User talk:XDanielx/Archives/June 2024

This is an archive of past discussions about User:XDanielx. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Edit that don't respect NPOV

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

This is a polite observation that some of your edits appear to not respect WP:NPOV. This edit isn't neutral. You removed peer-reviewed scientific studies from the lead, even though these are given considerable attention in the article. Your edit summary "Attempt at a more neutral lede with less details" doesn't make sense. The lead is not too big at all (according to MOS:LEADLENGTH) so why would you want the lead to have less details? Indeed earlier you had added opposing viewpoints to the lead. Your edits seem to be violating WP:FALSEBALANCE as they seem to equate the majority of sources that find GHM figures credible with those that don't. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing your rationale here. The current lede is entirely one sided - more than half of the lede is about sources claiming the data is reliable, while opposing views are never mentioned. It's so one-sided that readers are going to be rather confused about why there's so much emphasis on supposed accuracy, when we never mentioned any questions about accuracy.

Yes the Lancet articles are peer reviewed, but they're also rather old now, and only examined certain aspects of the data. They do not contradict the concerns later raised by Wyner or Spagat, which for the most part don't even pertain to the same data (only Wyner and one Lancet article had overlapping data). So I don't understand why they keep being compared, as if the stronger one would override the weaker one.

If we remove the mentions of the Lancet articles, the lede is still one-sided, but at least it's not promoting a seemingly unopposed narrative in such detail as to bewilder readers.

The edit you mention was clearly a good-faith attempt at a compromise. It was following an option mentioned by @IOHANNVSVERVS: (the user who removed the Wyner mention from the lede), who expressed indifference to it. It's hard to see how you could interpret such a compromise as some kind of POV pushing.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)