Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:43, 11 July 2016

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"

We have been over it many times in the Talk page and getting nowhere, so I am seeking other opinions. At present]is written in the majority view which is to say: "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." (TIs being people who believe they are subject to covert targeting.) This assumes the psychiatric opinion as fact. However, there has been a significant Washington Post article on TIs, Mind Games, which, it seems to me, says that there may be something really happening to these people, that they may not be deluded. I would like to see the EH article incorporate what I see as the opinion of the Washington Post, which for starters would not have written such an article if they thought that TIs were entirely delusional, they would have written an article on a disturbing mass delusion. There are many points made in that article, and the two other similar articles cited, that support the view that, whilst the article should state the psychiatric opinion it should only state it as an opinion, not as a fact. I will go through the points from those three articles one at a time if that is necessary.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Working through the Mind Games article for instances that support my position that the EH article should be written as an open question as to whether there is real targeting happening, not just delusions, extracts from the first few paragraphs say: "IF HARLAN GIRARD IS CRAZY, HE DOESN'T ACT THE PART. .....At 70, he appears robust and healthy -- not the slightest bit disheveled or unusual-looking. He is also carrying a bag.

Girard's description of himself is matter-of-fact, until he explains what's in the bag: documents he believes prove that the government is attempting to control his mind. He carries that black, weathered bag everywhere he goes. 'Every time I go out, I'm prepared to come home and find everything is stolen,' he says.

The bag aside, Girard appears intelligent and coherent. At a table in front of Dunkin' Donuts inside the train station, Girard opens the bag and pulls out a thick stack of documents, carefully labeled and sorted with yellow sticky notes bearing neat block print. The documents are an authentic-looking mix of news stories, articles culled from military journals and even some declassified national security documents that do seem to show that the U.S. government has attempted to develop weapons that send voices into people's heads.

'It's undeniable that the technology exists,' Girard says, 'but if you go to the police and say, 'I'm hearing voices,' they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation.'"

The Washington Post obviously is of the opinion that Girard might not be crazy and is giving him the space to say that he thinks the government is doing something to him. This surely is saying that the WP is of the opinion that it is an open question not definite evidence of delusions? My first attempt to post the above led to it disappearing on clicking "Save Page" Jed Stuart (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence is too much. Seriously though the article acknowledges the experience of voices etc is real. There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used. (and the second is important - we would need both) Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no real dispute in the WP sense here. We have an WP:SPA editor pushing a WP:FRINGE idea, and everyone else telling this editor to please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart, you may find the page at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP, a polite but inexperienced WP:SPA, has been told many times by experienced editors that this will simply not fly, but unfortunately has failed to understand. I'm afraid that Jed is coming from an In-Universe POV, and the crowbar of understanding is so far simply not working. We need a bigger crowbar, and a very firm foundation for the fulcrum. Guy's essay ought to help, and WP:OUCH may also be pertinent. I, on the other hand, think it may be too late. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Replying to all: I am not an SPA. I have 3 separate areas of interest and experience, however I have only done two edits in WP in the 'electronic harassment' article. Both edits are now gone so I have effectively done none. For now I only have limited time for participation and decided to use it to attempt to get that article NPOV rather than 100% weight to the psychiatric opinion and 0% weight to the claims of TIs. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact in that way is to entirely negate the claims of TIs, which seems inappropriate. I am only attempting to integrate the view of the Washington Post article Mind Games which gives the TI claims a 'might be something in it'. I think those claims should be described as a conspiracy theory (although I would prefer conspiracy belief as they are not seeming to come at it from a theoretical perspective, but more from an attempt to describe weird experiences). To pitch the article as psychiatric opinion vs TI conspiracy theory is not to push a fringe idea as is claimed that I am doing. TIs seem to be always willing to admit that they have no hard evidence but nevertheless their claims are gaining considerable traction in alternative mass media. e.g. Coast to Coast AM, Jessie Ventura. So it seems that Alternative View - TIs Conspiracy Theory, or some such, would be appropriate, and not Fringe Delusion.

The article WP:1AM is interesting, but that has not been the situation for long. There have been many other editors on my side of the debate contributing to the Talk page, and who have given up in frustration at the immovable block of editors insisting that TI claims MUST be described as definitely delusions. My attempts to set up mediation only resulted in a fake mediation which was closed before I had the chance to reply. Yes, I was slow to get back to the mediation, but they should be fully aware by now that I only contribute every 2-3 days.

As to the point by jytdog "There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used." The 'Mind Games' article goes in depth into the question of technology and the possibility that something like an extension of the MKUltra project has been in operation since MKUltra was exposed and closed down. The latter point is consistent with the WP article Project MKUltra section 12 Aftermath ] Jed Stuart (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart It doesn't matter how reasonably well you argue. As stiff as it is, this article (as well as others involving Government crimes) are in the hands of conservative groups, probably a joint of real undercover agents (would you ever believe wikipedia had undercover agents editing it?.. I still have problems believing this but I'm trying to not exclude it) and wannabes trying to "do the work better". Either that, or it's a matter of fact that the vast majority of people cannot accept the chance that Federal agencies are still onto MKUltra and COINTELPRO alike programs. Everyone is entiteld to their opinion and, to quote a good one, "I would give my life to protect your right to have one", but hey.. sources speak clear at loads that Electronic harassment is an open question, not a verified illness. I'm sorry if you feel offended but I really have no personal hate towards any of you thus I don't consider it a personal attack (not to mention I'm doing it for a better wikipedia). This article should be taken to WP:ANI or WP:AE because indeed it is a matter of behavior in a too disputed argument. It's so disputed that even opening a case at WP:MEDCOM would ultimately be justifiable. Specifically WP:Civil POV pushing is what I broadly would invite to look into, but the problem sets immediatly as: how can ANI, AE and MEDCOM be free of "whitewashing agents" looking to basically protect their reputation?

The editors involved in the writing of this article are generally not looking to discuss, they are whether purpotedly or not willfull in coordinating denial over the chance Electronic harassment is an open question which, according to wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it results as such. Yet we have this undercover conservative editors and admins looking after their clerk editing wikipedia reputation, denying vital info that could even alleviate the pain possible victims may be really going through the way it is claimed, which soundss absolutely detestable and repugnant. The way the article is written is unacceptable considering the many sources available. Also every source keeps on being rejected with inconsiderate nonchalance and often bad faith. About bad faith for example, how can you consider alien abductions notable enough to be compiled into such a biased article? How can you compare the chance of State terrorism with that of extraterrestrials abducting humans? Why are you so keen on trying to fool us (editors and especially readers), regular unknown people, simple internet users that never did you any wrong? Let's face it, building 7 could not come down the way we are told. And neither the twins. I must be taking myself too seriously in trying to subvert this specific wikipedia censorship.. but the point I guess, is that I always related to knowledge with pure openness, thus it must hurt to see wikipedia being gamed by a bunch of who knows who nobodies.

