Talk:The Chiari Institute
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Truetales50 in topic Non-neutral
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Non-neutral edit
This article seems very one-sided, with the bulk of it consisting of controversies. This would seem to be a violation of WP:WEIGHT -- Scjessey (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll try to add a section on research accomplishments. It's the only thing I can think of that has proper citations. (Rpenni (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
- I've added research accomplishments, and I hope this resolves the neutrality - weight issue. (Rpenni (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
- I'm still seeing an imbalance here. The controversy section needs to be reduced by at least 50%. In fact, it's considered bad form to lump these sorts of things together into single sections - that should be avoided if possible. It is worth noting that anyone kind file a lawsuit about anything, and "pending" lawsuits there aren't extremely notable and well-documented in reliable sources should really be excised from the article. Also, law office websites are not really considered to be reliable sources in the way mainstream media would be. This is partly because law offices documentation will be heavily biased toward the entities they are representing. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okee Dokee. I tried to condense the section as best I could and removed two of the law office resources. If it says "the law suit alleges" is it alright to use the firm's website? The Daily News should count as a reliable resource for almost everything, but the law web site is the only place I've found so far to state that there is no IRB or NIH approval.
- I do think that if there are that many suits and a class action all being reported on in the news that they are worth mentioning, but I've added the word 'pending' to try and make it clearer. I'm not really sure how I can incorporate this information into the rest of the article without it being it's own section. I thought that most articles had a controversies or criticism section?(Rpenni (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
- I'm still seeing an imbalance here. The controversy section needs to be reduced by at least 50%. In fact, it's considered bad form to lump these sorts of things together into single sections - that should be avoided if possible. It is worth noting that anyone kind file a lawsuit about anything, and "pending" lawsuits there aren't extremely notable and well-documented in reliable sources should really be excised from the article. Also, law office websites are not really considered to be reliable sources in the way mainstream media would be. This is partly because law offices documentation will be heavily biased toward the entities they are representing. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've added research accomplishments, and I hope this resolves the neutrality - weight issue. (Rpenni (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
I am providing a link to a story involving the issues at NSUH. I don't know if this helps decide on the neutrality of the piece, but I believe it's worth mentioning. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/02/03/2010-02-03_no_fine_for_no_show_state_health_dept_lets_li_hosp_off_hook_for_leaving_patient_.html Truetales50 (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)