Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Per Wikipedia policy, is there anything wrong with a quote containing the word "cult" in the lead?
Per Wikipedia policy, is there anything wrong with a quote containing the word "cult" in the lead? Please see what I am talking about HERE.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- How many times have we discussed the use of the word 'cult' in this context? If the word is used by relevant reliable sources, and if it is made clear (as seems to be the case here) that this is an opinion, based on a legitimate analysis, there is no fundamental objection to using the word in an article - and accordingly, since the lede is supposed to summarise the article body, there is no fundamental objection to using the word in the lede either. Whether it is appropriate to do so in specific circumstances is a WP:WEIGHT issue only. Wikipedia does not have a 'list of words that cannot be used in the lede', and it would be entirely inappropriate to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- We have an editor there who is misstating the outcome of the last round of this, or alternatively arguing that it's OK in the body but not the lead. Frankly, I agree this doesn't have to come back here again other than that another editor (with a COI problem, by the way) refuses to drop the stick. Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with both AndyTheGrump and Montanabw. Montanabw is referring to @Prasangika37: by the way.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia policy, is there anything wrong with a quote containing the word "cult" in the lead? No. It is a word to be careful about, but if reliably sourced, to an expert in the field, properly attributed and representative of a significant portion of the third party views, it is fine. All four criteria appear to be fully met. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, RPOD. I hope that settles the matter. (I fear it won't, but hope springs eternal). Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Elnon, HiLo48, Adjwilley, John Carter, and The Four Deuces: Having one request and getting two opinions after having 5 people negate the point of view is a bit ridiculous... There isnt anything wrong with having it in the lead per say, but Dodin isn't an expoert in the field and there isn't a significant poriton of hte third party views. Please stop trying to go around a conclusion we already came to. @TheRedPenOfDoom: @AndyTheGrump: see the recent discussion here--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Use_of_the_word_cult Prasangika37 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- What do you mean Dodin isn't an expert in the field? Thats just false.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Dodin is a self-proclaimed 'tibetologist' (Who decides someone is a tibetologist anyway? What about that makes someone an expert when it is self-defined?) All he did was co-edit a book.. and is alleged to have lectured at single university. There is nothing about his credentials as a scholar >anywhere< online. He also was the director of the Tibet Information Network. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have done some research about Thierry Dodin. His bibliography in the field of Tibetan studies amounts to two items : in 2001, he co-edited with Heinz Räther Imagining Tibet. Perception, Projections and Fantasies (Wisdom Publications), a collection of essays in which he also co-authored the final chapter "The Myth of Tibet Through History" ; in 2008, he was one of the co-authors in Anne-Marie Blondeau, Katia Buffetrille and Wei Jing (eds.) Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions (University of California Press). On these two accounts he is called or calls himself a tibetologist but no indication is available as to his having a university diploma in Tibetan studies or language (apart from his having "taught in the past at the University of Bonn"). There is no page to his name in the English and the French Wikipedias. In 2012, he gave a talk on the "Gobalization of Tibetan Buddhism" at the Sakyamuni Dharma Centre in Malaysia, one the Dalai Lama's Buddhist centres there. In May 2014, the Central Tibetan Administration website published an interview of Thierry Dodin on "The Dorje Shugden Conflict", in which he is introduced as "the executive director of Tibet Information Network (TIN)" and "the founder and director of TibetInfoNet". In the light of these credentials, Dodin doesn't strike me as a neutral observer, hence his use of the word cult should not appear in a prominent position in the DS-related pages. --Elnon (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Dodin is a self-proclaimed 'tibetologist' (Who decides someone is a tibetologist anyway? What about that makes someone an expert when it is self-defined?) All he did was co-edit a book.. and is alleged to have lectured at single university. There is nothing about his credentials as a scholar >anywhere< online. He also was the director of the Tibet Information Network. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- What do you mean Dodin isn't an expert in the field? Thats just false.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The question here seems to be itself transparently biased, as it seems to take the response for granted. Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with using the word in the lead of some articles. The question is regarding the appropriateness of the word and the context. It seems to my eyes to be, unfortunately, a continuation of a tendency I regret to say I have seen for some time in the op to the effect of that individual seeming to more or less take their personal biases for granted as the ultimate answer and more or less unarguable. Seeming to perhaps misuse this venue to seek an answer which is so obviously already known, rather than dealing with the more substantial issues of whether such usage is appropriate in an individual case, could reasonably be seen as problematic editing perhaps deserving of some sort of review at a noticeboard. Rather than continue discussion at this thread, I think it would make sense if the relevant parties worked to get together a neutral question which directly addresses the content of the dispute in question, rather than the leading question with which this thread was started, and seek input through an RfC. John Carter (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I like the idea of that John Carter. Thanks for the suggestion. Can we get some general support then Montanabw and VictoriaGrayson? I'll remove the point from the lead until we get a conclusion on an RFC. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thats fine.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is the second trip to a drama board for this issue, and in the meantime, I have restored the removed material (it was clearly and cleanly sourced). What we have here, simply put, is a member of a cult trying to remove information from an article that says the organization is a cult. This is pretty much the same as for Scientology, just a much smaller group with less press coverage and fewer adherents. Prasangika37 has a serious COI problem that s/he does not disclose, appears to be affiliates with the Audrey37 sockmaster and I for one am sick and tired of this endless nonsense. I started out neutral on this issue, I am now quite frustrated that this issue is not clearly settled. The NKT has all the hallmarks of a cult and has been described as such by the mainstream Tibetan Buddhist community. But if the drama must be continued endlessly for another six months, then carry on... Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thats fine.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I like the idea of that John Carter. Thanks for the suggestion. Can we get some general support then Montanabw and VictoriaGrayson? I'll remove the point from the lead until we get a conclusion on an RFC. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- You should take it to WP:NPOVN. There is no question that the person in the interview called it a cult. That is the full extent of rs - is there an rs saying that the statement was made by the person who was interviewed. Well there is. Whether it should be included is a matter of weight. TFD (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
That a quote is used in the body of an article does not mean each quote is then also suitable for the lede. Best practice is to use "summary style" for the lede, which means avoiding substantial quotes in the lede - readers will find them in the body of the article. In short - summarize sections in the lede, which usually means a sentence sans quotes. Note that such summary sentences do not need cites if the original claims are properly cited. Collect (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Electronic Cigarette - "circumvent smoke-free laws"
The article currently states that:"Although some people have a desire to quit smoking by using e-cigarettes, other common explanations for the use of these products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut back on traditional cigarettes."
In the article there is also an image of a no smoking sign with the caption: "Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or to circumvent smoke-free laws."
The text in the article is sourced from here. This source says: "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws..."
However another source says: "Most users use them to either replace cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited or discouraged..."
There is currently a discussion on the article's talk page regarding whether "circumvent" should be rewritten: Link. The intention of the original poster is to replace it with "other common explanations for the use of these products are to obey smoke-free laws and to cut back on traditional cigarettes". My personal feelings are that both "circumvent" and "obey" represent partial language. However I think that "circumvent" could easily be replaced with something neutral such as "permit usage in places where smoking is prohibited". "Circumvent" to me is judgemental because it implies that e-cigarette users have some sort of deviant or criminal intentions that go against the spirit of the law and the image in my opinion, is being used to attract attention to this.
So the question are:
- Is the use of the phrases "circumvent smoke-free laws" a breach of NPOV in this context?
- If it is then what should replace it?
- Is the use of the image of a no-smoking sign appropriate in this context or does this breach NPOV as well?
Levelledout (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree circumvent carries some implication of finding a devious loophole. Comply with may be less emotive than obey, which sounds a bit, well, obedient. But what of course really wants to be said is comply with non-smoking rules while still being able to consume nicotine, which is the point being made.
- I can't see that the image is POV - it's an obvious, straightforward visual representation of the concept of a smoke-free area. Barnabypage (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think the sign is being used to promote a POV. The page isnt about smoking. E-cigarettes dont create smoke. The image with the wording under it is a problem. Perhaps if the wording under it said "Smoking is restricted in some places" it wouldnt be a problem. It is trying to equate smoking and vaping which are two different things. As proof of that, laws against vaping have to be passed to prohibit vaping, if it was smoking those additional laws would not be necessary. AlbinoFerret 15:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- But the passage in question is about smoking. OTOH, the point maybe doesn't need a picture anyway.
- (Plenty of jurisdictions have effectively taken the view that vaping is a form of smoking, by amending smoke-free laws to include it - but that's by the by.) Barnabypage (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The whole point of my last comment was they had to be placed under those laws, it wasnt automatic. Thanks for that comment though, because after reading it, I wonder if this claim of avoiding smoke free laws isnt better on the Legal status page. Because at present its a controversy. Some places have placed them under smoke free laws, some havent. AlbinoFerret 16:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah but...the point is they have amended smoke-free laws to include e-cigs, in a way that they wouldn't generally amend smoke-free laws to raise bus fares or make rules on barking dogs. So those jurisdictions do clearly consider it a kind of smoking (FWIW, I personally disagree - the characterisation of e-cigs as tobacco products is at best rather tenuous. But it would be disingenuous to pretend that there aren't lots of people in positions of influence who do take that POV.)
- And yes, that clearly belongs in Legal Status - it's a complex and somewhat subtle area that simply can't be encapsulated in a phrase, especially when we remember there are countries other than the United States. :) But, taking up e-cigs in order to be able to consume nicotine and/or do something "a bit like smoking" in an area where smoking is prohibited is not really a legal status issue, it's a consumer appeal issue. So I would say that very much belongs with the other reasons for vaping. Barnabypage (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The image as no place whatsoever in the article. No even a little bit, especially with the text that accompanies it.... Let's read it togheter shall we: Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or to circumvent smoke-free laws.
- Now! Why would someone single out one claim being made out of a enumeration of reasons that peeps use to stop smoking and make a picture out of it. Why not use this image right here instead, after all 2 out of the 3 reasons given are about cutting down or stoping smoking, that would give more weight to this image than the other one? This is clearly POV pushing and the image along with the text must be removed immediately. TheNorlo (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The whole point of my last comment was they had to be placed under those laws, it wasnt automatic. Thanks for that comment though, because after reading it, I wonder if this claim of avoiding smoke free laws isnt better on the Legal status page. Because at present its a controversy. Some places have placed them under smoke free laws, some havent. AlbinoFerret 16:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think the sign is being used to promote a POV. The page isnt about smoking. E-cigarettes dont create smoke. The image with the wording under it is a problem. Perhaps if the wording under it said "Smoking is restricted in some places" it wouldnt be a problem. It is trying to equate smoking and vaping which are two different things. As proof of that, laws against vaping have to be passed to prohibit vaping, if it was smoking those additional laws would not be necessary. AlbinoFerret 15:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree with removing the image; it adds nothing to the article. As for the claim in the body of the article I'd prefer to use "comply with" rather than "obey", but "circumvent" is blatant POV and needs to go.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- How about "avoid" instead of circumvent? Its a related word and doesnt have the same negative impact. AlbinoFerret 19:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- It still sounds a bit judgemental and is not as neutral as something such as "to enable them to consume nicotine in a place where smoking is prohibited". But we need some uninvolved editors to comment on this, everybody so far that has commented is involved.Levelledout (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to be common on the notice boards, only medical editors get responses for the E-cig article. AlbinoFerret 04:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- It still sounds a bit judgemental and is not as neutral as something such as "to enable them to consume nicotine in a place where smoking is prohibited". But we need some uninvolved editors to comment on this, everybody so far that has commented is involved.Levelledout (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- How about "avoid" instead of circumvent? Its a related word and doesnt have the same negative impact. AlbinoFerret 19:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree with removing the image; it adds nothing to the article. As for the claim in the body of the article I'd prefer to use "comply with" rather than "obey", but "circumvent" is blatant POV and needs to go.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- It would not be a violation of WP:NPOV to use the same word the source cited used. So using "circumvent" does not introduce a WP:NPOV problem. However I understand that the use of the word gives a shading of meaning that isn't carried over into other sources. I'd be OK with wording that doesn't use either "comply" or "circumvent", like some of the proposals here.
Zad68
14:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- What's wrong with "comply"? If you don't smoke you're complying with the no-smoking law.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- 'The use of "circumvent" (twice) in the article, misrepresents the source it is cited to. The two appearances in the WP article describe reasons people use e-cigs. In the cited review, the four uses of "circumvent" characterize claims found on e-cig retail websites, from a study analyzing e-cig marketing and advertising, not user response. In the article, "circumvent" is used to describe "common reasons people use" and "other common explanations for the use of" - nowhere in the source does it state that. Additionally, "circumvent" is not a common word, and has connotations of shadiness, using loopholes, premeditated rule-avoidance, and from the cited review context, it appears to have been chosen precisely for that reason.
- >>From the sources lead paragraph (my emphasis): "By 2013, the major multinational tobacco companies had entered the e-cigarette market. E-cigarettes are marketed via television, the Internet, and print advertisements (that often feature celebrities)2 as healthier alternatives to tobacco smoking, as useful for quitting smoking and reducing cigarette consumption, and as a way to circumvent smoke-free laws by enabling users to “smoke anywhere.”
- >>From the body text, "Grana and Ling3 reviewed 59 single-brand e-cigarette retail Web sites in 2012 and found that the most popular claims were that the products ... can be used to circumvent smoke-free policies"
- >>To further clarify, the study on which the cited review bases its circumvention claims describes its purpose as: "To describe the main advertising claims made on branded e-cigarette retail websites."1
- So, "circumvent" aside, there may not be any reliable source for saying a common use of e-cigs is smoking in smoking-prohibited places, or any of the other user reasons based on this source. --Tsavage (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tsavage That is a great example of how a journal article can be used to introduce Original Research by misapplying how it is used in the source. The addition to the article may have been a good faith edit. But it appears to be a cherry picked word search to promote a POV solution in search of a problem. The article has had numerous claims like this added and its one thing I always look at on controversial claims. I suggest the current wording of the whole thing be removed unless a reliable source is found to back up the claim. AlbinoFerret 15:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
As previously explained, the text is well sourced. See "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut down on conventional cigarettes, which may reinforce dual use patterns and delay or deter quitting."[1] How many times must I explain this? There is also more details in the source about this. I and others on the talk page this explain the text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- As shown above you, its clearly a mistake in the journal article where it discusses one thing in the body and then twists it around in the end. This appears to be cherry picked without looking to see what the article really says. It cant be said to "review" something that was never presented in the body of the journal article. AlbinoFerret 05:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- QuackGuru: Your quote, the fourth and final instance of "circumvent" in the source, occurs in the Conclusions section. It is ambiguously worded, and if it is referring to user reasons, then it appears to be an unsourced claim. Presumably, conclusions are drawn from the body of the review (or am I wrong?), where "circumventing smoke-free laws" is from Grana/Ling's report on e-cig advertising claims. If encouraging the exclusive use of secondary sources is intended to add a layer of expert scrutiny to primary sources, then everything in the secondary itself should be sourced. What is the primary source for, "...other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws..." if that refers to peoples' reasons, not advertising claims - I haven't been able to find it? I'm not saying this isn't a big reason, and if it is, hopefully reliable sources are available so the info can be included, but the process I'm participating in here is, as hard to believe as it sounds, about a single word..."circumvent". If the source that uses circumvent actually does not apply, what is this particular debate about? --Tsavage (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tsavage that the current wording misrepresents the source. I also think that particular source has a clear anti e-cig company POV and should be used more carefully. The second Gov.UK source's wording is preferable.SPACKlick (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The information presented here ought to be presented, but not on main article page for Electronic Cigarettes, because it is yet another example of violating NPOV.
- The information equals: other common explanations for the use of these products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut back on traditional cigarettes.
- This information comes from study here which says: Eighty-eight percent stated that the product could be smoked anywhere and 71% mentioned using the product to circumvent clean air policies.
- And stated purpose for this research is: To describe the main advertising claims made on branded e-cigarette retail websites.
- This violates WP:NPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources
- Without attribution in the text to the particular source, NPOV is being violated. The information is a stated claim, not fact, and without attribution, it strains credibility of neutrality to see how this relates to what an eCig is.
- This also violates WP:NPOV Prefer nonjudgmental language.
- Clearly the inclusion of this information on the main article page for eCigs is intended to disparage eCigs, by explicitly conveying a claim, not a fact, that eCigs can be used to break a law.
- Most, if not all, usage claims for eCigs are based on inconclusive data, or as is the case with this particular claim, outdated data (from 2011-12 marketing claims of eCigs). I strongly urge Wikipedia and its editors to not include usage data on the eCig main article page, but do encourage that information to be shared on Wikipedia in another, related article, page. I argue that this will lead to an overall article that is not constantly challenging and/or violating Wikipedia's pillar of NPOV. Gw40nw (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
RfC at Bitcoin, re: mentioning its use in online black markets
Bitcoin is an online payment system that, among other uses, facilitates illicit purchases of drugs, etc. at online black market sites. This activity well documented, and many major news outlets have discussed this. Apparently two editors now want to remove any mention of this from the lede of the article. I ave started a RfC on the subject.
I'm posting this to the NPOV noticeboard because these two editors have established a decidedly pro-bitcoin stance removing information that casts bitcoin in a negative light and disparaging editors who don't solely contribute bitcoin-boosting content.
WP:LEAD states that, "The lead should... summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." and that "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."