However, I'm not here just to shout wishy-washy, I would like to point to the lack of hystorical perspective, mentioned with other words by Jed Stuart in the above comment. There have been many "attempts" to correct the censoring POV of the article throughout the last months/years, but I never came accross anyone mentioning WP:RECENT, a decently important essay. WP:RECENT is spot on firstly because COINTELPRO and MKULTRA are hystorial heavy weighting notable and verified clandestine projects which should be more seriously taken into account, and secondly because fundamentally the whole present bias is based on contemporary years's mainstream news about a modern phenomena revolving around internet communities that show traits of mental illnesses. Nonetheless, various reliable sources indicate the existence of weapons meant to induce mental illnesses thus it really is a gigantic mistake to propose the mental illness theory as fact.

There would be more to discuss about, but it's just too frustrating for anyone to be maliciously outnumbered the way it happens all the time. I guess that's why the degree of incivilty is non-existent on the side of the civil (indeed) pov pushers. What about the pointlessness in WP:SPA accusations? Do you think everyone can dedicate their working day to editing an encyclopedia? Let's resume good ol' Aaron Swartz for a minute:

Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.

On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Misplaced Pages. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Misplaced Pages itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.

Other encyclopedias work similarly, just on a much smaller scale: a large group of people write articles on topics they know well, while a small staff formats them into a single work. This second group is clearly very important — it’s thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone — but it’s a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia. One imagines the people running Britannica worry more about their contributors than their formatters.

What about that argument about pseudoscience detracting from notability?.. Have a read at what's written at the bottom of this for instance. The point with pseudoscience anyway, is like the one with comparing alien abductions to State terrorism: there are reliable sources citing the existence of these exotic weapons just as we have prove of, at least past, State terrorism (it always shows up after a while for some reason, and it's always about other countries, other cultures, other languages), while on the other hand there are no reliable sources citing the existence of extraterrestrials anywhere close enough to our planet, not to mention the abduction part. I know you will keep on stonewalling anyway, I already came to the understand there's no chance of having a un-POVed debate on this article, thus why am I trying my best to contribute to this article? Probably just because Jed is being treated unfairly. Have a good evening all. 82.59.56.100 (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since mentioning sources, is this one from 2008 relevant in your opinion? Peer reviewed by a University. The author is an academic definitely in good-standing even to date and mainstream nonetheless, Kingsley Dennis. What else is needed to accept Jed's suggestion of writing the Electronic harassment page as an open question? 87.1.117.202 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What would it take for us to conclude that the reality of electronic harassment is an open question?

1. It would have to actually be an open question, which it is not. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Fringe theories and pseudoscience.
2. Your "reliable source" would have to actually say what you claim it says, which it does not. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#First Monday (journal)

Might I suggest as a more appropriate place for your theories? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Continual assertions that it is not an open question followed by directions to those Misplaced Pages policies that we are fully aware of in this discussion and are interpreting differently, says absolutely nothing. Referring to an article that is in question as to whether it is a reliable source, but which nobody has used in the EH article, is confusing the issue. It is the Washington Post article "Mind Games" which has been cited in the article and which is the basis of my opinion that the article should be written as an open question.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless 87.1.117.202 is you editing while logged out, I wasn't responding to you. 87.1.117.202 referenced the First Monday journal in the post I replied to.

As for Mind Games you have received your answer multiple times, the latest at . One comment in that discussion stands out, and I agree with it 100%:

"Jed, you have cited that same quote from the Washington Post article on these Talk pages twice before here and here. Both times, the reasons why it does not justify giving credibility to the fringe theory have been patiently explained to you. You ask over and over again why we can't treat the topic as "an open question", and over and over again it gets explained to you. You repeatedly ask why the article can't balance psychiatrists opinions with delusional people's opinions, and it is repeatedly explained to you why our policies can't permit that. Your account is 4 years old, and your only interest on Misplaced Pages is this one topic. Although you have been polite about it, even politely asking the same questions over and over again is a form of WP:DISRUPTION."

Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe we are going nowhere because this is a case of collective prolongend whitewashing (censorship), either because of unconscious (you can't accept the chance it could be happening) or conscious (wikipedia is flooded with conservative individuals who purpotedly deny the chance it could be happening) psychological mechanisms. I understand, the anxiety can be terrifying when it comes to these arguments. However, I'm gonna give the debate a chance if you wish, Guy Macon.

1. The first statement is your own opinion lacking corroboration other than pointing to a section of the WP:NPOV policy which states:

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.

Thus the question is: what is the majority viewpoint of scientists? And if there is one: how surpassing is it compared to the minority viewpoint (in order to determine the respective weights, correct?)?

2. So you deny "my reliable source presents the chance of electronic harassment happening"? You are stating it doesn't represent the simple view proposed by Jed Stuart? Then explain to me these quotes from that source which, let me remind you, it is authored by a scientist in good-standing (actually of mainstream media good-standing nonetheless), and peer-reviewed by academics with no bias on supporting conspiratorial claims. I will bold and underline the significant parts:

Increasingly there are indications that the uses of wireless technologies have been developed to target an individual’s biological body, with specific focus upon the neuronal functioning of the brain. In this paper I examine how some of these uses have had detrimental effects, and what this implies for both present and upcoming developments for particular wireless/sensor technologies. I consider whether this is not shifting dangerously towards a psycho–civilised society, where greater emphasis is placed upon social control and pre–emptive strategies. Examples of unplanned attacks on the body’s data–processing capability are well–documented’. He (referring to Military strategist Timothy Thomas) references a Russian military article on the same subject which declared that “‘humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war’ with the mind and body as the focus”. The “data” the body receives from external sources — such as electromagnetic, vortex, or acoustic energy waves — or creates through its own electrical or chemical stimuli can be manipulated or changed just as the data (information) in any hardware system can be altered. Documented and declassified evidence shows that what may have begun as a program in standardized propaganda and psychological warfare has now developed into research on wireless information targeting and ‘psychocivilized’ control practices. To this effect the term ‘psycho–terrorism’ was coined by Anisimov of the Moscow Anti–Psychotronic Center and Anisimov admits to testing such devices as are said to ‘take away a part of the information which is stored in a man’s brain. Although neurotechnologies are likely to be put to therapeutic and medical uses, such as for improving emotional stability and mental clarity, they also open opportunities for intrusive strategies of control and manipulation. Part of this paper has been focused on the dangers of an increasingly wireless world. These dangers may include the potential for invasive technologies, based upon transmitted/received signals and wavelengths, to shift social order towards a psycho–civilized society. By psycho–civilised I mean a society that manages and controls social behaviour predominantly through non–obvious methods of psychological manipulations, yet at a level far beyond that of the ‘normalised’ social manipulations of propaganda and social institutions. What I refer to are the technologised methods of psychological interference and privacy intrusions in the manner of creating a docile and constrained society. What are the moral and ethical implications of using wireless scanning surveillance technologies for evaluating pre–emptive behaviour based on thoughts and intentions alone? Is this not a dangerous path towards psycho–terrorising the social public? As Thomas (1998) reminds us, the mind has no firewall, and is thus vulnerable to viruses, Trojan horses, and spam. It is also vulnerable to hackers, cyber–terrorists, and state surveillance. Whilst this may sound a little too far out, they are reasonable questions to ask if technologies are racing ahead of us in order to better get into our heads. This may herald the coming of a ‘wonderful wireless world’, yet it may also signal unforeseen dangers in protection, privacy, and security of the human biological body within these new relationships.

