User:Rohitkiran99 insists on removing sourced content about rape culture in India, because it is not in Hindi and does not constitute a "smoking gun" proof of something. His argument seems to be a form of the no true Scotsman fallacy. I restored the content twice, and he keeps taking it out with an "I don't like it", demanding something impossible that will satisfy his standards of proof. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the information is wrong, but I do think that the text should clarify whom is asserting that the origin of rape culture in India is from Hindu beliefs, rather than factually stating that this is the case. It appears to be a point of scholarly note, but this should be clarified, especially as the sources are Western-based. --Masem (t) 18:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just posting this here as I think it could use some eyes. The title seems to be problematic, especially as it then goes on to list groups that are indeed considered by the Catholic Church to be heretical, but who would obviously consider themselves to be orthodox Christians. Same with the bit about groups that traditionalist Catholics would consider heretical (i.e. the people who think Pope Benedict XVI was a heretic and traitor to the Catholic Church.) While I think there may be a place for lists such as this, I'm not sure if this title is the right place. I don't have much time to deal with it on-wiki, but I thought it important to raise. I'm also going to post at WT:CATHOLIC and one of the WP:Christianity noticeboards referencing this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And Premeditated Chaos seems to have done the bold work. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the really problematic content was added by Hartzion (courtesy ping) over the past couple of weeks. I have warned them on their talk page not to re-add it without much better sourcing, and preferably without discussing it with other editors first.
  • Still, some problems remain. I agree with Tony's concerns about what exactly should be on this list, although I admit to not having much expertise in the matter (it's only on my watchlist because some time ago I added several very small movements from about 300 CE to it to de-orphan them). I think the title could be worded better, but I'm not sure exactly how. "List of movements declared heretical by the Catholic Church"? Otherwise, in a sense, everyone's a heretic to someone, so everyone belongs on the list. Which is obviously not useful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. This list is not workable under that title. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the content has now been restored (twice). TonyBallioni (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title is reasonably applicable to "Heresies declared under early Christian councils (pre 500 A.D.) " at best - any later "Heresies" tend to get muddled with the Reformation in general, and the Eastern Orthodox use of the word. As far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A recent RfC concluded that firearms articles may include mass shootings committed with the weapon, and inclusion is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In subsequent talk page discussions [1][2] there has been general agreement that WP:WEIGHT should be used to make this decision, but disagreement over how it should be applied. Editors have pointed out that although reliable sources often mention the weapon in articles about the mass shooting, the shooting is often not mentioned in articles about the gun. My goal is to solicit wider community input and develop a general piece of advice for applying WP:WEIGHT in this context. Can any mention of the fact that a weapon was used in a crime be used to establish weight, or does the connection need to meet a higher bar such as discussing that particular weapon's unique significance to the crime? –dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the issue here is that gun crimes are being treated differently than automobile crimes (as an example}. Automobile deaths are fairly common, and many are caused by criminal behavior such as speeding, driving under the influence, running a red light, failure to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, etc. Most mass shooters move their firearm(s) concealed in a motor vehicle to the scene of the mass shooting, and some motor vehicles are used as weapons by mass killers, but the Wikipedia articles about these motor vehicles seldom mention even one of these events. Such events are of trivial importance to the subjects of these articles about mechanical devices unless the source reports why that vehicle or weapon was used in preference to some alternative device. The argument that criminal users should be identified alongside professional users is ridiculous, because killers are single individuals while listing a police department is different than listing every officer of that department who carries that firearm or drives that motor vehicle. There is reason to believe a public agency makes a reasoned decision, while most killers simply use whatever is available to them. Thewellman (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "reliable sources often mention the weapon in articles" has a probem as is has been pointed out in:
  • Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Improvement_of_Article_/_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)_/_HIGH_COURT_OF_AUSTRALIA_/_Filed_Information
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics#Do_we_help_each_other_as_collegues_?
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography#Help_for_Article_Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
  • Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_58#Nobody_dares_to_touch_or_edit_the_article_Port_Arthur_massacre
  • Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Nobody_dares_to_touch_or_edit_the_article_Port_Arthur_massacre
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Crime_articles_possibly_not_reliable_???

