This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
On multiple occasions I've seen editors argue for the removal of a POV tag because it shouldn't be used as "badge of shame." I'd simply like some help understanding what this means. In addition I think some clarification in the template is due. There's no reference to the term in WP:NPV. Based on discussion on this page and in my own experience, it seems to me it's ambiguous at the moment and can be used to justify the removal of a legitimate tag. Moreover, it's difficult for a legitimate tagger to respond when they are accused of using a tag as a badge of shame, when the accusation is ambiguous. (Full disclosure: I'm in a "badge of shame" dispute at the moment. This is a good-faith attempt to understand, not to forum shop.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
A badge of shame, as the article says, is a label whose main purpose is to communicate severe disapproval. If Alice disagrees with the content of Example, and consensus is that the content is fine, then Alice doesn't get to add this tag after the discussion, as a form of communicating her disagreement with the consensus to readers. (Yes, I've seen people do that.)
Drive-by tagging is a completely different thing. (Both behaviors are discouraged for this particular tag.) I don't object to drive-by tagging in principle. However, I understand why the community finds it so frustrating, especially when people are wielding "big deal" tags like this one on pages that don't seem to have problems. However, in other cases, the problem is so obvious that no discussion is really necessary (although a quick trip to the page history might be). Although the problem of stale tags is a wiki-wide scourge, I personally will not remove an NPOV tag, no matter how old or how un-discussed, if the problem is truly obvious. If it's not obvious, and the tag is old, then I assume that the problem has since been resolved (or that the tag was placed as a mistake), and I usually pull it.
I believe that the underlying theme is that this tag should be added when your intention is attracting problem-solving attention from other editors. It should not be intended to be permanent. It should not be added if there is a consensus that no problem exists. It should not be added if the problem isn't significant enough for you to leave a quick message on the talk page, or at least if you're not willing to explain why you added it upon request. It should not be added if you are actively obstructing solutions (I wouldn't expect that of anyone here, but I have seen that in a few highly contentious subjects). It should be used as part of the solution, not as a way to concede failure. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the entire paragrap h stating "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.". The reason is that I think the template should be used both as a warning for readers and editors, and as a badge of shame, in the sense that it should make us as editors feel that the article is inadequate and move us to fix the problems. Suggesting that the template is only used to attract editors to the article does not reflect the actual way that templates are used, and also they ignore the fact that templates like these are a help for readers who are better able to take a critical stance when they read an article with this tag on top. I don't think we need this eording at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It's evident we're not going to reach a consensus anytime soon on proper tagging procedures. This discussion has strayed far beyond its intended scope. All I want is clarification on what "badge of shame" means in the context of POV tagging. The only explanation given in this discussion was by WhatAmIDoing, who says "badge of shame" means when a tag is used to signal disapproval of an existing NPV consensus. Does anyone disagree with this understanding? If yes, please explain your own understanding of the term. Otherwise, I propose the following language in the usage notes: "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used to disapprove of a consensus the tagging editor disagrees with, or to "warn" readers about the article." -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
To aid in a direct comparison, here are the two versions, the current instructions first, the proposed change second:
To me, the "badge of shame" concept is very simple and clear. The proposed "disapprove of a consensus the tagging editor disagrees with" is not as widely applicable, as a consensus may not exist at the article talk page. Binksternet ( talk) 18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there a specific way to tag a title as POV, eg Piggate. I'd like to tag the title as not being neutral. Can I do so? If not, why? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:POV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the phrasing "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." to "Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met." with a hyperlink to those conditions at Template:POV#When_to_remove
Resolution is only one of three applicable conditions, which has led to edit warring over the banner when it is eligible to remove by one of the other conditions instead. Rhoark ( talk) 20:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Rhoark ( talk) 20:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." seems to repeatedly make editors feel enabled to use or defend the tag in ways that the more detailed instructions at Template:POV specifically recommend against. A less absolute statement might be better. Rhoark ( talk) 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I put a POV tag on the Christian Gospel section of the Jesus page, and two editors have removed it at their own discretion. The template says one can remove it if "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." Certain editors see the section as neutral, and they are not satisfied with my explanation for why it's POV. Since they don't find my answer satisfactory, can they remove the tag? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you add "or at the NPOV noticeboard" after "Revelnent disscusion can found on the talk page" because some disscusions on the NPOV noticeboard rather on the article's talk page. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 20:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to anyone if we added a general description of what "dormant" means? I usually take it to mean no comments for over a month, and I thought we could add "...if the discussion has become dormant (usually, this means no comments for about a month)".
I don't want to add it if it just seems like WP:Instruction creep (and I think it might be). On the other hand, I don't want anyone to think that we require a year or anything absurd like that. What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have repeatedly seen users remove this tag from controversial subjects, claiming that the editor who added the NPOV tag acted improperly by doing so without first achieving consensus on the necessity of the tag. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the NPOV is that it is intended to attract uninvolved editors with different viewpoints to an article, in situations where the neutrality is disputed. Now, perhaps I simply lack imagination, but I cannot concieve of a situation in which A, an NPOV tag is warranted (i.e. there is are concerns about bias in the edits and editors of an article), B, a consensus is achieved that such a tag is warranted (i.e. the editors, necessarily including any biased editors, agree that the article is biased and those biases should be rectified), and C, it is still necessary uninvolved editors to step in and help resolve the issue (despite consensus having already been reached). Firstly, condition B by itself seems a logical impossibility to me, as I will explain: Logically, there are only three types of biased editors possible: 1. Biased editors who are unaware of their bias 2. Biased editors who are aware of their bias, but continue editing in bad faith 3. Biased editors who are aware of their bias, and rightfully remove themselves from the discussion. As category 3 is irrelevant, and the first two act similarly enough that attempting to distinguish between the two is both difficult and unnecessary (in addition to being poor form), for all practical purposes, it can be assumed that there is only one type of biased editor: That which will insist they, and the edits they make, are unbiased. Secondly, condition B and C seem to be mutually exclusive in nearly every if not all possible situations .Thirdly, the necessity of consensus is unsupported by the template guidelines. Said guidlines refer to an individual adding the tag while stating his/her case with no mention of consensus, while later specifically stating consensus as a condition for removal. Why would consensus be implicitly required in one instance, but not in another? In short, I argue that not only is consensus not required for the addition of an NPOV, a lack of consensus is the only situation in which the NPOV tag can possibly be used correctly. Am I wrong in this? It just seems bizarre that consensus is required for the addition of a tag which documents a lack of consensus. Monkeyfoetus ( talk) 02:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
comment - the tags are not "just" for editors; they are also instructive to readers/"end-users", that the contents of an article are not of "perfect quality".
AND when you use such ao arguement to remove a POV tag, you are in fact taking sides in the dispute. inherently. Lx 121 ( talk) 23:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
same of the instructions/advice in the template do not reflect anything in current WP. esp. re: "drive by tagging" & other users removing a POV tag w/o discussion. there is no wp to support this action, & the only relevant "advice" page is both an ESSAY, & in fact, a failed proposal Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. so, clearly, that should NOT be cited as "policy" to support the template instructions. Lx 121 ( talk) 23:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:POV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rev. Dorothy Forrest Trumbo (1915-2018) Granddaughter, Former Politician, Fyffe, Alabama. 198.17.32.129 ( talk) 21:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:POV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please consider changing (Unbalanced scales.svg) used in the article message box to (Ambox scales.svg). – Ntmamgtw ( talk) 09:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Changing the icons can be controversial. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the icon used in the POV article message box, File:Unbalanced scales.svg, be replaced with File:Ambox scales.svg? – Ntmamgtw ( talk) 20:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Pictograms within coloured shapes are already widely used as icons used on Wikimedia projects, including in other English Wikipedia amboxes. 'Ambox scales.svg' was designed for use in amboxes, and the orange background matches the colour scheme of Content-type amboxes. This is why I support an icon change.– Ntmamgtw ( talk) 20:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies." should be summarized and added to the template. Apparently some editors are very keen on seeing the reason behind the use of this template, so the template itself should make the reason clear. ภץאคгöร 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
On multiple occasions I've seen editors argue for the removal of a POV tag because it shouldn't be used as "badge of shame." I'd simply like some help understanding what this means. In addition I think some clarification in the template is due. There's no reference to the term in WP:NPV. Based on discussion on this page and in my own experience, it seems to me it's ambiguous at the moment and can be used to justify the removal of a legitimate tag. Moreover, it's difficult for a legitimate tagger to respond when they are accused of using a tag as a badge of shame, when the accusation is ambiguous. (Full disclosure: I'm in a "badge of shame" dispute at the moment. This is a good-faith attempt to understand, not to forum shop.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
A badge of shame, as the article says, is a label whose main purpose is to communicate severe disapproval. If Alice disagrees with the content of Example, and consensus is that the content is fine, then Alice doesn't get to add this tag after the discussion, as a form of communicating her disagreement with the consensus to readers. (Yes, I've seen people do that.)
