken (including those that support it) should be used, but even here, this then might be undue weight in the lede. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Everything one objects to here is said to be sourced by 'cherrypicking', which, as often, here means, a careful survey of the relevant sources written by academic analysts of the Middle East who survey the available data. The whole section by the way is an abuse of WP:LEDE, since it is repetitively stuffed with a statement that could be synthesized in 2 sentences.
Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan. Hamas has been outlawed in Jordan[1] Others regard this designation as problematic or simplistic.[2][3][4][5][6] Israel outlawed Hamas in 1989, followed by the United States in 1996 and Canada in 2002. The European Union defined Hamas's military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades as a terrorist organization in 2001, and put Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003, but such designation was successfully challenged by Hamas in the courts in 2014 on technical grounds. The judgment was appealed. In 2016 an EU legal advisor recommended that Hamas be removed from the list due to procedural errors. The final decision is not thought likely to effect individual government lists.[7][8] An Egyptian court ruled Hamas was a terrorist organization in 2015. Japan froze Hamas assets according to its legislation on terrorist entities in 2006. Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The organization is also banned in Jordan. It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil.
- (Discussion continues below after the list of references.)
References
- ^ Davis, Richard (2016-02-05). Hamas, Popular Support and War in the Middle East: Insurgency in the Holy Land. Routledge. ISBN 9781317402589.
In 1999, King Abdullah of Jordan outlawed Hamas after accusing it of breaking a deal to restrict its activities to politics.
- ^ Glenn E.Robinson,'Hamas as Social Movement,' in Quintan Wiktorowicz (ed.) Islamic Activism: A Social Movement Theory Approach, Indiana University Press 2004 pp112-141 p.112.
- ^ Krista E. Wiegand, Bombs and Ballots: Governance by Islamist Terrorist and Guerrilla Groups. (2010) Routledge, 2016 p.124.
- ^ Tristan Dunning, pp.28-30.
- ^ Kirsten E. Schulze,The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Pearson Education, 2008 p.87.
- ^ Luke Peterson ,Palestine-Israel in the Print News Media: Contending Discourses, Routledge 2014 p.99.
- ^ "EU advised to drop Hamas and Tamil Tigers from terror list". BBC News. 2016-09-22. Retrieved 2016-09-22.
- ^ 'Hamas Should Be Taken Off Terror List, EU Legal Adviser Says ,' Haaretz 22 September 2016.
- The sensible way per WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV to state this briefly is:
Hamas has been designated a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, the EU, Japan, Egypt and Canada. It is banned in Jordan.It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Many analysts view the designation as problematic, and Hamas successfully challenged in a court of law the EU classification in 2014.
- All of the details should be in the main body of the text. The bias given to the big actors in Western societies, their judgements count is obvious. Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're not responding to the points that were made. The addition of cherry-picked analysts who support your opinion as a "counterweight" to international positions about Hamas (which is what the paragraph is about) is Undue. The paragraph is detailing international positions. If we want to talk about academic positions, it should be in it's own section which details the academic consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Goodness grief. That is trivial. Nowhere is it stated in policy that a lead or the text it summarizes should privilege the political decisions made by governments (it's just politics) over what sober analysts of international affairs say. We even have in the sources above, a study that the EU decision was based on no formal government documentation, but on a presentation snipped from the internet. Governments act out of interest, or to pressure, or whatever. This section is a farce because in violation of NPOV, editors are persistently trying to pin the blame, and we don't do that. Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Again you're not responding to the points that were brought up. I'll quote Masem, who I fully agree with "Either that should be removed, or a statement that summarizes the general academic take on how the classification is taken (including those that support it) should be used, but even here, this then might be undue weight in the lede." In other words, what you did was the definition of cherry-picking. Instead of reflecting the academic consensus, you added a bunch of cherry-picked opinions as a counterweight to the international decisions, in a paragraph that was solely about opinions of countries. You also phrased it in a way that made it seems as if these objections were from countries (the term you used was "others"). Not that it would be appropriate to explicitly cherry-pick academics as a counterpoint to international decisions in the lead either Drsmoo (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- To add to what Drsmoo has pointed out, the reason that countries' stances on Hamas is importance is that that creates official policy around how those countries deal with those groups, whereas the opinions of respected academics is simply opinions. I will agree that Nishidani's point that countries that have proactively stated they do not consider Hamas as a terrorist organization should be include to balance against those that do (particularly as this includes big players like Russia and China, per above sources); that's also a NPOV. But to that end, then for the lede, I would expect that academic analysis will be similarly split on whether it is a fair assessment or not. So the lede should include the country list that do classify them group this way and those that have stated they do not, and should omit the academic opinions on this decision (which is a point for expansion in the body). --MASEM (t) 22:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, point taken, but since we are dealing with an article on an organization, one should take care to see that political positions by great powers do not exhaust the lead description of its nature. Drsmoo's argument is that one should state the political angle and remove the analytic angle. Definitions in this kind of area tend to highlight the political, except when that is embarrassing. Al Nusra was deemed a terrorist organization, as was al Qaeda, by the US, but it still furnished arms to the former while its regional ally, Israel, has put neither on its designated terrorist lists, and actively helps the Islamic army groups, for a simple reason: they oppose Syria's Assad, and the fall of that dictatorship is in Israel's interests. Since the concept of 'terror organization' is supposed to use some form of objective criteria (as both the EU court and the Advocate General to the EU said the Hamas classification lacked, being based on a dossier of internet citations without institutional review), and nations are inconsistent, one has to be very careful in articles that aspire to NPOV not to give political spin the weight it has here while cancelling out a simple note that even Department of Defense Analysis /Rand Corporation experts like Glenn E. Robinson question its empirical value. Nearly all government policy comes from forward papers done by a coalition of bureaucratic/academic area specialists, and the distinction academic (wanker) and government experts breaks down. Finally, leads summarize the body of the article. The second suggestion you make is that the area specialist view point should be down in the body of the article, but no allusion should be made to it in the lead. That is obviously, from a technical point of view, anomalous. I can hardly shift an extensive series of citations down, in a section on 'Terrorist designation', point out the controversy, and not allude to this in the lead?
- I should add that I have no interest in defending Hamas here. It engaged intensively in terrorist operations for a decade. I just think political judgements by interested powers, whoever they are, are not necessarily useful to understanding the nature of their designated enemies,(with notable exceptions, WW2 etc.)Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- My read is that it was not neutral to compare the countries that have positively labeled Hamas as terrorists to academics that have expressed concern on that choice; it's apples to oranges. The lede needs to split the comparison up, something like "Hamas has been classified as a terrorist organization by the United States, (list...) , while other countries like Russia, China, (list...) have opted to not to categorize the group as such. The act of labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization is a point of debate in political and academic circles." It keeps the intent there, but it avoids what could be seen as a non-neutral comparison. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Goodness grief. That is trivial. Nowhere is it stated in policy that a lead or the text it summarizes should privilege the political decisions made by governments (it's just politics) over what sober analysts of international affairs say. We even have in the sources above, a study that the EU decision was based on no formal government documentation, but on a presentation snipped from the internet. Governments act out of interest, or to pressure, or whatever. This section is a farce because in violation of NPOV, editors are persistently trying to pin the blame, and we don't do that. Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're not responding to the points that were made. The addition of cherry-picked analysts who support your opinion as a "counterweight" to international positions about Hamas (which is what the paragraph is about) is Undue. The paragraph is detailing international positions. If we want to talk about academic positions, it should be in it's own section which details the academic consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)