— Kingsley, Dennis, First Monday (journal) of University of Illinois at Chicago at webaddress

.

What's your answer? Does it present it as an open question? 87.3.90.35 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

My answer (and the answer of at least a dozen other experienced Misplaced Pages editors who have examined this) is "no". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Guy. Jeh (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Me too. Misplaced Pages is not the place for this stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And me. Mr. Dennis appears to be commenting from a different reality than the one in which we exist. You need to stoppit Jed, and all the SPA IPs that have magically appeared around this topic since you were told it will never fly. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

To Guy Macon: That is the first time I have quoted that bit from the Mind Games article. The one I was being taken to task about and did end up quoting 3 times due to not being able to get editors to really discuss the issue, was the one where they state their opinion that there could be something in the accusations of covert targeting. I did quote it 3 times in the attempt to get editors to really deal with the issue instead of just repeating assertions and grandstanding as the absolute experts on Misplaced Pages and I a newbie should piss off or be sent to AE. I have no desire to hit your horse carcass with a stick but surely it is time to bury it.Jed Stuart (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that those wanting to state the psychiatric opinion as fact have put up no arguments to back that, just assertions that I am pushing a fringe view. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact is to contradict the first point made in the NPOV article "Avoid stating opinions as facts" . Perhaps this does not apply to a mainstream well established institution, psychiatry/psychology? In a communist or fascist regime that could easily be the case. However, Misplaced Pages is a product of liberal democracy and so describing the various is the standard. tolerance of different opinions, pluralism etc That rather than adopting one side of a difference of opinion. So what would it do make the change that I seek. The psychiatric/psychological view would still have most weight, my guess about 80-90%, and the not at all well established view of those who believe that they are subject to intensive covert assaults would get a foot in the door, getting about 10-20% of the weight, just a little "might be" that is all that would be. There is no proof, just a lot of people with compelling anecdotal evidence, enough to get the Washington Post to give a small slice of that considerable attention. It does say something though that my attempts to get this stated appropriately result in such a concerted effort to stop such a little change in the article in order to bring it into line with the Misplaced Pages policies you lot keep throwing at editors that disagree with you, and don't seem to understand yourselves. Jed Stuart (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough WP:IDHT. I'm done responding. Read the Discretionary Sanctions notice at User talk:Jed Stuart. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have expected more comprehensiveness. Some argumentation. Can you provide those? I think it's very important.. otherwise what's the point in being at this noticeboard nonetheless? This is on even a higher level than a Talk page, thus I suspect we should debate. What you keep on doing is stonewalling mine and Jed's suggestions. But I still have an idea of the why this happens constantly: anxiety towards these unsettling shoking circumstances is the reason, and choosing to be conservative (read as, "in denial") is the safest refuge. I have no idea on what level of your consciousness is happening, I don't know you and I'm not a psychoanalyst. But I can't pretend I don't know there's the seed of psychology here, making a certain form of ethics (the plant) grow, and that it ends producing political results (the fruits) which speciously flow into far-fetched conservative consensus.

Yes, this is about politics, and it looks even Aristotele is on mine and Jed's side, as His philosophical eternal work on politics ends declaring that

the inquiry into ethics necessarily follows into politics

Pretty obvious. Have a good day all, especially Jed though. Note: I'm open to debate majority and minority viewpoints as well as about their weight. But remember you can't write an article on tobacco or alcoholic beverages without giving them hystorical perspective and touching upon production and the harmful health effects. Some things are just too obvious that maybe can slip out of our minds, but they shouldn't. Also, you don't give the same weight to the chance of Political repression via emerging technologies (not pseudoscience) and the chance of being abducted by aliens. 87.6.112.110 (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See and . --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have challenged the editors block at Talk:Electronic Harassment to come here and state their case for violating NPOV as described. It seems to me they have only come here to cast aspersions on my behaviour rather than address the issue. I asked them again and here is my statement and their reply:

"So are any of you going to put up a case for stating the psychiatric/psychology opinion as fact? So far it has been: I am inexperienced, I am pushing a Fringe theory, an SPA, etc. None of you has yet stated that you think the NPOV policy "Avoid stating opinions as facts." should not apply when the opinion is of a well established mainstream institution and the other opinion is just a minority alternative view. You have continually thrown up the NPOV policy article as if it justifies your position, but you fail to say why you think that is so at the NPOV noticeboard. It is not about me, it is about stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. If you don't clearly make your case soon I will attempt to make the change. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Review Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_3, Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_4, and Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_5 for all the many ways you've asked this same question and all the many ways it has been answered for you. Please stop this sea-lioning, it's disruptive. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)"

As it is a one against many there, and quite stressful, please someone convince me that I am wrong. They certainly wont. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Most all experienced editors have been on the losing side of content discussions at one time or another. We learn that we don't have to be convinced that we're "wrong," but that we do need to abide by consensus, and move on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC):

Interesting. Jed Stuart says "it is a one against many" but has not followed the advice I gave at WP:1AM... --05:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have read your document again. It is clearly thought through and communicated. But, to refer to it without saying which section you are referring to gives me nothing as it describes many situations. The one I can most relate to is: "When you think there is a policy violation.In a "one-against-many" dispute, you (as the one) might be upholding a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline against a majority that isn't following policy. If this is the case, the one prevails over the many. The problem is that for every case where the one is upholding policy, there are at least a hundred cases* where he only thinks he is." I invited you all at EH, who seem to think I am not upholding a policy, to come and state your case. So far it has not been about that at all it has been about my behaviour, which I invite you to take me to ANI over, the appropriate place is it not? Jed Stuart (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

To Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Yes, I will have to move on soon. The reason that I am persisting is that what I see as the NPOV dispute effects the sense of the entire article, and will have negative impact on those vulnerable people, who are claiming to be targeted, if it continues to promote one side of the controversy and negate the other. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If then, as you claim, there is a policy violation, how then do you explain your utter failure to convince even a single other person that the policy violation exists? It certainly isn't from a lack of trying. I and others have looked at your arguments and found them to be less than compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That's easy. You all have the same perspective on the subject. Bye for now. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I challenge the assertion that I and everyone else except you have a perspective that prevents us from seeing clear policy violations. I personally have on multiple occasions removed material that I would have really liked to see stay -- if it violates Misplaced Pages policy, out it goes whatever my personal feelings. You simply have not made a convincing argument that any policy violations exist in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will try again. Is it not true that it is a NPOV policy to "describe disputes not engage in them" and to "Avoid stating opinions as facts." . Both are prominent statements at the NPOV article. However, it says about the claims of people that they are being covertly targeted: "These experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis," and "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." Both statements are the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists well cited there. However, there is a growing conspiracy theory that disputes this opinion. The TI opinion and of those supporting them is that they are not deluded etc. For the article to be stated in terms that it is a fact that they are deluded is both taking a side in the dispute, resulting in lots of attempts to disrupt the article, and stating an opinion as fact. Thus the article should not say "The experiences of TIs are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders." It should say "It is the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists that the experiences of TIs are hallucinations...etc" or some such. The same for the TIs claims. They should not be stated as facts but as their opinion. I am not that good a communicator, but I think that is my best shot at it. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did indeed try again, in classic sea lion fashion. And, once again, you failed miserably, because your argument contradicts the policy (WP:NPOV) you selectively quoted. The relevant section of WP:NPOV is WP:PSCI, which clearly says:

"Fringe theories and pseudoscience

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked."

