Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Michael H 34

Assertion

I assert that the fathers' rights movement is a balanced, NPOV article because I have worked in good faith to help it become a balanced, NPOV article.

I also assert that I tried to help make the parental alienation syndrome article a balanced, NPOV article. Most of this work occurred on the talk page. I assert that I respected the consensus that had formed on parental alienation syndrome article, and gave up trying to help create a balanced, NPOV article.

Michael H 34 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Michael, can you tell me how you determine whether an article on a contentious topic is balanced and neutral? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the flipside, I'd want to know how the nominator decides which resources are "lower quality" and "marginal" since they seem like inherently subjective words themselves. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that per WP:RS, WP:RELIABLE and WP:MEDRS Wikipedia privileges academic and peer-reviewed publications as "highly valued and usually the most reliable sources". Advocacy websites/blogs/opinion columns, on the other hand, are generally considered lower quality sources and less valued as sources, as confirmed by RSN discussion held during this dispute. The preference for high quality sources is very obviously the case with Parental alienation syndrome, which as a purported psychiatric diagnosis comes under the remit of Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). This guideline specifically states, for example, that "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information", and that "Press releases, blogs, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, and other sources contain a wide range of biomedical information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality." I hope that helps explain the thinking behind the wording. --Slp1 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware the sources to which SLP1 was referring were Men's Rights/Father's rights advocates. In an exemplary instance an op-ed by Glen Sacks which uninvolved editors at WP:RSN judged to fail WP:RS [1]. From a WP:V view a source by advocates for a movement would be a primary source about that movement/idea/group. And per WP:PSTS ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources") primary sources have only limited usefulness and are therefore "lower quality". That has always been my understanding of SLP1's point--Cailil ^talk 00:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well

Thanks, Michael, for your reply today. IMO it's a remarkably clear indication that what you believe Wikipedia's editors should do is irreconcilably opposed to what everyone else believes Wikipedia's editors should do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I sign my endorsement?

The issues I see with MH34's March 17th reply are:

NPOV is not achieved through attribution if the attribution is to tiny minorities, self-published sources, fringe positions or those that otherwise give parity to low-quality sources. Peer-reviewed and scholarly sources should always be given more weight than non-peer reviewed, non-scholarly ones, and if there is a contradiction, the peer-reviewed source is clearly going to be the more prominent ones.
The ability of other editors to consistently point to not just single, but multiple sources that explicitly support their point, suggests that it is not them that are "not getting it". That MH34's claims and assertions can only be substantiated by consistently resorting to low-quality sources, interpretation (that is, of course, original research) and endless talkpage circumlocution confirms this. That external input has consistently rejected his "solutions" pretty much clinches it.
And addressing this edit, that MH34 is not resorting to namecalling doesn't mean his edits are nonproblematic. The issue here is civil POV-pushing rather than personal attacks. As far as the community goes, civil pov-pushing is more problematic because it exhausts contributors without improving the page, as well as drawing time away from productive activities. Personal attacks are easy to deal with - it's a simple block.

This nonsense is more tedious because it has the appearance of dialogue. Thousands of electrons have died to get us to the point where it's official that we know MH34 doesn't really grok wikipedia but is instead using it to Right Great Wrongs, advocate and soapbox. It is only extreme politeness on the part of other editors that it hasn't reached a topic ban yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this rather patronising response to MH34, I looked at his reply to see why the response was deserved. I was somewhat surprised to see a very civil and reasonable reply from MH34.

Whilst I agree that peer reviewed sources are generally more reliable, in a subject such as "Fathers' rights" there are no "right answers', everything is, to a large degree, a matter of opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that no-one agrees with his assertions. No-one. There are peer-reviewed sources, and they certainly should take precedence over an opinion column written by a known advocate - one of the many sourcing issues that have been repeatedly discussed at length. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]