Drive-by tagging is a completely different thing. (Both behaviors are discouraged for this particular tag.) I don't object to drive-by tagging in principle. However, I understand why the community finds it so frustrating, especially when people are wielding "big deal" tags like this one on pages that don't seem to have problems. However, in other cases, the problem is so obvious that no discussion is really necessary (although a quick trip to the page history might be). Although the problem of stale tags is a wiki-wide scourge, I personally will not remove an NPOV tag, no matter how old or how un-discussed, if the problem is truly obvious. If it's not obvious, and the tag is old, then I assume that the problem has since been resolved (or that the tag was placed as a mistake), and I usually pull it.
I believe that the underlying theme is that this tag should be added when your intention is attracting problem-solving attention from other editors. It should not be intended to be permanent. It should not be added if there is a consensus that no problem exists. It should not be added if the problem isn't significant enough for you to leave a quick message on the talk page, or at least if you're not willing to explain why you added it upon request. It should not be added if you are actively obstructing solutions (I wouldn't expect that of anyone here, but I have seen that in a few highly contentious subjects). It should be used as part of the solution, not as a way to concede failure. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the entire paragrap h stating "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.". The reason is that I think the template should be used both as a warning for readers and editors, and as a badge of shame, in the sense that it should make us as editors feel that the article is inadequate and move us to fix the problems. Suggesting that the template is only used to attract editors to the article does not reflect the actual way that templates are used, and also they ignore the fact that templates like these are a help for readers who are better able to take a critical stance when they read an article with this tag on top. I don't think we need this eording at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It's evident we're not going to reach a consensus anytime soon on proper tagging procedures. This discussion has strayed far beyond its intended scope. All I want is clarification on what "badge of shame" means in the context of POV tagging. The only explanation given in this discussion was by WhatAmIDoing, who says "badge of shame" means when a tag is used to signal disapproval of an existing NPV consensus. Does anyone disagree with this understanding? If yes, please explain your own understanding of the term. Otherwise, I propose the following language in the usage notes: "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used to disapprove of a consensus the tagging editor disagrees with, or to "warn" readers about the article." -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
To aid in a direct comparison, here are the two versions, the current instructions first, the proposed change second:
To me, the "badge of shame" concept is very simple and clear. The proposed "disapprove of a consensus the tagging editor disagrees with" is not as widely applicable, as a consensus may not exist at the article talk page. Binksternet ( talk) 18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there a specific way to tag a title as POV, eg Piggate. I'd like to tag the title as not being neutral. Can I do so? If not, why? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:POV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the phrasing "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." to "Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met." with a hyperlink to those conditions at Template:POV#When_to_remove
Resolution is only one of three applicable conditions, which has led to edit warring over the banner when it is eligible to remove by one of the other conditions instead. Rhoark ( talk) 20:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Rhoark ( talk) 20:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." seems to repeatedly make editors feel enabled to use or defend the tag in ways that the more detailed instructions at Template:POV specifically recommend against. A less absolute statement might be better. Rhoark ( talk) 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I put a POV tag on the Christian Gospel section of the Jesus page, and two editors have removed it at their own discretion. The template says one can remove it if "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." Certain editors see the section as neutral, and they are not satisfied with my explanation for why it's POV. Since they don't find my answer satisfactory, can they remove the tag? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you add "or at the NPOV noticeboard" after "Revelnent disscusion can found on the talk page" because some disscusions on the NPOV noticeboard rather on the article's talk page. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 20:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to anyone if we added a general description of what "dormant" means? I usually take it to mean no comments for over a month, and I thought we could add "...if the discussion has become dormant (usually, this means no comments for about a month)".
I don't want to add it if it just seems like WP:Instruction creep (and I think it might be). On the other hand, I don't want anyone to think that we require a year or anything absurd like that. What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have repeatedly seen users remove this tag from controversial subjects, claiming that the editor who added the NPOV tag acted improperly by doing so without first achieving consensus on the necessity of the tag. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the NPOV is that it is intended to attract uninvolved editors with different viewpoints to an article, in situations where the neutrality is disputed. Now, perhaps I simply lack imagination, but I cannot concieve of a situation in which A, an NPOV tag is warranted (i.e. there is are concerns about bias in the edits and editors of an article), B, a consensus is achieved that such a tag is warranted (i.e. the editors, necessarily including any biased editors, agree that the article is biased and those biases should be rectified), and C, it is still necessary uninvolved editors to step in and help resolve the issue (despite consensus having already been reached). Firstly, condition B by itself seems a logical impossibility to me, as I will explain: Logically, there are only three types of biased editors possible: 1. Biased editors who are unaware of their bias 2. Biased editors who are aware of their bias, but continue editing in bad faith 3. Biased editors who are aware of their bias, and rightfully remove themselves from the discussion. As category 3 is irrelevant, and the first two act similarly enough that attempting to distinguish between the two is both difficult and unnecessary (in addition to being poor form), for all practical purposes, it can be assumed that there is only one type of biased editor: That which will insist they, and the edits they make, are unbiased. Secondly, condition B and C seem to be mutually exclusive in nearly every if not all possible situations .Thirdly, the necessity of consensus is unsupported by the template guidelines. Said guidlines refer to an individual adding the tag while stating his/her case with no mention of consensus, while later specifically stating consensus as a condition for removal. Why would consensus be implicitly required in one instance, but not in another? In short, I argue that not only is consensus not required for the addition of an NPOV, a lack of consensus is the only situation in which the NPOV tag can possibly be used correctly. Am I wrong in this? It just seems bizarre that consensus is required for the addition of a tag which documents a lack of consensus. Monkeyfoetus ( talk) 02:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
comment - the tags are not "just" for editors; they are also instructive to readers/"end-users", that the contents of an article are not of "perfect quality".
AND when you use such ao arguement to remove a POV tag, you are in fact taking sides in the dispute. inherently. Lx 121 ( talk) 23:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
same of the instructions/advice in the template do not reflect anything in current WP. esp. re: "drive by tagging" & other users removing a POV tag w/o discussion. there is no wp to support this action, & the only relevant "advice" page is both an ESSAY, & in fact, a failed proposal Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. so, clearly, that should NOT be cited as "policy" to support the template instructions. Lx 121 ( talk) 23:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:POV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rev. Dorothy Forrest Trumbo (1915-2018) Granddaughter, Former Politician, Fyffe, Alabama. 198.17.32.129 ( talk) 21:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:POV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please consider changing (Unbalanced scales.svg) used in the article message box to (Ambox scales.svg). – Ntmamgtw ( talk) 09:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Changing the icons can be controversial. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the icon used in the POV article message box, File:Unbalanced scales.svg, be replaced with File:Ambox scales.svg? – Ntmamgtw ( talk) 20:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Pictograms within coloured shapes are already widely used as icons used on Wikimedia projects, including in other English Wikipedia amboxes. 'Ambox scales.svg' was designed for use in amboxes, and the orange background matches the colour scheme of Content-type amboxes. This is why I support an icon change.– Ntmamgtw ( talk) 20:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies." should be summarized and added to the template. Apparently some editors are very keen on seeing the reason behind the use of this template, so the template itself should make the reason clear. ภץאคгöร 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)