I hope this helps but I know that it won't. Please drop the stick. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks as you are playing the skeptical but beyond reason part and accountably, as the conspiracy is quite unbelievable at first glance, while Jed Stuart is being open minded yet reasonably because electromagnetic weapons not only are far from being pseudoscience, they are actually authorized for use since time ago. I consider pseudoscience flat earth and extraterrestrial life and parapsychology, but modern weapons why should we? Also reliable sources are all but poor in supporting the validity of electronic harassment. I'm following this debate and I agree with the open minded side. 149.254.224.221 (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The issues raised at the top of this section have been addressed and consensus is against a change. Per WP:NOTFORUM this page is not available to endlessly debate mind control or other WP:FRINGE stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not. In either case, you keep on failing by recognizing it a pseudoscientific topic which clearly it isn't. Thus what has actually been addressed? 149.254.235.50 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

yes, the issue I have raised has never been addressed by the editors at EH. I am not for one moment attempting to debate whether what TIs claim is true or not. That will play out in the mass media and relevant government processes eventually, if it is true, and if we still have democracy. I am simply attempting to get a balanced and neutral statement of the situation at present as described in the reliable sources cited. That has nothing to do with a pseudoscience. It is about claims of harassment and worse. It also has nothing to do with giving equal weight to those claims vs psychiatric opinion. You are just attempting to gag the discussion of the NPOV issue by suggesting this is becoming a forum about mind control. Since I started work on this issue it has been about one smart manoeuvre after another and none have ever put a case for stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

To 149.254.224.221: False equivalency. The fact that other flat things exist is not evidence for a flat earth that violates the laws of physics. Likewise the fact that directed-energy weapons exist is is not evidence for a mind control device that violates the laws of physics. Every directed-energy weapon works by emitting some form of electromagnetic radiation, be it microwaves, infrared lasers, or X-Rays. Electromagnetic radiation is easily detected. Likewise, all of the non-energy weapons use the some sort of matter, whether it be air vibrating (acoustic weapons) germs, gas, or the kinetic energy of a bullet or bomb. NO UNDECTABLE MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY EXISTS. If a mind control technology did exist, I or any other competent engineer would be able to detect and measure the output of the alleged weapon, just as we can with any other weapon.

To Jed Stuart: Go away. The next time you post your theory that the professional opinions of mental-health professionals are no more valid that the untrained opinions of the delusional people they treat, I will bring this to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have never posted such a theory. It is about the way the article is written not about your or my beliefs about mind control technology. That is all irrelevant. Take me to ANI then. If they are still with the basic principles of Misplaced Pages I will win. That will be interesting to learn about and find out. I did fully intend to leave it there, but you had to keep going with another challenge and your stuff about sea lions etc. I did check out that sea lion article, but it looked like scorpions poo, so I did not read much. As for you, you are a palaverer. Me, I am a TI supporter attempting to get the article as clear and straight as possible. There is a long way to go. Jed Stuart (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear what I am thinking is appropriate in the EH article. It is not that the claims of TIs are of equal weight to mental-health professionals. I think the reliable sources put the view that there might be some form of covert targeting happening. Which, if there is would lead to some re-thinking by those professionals as to how to categorize and treat people who make such claims, not to TIs taking over the asylum or some such. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

G4S Secure Solutions

Omar Mateen, the killer responsible for the murders at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was employed by G4S Secure Solutions. I agree that his employment there probably belongs in the article. One editor has been putting in extensive amounts of information about Mateen, from even before he worked for G4S, and things not really related to the company itself. An example of that would be this diff . I edited a more streamlined version that talked about mostly about things the company was involved in and then put a hatnote to see the bio on Mateen. And example of my version would be this diff: . I haven't posted the complete text here because one version is quite long. In the end, it's my position that the article about the company should be mainly about the company and that most of this material, about Mateen's conduct etc belongs in his bio. Another editor even suggested adding a mention about Mateen showing up as an extra in a movie??? Any opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: In my opinion, the article's section should fairly reflect the prodigious lack of diligence exhibited by Mateen's employer, which got him a firearms carry permit, despite what may have been an intentionally faked psychological clearance (which it characterized as a "clerical error," the actual previous section title, which I changed, of the G4S Secure Solutions section about Mateen), and failed to exercise it as well in his hire, given Mateen's very extensive troubled history. G4S compounded the problem by failing to fire him when his conduct was so publicly aberrant that it caused him to be removed from a critical security position at a courthouse, and simply moved him out of high visibility and limited the extent of his public interaction. It also ignored the import of Mateen being a focus of two separate FBI terrorism investigations within a year, and his chronic racist, violent and homophobic comments, as well as his threats against a frightened co-worker who actually quit his job after G4S ignored his complaints, all of which should have given it pause. It only took action when complaints arose from the contracting agency, the St.Lucie courthouse. I'm not aware of Mateen "showing up as an extra in a movie," but as a G4S Secure Solutions employee he did give a gratitious interview which drew negative public attention in a documentary about the Deepwater Horizon cleanup. G4S failed to uncover extremely pertinent background info when it hired Mateen, for instance regarding his previous violence and arrest, and the circumstances of his remarkable firing from the Florida Department of Corrections just five months before they hired him, G4S claiming it had only verified if he had previously worked there. For reasons of liability, the question that should be put to any employer who had previously fired their applicant, is not soliciting the particulars of the discharge, but "Would you hire this employee again?" That frees a former employer to express a candid opinion without being subject to a frivolous lawsuit. This is basic HR 101, not rocket science. In Niteshift36's haste to delete, my edits correcting serious errors in other sections of the article were reverted, and Niteshift36 made no effort to restore those corrections, nor my edits/deletions for redundant and uninformative verbiage in still another section. This was a very badly written article, before Omar Mateen was on anyone's radar outside that of the myopic corporation. G4S was in the security business but did not display professionalism in its hiring and retention practices, which grossly compromised that internal security, and consequently the public's as well. I believe my edits comported with Misplaced Pages NPOV policy, but conflicted with possible "graywashing." (For usage of the term, see: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/the-graywashing-of-cia-torture/383633/ ) Activist (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• First off, you can take your conspiracy theory about "graywashing" and stuff that personal attack. Second, your "serious errors" that you corrected weren't that serious at all. Third....look at the stuff you're saying here. "This is basic HR 101", "the question that should be put to any employer..." That's the problem.... you're letting your opinions get in the way. You're playing detective or Geraldo Rivera and engaging in a ton of SYNTH. If an uninvolved person reads your responses, they'll see you have a point to make. I remind you that you actually labelled a section "employee terrorist". What kind of NPOV is that? Again, nobody is trying to keep the info off Misplaced Pages, just putting it where it belongs. You appear more concerned with "indicting the company" than building a NPOV article. BTW, many employers, including Florida government agencies, won't give details from previous employees. They'll confirm dates of employment and job title but little else. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: The MMPI-2 should not be posted, not because it's "long," but because it is copyrighted. Postings on the Internet (along with a "$3.49" offer for advice on how to cheat on the test), have caused the owner, the University of Minnesota, to bring litigation against infringement of that copyright . Activist (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about the MMPI. I'm talking about the extraneous additions. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I made a mistake and admitted it, about the 13 vs 36 hours. You on the other hand, are doubling down. You wrote: I haven't posted the complete test here because one version is quite long. Fascinating. Activist (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• That was a typo. I meant "complete TEXT. Since I haven't even mentioned the MMPI anywhere else on Misplaced Pages, why would you think I suddenly started talking about it here? If you read it in context, "text" makes much more sense than "test." There's no "doubling down" on anything. It's the X and the S being located next to each other. So I'll apologize for the typo that led you to make a ridiculous right turn. BTW, you're idea of "admitting it" is to say "BFD". Way to take ownership.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• The MMPI-2 was mentioned in the Section. It's critical info. I assumed you were writing about something in context. You're the only one here who claims to be able to read minds. Activist (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Never made that claim. I said I never mentioned the MMPI. Me. So if I never mentioned it, why on earth would I talk about posting it? And no, posting the MMPI is not "critical info". IIRC, that's not the first time you've used that bit of hyperbole before.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The key issue here is that we can't make a practice of sabotaging one section of an article until the others advance. Yes, the Mateen issue is unflattering for the company; but someone got together a lot of information about it, in large part because there is a lot handily available to get. If someone wants to put together a list of all their offices and locations and what kind of work the company does until this is just the tail of the dog that it might be, good for them. But if we let people, for whatever reason, take the attitude that you can't write much about anything unflattering to a company until the PR people have finished writing up the flattering bit, that's not a neutral point of view at all. I'm OK with some expansion tags to indicate deficiencies, but not keeping out well-sourced and relevant data.