Just as an example of the type of coverage bitcoin gets from major news outlets on the issue of it being used in online black markets:
CNN has referred to bitcoin as a "shady online currency [that is] starting to gain legitimacy in certain parts of the world", and The Washington Post calls it "the currency of choice for seedy online activities". The Sacramento Bee says that "bitcoins are the currency of choice" in "underground networks where marketing in contraband is common". The BBC states, "bitcoin is often the virtual currency of choice" for "sites selling drugs". The London Evening Standard says, "it’s true that bitcoins are the currency of choice for ‘dark’ websites... through which users can buy drugs."
Talk:Bitcoin#RfC: Summarizing the "Criminal activities" section in the lede
Fleetham (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fleetham misrepresents the current situation. The facts are:
- there is an ongoing neutrality dispute at Talk:Bitcoin#Neutrality_dispute_on_the_contents_of_the_lead_section, which started on 9 December 2014
- everybody interested in the dispute is welcome to take part
- Fleetham did not inform any of the editors taking part in the dispute about starting the discussion here, which adds to the sum of inappropriate acts. Other such acts incorporate:
- To the point of the dispute - there has always been a statement summarizing fears of bitcoin-related illicit activities. Such a summary statement is also proposed for the lead section in the future. What Fleetham tries to one-sidedly add to the lead section is (between other contents) the list of all illicit items that can be purchased with bitcoin. Such list is present in the "Criminal activities" section and the addition of the copy of this list to the article lead section looks nonneutral based on the fact that there is not (and is not planned) a balancing text listing legal purchases that can be made with bitcoin.
- Fleetham also tries to achieve the state where only one place where customers can buy items with bitcoins is mentioned in the article lead. That is nonneutral and unacceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see no possible sane argument for preventing the Bitcoin article from telling the reader about Bitcoin being used for black market trading. The only question is how best to do it. Of course the connection must be described in detail in the article body, and of course this connection should be briefly summarized in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this from the point of view of an outsider who has little interest in the subject, I would say that the passage mentioned does come across a tad biased. I think the definition of what Bitcoin is and what it is used for needs to be separated, not blended into one. Something like "Bitcoin is a decentralised, peer-to-peer driven online payment system. Illicit contraband is often purchased online using Bitcoin." That would still get the point across without confusing concept and usage.Levelledout (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fleetham's behavior has been problematic. I don't have a problem with mentioning criminal activities in the lead, but I do take issue with his heavy handed edit warring and extensive changes without consensus. And he tends to want to overemphasize the use of bitcoin for illegal purposes. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem emphasizing Bitcoins place as a currency in the black market, as long as it is written in the context of its nature. I think the lead should be more focused on the structure of such a financial technology and its primary uses, illicit activities could fall under that. I'm new to this discussion, but I do take offense to overemphasizing and over moderation of the issue. We are a group of actors no an actor. --Mathew105601 (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Does the article on the United States dollar discuss its use on the black market for the purchase of drugs and other illegal products? bd2412 T 17:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- One would assume not. That is however irrelevant. What matters is to what extent published reliable sources discuss the use of Bitcoin for such purposes - and the evidence is clear enough that they very frequently do. Wikipedia bases article content on published sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Binksternet,Levelledout,Mathew105601 and AndyTheGrump, thank you much for your responses. I think you are exactly right.
- I have been editing Bitcoin "for fun" (I almost cant say that any more) and am one of the 2 editors, that Fleetham anonymously labelled a "pro Bitcoin stance" and accused of removing any mention of bitcoin's illicit uses above.
- Please check any of my contributions there, to see for yourself, whether this label or the accusation of removing any mention of bitcoin's illicit uses is fair. I look forward to seeing you at Bitcoin talk NPOV lede where the rubber hits the road, i.e the language has been and continues to be hashed out in exactly the way that you are mentioning. Don't be afraid! Level-headed editors are sorely needed! Again, thank you for supporting NPOV! --Wuerzele (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I responded to a particular point made by bd2412. I an not interested in going through peoples' edits to see who did what. Such matters are of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks AndyTheGrump for clarifying the level of your involvement as solely opinionating on bd2412's opinion in the form of a rhetoric question on the opinions voiced here about what might actually happen at Bitcoin. I saw you opinionated at the last Bitcoin related ANI. It's good to know, that you think "going through peoples' edits to see who did what" is of "no relevance to article content". --Wuerzele (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I responded to a particular point made by bd2412. I an not interested in going through peoples' edits to see who did what. Such matters are of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the wording mentioning criminal activities that is gaining consensus in the dispute:
U.S. law enforcement officials and financial regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized at a November 2013 U.S. Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers.
Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how Ladislav Mecir can arrive at the conclusion that any particular wording is 'gaining consensus', since the RfC proposes no specific text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I refer you to the information that there is an ongoing neutrality dispute, see above, or at the talk page, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is quite evident from the talk page discussions you refer to that there is no consensus over specific text - and the whole point of having an RfC is to get outside input. I suggest that you wait for such input, and refrain from further attempts to prejudge the outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I thank you for your suggestion and will wait with suspense whether the outcome of the RfC will be "Yes" or "No". Take my apologies, please, if I caused any misunderstanding such as provoking a sentiment that any ongoing dispute shall be closed in any specific way in the future. That was completely unintended. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is quite evident from the talk page discussions you refer to that there is no consensus over specific text - and the whole point of having an RfC is to get outside input. I suggest that you wait for such input, and refrain from further attempts to prejudge the outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I refer you to the information that there is an ongoing neutrality dispute, see above, or at the talk page, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Kurds/Iran
I have posted an RFC on the Kurds article talk page. There is an ongoing debate as to whether Kurds are Iranian, and I have been trying to invite discussion on the issue, but re-reversion has become an issue. I invite any and all editors to comment on the matter. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
International Christian Church
International Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Many sections in this article are preposterously biased. Neutral edits would be welcome. I tagged the article until the problems can be fixed.
jps (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Editor(s) potentially connected with the church are making POV edits like this one Valenciano (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is moot now. The IP has been blocked for abusive use of an open proxy.- MrX 00:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Question: is it correct for WP to refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first line in WP's voice, as we do the article currently does?
Thank you, Atsme☯Consult 19:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion took place at WP:FTN ([2]) and BLPN ([3]), the latter started by Atsme -- one presumes it didn't lead to the result this editor was hoping for. Forum shopping, anyone? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- actually posting the RfC to any board is fine, in my view. The more voices the better. I fixed the link in the header so it goes to the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jytdog. As it appears you are aware, it is a recommended action in WP:RfC. I previously advised Nomo to stop his attacks, but based on his comments above and false accusation of forum shopping, my advice is being ignored. Atsme☯Consult 23:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- For an RfC and just letting folks know about it, this is perfectly fine. There are some previous actions Nomoskedasticity is referring to in the past that could give some legitimate concern for forum shopping, but this isn't one of them at all and is how things should be done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jytdog. As it appears you are aware, it is a recommended action in WP:RfC. I previously advised Nomo to stop his attacks, but based on his comments above and false accusation of forum shopping, my advice is being ignored. Atsme☯Consult 23:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- actually posting the RfC to any board is fine, in my view. The more voices the better. I fixed the link in the header so it goes to the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Spiked Online and Death of Leelah Alcorn
can I use an opinion piece from Spiked Online [4] to extend the following piece in the Washington Post [5] in Death of Leelah Alcorn?. Editors in the article talk page have disputed the inclusion because of WP:UNDUE which I in return dispute because the harassment of Alcorn's Parents was already talked about in the Washington Post article. I have been directed to post here.Avono (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- seems to me that the various perspectives are covered already. there was endless commentary on these events (dozens of passionate opinion pieces) and it is unclear to me what this one in particular adds. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Expert commentary on risks of living in a household with guns
- Sources
- Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 24592495, please use {{cite journal}} with
|pmid=24592495
instead. Free full text; abstract excerpt: "Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide [odds ratio: 3.24; 95% confidence interval: 2.41 to 4.40] and being the victim of homicide [OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.56 to 3.02.]" (This is a WP:MEDRS-grade WP:SECONDARY reliable source, the fact of which is not in dispute.) - This question is about an accompanying AIM editorial which makes a strong case that the risks are actually substantially higher because of clear flaws in studies finding low risk. The author is David Hemenway, the Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the author of a monograph on the topic which meets the WP:MEDRS criteria in its own right. Hemenway's opinions are congruent with the conclusions of the MEDRS-grade review of U.S. statistics at PMID 19606921.
- Article
- Gun politics in the United States, as discussed at Talk:Gun politics in the United States#New WP:MEDRS-grade systematic review and meta-analysis
- Content question
- Does Hemenway's opinion, that the risk of living in a household with gun(s) is actually greater than indicated by Anglemyer et al's WP:MEDRS review and meta-analysis because studies which find less risk are methodologically flawed for the reasons he indicates, carry enough weight to be noteworthy and included alongside the MEDRS source's results? EllenCT (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- The editorial clearly fails even WP:RS. I've stated my opinion that the article also violates WP:RS, but that is disputed. Others will have to comment on weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
- On what grounds and where has your opinion about the article been stated? EllenCT (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've commented on the article talk page; the authors and the journal are experts in epidemiology, but there is a real dispute as to whether gun violence can rationally be analyzed by those methods. (It can obviously be analyzed; the question is to whether the results of the analysis have anything to do with reality.) We might as well discuss whether an article in a mathematics journal which covers language propagation and diffusion could be considered reliable without evidence that historical linguists were on the peer-review board. (I've read one recently; I have no intention of using it as a source without verifying the review.) In particular, there are various confounding factors which are almost always ignored by epidemiologists, although obviously relevant. Among those factors are whether the victim is a known criminal, whether he had been previously threatened, and, if the perpetrator is known, whether she had previously been threatened, whether he and she knew each other, whether one had previously threatened the other—and that's just the factors I can think of with a couple minutes thought. (I use he for the victim and she for the perpetrator, so I can use pronouns in the sentence.) Even if the experts here would use those factors if they were to do their own study, they almost certainly would not consider a failure to use those factors a weak point in a study. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- How could a study measuring the risk of completed suicide and homicide (dependent variables) in relation to whether there is a gun in their household (independent variable) use factors such as victim's legal status, history, or the perpetrator's history? How could those factors affect the numeric relationship between the dependent and independent variables? EllenCT (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- By confusing people. Formerip (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- (to EllenCT) those factors affect both the supposed independent variable (possession of guns) and dependent variables (possibly "suicide", but certainly "victim of homicide"). For what it's worth, I have little doubt that actual access to guns increases the probability of a suicide attempt being successful, and any other factors are unlikely to reduce that effect on suicides overall. However, there are a number of correlative factors for homicide which are almost always ignored by epidemiologists, as they are not used to working correctly with situations where the "independent factor" is a decision by a person. I seem to recall a correlation between weight and general health which turned out to be more than 100% accounted for by a correlation between exercise and general health, weight being a dependent factor. In this case, gun possession is likely a dependent factor, and a competent statistician would attempt to determine independent factors. Correlation does not imply causation, and when the "independent factor" is a decision which is affected by the "dependent factors", it is a particularly bad situation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- A particular correlative factor would be if a neighbor was recently a victim of homicide. That would, assuming rational behavior, cause gun ownership, and would likely be correlated with the person being a victim of a homicide, due to other common factors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- By confusing people. Formerip (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- How could a study measuring the risk of completed suicide and homicide (dependent variables) in relation to whether there is a gun in their household (independent variable) use factors such as victim's legal status, history, or the perpetrator's history? How could those factors affect the numeric relationship between the dependent and independent variables? EllenCT (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've commented on the article talk page; the authors and the journal are experts in epidemiology, but there is a real dispute as to whether gun violence can rationally be analyzed by those methods. (It can obviously be analyzed; the question is to whether the results of the analysis have anything to do with reality.) We might as well discuss whether an article in a mathematics journal which covers language propagation and diffusion could be considered reliable without evidence that historical linguists were on the peer-review board. (I've read one recently; I have no intention of using it as a source without verifying the review.) In particular, there are various confounding factors which are almost always ignored by epidemiologists, although obviously relevant. Among those factors are whether the victim is a known criminal, whether he had been previously threatened, and, if the perpetrator is known, whether she had previously been threatened, whether he and she knew each other, whether one had previously threatened the other—and that's just the factors I can think of with a couple minutes thought. (I use he for the victim and she for the perpetrator, so I can use pronouns in the sentence.) Even if the experts here would use those factors if they were to do their own study, they almost certainly would not consider a failure to use those factors a weak point in a study. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- On what grounds and where has your opinion about the article been stated? EllenCT (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- The editorial clearly fails even WP:RS. I've stated my opinion that the article also violates WP:RS, but that is disputed. Others will have to comment on weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda
3rd paragraph of introduction
I see WP:YESPOV to the statement - There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease. Reference: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/ayurvedic-medicine, is an opinion of an organisation and this is not the fact. The website cites no references to this statement. They come into Wikipedia:PRIMARY sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Statements from major medical bodies (of which Cancer Research UK is one) are preferred WP:MEDRS sources. Their statement can be simply WP:ASSERTed if it is not in serious dispute. If there are countering sources of equivalent strength, they should be provided. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- yes see in particular Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Laura Owen
An IP editor and a couple of newly registered editors have shown up to delete large parts of the article about Laura Owen, including most of the information about her tenure as Kansas Secretary of Commerce. The subject's notability was debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Owen, and facts that contribute most substantially to her notability are among those that are being removed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
R v Morgentaler is a 1988 Canadian Supreme Court case which ruled unconstitutional the part of the criminal code concerning abortion. Back in June I noticed that someone had changed the lead from
R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
to:
R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
This struck me as quite POV. Included as a citation is a letter to the editor at The Guardian. The author of the letter is a legal authority, but nonetheless written as a letter to the editor, arguing against what for the purpose of our article seems like a strawman (i.e. there is no claim that this decision means "a constitutional right to abortion" nevermind "abortion on demand", nor is there any claim that the court had "no interest in protecting the unborn").
The text was originally added in May by 99.224.218.198 and since my first revert the same user has periodically restored the same text another five times. I hoped being a contentious subject that others would get involved, but nobody has. Uncomfortable continuing a months-long edit war, I turn here. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- First question - why is this particular SC decision notable? Was it a landmark case in Canada? Second question: Is the text that was added from a RS, or is it an editor's "interpretation" of a primary source? WP:NOR states: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; I don't think this is an issue of NPOV as much as it is NOR. Atsme☯Consult 19:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm confused. It seems both of these questions are answered above (though I admit my original post is rather long). It's indeed a notable case as a supreme court case (i.e. the highest court in Canada) ruling particular laws unconstitutional (both of these factors are typical indicators of notability in their own right, but there are also plenty of sources). And the source provided is linked above along with the context of its use. There's no original research involved. It's most definitely an NPOV issue (and perhaps a RS issue). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- First question - why is this particular SC decision notable? Was it a landmark case in Canada? Second question: Is the text that was added from a RS, or is it an editor's "interpretation" of a primary source? WP:NOR states: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; I don't think this is an issue of NPOV as much as it is NOR. Atsme☯Consult 19:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- User:Rhododendrites Seems reasonably NPOV about conveying the item. The Guardian article subheader reads "All judges in 1988 Morgentaler decision acknowledged state has legitimate interest in protecting unborn", so editor 99.224.75.219 "All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn" is faithfully conveying that and properly cited it. It seems to belong in the body not the lead though as it is not frequent or major part of article itself. The lead has other NPOV issues in lead like "violated a womans right" as not summary of the article and not supported. The phrasing 'violation' and as a 'womans' right seem neither from the article nor accurate. Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Markbassett: The question, as far as I'm concerned, isn't whether the source is properly conveyed -- it clearly is, to the point of possible copyvio issues. It's more about whether it's appropriate to include using that language from that source (an interpretation via Letters to the Editor section). That it's in the lead is all the more problematic, indeed. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- User:Rhododendrites - It is satisfying WP:NPOV when it presents fairly the views published by reliable sources, and that language was specifically highlighted by the source publisher making it the subtitle, not by the wiki editor or by the supreme court judge who provided the text. NPOV here is just to show that language fairly which to me seems to be well handled by including the text the source highlighted and have it cited. Interpretations in RS do seem to vary to significant amount. A check of google books shows me thoughtful books stating the decision is is narrower than generally reported and not 'right to abortion' or 'freedom of choice' [Federalism and the Charter, Leading Constitutional Decisions] and problematic role of Charter in judicial usage; or as the outcome making 251 unconstitutional yet having fragmented set of opinions [Canada's Courts] and saying that a minor rewording would be constitutional block to abortion. So yeah, put in Globe and Mail or Guardian and simply note different interpretations about the outcome exist in notable amounts -- which should be no surprise to anyone. Markbassett (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Doesn't 'the decision is is narrower than generally reported' imply that this perspective is actually a minority one? And wouldn't it be preferable to cite a better source than the letter page of The Guardian if it is available? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- User:Rhododendrites - It is satisfying WP:NPOV when it presents fairly the views published by reliable sources, and that language was specifically highlighted by the source publisher making it the subtitle, not by the wiki editor or by the supreme court judge who provided the text. NPOV here is just to show that language fairly which to me seems to be well handled by including the text the source highlighted and have it cited. Interpretations in RS do seem to vary to significant amount. A check of google books shows me thoughtful books stating the decision is is narrower than generally reported and not 'right to abortion' or 'freedom of choice' [Federalism and the Charter, Leading Constitutional Decisions] and problematic role of Charter in judicial usage; or as the outcome making 251 unconstitutional yet having fragmented set of opinions [Canada's Courts] and saying that a minor rewording would be constitutional block to abortion. So yeah, put in Globe and Mail or Guardian and simply note different interpretations about the outcome exist in notable amounts -- which should be no surprise to anyone. Markbassett (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Markbassett: The question, as far as I'm concerned, isn't whether the source is properly conveyed -- it clearly is, to the point of possible copyvio issues. It's more about whether it's appropriate to include using that language from that source (an interpretation via Letters to the Editor section). That it's in the lead is all the more problematic, indeed. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Is edit #641543166 at Bitcoin article neutral?
The neutrality of Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme dispute section contents has been disputed at Talk:Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme dispute. The dispute was announced using the "NPOV-section" template, started on 2 December 2014 and ended up finding a consensual wording of the section on 9 December 2014. After the dispute ended, the wording of the section was updated, deleting the "NPOV-section" template.
On 8 January 2014 an edit #641543166 changed the consensual wording of the section. The problematic and nonneutral aspects of the edit:
- The edit "classifies" professor Eric Posner as (a member of) "Various journalists" group.
- The edit reinterprets the opinions of professor Posner, economist Nouriel Roubini, and head of Estonian Central Bank Mihkel Nommela as if they were identical, which is both untrue and unnecessary, since the correct citations of their opinions are present in the section.
- The edit changes the order of claims in the section, the consensual order was based on source dates.
Proposal
The proposed action is to revert the edit #641543166. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion involved a separate sentence in that section, your edit went beyond the scope of the discussion and removed a wording that was the result of a previous consensus. There is a discussion on the talk page explaining this and specifically why it was reverted beyond the lack of discussion, which you have not responded to. "the consensual order was based on source dates" is inaccurate and makes no sense for an NPOV wording, starting the section with no context and defending bitcoin against a claim without first explaining what the claim is, that is a POV edit. Starting a section explaining what the claim is and who made it, and then following up with detailed sources explaining why it's not the case is hardly a violation of NPOV. - Aoidh (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- "The discussion involved a separate sentence in that section" - the discussion established a complete consensual wording of the section.
- "starting the section with no context and defending bitcoin against a claim" - this is a misrepresentation of the claim. The claim is a citation of a report written in 2012 by the European Central Bank. A characterization of it as "defending bitcoin" is rather subjective, why should the European Central Bank be accused of "defending bitcoin"?
- The claim is providing the necessary context presenting a fact that there are sources finding it hard to determine whether bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme or not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Unless there's some archived discussion you're referring to, no, the discussion currently on the talk page did not involve the changes I reverted, please provide a diff if you believe otherwise. "The claim" is not a citation, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here especially with ECB defending bitcoin part, so I don't know how to respond to it. ECB is defending nothing, but placing the quotefarm (which is another issue entirely) in the order you did created a number of issues as was explained on the article talk page. The current wording, which was arrived at by consensus, is not a violation of NPOV, as I explained above. Your edit starts the section with zero context; the section should not begin with a favoured conclusion before even explaining what the issue the section details even is. The current wording essentially boils down to "This very prominent economist accused bitcoin of something, but a prominent financial institution and others have investigated these claims and concluded otherwise." In no way is that a violation of the NPOV policy. The tag you alluded to was for a separate issue was questionable in terms of NPOV, and was addressed. The content you're referring to does not create an NPOV violation, and your claim about "reinterpreting the opinions" holds no water when you actually look at the content in question. - Aoidh (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- No NPOV question. This doesn't seem to be stating an WP:NPOV concern for input, and the edits seem to have reasonably conveyed content of cited sources. What order it appears in or arriving at consensus phrasing is not NPOV. Please clarify what is the WP:NPOV question if any. Markbassett (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Prager University
You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at WP:ELN#Linking to Prager University, which addresses the allegedly non-neutral creation of external links to Prager University, a website associated with radio host Dennis Prager. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Could we please get some more eyes at Economic growth? People have over the past four or five months been slowly trying to include obscure primary source studies of relatively tiny datasets to try to imply that inequality causing economic growth is still a viable theory. These studies have huge caveats that went unmentioned in the inclusions. And now User:Volunteer Marek is trying to claim that Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) aren't primary source studies, and that my insistance on agreement with secondary sources is against consensus because "at least one other user objects" to my edits. EllenCT (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- These are neither primary sources nor are they "obscure". They are regular academic studies published in top economic journals. If these were "primary sources" then something like 80% of cited papers would have to be removed from the article, including most or even all of the ones that EllenCT added. And if you want to see "obscure" than a much better candidate (than papers published by NBER or Economic Inquiry) would be this paper. Economic Inquiry is ranked 107, Investigaciones Regionales 857 [7]; personally I actually think that mid and lower tier journals often publish more exciting and noteworthy research than the top ones, but if we're going to use "obscure" as a criterion, then EllenCT has it exactly backwards.
- Looking over the edits it seems to me like EllenCT is just labeling studies which reach conclusions s/he personally disagrees with as "primary" (and throws in "obscure" with a few other false adjectives in there too) while ones she agrees with are "secondary".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am not proposing removing primary source studies (i.e., studies which do not reach their conclusions based on literature reviews) when those studies agree with the consensus of recent literature reviews. I would not object to them if they were empirical studies based on datasets even half as large as those which contradict them. But I can not abide by including studies which say "oh by the way, if we could get the rest of the data we requested from the IRS, our results would be negated." EllenCT (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- One more time, these are not "primary source studies". They're regular academic studies published in top ranked journals. The idea that they contradict something or other, is entirely your own. I.e. "original research". As is your interpretation and evaluation of the conclusions they obtain. So you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, by labeling studies you don't like as "primary" and those you like as "secondary" even when there's absolutely no difference in their quality, and by trying to exclude some working papers (even though published later) because some other working paper reached a conclusion which *you personally* think contradicted it (actually in this particular case, the methods really aren't comparable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- And by the way, you do realize that IMF Staff Discussion Notes are not anymore "peer-reviewed" than NBER Working Papers, right? They are published "to elicit comments". You are trying to remove another paper, an NBER Working Paper, based on the fact that it's not "peer reviewed" even though the same paper was shortly later published in another top journal (nevermind the fact that NBER is a highly prestigious organization, and one NBER working paper is worth a dozen published papers).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that it's easier to get published by the NBER than the IMF? What is your source for the statment that "one NBER working paper is worth a dozen published papers"? Berg and Ostry have been treated favorably in reviews. If you are so determined to include something implying inequality causes growth, then you need to find a paper with a larger data set or favorable treatment in a literature review. EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting the other way around. Most likely NBER is harder, but there's a lot of overlap between these folks. But virtually all NBER WPs end up in top journals while a lot of IMF papers stay IMF papers, often for internal consumption. My own impression is that there's a lot more variance in quality in the IMF publications than the NBER ones. Anyway. That paper was published in a top journal so the issue is moot. And I am not determined to "include something implying inequality causes growth". The Barro paper in particular, the NBER one, later published in a top ten journal, doesn't imply anything of the sort (you seem to be a bit confused on this point). The other two papers might, but I wish to include them not because of the conclusions they reach, but because they are legitimate, secondary, sources published in top journals. I have no idea where you've gotten this "larger data set" criteria from, certainly not from Wikipedia policy (and outside of Wikipedia, larger data sets are only better other things equal).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Has it occured to you that IMF Staff Discussion Notes are only authored by IMF staff? The NBER puts out something like 200 working papers per month. EllenCT (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes it has occurred to me but I'm not sure what your point is, and like I said, the issue is moot (unless we want to argue about excluding the Berg and Ostry paper) since the Barro paper was later published in a top journal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Has it occured to you that IMF Staff Discussion Notes are only authored by IMF staff? The NBER puts out something like 200 working papers per month. EllenCT (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting the other way around. Most likely NBER is harder, but there's a lot of overlap between these folks. But virtually all NBER WPs end up in top journals while a lot of IMF papers stay IMF papers, often for internal consumption. My own impression is that there's a lot more variance in quality in the IMF publications than the NBER ones. Anyway. That paper was published in a top journal so the issue is moot. And I am not determined to "include something implying inequality causes growth". The Barro paper in particular, the NBER one, later published in a top ten journal, doesn't imply anything of the sort (you seem to be a bit confused on this point). The other two papers might, but I wish to include them not because of the conclusions they reach, but because they are legitimate, secondary, sources published in top journals. I have no idea where you've gotten this "larger data set" criteria from, certainly not from Wikipedia policy (and outside of Wikipedia, larger data sets are only better other things equal).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that it's easier to get published by the NBER than the IMF? What is your source for the statment that "one NBER working paper is worth a dozen published papers"? Berg and Ostry have been treated favorably in reviews. If you are so determined to include something implying inequality causes growth, then you need to find a paper with a larger data set or favorable treatment in a literature review. EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
“studies which do not reach their conclusions based on literature reviews”
← that seems like a quirky definition of what a primary source is. What (if anything) in economics is a primary source? ... if some authors produced a dataset and then did an analysis of it maybe? Or some microeconomic theory proposed from scratch? If sources are drawing on third-party material and offering commentary and analysis, then they are secondary. How much weight they should be accorded is a different question, and should be determined in the usual way (prestige of publishing venue, impact, etc.). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)- Have you asked an economist what they consider a secondary source? EllenCT (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you've asked one. And you got the answer. Just not the one you wanted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Secondary sources in economics have literature reviews, or are literature reviews. Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) do not have literature reviews. They are primary theoretical speculation and tiny dataset results with huge caveats which were missing from the article. EllenCT (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I have no idea where you got this idea from. Secondary sources in economics are regular published papers. Primary sources are things like data sets or methodological contributions. The stuff about "primary theoretical speculations" and "tiny dataset" is your own idiosyncratic evaluation of the works. I.e. original research. Both these paper cite the literature extensively. They just don't have a section entitled "Literature Review". So what? That has no bearing on their status as sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- What is your source for those assertions? What is your source for the implication that secondary sources in economics don't need to include or be literature reviews? EllenCT (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- What is YOUR source for the idea that an article from a top journal needs to have a section explicitly labeled "literature review" or it isn't secondary? That one is just completely pulled out of thin air.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- What is your source for those assertions? What is your source for the implication that secondary sources in economics don't need to include or be literature reviews? EllenCT (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I have no idea where you got this idea from. Secondary sources in economics are regular published papers. Primary sources are things like data sets or methodological contributions. The stuff about "primary theoretical speculations" and "tiny dataset" is your own idiosyncratic evaluation of the works. I.e. original research. Both these paper cite the literature extensively. They just don't have a section entitled "Literature Review". So what? That has no bearing on their status as sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Secondary sources in economics have literature reviews, or are literature reviews. Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) do not have literature reviews. They are primary theoretical speculation and tiny dataset results with huge caveats which were missing from the article. EllenCT (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you've asked one. And you got the answer. Just not the one you wanted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it'd be worthwhile, they'd be bound to disagree. What matters here only is what Wikipedia considers secondary sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Are you arguing for inclusion of Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009)? With or without their caveats on including public sector spending in the utility function and their results being negated if the IRS would give them information on people who don't make enough money to file a tax return? EllenCT (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Have you asked an economist what they consider a secondary source? EllenCT (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am not proposing removing primary source studies (i.e., studies which do not reach their conclusions based on literature reviews) when those studies agree with the consensus of recent literature reviews. I would not object to them if they were empirical studies based on datasets even half as large as those which contradict them. But I can not abide by including studies which say "oh by the way, if we could get the rest of the data we requested from the IRS, our results would be negated." EllenCT (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)