Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I was the one who accepted the AfC article a few years back. (The original writer of the article was the owner of the website.) However, I'm not sure if it's considered promotional. What do you think? Is it neutral enough? Additionally, is it notable enough to remain on its own, or should I merge it into the article about Santa Claus? Félix An ( talk) 03:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Can an administrator of experienced editor do a full NPOV check over Visegrád 24? The article was TNTed back in March 2024 after the subject of the article, Visegrád 24, posted to have editors fix and change the article. This got brought up at AN, leading to a perm EC protection under two different C-TOPICS. Well, Visegrád 24 posted again on Twitter today to have editors fix the article, which was supposedly written by "disgruntled far left journos". I was unaware of the March 2022 postings until I was already editing the article (due to catching recent editors via my watchlist), but I saw this tweet and I'm now technically involved. Honestly, an administrator check over the article and its content may not be a bad thing, since it had dozens of COI editors, a T-blocked editor, a subsequent RSN involvement (see the talk page), and the subject of the article has posted three times in the last month to have the article "fixed" of misinformation.
-Sorry for the mini-rant: TL;DR: Article needs administrator or experienced editor checked due to C-TOPICS + WP:TNT + COI from dozens of editors in the last month. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
As a discussion facilitator I feel more inputs from wider audience at Talk:Jinn#Reverting of WP:BOLD after would be helpful in the on going WP:Due discussions. Pl. do not give inputs here but at Talk:Jinn only.
Bookku ( talk) 03:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
UrielAcosta seems to be on a mission, systematically searching through Wikipedia to find "[p]rophet Muhammad" and remove the word "prophet" (even if it's in lowercase), with the edit summary: Removed religious bias per
MOS:PBUH because
he's not Wikipedia's prophet.
The latter link points to NPOV policy.
I and other editors have queried these edits on UrielAcosta's talk page, but UrielAcosta disagreed and soon after, s/he deleted the talk page entries, and continued to make these mass edits.
My mild objection, as a non-Muslim, is that "prophet" (lowercase 'p') is descriptive and informative, and is in accordance with MOS, so when the word "prophet" has been removed, I've instead re-added it as " Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity). To me, this is no different than referring to "the novelist Doris Lessing", or "the British politician Rishi Sunak".
MOS:MUHAMMAD actually says this: recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary.
I'd appreciate the input of other editors here, please. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Pablo Escobar is not Wikipedia's drug lord, but it wouldn't be wrong to write of somebody, "It was on his trip to Panama that he became acquainted with drug lord Pablo Escobar.". Their bizarre response:
... you are 100% incorrect: Pablo Escobar IS Wikipedia's drug lord, because "drug lord" has a specific definition in English and Escobar qualifies under that definition.I mean, huh? (Have you ever heard Escobar described as "Wikipedia's drug lord"?) Then I pointed out that WP:PBUH explicitly provides for the usage that they've been obliterating, distinguishing honoring someone from merely identifying them in context on first mention, and it fell on deaf ears. When I saw that UrielAcosta had taken this campaign up again with vigor after having been reproved by at least three people, I was ready to report them to WP:ANI or somewhere, so I thank User:Esowteric for raising it here. Largoplazo ( talk) 11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I've instead re-added it as "Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity).Did UrielAcosta revert these edits (by removing "Islamic prophet")? If they did, then that would be against what MOS:PBUH recommends (i.e. adding "the Islamic prophet" if necessary for clarity purposes). If they didn't revert, then they're just following what MOS:PBUH recommends. Some1 ( talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Regards, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)(The) Holy Prophet in place of, or preceding, " Muhammad" — recommended action is to use just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary. In cases where ambiguity or confusion exists, the "prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" may be used as a variation on "Muhammad".
except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessaryeven when it's pointed out to them point-blank. The reason Muhammad gets his own provision in the first place is because of a matter very specific to him: the practice of some people of writing "PBUH" after every use of his name, and referring to him as "the Prophet Muhammad" or even just "the Prophet" on every occasion. There's nothing about the provision that suggests that Muhammad is less deserving than anyone else in history of being introduced in a text in the way that people are very commonly introduced, by the use of context. If anyone's being non-neutral, it's UrielAcosta, for deeming Muhammad not to deserve to be identified in such a manner. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
he's not Wikipedia's prophetbreaks the very policy that they are citing as an excuse to expunge the word from every article. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The sharifs were a religious nobility who claimed descent from the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and often members of the Naqib al-ashraf institution of the Ottoman Empire.[405]I spent a LOT of time on this section and made zero claims about Mohammed in wikivoice. I am not real upset about this either way but I consider myself an interested party and I oppose a mandatory naked Mohammed. Please ping me if this escalates. Going on a rampage about the word prophet is bigotry to my mind, just like it would be to insist on a disclaimer in an article about the visions of Joan of Arc or the incarnations of Vishnu.
The tag of 'neutrality is disputed' has been there since 2015 due to a conflict back then. I was removing it per "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." which is listed as a reasonable reason to remove the tag at When to remove. I have created a section at talk page to see if the position is still disputed. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The tag has been removed as there seems no active dispute. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 15:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The editor of the article "Book of Exodus" does not even consider the Judeo-Christian perspective on the historicity of the Exodus. Exodus is a Judeo-Christian book and to not even consider those perspectives when questioning its historicity is completely wrong whether or not one agrees with them. This idea of thought continues throughout the article (not just on the historicity section) without even considering the perspective Judeo-Christian scholars have on the matter. This not only limits the readers understanding, but also hinders the accuracy of the article as it then is solely from the perspective of an atheist. This is an appeal for changes to be made to the article to ensure a neutral POV. Regards, Brannyford ( talk) 06:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Hope you're well. Courtesy links:
Yesterday, The New Republic ( WP:RSPS#The New Republic) published criticism of the above two. I am using the piece (it's not an opinion piece) to expand the two BLP and would appreciate eyes on them to make sure I don't unintentionally lend undue weight. Please feel free to ping me for any questions. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 19:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I have concerns about an editor who exclusively edits pages related to one specific organization, and whose edits always serve to diminish the subject - remove positive (or even neutral) statements, add negative statements, and immediately changes any attempts to moderate his work. Is this something to report here? Or is it a COI? I would like to ask admin to look into it, but not sure where to go to do that. Thank you. Daveler166 ( talk) 00:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Until an IP changed this, the subject was known as a revisionist and military leader. That's been changed to terrorist. Do the new sources justify this? See MOS:TERRORIST. Or should this be at RSN? It isn't a BLP. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Utah State University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article about Utah State University has been subject to sockpuppetry and promotional editing since at least 2020. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a long-standing dispute over pages [3] and [4].
The dispute concerns the following statement: ‘There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of rental housing units’.
The statement was added by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:54, without prior discussion on the talk page. [5]
Several editors have shown opposition and/or raised concerns about the veracity and/or neutrality of such statement and/or the sources provided, as can be seen in the talk pages [6] and [7], evidencing that there is no consensus among editors on the content of the page.
Several users act as custodians of this page, systematically deleting references to indexed scientific articles, or reverting edits by users contrary to their views (e.g. this scientific reference [8], was deleted here [9]).
Several users have been targeted and banned by editors who oversee the site, accused of vandalism by those who uphold an statement that was unexpectedly added to the article without previous discussion in the talk page.
It appears that the sentence lacks the required consensus and does not seem to adhere to a neutral point of view.
139.47.66.252 ( talk) 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Could someone review this article and this discussion ( Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Adding POV and POV LEDE tags) for whether or not NPOV violations exist or if the POV tag belongs on the article. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that @ StefDoll, or proxies, tried to place his own work on The Pluricentricity Debate (a scientific monograph from 2019) by penetrant editing of thematic articles. The article One Standard German Axiom, describing exclusively Dollinger's work, is most heavily edited by @ MinTrouble and @ TippyToe23. Both seem to be fakeaccounts. Note that they are already banned from WP:DE (together with other proxies of Dollinger), where they tried to propagate Dollinger's work in a similar way.
I started correcting the article and opened a discussion: Talk:One Standard German Axiom. -- Rießler ( talk) 06:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The article about the leader of the Shincheonji cult, Lee Man-hee, appears to have a lot of Wikipedia:SPA accounts editing in his favour. A friend from my church was duped into joining this cult, and tried to lure me in as well. Please take note of his article for non-neutral and COI editing. Thanks! Félix An ( talk) 08:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I was the one who accepted the AfC article a few years back. (The original writer of the article was the owner of the website.) However, I'm not sure if it's considered promotional. What do you think? Is it neutral enough? Additionally, is it notable enough to remain on its own, or should I merge it into the article about Santa Claus? Félix An ( talk) 03:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Can an administrator of experienced editor do a full NPOV check over Visegrád 24? The article was TNTed back in March 2024 after the subject of the article, Visegrád 24, posted to have editors fix and change the article. This got brought up at AN, leading to a perm EC protection under two different C-TOPICS. Well, Visegrád 24 posted again on Twitter today to have editors fix the article, which was supposedly written by "disgruntled far left journos". I was unaware of the March 2022 postings until I was already editing the article (due to catching recent editors via my watchlist), but I saw this tweet and I'm now technically involved. Honestly, an administrator check over the article and its content may not be a bad thing, since it had dozens of COI editors, a T-blocked editor, a subsequent RSN involvement (see the talk page), and the subject of the article has posted three times in the last month to have the article "fixed" of misinformation.
-Sorry for the mini-rant: TL;DR: Article needs administrator or experienced editor checked due to C-TOPICS + WP:TNT + COI from dozens of editors in the last month. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
As a discussion facilitator I feel more inputs from wider audience at Talk:Jinn#Reverting of WP:BOLD after would be helpful in the on going WP:Due discussions. Pl. do not give inputs here but at Talk:Jinn only.
Bookku ( talk) 03:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
UrielAcosta seems to be on a mission, systematically searching through Wikipedia to find "[p]rophet Muhammad" and remove the word "prophet" (even if it's in lowercase), with the edit summary: Removed religious bias per
MOS:PBUH because
he's not Wikipedia's prophet.
The latter link points to NPOV policy.
I and other editors have queried these edits on UrielAcosta's talk page, but UrielAcosta disagreed and soon after, s/he deleted the talk page entries, and continued to make these mass edits.
My mild objection, as a non-Muslim, is that "prophet" (lowercase 'p') is descriptive and informative, and is in accordance with MOS, so when the word "prophet" has been removed, I've instead re-added it as " Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity). To me, this is no different than referring to "the novelist Doris Lessing", or "the British politician Rishi Sunak".
MOS:MUHAMMAD actually says this: recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary.
I'd appreciate the input of other editors here, please. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Pablo Escobar is not Wikipedia's drug lord, but it wouldn't be wrong to write of somebody, "It was on his trip to Panama that he became acquainted with drug lord Pablo Escobar.". Their bizarre response:
... you are 100% incorrect: Pablo Escobar IS Wikipedia's drug lord, because "drug lord" has a specific definition in English and Escobar qualifies under that definition.I mean, huh? (Have you ever heard Escobar described as "Wikipedia's drug lord"?) Then I pointed out that WP:PBUH explicitly provides for the usage that they've been obliterating, distinguishing honoring someone from merely identifying them in context on first mention, and it fell on deaf ears. When I saw that UrielAcosta had taken this campaign up again with vigor after having been reproved by at least three people, I was ready to report them to WP:ANI or somewhere, so I thank User:Esowteric for raising it here. Largoplazo ( talk) 11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I've instead re-added it as "Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity).Did UrielAcosta revert these edits (by removing "Islamic prophet")? If they did, then that would be against what MOS:PBUH recommends (i.e. adding "the Islamic prophet" if necessary for clarity purposes). If they didn't revert, then they're just following what MOS:PBUH recommends. Some1 ( talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Regards, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)(The) Holy Prophet in place of, or preceding, " Muhammad" — recommended action is to use just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary. In cases where ambiguity or confusion exists, the "prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" may be used as a variation on "Muhammad".
except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessaryeven when it's pointed out to them point-blank. The reason Muhammad gets his own provision in the first place is because of a matter very specific to him: the practice of some people of writing "PBUH" after every use of his name, and referring to him as "the Prophet Muhammad" or even just "the Prophet" on every occasion. There's nothing about the provision that suggests that Muhammad is less deserving than anyone else in history of being introduced in a text in the way that people are very commonly introduced, by the use of context. If anyone's being non-neutral, it's UrielAcosta, for deeming Muhammad not to deserve to be identified in such a manner. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
he's not Wikipedia's prophetbreaks the very policy that they are citing as an excuse to expunge the word from every article. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The sharifs were a religious nobility who claimed descent from the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and often members of the Naqib al-ashraf institution of the Ottoman Empire.[405]I spent a LOT of time on this section and made zero claims about Mohammed in wikivoice. I am not real upset about this either way but I consider myself an interested party and I oppose a mandatory naked Mohammed. Please ping me if this escalates. Going on a rampage about the word prophet is bigotry to my mind, just like it would be to insist on a disclaimer in an article about the visions of Joan of Arc or the incarnations of Vishnu.
The tag of 'neutrality is disputed' has been there since 2015 due to a conflict back then. I was removing it per "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." which is listed as a reasonable reason to remove the tag at When to remove. I have created a section at talk page to see if the position is still disputed. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The tag has been removed as there seems no active dispute. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 15:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The editor of the article "Book of Exodus" does not even consider the Judeo-Christian perspective on the historicity of the Exodus. Exodus is a Judeo-Christian book and to not even consider those perspectives when questioning its historicity is completely wrong whether or not one agrees with them. This idea of thought continues throughout the article (not just on the historicity section) without even considering the perspective Judeo-Christian scholars have on the matter. This not only limits the readers understanding, but also hinders the accuracy of the article as it then is solely from the perspective of an atheist. This is an appeal for changes to be made to the article to ensure a neutral POV. Regards, Brannyford ( talk) 06:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Hope you're well. Courtesy links:
Yesterday, The New Republic ( WP:RSPS#The New Republic) published criticism of the above two. I am using the piece (it's not an opinion piece) to expand the two BLP and would appreciate eyes on them to make sure I don't unintentionally lend undue weight. Please feel free to ping me for any questions. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 19:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I have concerns about an editor who exclusively edits pages related to one specific organization, and whose edits always serve to diminish the subject - remove positive (or even neutral) statements, add negative statements, and immediately changes any attempts to moderate his work. Is this something to report here? Or is it a COI? I would like to ask admin to look into it, but not sure where to go to do that. Thank you. Daveler166 ( talk) 00:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Until an IP changed this, the subject was known as a revisionist and military leader. That's been changed to terrorist. Do the new sources justify this? See MOS:TERRORIST. Or should this be at RSN? It isn't a BLP. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Utah State University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article about Utah State University has been subject to sockpuppetry and promotional editing since at least 2020. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a long-standing dispute over pages [3] and [4].
The dispute concerns the following statement: ‘There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of rental housing units’.
The statement was added by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:54, without prior discussion on the talk page. [5]
Several editors have shown opposition and/or raised concerns about the veracity and/or neutrality of such statement and/or the sources provided, as can be seen in the talk pages [6] and [7], evidencing that there is no consensus among editors on the content of the page.
Several users act as custodians of this page, systematically deleting references to indexed scientific articles, or reverting edits by users contrary to their views (e.g. this scientific reference [8], was deleted here [9]).
Several users have been targeted and banned by editors who oversee the site, accused of vandalism by those who uphold an statement that was unexpectedly added to the article without previous discussion in the talk page.
It appears that the sentence lacks the required consensus and does not seem to adhere to a neutral point of view.
139.47.66.252 ( talk) 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Could someone review this article and this discussion ( Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Adding POV and POV LEDE tags) for whether or not NPOV violations exist or if the POV tag belongs on the article. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that @ StefDoll, or proxies, tried to place his own work on The Pluricentricity Debate (a scientific monograph from 2019) by penetrant editing of thematic articles. The article One Standard German Axiom, describing exclusively Dollinger's work, is most heavily edited by @ MinTrouble and @ TippyToe23. Both seem to be fakeaccounts. Note that they are already banned from WP:DE (together with other proxies of Dollinger), where they tried to propagate Dollinger's work in a similar way.
I started correcting the article and opened a discussion: Talk:One Standard German Axiom. -- Rießler ( talk) 06:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The article about the leader of the Shincheonji cult, Lee Man-hee, appears to have a lot of Wikipedia:SPA accounts editing in his favour. A friend from my church was duped into joining this cult, and tried to lure me in as well. Please take note of his article for non-neutral and COI editing. Thanks! Félix An ( talk) 08:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)