This data includes Omar Mateen appearing on-duty on film in 2012 in The Big Fix, explaining that "Everybody's just, get out to get paid. They're like hoping for more oil to come out and more people to complain so they'll have jobs. They want more disaster to happen." It includes that his coworker for G4S said that he frequently made homophobic, racist, and sexist comments, and talked about killing people, and harassed him with lots of messages, and left the company because nothing would be done about him; that he made people trying to get into a gated community wait until after he finished his Muslim prayer sessions, that he was hired despite various fights and other issues that may or may not be actionable, etc. Some of this stuff isn't even in the "complete text" being argued about. But it sheds a light on G4S and certainly has affected how people think of them. Wnt (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't as impressed with the film, save for showing his injudiciousness. Most employers would ask, "Would we want an employee who makes such judgmental and opinionated comments while being filmed, working for us?" It doesn't compare with his later expressing support on the job for mass murderers such as Virginia Tech Shooting's Seung-Hui Cho, or Ft. Hood's Nidal Hasan of course.

• How much work someone did isn't the issue, especially when much of that work is SYNTH. Nor is this about material being "unflattering" to the company. It's about relevance and NPOV. The article on the Texas Book Depository is a good example. It has 2 paragraphs about how it related to the Kennedy assassination and gives a hatnote to the article about that event. It doesn't try to retell the story. I'd submit that the Kennedy assassination was a more significant event in history, yet the Depository article handles it correctly. It doesn't spend time talking about Oswald defecting to the Soviet Union or that there was no security at the building. It gives you an idea of the role of the location and tells you where the expanded story can be found. His appearance in the movie is relevant to his bio, but not the company article. My version still says " One former co-worker said that he had complained to company superiors about Mateen’s frequent violent, racist and homophobic tirades. He alleged that G4S had ignored him, but G4S denied having a record of those complaints", so it's not like we're removing his racist and anti-gay remarks or that the company ignored it. I just don't spend 5 sentences on it. "...certainly has affected how people think of them" We're not here to guide how people think of them, nor should we be guided by how people think of them. The N in NPOV stands for neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't deny there is merit in condensing where we can to avoid getting drawn into irrelevant details, so this impulse isn't completely wrong. But there is a difference between the Texas Book Depository, used as nothing more than a vantage point, and a company where someone worked for years and had multiple involvements. We shouldn't cut too close to the quick. Wnt (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Oswald actually was an employee at the Depository. "An employee, Lee Harvey Oswald, shot and killed the president from a sixth floor window on the building's southeastern corner." (From the TBD article.) Activist (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly (yes, I'm agreeing with you Activist). Oswald worked there. He was a member of that "company".... yet the article makes a brief mention and directs readers to the more extensive article. Precisely what I've been saying all along. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• @Wnt: "Agreeing with..." me? I'm impressed. Activist (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• The Depository is a pretty good example. The long version is far, far too detailed. That level of detail belongs in the bio. What I find interesting is that the editor most concerned with putting every detail into this article has made relatively few edits to the Mateen bio. Coupled with past edit history on this article...... well, it's just interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• As I've mentioned, I'm interested in the reason you made over 70 similar edits to the GEO Group article, given that the GEO business (Wackenhut Corrections) was owned by G4S until its management raised the capital to take it independent. I'm assuming good faith, but it creates a strain, of course. I'm not interested in "putting every detail into this article." I have no problem with Niteshift36 removing, say, the info that the person who supposedly signed the notarized clearance form for Mateen's carry permit had left the state before that document was signed, because that info in "cumulative." I don't have time to deal with you here and have no desire to edit the Mateen article. I haven't even looked at it. I have an actual life, and dealing with your endless massive reverts is taking time which I'd rather be devoting to something more productive. Activist (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see why any information directly related to G4S employment of Mateen should be whitewashed out of the article. XavierItzm (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing you have suspicions, however. Activist (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Because the article isn't about Mateen. It's about the COMPANY. Nothing is being "whitewashed" (and your claim is lacking in good faith). The article about the COMPANY should tell a brief bit about Mateen and then send readers to the bio of him where you can put every bit of info about his miserable life, because that is supposed to be about him. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• This article is absolutely about the company. It's behavior regarding his unwise employment and even less wise retention is 100% germane to this article. Activist (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor Niteshift36 is OK with text where G4S denies any knowledge of Mateen telling his co-workers he is a terrorist. Editor Niteshift36 is not OK with text where the FBI states it opened the 2013 investigation into Mateen because he told his co-workers he is a terrorist. Enough said: Niteshift36 does not bring an NPOV to this article. XavierItzm (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

