User talk:Ocaasi: Difference between revisions

Special:SpecialPages Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ Wikipedia:Requests Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections Wikipedia:Citing_sources Wikipedia:Alphabet_soup Wikipedia:Deletion_process Wikipedia:RS Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes Special:Statistics Help:Contents/Site_map Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index Wikipedia:Tips Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requested_move_Requested_move Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_through_talk_pages RFC FEED signpost/resources/discussion/watchlist Wikipedia:BRIEF

--clthng, dmbg, ar, rbns, mcd, chna, pndg chngs, npov, psdscnc, stki, rcp,

Open Questions

Does ASF/MEDRS apply to a systematic review if only one exists?
Are article naming conventions using PRIMARY topic guidelines based on WP page views or on common popularity?

Great Diffs

STiki Feedback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

change to republican def

ok I have legit reasons for said change....gay black republican....possible definition one who is suddenly gay, not accepted by other gays so becomes republican for attention....republican party needs minority vote till after elections hence pic or web ugly dance......of said gay black republican also note said gay black republican is real person does really exist known said person since elementary school openly bashes gays and black please refer to race and sexual orientationjust thought the world should know how why and yes it is possible.....it has to be in wiki the world must know not racist, or judging but did you know.....one who knows all......i didn't unsigned comment added by Jewskin (talk links removed

Russell Brand Edits

Ok dude fair enough, I did try to find a more credible source than the sun. But couldn't find anything, and the credible sources were just quoting what the sun had said. Thank you for giving me a reason, don't like it when other people just edit and delete text without saying why.

TUSC token 429f023399011fed35160b775830d68e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Great Patriotic War

Thanks for posting your well-worded message to user:121.220.77.220. He has stopped making wholesale changes. You are right of course, the edits are not vandalism per se, but it was late and I couldn't think of where to ask for advice. I have now posted a message at WP:MILHIST to ask for input. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

answered on IP page

User_talk:69.142.154.10#evidence-based... you really ought to combine these accounts - it's confusing. --Ludwigs2 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changes to NPOV FAQ were not minor copy edits

The controversial changes were not copy editing. The major rewrite weakened the meaning of the text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your mass edits were not copy editing and you substantially weakened FAQ for no good reason. You did not leave a comment on the FAQ talk page explaining you want to weaken FAQ because you think it was too strongly worded. Why do you think your edits were just copy edits. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with NPOV rewrite

Moved from Talk:Pseudoscience. "QG: I didn't ask for a generic assessment of NPOV issues, I asked you about this particular case. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)"

This comment shows what happens when there is no ASF policy. We do need guidance or else editors will not know what to do. QuackGuru (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some thoughts on this I'm working up. Maybe you'll be able to give feedback. I want to lay out that we do have some guidance here, just not explicit guidance, and not the guidance you would prefer. So there are two questions I see: one, how much guidance is needed; and two, which guidance.

I think laying out a really comprehensive policy on attribution, that can take into account both your concerns about Fringe issues and Pseudoscience as well as other editors concerns about overly emphasizing statements as facts will take some careful writing. In the meantime, I haven't seen a mob of people blowing up Wiki with damaging attributions.

In particular, at the Pseudoscience article, I find the discussion to be insightful. You (and I) initially preferred no attribution. Kenosis acted conservatively by adding it. Ludwigs reasoned that we would need more support to establish pseudoscience as a standard aspect of scientific literacy. Now we have to go find more sources. There's something really beneficial about that process.

While unnecessary attribution can lead to dilution, somewhat stronger requirements for stating things as general facts should improve the sourcing and temper claims which might otherwise be overbroad. In short, in the absence of ASF there is a chance to craft better guidance on policy, and there is, as always, the reasoning of editors. Ocaasi (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, in the termination of ASF, it is likely that new editors will make common mistakes and unintentionally add in-text attribution and experiences editors will eventually forget there ever was ASF. According to ASF, when there is no serious dispute the text can be asserted but Ludwigs2 argument is that there must be consensus among sources or for non-controversial text anyone who personally disagrees with the source can add in-text attribution. I can't see how it will help improve Wikipedia pages when editors are all over the place with different arguments rather than relying on policy. How could it be neutral to suggest there is a serious disagreemnt where there is none. For a BLP article, implying there is a serious dispute where there is none is a BLP violation. Now, NPOV conflicts with BLP. This is a serious matter. QuackGuru (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QG, I understand your concern, but new editors didn't know what ASF was anyway, and experienced editors are concerned about creating a quality encyclopedia regardless of policy. Ludwigs did set a higher bar for assertion, and somewhere in between that bar and yours, is where I think proper policy lies. The idea that editors will be all over the place in a bad way assumes that rather than making intelligent and fitting choices narrowly tailored to each article, that they will just go crazy. Strict policies are only useful because they limit debate and have consistency; they don't always produce ideal results, though.

You asked the question, 'How could it be neutral to suggest there is a serious disagreement when there is none', but that question relies on a strong assumption: that attribution always implies a serious dispute. Why can't it just mean 'lack of fact or broad-consensus status'. Attribution is also appropriate for obvious cases of opinion, but also statements that are uncontested but don't seem to be universally true. You want to put the burden of proof on the attributers; at Pseudoscience, Ludwigs suggested it should be on the asserters. Either is reasonable, but a sound policy would put the burden on a more nuanced breakdown of whatever will lead to the best outcome. (While attribution under ASF implied a contested item, there was nothing inherently correct about putting the burden of justifying attribution entirely on competing sources. It strikes me as equally overbroad to craft a policy that says: always use attribution unless you can demonstrate consensus. Neither extreme is necessary.)

As for the BLP issues, I don't think I follow your example. If we say, "According to The Newspaper, Actress Jane is pregnant" instead of "Actress Jane is Pregnant", how is that more risky?

Last, and not most importantly, if you have these very severe worries, why do you think that other experienced editors don't share them? Ocaasi (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we are just going to have to agree to disagree. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changes to NPOV without consensus

;User:Kotniski

Kotniski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kotniski has a pattern of making major changes to NPOV policy without consensus.[1][2][3][4] Kotniski has again made major changes to NPOV policy without consensus when there is opposition. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ludwigs2

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ludwigs2 substantially changed ASF without ever gaining consensus. Ludwigs2 continuously edits NPOV policy without consensus and deletes long established parts of policy.[5][6][7] Editors are concerned Ludwigs2 is forcing changes to NPOV policy, while not adhering to the advice of WP:PG#Substantive changes.[8][9][10] Ludwigs2 has exported the disagreement with long term NPOV to V policy, and refuse to abide by consensus at NPOV. Ludwigs2 wrote in part: "such as the fact/opinion distinction, which I disapprove of". Ludwigs2 is personally against the intent of long established ASF when the editor admitted he disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. It is the aim of Ludwigs2 to remove ASF because Ludwigs2 disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. Ludwigs2 has not explained the mass changes and did not gain consensus.

refactored here by Ocassi.

Other editors do share my concern. Editors have previously tried to rewrite NPOV earlier this year and there was a RFC and it was agreed upon to restore NPOV. Then months later editors rewrote NPOV again against consensus. For non-controversial text using in-text attribution will dilute Wikipedia articles. "According to" implies a serious dispute. Do you really support the mass changes to a policy page when the changes drastically weakened the meaning of ASF and now editors are arguing without any direction at Talk:Pseudoscience with the attribution in the text that was against NPOV less than a week ago. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, though I still think it's worth trying to just write policy that can handle more situations well.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to show me below. I see that Kotniski, Ludwigs, and others wanted to rewrite NPOV to be less explicit and more simple. I see that you, and some others who are particularly concerned with Pseudoscience/Fringe articles running amok wanted to keep ASF. My preference is for the policy to be both simpler and better tailored to the attribution issues. I don't think it's there yet, but this rewrite seems to me to be a cleaner draft to go from.

I guess my question, then, is, the NPOV rewrite has been up for several days now, and you seem to be the primary opponent... if there's a lot of opposition to it, where is it? I imagine an RfC will have to approve the rewrite sooner or later (and Ludgwigs suggested as much), but in the meantime, are people really just not paying attention? Ocaasi (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite is less explicit and vague. You think a more simple version that resulted in a more vague version is somehow a cleaner version. Now Ludwigs2 is arguing that editors should show consensus among reliables sources or otherwise attribution in the text is appropriate rather than the previous meaning of ASF was that the statement can be asserted without attribution in the text when there is no serious dispute. Policy is not cleaner. In a nutshell, the mass rewrite without consensus is incoherent and makes little sense. The rewrite was more than less simple. It changed the meaninng of ASF and now editors are changing there argument such as at Talk:Pseudoscience with comments that are all over the place. QuackGuru (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the rewrite was so vague it changed the meaning of core policy. QuackGuru (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the Chiropractic

Hi there,

Thank you for the letter and the explanation of why my editing was undone. I am very disappointed that Wikipedia has published what is currently written about Chiropractic. To be honest I am wondering how I go about challenging what is currently on there? Do I have to submit a different version or can I challenge what is there now without submitting a new article? I would love to take half a day and put together a well put together article with references. At this time I am taking 28 credit hours so my time is very pressed. Please let me know what I can do to get the false information removed from this article. I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia was very strict on the accuracy of the data that is currently published. I will do my best to follow what ever instructions that you provide. Just to be sure I am acting in the best interest of my school and profession I am going to approach our legal department tomorrow and let them know about this obviously malicious attempt to slander chiropractic.

My schools website is: www.logan.edu

If you would, please take a look at this website for yourself to get an idea of what Chiropractic is like in reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frolicin (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#RFC: Change prominence of site disclaimer link in default skin, wp:about is already in the sidebar. I suggest a quick fix to your 2 comments ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fixed--Ocaasi (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STiki / Research pointer

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chiropractic ....rock_climber02

Thanks for your feedback on the chiropractic section. I will more closely follow the guidelines you mentioned in the future. I am just now learning how this all works and want to work within the current system. thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock climber02 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

chiropractic

Thanks again for your patience with my learning curve. I will take some time to more thorougly read some of the talk points. There are multiple studies that do not have the extreme anti chiropractic findings that are currently cited on the page. I will attempt to do a better job at displaying this. Thanks again for your constructive criticism and feedback. Rock climber02 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks again for your help and feed-back. I am working on doing just as you described for a much less controversial topic on this subject, that of chiropractic education. The current information is highly inaccurate and this should be easy enough to substantiate. Thanks again and I really appreciate your help in understanding the process.Rock climber02 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bolditis

Re: your revert here, please read MOS:BOLDTITLE#Descriptive titles: If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. (For a tongue-in-cheek but very succinct and accurate summary of the reasoning behind this, see Wikipedia:Stop bolding everything.) My edit was 100% correct. Your revert was not, please undo it. Thank you. --87.78.31.89 (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit at WP:SPOILER was a matter of personal taste, the MOS does not apply to project space pages (i.e., the reasoning for your revert there is not valid, but what the heck). Wrt to an account: been there, done that. Compared to my experiences from my tenure as a registered editor, the frustration I suffer at the hand of trigger-happy Twinkle-abusers is minuscule.
However, the formatting correction I made at Chiropractic controversy and criticism is pretty much non-negotioably correct. Bolding separate words or word groups is just obviously idiotic. You either see it or you don't. Now have a nice day and I hope you enjoy those idiotically bolded separate word groups. Thanks for being part of the problem, mate. --87.78.31.89 (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template with instructions

Do you want a template with instructions beyond linking to policy in the article or not. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree to a template with explicit instructions including material about MEDRS and ASF. I understand you will consider it but I want to know if you now agree to it with having explicit instructions. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that MEDRS is only appropriate on pages with medically related articles. As for explicit information about ASF I'm not sure it would be appropriate unless it was simply a link/summary of WP:ASSERT, which explains the variety of issues around attribution and the presentation of facts and opinions.

I think what you're trying to accomplish by informing editors is a good idea, but since you have a strong predisposition to a certain policy aspect and a strict interpretation of that policy, one which is informed by your generally skeptical approach to alternative medicine, I'm not sure that there is sufficient consensus to actually make such a template. But I support the idea, if it works. Ocaasi (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the template the way I think it should work with explicit instructions. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal sources for biomedical assertions. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific findings, evidence, facts, and legal aspects; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Where a topic is subject to a significant amount of academic research – whether it be hard science, social science or the humanities – Wikipedia articles should accurately reflect the current status of research.

Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources where available. Non-academic sources can be used, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books by reputable publishers as well as newspapers, magazines, journals and electronic media.

In topics which are the subject of scholarly research, the most authoritative sources are usually academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in a field, particularly peer-reviewed systematic reviews. Quality mainstream media sources can be used for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic, political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons. Non-academic sources may misreport or misinterpret data and its significance, and should therefore not be relied upon exclusively as sources of that kind of material where academic secondary sources are available. The full guideline is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

I have previously worked on a summary for reliable sources. The above three paragraphs can go into a template. MEDRS applies to any article where there is a medical claim. You or I can summarise the consensus version of ASF. Of course, for a template it must be simpler (shorter) than the policy version but still properly summarise ASF. Either you are going to agree with this specific proposal or I will not spend several hours working on it without consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I would like to see where it's going. You know up front that: I like the idea of instructions; I prefer that anything policy oriented be seen by eyes at NPOV and rather than just chiropractic; I agree with MEDRS (applied specifically to medical issues); I agree with using scholarly research where it is available; I agree with using quality non-academic sources for medical issues so long as they are used appropriately; I think that alternative medicine articles exist somewhere between MEDRS and RS, and think MEDRS can be overly applied here in certain circumstances, particularly the non-research parts of the article; I don't agree with your general interpretation of ASF that in every instance where something can be stated as fact that it must; I take general concern that issues can be complex and a rigid application of ASF can oversimplify or overstate (just like a too loose application of ASF can dilute claims and allow undue influence); I no longer see the prior version of ASF as having broad consensus support--if that is an issue then NPOV is the place to go first; I think WP:ASSERT is the closest we have to a comprehensive instruction here.

All of those things factor in to my understanding of policy here, and I'm not sure if we have consensus about them. So, don't invest yourself if it's conditional on total agreement, but do continue to present these issues to me and others if you think it will improve things. Your idea is also similar to the discussions about academic sourcing that have been going on over at WP:SCIRS; maybe it would be appropriate to try and draft something and bring it there, too. Ocaasi (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the abnormal changes to ASSERT is incoherent to comprehend. It does not even have the examples of the inline qualifiers. It was removed without consnesus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if along with your above MEDRS guideline, we could combine the following, I'd be interested:

Achieving what Wikipedia understands as "neutrality" often means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of sources, and then attempting to convey the results to the reader clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. There are few hard-and-fast rules for doing this—much depends on the good faith of editors, who should be striving to provide information, not promote a particular cause. However, observing the following principles, together with those of verifiability, will help to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Avoid stating opinions as facts. It is expected that articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects, but these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice—they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide is widely considered to be an evil action" or that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, it is normally necessary to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and avoid presenting them as direct statements.
Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.
Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. Ocaasi (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a summary of the consensus version of ASF. You have not shown consensus for the mass change to core policy and you have not shown how ASF was improved by making it weaker (simpler). QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules

<div style="position: fixed; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; height:{{{1|150}}}px; width:{{{1|150}}}px;"><div style="position: relative; width: {{{1|150}}}px; height: {{{1|150}}}px; overflow: lolz"><div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; font-size: 300px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 300px; z-index: 3">[[WP:Ignore all rules|...]]</div><div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; z-index: 2">[[File:Undertow seal.png|150px]]</div></div></div>

I thought you may like the Ignore all rules template since you like simpler or no instruction creep for policy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

You may want to think twice before editing the article again. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible BLP violation

Please stop your accusations against a person your personally disagree with. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QG, can you identify the specific BLP violation? It is accurate and verifiable that a United States court has found Stephen Barrett not qualified to be a medical expert in certain cases. Whether I personally disagree with him or not is irrelevant. I happen to think he serves a useful purpose by spreading information about possibly fraudulent health claims; I just wish he was less biased in his quest to do so. Are you Stephen Barrett or affiliated with him in some way? Ocaasi (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:52, 10 November 2010 edit QuackGuru (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 79,978 edits →Primary sources: Please strike or remove your WP:BLP violation. Wikipedia is not the place for this behaviour. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:56, 10 November 2010 edit undo Ocaasi (talk \| contribs) Administrators 37,080 edits →Possible BLP violation: r QG. Not BLP/Libel if it's true. Please identify the exact statement. Next edit →
Line 234:		Line 234:

	Please stop your accusations against [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=396013406 a person] your personally disagree with. [[User:QuackGuru\|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru\|talk]]) 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)		Please stop your accusations against [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=396013406 a person] your personally disagree with. [[User:QuackGuru\|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru\|talk]]) 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
			:Hi QG, can you identify the specific BLP violation? It is accurate and verifiable that a United States court has found Stephen Barrett not qualified to be a medical expert in certain cases. Whether I personally disagree with him or not is irrelevant. I happen to think he serves a useful purpose by spreading information about possibly fraudulent health claims; I just wish he was less biased in his quest to do so. Are you Stephen Barrett or affiliated with him in some way? [[User:Ocaasi\|Ocaasi]] ([[User talk:Ocaasi#top\|talk]]) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)