Multiple colleagues see Problems with: WP:SYNTH / WP:NOR / WP:PTS etc. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy with automobile crimes isn't a good comparison because automobiles have a valid primary use which is to move people and things from point A to point B. Use of automobiles as a weapon is very limited; this could be viewed as an esoteric use of automobiles by terrorists and crazy people. A major use, if not the primary use, of an AR-15 style rifle is to kill people, so it is perfectly reasonable to have a section listing the most notable uses. wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and another point is that there is an ongoing debate over which types of guns should be banned or restricted (if any). When a certain type of gun is used in a high-profile crime such as a mass shooting it's highly relevant to the debate on that type of gun and, therefore, to the wikipedia article on that type of gun. This is especially true when it's a gun (or rather, class of guns) such as an AR-15 that lies on the edge of what's currently legal (in the USA). Relatedly, many people will come to the article wanting to learn more about AR-15s because they read about them in an article on mass shootings, and cross-referencing and confirming that it was (or was not) the type used is very useful and important for those readers. This is all quite obvious and would be uncontroversial if the topic weren't so politicized. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that what you two editors stated are just your opinion. The laws in the US say anything used to harm or kill someone is a weapon regardless of what its original intentions were.

Proportionally there has been a lot of mass killing with vehicles. Your statement " Use of automobiles as a weapon is very limited; this could be viewed as an esoteric use of automobiles by terrorists and crazy people". This contradict your whole stance on inclusion into gun articles, as they were committed crazy people. Why is there no attention on that issue? Also the primary or major use of guns are not to kill people, do not take offense but that is something that a ill-informed person would say. There are over 10 million of these types of gun in the US, proportionally there use in mass killing is minut.

I also would disagree that the majority of the readers would be interested in the crime inclusion into gun articles. The U.S being a country of guns, proportionally far more reader come to these article with a interest in guns and not of there crime use.

This statement is just plainly wrong "such as an AR-15 that lies on the edge of what's currently legal (in the USA)" that kind of stereotyping is again a view held by the ill-informed, simple based on how they look. As far as legality the weight of the few does not out weight the view of the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72bikers (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "This statement is just plainly wrong "such as an AR-15 that lies on the edge of what's currently legal (in the USA)" that kind of stereotyping is again a view held by the ill-informed, simple based on how they look." Sorry to say so, but your statement reveals a basic ignorance of the facts. The AR-15 was legal in the US prior to 1994, then it was banned under the assault weapons ban for a decade, and then became legal again when that lapsed. There have been many attempts to ban it again since then. The situation is very different from (say) bolt action rifles, which were never illegal (in the USA) as far as I know, and for which there is not a strong push for a ban. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramming attack analogies don't make sense. In some random neighborhood, somewhere in Texas (1) a moving van goes by, obviously speeding. (2) A teenager is walking down the sidewalk carrying a black rifle. One of these behaviors is a lot more likely to result in a 911 call than the other, even in Texas, and everyone knows which one that is. Geogene (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear you have ignored all the valid points I have raised, and have solely tried to attack the one thing you think you can poke wholes in. Your statement "this is especially true when it's a gun (or rather, class of guns) such as an AR-15 that lies on the edge of what's currently legal" this is just factually wrong. Something that took place 25 years ago, that was based solely on the then political ideology, is not relevant to what "lies on the edge of what's currently legal", especially with the state of the current government. So exactly how is this a "ignorance of the facts"?

That analogy is not valid to this issue. -72bikers (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This claim appears to hinge on a pre-existing bias against firearms. Saying "automobiles have valid uses" implies firearms have none. That is entirely false. Moreover, it seems to imply malicious intent just by ownership. It's perfectly possible to own an AR-15, M16, AK-47, or M1919 without any intent to harm a single living thing, let alone another person. Presupposing firearms are meant to be used to kill people is faulty reasoning, & that violates NPOV, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guns, crime, and due weight: Rough draft

How about this as a start?

This is a rough draft; open to refinements and revisions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps?

Shorter and a tad less waffley, I trust. Collect (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)I've been busy and largely limited to replying by phone. Much of what k.e. coffman said is similar to the project firearms recommendations but with a lower threshold. Why not stick with the project firearms current text? Personally I don't think this similar but with a lower bar addresses anything. I think we need to explore the topic in terms of context. When I get a chance I'll past more on this subject. Springee (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that any text that includes "reliable secondary source" should also include the words "neutral" and "factually correct", in that description. It's easy to find 2nd RS reporting on an incident involving a firearm, but that doesn't, or shouldn't, make it automatically and blindly acceptable. If there is any kind of anti-gun (or pro-gun) slant to the report, or errors of fact, we should not be reproducing that here in an article. - ^theWOLFchild 00:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The second version only describes a necessary condition for inclusion, but not what is sufficient. How about this:

Waleswatcher (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would such a standard have any more sway than the long standing project recommendations? How is this different other than how the threshold is set? Springee (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: we had an RfC where the long standing project recommendations have been soundly rejected. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly true. The RfC said the project recommendations are not binding and that local consensus is the ultimate arbiter. The project recommendations offer a reasonable suggestion for how to read sources for inclusion but I think we can do better but we should base our suggestions on policy, guidelines, well cited essays etc. Springee (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The essay at WP:GUNS has often been used to exclude criminal use that did not explicitly influence legislation. This is counter to policy, consensus and what I understand the intent of WP:GUNS to be. We should be careful to clearly present legislative influence as an example, not a requirement. My preference would be to simply interpret the requirements of WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE in this context without adding any additional restrictions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Springee is right again "The RfC said the project recommendations are not binding and that local consensus is the ultimate arbiter" this is not a free rein to do whatever there side wants. A case by case consensus is not a failure to compromise and to not recognize the experts in the field and replace with political ideology. It would appear that they believe consensus is when there side all falls inline and ignores anyone that disagrees. -72bikers (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this to NPOVN because Springee suggested a different interpretation of WP:WEIGHT than I was using and frankly I'm not sure which one is "correct" or supported by the wider Wikipedia community. In many cases local consensus has been based on an essay which was written, supported and defended by a small group of editors who acted as if it was a policy that could not be "violated". My intent here is to get input from a wider group of editors. I'm willing to accept the community's policy-based consensus, even if it isn't what I agree with. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Springee as being "right". Their position seems to be that RS should be given no weight, except in a very narrow set of circumstances that WP:GUNS content guide deems appropriate; i.e. the long standing project recommendations. This is contrary to WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV. To borrow from 72bikers's comment, projects are given free rein to do whatever their side wants. We have guidelines and policies for a reason. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be hard to view my position as right any more than yours absent other information. My point was only that there is basically no difference between what you are suggesting and what the Project Firearms page already recommends. Yes, the threshold is somewhat different but the line in the sand seems just as arbitrary. Springee (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question of reciprocity of weight

While I think this is probably the right place for the question I don't think we are asking the right question here. This is really a question of reciprocity of weight. Note that in almost all cases the RS that mentions the firearm is an article about the crime, not an article about the gun. That is a key point and one that is often followed in other areas of Wikipedia.

if A has WEIGHT for inclusion in B, does that mean B has weight for inclusion in A?

Do facts have reciprocal weight which can be used in two separate articles?

Is reciprocal weight a valid concept?

I'm putting together essays and RfC's that seem to relate to this concept. Here is how I see it applying to many gun articles and how it was applied in three articles where something A, was a significant part of a crime B. So, should the crime, B, be mentioned in context of A? In the case of the Chevrolet Caprice used in the D.C. sniper attacks the answer was overwhelmingly no [[3]]. This same RfC considered if the Ford F-650 article should discuss the Oklahoma City bombing. Again, the RfC said, very clearly, no. Editors clearly rejected the idea that being used in the crime had an impact on the vehicles even though many felt that the crimes (especially the bombing) were more encyclopedic than the vehicles. Another example is the 2014 Oso mudslide and a homicide that resulted from the mudslide ["Condemned_property_dispute_ends_in_double_murder"_section_tagged_as_off-topic],[[4]].