ABC News reported that it was G4S that notified the FBI about Mateen's laudatory comments about other terrorists. So the company knew about his proclivities, but did not opt to suspend or terminate him. Activist (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? The version I restored clearly says: "In 2013, an FBI investigations resulted in G4S removing Mateen "from his security post at the St. Lucie County Courthouse", reported the New York Times, but the company kept Mateen as an employee, moving him to a kiosk at a gated community in Palm Beach County." It clearly states that he was investigated and moved as a result, but that the company still retained him (their error). What I removed is all the detail of the complaint because it belongs.....wait for it....in the Mateen bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, it belongs here, because the Misplaced Pages reader would have come to this article to learn about the corporation. If that reader wanted to read about Mateen's sorry life, they would have gone there instead. Activist (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• It took all of the above discussion to get Niteshift36 to finally make a small edit which finally lets in the FBI statements, although in quite an unclear way, sanitising the Public Relations statement by G4S in the previous statements. Nonetheless, his new text deleted the WP:RS citation, which is the Washington Post! Glad the edit got finally made, but clearly edits remain marred by lack of NPOV. XavierItzm (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Precisely. "The mountain groaned and brought forth a mouse." Thanks for your efforts to assure NPOV. Activist (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Why are you arguing what isn't in dispute. Nobody is questioning the source or the investigation. What is in dispute is whether they belong IN THIS ARTICLE (caps since you apparently keep missing it). All my edits have mentioned the FBI investigation. You seem to think that because you have a source, it is a free pass to inclusion. It's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Incredibly, it took all of this arguing for here plus on the talk page to get Nightshift to finally let the WP:RS Washington Post citation stay on the article as well as the fact cited by the FBI that Mateen told his co-workers as G4S he wanted to martyr himself, which Nightshift used to summarily delete prior to this discussion. NPOV from Nightshift? Not unless one spends untold hours to let a simple reference from the Washington Post stand! Which he now has tacitly admitted was OK from the beginning, only using the most G4S-friendly text possible! XavierItzm (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Right! Activist (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• This discussion is about more than your edit. And there was more to it than just putting in a ref. You were trying to backdoor in a lengthy piece of the article as a "quote". And why do you feel the need to put RS in front of Washington Post? Has anyone ever questioned the reliability of the source? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wrong! Why do you feel the need to bring up such a picayune point as the hopefully forgotten RS notation, instead of dealing with the substantive issues @XavierItzm: has raised?
• Not wrong, but I love how that's your idea of a substantial rebuttal. And the whole RS thing is no less picayune than you taking a day and 4 responses before whining complaining about the word "dude"? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• @XavierItzm: @Wnt: This seems to be a violation of the 3R rule by Niteshift36. How should this proceed?

03:26, 1 July 2016‎ Niteshift36 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,782 bytes) (-710)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 727668335 by

13:43, 1 July 2016‎ Niteshift36 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,455 bytes) (-1,737)‎ . . (→‎Omar Mateen: stream lined to the high points. Extensive quotes can be found in the source)

18:26, 1 July 2016‎ Niteshift36 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,457 bytes) (-2,398)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 727847560 by XavierItzm (talk): There's nothing inappropriate about the edits. (TW))

20:14, 1 July 2016‎ Niteshift36 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,738 bytes) (-2,194)‎ . . (→‎Omar Mateen: Gilroy isn't notable and should be left out. It adds nothing to this and is best left to the source itself.) Activist (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• That's awesome..... should we tally your reverts and hear you explain how you didn't "really" edit war? Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

While you were bickering I was looking up articles and making some EXTENSIVE revisions, which I've put on the page. Provided I don't get too exasperated with what happens next, I won't be interested in pursuing what I hope is a moot edit war. Wnt (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm very pleased with Wnt's substantial efforts to resolve this impasse, the amount of time and quality of the thought this editor put into reaching some resolution, and accept it as a very professional compromise to a difficult situation. Activist (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction - Van method

Please have a look at User:J. Johnson 's edits in the article and consult the talk page, his wording and edit summaries. User:J. Johnson is abusive. His comments are far from polite and he is off limits with the content. Have this diff as a reference for his removing of sourced material and consult the talk page for POV pushing by muting sources without real justification. There is also this comment by User:Sitush that points exactly at what is being done there.-- Hlektron77 (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hlektron77's sudden concern here is highly suspect, as his/her sole contributions to the English WP is to twice restore a block of questioned edits at Earthquake prediction.

The background is this. Since 6 May there has been a series of questionable edits at VAN method, and likewise, since 17 May, at the two sections at Earthquake prediction that touch upon the group (and work) known as "VAN" (Earthquake_prediction#Electromagnetic_variations and Earthquake_prediction#1987–1995: Greece (VAN)). As I have noted here and here, these edits consistently removed or muted criticism of VAN (the group, their method, and their claimed predictions), promoted their point of view, and down-played the controversy regarding them.

These questioned edits are entirely from anonymous IP addresses that geolocate to Athens, Greece: first from 195.134.89.153 (and specifically from the University of Athens, home of VAN) and 77.69.86.91, then (since 5 June) from 77.69.80.202. From internal evidence I suspect at least two people are involved; both appear to be closely connected with VAN, and quite evidently too close to be neutral about the subject.

As there is no indication that Hlektron77 has had any prior interest or presence on this wikipedia, but is active on the Greek wikipedia, his sudden eruption here is likely at the instigation of others, not as a disinterested passer-by.

As to the neutrality issues – after all, this is the NPOV noticeboard – I welcome other opinions as to who is "pushing POV". Hopefully without any further personal disparagement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• We have been aware of the inexperienced edits from UOA the person under accusation here mentions, and we have corrected them, trying to keep the line of User:Elriana's suggestions. Please focus on the result.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Those "inexperienced edits" were not corrected, but largely incorporated into your edits, which have continued in the same mode. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The only person on Earth that would abuse the article as a whole in such negativism, VAN method included, is Geller himself, from Tokyo University. We might need a steward's help here.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Really? And for what might we need the help of a steward?

For anyone that is interested I have opened an Rfc at Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral section heading: "Conspiracy theories"

I changed the name of a section heading in Ahmed Mohamed clock incident preceding speculation on ulterior motives from Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories to simply Controversy. Some editors insist "conspiracy theories" must be maintained in the section heading. I find no clear support in RS for classifying all speculation as "conspiracy theories" or even that the suggested motives involved conspiracy. I'd be open to other neutral wording but I strongly object to including "conspiracy." D.Creish (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The content of that particular section is about the allegation that it was a hoax/conspiracy, which is specific. "Controversy" is extremely broad and could mean almost anything. controversy sections should, when possible, be avoided. I see no problems with the previous section header. If there are reliable sources about other speculations, whatever those might be, they should be added elsewhere, as lumping them all together implies that they are of similar significance. That doesn't appear to be the case. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Your contention that "conspiracy theory" in the heading refers to allegations of conspiracy (rather than a description of the allegations) is contradicted by the first sentence of the section: The Dallas Morning News ... referred to some comments and claims that emerged in the aftermath of the incident as conspiracy theories. Labelling something a conspiracy theory is contentious and should be avoided unless there is clear consensus, which is not the case here. D.Creish (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

