Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion. State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]]. Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here. Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question. Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context. It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format. Sections older than 21 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: Guidance on making articles conform to the neutrality policy can be found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, use the No original research noticeboard instead. For a review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Click here to start a new discussion

Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74

RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines

May I ask for comment on the neutrality of proposed edits at Talk:Sugar#RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines?

Sérgio Moro

Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%A9rgio_Moro&action=history

The section being removed is terribly biased as it ignores all of Moro's highly popular and praised merits in leading the Operation Car Wash, even ignores his most famous case in which he convicted Lula, and instead focuses entirely on leftist rhetoric and on disqualifying him over criticism that comes exclusively from biased editorials. I've got my account blocked because of this so is there any experienced editor who can give a throughout check? The section they want to keep clearly violate NPOV and doesn't give its due weight. Besides, it's not even in the Portuguese Wikipedia.

NPOV issue in the Harm Reduction section of the Needle exchange programme article

Hi, I'm new to editing Wikipedia so apologies if I'm not meeting protocol in some way but I have some concerns regarding NPOV with the section called "Harm Reduction" in the article Needle exchange programme. Here is the paragraph that seems egregiously non-neutral to me:

"Harm reduction begins with the assumption that it is not reasonable to assume that individuals make healthy decisions. Advocates hold that those trapped in dangerous behaviors are often unable and/or unwilling to break free of them, and should at least be enabled to continue these behaviors in a less harmful manner.[6] A tendency in the medical profession has been to treat drug dependency as a chronic illness like diabetes, hypertension and asthma, to be treated, evaluated and even insured in like manner.[7][8] Treating drug dependency as an illness absolves drug users of responsibility for their condition.[9]"

I brought this up a few months ago on the talk page, specifically noting that the article cited to demonstrate the last sentence as a statement of fact, rather than as a subjective, partisan opinion on the subject, was a policy institute with an explicit agenda; that conversation was here, at the very bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Needle_exchange_programme/Archive_2 The reference for that last sentence was changed to the Hoover Institute, which is another think-tank; research papers from think tanks are obviously fine to use as references, but you can't simply state the opinion of the think tank as fact without breaking NPOV in a very obvious and jarring way!

As you can see, it's been a contentious article! I understand that this is something many people have very different opinions on this, but there needs to be a clearer line between opinion and the article's neutral viewpoint. I don't think I have the editing experience to do much about this, so I'm hoping some of you can school me on what to do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floatargen (talk • contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. That whole section could be improved to more accurately reflect the distinction between opinion and fact, but I think that sentence in particular is obviously not something we can state plainly in Wikipedia's voice. I will remove it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Acupuncture article.

.........to say that something is not effective because no one has managed to produce evidence is nonsense...; we get you. Bye, ∯WBG^converse 10:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article on acupuncture does not have a neutral point of view and is very biased against acupuncture. A few people have reported to me that they have tried to edit it and their edits have just disappeared or they have been dismissed. As Wikipedia's policy is to have a neutral point of view, surely this article should be itself more neutral, just stating facts rather than pressing the point that the writer believes acupuncture doesn't work. Yes there are some studies that suggest it doesn't work in those cases but there are plenty of studies that say it does, and there are more positive ones now.

The same with the Homeopathy page. This page is also very biased against Homeopathy and indeed claims false "facts".

Please could you assure us that if these pages are fairly edited, they will not be changed back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaderon (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Both articles are far too biased towards these fake practises. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shaderon: If you think there is false information in an article, you need to be more specific about what you believe to be false in the article, and make sure to cite reliable sources for medical content. If reliable sources say that acupuncture doesn't work, then the article should say so, this doesn't necessarily mean it is biased.

@Roxy the dog: Dismissing a new editor's concerns as "nonsense" and responding to a vague claim of bias with your own vague and opinionated claim of the opposite bias is not helpful. Shaderon may well be wrong, but when a new editor sees comments like the one you just made here it only makes them think of Wikipedia as unpleasant and biased. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Haha. You are calling me opinionated. Haha. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: This is exactly what I mean. There are opinions and evidence both ways but any evidence with reliable sources (and by the way the statement "The conclusions of many trials and numerous systematic reviews of acupuncture are largely inconsistent, which suggests that it is not effective." is a biased point of view, to say that something is not effective because no one has managed to produce evidence is nonsense. No proof of a thing is not proof it doesn't exist and if something only works sometimes, this suggests that it might work in some cases so therefore to say it doesn't work at all is AGAINST the evidence. So bias is already evident in this article.

Also to say "Medical" evidence is against acupuncture in itself because most people in the "Medical" industry (I'm talking Western Medical) do not consider Acupuncture medical, however people in the TCM acupuncture industry consider Western Medical to be "masking symptoms"... who is right? Again opinion. So any evidence given in a medical setting, is going to be like proving that a cat can bark. It's just not made that way, Acupuncture and the Western Medical industries do different things so can't be proved using each other's methods.

It's going to take a lot of fairness from now on to convince myself any many other users (who I have talked to so therefore I personally have evidence) that Wikipedia is a trusted source of information because of biases just like this in many articles and in fact there is a rumor beginning that the people behind Wikipedia may just be paid off to take a biased approach. I think that in general, not just this article, but many others need looking at for just this type of bias and experts in the relevant subjects approached for any evidence to support instead of letting the noisy people who are editing articles dismiss any facts because they don't believe them. I understand that this is a public domain but Wikipedia does have people checking for fairness, so maybe these people need a more thorough understanding of scientific principle and bias. BTW I trained in scientific argument and I could tear holes in ANY experiment or study, as every single one can be disputed in some way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaderon (talk • contribs) 19:20, December 14, 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished beliefs, however lucrative they might be for fake doctors. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 14 December 2018]]

I totally give up! This has convinced me that the editors in the BIAS section ARE BIASED!

Wikipedia is biased because of this alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaderon (talk • contribs) 19:28, December 14, 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, we are biased in favour of empirically established fact. The core claims of acupuncture and homeopathy are wrong. They are founded on vitalistic models of human physiology which have been disproven. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but you don't know enough about the subject Guy. You are a really bad person to have on this board, you are not open minded and being very fast to answer there I suspect you either work for a pharmaceutical company or something like it. I bet you know know that the majority of doctors take kickbacks which are worth a lot more than any money that an acupuncture therapist earns, so your argument of it being luctrative is ridiculous. Also the western medical model of human physiology is starting to PROVE the Chinese one, maybe you should read up and research new evidence as the medical industry is doing before dismissing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaderon (talk • contribs) 19:38, December 14, 2018 (UTC)

@Shaderon: You seem to be dismissing the possibility of anything being a proven fact by saying BTW I trained in scientific argument and I could tear holes in ANY experiment or study, as every single one can be disputed in some way. But then you say Also the western medical model of human physiology is starting to PROVE the Chinese one so are you saying that studies and research are only true if the agree with your beliefs? if not, what are you trying to say? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1][2]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an RfC relevant to this topic at - the COI noticeboard Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The critics of Acupuncture miss the point, which is that an article should describe the practice and what it purports to do, then cover the opinions for and against, with refs. The same applies to Naturopathy or any other therapy; a neutral article will describe the subject and what it purports to do, then discuss the arguments for and against, with refs. That is neutrality. To say something is "pseudoscientific" or whatever is expressing an opinion, otherwise known as POV. Sardaka (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Failing to report what reliable sources say would mislead readers. Acupuncture is pseudoscience and should be reported as such. Wikipedia is not an equal-time media outlet where everyone's opinion is of equal validity. Here, the only opinions that matter are those of reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

What Johnuniq said. Sardaka is arguing directly counter to NPOV policy, specifically WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. Basically we call bullshit out for what it is. Alexbrn (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warning

Hello again, Now I have not left a reply for a while as I was not very happy about the warning you gave me. I do try my best here and the warning you gave me I feel like was and still is unacceptable, I don't randomly change the summaries for no reason, if you have not noticed I do read the final reports so I am not happy with the other person stating that I'm 'making a mess'. I have learning difficulties so please understand that or at least make a note of that on my profile.

All I got was just a warning and that's it, you didn't try to help me or anything and I feel like you made me feel unwelcome here, obviously you haven't read my profile to find that I have learning difficulties which again shows you rushed the warning without even having the time to have a look at my profile to see who you're handing the warning out to. With all due respect If I ever need assistance I'm sorry to say I won't go to you after the unfortunate distress you gave me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrbitalEnd48401 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

NVIC motto

At the NVIC article as well as FTN[3] there has been extensive debate, going back a year, over whether to include the NVIC's motto/slogan and mission statment in the infobox. The mission statment parameter was removed from the infobox template, but an RfC was just closed with no consensus for the removal of the "motto" parameter[4]. JzG has strenuously objected to the inclusion of the motto parameter, while I feel his arguments have mostly been POV. Guy Macon has suggested that the motto be included only if independent sources can be found for it, while I was initially OK with this, we do have a primary source (NVIC) that establishes what NVIC's motto is, so it passes WP:V, and I don't see how it can be undue to fill all infobox parameters. Me and JzG going back and forth will get us nowhere (well maybe ANI, but no one wants that) and Guy macon's attempts to diffuse our dispute are appreciated, but we need more editors to weigh in on this. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude – slogans and mission statements can be useful for some larger organizations, especially when they have been discussed in independent sources. In this case, we're dealing with National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine organization with the motto "Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice." That's just soapboxing, and it has no business here. Bradv🍁 03:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Using our judgment of what is a legitimate motto based on whether the organization is good or bad seems to be an unacceptable POV standard, and do we really need secondary sources to establish that it is WP:DUE to fill an infobox parameter? Tornado chaser (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, then explain who is helped by including the motto, other than the organization. Bradv🍁 03:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: Allowing infobox parameters to be selectively included based on whether the organization is good or bad is a dangerously non-neutral precedent to set, if there is a consensus that all infobox mottoes need secondary sourcing I am fine with not including NVIC's motto, but we can't just exclude mottoes because of whose motto it is or what the motto says. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, you're ignoring my question. Bradv🍁 04:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how "who is helped by including" is a legitimate way to determine whether to include content, if the content is factual, verifiable, and WP:DUE than it is included, right? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, my objection is that it's soapboxing. It serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to promote the subject. I'm talking about specifically this article, not mottos in general. Bradv🍁 04:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: Aren't mottoes always self promotional? can you give me an example of a motto that you would not consider soapboxing? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, I would say most mottos are promotional, although some of them are independently notable. Interestingly enough, the two examples I thought of, Microsoft's vision of "a computer on every desktop" and Google's "don't be evil", aren't included in their respective infoboxes. Bradv🍁 04:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: But what would be wrong with adding the mottos to these infoboxes? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, presumably there were discussions on those articles that led to a consensus not to include. Perhaps some of those editors pointed to WP:SOAPBOX or WP:NPOV. Regardless, I don't see you getting anywhere with this, and I'm very concerned by how hard you're trying to push this issue. Bradv🍁 04:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ @Bradv: I just realized corporate infoboxes don't have a motto parameter, "motto" is only a parameter on the infobox for nonprofit organizations, so you can't compare the NVIC infobox to the microsoft infobox. Are you saying that all mottos need secondary sources in order to be included in the infobox regardless of what the organization promotes? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, you're changing the subject. I have considered your proposal to include this motto on the article National Vaccine Information Center, and I am opposed based on the reasons I stated. Bradv🍁 05:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Please stop using Wikipedia to promote anti-vaxxers. There is no policy that all sides get equal time and there is no reason to promote their nonsense in a prominent position. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Please comment on content, not contributors, I have no desire to promote antivaxers, and I am aware of the problem of false balance (if you don't believe me my userpage essay criticizes false balance) but we need a reason other than opposition to NVIC or disagreement with their motto to exclude it from the infobox. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, you might like to browse WP:5P and let me know which pillar requires the promotion of blather-speak pronouncements from those who promote anti-science. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: NPOV is a pillar, and it requires that our standard for including mottoes is not based on whether the organization is good or bad, if we only include independently sourced mottoes, that would be fine, but we can't just say "antivaxers are bad, so exclude their motto". Tornado chaser (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: NPOV is indeed a pillar, and for dubious stuff it guides us to "omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it". Inclusion would give this twisted motto undue legitimacy. I am troubled by your zealous push for inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Your reasoning that the motto is "twisted" is another NPOV violation, like the ones that Guy Macon refers to in his comment. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm I actually quoted NPOV to you - as other NB participants have been trying to tell you, Wikipedia is biased against dodgy stuff like this and in its terms that is neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be misstating our policy through selective quotation. The policy in context is:

"Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."

Your "this twisted motto" argument goes against the policy you quoted. You are clearly "taking a stand on these issues". The word legitimatize in the policy does not encourage you to take a stand on these issues by excluding what you don't like, but rather that they should not be "legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship".

I also think that your personal comments about Tornado chaser are out of line. He is standing up for NPOV. You are ignoring NPOV. Care to describe me as being pro-fringe, considering my record of edits on fringe topics?

If the most vile organization imaginable has a completely deceptive and evil motto or slogan, and multiple reliable secondary sources discuss it at length, it merits inclusion. If the most good and pure organization imaginable has a motto or slogan that everybody likes and agrees with, but no secondary source discusses it. It should be excluded. This is not optional. WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV requires that we put aside or personal prejudices and describe even the most evil organizations from a neutral point of view. There are always secondary sources that make the "this is evil" point. It is our job to simply report what those sources say. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say I think you are completey wrong in your reading of policy. No, "we" (Wikipedia) doesn't take a stand "for or against", but we "omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it". I am not saying the article should take a "stand against" the motto, but exluding it is explcitly in line with the word of policy. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You think an antivax organisation with a slogan plainly based on the lunatic ideas that vaccines are more dangerous than infectious disease, and that not vaccinating has no impact on anyone but you, is somehow not twisted? You really think that? Guy (Help!) 15:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Thats not what I said at all, I am saying whether a motto or organization is "twisted" is a matter of opinion and our opinions must not guide our editing. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is twisted. That doesn't give you a free pass to ignore NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You keep asserting that I am ignoring NPOV. That is false. UNDUE is part of NPOV. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The mistake I think you are making is saying that something is UNDUE because it is an antivax group, content may be UNDUE if it is self sourced opinion, but that applies equally to self sourced opinion from anti-vax groups, pro-vax groups, republicans, democrats, nazis, civil rights activists, ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a mistake. The group's marketing slogan is Orwellian. It is also a great example of begging the question. Assuming that vaccines cause mass harm (which they don't), that the government has no authority to coerce behaviour in support of public health (which they clearly do), and that the choice of whether or not to vaccinate your child has no effect on anyone other than you (which it clearly does), then it's your health, your family and your choice. But since none of the base premises are true, it's propaganda and stating it gives undue weight to their objectively false assessment of vaccine safety, risks of infectious disease, and their obligations to society and their children. And any choice made on the basis of the kind of disinformation that NVIC put out is not an informed choice. In fact I have yet to see a single antivaxer provide a fact-based argument for their opposition to vaccines: almost all of them cite autism, for example, which is not correlated with vaccines, let alone caused by them. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Whether the government should have any given power is a matter of opinion, so is any claim of "obligations to society". Tornado chaser (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

There is ample precedent for the government having the right to intervene when people make dangerously incorrect health choices on behalf of their children or themselves. There is ample precedent for obligations to society (e.g. Typhoid Mary). Guy (Help!) 00:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ Yes there is precedent that the government has these powers, but whether it is moral/ethical for the government to have such powers is a matter of opinion and therefore not something wikipedia can take a side on. NVIC is saying the government shouldn't have these powers, we as editors are free to personally disagree with them, but not to treat our opinions as facts, we can't take a side on what the law should be. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Exclude and consider a TBAN. Marketing slogans are bad enough when they are anodyne, this is an Orwellian slogan for an organisation whos purpose is in effect the promotion of preventable infectious diseases. Every mainstream source identifies NVIC as a propaganda outfit. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude. Why on earth would we want to parrot an antivax slogan? There seems to be some dogged WP:PROFRINGE here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Don't care about the motto itself, but excluding the motto must be for a reason unrelated to what the organizations promotes, if we don't have the same standard for mottoes regardless of the purpose of the organization, then we set a bad precedent in favor of editorial bias, which is likely to spill over into other areas of the encyclopedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Note to closer: Most of the exclude !votes should not be counted because they are based upon reasoning that are clear NPOV violations. Tornado chaser is correct; we can't just exclude mottoes because of whose motto it is or what the motto says.

In particular, the following comments contain arguments that are clear violations of NPOV:

• "In this case, we're dealing with National Vaccine Information Center."
• "Explain who is helped by including the motto, other than the organization."
• "My objection is that it's soapboxing. It serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to promote the subject."
• "Please stop using Wikipedia to promote anti-vaxxers."
• "There is no reason to promote their nonsense in a prominent position."
• "This is an Orwellian slogan for an organisation whos purpose is in effect the promotion of preventable infectious diseases. Every mainstream source identifies NVIC as a propaganda outfit."
• "...blather-speak pronouncements from those who promote anti-science."

No such arguments should be counted. I would also advise ignoring any arguments to the effect that WP:WEIGHT does not apply to mottos in infoboxes. That policy contains no such exception. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes they should, per WP:PROFRINGE. Neutrality is not the average between liars and the truth. We have plenty of precedent for not including counterfactual self-descriptions of liars. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude for the RIGHT reason. At National Vaccine Information Center#Proposed solution I proposed that

"Slogans, Mottos, Mission Statements, and all similar infobox parameters should only be added if they are (1) discussed in at least one reliable secondary source (actual discussion, not just a mention in passing) and (2) discussed in the body of the article (which they shouldn't be unless they are discussed in a reliable secondary source)".

I would also be OK with requiring multiple sources instead of "at least one".

I have seen zero evidence establishing this for the motto in question. so it should be excluded until someone provides said evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with excluding the motto if there is consensus that even mottoes need independent sourcing(regardless of whether it is a pro-or anti-vax org), I have no interest in including the motto for it's own sake, I just want an NPOV reason for whatever people want to do. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude: including a self-serving motto with no context in an infobox for a fringe organization is clearly profringe. Including mottos in infoboxes at all seems a little odd (similar to trying to include movie tag lines), and while there could potentially be situations in which you might want to include one in an infobox, an anti-vaccine group isn't one of them. --tronvillain (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have decided to Exclude the motto as long as there are no secondary sources for it, as Guy Macon has said that infoboxes are not exempt from needing secondary sources, and I have no reason to distrust him. However, this decision should not be misconstrued as condoning any of the numerous blatant POV arguments made by many editors on this thread. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Update, I did find this secondary source for NVIC's motto[5]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran

People's Mujahedin of Iran has some rather strange edit-warring going on - with some WP:RS/N discussions being strangely interpreted - including a removal of The Christian Science Monitor and other "generally recognized reliable sources" being removed on a wholesale basis, with possibly an attempt to add a POV to the article. [6] is the latest, where a fairly neutral comment from a UK Parliamentary report is removed and "According to the MEK, over 100,000 of its members have been killed and 150,000 imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran" as a phrasing example. [7] shows one of the wholesale removals, with lots of "citation needed" notes of shame added. There is clearly an animus (possible several opposing ones, in fact) at work on the article, and eyes from those willing to sort out the chaff would likely help. I just fear that removing Reuters and the like as "unreliable" tends not to promote a neutral point of view at all. And the article is too long by half - but my edits would likely really stoke flames. See also several discussions at WP:RS/N Collect (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)

Evans has recently been involved in what the Washington Post and pretty much all the other local media outlets in D.C. are characterizing as a major scandal (see [8], [9], etc.), and some editors have been trying to add additional information about the scandal to his page. However, to do so would require overturning a consensus to only briefly mention the scandal, which was reached before as many elements of the scandal were known. Most of the editors participating in the discussion (including Evans himself, who is an editor) have been involved with the disputes on the page going way back, and they are (somewhat reasonably) asking others who want to jump in to go through all the history of the discussion, but since few are willing to do so, this has essentially had the effect of limiting the discussion to only a small circle. The discussion could use some more attention from uninvolved editors willing to familiarize themselves with the situation and then offer comment. - Sdkb (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

First, thanks to Sdkb for a neutrally stated, un-inflammatory request. This particular episode was the subject of a BLPN posting in August, archived here. A discussion ensued, archived beginning here, and spilling (after some intervening discussion) in the subsequent archived section as well. Rather than me try to summarize the issues and their resolution at that time, I would simply encourage any newly-arriving editor to review the material. I'd add though that the only element of the scandal that wasn't known in August, which is known now, was captured in a recent Washington Post article from a week or so ago, linked above. A Talk page discussion was immediately begun in order to see if the prior consensus should be revisited. That discussion begins here. Finally, while not essential to the immediate matter, I think it would assist the disinterested editor to understand that the page has, over the years, been subject to a lot of push and pull from parties with one or another axe to grind, including Evans himself (who, as a condition of having his most recent block lifted, has pledged to stop editing the page directly). A different, 2015, BLPN posting is illustrative. This is all reflected on in the Talk page archives. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC about The Washington Times and climate change coverage in Lede

This RfC[10] may be of interest. The question is about whether it is due weight to mention the newspaper's climate change coverage in the lede paragraph. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marquis de Faux. Just noting that the sources used for the claim that the newspaper "has published many columns rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change" only involve a few articles. For instance, the New Yorker article only cited or focused on Richard Rahn's op-ed. The ClimateFeedback source only cited one article and the case is the same for the Los Angeles Times story. Moreover, these articles did not refer to a pattern of climate change rejection in "many" of The Washington Times columns. I am not saying that this claim is not true, only that the sources used do not reflect the insinuation. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Darwin Naz, please post this on the RfC on that page, not here. Best regards, Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, done. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check

Can I have a little help from you guys reviewing an article that I created and has subsequently become a hotbed of conflict? For a little bit of history, the article is Media Bias/Fact Check. The original version as finished and published (before other editors showed up and started removing material) can be found here. Following a protracted period of instability, the last version that I would support as being neutral in POV would be this. The article subsequently had much of its sourced content removed to the point that the article is now almost entirely negative in its coverage of the topic. A couple of editors are quite fond of an article written by the Columbia Journalism Review ([11]), which discussed MBFC briefly in a paragraph or two in a wider discussion on measuring media bias. This particular author was generally critical of measuring media bias, and also wasn't impressed by MBFC, describing it as "an amateur attempt". I was not aware of the CJR article when I wrote the original version of the article. As I said, the two editors in question are fond of this source's general reliability, considering its viewpoint to be so significant that the article has now been essentially paired down to only contain negative coverage of the website in line with CJR's assessment of the website. In the last 24 hours a large amount of what I would consider fairly well-sourced content has been removed with various explanations that can be seen on the history page (I won't comment further, please draw your own conclusions).

This article wasn't really ever visible in the New Pages Feed, as I have the autopatrolled flag, but I would like some input on it at this stage. I'm asking for a bit of help reviewing the article (both the original version I created, the most recent version I supported, and the current version as it stands now).

I've basically given up on the article, and even removed it from my list of created works, as it has little to nothing that I wrote left in it; but I'd like some feedback and a few other opinions on the situation and how it went down so that I can learn from it moving forward and possibly learn where I went wrong here. Thanks all, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

More eyes would indeed be welcome, as would more sources that are about the subject. I like MB/FC and am struggling to find good sources that show it in a positive light. Guy (Help!) 01:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel some of the content removal is reasonable , JzG's concern about making the site seem reliable in WP's voice when it really shouldn't be is very right on target. But once the site's notability is established and avoiding the use of primary sources for that, the other content such as the methodology section in the original is fully appropriate to include from the primary source, as long as the lede makes it clear about the site's unreliable nature, and the article's content is not excessively weight on the primary sources. Also, RSOPINION is perfectly valid here for sources like the HuffPo piece that was removed, as long as it is expressed as criticism. I do feel the edits to prune out material are trying to paint the site as negatively as possible. We want to point out the negative criticism but we shouldn't be focused on only that. We want a comprehensive article and the removal strips out what I would considered appropriate material. --Masem (t) 01:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Came here via my lurking on ICPH's talk page This pretty closely reflects my thinking. If I had been patrolling the article I would have likely commented on the MOS:LEADCITE which was, in my assessment, WP:OVERCITE. The citations which have been removed did not show anything beyond some sources using the website. That feels a bit of a bank shot way to show notability and unnecessary given other available sourcing. I definitely think adding back, probably unsectioned given the current article, the two sentences about how it works, is appropriate. Otherwise the sources now present a more encyclopedic version of the website. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Masem&Barkeep49 Some general comments about my dissatisfaction as to how the article has been rewritten.

I don't claim that my original version was in any way perfect (in fact I didn't know of the CJR source at the time and the Poynter Institute one hadn't been written yet).

CJR said that it was 'subjective' "Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation... Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in." Similarly the Poynter Institute says "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

These are essentially saying the same thing, that the ratings will be subjective to some degree, which MBFC does not dispute and agrees with this in their own description of their methodology, and points out that of course, any media bias judgement will be inherently subjective to some degree by the nature of what bias is.[12] There is no reason that all this can't be written about in a neutral way, but currently the article has basically just been gutted of all other sources, which does the topic no good at all.

Their methodology is actually rather transparently discussed on their site,[13] but this as well has been removed from the article. While a primary source, it is still useful info that should be relatively uncontroversial. For this type of info, affiliated sources are usually considered fine to use, though others have objected here.

The CJR and Poynter Institute sources actually only briefly mention MBFC; the Inside Sources article [14] was the most comprehensive review of the site, though others aren't satisfied with that source (personally after having a look at other articles on the site, it looks pretty middle of the road for a low traffic news site, not sticking out as 'unreliable' in any way).

The references to the MIT project that used MBFC data have been completely removed by JzG, which included sources from Popular Science. His excuse was that PopSci and others [15][16][17][18] commenting on the same story all referenced another source as a primary source, which somehow makes all their secondary coverage inappropriate (?); This removal I don't really understand at all and can't see a justifiable reason for cutting all these sources and coverage. Weirdly, he left the second sentence of the article referencing this with no sources left in the article citing it.

I'd also like to discuss the removal of references to who has cited MBFC when discussing other sources. Lots have, including BBC [19], Newsweek [20][21], The Spinoff [22] as well as Op-eds in LaTimes [23] and Forbes [24]. All these sources and references to the use of MBFC by all these organisations has subsequently been removed from the article.

There is another story by PBS NewsHour about how an algorithm was trained to identify Russion bots, partially with help from MBFC data.[25]. This source was also at one point in the article but has been removed.

There are also a few sources that didn't like MBFC's assessment of them, and wrote hit pieces against MBFC. These were covered in the first iteration of the article and might have been a bit too much coverage in the article, but I think these could probably be discussed somehow. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we don't include any hit pieces right now. My objection to "X has been mentioned by Y, source, Y mentioning X" is constant across all articles and certainly not specific to this one. Here we actually went further and made statements that major news orgs had used MBFC as a source, cited to three articles which represented the sum total of all the times both of those orgs had even namechecked MBFC. I don't think I am alone in thinking that gives undue weight. The solution is to find better substantive sources that are about MBFC, rather than mine the web for mentions.

I don't think Inside Sources counts as a RS. We only have 23 cites to it as of this writing, and I think that should be closer to zero. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

In topics that relate to the media, I would think that identifying how a yet -proven source has been incorporated by other more established sources gives weight to its reliability, which balance against other source discounting the site as being reliable. We are putting the existing evidence of what is our there on the table to let the reader judge due to a lack of a consistently authoritative source on how media sites should be treated. (If that existed, determining RD would become trivial). --Masem (t) 13:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Naturopathy

This article is a blatant example of POV. It doesn't even pretend to be impartial. It adopts the attitude that naturopathy is bunk right from the start, with the statement that naturopathy is "pseudoscientific", without even a ref. Whether you believe in naturopathy or not is not the point; the point is that the article is biased.

The NPOV approach would be to describe the subject and what it purports to do, then provide arguments for and against, with refs. The article does not even attempt to do this. It is completely biased, and it is impossible to change it because the protectors of the article delete any attempt to make it more NPOV. I have tried lately, but even the slightest change is reverted almost immediately. Sardaka (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That's because you are adding nonsense to the article, and obviously it will be removed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is the one that is taken by the vast majority of relevant experts, as described in secondary, peer reviewed literature (or other as permitted by WP:PARITY). In the case of naturopathy, that point of view is rather monolithic: that naturopathy is a haphazard collection of pseudoscience. The neutral point of view is not an exercise in false balance, or a requirement to be generous to the subject of an article. You are interpreting "neutral" to mean "non-negative" or "as much negative as positive". You are wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The balance of the article is right, as pointed out above, that the bulk of reliable sources in medicine have determined naturopathy to be psuedoscience, so this article is going to be weighted against the views that think naturopathy is effective. That said, there's ordering of information (outside the lede) that rushes in to discount naturopathy too soon. There should be a neutral section that isn't written in an accusational tone to lay out the foundations of what has been published of what naturopathy is, where it was established, and what types of practices it suggests. After that brief section, then its time to lay out the scientific and medical evidence against it. I point out that this is within the body: it seems right and proper that the lede call out the pseudoscience and the medical claims against this. That way, a user reading the article from the start will understand it is a questionable area of medicine in the lede, and so when they get to the section that goes into the details of naturopathy that does not include criticism against it, they're still aware that this is all under psuedoscientific merits. --Masem (t) 17:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead does not reflect the entire article. It is overly negative, repeating the point that it is unscientific over and over. It has psedoscientific practices, methods rely on folk medicine rather than evidence-based medicine, relies on unscientific notions - these same points are all used in one paragraph. One would think that this is not a lead but a warning. The content could be confined to a Criticism section. While it is probably undisputed that it is a pseudoscience, why not just state it once in the lead but also outline other information that represent other contents in this very long article? That would be more helpful to people who want to know more about this subject. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Accurate assessments as established by credible sources shouldn't be confined to a criticism section, as seen in WP:DESCF. --tronvillain (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The neutral approach is to report what various experts have said about the subject, not to actually adopt their view. If the article adopts their view, it is POV. I might add that even experts can be biased, and there are plenty of doctors who are biased against natural therapies. Sardaka (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Expert (sources) are good, so long as they are reliable for their purpose and WP:FRINDependent (so no in-universe blather about "natural therapies" thank you). We must WP:ASSERT things which are not seriously disputed like, for example, that Naturopathy is a pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." It is not controversial in medical or scientific literature that naturopathy is pseudoscience. The fact that people exist who dispute this does not make it controversial. The number of people who dispute this does not make this controversial either. When virtually 100% of reliable sources state that something is true and scientifically uncontroversial, it would in fact be POV of us to dilute that to an opinion or legitimate controversy. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)