Rather than ask, what should be in gun articles, a question that will only land with subjective answers (as we have largely seen), let's ask what standard should apply across all articles. I've seen some essays that touch on this and I will add them as I find them again. We do see similar policies widely enforced when it comes to "trivial" and things like movie and automobiles WP:CARTRIVIA. I understand that crimes aren't "trivia" but the logic we use to govern how to read weight should stay consistent. It's "trivia" that Vanilla Ice drove a Mustang 5.0 (articles about the Mustang don't mention this thus neither does the article) but Bonnie and Clyde are widely associated with the Ford V8 coupe by sources about the car. Hence the car's article does mention the crime couple. Wikipedia editors didn't make the association, RS's about the article subject (the Ford V8 coupe) made the association for us. Springee (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well spoken, food for thought. -72bikers (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As with almost everything in Wikipedia the short answer is "it depends." A long and more detailed answer is "not usually, but sometimes yes." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been scolded (with remarkably short latency) for improper use of the "talk" tab. Here are the two instances of my scolding:

May 2018

(1) Information icon Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Money for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. General Ization Talk 00:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(2) Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Criticism of democracy, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 00:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Distilled:

(1) Don't use the talk page for "general discussion". Begs question: What is the proper way to introduce discussion that conflicts with article, is proven, but is not "scholarly" ... i.e. hasn't floated through academia?

(2) Don't do "disruptive editing". Begs the question: If bringing up an issue in a talk page (less disruptive than editing the article) is disruptive, what is the recommended process?

Specifically: The two instances I was scolded about above were cases where I used the talk page to introduce "irrefutable concepts" that are contrary to the content of the article. If I can't bring this to the attention of the editors in a "talk" page, how can I bring it?

Impact: Nicola Tesla would have been precluded from making edits to Wikipedia talk pages by this restriction. Heaviside (who opposed Tait ... and was correct) would have been scolded and excluded. Tesla "was not" an academic but brilliant. Heaviside "was" an academic but more in tune with reality than abstraction. Both made the "experts" and "academics" of their day look totally stupid ... Tait of the Royal Academy in particular.

Just asking.

Regards, Todd Marshall; Plantersville, TX

WithGLEE (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we see the actual examples?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, this talk page edit [[5]] looks like a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. It doesn't appear that you are introducing new material rather just stating your belief. That belief may be supported by solid sources but they weren't presented. Also, the way the material was presented at the talk page comes across as telling the editors democracy doesn't work with large groups rather than saying "we should add this information to the article..." Basically the same applies to your edit here [[6]]. I'm not sure (and haven't drill down enough to say) if just blanking the text was the correct way to deal with the edits but the were not proper talk page edits. Springee (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are these what you are talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I tried to make an edit to make a depiction of a person's life and life's work more acurate and less biased. My edit was removed. What do I do. Essentially what is currently posted is inacurate, without evidence, and slanderous to a person who is very important to me. This person saved my mother's life. She had terminal Lymphoma. She lived 50 yrs longer because of his treatment. There are many more cases like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BalancedViewoncancer (talk • contribs) 23:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page on Max Gerson and the Gerson Therapy already obey Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view. The simple explanation of this policy is that articles will follow what reliable sources say. If reliable sources present a singular, monolithic viewpoint on a subject, then that is the viewpoint that will be presented in the article. We do not attempt mass-media style pursuits of "telling both sides". In brief, the mainstream oncology community holds a uniform opinion of Gerson therapy, and that is what Wikipedia will represent. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Wikipedia requires verifiable third-party information from publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's wonderful that your mother had a positive outcome, but personal testimonials such as those you have attempted to add are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither anecdotes, Amazon book ads, nor personal testimonials qualify as reliable sources. We do not rewrite articles based on these kinds of "sources" in defiance of the overwhelming body of medical scientific research. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BalancedViewoncancer: Probably not the best idea add strange comments in random places in editor's talk pages. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 00:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have already established in an RfC here that PolitiFact is a reliable source for claims made by people. However, I don't find the "Truth-O-Meter" ratings reliable, (PolitiFact publishes these ratings along with the articles factchecking various claims) as they are sometimes inconsistent. For example, the claim "Beto O'Rourke wants to legalize all narcotics" was given a different rating at two different occasions:

• [7] But Reyes’ claim leaves the misimpression that O’Rourke favors legalizing all illegal drugs. We rate his statement Half True.
• [8] Cruz said O’Rourke had a resolution to legalize all narcotics. ... We rate Cruz’s claim False.

wumbolo ^^^ 12:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the contradiction. In the first, they rated the statement: "Silvestre Reyes says challenger favors legalizing drugs" half-true. Well, he does. Just not all drugs as suggested. Half true. The claim in the second was: "Democratic challenger from El Paso made a 'radical' move to legalize all narcotics." Well, this is flatly false. He never resolved to make all illegal drugs legal. O3000 (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the ratings are fine. The example above is poor and is not indicative of PolitiFact's flaws. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the point of Wikipedia to give people access to the sources and show what is and isn't true? I don't see why we should outsource the verification process to PolitiFact. Present the verifiable background information they dig up? yes. Let them say what is true and what is not? No.--Carwil (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying precisely. Do you have an example in mind? When I use PolitiFact, it usually goes like this: "Politician A said X. PolitiFact found that X was "false", noting that [insert PolitiFact's reasons why the statement is false]". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we should attribute a statement to the "Truth-O-Meter" but a statement that Politifact something was deemed "half true" may be OK. Keep in mind that the rating "true, half-true etc" is not encyclopedic. Why it was rated a particular way is. I think it would be better to simply state the reason why something was considered half true. Offering "the statement was deemed 'false'" with including the why is really poor editing. One of the worst things some Wiki editors do when dealing with politically charged subjects is the Wiki equivalent to the sound bite, "X source said, '[inflammatory quote without context here]'". A classic example would be "[person/company] was accused of breaking X law". The statement may be backed by RS but it's often a way to claim NPOV while also tainting the article subject. It's not dissimilar from the old "Do you still beat your wife" loaded question. So if we are going to use this sort of thing we owe it to the readers to make sure the context is included. Springee (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are summaries of concerns raised re the Truth-O-Meter ratings in the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Post. To give a single example:

• "We wondered whether Navratilova was correct that 'in 29 states in this country you can still get fired for not just being gay, but if your employer thinks you are gay.' … But while Navratilova gets the number right, our discussions with legal experts produced a few exceptions to the rule … If you frame this statement in the context of blanket protections by states, she’s correct. Still, even in those 29 states, many gay and lesbian employees do have protections, either because they work for the government, because they live in a city that bars such discrimination, or because they work for a company that has pledged not to discriminate based on sexual orientation. On balance, we rate Navratilova’s claim Half True."[9]

"Half True" is the least useful evaluation in that whole paragraph. Instead, I think we should go with Politifact's own advice:

"We don’t expect our readers to agree with every ruling we make. We have published nearly 5,000* Truth-O-Meter ratings and it’s natural that anyone can find some they disagree with. But even if you don’t agree with every call we make, our research and analysis helps you sort out what’s true in the political discourse." [10]

That is, if our goal is verifiabliity, not truth, we should use Politifact as a research aid rather than an arbiter of True/Mostly True/Half True, etc.--Carwil (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can say the same about any source. Presumably that’s why Snooganssnoogans said to use attribution. O3000 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what you mean by research aid. It's WP:OR to add research of one's own. PolitiFact is a WP:RS, so it's perfectly fine to say in Wiki voice that a statement was false, explain why and then cite PF at the end. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would say that unless others have noted what Politifact qualified a statement, it is OR and edging on NPOV to add Politifact to try to validate or invalidate someone else's opinion. We should not be trying to analyze the truthfulness of these, but determine if the question of truthfulness is brought up by WEIGHT of other sources. --Masem (t) 16:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As Snooganssnoogans pointed out, Politifact is RS and we can paraphrase their statements in Wiki voice just like any other RS. The "Truth-O-Meter" is a gimmick and generally not appropriate for Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that we can't use the connected prose as a source. Sources don't have to follow Wikipedia's rules, we can and should use secondary sources that do their own OR and synthesis. They don't have to be encyclopedic either. One of our jobs as editors is taking non-encyclopedia-style sources and using them to build an encyclopedia. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Politifact reliable for their opinion or for the statements they make that back the opinion? I agree with the other editors who feel uncomfortable with stating the T-O-M results in Wiki voice. I think we are agreeing here that the arguments made by Politifact are the part we should generally treat as RS but the summaries of the facts of fact (ie the meter reading) should be attributed and even then used judiciously. Springee (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel comfortable stating it without attribution. It's not opinion, it's a fact reported by a reliable source. –dlthewave ☎ 03:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Politifact is a reliable source for reporting, that is if PF says X happened or someone said Y then we can assume it did. However, when we say "false" we should be careful. PF isn't 100% reliable and they are effectively making opinion type judgment calls. Our standard practice is to attribute such statements even when they come from highly regarded sources like the NYT. Springee (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The finasteride article does not reflect a NPOV.

1. Finasteride is an antiandrogen, by virtue of its inhibition of the metabolic conversion of testosterone to the more potent androgen, 5-alpha dihydrotestosterone. This property of finasteride is described in the article antiandrogen. Finasteride lowers 5-alpha dihydrotestosterone to levels similar to those that occur in castrated men. The mechanism of action of finasteride is not described in the lead of the finasteride article. This is misleading, as the antiandrogen effect of finasteride contributes to the sexual side effects of the drug, including erectile dysfunction and diminished libido.

2. A high quality review by Traish (PMID: 26296373) describes an observational cohort study, also done by Traish, that finds that finasteride exposure lowers testosterone and worsens erectile dysfunction, as measured by a validated assessment tool, the International Index of Erectile Dysfunction. A comparison group treated with tamsulosin did not experience these toxic effects. When this information with supporting citation was added to the finasteride article, it was deleted with the assertion that a review article that references the primary publication of the author of the review article is not appropriate for citation on wikipedia. This is clearly not the case, and there are many examples where this occurs in other wikipedia articles on medicine.

3. Editors who attempt to fix errors in the finasteride article experience ad hominem attacks and use of wikilawyering to restrict or ban the editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbelknap:, please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. The suppression of androgens is the primary effect of finasteride, not a side-effect, and this is stated in the lead. The NPOV policy does not mean that every positive or neutral statement about a subject needs to have an equal number of negative statements. Also, one particular editor's views on a subject, not matter how strongly held, do not get to decide what the "right" balance is. You should be further aware that accusing other editors of bad-faith manipulation of a discussion can themselves be considered disruptive editing. Confrontational approaches seldom work well in article talk page discussions. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The suppression of androgens is the cause of both finasteride's therapeutic effects (reducing prostate volume and slowing hair loss) and is also the cause of its adverse effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Japanese IP that insists on keeping badly written and (IMHO) non-neutral content. They are a pretty experienced editor as they cite the NPOV removal reasons in their edit. I think their edit has the effect of slanting the article.104.163.159.237 (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently ApolloCarmb has taken an interest in editing adticles about Venezuelan elections, specifically the last regional, municipal and the upcoming presidential ones, and there has been disagreement over if some content should be included or not. ApolloCarmb has changed several times the title "Irregularities" with "Controversies", "Election" or "Alleged irregularities":[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] My point is that this sections must be named "Irregularities" since they specify violations of the constitution and the electoral law, besides being unprecedented and uncontested, or under the strict sense of the word, they are not regular; this is without prejudice of a split section named "Controversies". They have also deleted several quote boxes: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27], citing WP:OVERQUOTE, WP:UNDUE and that they're concerned it might push an "anti-Maduro narrative".[28] ApolloCarmb has also deleted a major statement made by an opposition coalition under the same arguments,[29][30][31] but a main difference is that this content is not shown anywhere else in the article, unlike some of the previous quote boxes. My main concers with deleting these contributions is that it seems rather a case of WP:BLOWITUP, that it may be disruptive, lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete and that there are better, more constructive ways to solve these perceived problems, such as balancing the information with contrary claims or tagging. ApolloCarmb has also argued WP:BRD, asked for consensus and to discuss in the talk page, but so far there has been little to no actual discussion at all [32][33][34] Since there has also been little activity from other users and to prevent further disputes, I added NPOV templates to the articles affected [35][36] and I'm bringing the issue to the noticeboard.

To summarize, I would like to ask:

1. How to restore the MUD declaration and how it can be improved for it to be included.  Done
2. How many, if any, quote boxes should be restored.  Done
3. How to rename "controversies" as "irregularities", without prejudice of keeping a split section with the former name.  Done
4. What actions should be taken to prevent disputes in the future.  Done

--Jamez42 (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would like to mention that ApolloCarmb has already been involved in WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND and Wikipedia:WIKIHOUND behavior since their account was created a few weeks ago.[1][2] ApolloCarmb has also performed edits which were copyright violations.[3] Trying to maintain the quality of many articles has been difficult with their actions. As stated above, explanations of policies and attempts of dialogue have shown little fruition regarding their editing behavior.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ZiaLater/Jamez42's edit warring and attempt to bulldoze their way to get their preferred version of the article is being discussed on the talk pages (discussions they seem to have completely abandoned). I have explained my rationale for all these edits on the talk pages of the relevant articles and these users have no consensus for these changes. I have attempted to get them to discuss on the talk page but they little interest in that and hence have continued their reactionary reverting while ignoring talk page procedures. They are highly biased editors with a deep dislike for Maduro, literally every one of their edits to Venezuela related articles includes adding material that they think reflects badly on Maduro. This report is nothing but an attempt to bulldoze his own version of the article without gaining the consensus that he clearly lacks.ApolloCarmb (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Addition It should be noted that since I have made the above comment these users have finally decided to return to the talk page.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ApolloCarmb:, I remind you once again as well as ZiaLater, like I did in your talk page: this is not a report such as the edit warring or the 3RR noticeboards, this is a dispute resolution board because I want to find a middle ground and a consensus, and I refrained from further revert since I commented on the noticeboard; I also refrained as much as possible to talk about user behaviour. The last edits in the talk pages seem to show the need for this. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

User blocked indefinitely for being a SPA sockpuppet. --Jamez42 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#RfC: Reliable sources - which despite the name (there are RS issues on using the internet portal in question and Facebook posts - but that is a side issue) - is really a due/undue question. Non involved input there would be helpful.Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that all sources in this article are purely based on 2018 reports of questionable source. The original video of her originated on a youtube channel ^[1] that has a history of posting fake information. Indeed the second video posted on the channel ^[2] is a cut down version of a BBC interview of Sheikh Mohammed by BBC ^[3] that has been cut in a way that it distorts meaning - ripping sentences apart and thereby completely altering meaning. As briefly noted at the end of the BBC video on the alleged Dubai princess ^[4] all the people involved - the French "spy" and the company "Detained in Dubai"- have previously been noted as criminals by the UAE government and therefore they declined to comment on the story. The story of an adult male supposedly dressed up in an Abaya to flee a developed country by diving is questionable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:e914:6c00:fdec:7065:2444:71f3 (talk • contribs)

The article in its current and recent state is indeed rather odd. It only presents the "Detained in Dubai" side of the story, and when I attempted to add a single sentence (cited to BBC News) on what the Dubai authorities had said about it, it was promptly removed by the current article owners. Amongst many other problems, early in the "2018 disappearance" section there is some appalling WP:CITEKILL, with eleven inline sources cited for one single sentence. There are also citations to the WP:DAILYMAIL, Daily Mirror, Twitter, YouTube etc.

The BBC are mentioning -- repeatedly, it seems -- the official point of view that the people making the various allegations have extensive criminal backgrounds, so it seems odd for Wikipedia to WP:CENSOR the existence of that point of view as reported in reliable sources.

I haven't had time to watch the youtube videos and assess the extent of the alleged distorting of meaning, but the use of such primary sources in this manner is problematic anyway.

Would be grateful for any help in unravelling how Wikipedia is portraying this issue and how the BLP in question could be improved. Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (II) is the article in question. MPS1992 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A current Slashdot thread [37] based on a Wall Street Journal article about ArbCom contains a lot of complaints about Wikipedia editing, but few specifics. I looked at one article, alternative medicine that was mentioned by name and it does seem far more polemic than appropriate. Here, for example, is the lede: "Alternative medicine, fringe medicine, or pseudomedicine are practices that by definition do not work, and are a form of quackery or health fraud." The accompaning cite is to a single book. The talk page is full of complaints, including suggestions that even if the goal is to dissuade users, the article's tone is counter productive. A section with criticism of mainstream medicine was removed.--agr (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the article to say "Alt-Med is great" perhaps? We reflect what reliable sources say, according to policy. If you don't like that, try opening a section on the article talk page. Alternatively (see what I did there?) You could try to change policy so that we can use unreliable sources as well. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A move to the neutral title of Political views of American academics was challenged and changed to the current title which appears to be a POV fork and also does not reflect the references, the larger RS literature, or article text. We could use experienced NPOV eyes there and on the article talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]