For a section describing hoax allegations and conspiracy theories, the title is remarkably accurate. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources (WaPost, DallasNews, DailyBeast, etc) specifically use the phrase "conspiracy theories" to refer to the rumors and allegations described in that section so I don't see a problem with the header. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources specifically use the phrase "conspiracy theories" You're correct. Here are a number that don't: Dallas News which cites "police skepticism" about Ahmed's claims, a Guardian piece on doubts raised by Richard Dawkins, The Hill, National Review, Fox News. The claim is clearly contentious. I argue contentious claims make for non-neutral section headings. D.Creish (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Do the sources you've listed argue that there are no conspiracy theories, or just describe other things that are not the conspiracy theories? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion that sources which don't explicitly refute a characterization implicitly endorse it, is incorrect on a logical level and per policy. D.Creish (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is simply that you cannot provide sources not talking about a thing in order to contradict a thing. If the sources are not even discussing the conspiracy theories, they are of no use when you argue that they should not be described as conspiracy theories. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary. The claim was made that the consensus of reliable sources characterize skepticism and doubt WRT Mohammed's story as "conspiracy theories." I provided a number sources which addressed or expressed such skepticism without categorizing it as "conspiracy theory", so the claim of consensus is incorrect. D.Creish (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That claim does not appear to have been made by anybody but you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The claim is not at all contentious and the sources you cite don't do anything to dispel that notion. The Dallas News "police skepticism" source is an article written by Avi Selk from September 15, before all of the facts were known and the investigations completed. One week later, Selk wrote the article debunking the hoax claims and calling them conspiracy theories, in an in-depth article clearly based on a week's worth of investigations and reporting. The later source clearly supersedes the prior source, and we as encyclopedists do what encyclopedists do — use editorial judgment. Similarly, Richard Dawkins is an interesting internet figure, but his entirely-unsupported opinion about Mohamed is irrelevant and prejudicial here — there is no evidence that Dawkins is an expert on anything related to what Mohamed did and there doesn't appear to be any reason to include his unsupported speculations here. He's an evolutionary biologist with a popular Twitter account, and just because he tweets something doesn't make it suitable material for a biographical article. The National Review op-ed you cite presents literally nothing resembling evidence in support of its claims, and curiously skirts all the way around ever actually directly claiming that Ahmed Mohamed did anything illegal. Instead the author just tries to use a lot of weasel words and thinly-veiled implications, presumably because even that right-wing house organ didn't want to set itself up for a libel suit by a sympathetic elementary school student. Interesting example of of victim-blaming, but it doesn't actually directly allege that it was a hoax. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Selk characterizes the police spokesman's views as skeptical. His later piece says nothing to supersede that.

You cite Darkins lack of engineering expertise immediately after arguing Selk's (a journalist) is relevant. That's, silly.

Regarding the NR's lack of evidence, sadly none of the RS I can find present evidence. Any unofficial conclusion is by definition opinion and all (that I could find) by laymen. If an overwhelming majority agreed nonetheless I might be concede, but as I've shown that's not the case. D.Creish (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The police investigation later concluded that Mohamed had no malicious intent or intent to provoke a reaction, as noted by the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there was no police investigation into the clock's origins (whether the young man built it himself or it was commercially manufactured, which is the main thrust of what you're attempting to label "conspiracy theories.") If you have a source suggesting otherwise please provide it. D.Creish (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not the "conspiracy theory." The "conspiracy theory" is that this was some sort of an intentional hoax committed by Mohamed to draw attention to... what, exactly, nobody has quite explained. Which is one reason it's considered a conspiracy theory, along with the utter and complete lack of evidence for such a claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That is one of the skeptical theories which you're arguing should be included in a section titled with "conspiracy theories"; so while I agree it's not a conspiracy theory the section title you advocate would imply it is. D.Creish (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking over your list of sources that don't use the term 'conspiracy theory', one doesn't mention it at all (talking only about the immediate police justification for arresting him), and all but one of the others are opinion pieces. The only news piece that mentions the theories that arose on the blogosphere afterwards without terming them conspiracy theories is a single Fox News article (and, furthermore, that one source is from relatively early in the controversy, before the theories had gotten the more thoroughly debunking elaborated on in the other five sources). If that's all you can find to weigh against the five-plus sources currently on the article, then I think it's entirely reasonable to say that there is an clear consensus among reliable sources that they're indeed conspiracy theories. The five sources currently used for it are all high-quality, and the fairly startling degree of unanimity across a wide range of reliable sources in using the term as the debate settled down clearly shows that the description of the theories as "conspiracy theories" eventually became widely-accepted. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know by what test you're dismissing the skeptical sources as opinion pieces. For example, the Dallas News source by Selk you dismiss has the text But officers still didn’t believe Ahmed was giving them the whole story. under the heading Police skepticism. Is this the one you suggest "doesn't mention it at all" or does it qualify as opinion, where Selk's later article in the same paper which is critical of the skepticism and currently cited qualifies as fact? D.Creish (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Have to say I agree with the rest here, while I dont particularly like 'conspiracy theories' as a section title, the reliable sources describe them as such and there is nothing that contradicts this. Merely not mentioning something is not enough to say its disputed or incorrect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I had hoped this discussion would attract at least some disinterested noticeboard regulars... D.Creish (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You have six opinions that disagree with you. For a relatively simple question on a noticeboard thats actually quite a good response. And I assure you, I have no interest in the subject at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen you comment in the article or express a strong ideological bias so I thank you for your input. But please re-read the comment you just replied to; I lamented the lack of disinterested responders and your counter-argument was to state the total number of responders. One has nothing to do with the other. Responses like that make reasoned debate difficult. D.Creish (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you're only interested in counting the opinions of those who agree with you, which is not how this works. I agree with the others as well, WP:STICK time I think. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That's an odd thing to say. You only have to look one line up to see me thanking an editor for participation whose opinion opposed mine. D.Creish (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte Mason

This U.K. educator has apparently a bit of a cultus among home-schoolers and school reformers. The existing article is a rather hagiographical account of her life and methods, breathlessly recounting every detail of her doctrines and practices, almost all sourced solely to Mason's works and those of her advocates. NPOV is not preserved; and the total effect seems to me to push the walls of WP:UNDUE as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Extensive quoting from a propaganda source: the Wehrmachtbericht in articles on World War II German officers

Many articles on German military men of the World War II era contain verbatim quotations from German Armed Forces High Command's communiques, the Wehrmachtbericht. It's based on the (inherently unreliable) war-time Nazi propaganda, and I believe does not belong in the articles on this basis alone. But I'm not sure what Misplaced Pages policy may be applicable. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify?

This appears to be either WP:NPOV or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. Or perhaps this is WP:NOR? Please see example 1 or example 2. Please also see discussion and more examples at Wehrmachtbericht transcript, take 2, on the Field Marshal Rommel's talk page. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have renamed the section so that it's clearer which propaganda source is meant. The title is a bit unwieldy but I hope it may attract other editors to comment. I'll provide a fuller comment soon. Roches (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

POV Issues on Expulsion of Muslim Chams

See discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians#Balkan_Wars_-_OR_.2F_POV DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Eidetic memory article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?. A WP:Permalink is here. One issue is a Slate source vs. what some reliable book sources state. And the other is what to relay based on what all these sources say. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Simpleshow foundation

I am not sure what to think of some videos being placed all over by the Simpleshow foundation. I am very concerned with OR and neutral POV with some of these clips. These clips have not been vented by anyone from what I can see. Not sure the child like format is what we are looking for aswell.....looking for more input here. !!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted some of them. We don't need a video explaining Mother's Day, however well-intentioned, and instructions on writing cover letters aren't encyclopedic. I have a serious concern about setting a precedent for adding in videos, as I think it's a way around the collaborative editing process. If this group wants to partner with the WMF or make some other such official arrangement, that's out of our control, but this is spammy to me and I have a problem keeping them in the articles. Katie 23:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's simply spam. Katie put an excellent explanation of other problems at her talk (a little more detailed than the above). Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps these are appropriate at the Simple English Misplaced Pages. I watched the one on German reunification. It's dangerously oversimplified in parts. It doesn't seem to show the actual East German flag, and it shows the West German flag in black and white; the black-red-gold flag means something very different than the older black-white-red flag. It presents the reunification as the fulfillment of a historical imperative, which is the point of view of an American high-school history textbook: capitalism is good, communism is bad, and there is nothing bad about capitalism or anything good about communism. What is powerful about Misplaced Pages is that every claim it makes can be further explored via wikilinks or references. These videos don't have that. I think that makes them spam on English Misplaced Pages, however well-intentioned they are. Roches (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Further objections, already raised: it circumvents collaborative editing and creates ownership of content. Roches (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent bias in high-quality sources

I've put a lot of work into Psychology of eating meat, and have ambitions to make it a GA. Editors have expressed concerns that it expresses an anti-meat POV; I can see their side, and especially since I happen to be vegan I want to be vigilant about NPOV. The article currently uses a lot of "pseudo-secondary" material cribbed from primary research papers' reviews of previous work; I was planning to go back and rewrite the article according to information in real review papers, hoping that would solve the problem.

Fortunately, several objectively good sources have recently been published. The following are the academic review articles or scholarly (not popular) books discussing psychological research on meat eating, from the past 5 years, published by mainstream academic journals or presses, that I could find:

So, what's the problem? The first four sources make statements which seem to endorse the idea that there can be moral problems with eating meat. One quote each:

My concern is that incorporating such sources could make the article "a cherry-picked nightmare of vegan-chauvinism opinions", or open it to that criticism in a GA review. But excluding MEDRS-compliant sources on the basis of their author's position seems contrary to WP:BIASED. Is there a good answer here? Of course I'm planning to WP:WFTE as much as is appropriate, but I'm not sure that will be enough. FourViolas (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead appears to be non neutral and vague: "Because meat eating is widely practiced but sometimes considered morally ambivalent...." -- Considered by whom? "Sometimes" -- how often? "Morally" -- how specifically? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The quotes in the note at the end of that sentence offer different ways of making that less WP:WEASELly, I can work on that. A direct quote for that sentence might be Research into meat consumption has risen in recent times, particularly in terms of cognitive dissonance investigation, from Ong et al (context discussing "moral concern for animals"). But, sorry for being unclear, I was hoping for advice specifically on how to treat the apparently-biased sources as I begin a general rewrite. FourViolas (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

These appear to be opinions; I believe they should be attributed inline; i.e. so and so argues that: "Meat-eating, like other forms of morally troublesome behavior, conflicts with deeply held moral principles, yet people seek to justify these self-serving behaviors so as to protect their own interests." (Bastian & Loughnan) "The ideological beliefs that legitimize the negative treatment of animals by humans to maintain dominance over them may have deep roots." (Amiot & Bastian); etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Good advice, thanks: that matches WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I was actually not planning to include those opinions at all—just wondering if the fact that they're present means I shouldn't cite those papers for other information. FourViolas (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You could also look up WP:BIASED as I believe this applies. In this case, disclosing the bias (i.e. this researcher believes that eating meat = "a form of morally troublesome behavior") may be helpful to readers to put the research results into context. I'm not sure if WP:Fringe may apply as well, as equating meat eating with being "immoral" sounds pretty fringy to me. There's a noticeboard for that :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll do that. Equating meat eating with being "immoral" would probably be fringe, but this is studying the relations between eating meat and thinking about moral issues. In any case, ideas published by multiple academic experts in the top journals of their field (the first three sources are in journals ranked #1, 3, and 10 in Psychology, Social by JCR) can hardly be called outside the scientific discussion. FourViolas (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Huey P. Newton Gun Club

We need eyes on the page for the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. It's full of weasel words, red links, and reads like it was ripped from the group's website. I mean, look at this:

"The club was formed as a response to police terrorism, which garnered national attention in August 2014 for its "open carry patrols""

142.105.159.60 (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

German virgin birth POV violations on Assault Rifle article

Editors are suppressing reliable sources and editing based on their own unsourced opinions on the Assault rifle page, even summarily removing the POV tag against instructions. Editors are pushing an apocryphal "virgin birth" alternate-history of the assault rifle saying that the assault rifle was created from whole cloth in world war 2 germany. Editors are also making a zealously defending several other assertions that are bizarre and proven false, furthering this narrative, making it more and more convoluted. Editors are defending statements that the 7.92 kurz cartridge is revolutionary, and the first "intermediate cartridge". This is false. Editors are defending the statement that the StG-44 is the first rifle with an over the barrel gas system. This is false. Editors are defending statements that the assault rifle was first developed in germany in world war 2, this is subject to debate, and editors are suppressing edits the belie this narrative.TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• See Talk:Assault rifle where TeeTylerToe has been pushing all kinds of fringe ideas, without getting support from any other editor... Thomas.W 14:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I discussed the issue at length on the talk page. The only other editor that chose to discuss the issue was Herr Gruber. As anyone can see we came to a consensus. After I edited the article to reflect that consensus, my edits were summarily reverted. The editor that reverted my edit does not seem willing to even discuss the issue, and the other people participating in this dispute have not, as far as I know, cited any sources to contradict the sources that I have presented, or challenged the validity of any of the facts or sources that I have presented.

• See Talk:Assault rifle where TeeTylerToe has been pushing all kinds of fringe ideas, without getting support from any other editor... --RAF910 (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Glitch in the matrix?TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• See Talk:Assault rifle where TeeTylerToe has been pushing all kinds of fringe ideas, without getting support from any other editor... --Pete (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This is sort of what I'm talking about. Three editors making the same claim that anyone can see is not true. I discussed this at length with user Herr Gruber and came to the agreement. I posted ""I would say it's best to characterise the StG as the first mass produced assault rifle and the first to actually use the name, since neither is particularly contentious, and list earlier examples that fit or sort of fit the category in a "history" or "early examples of the concept" section without asserting they're they first either." that seems like a good consensus view. Less of this AR originated in ww2 germany false narrative.", Herr Gruber responded "Given we're largely agreed here, I'll wait for other input." https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Assault_rifle&diff=728574831&oldid=728557889 TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

And you got the input from other editors: no. An answer you refuse to accept... Thomas.W 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution