Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:24, 10 January 2013

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

ResearchGate

It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section are not written in a NPOV and do not meet other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:

Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam. If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.

User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers. The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers. The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.

RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less. Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%..

In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Misplaced Pages guidelines WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:OR, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.

Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this is only one of at least four noticeboards on which JNorman704 has posted his grievance. My take on the situation is here. For simplicity and centralization, I recommend that further conversation simply take place at Talk:ResearchGate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of 1251-2011 history section on Mayor of Leicester etc.

I'm not sure if this is the right board? Rather than starting a discussion immediately, can someone please just look at this deletion and say whether this is the right place. This is partly related to a WP:FORK issue, except a fork Historical mayor of Leicester hasn't yet been created. Similar problem on a dozen "Mayor of X" UK articles. Thanks.

The article is exclusively about the Directly elected Executive Mayor and nothing to do with any office in the city of Leicester which exists or existed prior to the creation of the Directly elected Executive Mayor of Leicester Office. Adding the information is conflation and confusing. These articles "Mayor of X" all refer exclusively to Directly elected Executive Mayors and information on historical posts or ceremonial/civil/lord Mayor offices which still exist or have ceased to exist are nothing to do with the Directly elected Executive Mayors and adding the information in the way it has been done is conflation of the offices and is adding confusion where none previously existed. Sport and politics (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sport and Politics, I notified you on article Talk I had asked this question here, but as above, at the moment we're first looking for the correct venue to discuss. Then when we've found a venue you can present your case that all Mayors of Leicester from 1251 to 2011 should be entirely excluded from Mayor of Leicester and so on. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas is the wrong period :) ... if anyone responds to this please give me a heads up on Talk page. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Assuming I understand this:

Mayors of UK towns have pages, and someone wants to add information about historical mayors to those pages, rather than create a boatload of additional pages for historical mayors and someone else says that in terms of governance these are completely different topics. Is that a correct re-statement of the issue? I did not know that there was such a well-defined differentiation, but I am not in Britain. What I am not hearing though is any allegation of bias or undue weight. I think you might get an answer faster at the dispute resolution noticeboard and might be a better fit over there. But I am a relative newbie so if someone else says otherwise they are probably right. It's a place you could go ask the question in the meantime though. Elinruby (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Elinruby, thanks, yes that a correct re-statement of the issue. But have taken the option of an RfC on Talk:Mayor of Leicester, that has got some fresh faces, and this section here can be closed as dealt with, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

works for me....Elinruby (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Public Relations Society of America - Controversy

PRSA It appears that there is an unbalanced POV coverage in this article concerning the subject's dispute with someone named O'Dwyer. The organization and said person has been in a dispute for sometime from what I gather. I tried to include that O'Dwyer refuted an allegation made by PRSA.

I was told its against consensus to do so here] It was something that was found in a source used to support existing contents. I'm not really seeing a consensus to not include a brief statement that is supported in the source. I simply included the opposing view that was stated within the cited reference in this diff.

The section reads "O'Dwyer "has castigated the Public Relations Society on subjects ranging from its effectiveness to its professionalism.", but the source where this came from also says that PRSA's letter attacked O'Dwyer. The section appears to be written in PRSAs view framing O'Dwyer as the wrongdoer and I think the selective inclusion of contents from within cited sources is non-neutral POV.

There's an extensive discussion over this on the article's talk page. Can you comment if it looks like consensus to only include one side of view and if you all see neutrality issue as I do? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations articles

These two articles talk essentially about the same event: the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and subsequent events. In my opinion, this situation creates a huge potential for POV content forking (I even recall the latter article was created during a hot neutrality dispute). In addition, the idea to separate the story of negotiations from the story of the pact signing is quite artificial, and I see no reason behind that other than POV CFORK. In connection to that I believe it would be more correct to merge these two articles (especially, taking into account that their content essentially coincides).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The only reason to have separate articles is if the negotiations section in the main article had grown so unwieldy as to need its own page. Both articles are pretty substantial, but it does seem to me that a merge should be possible if the editors involved deem it desirable (though it might involve a lot of work). TheBlueCanoe 17:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think these are better separately, as there are multiple viewpoints on the circumstances leading up to the pact. What the pact contained and its consequences are less controversial. (Re-)combining would detract from both. There's ample precedent for splitting as a tool to de-POV content (e.g., Baltic-Soviet relations). There's no need for accusations. That editor Paul Siebert sees no other possibility than POV forking is not a universal opinion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

Two users are blatantly ignoring facts, and at least in Europe, the law. Please review Moshe Friedman document == as well as my scrubbed edits.Joeyrichardchicago (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This user is a sockpuppet of Tellyuer1. See for details. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Mart Laar

I need some help here.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mart_Laar&action=history
• quick link to the problematic content: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mart_Laar&diff=prev&oldid=530635213
• User_talk:Tonusamuel#December 2012

The added content is basically true but the way it's presented seems deliberately malicious, the purpose seems to make Laar look foolish. There's a lot more to say about Laar and the ACTA discussions, but the edit puts undue weight on that one quote from him, without any neutralizing explanation. The issue was spoken of in several sources so I guess it's significant enough to mention, but not quite like this.

I'm not sure right now what happened but it seems like the user replied to me on their talk page with a vague personal attack, and I don't have that kind of energy right now to continue to argue with him. — Jeraphine Gryphon  18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I take this as distributing false information. First: "way it's presented seems deliberately malicious" - no, it is direct translation from sources which are biggest papers in country. "purpose seems to make Laar look foolish" again misleading. Mart Laar said what he said. This is fact and sourced in article with newspaper articles and even video inside article. If this is foolish or not, it does not matter. His words are written down 1:1. What matters is notability of event. Google for "Mart Laar ruum sai otsa" and memes you see should be proof for anyone who is maybe not familiar in background. About personal attack: This is wrong. Not everyone is attacking him and Mart Laar. Current article is written like advertisement, all scandals removed. Time to check who of editors are actually neutral. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Need some context here - I took a shot at understanding this dispute. I am an uninvolved editor and I know nothing about Estonia. I do understand why ACTA is important, so perhaps I should try to figure this out. Was Estonia one of the countries that initially ratified it? And then once there was an outcry they backed off and Facebook posts got deleted? Is that somewhere close? Offhand my reaction is that Facebook posts are a bit trivial, and this is a BLP. On the other hand if he was serious it does reflect the fundamental problem of politicians with no clue about the internet trying to regulate it, so.... I'll try to check on this thread in a couple of days. Could one of you please confirm that I even understand what you are arguing about? Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To update: This is the content of the edit now (regarding the Facebook thing, meanwhile there have also been edits and reverts about a "shooting" scandal which is a separate thing). As you can see it was just removed, but I think the removal was out of order and not justified since the discussion on the talk page was still ongoing and there was no evident consensus to leave that stuff out.

The discussion was started here: Talk:Mart_Laar#BLP_violation. There's a lot of arguing but I would really appreciate if someone neutral took the time to have a look, it seems currently there are a lot of Estonians involved or otherwise people who seems politically motivated.

To be clear: earlier I removed the content about the FB posts, but in its current form I would vote for keeping it because it's properly sourced and written about in a more neutral manner, etc, I discussed my views on the talk page.

I looked it up right now, Estonia was still deciding on who should decide when 22 other countries had already ratified ACTA, but this is probably not particularly relevant. In the deleted FB comments, Laar had said that he and his party did not support ACTA (apparently most people don't know that or even have it backwards, like two editors had demonstrated on the talk page).

So, again: initially I brought this issue here because I felt the edit did not adhere to WP:NPOV, I think that it does now but other editors (mostly Estonians?) still want to remove it, mostly crying "BLP!!" or claiming that the issue was trivial and doesn't deserve a mention. But the fact remains that it was written about in several good sources, specifically his quote about "running out of space" got a lot of attention -- so why not include it? As I said on the talk page, it's only a single paragraph in the appropriate section, neutrally presented, relevant to him as a politician/public figure, and well-sourced. That's the most basic standard on Misplaced Pages, if several good sources write about something then we can too, that's our standard of inclusion. — Jeraphine Gryphon  00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The talk page discussion starts with discussing the "shooting scandal" (a separate event) which at that point had its own section in the article. Rest of the discussion is about the ACTA/fb/meme thing too. — Jeraphine Gryphon  01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts.

Whoever said that sources do not have to be in English was correct. Sources must be verifiable is all. The standard for notability is *not* news coverage in the English-language press. Let's face it, this could lead to Misplaced Pages having very few articles on Estonia.

Including widely-quoted publicly-made remarks of the prime minister of a freaking country about an international treaty that had people in the streets all over Europe is NOT a violation of BLP. He is a public figure and nobody disputes that he said it.

This incident is not trivial. It sounds like an official Facebook account, for one thing. ACTA was important and it was important that people who did not understand the internet were making treaties about it.

As to undue weight, the article is pretty long and the remarks are quoted way at the bottom. The mocking memes aren't even quoted directly. If someone feels it makes too much of a single stupid remark, they can build out the other sections some more.

To summarize, when the international press makes fun of your prime minister, it's notable and would be notable even if it wasn't about ACTA. ACTA is significant in and of itself and the fact that Laar made clear that he did no understand the internet in a discussion of internet policy is definitely significant. As currently written I have no problem with what is there. Elinruby (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

He was actually minister of defense at the time. :) Thanks for your input! — Jeraphine Gryphon  15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My bad. He would still be a public figure though, whose public remarks were widely reported. Still not a violation of BLP, and only slightly less not so. I think the remarks should be included. If someone else thinks they are given undue weight they have the option of adding other favorable material. Elinruby (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints portals

Portal:Latter-day Saints was created in August 2006 with the lead "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true and only Church of God here on earth. The new religion was started in the United States by Joseph Smith Jr. when Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in the spring of 1820." It still has that lead today. And here I thought we were managing to keep LDS pages NPOV. I discovered this just now when an editor changed the lead at Portal:Latter-day Saints/Intro from " The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes referred to as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church, describes itself as the restoration of the original church established by Jesus Christ. It is classified as a Christian church; separate from the Catholic or Protestant traditions, though many of those denominations disavow the LDS Church." to the same wording. I haven't read the whole text but it needs examining on both pages. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the edit that introduced the POV happened on Dec 25, and was to the /Intro page. Since the /Intro page is transcluded onto the portal page, it made it look as if the portal was created with the POV, and that the Intro edit was a copyvio. It looks like both pages get very few edits, and I doubt many editors have them on their watchlists. (I know I didn't...I don't really even know what a portal is or what it's good for.) Anyway, I've added both the portal and the /Intro subpage to my watchlist, and I'll try and keep an eye on the new editor as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes (Date and Author)

Overview:Over at the Ecclesiastes page, there is some disagreement over whether to include certain material. One editor is in disagreement with the other parties, over inclusion of a certain point of view; in fact, he has deleted any information that disagrees with a very narrow interpretation.

Background: The issue of the date of Ecclesiastes has been in dispute for at least 150 years. Scholarly opinion has bounced around quite a bit, but essentially there are three views held among Bible scholars. The first is a late view, dating the book to around the 3rd century B.C.E. This view is based on a supposed presence of Hellenistic culture found in the book. It is held by quite a few scholars, with Rudman, of Exeter university being the primary source given in the article. Rudman claims, in his book, that "250 B.C.E. is the consensus date" among scholars, even though the editor who added this, has failed to provide other sources that give this particular date as the "consensus" view. (This is Dispute #1)

The second view, advocated by Seow of Princeton University (and author of the prestigious Anchor/Yale commentary on Ecclesiastes), denies the presence of such Hellenistic culture found in the book, and instead advocates for Persian influence of the 4th to fifth century (330-450, to be exact). The editor in question has removed any mention of this other, equally held view, because it apparently disagrees with his own. Though Seow, Batholomew, Longman, and other authorities deny any consensus, the editor has insisted on quoting this "consensus" view as fact...which, from what I have read, goes against Misplaced Pages's standards (it should be cited as Rudman's opinion for NPOV).

The third view, which is a minority view, has also been completely censored, that of an early date. D.C. Fredricks published his study in 1988, and it has since been noted, critiqued, criticied, and yes, also applauded. Seow himself notes the importance of the work, as does Bartholomew, agreeing with the study in part. That Fredricks view is still held by many, is apparent from the current literature. IVP academic has just published an updated version of his material in the new Apollos Bible Commentary series. His work is frequently cited in peer reviewed publications (Bibliotecha Sacra, April 2012), and others in the field have adopted his views. This would seem to merit inclusion. The editor has even admitted that it is not a "fringe view," yet he refuses to allow any mention of the study, the theory, etc. Instead, his article as it stands, portrays the 250 B.C.E date as if it is held by everyone, when in fact not even a majority of scholars would agree to it.

