relevance of true believers syndrome andries what is the relevance of adding a section about true believers syndrome it appears you are pushing your pov by adding this section explain why you insist on adding this section and how it does not violate a npov talk email it is relevant for the article ssb is mentioned in the article true believer syndrome you are pushing your anti sai bias by including an empty reference to true believers syndrome if you attempt to include it i am going to remove it i guess it is only coincidence that you happened to create the page for true believers syndrome ref talk email well the inclusion of this article in the see also section seems to be yet another subject for mediation otherwise we'll keep reverting each other until one of us dies andries the wikipedia policy wp not states that wikipedia is not a soapbox i suspect that we have differing views regarding what this means from my perspective the aim of many of your edits such as the one which sparked this subsection appears to be to convince people of the merits of your favorite views i would very much like for you to share your views on the wp not policy and your understanding of what this policy means please note that i had removed the true believer syndrome as described by robert todd carroll from the main text in the article because jossi complained that people mentioned in this article were not notable i objected to that by saying that everybody mentioned in this article was mentioned either by reputable media sources or scholarly sources that reported about ssb later i found out that the only one who was not mentioned by reputable news articles was robert todd carroll who wrote entries in his book and website skeptic's dictionary about ssb and the true believer syndrome in which he mentioned ssb so i decided to move the true believer syndrome from the main text to the see also section i think it should stay there because it is clearly relevant for the article with regards to violating the wikipedia what wikipedia is not policy i think that only one sentence could be relevant in this dispute and that is wikipedia is not propaganda or advocacy of any kind of course an article can report objectively about such things as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view i think i would be breaking what wikipedia is not policy if i linked the word charlatan in the see also section unless of course ssb is mentioned in that article of course it will be clear that i do not agree with the critical information being minimized but i do not think that i am breaking the policy here ssb is very controversial and this article should reflect that andries thanks for pointing this out it is apparent i need to edit the true believer's syndrome article because its mention to ssb is not referenced by reputable sources you attempt to make your case against ssb by citing the non reputable and original research of tony o'clery and paul holbach either you reference these citations by reputable sources or i'm deleting it i am going to remove the references to o'clery and holbach whose link does not work anyway trying to cite the true believer's syndrome article because it refers to ssb is deceptive because you were the one who made that reference to ssb on that page talk email hi andries thank you for your response i am glad you agree that if you created a see also link to charlatan that this would not reflect wikipedia policies however i do not understand your reasoning that seems to differentiate between a link to charlatan and a link to true believer's syndrome from my perspective it seems that a see also link to charlatan would be innuendo that ssb is a charlatan while a see also link to tbs seems to be innuendo that devotees of ssb suffer from tbs in both cases it seems to me that npov is violated because controversial opinions are not presented as such rather the implication of a see also link to tbs is that wikipedia is voicing the opinion that devotees of ssb suffer from tbs newlin