I would appreciate your review of the article, and of the talk page. The editor in question has been doing a lot of editing lately on this page, and there definitely seems to be bias. Here are the two versions.

Original version: The book takes its name from the Greek ekklesiastes, a translation of the title by which the central figure refers to himself: Koheleth, meaning something like "one who convenes or addresses an assembly". According to Rabbinic tradition he was Solomon in his old age, but for various reasons critical scholars have long rejected this idea. On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE, and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it. The current consensus dates it to the early Hellenistic era, around 250 BCE.

Updated with a NPOV: (Retains the material from the original version about the book's name and the traditional view of Solomon as author, which implies a date; remainder, from "On lingistic grounds...", replaced with the following: Dating of the book of Ecclesiastes is difficult as well. On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE, while the latest possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it. Although some suggest that there is a consensus date of 250 B.C.E., this is still disputed. Essentially the dispute revolves around the degree of Hellenization (influence of Greek culture and thought) that is present in the book. Scholars arguing for an earlier date of 330 B.C.E. to 450 B.C.E., hold that there is a complete lack of Greek influence in the book . Those who argue for a third century date on the other hand, hold that the book was written in a Greek influenced social setting, and believe it shows internal evidence of this fact . A third group of scholars continue to advocate for a date much earlier than 450 B.C.E., up to and including the time of Solomon. D.C. Fredericks in a 1988 study advocated not only an early date, but Solomonic authorship. His work has not gained a high degree of acceptance and has been criticized by many .

Havensdad (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC) {{subst:PiCo-notice}}

I thank Havensdad for informing me of this, and I've made a few minor edits aimed at making it more readable - I don't think they're controversial. I'm too busy right now to reply, but I'll do so within 24 hours. PiCo (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's my response.

Response

First, I don't quite agree with Havensdad's description of the dispute - I don't think it's a POV dispute but rather one about due weight. He wants to include the views of Fredericks, at some length, and I regard that as undue. But let that pass.

I do believe it is a POV issue. Soem scholars, and I believe this includes you, want a stranglehold on a particular position that they hold, and use force/power to exclude all dissenting opinions. I believe this is what you are doing. Further, you refused compromise, when all of the other editors agreed (an administrator, Cerebellum, Athnekos) that because of Fredrick's wide sourcing and use, he should be mentioned. You deleted even a two sentence mention of the view, which noted that it was rejected by most scholars. That's definitely a NPOV issue Havensdad (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Havensdad says there are three views on the date of the book of Ecclesiastes. This is not so: there's only one, really, which is that was composed some time between about 450 and 180 BCE. Havensdad divides this range into two parts, which is sort of ok, as it's true that some scholars say the earlier end of the range (the Persian period) and others the later (the Hellenistic period. Anyway, we have sourced sentences in the article saying this: "On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE,( sourced from Seow|2007|p=944) and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it.(sourced from Fox|2004|p=xiv). Seow actually says that most modern scholars say the post-450 date is right. Seow and Fox are important modern scholars, and I gather that Havensdad doesn't dispute what they say.

This is not reflected in academic literature. Longman notes, actually, MORE than three views, including his own which is unique. Further, Seow DOES NOT say that "most scholars" hold an earlier view. After saying the book COULD NOT have been written later than 330 B.C.E., he notes that "many" scholars hold to a later view.Havensdad (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So it comes down to whether the idea that the book could have been written before about 450 (the exilic/pre-exilic period) has enough supporters to warrant inclusion in our article. Havensdad refers to a scholar named Fredericks, who examined the language of the book (it's written in Hebrew) and decided on that basis that it could be, and probably was, exilic or pre-exilic. That was in 1988, almost a quarter of a century ago. Not surprisingly, scholarship has examined his ideas in the interim. The overwhelming conclusion is that he's wrong. I can cite:

• In a recent (2009) scholarly commentary on Ecclesiastes, Craig Batholomew notes Fredericks' argument but then goes on to list all the other important works that have addressed the question since Fredericks' book. He notes (and I don't want to bore you with names, but these are all important scholars) Lohfink, Seow, and Schoors, the three reaching different conclusions about the date, but all putting it after 450 BC.
• Seow (1997) published an important study of Ecclesiastes which is regarded as the standard work on the book's language. Seow reviewed Fredericks and the entire debate, and concluded that it should be dated to the post-exilic era and no earlier than the 5th century (i.e., he accepts the 450 BC date as the earliest possible, roughly speaking).
• Longman (1998) concluded that "the language of the book is not a certain barometer of date". Batholomew comments that Longman's judgement "remains valid." Note thatt directly contradicts Fredericks, who based his entire argument on the idea that the language of Ecclesiastes could be used to date it - all his argument is based on the language.

In my research for this section of the article I did not come across a single modern scholar (writing in the last 10 years) who would put the book before about 450 BC. On that basis, to mention that date as one supported by modern scholars, even a significant minority, is without evidence; and to mention Fredericks by name, when it seems no modern scholar supports him, is undue weight.

We should also look at what contemporary scholars do actually say about the date:

• Batholomew (1998): "The state of the current debate favors a postexilic date for Ecclesiastes..." (p.53)
• Brown (2011):"Persian loan words, Aramaisms, and late developments in Hebrew forms and syntax all indicate a 3rd or 4th century dating..." (p.8 - note that Brown uses language to date the book - he obviously is not convinced by Fredericks).
• Coogan (2008): "...probably written no earlier than the 4th century BCE..." (p.7)
• Fox (2004): "...clearly postexilic." (p.xiv)
• Gilbert (2009): "...thought to have been written in the postexilic period sometime between the fourth and second centuries BCE..." (p.125)
• Longman (1998): "With few exceptions, most critical scholars date the book late in the history of Israel". (p.9 - I regret it's not available as a google book. Longman makes clear that by "late" he means post-exilic.)
• Rudman (2011): "The current scholarly consensus would make Ecclesiastes a product of the early Hellenistic period, probably around 250 BCE." (p.13)

And they go on and on. Many, many scholars saying postexilic, none saying pre-exilic or exilic. Clearly, Fredericks does not represent a significant body of scholarly opinion, and the inclusion of his name would be undue weight. PiCo (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You assessment is simply wrong. You are cherry picking quotes. Seow doesn't just say that it can't be earlier than the fifth century...he also says it can't be LATER than the 4th century. He puts an OUTSIDE late date, as do all who hold to the Persian view, at around 330 B.C.E., while Rudman and others, hold to a date NO EARLIER than the 3rd century (200's). In other words, according to those holding to a Hellenistic view, the date range is 180-299, while those holding to a Persian view, date the book 330-450. These are two different views.

Additionally, I have noted Fredricks recent publication in IVP Academics Apollos Bible Commetnary (2010), where he addresses the objections to his original study). IVP academic is a prestigious publishing company, used by Seminaries and Universities around the world. When I was working on my Master's Degree in Biblical Studies (with concentrations in Hebrew and Greek, by the way), five of our textbooks were produced by IVP academic. Finally, I have noted that this gentleman's assessment that no other scholar's consider this view possible, is incorrect. Longman notes that Frederick's could be right, though it is unlikely. Other scholars have actually taken Fredrick's view, and I have noted those in our discussion (one from the April 2012 issue of Bibliotecha Sacra, one of THE most prestigious peer reviewed journals in the world of Biblical Studies). Havensdad (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Seow says exactly what I say he says. And from the point of view of Fredericks, it's a single view - post-exilic. I can't find a single recent author who accepts Fredericks' pre-exilic date. It's not cherry-picking, these are books taken from the first few that come up in a search of google books. Frederick's recent article is irrelevant - the point isn't him, it's his views, and how much acceptance they get (or don't get).

I'm not sure what we do now - wait for someone to come along and comment? PiCo (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, sir, Seow does not say what you says he said... quoting from your earlier link,

“These features, together with the fact that there are no Greek loan words (or indisputable Greek ideas), suggests that the book should be probably dated sometime before the Hellenistic period, between 450 and 330 B.C.E., although many scholars date it a century or two later.”

Notice he says "many" scholars disagree with him, not "most." Havensdad (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I said Seow "concluded that it should be dated to the post-exilic era" (that's a cut-and-paste from up above). You say Seow says it "should be probably dated...between 450 and 330 BCE". As the post-exilic era begins in 520 BCE, where exactly do you see a contradiction? PiCo (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK so. I suspect nobody else is commenting about this for the same reason I wasn't -- way way way more than I want to know about this document. But hey, I'm killing time, and I have read the first part of this exchange and perhaps the following thoughts will help. I have not looked at the page itself and hope not to have to ;) However, it seems to me that the model that applies here is writing the controversy. The point here is not to determine the ultimate truth of some scholarly point. Misplaced Pages can't. Remember that ignorant as I am on this topic, which is totally, I can if I wish contribute to this article, so ideally it should be accessible in its language and more to the point here, cover any major theories on the topic that I may have encountered.

Let me start by restating the issue as I understand it. The date of the document is thought by some to be in one range because they see certain traits as resulting from Greek influence, and by others to be in a different range because they see Persian influences in some of the language. Then there is one author who thinks a third thing but he is the only one who thinks it. Is that, in its broad strokes, essentially correct? Please excuse any errors of vocabulary or fact -- trying to suggest a structure that would resolve this.

So why not have like so:

1.lede -- what is Ecclesiastes -- mention here that its date is uncertain

insert if necessary pertinent important non-origin info here in second paragraph

2.Theories of Ecclesiastes origin -- which involves mentioning the date ranges, right?

for this paragraph describe each theory briefly and mention a couple of leading proponents.

the guy with his own theory gets one sentence plus a mention that he does not have much support.

3.Proponents of Hellenic origin -- This is to provide google terms, real discussion later

4.Proponents of Persian origin -- as above

5.Evidence for Hellenic origin -- this is where you make the case for that point of view

6.Evidence for Persian origin -- this is where you make the case for that point of view

7.Controversy -- this is where you quote them talking about the other camp

8.Unless he is really off the wall, make a few remarks about the guy with his own theory here

9. References, Works, etc

Since the heart of the matter appears to be a dispute about undue weight, the beauty of this structure is that you can give each scholar, authority or author 1-3 sentences in sections 3 and 4, which can be as many paragraphs as needed. Items 5 and 6 similarly are likely to require multiple paragraphs and can cover what is known, what is believed, and how this person, that person and the other person have interpreted this.

The rule of thumb is that competing views should be presented and weight given to them in proportion to the amount of support that these views receive from those in the field. This gets interesting in application, but it looks as though at least everyone you guys are quoting is some sort of scholar so at least you don't have to fight about whose opinions to take into account since you are citing scholars to begin with. Elinruby (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing, Elinruby. It is indeed a very dry and obscure subject, and I can't help feeling that my time would be better spent on some healthy outdoor activity, but it's 37 Centigrade outside today.

Yes, it's really a due weight dispute, not a pov dispute. Havensdad and I actually agree on all the facts - most scholars date Ecclesiastes to the post-Exilic age. That's divided into the Persian and the Hellenistic periods, and some scholars favour one, some the other. Fredericks, who is a respected scholar, wrote a book arguing for a pre-Exilic date. That was in 1988, and since then his argument has been examined by many and accepted by none - I can't find a single recent (post-2000) book by a major scholar that agrees with him. So in my view, putting Fredericks in at all would be undue weight. Havensdad wants him in, in the interest, I think of completeness. We've been talking on the article Talk page and I think we're coming to a solution. PiCo (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically that isn't true. J. Stafford Wright, of Cambridge university (Expositors Bible Commentary), has actually advocated for a pre-exilic date, along with Roy B. Zuck of Dallas Theological Seminary, as well as a number of other scholars. Havensdad (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So include him with his own section as above. I have not looked at the article to see if that structure requires a major rewrite, but what I am trying to get at is that you guys can probably agree on who thinks what, right? So if you get all the names down you should be able to get a feel for the numeric weight, e.i. 60-40, 70-30, 50-50 or whatever. Possibly you need another weighting factor to take into account who's an authority or who is whose student, but the idea is to say:

Mr Smith says x

Mr Brown says y

Mr Green says they are both full of it

Mr Purple says they are both half-right

Then, depending on how much of a deep dive this is, you can get into a discussion in the following sections of the pros and cons of the various sides.

A couple of cautions -- it appears to me that you are probably both scholars in this or some related field, so you may need to hear this again. You aren't here to decide which one of these authors is right. This isn't a thesis. However, if you can agree on which are the more mainstream views those should receive greater weight than the others.

I should be able to say "who was that guy who wrote that thing about that book" and be able to find him in your article, possibly along with a mention that this that or the other expert disagrees with his theories.

The other caution, PiCo, is that it doesn't matter how recent the work is, not in history, unless it's really completely discredited. It's not like this is internet technology or computer hardware, where yes, references from pre-2000 are completely obsolete. If people are still citing him with even partial approval he should be in there, possibly along with a notation that he's considered controversial (or whatever).Elinruby (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the essential point remains: in Misplaced Pages we represent majority views, plus significant minority views. There's no definition of how big a "significant" minority is, nor any guidelines on how to establish the popularity of points of view. I try to find scholars who say things like "A majority of scholars..." or similar - that helps avoid cherry-picking. None of the books I've read say that any significant number of scholars accept a pre-exilic date. PiCo (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Then you have not read the right books. Also, if you look for phrases like "a majority of scholars," then you necessarily exclude the "significant minority opinions" that according to Wiki guidelines we should include. I think, at this point, it is also important to note that we are not really talking about a majority vs. minority. If we are talking about the majority opinion among credentialed people in the field of Biblical Studies and ancient Hebrew linguistics, I would posit to you that by far the majority favor a pre-exilic date. Most of these scholars are dismissed out of hand by "critical" scholars, because they have religious convictions, and it is assumed these convictions carry bias (a conclusion that is unfair, in my opinion..both sides are biased). I can list for you a stack of recent commentaries a mile high, by credentialed Ph.D scholars, who advocate for a pre-exilic date. Havensdad (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this is a stupid question, but I am a network geek with no clue about this topic, so bear with me. How many authorities can there be on this? Is it a lot? If not why not summarize them? Significant is going to depend. My vote on this would not count for example. And the text should be about this particular topic. But even then scholars are as liable as nyone else to have mental quirks and prejudices, which was why I suggested starting with trying to agree on who is an authority. I wrote that before I saw Havensdad's comment, which makes me think that you need to settle this before proceeding. For what it is worth I do not think religious beliefs necessarily invalidate an opinion, but they would make me give it greater scrunity... Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, (coming from someone who has a Master's degree in this field), the number of people who want to get into Biblical Studies with an emphasis on ancient Hebrew linguistics, are few and far between. Almost ALL (and I say this having met, studied under, and talked to hundreds of professors)of them fall into one of two camps...they got into the field because they have religious convictions, and want to "prove" the Bible, or they have anti religious convictions and want to "disprove" the Bible (prove and disprove meaning different things to different people). And so you have on one hand, scholars saying things like "it COULD NOT have been written earier than..." which is an absurd statement, since anyone in the field knows that a few Persian loan words does not PROVE anything (since it can be accounted for by later redaction, which Longman notes..). On the other hand, though, you have professors like Michael Eaton writing the Tyndale Bible Commentary (2009), stating honestly that "Our Conclusion must be that the language of Ecclesiastes does not at present provide an adequate resource for dating", while Dr. Robert Hughes, Dr. Carl Laney of the SAME publishing house (2001), states "The book of Ecclesiastes was written somewhere during the last period of Solomon’s reign of forty years (970–931 b.c.). Some have argued for a date as late as 400 b.c. on the basis of the unusual language in the work. But the linguistic arguments for a late date have been undermined by discoveries of fourteenth-century b.c. Ugaritic tablets that show linguistic similarities with Ecclesiastes." Which is not absurd (the Ugaritic Tablets may be an important piece of the puzzle), but is certainly overstated...

So you see, the issue is very convoluted.... Havensdad (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the issue is difficult, the opinions of experts differ. That's why I look to general works from respectable sources (like the Oxford Press, but there are many others), and by scholars who get quoted by other scholars (like Michael Coogan). Fredericks, who wrote the book we've talked about above, falls into that category - he's a respectable scholar (a "reliable source" if you will) and his book is discussed respectfully by other scholars. And although he based his argument entirely on linguistic grounds, that wouldn't matter if other respectable scholars supported a pre-exilic (before 520 BC) date on other grounds. But they don't: Coogan, Enns, Seow and others examine Frederick's ideas and decide against his dating. I think the most we can ad to the article is something like: "Attempts to support a pre-exilic date have not achieved a consensus" (which is a quote from someone I've read), and we could put Fredericks' book in the bibliography. PiCo (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But "respectable sources" is subjective. Is not J. Stafford Wright, of Cambridge University, who also supports a Pre-exilic date on linguistic grounds not "respectable"? Or Dr. Roy B.Zuck? Or, for that matter, Laney and Hughes, who also claim to be dating from a linguistic standpoint, and are published by a reputable publisher? The fact is, when you read Enns and Coogan and some of these others, they are dismissing work by a huge section of the scholarly community when they speak of "consensus." Truthfully an enormous number of scholars (I would say a majority) in the field state plainly that the date cannot be known with certainty. But what you want to do, is paint something that is uncertain, as if it is certain. The fact is, all it would take is a single redaction in the fourth century, that is unknown, to completely invalidate every bit of data we have. Or for something as simple as a Persian amanuensis...any of these things would make all of this wrangling over a few Persian words moot. The last thing we want to do, is to present some type of certainty to the reader, as if the issue is settled. Its not, and probably never will be, as several honest scholars have pointed out. Havensdad (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If the facts are disputed your goal should be to present the various sides of the dispute, not to determine the ultimate truth of the matter. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Very true. I just made an edit on the Ecclesiastes article that I hope Havensdad can accept. Thank you also for your interest - most sane people on Wiki don't want to touch religious articles with a bargepole, you are very brave :) . PiCo (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Any Unix people?

I ran across this issue while doing cleanup in computing -- somebody flagged the article on Unix HAL as biased. I am unix-literate enough to understand the issue but not to solve it.Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

got interrupted while posting this earlier. If anyone wants to look, it's Talk:HAL_(software)#Bias.Elinruby (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. As I said there, yes, HAL is still alive, but as alive as Larry King. Not for long... The tag will come off by itself soon. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Race (human classification)

Race (human classification) has been considerably revised recently. I reverted a major edit which removed cited text and made this statement about the work of Franz Boas: " Boas' study was later found to be fraudulent by Sparks and Jantz.<ref name="Sparks">, Sparks and Jantz, 2002</ref>" It was restored with the edit summary "Fine, fixed that. Added relevant sources. Removed political bias from "Complications and various definitions of the concept"."

The first time I reverted the false Boas claim I pointed to Boas's article and a quote from it. This was simply ignored, but if you read Boas's article you can see that the work by Sparks and Jantz has been challenged, that it's been said that they misrepresented Boas, that their date has been reanalyzed and found to support Boas, and that Boas's work has been reanalyzed and found to be basically correct. Anyone who simply ignores all of this has a pov problem.

The alleged 'political bias' that was removed was material about race as a social construction sourced to the "American Anthropological Association" - why that is called 'political bias' I leave up to others or hopefully the editor who removed to explain.

All of the recent edits need review. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

how recent/how far back? (guess) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

At least the ones made by AlmightySalvatore (talk · contribs). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an entry that keeps on getting deleted here alleging that one study was not done properly. I can't see any reason why this needs to be deleted from here as there's no obvious BLP or other violations. There are some accuations within the summaries. I have no expertise in this area, so I could be missing something, but it seems like a valid opinion is being removed. What's going on? JASpencer (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a certain segment of the population that has an extreme dislike for any scientist that supports the fact that biological human races simply do not exist. The vast majority of scientists know—because the science conclusively shows—that race is a social construct based solely on observed appearance. Most of the articles related to "race" have been skewed in favor of the wildly incorrect biological view that is only supported by an outrageously tiny minority of social scientists. If you edit in this topic area, be prepared for red herrings by the metic shitload with just a dash of fresh cherry picked sources form mainstream science (typically twisted and skewed), and topped with thick layer of fanatical support for fringe social scientists that primarily publish in journals of their own creation and cite each other in a circular manner. For a primary example see Race and intelligence (actually it's IQ not intelligence but good luck expressing that little factual tidbit in any meaningful way or any other mainstream science for that matter). When you see a duck with shovel, you gotta call a spade a spade. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Or a sock, I see this editor is suspected of being a Mikemikev (talk · contribs) sock. Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The American Anthropological Association isn't a credible source. If I recall one of their spokesperson questioned on the existence of significant racial differences stated that - even if racial differences were proven beyond a doubt to exist - it was "more beneficial to society" to sweep them under the rug and pretend they didn't exist. The American Anthropological Association also has stated that anthropology isn't science. Article very related: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html AlmightySalvatore (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"The American Anthropological Association isn't a credible source". Yes it is, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned - please push your ignorant bollocks somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually found the discussion above to be pretty illuminating. Why don't you find a concise way to summarize what you've written here? For example, on the Sparks and Jantz debate, instead of the previous "Boas' study was later found to be fraudulent by Sparks and Jantz," you could write something like "Boas' findings were criticized by Sparks and Jantz , though subsequent reassessments of Boas' data reinforced the validity of his conclusions."

As to the American Anthropological Association and the issue of race as a social construct, maybe a solution is to just attribute different opinions and perspectives more clearly? So, for instance, when something is cited to an anthropologist, you can say as much. TheBlueCanoe 04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The authors of the study that, in effect, implied that Boas practised scientific fraud(Jantz etc.) did actually criticise the new study that supposedly re-proved Boas' claims. Here's an article in which they point out the flaws in that new pro-Boas study:-

http://www.rps.psu.edu/0305/boas.html

excerpt:- Coincidentally, as of this writing, another paper, by anthropologists at the University of Michigan, the University of Florida, and Northwestern University, is scheduled for publication in American Anthropologist; it concludes that Boas correctly interpreted his head-form data. According to Jantz, these present-day anthropologists fail to acknowledge Boas’s error in comparing children with adults. Nor, points out Sparks, do they consider cranial differences between ethnic groups." Of course, whether or not Boas was correct or a fraud is irrelevant, really, and cannot be stated with certainty without tons more evidence. However, according to[REDACTED] rules, Boas ought at least to have a criticism section wherein this study criticising Boas is mentioned. Otherwise, the article just reads like a hagiography. Vorlon19 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman - Ongoing

Moshe_Friedman need assistance. There is support for Holocaust denial which lacks sources and facts and would appreciate balanced editors who actually read the sources. Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Interested users should check out Talk:Moshe Friedman, where some of Tellyuer1's proposals have been soundly (if, in some cases, uncivilly) opposed by multiple editors. Users may also want to check out WP:ANEW, where Tellyuer1 faces an active report for edit warring on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, simply stating that an article needs help is unlikely to elicit a lot of assistance. It would be more useful if someone could summarize for us specifically where the disagreement is. TheBlueCanoe 03:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)]]

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) This article is suffering severely from a lack of NPOV. I rewrote it in userspace here but any attempt I make to make the article neutral is reverted without discussion. I would appreciate some neutral editors looking the article over. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods

Page: Smithfield Foods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Which image of sows is preferred for inclusion at Smithfield Foods#Pregnant sows? Gestation crates 3.jpg, prepared by the animal welfare advocacy group, the Humane Society of the United States, or Gestcrate1.png prepared by the Smithfield Foods. Details of the actions of the Humane Society are described in Smithfield Foods#2010 State Veterinarian Visit. The relevant guideline is Choosing images. There appear to be no copyright issues.

My opinion is that the company's image is preferable, because the the Humane Society image may not be representative. The State Veterninarian inspected the facility and determined that the conditions described by the Humane Society were unfounded. The Humane Society is an advocacy group with no assigned powers of enforcement or prosecution.

It would be helpful as well for other editors to comment on the relative weight and accuracy given to animal welfare issues in the article.

TFD (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You should use the company image per the reasons you have outlined here. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually - likely neither. The HSUS may or may not be representative of all facilities, the company photo is surely not representative assuming the company PR department operates rationally. In such a case, neither image is really going to help the reader, which is the only reason for having images. The NYT , moreover, covers this issue specifically and links directly itself to the HSUS material. The fact that Smithfield fired employees as a result of the HSUS investigation would seem, if anything, to lend credence to the use of the HSUS photos. Collect (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised as this is back here as it had previously appeared to be mostly resolved in this old thread. I agree with Collect in that neither pictures provided by HSUS or Smithfield are necessarily representative. However, I was under the impression that the Gestcrate1.png file was a generic one, not prepared by Smithfield. The one provided by Smithfield was this now deleted file (which shows up as the first hit on this google search thanks to some random caching) which made all the pigs look particularly clean and happy. This was the reason I supported the generic picture as a way of "splitting the difference". a13ean (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD was asked by the Smithfield Foods marketing manager, User:Kkirkham, to remove the current image. TFD, the image you want to replace it with is not a company image.

There's no reason to remove the image in question. It is free, it is reasonably good quality, it is representative of these stalls, it was taken inside Smithfield Foods (KKirkham has confirmed this), it is recent (end of 2010), and it very precisely illustrates the subject matter of the section in which we use it. If Smithfield Foods wants to post a free one of their own alongside it, for comparison's sake – as another editor and I suggested months ago – that's fine.

It's worth noting that Smithfield has been heavily criticized for its use of gestation crates, even by McDonald's and by its own animal-welfare consultant, Temple Grandin, which may be why they're keen that Misplaced Pages downplay it. Here's a timeline of its recent efforts:

• The article used a generic image of a gestation crate for several years.
• In September 2012, the Smithfield Foods rep asked that it be removed. She argued that it was inappropriate because not taken inside Smithfield Foods.
• She suggested that we use a fair-use image from the Smithfield birthing room (not one of a gestation crate) that she obtained from a Smithfield video on YouTube. She wrote in the fair-use rationale (now deleted, bold added):

• "Other images could/should not be used since the article is talking about facilities owned by a particular company, so the article should show equipment/facilities from that company, if possible."

• I asked her to obtain a free image for us, but received no response.
• Because she insisted that we use a Smithfield Foods image, but would not supply a free one, I wrote to the Humane Society of the United States – an animal welfare group that is not opposed to meat eating – to ask if they could supply a free one from inside Smithfield Foods. They sent me several, and I added one that shows two clean pigs, with no bleeding, no dirt, no sores, and where it's clear how much space they have to lie down (which is the subject matter of the section).
• In December Kkirkham then argued that we did not need to use an image taken inside Smithfield, but should use a generic one instead. I reminded her that she had insisted we use a Smithfield one. I suggested again that she obtain a free one from Smithfield to use alongside the one she objects to. She replied, on 20 December: "Changing the photo again is a fairly minor issue to me ..."
• I assumed we would leave it there, but on 2 January she asked TFD to remove the image. (This is one of several occasions on which she has asked editors to remove material for her.)

Again, there is no reason within policy to remove the image, and if Smithfield wants to post one of its own next to it, they're welcome to do so. SlimVirgin 16:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I'm concerned that when you edit this article, you invariably do what Smithfield Foods has asked, and you remove reliable sources too. For example in this edit, you removed a description of the way the pigs are kept, and left only the Smithfield website as a source, but removed two stories from The Washington Post, and one from The Atlantic. You also changed "animal welfare" groups to "animal activist" groups, which is the term Smithfield prefers. Can you say why you're removing independent sources? SlimVirgin 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the discussion was that you were opposed to replacing the image, which is why I posted this discussion thread. I made the requested change to the text five days after the request was made and no one had raised any objections. I see now that the request related to only part of the section. I explained my concern about the reporting of the HSUS investigation at Talk:Smithfield Foods/Archive 1, "The emphasis on these sources gives greater weight to the Humane Society's view, when neutrality requires that greatest weight be provided to the State Veternarian. The proviso of course is that any subsequent expert opinion may supercede the State Veternarian's finding." TFD (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi TFD, my question was why you removed all the independent sources in this edit, and left only the Smithfield website. SlimVirgin 20:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I replaced the section with the requested version and as I said, "I see now that the request related to only part of the section." TFD (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but that means "I made the edit because I made the edit." :) My question is why you removed all the independent sources (W/Post, Atlantic) and left a version based entirely on a Smithfield Foods press release. I don't know what "the request related to only part of the section" means. The reason I ask is that it's not the first time this has happened. SlimVirgin 22:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "it's not the first time this has happened". The only other time I edited this article was 24-25 October, 2011, when I re-wrote the section now called Smithfield Foods#2010 State Veterinarian Visit. Before doing that I set up a discussion thread now at Smithfield Foods#2010 Humane Society investigation on 21 September, 2011. When after more than a month you did not respond I made the edit and since that time you have not commented on or changed the section.

I have explained my recent edit twice already and maybe will be third time lucky. Kkirkham re-wrote a paragraph of the section on gestation crates. Although you opposed changing the image used, I did not see opposition to the change in text. Kkirkham then asked if it could be posted. I waited five days and there was no response at the talk page. I then posted the revised paragraph and set up this discussion thread about the disputed image. In error, I replaced the entire section with the revised paragraph, instead of merely replacing one paragraph.

Or perhaps your question is what I find wrong with the article. I believe that the article should point out problems with animal welfare, treatment of workers, health and safety and environmental impact. However, that should not be the main focus of the article. Also, the wording of much of the article is overly detailed on specific problems and has very little third party assessment of them. It reminds me of anti-abortion writing that shocks readers through gory desriptions. Generally this type of writing is ineffective. It preaches to the converted and alienates undecided readers. It also leaves the impression that the problems described are specific to the company rather than inherent in the industry. Any reader who was persuaded by this article would probably stop eating pork and start eating chicken instead.

TFD (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

All, I am happy to source a photo from Smithfield and get the proper approvals if that is what the group desires. I had issues with the one that I uploaded (I did the fair-use rationale incorrectly), so I gave on on that, but am happy to try again if we'd like. My original insistence that the photo show a Smithfield facility if possible stemmed from the egregiousness of the photo that was previously used in the article and the awful conditions it portrayed that had no connection to a Smithfield facility (it was this (image). It was sourced from Farm Sanctuary (another animal activist/welfare group). While the current image is certainly more appropriate than that previous image, I do still believe that it is more appropriate to show a generic image than an image sourced from an animal activist/welfare group that campaigns against meat companies. I think using a generic image is preferable to showing Smithfield's photo and the HSUS's photo side-by-side as SlimVirgin suggests. Thanks for the additions and feedback of the group here--I appreciate your time. I'm happy to help however folks would like. Kkirkham (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We can't use a non-Smithfield image in the Smithfield article, when we have a free, good-quality image taken inside Smithfield. Misplaced Pages doesn't care who takes images so long as they're free. This is an image showing how much space the pigs have to live on, and the section is about that issue, and how even McDonald's has complained about it. The image is entirely representative and if Smithfield took one itself of one of its gestation crates it would look the same – but if you think not, you're welcome to add one, and juxtapose them in the interests of being extra-neutral. But removing the image to replace it with a non-Smithfield image at the request of Smithfield Foods would be a violation of neutrality. We have already removed two images at your request (the first gestation crate and the CAFO), but it can't continue. SlimVirgin 20:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does it matter who requests the change if a consensus of editors agrees that the change effects a positive outcome on the article and improves its NPOV? I understand Wiki's stance about COI Editing, but not even allowing a request for a change by someone with a COI is not what Wiki is intending with that policy, and seems extreme. Kkirkham (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said we can't remove a free, good-quality image of a Smithfield facility just because Smithfield Foods doesn't like who took it, and replace it with one that isn't of a Smithfield facility and isn't good quality. That makes no editorial sense.

From our perspective, we don't care who took that image, and it's only there because you asked us to remove the first generic image, and insisted we use one that showed a Smithfield facility, but would not supply one. So I had to find one from elsewhere. SlimVirgin 22:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Humane Soc. Photo - They are both free photos; and both show gestation crates; but the HSUS photo has a couple of advantages: (1) it is taken inside a Smithfield facility; and (2) it provides more visual information (size, etc) to the reader. --Noleander (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The original image in the article was NOT a generic photo as you suggest SlimVirgin, but was also supplied by an animal activist/welfare group. Additionally, you yourself suggested the use of the generic photo that TFD, a13ean, and I are suggesting we use. You posted it to the page after this conversation in the old thread on the Smithfield Foods talk page that a13ean referenced, but then changed it again to the current HSUS image without getting any input from the group on the talk page. Here's the text of that conversation.

"If you don't like the current image, we can use another of our generic ones until we obtain a Smithfield one. We have File:Gestation crate pig showing stereotype.JPG, File:Gestation-crates.jpg, File:Gestcrate1.png. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This image is much better, and much more typical of what the stalls look like. Thanks, Kkirkham (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. a13ean (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why was this photo changed again, after we agreed the previous one was good? SV, if you are going to make changes like this while the page's status is disputed, please justify them here on the talk page. Kkirkham (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)" Kkirkham (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

All other things being equal, a photo actually taken at a Smithfield facility should be used over any other photo taken at some unknown facility. Smithfield may have unique crates; or specific conditions. Using a photo of another facility could be very misleading. Unless there is a fatal flaw with the photo taken at the Smithfield facility, it should be used. I presume that (because we are in the NPOV noticeboard) that there is concern that the Smithfield-facility photo is biased somehow? It looks like a normal photo taken under normal conditions. I don't see any NPOV issues. --Noleander (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Biased safety claims in Cannabis (drug)

Recent edits to Cannabis (drug) have added a section on Safety which is strongly biased toward cannabis being a risk-free drug. Emphasis is on a claim that no marijuana related deaths have ever occurred. Yes, there are some sources where the author states no cannabis deaths to report, but using these claims selectively is misleading. Several reliable sources have reported infrequent deaths and also list cannabis smoke as a carcinogen (links to these articles or to abstracts are provided in the deleted history or on the Talk page). Summary:

• Forensic Science International

“Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use”

• Journal of Pediatrics

“Cerebellar Infarction in Adolescent Males Associated with Acute Marijuana Use”

• Cancer Research, UK

“Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?”

• Revue Neurologique (French)

“Cannabis-induced cerebral and myocardial infarction in a young woman”

• Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases

“Cannabis-Related Myocardial Infarction and Cardioembolic Stroke”

• UCLA School of Medicine

“Effects of marijuana on the lung and its immune defenses”

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, DAWN

“Area Profiles of Drug-Related Mortality” (this is a government tertiary source)

• State of California

“Chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” (This is a government tertiary source)

• Center for Effective Drug Abuse Research & Statistics, Drugwatch

“Marijuana-only drug abuse deaths” (This is a tertiary source)

Efforts have been made to resolve this on the article Talk page. A marijuana supporter will not accept published medical journals and government reports that raise any safety concerns about cannabis usage. Misplaced Pages requires a neutral point of view and an unbiased handling of divergent sources. Certainly, cannabis is not as dangerous as several other hard drugs, but that does not result in absolute safety. Misplaced Pages should include both sources that discuss safety and sources that indicate problems. A balanced and neutral view is required.

Additional input and comments are welcome on the Talk page. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide links and clarify which ones are peer-reviewed studies/reports, peer-reviewed literature reviewes, or else? --Cyclopia 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadhu Vaswani

The article opens with

Sadhu Vaswani (25 November 1879 – 16 January 1966) born Thanwar Lilaram Vaswani was a saint who aspired to serve suffering humanity rather than attain to mukti, salvation or liberation from the cycle of birth and death. He often said, “I do not ask for mukti. I fain would be born, again and again, if only that I might be of some help to those that suffer and are in pain!” Dadaji, as he was popularly known by thousands of his followers and admirers, could have lived a life of luxury, but he spurned all the riches of the world in order to serve the entire creation. He gave hope to hearts numb with fear and anxiety; he opened up the vision of man to the beauty of God. His was a life of singular simplicity blended with selfless activity.

and continues in the same vein. It has section titles like "A Brilliant Student" and "An Admired Professor" (both describing the subject of the article).

Further, in apparent violation of WP:COI, much of the content was added by User:SadhuVaswani, which, judging by the page, seems to be an account maintained by the Sadhu Vasvani Mission (established by the subject of the article). --59.95.18.216 (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Progressive utilization theory

Hi all,
Could somebody take a look at Progressive utilization theory? I have concerns that it's become a hugely lengthy article which treats fringe views at face value, eulogising the writer/philosopher behind the theory; there are many other related articles, which generally big up the "vast literary heritage of the author" &c. Of course, other editors might disagree with this summary; Abhidevananda asserts that I'm prejudiced and ignorant, and reverts all my edits because they're "vandalism". Maybe one of us is right; maybe neither. This shouldn't become adversarial; could somebody uninvolved have a look at the Progressive utilization theory article, please? bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Gilbert 2009, p. 124-125. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGilbert2009 (help)
2. Brown 2011, p. 11. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBrown2011 (help)
3. Fox 2004, p. x. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFox2004 (help)
4. ^ Seow 2007, p. 944. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSeow2007 (help)
5. ^ Fox 2004, p. xiv. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFox2004 (help)
6. ^ Rudman 2001, p. 13. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRudman2001 (help)
7. Bartholomew 2009, p. 54-55. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBartholomew2009 (help)
8. Bartholomew 2009, p. 50-52. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBartholomew2009 (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution