This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A user claims that it is not a "claim" but scientific fact that children need to be reared by a mother and a father; this user also adds citations to articles that make these claims in general, with no specific reference to same-sex marriage in order to illustrate the argument against same sex marriage. I think this raises clear NOR and NPOV concerns. Edit dif and talk page and talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am developing this article and I use an authoritative and comprehensive published lexicon to cite the existence of borrowed words in Tamil language
Some people who dont accept the lexicon's authority (since it contradicts their POV) are threatening to delete my work and have extensively tagged my article with "citation necessary" tags. Kindly help. Kris ( talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I question the overall neutrality of the Henry Kissinger biography and therefore its validity. It is of particular importance to present biographies of political figures as objectively as possible. Most of the article is biased, and in places it's unrestrained adulation. Earlier, in the introductory description, the word hero was used to describe him. It is not libelous to state facts about the man, and it's important to do so, since he is participating in a current presidential campaign as an advisor. Links to informative factual sources should not be censored, nor should other facts about him. Political figures, by the way, are not protected by the libel laws of private citizens, and the biographies of political figures shouldn't be written, or seem as if they're written, by the man's publicist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inwol ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
An article is much biased. It has pro-Georgian and anti-Abkhaz POV. Such non-neutral edits are being made by Georgian users Iberieli and Kober. SkyBon Talk\ Contributions 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There is ongoing dispute over at Talk:Chiropractic#At_the_crossroads..., regarding the phrasing of "Chiropractic is viewed to be at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine", or "Chiropractic crosses the boundaries of mainstream and alternative medicine:"
WP:ASF states that "There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions.", and that "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion.".
This case very clearly expresses an opinion (how can it be a fact that a profession is at a crossroads?). However, other editors have stated that "It is an undisputed fact if no serious disagreement is presented."
The most recently proposed text phrases it as an opinion, yet does not attribute this opinion to anyone. Is this appropriate? If there is no dispute over an opinion (such as stealing is wrong), does it become an undisputed fact that does not need any attribution?
DigitalC ( talk) 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Eubulides ( talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is about a proposed wind farm project. Local resident Stuart Christopher Brown is a member of an opposition group and a new editor to Wikipedia. He has made several edits to the article which, in my opinion, lack WP:NPOV and verification. It appears Mr Brown is very genuine in his opposition to the project, and has some valid points. However, I don't think this is justification for relaxing Wikipedia guidelines. (Actually, I think he would present a more persuasive case and win more converts if Wikipedia guidelines were followed.) Any suggestions on how this can be tidied up? Thanks. Pakaraki ( talk) 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The article has been tagged as POV, and I have tried to remove what I feel were the most blatantly POV statements / paragraphs. However, a principal contributor keeps re-adding them. I would like to know if there is consensus in that these statements should be removed.
The case is one of the most serious miscarriages of justice that has occurred in Britain.
There are several things that I feel are wrong about this statement.
1. It's a declaration of fact, when there is no agreement on whether or not Evans is guilty or innocent, and thus a miscarriage of justice even occurred. 2. How do you quantify how serious a "miscarriage of justice" is? If the ultimate miscarriage of justice is the execution of an innocent person, then there are still hundreds of people (in Britain alone) that would no doubt have suffered an equal injustice. 3. Finally, assuming that miscarriage of justice was a quantifiable matter, "one of the most" places it on an arbitrarily long or short list, with no idea of it's absolute or approximate position to the top.
The case was one of the first major miscarriages of justice perpetrated by British Courts after the end of the second World War and was followed by many more, such as the cases of the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four, among numerous others. If the lessons of the Evans case had been heeded by the authorities, then many more injustices would have been prevented.
Again, there is the assertion that a miscarriage has definitely occurred. Also, "numerous" and "many" do not give any idea of quantity, so the significance of this crime as a miscarriage in relation to others is unknown. Assuming the "lessons" that the last sentence refers to are the alleged improper handling of evidence or poor police profiling, you cannot say that "many more" injustices would have been prevented, since no reference is give as to how many injustices have occurred due to improper forensic work, nor to injustices that have occurred when proper handling and investigation was conducted.
inclusivedisjunction ( talk) 08:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
For many, many months now, there has been something of a dispute/revert war over this page and issue is still ongoing. The Tasaday were a group 'discovered' in the Philippines in 1971, and were believed to be a previously uncontacted stone age tribe, but they were supposedly exposed as a hoax in 1986. The view that they were a hoax still dominates much reports, but many are apparently still disputing this, and thus the ongoing conflict, which has reduced in intensity but is still going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesFox ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Gibraltar tends to be a topic that stirs up a lot of heat. I've noticed a series of POV edits being added to Gibraltar articles:
Telephone numbers in Gibraltar, Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar
Sees to spilling out into WikiSource as it appears that one of the documents has been moved? See [1]
The comments on the user page, cause me some concern as they appear to indicate a desire to insert a Spanish POV see User:Ecemaml/Gibraltar. And the comments on Talk Pages seem to indicate that the temperature is rising again see Talk:History_of_Gibraltar and User talk:Asterion.
The topics are on my watchlist, I'd appreciate any advice on how to stop the dispute escalating between the parties. Justin talk 23:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. | ” |
UNINDENT
Added a link to this page on each of the named articles above. Justin talk 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be over. There has been no evidence shown that the wording on the existing article is either factually inaccurate or POV perhaps someone not directly involved in the dispute could remove the headers added by the Spanish editor. Since the Cordoba agreement, Spain recognises the Gibraltar IDD code like everyone else in the world, and is no longer involved in telephone numbering in Gibraltar -- Gibnews ( talk) 00:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
A stub, so I am inclined to be broad minded. But it is written like a speech or personal essay and I am concerned that the whole thing violates NPOV. Or maybe it is just parts that can be removed. I'd appreciate others' judgement, identifying NPOV problems and dealing with them. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I realize that a low importance article on a television series seems a little insignificant among such great topics as the Kosovan war, nevertheless there is a battle being fought on the above page regarding one user's (
Grakirby) addition of facts regarding recurring characters and recurring actors in different roles. It seems that one particular editor,
UpDown, is extremely unhappy and is repeatedly accusing the additions of containing POV and therefore being unacceptable. Hence my posting here. For the very very long and polemic discussion see the discussion page section TRIVIA (should you be brave enough).
I have referred this for a third person non-partisan view on the apposite WP page and the response was from 2 separate users to leave the additions in but this is not accepted as a consensus by the aggrieved party who is still deleting daily and tagging the page as having excessive intricate details. Thank you for your time.-- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was turned into a corporate PR piece. Various tendentious editors have been protecting it in that state for several years. Several of those accounts have now been blocked as sock puppets. Can we get some uninvolved editors to look at the article and help bring it into compliance with WP:NPOV? I suspect that more socks may appear and start edit warring. It will help considerably if uninvolved editors watchlist the article and check all edits. Jehochman Talk 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's really the title... There is an assertion of notability buried in the self-promotion, so I didn't think it appropriate for speedy. That title's got to go though... Arakunem Talk 15:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content.
The original version of this account
in 7 July 2006 was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008.
It was edited by myself to this
[7]
in October 2008 with the agreement of the original editor.
It has been changed repeatedly to this
[8]
by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:
The content added is highly POV, and editorializing.
There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues.
The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.
Your input would be welcomed.
Xyl 54 (
talk) 07:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Issues including NPOV. Peter jackson ( talk) 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In the article, I have re-edited the religion section, because I thought it was biased and only looks at the point of view of secularism or kemalism of the country, therefore I believe that section does not provide a neutral point of view for the readers on Wikipedia, because nothing is mentioned about the conservatism present in Turkey, for example the rise of Islamist-governments and the headscarf controversy - which is banned, but worn by many. I have then added this information about the culture clash between both of these ideologies, with reliable sources and is an important information which should be available in the article based on the impact of Religion in the country.
Furthermore, I have also added the Kemalist ideology to balance between both of these concepts. But in the article it is reverted by two users: User:Turkish Flame and User:Ayça Leovinus (<Part of the 37 Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shuppiluliuma), their reason mainly given: No Islamist ideology allowed on the article, and only favoring secular information, but I have provided two balanced information for the article section, so I believe these two users are reverting my edits due to based on their own ideologies, but not caring about how information is provided for Wikipedia users, and that is what I have done by editing the section, providing a neutral point of view, but however these users are trying to hide these facts and informations, which I think is not a valid reason to revert my edits. Please review this, Thank you!!! My neutral revision : [9] against this: [10]
Many biased reason's against my edit: There is no place for your islamist agenda in wikipedia..., I know that it tickles your Islamist nerves., The top paragraph entirely for religion, the bottom paragraph entirely for secularism., especially when you are the "dedicated Islamist" of Wikipedia?, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology, Mr. Bangladeshi Islamic fanatic in England, why don't you "get a life" and leave Turkey to the Turks - who definitely know their country much better than you do?, Enough - go see a doctor, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology - Note the word Islamist mentioned in these quotes by User:Ayça Leovinus.
My reason's for edits: I have shortened the section because: the section looks cluttered and unorganized; various info moved to subs; reducing article size (not removed secular), Balancing and adding information (ie Kemalism, political situation), fixing info, now clear according to NPOV, good edit (AGF, NPOV), My revision: shortened sentences, and transferred to related articles, adding few relevant political sit., reducing article size (previous cluttered and unorganized) now), re edited section, added more comprehensive populations of Christians and Jews, and fixed Kemalism, with sources, entry referenced, based on NPOV, balanced of view. Conservate and secular present, not only secular, this should not be hidden., NPOV version: providing info based on two sides of point of views, not only one, but two present in society. Secularism/Kemalism, Conservatism/Headscarf - Note no insults given to users, but giving suitable reasons for the edits.
Mohsin ( talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I have re-edited it again for a more neutral perspective: [11] Mohsin ( talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Semitransgenic ( talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
According to my analysis, the article lists 201 different source locations. Of these, 35 (not 93) are pages in Fox. However, it is true that some of these pages have multiple citations. Overall, the article has, according to my reckoning, 347 individual source citations. Of those, 98 are to Fox. So there would seem to be some potential justification in raising the question of undue weight. To check if this is borne out by the facts, let us look at what is actually cited to Fox, taking each citation in turn, from the beginning.
This covers the first 33 citations to Fox. As the article grew, I used Fox as a convenience cite for several reasons: Her book is short and contains the essential outline of Osho's life. Second, it is, unlike FitzGerald or Carter, strictly choronological, making it easy to find things. Third, having been written quite recently, it is one of the few books that covers all of Osho's life, from his birth to his death. Fourth, along with FitzGerald, Fox was one of the first sources I bought for working on this article.
There is nothing cited to Fox in the above that could not just as easily be cited to Carter, FitzGerald, Joshi, or Gordon.
CESNUR is an organisation of mainstream scholars of religion. According to this Oxford University Press publication, CESNUR is a recommended source of objective information on new religious movements. The same publication also mentions that Massimo Introvigne lectures at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome.
"Judith Fox (= Judith Thompson, = Judith Coney) holds a doctorate in the sociology of religion from the London School of Economics, University of London. For more than twenty years, she has researched new religions, culminating in such books as The Way of the Heart: A Study of Rajneeshism and Sahaja Yoga. She edits a series on new religions from Curzon Press." [12] Jayen 466 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I honestly can't see what you're getting at, Semitransgenic. As far as I can see from a quick survey, Judith Fox has a degree in Religious Studies and Anthropology, an M.Sc., a doctorate in the Sociology of Religion, she taught at London University's Study of Religions Department, previously produced a book on the subject of this article (as yet unreferenced here) with Paul Heelas, (The Way of the Heart: The Rajneesh Movement, mentioned e.g. here in [ Aveling), she contributed a paper entitled Recent changes in Rajneeshism to the Journal of Contemporary Religion, and contributed a chapter covering Osho to this 2000 State University of New York Press publication. We cite few, if any, authors in this article who have a longer track record of researching Osho than Fox has. And the cites above, like the number of his siblings, the ashram earning money with therapy groups, some of his disciples engaging in drug running and prostitution, Osho giving morning discourses, Osho talking about AIDS, etc., are not Fox's views, but facts reported by her, and by many other authors. I'll grant you that much of the teaching section is sourced to Fox, but that is because she gives the most complete and best-structured overview. Jayen 466 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there something that prevents the use of alternate sources to provide greater diversity in references cited for the reader? I appreciate that certain sources will simply be easier to use and somewhat valuable as a reference because they provide a clear overview of a subject. However, we should avoid being overly reliant on a single source, especially in such a potentially contentious article. It can lead to claims of bias and undue weight, which are often legitimate concerns. If the material can be cited to a wider variety sources, diversifying the citations a bit will be of benefit to the article and the editing climate. Vassyana ( talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
He seems to have undertaken a very biased re-editing of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Right-wing_politics&diff=prev&oldid=241469606
could someone take a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.61 ( talk) 09:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The article on the organization Population Connection is little more than an advertisement by the organization (it even tells readers at the end "You can learn more about Population Connection on the website...". It is desperately in need of cleaning up, because right now it is not NPOV. 76.173.189.236 ( talk) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Some anonymous ip has continued a NPOV issue at this article, that I though had cleared already. Within the right wing/neopagan underground apparently some people are of the opinion that the subject of the article is a 'writer', whereas, according to the few reliable sources, such a description would not be appropriate. It goes back to a discussion from August 2007 [13], when someone was of the opinion that Varg Vikernes was not only a musician, but also a writer, composer and an atheist; and consequently I had to explain that someone who considers 'Jesus to be an Aryan' can hardly be described as an atheist. I only did not get through with explaining, that, according to the reliable sources, Vikernes just does not qualify as a writer. Two months ago an anonymous ip had already vandalised my user talk page with a racist comment in relation to this issue ( see this diff). Zara1709 ( talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
first of all, where on the history of edits [17] do you find me vandalizing anyone's page? this is a college library computer, I don't know, nor care, what others have done on wikipedia with the computers here. second, I have enough info to call him a writer and list his writings (something that zara has also vandalized). Thrid (and this is off subject) I believe that a man named Jesus existed, does that mean I'm not an atheist. No, I don't believe in god(s) and neither does he [18], so technically he is a athiest... it does seem a little weird that zara keeps bringing up points that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's guide lines or whether or not he is a writer. I'm not a vandal (neither in the internet sense nor am I a member of any eastern germanic race). I just want the info to be complete. I don't care if she removes the part that has Occuption(s): Writer. I'll even remove it if it helps. But he has written these books, their are on more than racism and neopaganism, and listing these writings are solely to give the full info, nothing more. Now I think I'll just sit and wait for the proof that I have ever vandalized anyone's page. 172.163.184.165 ( talk) 05:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, this is what I wanted. Zara has kept my constructive edits and changed the wording from "wrote several pamphlets" to "authored several writings", I agree that mythology mentioned is covered (at least in Varg's case) with "neopaganism" and I thank Zara for keeping the edits we could reach an agreement on. As far as the things you mention. His writings do seem to be that of an atheist (a religious one albeit) but the sources are... well, inconclusive, more info will surface after he has served his time. As for composer, I've always defined a composer as someone who writes in musical notation for publication, which I have no reason to think Varg is such. So with that I thank zara and apologize for the warring. Next time I'll discuss the problem first, once again I'm sorry. As far ass the ip check, the computers in this school are unable to go to several sites (or download from some) due to everyone acting like idiots (we have several neonazis and neopagans, me not incuded, I'm not even a fan of his writings, I'm just fascinated by extremist) (I can't download "home of the underdog" because of this) so If someone did say that about your mother I stand by that it wasn't me. I will take everyone's advice and create an account the next time I decide to edit. I consider the problem resolved, once again sorry for my newbie-ness, and thank you for compromising zara, I would like to make one statement about wikipedia, their needs to be guidelines on what an occupation is define as far as wikipedia is concerned, or maybe I just didn't see it. well, goodbye everybody. 172.164.211.91 ( talk) 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The specific section with NPOV problems is "Trials for fossil fuel chiefs". Briefly, Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for " high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming. I added a reply from a Peabody Coal spokesman, that if everyone who disagreed with Hansen were jailed, "the jails would be very, very big." , citing "Big Coal Fires Back Over James Hansen’s Criminal Complaint" at the New York Times.
The ensuing discussions (and edit war) are documented at Talk:James Hansen#7.4 Trials for fossil fuel chiefs. Briefly, three editors object to including the Peabody Coal reply, on grounds of WP:WEIGHT. Three editors support the addition (or something similar) on grounds of WP:NPOV. No consensus emerged, nor does one seem likely. Hence an outside review is requested.
Hansen is a controversial figure, and his WP biography has been very contentious in the past, so an overall review of the article's compliance with NPOV would also be helpful. Thank you, Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see current spiteful dispute I am having with Semitransgenic at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and at the Noise music page. See talk pages at both. Thank you Valueyou ( talk) 16:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Distortion of facts.
Wknight94 conclusion following 'checkuser' was (clerk) Abandoned account blocked but current one is not per lack of
WP:SOCK abuse. One account was switched for another).
Semitransgenic (
talk) 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This case might be RfC material, but the situation seems straight forward enough to most of us that I'd like to try this route first. Israelites had a healthy(ish) NPOV discussion going on over the summer and early fall (pertaining to whether or not the article contained too many religious sources as references) and was moving towards a more neutral tone (based on genetics and archeology). Last week a new editor appeared and began making the article entirely slanted towards what seems to be an Orthadox Jewish position, using Genesis and other religious texts as references for genetic heiritage, and ignoring previous and current discussions along these very lines. Could someone please have a look and see if they can help steer the conversation in a more productive direction (though just be forwarned the editor has a history of doing this). Thanks in advance. NJGW ( talk) 17:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is little more than uncited conjecture and in no way meets Wikipedia standards:
[ [20]]
I've also posted a comment on the article's Talk page.
Simon
Glasgow
Wikiweesimon ( talk) 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The Tommy Tutone page features the following passage in the introduction:
Although they are frequently remembered as a "one-hit wonder", they actually had another top 40 hit on the Hot 100 with "Angel Say No" in 1980, predating "Jenny" by a couple of years.
This kind of statement occurs in many pages which discuss alleged one-hit wonders. It seems to be written from the point of view of a fan who wishes to defend their favourite band from being labelled as a one-hit wonder. One problem is that "one-hit wonder" is not clearly defined, which allows it to be used when writing from either point of view. The fact that "Angel Say No" reached Number 38 would not prevent me from thinking of Tommy Tutone as a one-hit wonder, but others would argue that two top-40 songs does preclude that status.
A separate issue is that the assertion that a band is a one-hit wonder usually involves weasel words, as is the case in the extract shown above. I suggest that "one-hit wonder" is a subjective term that is difficult to define and interpret. As something which invites POV, I propose that claims and counter-claims as to one-hit wonder status should be avoided in articles about bands and musical artists, and their songs.
I am not in dispute with anybody over this. The reason I am posting is that I have seen statements like the one above on many Wikipedia pages. I would like to receive some expert opinions before editing them. Thank you, Labalius ( talk) 20:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I went to this article to add a recent interview quote that I felt was relevant, and I saw a tag questioning the POV of this article. I went to the talk page as diercted and saw no explantation of why the NPOV is disputed. Can someone answer why and remove the tag if it is unjustified? Ilostmyshoeinthewasher ( talk) 01:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This Iran based international TV chain has a holocaust denial article on its official website and was criticised for this by the Jerusalem Post, an opinion piece in the Jewish Chronicle, and numerous blogs. Two new SPAs tried to put this and additional information into the article, somewhat excessively and with improper synthesis, before they were temporarily blocked as sockpuppets of each other. (See WP:AN#Synthesis, editorializing, and abuse of primary sources.) Should the fact be mentioned in at least one short sentence, with proper framing, or is that impossible because the Jerusalem Post, being "Zionist", is a "questionable source"? The discussion at Talk:Press TV#Synthesis, editorializing, and abuse of primary sources seems to have stalled. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 07:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The situation is a bit more complex than that. In fact, three newly-created single-purpose accounts ( 1, 2, 3) over the past few days have been attempting to insert (e.g. 1, 2, 3) the same rather lengthy bit of original research into the Press TV article. Besides myself, two other editors ( 1, 2) as well as an administrator have also taken notice of this. In addition, one of the single-purpose accounts has been blocked for evading WP:3RR through the creation of multiple accounts. I and others have fully analyzed, explained and discussed the situation over at the Press TV article's talk page. To all reading parties, please refer to that discussion page for the specifics. Causteau ( talk) 10:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a point of principle here: Causteau has suggested that a newspaper which supports Zionism is a "questionable source" and cannot be cited. This does not seem right to me, but I'm not sure which is the correct forum - I see Hans has raised it here, and I've raised it at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability (but happy for an admin to move it here if that is more appropriate). LeContexte ( talk) 22:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
There are a large number of entries related to Indian guru Meher Baba, several of which do not conform with NPOV guidelines, especially with regard to sources. Nearly all of the sources are works by Meher Baba devotees and/or Meher Baba newsletters, website, and the like. I added a notablity tag to the most obviously problematic entries (not to the main Meher Baba entry), having tried unsuccessfully to find neutral source material. However, this tag was removed without change to the entries. If appropriate neutral source material cannot be found, then I suggest that these entries be deleted or merged - in some cases perhaps in a new entry or in some cases with other Meher Baba pages. I'm not very technically minded but I suspect that aside from the issue of sources, having them merged with more major topics would draw more readers to their content anyway. The pages concerned and the discussion that followed can be found on my talk page, with additional discussion on the main Meher Baba discussion page (another editor objected to having it there but I wanted to alert others with an interest in the topic that it was going on). I am now restoring the "notability" tag so that other editors are alerted to the sourcing problems and discussion. Hope this is the right page to turn to. -- Editwondergirl ( talk) 01:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Myself and a few other editors have agreed to allow Naturstud to edit the article Medical degree to include his degree with the only exception that he also equally include ALL other "complementary and alternative medicine" professional degrees, diplomas, and certificates equally as per Wiki (NPOV) policy. He refuses and has continued to push and promote his profession on wikipedia at the expense of others.
Could we please have some assistance cleaning up or rewriting this article to better comply with NPOV policy?
Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 ( talk) 04:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering if I could get some feedback on this article - does the Controversies section seem like undue weight? I don't know anything about this article although I've been working on it in the past and had it watchlisted for a while.
I think it has a bit of undue weight and want to streamline it somehow. x42bn6 Talk Mess 08:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
On List_of_Keith_Olbermann's_special_comments, one editor is changing several descriptions of excerpts from the Countdown with Keith Olbermann television show. Examples:
Keith Olbermann criticizes John McCain for not speaking out against statements made by Sarah Palin, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and McCain spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer for their use of the phrases "real America" and "real Virginia" in public statements and Rush Limbaugh's assertion that Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama solely because of race.
becomes
Keith Olbermann lists examples of hateful, divisive politics from the right that actually do more to undermine America than the bogus accusations of anti-Americanism being leveled against Barack Obama.
and
In light of recent attacks on the Obama campaign, Olbermann focuses upon Sarah Palin's connections to controversial figures.
becomes
Keith Olbermann points out in a Special Comment that while John McCain might want to use Sarah Palin to hit Barack Obama below the belt and accuse him of terrorist associations, he overlooked the unfortunate fact that "pallin' around with terrorists" is one area where Palin has more experience.
He argues that NPOV is not a concern here, that the original text is original research and his revisions reflect what the primary source is saying. Thoughts?
Switzpaw ( talk) 17:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This is just libel. No source, nothing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 ( talk) 03:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China could use some attention from people who actually know what the situation there involves. One user User:Ohconfucius is raising a herd of objections, claiming that any reports that support the allegations are biased, and calling WP:COATRACK on mention of a study supporting the allegations. This user, for all I know about the goings-on in China, could very well have a valid point; however, since I'm not equipped to make that call myself, and since User:Ohconfucius seems to be a lone voice in his/her contentions, I'd appreciate it if someone with actual KNOWLEDGE of the issues here take a look and see whether the article and its sources are in line with WP:NPOV. Thanks in advance! Gladys J Cortez 10:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Anthony Pollina is a current gubernatorial candidate in the state of Vermont, US. A new user with only one prior edit added a large amount of content to Pollina's page, most of which was copied directly off of the candidate's website (see [24] and [25] for examples). I reverted this, as a blatant violation of NPOV, and warned the user. Another new user has reverted the page back to the version that violated NPOV, including reverting several of my edits since. I have re-reverted, but I wanted to alert others about this issue since I don't want to become involved in an edit war. If users continue to use this article as a political advertisement, what should I do? Should I request the article be protected? Contact the campaign and ask them to stop? Any help watching this page, or input on how I should best protect it, would be appreciated. Thanks! — λ ( talk) 03:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda- Me and another user have raised some pov issues at article talk page. I feel this article desperately in need of cleaning up (see talk). Additionally, I feel the section "Murder" looks like a news report per WP:NOT. When I removed those contents, another pov editor undid my edits. Please have a look at this and resolve the issue. -- Googlean Results 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
In the Yamashita's gold article this sentence is added by an anonymous (ip editor)
On February 28, 2000, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold [ reference 1 here] and awarded approximately $13 million. [ reference 2 here]
Reference 2 makes no mention of the events that took place in Reference 1. Is this neutral? Jim ( talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ongoing NPOV issues with Jack Ross (writer), which may be part autobiography.
The article has improved since it was created but it still doesn't read like a wikipedia article to me. It does not seem balanced. Am I being too critical? What is the best approach to this kind of problem?
Is there a polite way of suggesting to users that autobiography is a bad idea? I noticed that another user has been encouraging the creator of the article to improve it. Bonfire of vanities ( talk) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If you look here you see Wyher essentially replaced the evolution page with scripture from Genisis. This is severe vandalism and may even be indicitive of good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry going on.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The Steve Munsey article appears to contain information verbatim from the official stevemunsey.com website, and the remainder of the article almost sounds like it's being written by a faithful parishioner of Munsey.
The article contains absolutely no criticisms of any kind, and even comments on his "trendy creative edge."
The article is 100% praise with no balance at all.
Read below @: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Munsey Jonpaulusa ( talk) 00:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this article considered by any way a violation of the NPOV rules? I have recently translated this article to the Hebrew Wikipedia and some folks over there say that it is since there is no real criterion for that list... ("a selective list of movie titles mostly from Hollywood which only the authors of the article think are notable"). Any ideas you might have which could help convincing them that it doesn't violate NPOV rules (such as an Inclusion criteria for this article or any film list article) would be greatly appreciated.
Please tell me what the film lists inclusion criteria are. 24.12.234.123 ( talk) 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
there is an inordinate number of photographs depicting bound females in comparison to those of bound males —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icevixen17 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I added some information in the Names of God in Judaism article, under Tetragrammaton in the relevant section about Bibles. I found that although the context was about YHWH, and Yahweh, Bibles about Jehovah were being discussed. I decided to add perhaps one of the most well-read, known Bible in the sacred Name Movement, the SSBE, Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition which uses the Name Yahweh both in the Old Testament and New, and it is removed [26] [27] [28].
Would someone please help to get across a clearly acceptable source in to this section of the article. Jehovah Witnesses are entitled to have their say, but not to the point of UNDUE weight: [ [31]]
Discuss: Skywriter.
Kiddish.K ( talk) 18:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I've had a look on the web and found a few interesting sites:
The article about Trianon is clearly onesided (!!!), focus at lost a lot of territorry and people, but Austria-Hungary 1916 and Hungary 1921 were two absolute different countries, Hungary is not successor, not heritage, de jure and in reality it is a complete new startup. And Trianon is still in force and valid. In article abot Saint Germain is this balancing act successful, this article it is a clear falsification of history and the trample at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please give your position after comparing with Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) and another article. -- Nina.Charousek ( talk) 17:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you too realize that is a weak "explanation". Squash Racket ( talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
What is your problem with that? Hungary is a successor of
Austria-Hungary - that is true. Two states, Austria and Hungary lived in a
dual monarchy for a few decades after the
Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. Then at the end of WWI (
1918) this was over.
I don't see how on Earth that would "violate" the Treaty of Trianon of
1920.
Squash Racket (
talk) 19:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Ich habe überhaupt keine Lust mich zu wiederholen,aber leider muss ich es tun, ich sehe dass sie gut deutsch sprechen, also nochmal Text des Vertrages: in Anbetracht, daß die ehemalige Österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie heute aufgehört hat zu existieren und daß an ihre Stelle in Ungarn eine ungarische Nationalregierung getreten ist - und dann die Bestimming der Grenzen, also Der Friedensvertrag von Trianon hat Oesterreich-Ungarn aufgeloest und für Ungarn neue Grenzen bestimmt, sprich es gibt keien Kontinuität zwischen Oesterreich-Ungarn 1916 und Ungarn 1920, es ist eine komplette Neugründung. --
Nina.Charousek (
talk) 20:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Due to disagreements over theology and social issues, two dioceses in Episcopal Church (United States) have decided to change their allegiance to other "provinces" or hierarchies. In both cases, some churches decided to stay within the U.S. hierarchy, effectively splitting the dioceses. The problem we have is that now we have articles on both sets of dioceses that are POV forks:
The problem is worse for Pittsburgh, where the articles(s) include a long history dating back to 1755. Both dioceses now claim to be the "true" dioceses, and so both claim the history, etc. One suggested solution is to have one article on the pre-schism dioceses and one each on the new bodies. Any other ideas? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really certain if I am posting this in the right place, but the article "Conservative Christian" is being used by user N0nr3s to put forth his opinion of Catholic Teaching (on Biblical inerrancy) rather than the Catholic Church's stated position. The page has been subject to repeated edits and undos. Catholic monarchist ( talk) 09:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Heyo. We could use some more eyes over at American Family Association. The article is included in some questionable categories and editors are warring over whether to include some user-generated content about the organization as a "reliable source". I've been watching this page for awhile and really don’t have the energy to push back that the moment. Cheers, HiDrNick! 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems like many of the previous authors of the Cinema Rex fire article wrote it in the point of view that Islamic fundamentalists started the fire. In many reports I read the Iranian public believed, and believes that the Shah did it. We should review the POV and sourcing of this article. WhisperToMe ( talk) 13:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This article was written from a modern American conservative point of view, presents history in a way that is not generally accepted by scholars, and has attracted numerous edits and comments. I have described how this article could be re-written. In the meantime, could the article be labelled POV? The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the question of notability, this article is written in a way that does not conform to Wikipedia's neutrality standards. The author's biases emerge loud and clear. It also reads like promotional literature in places. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Christian_School —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbaline69 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
For some time now, these articles have been passionately defended by libertarian editors trying to make right-wing/conservative = free markets and limited government and deleting any other aspect posted. Bobisbob2 ( talk) 20:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure this is the best board to ask for input but ... does anyone see Template:BBL sidebar as being a bit POV-ish? The "BBL Controversy" also known as the "Autogynephilia Controversy" is an ongoing and heated line of discussion in the transgender community. We might have a content fork here as well. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
see Talk:Six-Day War#Section Break This Dispute is over Censorship and Talk:Six-Day War#"Disputed", Israel's refusal to host UNEF
A dispute has arisen over a series of deletions of material from scholarly WP:V secondary sources, i.e. The Making of Resolution 242, by Sydney Dawson Bailey; International History of the Twentieth Century, by Anthony Best; Peacekeeping Fiascoes, by Frederick H. Fleitz; The Evolution of UN Peacekeeping, By William Durch; and The UN Yearbook (a reference work published by the United Nations Information Service. Those secondary sources also happen to be supported by a published primary source document -UN Secretary General U Thant's report on the situation in the Middle East. One of the editors has selectively picked WP:V sources which support his master narrative, and is acting as a gatekeeper to exclude any other published views. I appears to be a violation WP:NPOV policy.
After a lengthy discussion on the talk page these well-sourced quotations from WP:V secondary sources were added, but they were immediately deleted by the same editor:
After the war Yitzhak Rabin, who had served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." Menachem Begin stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." [61] both men quoted in One Land, Two Peoples: The Conflict Over Palestine, By Deborah J. Gerner PhD, Westview Press, 1994, ISBN 0813321808, Page 112
Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli." Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, claimed the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war... ..."When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today." [62] both men were quoted in "Was the War Necessary?", Time Magazine. Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal (Israeli military)[63] quoted from 'The Terrorist Conjunction: The United States, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by Alfred G. Gerteiny, and Jean Ziegler, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, ISBN 0275996433, page 142 harlan ( talk) 16:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A new account, Humormekill ( talk · contribs), has been adding some "See Also" stuff, in bad English, that is surely intended to push some sort of point: a couple of sentences like "North Kosovo 1420km2 with Stprce area and Titova Mitrovica, its 13% of Kosovo under Serbian Beograd control!" I reverted once but he put it back. Since I'm not really up on Balkans issues, I should probably let somebody else take charge of this. looie496 ( talk) 06:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Grossmont Union High School District article had edits made after the recent election [ [35]][ [36]][ [37]][ [38]][ [39]] may contain possible problems. Some of them I reverted, but they were placed back. After a brief discussion, I decided to allow him to keep the information for now, as long as he cleaned it up a bit, but I made it clear that I was still not in favor of the information and would seek an outside opinion. Could someone take a look and explain it to the other editor or if I am wrong, explain it to me. The more editors that we get in on this the better. The page has been changing so much in the past two weeks, I can't even keep up.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 02:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_College
Most of this article was clearly written from the perspective of a student or employee trying to further this school's agenda. I attended this school, so I clearly do not have an "objective" opinion. However, the article is not at all written in an objective way, particularly in the sections entitled, "Degree Programs", "Student Housing and Activities", "Houses" and "Criticism and Response".
I find the article entirely misleading, particularly concerning the fact that the school is only made up of several hundred students and the programs are small and limited. This article makes the programs sound enticing and full of opportunity. I suppose all I have to say is that I experienced the exact opposite in my year at this college. Perhaps I am not able to express myself very well due to my bias, however, I feel the article is rather biased and misleading if you look over it carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgill lass ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please check this page and the talk page. It's about the infobox, where user:fowler&fowler regularly reverts the WP:NPOV version. -- Kalarimaster ( talk) 09:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
ETA is a group that advocates violence, kidnapping and murder by their own publications of the group (zutabes) they have acknowledge killing 821 people so far. A group of editors continuously edit the first paragraph, if the word violence, or similar is used. ETA printed zutabes are illegal and it is difficult to find the full versions in the web to reference as the police decides what or not to release, but many had posted enough references from mayor newspapers quoting them. It has been thoroughly discussed and I find important that the description includes what characterize this group from any other separatist group= they advocate and execute kidnappings, murders, and bombings to promote the independence of a part in the north of spain. thanks in advance lolailando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolailando ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing dispute on this discussion page and in archive about Obama as President-elect.
There seems to be a serious neutrality issue here. Obama is certainly referred to, incorrectly, as "President-Elect" by verifiable sources. The problem is that said sources are incorrect, so continuing to refer to him in this way undermines the constitutional process and perpetuates ignorance about the way the President of the United States is elected to the office.
I quite from the dispute resolution guide:
"In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias."
Referring to Obama as the President-Elect prior to the electoral college meeting and voting, which is not bound by the popular vote in most states, is both factually incorrect and lacking in neutrality. It is irrelevant that the counterexample to this has never occurred because it is still theoretically and legally possible for it to happen.
This case would be different if the electoral college had voted, but the votes not yet ratified by the Congress, but most legal scholars agree that once the votes are cast, Obama would become the President-elect.
Perpetuating truth rather than biased opinion is much more important than verifiability in this case. I would like to open this dispute for further discussion. Downzero ( talk) 10:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. What I am arguing for is that neutrality is both required by the policies of wikipedia and just as important as variability. We are not in the business of perpetuating ignorance, making subjective value judgments on semantics, or democratically silencing the truth through bias. This discussion is as valid now as it was when it was first had on that talk page. Barack Obama is not the President-Elect and will not be so until the electors meet and vote him into that position. This is empirical and constitutional.
The only counterexample is a 1963 law that refers to the person who has been projected to win the necessary electoral votes ONLY for the purpose of acquiring federal funding for his or her office and adds nothing to the pragmatic or legal debates surrounding the use of this term. Downzero ( talk) 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The constitution of the United States IS a verifiable source, as well as relevant case law on the subject. The purpose of arbitrating this issue is that "consensus" is a dynamic and evolving issue, and absent the necessarily legal reasoning, the pragmatic use of the term in the media is irrelevant. This must be considered in arbitrating this on the basis of a neutral point of view, which would find relevant case law binding as to how the term is used in an encyclopedia. That is why this dispute must be resolved. Downzero ( talk) 10:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that Rahm Emanuel has not resigned from the House of Representatives, despite being the proposed Chief of Staff nominee for future-President Barack Obama. If Zsero had no leg to stand on, Congressman Emanuel would be out of a job. You have trolled this page and the talk page for Obama continually, claiming that no neutrality exists despite evidence to the contrary. Downzero ( talk) 11:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That is meaningless to this dispute, and the point you expressed is not entirely factual but not worthy of discussion when there are more pressing issues here. Downzero ( talk) 11:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, of course there's no neutrality issue, as long as your viewpoint is represented. That's all you really care about, anyway, not the legal reasoning of scholars surrounding the issue. Downzero ( talk) 12:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The electoral college has defied the popular vote before. Downzero's correct, as far as the facts go. That Obama IS the president-elect, though, is a lock, unless Clarence Thomas can convince 3 of his fellows that make the citizenship case a part of their docket, then to hear it immediately, then to vote his way. That chance is minuscule, but tangible. As such, I'm with Downzero. The factuality trumps a consensus based on media presentations. Let's be accurate and factual, if not as gung=ho as the media. Remember, we don't have to sell commercials here. ThuranX ( talk) 12:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The Constitution defines the office of the President and how he or she must be "elected." Obama has NOT been elected and thus there is a serious flaw in your use of the term "President-elect" to refer to him. It is undisputed that he WILL be elected. The factual question is whether is HAS been elected, and the constitutional answer is NO.
The electoral college has overridden the popular vote at least five times, the most recent in the 2000 election. The popular vote is a meaningless statistic because it has nothing to do with who gains the necessary electoral votes to be elected to the office. That is the entire point of this discussion--the United States is not a direct democracy.
An encyclopedia is not a dictionary of "common usage." An incorrectly used and defined term in common speech has no place in an encyclopedia, which should be defined by fact and reason. If you want to put a footnote in the article to explain to the user why and how the President-elect comes about, I don't think anyone would argue with you, but to continue to assert that a man who has not been elected to the office is the "President-elect" of the United States is factually and legally incorrect. On December 15, 2008, this will change, and Obama WILL become the President-elect, but there are few laws binding electors and any presumption that Obama will aquire those votes is speculation. I can't understand why any encyclopedia would contradict its own President-elect article and engage in speculation to make a point which adds nothing to the man's page and only serves to perpetuate ignorance about the electoral process and push the individual agendas, however incorrect, of people who do not respect the policy of neutral point of view.. Downzero ( talk) 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Per wikipedia policy, articles must express a neutral point of view. You are expressing an opinion that is contradicted by other articles on the encyclopedia and the Constitution of the United States. The media cannot and never will be the final arbiter of issues which need a legal resolution. Relevant case law and documentation counters your point.
You are attempting to push your opinion as mainstream consensus when there are clear and verifiable sources to the contrary. You have made your facts fit your position rather than interpret relevant information and draw a reasonable conclusion. You have also trolled every page that I have posted this on an parroted your scare tactics because you are an experienced editor. Downzero ( talk) 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There isn't a cold thing's chance in a very warm place that this will go anywhere productive. This should be archived with prejudice. -- Good Damon 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This certainly is a POV question, giving a status that is not warranted or deserving to a political figure for the purpose of perpetuating ignorance instead of reality. As long as this continues, where you deny the facts regarding our electoral process and continue to assert that you have met the standard of verifiability, but yet continue to assert a false point unsupported by legal sources.
Obama's presidency is equally uninteresting to me as it is to the Brit or Canadian to continues to contest my point. Dismissing my neutrality concern jeopardizes the integrity of the encyclopedia for the purpose of making a political point unsupported by empirical evidence.
Until Obama is "elected," asserting that he is the President-Elect serves no purpose and is factually incorrect. The Constitution of the United States is the legally binding document which explains the election process in Article III.
This is not orignal research, but citation from a primary source, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
and, "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Obama has not been constitutionally elected. Recognizing this, he is NOT the "President-elect" until that happens. If the votes had been cast and not counted, we'd be having a different discussion and I wouldn't waste time with that one. But, clearly, Obama has not YET met the constitutional requirement for election to the office of President of the United States, and the continued referral to him as President elect is logically and factually wrong. Downzero ( talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
1. The quoted law defines the individual for a particular and limited purpose. It obviously does not and cannot define an election differently than that of the U.S. Constitution, which trumps any public law on the matter. 2. You and others have continued to stipulate this nonsense regarding consensus. Consensus is dynamic and evolving in light of new evidence, and your position is supported only by the news media. 3. Article III clearly identifies what it takes to become elected, anyone with a lick of common sense can deduce that you cannot be the "President-Elect" without first being elected. This is scheduled to happen on the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December, aka, December 15, 2008. Debate exists among legal scholars as to whether or not Obama will become the President-Elect at that point because Congress has not yet certified the results, but I would concede that once he is "elected" by the votes, he is and will be the "President-Elect."
Instead of having a discussion on the legal findings of fact, you keep parroting the same information repeatedly. Lacking any evidience to support the position that Obama has been "elected" at all, you continue to make accusations about myself personally because you cannot deny the findings of fact.
The only disruption is the perpetuation of ignorance by a bunch of parrots who will publish whatever the news media tells them to publish, destroying any accuracy and validity that this encyclopedia once had, all to make a political stance that in the end is still false. You have violated wikipedia policies, refused to discuss this despite the concerns of several users, and now you're trying to make me into the scapegoat of your political banter.
The original debate had on this topic on the forums' talk page, now back several dozen pages in archive, was to add a footnote explaining this to the users. Even this was overruled by this nonsensical banter of democracy regarding verifiable sources publishing this information.
I will not stand for it. Everyone has a voice in this medium. Yours happens to be wrong. I respect your right to hold an incorrect opinion based on deductive reasoning. Downzero ( talk) 00:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yours reminds me of a man arguing about abortion. You are not an American and yet you're arguing about something that you cannot change or affect, because the outcome is outside of the scope of your life. Downzero ( talk) 01:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Pointless indeed: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/25/despite-bells-whistles-office-president-elect-holds-authority/ Downzero ( talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This article, about a preacher notable mainly for having written a bestselling Christian Diet book, has gone wildly astray, chiefly as a result of editing by Derekwikipedian ( talk · contribs) (currently editing as D wikipedian ( talk · contribs), but it isn't socking because the older account has not edited recently). The section Josef Smith Case and Shamblin on Child Discipline is particularly bad. I can tell from the history that trying to fix this would simply cause an edit war, so I bring it here. looie496 ( talk) 21:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
A small fringe group seems to have taken over the English Qabalah page. They want only their literature or books mentioned and are removing any additions by other contributors. They have also hijacked the page so that it is redirected to the "English Qaballa" versus "English Qabalah" in further attempts to monopolize the subject--English Qaballa being admittedly a book by one of their "gurus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.206.226 ( talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really certain if I am posting this in the right place, but the article Conservative Christianity is being used by user N0nr3s to put forth his opinion of Catholic Teaching (on Biblical inerrancy) rather than the Catholic Church's stated position. The page has been subject to repeated edits and undos. Catholic monarchist ( talk) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The term is ambiguous and there is no evidence that it clearly identifies any group of people or set of beliefs, it overlaps with other identified groups, and there are no references to prove otherwise. Compare this with the article on Conservative Judaism, which is well-understood and refers to a specific group of people. This article should be deleted. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Any interest in actually addressing my concern? Catholic monarchist ( talk) 23:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a similar message to Ssolbergj (in Wikimedia Common) who created these retarded maps. I hope you guys here can back me. It's a clear bias and I don't think that being bias is a policy of Wikipedia. It is high time things are straightened out.
Dear Ssolbergj, your map of China colors Arunachal Pradesh in light green which implies it is somehow rather a part of China although under Indian administration and claimed as an integral part of India. I agree this is a disputed region by both countries. In that case why doesn't the India map have Aksai Chin (a Chinese administered region claimed by India) be colored light green on the India map? Why double standards apply for Aksai and Arunachal although they are both disputed?
Same goes with Pakistan occupied kashmir. Shouldn't those areas be indicated in light green too? Please maintain neutrality as prescribed under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I look forward to you recoloring those maps with a NPOV in mind and not China slanted views. Thank you.
If they don't want to change it, I suggest we change the map of India to its old form (2d one) as it is more accurate.
I look forward to all your replies / opinions / assistance as I am not an established user on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.245.138 ( talk)
I did contact Ssolbergj earlier, for another issue on the Wikipedia logo. His responses unfortunately are usually delayed, or he does not respond at all. When drawing up my NPOV map of India ( Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg – now a featured picture), I thought about the best possible method of depicting disputed areas would be to have varying levels of transparency. In addition we also have dotted borders where the disputed territory exists. See the map page for a description. This set up should be replicated across all such maps. When I met Jimbo, I raised the issue about maps of India and he agreed that NPOV maps are necessary on Wikipedia. So I then went ahead and created the {{ POV-map}} template to tag all such maps. Now, unfortunately for us, wikimedia commons allows POV maps (See Commons:Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, so editors there place less of an emphasis on producing NPOV works. The best way to go about it by petitioning the author to modify the image. If 10 people keep pinging him, sooner or later he will have to yield (Note: it's not necessarily directed to Ssolbergj)
Nevermind Jayan sir, you don't need to call yourself a idiot. everyone makes mistakes. but million thanks for letting Nichap bhai know; now he has fixed things in a NPOV manner. Somebody said that Common allows POV maps so this is our POV and it should be allowed too just like how the Chinese POV is allowed. Thanks again to the both of you!!! 218.111.30.197 ( talk) 11:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
OK now this current one looks fine ( [43]). At least SHIBO is a better person than Ssolbergj who is actually reading this message but pretending deaf. Good job SHIBO. I have to praise her, although she is a Chinese she is fair and square and acting in the interest of everyone not acting bias.
Everyone please note I am not demanding in any way for Pakistan occupied kashmir and China occupied kashmir to be colored in light green, all i am asking for is consistancy, because Arunachal and Taiwan is marked in light green in China's map. Now it is consistant, thanks to SHIBO. Again well done to her. The new map on the India page looks good. And to Jayan, thanks for your coorperation and bringing this to her attention. 218.208.204.181 ( talk) 18:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
OK sounds good. Thank you for resolving the issue! 11:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.29.171 ( talk)
I'm concerned that this article reads like a piece of sales literature. On checking the history section a number of the editors names appear to be that of the company or its products. I beleive this article chould be removed as it is not from a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.17.141 ( talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate wider community input on the above article, notably the sections on (1) the Jason Scott case and (2) the Branch Davidians.
The article subject, Mr Ross, as well as editors Cirt ( talk · contribs) and Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs), feel that these sections are too unkind to Mr Ross:
The article shouldn't be a hatchet job, but on the other hand, such notable criticism as there has been should be fairly represented. The Jason Scott case was a landmark case that set an important legal precedent (it ended the North American practice of forcibly abducting adult "cult" members in order to change their beliefs).
Also, I feel unduly pressurised by the subject, Mr Ross, on the talk page; for example to portray events in a light flattering to him, based solely on his own assertions made on the talk page, when this flattering interpretation of events is flatly contradicted by a statement reported in a reliable source – which Mr Ross says is "of little value here".
As I see it, the article has for many years suffered from the inclusion of many statements that were either unsourced, or sourced to Mr Ross's writings on his website, thus failing to reflect significant published views on this subject in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Here, for reference, is an old version of the article, which Mr Ross prefers – it has multiple clear violations of Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. I was also concerned to find that around a quarter of all edits that the article had received over the past five years were made by single-purpose IP accounts that seem reasonably attributable to Mr Ross himself, as they are all consistent with a New Jersey location, use the same diction and lines of argument as Mr Ross's (recently-established) account on the talk page, do not cite published sources but personal knowledge, seek to attach a " cult apologist" label to any academic that has been critical of Mr Ross, etc.
I'd appreciate uninvolved editors' input on how to find the right balance. Jayen 466 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Both my bio and the article about the Jason Scott case have become dominated by single editor Jayen466, who seems to be either a volunteer or staffer working for a guru group often called a "cult" founded by Osho/Shree Rajneesh, now deceased. Anyone interested should also see the article about Osho/Rajneesh, which Jayen466 has sought to turn into promotional advertising for the guru.
However, Osho/Rajneesh was most well-known historically as a notorious "cult leader" that was deported from the United States after being jailed by authorities.
I am pointing this out because Jayen466 seems to be an editor at Wikipedia because of such personal interests and his participation at my bio and the Jason Scott article reflect his unhappiness that the Ross Institute Internet Archives contains a subsection with critical information about Osho/Rajneesh.
See http://www.rickross.com/groups/rajneesh.html
Jayen466 bias is reflected by his work here at Wikipedia and there are specific problems with his editing of my bio and the Jason Scott article, which I have noted specifically at the talk/discussion pages attached to those articles.
Jayen466 has used various quotes from unreliable and biased sources, edited/parsed language and inserted opinions in an effort to mislead readers and generally promote his POV. For example, he has relied heavily upon the writings of Anson Shupe, who was paid by Scientology lawyers to become their "expert." Shupe worked very closely with Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon.
If Wikipedia is to be a credible and reliable source for objective information editors like Jayen466, who wish to use this site as a platform for propaganda, need to reigned in and held accountable. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is the point about editors like Jayen466. It is probable that he/she is either a staffer for Osho or doing specific volunteer work for the group, i.e. to advance a propaganda effort through Wikipedia (e.g. as Jossi has done for Prem Rawat/guru Maharaji). Look at the time expended and the pattern of behavior regarding the control of certain articles. It's a shame to see Wikipedia used this way. The relatively tight knit and small group of academics Jayen466 has selectively chosen to quote are a notably biased group with a POV, which as no surprise coincides with Jayen466 POV. There is no meaningful balance to reflect this or the historical facts that dispute their conclusions. It's a choice, does Wikipedia want to be a place for fringe conspiracy theories, cranks and propaganda, or reflect the facts in a more mainstream and objective manner, in order to be considered a reliable source for research? Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Long-term_effects_of_alcohol and some related articles have many sections (eg: cardiovascular effects) which focus solely on the effects of moderate consumption, which are often positive, whereas discussion of heavy consumption on those same metrics would highlight deleterious effects. Within discussion of moderate consumption, the articles are reasonably neutral, however, the selective attention to moderate consumption is itself biasing.
NcLean 114.76.96.115 ( talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to put up a Wikipedia page about a company that does a lot of pro bono marketing for charities, but it keeps getting flagged. I followed all the rules listed by Wikipedia and made sure it was straight facts and completely unbiased but for some reason still can't put it up. Any thoughts on how to keep this page from being erased every time we create it? Are there other wikipedia rules that we don't know about or certain subjects that aren't allowed to have pages? Thanks for your help in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.14.226 ( talk) 17:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There's been much back and forth over the NPOV validity of including a referenced statement in the lead section stating "The title is widely considered to be among the greatest games ever." There's been much discussion on the talk page under heading #20: "More info on reception in head paragraph: the Greatest Game Ever Made?" Some review of whether such a statement conflicts NPOV would be very much appreciated. -- The Fwanksta ( talk) 00:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Skarl_the_Drummer continues to remove a relevant category listing for this minority politician, who should be properly listed both as an American politican and as a Missouri politician. Posts 3RR warnings while deleting the same warning given him for the same action. This may possible be a POV issue as well, given that the listing is about a minority political party activist. Request admin review. -- Davidkevin ( talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
User SMP0328 and myself cannot agree [55] whether it is appropriate to add a POV warning tag to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. I really want to avoid starting an edit war, putting the tag in, taking the tag out, over and over. The question seems simple to me: Is there presently a neutrality dispute? If yes, then add the POV tag, resolve the dispute, then remove the tag. I would appreciate outside opinion about whether there is presently a neutrality dispute, and if appropriate could another editor add the POV tag so I may avoid edit warring? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
hello I am quite new here .. less than a week old so excuse my unenlightened ways. the article that I am interested to tidy up has been nominated for its neutrality. the name of the article is Osho. the article is stagnating with two editors glaring at each other from opposite sides of the fence. I am attempting to bring them together to help create a good article. Is there anybody available to help resolve the issue? I would greatly appreciate it. thanks. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
thanks for that judith I appreciate the advice... the future.. yes looking at why the article failed requires improving is cool. request for comment like that too.. i'll look more tomorrow. thanks. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC))
I've "corrected" a few of names in the predecessor/successor box at the bottom of the bio pages for members of Congress. But there is a problem: Because that box contains a district number someone is going to change it back. Michigan (and surely other states) renumbers its districts so that, while the geography stays the same or similar, the number changes when redistricting.
Example: Bart Stupak represents the UP and northern Lower Michigan. Currently that is the first district. Someone listed John Conyers (whose district used to be number one and is now 14) as his predecessor. John Conyers district is primarily in the city of Detroit. About as far as one can get from Stupak's district. How can John Conyers be Bart Stupak's predecessor when Conyers still serves much of the same district he has since 1964? William Davis is in fact Bart Stupak's predecessor (in the old district numbered 11, which contained the UP and northern lower Michigan).
Someone/people are strictly adhering to the numbers which makes it innaccurate. Any ideas on how to resolve this? Has there been another category/topic where a precedent has been established?
I would suggest mentioning all applicable numbers in the box. If the district is dramatically altered, mention all predecessor who'd represented a significant (20-25%) number of the current district's constituents. mp2dtw ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC).
The addition of this simple, referenced statement has been summarily reverted repeatedly by User:Koalorka without appropriate explanation and he and several members of WP:GUN opposed the addition at the article talk page first as "violating WP:GUN#Criminal use", then later as being "trivia" and as violating WP:UNDUE. It was then proposed to hide (for all practical purposes) this "[promotion of] a criminal Marxist terror organization and their actions in an article free of politics" [56] in the article's section on Users. But the RAF never did actually use the gun, and imho the "compromise" to put it there was suggested out of the same underlying POV motivation. Barring a reorganisation of the article to create a better place for this sentence, I believe the end of the article's lead is the only place and perfectly appropriate for this statement, especially considering the fact that the RAF logo is easily the most notable depiction of the MP5 ever. Yes or no? Everyme 02:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's biography of the band Smack isn't especially neutral and worse still, most of it is copy-pasted from this site: http://smackonyou.com/history.html
Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smack_(Finnish_band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.168.157 ( talk) 09:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have a small, really small, question that I wish for a neutral editor to answer concerning a possible NON neutral statement.
This is what User:Likeminas keeps favoring as a sentence (which sounds highly PoV) in the Chile article:
"According to one theory the Incas of Peru, who had failed to conquer the Araucanians, called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest."
As you can see, he uses the weasel word "who had failed to conquer the Araucanians." It's a fact, but there is really little to no necessity to mention it in that particular way.
This is what I, User:MarshalN20 favor as a better "Non-POV" sentence:
"According to one theory, the Incas of Peru called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a Picunche tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest."
What is your opinion on this matter? Do you agree that my proposition is more Non-PoV and less "Weasely"?-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the phrase:
is a combination of two sources: 1) Resumen de la Historia de Chile by Encina & Castedo and 2) "Chile: A Country Study" from the US Library of Congress.
The original text from Source 1 is:
The original text from Source 2 is:
☆ CieloEstrellado 04:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
He gave a $1 million life insurance policy to Stuyvesant HS, not a contribution, I am told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.115.220 ( talk) 10:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed some material that violated NPOV from the article
Religion in Nazi Germany. The disputed material is in the section entitled "Nazism and religion". I removed the following material:
"Heclo, who recently published a book ''Christianity and American democracy'', argues that "religion is to have a place in public life"<ref name="Helco14">Hugh Heclo, Religion and Public Policy, p.14; Journal of Policy History, Vol 13. No.1, 2001</ref> and emphasizes its importance for a developed democracy:
"If traditional religion is absent from the public arena, secular religions are likely to satisfy man's quest for meaning. ... It was an atheistic faith in man as creator of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of Communism, fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century. And it was adherents of traditional religions - a Martin Niemöller, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber - who often warned most clearly of the tragedy to come from attempting to build man's own version of the New Jerusalem on Earth."<ref name="Helco14"/>"
I wrote about my issues on the
discussion page:
"I have removed the quotation block for the following reasons: 1. The book that the quotation came from is "Christianity and American democracy", which is not even a history book and so is not an appropriate source for the article. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 2. It is off topic, this article is NOT about the role of religion in communism or fascism in general, it is about the role is religion specifically in Nazi Germany. 3. This article is also not about whether or not "religion is to have a place in public life"; if you want to include this somewhere then find the correct article for it (not this article). 4. It pushes a point of view by being blatantly anti-secular/anti-atheist; blaming "secular religions" and "atheistic faith" for "fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century", which is no way a generally accepted statement among historians. This violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."
User
Zara1709 reverted my edit and added a reply to the discussion board that did not even address my concerns.
I do not want to start an edit war and am hoping for help in resolving this problem. Thank you for your time.
selfworm
Talk) 10:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, there are a number of ongoing NPOV disputes at the Stormfront (website) article which would benefit from the input of neutral and experienced editors. Talk:Stormfront_(website)#Removed_per_POV, Talk:Stormfront_(website)#Racial.2Fracialist_and_NPOV are the specific discussions. Any assistance keeping the article neutral appreciated, Skomorokh 20:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Please check Banana plantation for neutrality. Biscuittin ( talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This article was suffering from serious NPOV issues and so I originally tagged it with {{ peacock}}. The tag was removed four times by an anonymous editor (later determined to be User:Lake Central). The user left messages on my talk page objecting to my actions here, here, here, and the latest one (where I am called a liar and a fool) here.
I have attempted to remove the more blatant POV edits as well as some unencyclopedic content here, only to have it reverted by the above user editing anonymously. I suspect that this is going to continue, so I am bringing the issue here for wider discussion. ... discospinster talk 04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
DIFFS (I'll send you a bill)
Peacock Tag Reverts
............................Looks like same user, different IP - AOL?
Good Faith Edit Reverts Without Cause
...........Note similarity to 216.209.115.73 above - Same user? - AOL?
Just Too Funny. Must See
This is not a war of the titans, and certainly not an earth-shaking topic. But it does deserve attention.
72.11.124.226 ( talk) 00:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to effectively deal with to an individual who:
a. Attempts to make their complaint known by the use of highly ambiguous, unspecific tags.
b. Finally makes some specific complaints regarding the so-called promotion of a non-profit lake conservation association, which makes no sense, and the mere mention of the nearest downhill ski facility to Paudash Lake, for which an explanation was provided.
c. Suddenly proceeds to make a quick and clumsy audit of the Paudash Lake article, removing content on which no specific complaint had been made and leaving a rather strange explanation that certain words, listed for the first time, were not acceptable in Wikipedia articles.
d. Fails to address a demonstration that the allegedly unacceptable words are utilized in Wikipedia best-practice Featured Articles and, instead, raises yet another complaint.
If this individual actually believes that certain words are unacceptable in Wikipedia, then I would expect her to edit them out of the noted Featured Articles. But, of course, I don’t see this happening. What I do see, is a damaged Paudash Lake article, and one which is damaged for no apparent reason other than personal whim. Furthermore, there seems to be no sense of proportion on this matter, which simply involves a pleasant resort area, rather than some controversial politial or religious matter. Lake Central ( talk) 08:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Written clearly as an advertisement. Mhym ( talk) 04:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
In this article about subjects criticized as pseudoscientific, only negative judgments about a subject's scientific nature are currently permitted to appear; references that supports a subject's scientific validity are systematically excluded. The substance of the current dispute can be seen in this diff and this talk page discussion. Is this not a POV-fork? hgilbert ( talk) 18:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it could be stated more clearly in the lead that inclusion on the list is not a definitive judgment on the value of the discipline as a legitimate science, but a "sense" of the scientific community which may or may not change with time and further research. Wording to that effect is there, but it is rather vague and weak. Other than that, I don't see huge issues. I can see where a fan of a listed topic might get their knickers in a twist over being listed, but that's life in the big city. 24.21.105.252 ( talk) 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion concerning WP:TERRORIST ongoing, and User:Dank55 suggested that I raise the topic over here, for resolution by people with more experience on POV issues. Specifically, the current discussion centers on whether words like "terrorist" should be banned from the narrative voice of the article. RayAYang ( talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW, why is this discussion here and not in WT:WTA? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A user claims that it is not a "claim" but scientific fact that children need to be reared by a mother and a father; this user also adds citations to articles that make these claims in general, with no specific reference to same-sex marriage in order to illustrate the argument against same sex marriage. I think this raises clear NOR and NPOV concerns. Edit dif and talk page and talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am developing this article and I use an authoritative and comprehensive published lexicon to cite the existence of borrowed words in Tamil language
Some people who dont accept the lexicon's authority (since it contradicts their POV) are threatening to delete my work and have extensively tagged my article with "citation necessary" tags. Kindly help. Kris ( talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I question the overall neutrality of the Henry Kissinger biography and therefore its validity. It is of particular importance to present biographies of political figures as objectively as possible. Most of the article is biased, and in places it's unrestrained adulation. Earlier, in the introductory description, the word hero was used to describe him. It is not libelous to state facts about the man, and it's important to do so, since he is participating in a current presidential campaign as an advisor. Links to informative factual sources should not be censored, nor should other facts about him. Political figures, by the way, are not protected by the libel laws of private citizens, and the biographies of political figures shouldn't be written, or seem as if they're written, by the man's publicist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inwol ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
An article is much biased. It has pro-Georgian and anti-Abkhaz POV. Such non-neutral edits are being made by Georgian users Iberieli and Kober. SkyBon Talk\ Contributions 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There is ongoing dispute over at Talk:Chiropractic#At_the_crossroads..., regarding the phrasing of "Chiropractic is viewed to be at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine", or "Chiropractic crosses the boundaries of mainstream and alternative medicine:"
WP:ASF states that "There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions.", and that "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion.".
This case very clearly expresses an opinion (how can it be a fact that a profession is at a crossroads?). However, other editors have stated that "It is an undisputed fact if no serious disagreement is presented."
The most recently proposed text phrases it as an opinion, yet does not attribute this opinion to anyone. Is this appropriate? If there is no dispute over an opinion (such as stealing is wrong), does it become an undisputed fact that does not need any attribution?
DigitalC ( talk) 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Eubulides ( talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is about a proposed wind farm project. Local resident Stuart Christopher Brown is a member of an opposition group and a new editor to Wikipedia. He has made several edits to the article which, in my opinion, lack WP:NPOV and verification. It appears Mr Brown is very genuine in his opposition to the project, and has some valid points. However, I don't think this is justification for relaxing Wikipedia guidelines. (Actually, I think he would present a more persuasive case and win more converts if Wikipedia guidelines were followed.) Any suggestions on how this can be tidied up? Thanks. Pakaraki ( talk) 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The article has been tagged as POV, and I have tried to remove what I feel were the most blatantly POV statements / paragraphs. However, a principal contributor keeps re-adding them. I would like to know if there is consensus in that these statements should be removed.
The case is one of the most serious miscarriages of justice that has occurred in Britain.
There are several things that I feel are wrong about this statement.
1. It's a declaration of fact, when there is no agreement on whether or not Evans is guilty or innocent, and thus a miscarriage of justice even occurred. 2. How do you quantify how serious a "miscarriage of justice" is? If the ultimate miscarriage of justice is the execution of an innocent person, then there are still hundreds of people (in Britain alone) that would no doubt have suffered an equal injustice. 3. Finally, assuming that miscarriage of justice was a quantifiable matter, "one of the most" places it on an arbitrarily long or short list, with no idea of it's absolute or approximate position to the top.
The case was one of the first major miscarriages of justice perpetrated by British Courts after the end of the second World War and was followed by many more, such as the cases of the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four, among numerous others. If the lessons of the Evans case had been heeded by the authorities, then many more injustices would have been prevented.
Again, there is the assertion that a miscarriage has definitely occurred. Also, "numerous" and "many" do not give any idea of quantity, so the significance of this crime as a miscarriage in relation to others is unknown. Assuming the "lessons" that the last sentence refers to are the alleged improper handling of evidence or poor police profiling, you cannot say that "many more" injustices would have been prevented, since no reference is give as to how many injustices have occurred due to improper forensic work, nor to injustices that have occurred when proper handling and investigation was conducted.
inclusivedisjunction ( talk) 08:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
For many, many months now, there has been something of a dispute/revert war over this page and issue is still ongoing. The Tasaday were a group 'discovered' in the Philippines in 1971, and were believed to be a previously uncontacted stone age tribe, but they were supposedly exposed as a hoax in 1986. The view that they were a hoax still dominates much reports, but many are apparently still disputing this, and thus the ongoing conflict, which has reduced in intensity but is still going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesFox ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Gibraltar tends to be a topic that stirs up a lot of heat. I've noticed a series of POV edits being added to Gibraltar articles:
Telephone numbers in Gibraltar, Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar
Sees to spilling out into WikiSource as it appears that one of the documents has been moved? See [1]
The comments on the user page, cause me some concern as they appear to indicate a desire to insert a Spanish POV see User:Ecemaml/Gibraltar. And the comments on Talk Pages seem to indicate that the temperature is rising again see Talk:History_of_Gibraltar and User talk:Asterion.
The topics are on my watchlist, I'd appreciate any advice on how to stop the dispute escalating between the parties. Justin talk 23:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. | ” |
UNINDENT
Added a link to this page on each of the named articles above. Justin talk 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be over. There has been no evidence shown that the wording on the existing article is either factually inaccurate or POV perhaps someone not directly involved in the dispute could remove the headers added by the Spanish editor. Since the Cordoba agreement, Spain recognises the Gibraltar IDD code like everyone else in the world, and is no longer involved in telephone numbering in Gibraltar -- Gibnews ( talk) 00:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
A stub, so I am inclined to be broad minded. But it is written like a speech or personal essay and I am concerned that the whole thing violates NPOV. Or maybe it is just parts that can be removed. I'd appreciate others' judgement, identifying NPOV problems and dealing with them. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I realize that a low importance article on a television series seems a little insignificant among such great topics as the Kosovan war, nevertheless there is a battle being fought on the above page regarding one user's (
Grakirby) addition of facts regarding recurring characters and recurring actors in different roles. It seems that one particular editor,
UpDown, is extremely unhappy and is repeatedly accusing the additions of containing POV and therefore being unacceptable. Hence my posting here. For the very very long and polemic discussion see the discussion page section TRIVIA (should you be brave enough).
I have referred this for a third person non-partisan view on the apposite WP page and the response was from 2 separate users to leave the additions in but this is not accepted as a consensus by the aggrieved party who is still deleting daily and tagging the page as having excessive intricate details. Thank you for your time.-- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was turned into a corporate PR piece. Various tendentious editors have been protecting it in that state for several years. Several of those accounts have now been blocked as sock puppets. Can we get some uninvolved editors to look at the article and help bring it into compliance with WP:NPOV? I suspect that more socks may appear and start edit warring. It will help considerably if uninvolved editors watchlist the article and check all edits. Jehochman Talk 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's really the title... There is an assertion of notability buried in the self-promotion, so I didn't think it appropriate for speedy. That title's got to go though... Arakunem Talk 15:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content.
The original version of this account
in 7 July 2006 was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008.
It was edited by myself to this
[7]
in October 2008 with the agreement of the original editor.
It has been changed repeatedly to this
[8]
by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:
The content added is highly POV, and editorializing.
There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues.
The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.
Your input would be welcomed.
Xyl 54 (
talk) 07:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Issues including NPOV. Peter jackson ( talk) 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In the article, I have re-edited the religion section, because I thought it was biased and only looks at the point of view of secularism or kemalism of the country, therefore I believe that section does not provide a neutral point of view for the readers on Wikipedia, because nothing is mentioned about the conservatism present in Turkey, for example the rise of Islamist-governments and the headscarf controversy - which is banned, but worn by many. I have then added this information about the culture clash between both of these ideologies, with reliable sources and is an important information which should be available in the article based on the impact of Religion in the country.
Furthermore, I have also added the Kemalist ideology to balance between both of these concepts. But in the article it is reverted by two users: User:Turkish Flame and User:Ayça Leovinus (<Part of the 37 Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shuppiluliuma), their reason mainly given: No Islamist ideology allowed on the article, and only favoring secular information, but I have provided two balanced information for the article section, so I believe these two users are reverting my edits due to based on their own ideologies, but not caring about how information is provided for Wikipedia users, and that is what I have done by editing the section, providing a neutral point of view, but however these users are trying to hide these facts and informations, which I think is not a valid reason to revert my edits. Please review this, Thank you!!! My neutral revision : [9] against this: [10]
Many biased reason's against my edit: There is no place for your islamist agenda in wikipedia..., I know that it tickles your Islamist nerves., The top paragraph entirely for religion, the bottom paragraph entirely for secularism., especially when you are the "dedicated Islamist" of Wikipedia?, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology, Mr. Bangladeshi Islamic fanatic in England, why don't you "get a life" and leave Turkey to the Turks - who definitely know their country much better than you do?, Enough - go see a doctor, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology - Note the word Islamist mentioned in these quotes by User:Ayça Leovinus.
My reason's for edits: I have shortened the section because: the section looks cluttered and unorganized; various info moved to subs; reducing article size (not removed secular), Balancing and adding information (ie Kemalism, political situation), fixing info, now clear according to NPOV, good edit (AGF, NPOV), My revision: shortened sentences, and transferred to related articles, adding few relevant political sit., reducing article size (previous cluttered and unorganized) now), re edited section, added more comprehensive populations of Christians and Jews, and fixed Kemalism, with sources, entry referenced, based on NPOV, balanced of view. Conservate and secular present, not only secular, this should not be hidden., NPOV version: providing info based on two sides of point of views, not only one, but two present in society. Secularism/Kemalism, Conservatism/Headscarf - Note no insults given to users, but giving suitable reasons for the edits.
Mohsin ( talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I have re-edited it again for a more neutral perspective: [11] Mohsin ( talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Semitransgenic ( talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
According to my analysis, the article lists 201 different source locations. Of these, 35 (not 93) are pages in Fox. However, it is true that some of these pages have multiple citations. Overall, the article has, according to my reckoning, 347 individual source citations. Of those, 98 are to Fox. So there would seem to be some potential justification in raising the question of undue weight. To check if this is borne out by the facts, let us look at what is actually cited to Fox, taking each citation in turn, from the beginning.
This covers the first 33 citations to Fox. As the article grew, I used Fox as a convenience cite for several reasons: Her book is short and contains the essential outline of Osho's life. Second, it is, unlike FitzGerald or Carter, strictly choronological, making it easy to find things. Third, having been written quite recently, it is one of the few books that covers all of Osho's life, from his birth to his death. Fourth, along with FitzGerald, Fox was one of the first sources I bought for working on this article.
There is nothing cited to Fox in the above that could not just as easily be cited to Carter, FitzGerald, Joshi, or Gordon.
CESNUR is an organisation of mainstream scholars of religion. According to this Oxford University Press publication, CESNUR is a recommended source of objective information on new religious movements. The same publication also mentions that Massimo Introvigne lectures at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome.
"Judith Fox (= Judith Thompson, = Judith Coney) holds a doctorate in the sociology of religion from the London School of Economics, University of London. For more than twenty years, she has researched new religions, culminating in such books as The Way of the Heart: A Study of Rajneeshism and Sahaja Yoga. She edits a series on new religions from Curzon Press." [12] Jayen 466 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I honestly can't see what you're getting at, Semitransgenic. As far as I can see from a quick survey, Judith Fox has a degree in Religious Studies and Anthropology, an M.Sc., a doctorate in the Sociology of Religion, she taught at London University's Study of Religions Department, previously produced a book on the subject of this article (as yet unreferenced here) with Paul Heelas, (The Way of the Heart: The Rajneesh Movement, mentioned e.g. here in [ Aveling), she contributed a paper entitled Recent changes in Rajneeshism to the Journal of Contemporary Religion, and contributed a chapter covering Osho to this 2000 State University of New York Press publication. We cite few, if any, authors in this article who have a longer track record of researching Osho than Fox has. And the cites above, like the number of his siblings, the ashram earning money with therapy groups, some of his disciples engaging in drug running and prostitution, Osho giving morning discourses, Osho talking about AIDS, etc., are not Fox's views, but facts reported by her, and by many other authors. I'll grant you that much of the teaching section is sourced to Fox, but that is because she gives the most complete and best-structured overview. Jayen 466 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there something that prevents the use of alternate sources to provide greater diversity in references cited for the reader? I appreciate that certain sources will simply be easier to use and somewhat valuable as a reference because they provide a clear overview of a subject. However, we should avoid being overly reliant on a single source, especially in such a potentially contentious article. It can lead to claims of bias and undue weight, which are often legitimate concerns. If the material can be cited to a wider variety sources, diversifying the citations a bit will be of benefit to the article and the editing climate. Vassyana ( talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
He seems to have undertaken a very biased re-editing of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Right-wing_politics&diff=prev&oldid=241469606
could someone take a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.61 ( talk) 09:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The article on the organization Population Connection is little more than an advertisement by the organization (it even tells readers at the end "You can learn more about Population Connection on the website...". It is desperately in need of cleaning up, because right now it is not NPOV. 76.173.189.236 ( talk) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Some anonymous ip has continued a NPOV issue at this article, that I though had cleared already. Within the right wing/neopagan underground apparently some people are of the opinion that the subject of the article is a 'writer', whereas, according to the few reliable sources, such a description would not be appropriate. It goes back to a discussion from August 2007 [13], when someone was of the opinion that Varg Vikernes was not only a musician, but also a writer, composer and an atheist; and consequently I had to explain that someone who considers 'Jesus to be an Aryan' can hardly be described as an atheist. I only did not get through with explaining, that, according to the reliable sources, Vikernes just does not qualify as a writer. Two months ago an anonymous ip had already vandalised my user talk page with a racist comment in relation to this issue ( see this diff). Zara1709 ( talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
first of all, where on the history of edits [17] do you find me vandalizing anyone's page? this is a college library computer, I don't know, nor care, what others have done on wikipedia with the computers here. second, I have enough info to call him a writer and list his writings (something that zara has also vandalized). Thrid (and this is off subject) I believe that a man named Jesus existed, does that mean I'm not an atheist. No, I don't believe in god(s) and neither does he [18], so technically he is a athiest... it does seem a little weird that zara keeps bringing up points that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's guide lines or whether or not he is a writer. I'm not a vandal (neither in the internet sense nor am I a member of any eastern germanic race). I just want the info to be complete. I don't care if she removes the part that has Occuption(s): Writer. I'll even remove it if it helps. But he has written these books, their are on more than racism and neopaganism, and listing these writings are solely to give the full info, nothing more. Now I think I'll just sit and wait for the proof that I have ever vandalized anyone's page. 172.163.184.165 ( talk) 05:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, this is what I wanted. Zara has kept my constructive edits and changed the wording from "wrote several pamphlets" to "authored several writings", I agree that mythology mentioned is covered (at least in Varg's case) with "neopaganism" and I thank Zara for keeping the edits we could reach an agreement on. As far as the things you mention. His writings do seem to be that of an atheist (a religious one albeit) but the sources are... well, inconclusive, more info will surface after he has served his time. As for composer, I've always defined a composer as someone who writes in musical notation for publication, which I have no reason to think Varg is such. So with that I thank zara and apologize for the warring. Next time I'll discuss the problem first, once again I'm sorry. As far ass the ip check, the computers in this school are unable to go to several sites (or download from some) due to everyone acting like idiots (we have several neonazis and neopagans, me not incuded, I'm not even a fan of his writings, I'm just fascinated by extremist) (I can't download "home of the underdog" because of this) so If someone did say that about your mother I stand by that it wasn't me. I will take everyone's advice and create an account the next time I decide to edit. I consider the problem resolved, once again sorry for my newbie-ness, and thank you for compromising zara, I would like to make one statement about wikipedia, their needs to be guidelines on what an occupation is define as far as wikipedia is concerned, or maybe I just didn't see it. well, goodbye everybody. 172.164.211.91 ( talk) 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The specific section with NPOV problems is "Trials for fossil fuel chiefs". Briefly, Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for " high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming. I added a reply from a Peabody Coal spokesman, that if everyone who disagreed with Hansen were jailed, "the jails would be very, very big." , citing "Big Coal Fires Back Over James Hansen’s Criminal Complaint" at the New York Times.
The ensuing discussions (and edit war) are documented at Talk:James Hansen#7.4 Trials for fossil fuel chiefs. Briefly, three editors object to including the Peabody Coal reply, on grounds of WP:WEIGHT. Three editors support the addition (or something similar) on grounds of WP:NPOV. No consensus emerged, nor does one seem likely. Hence an outside review is requested.
Hansen is a controversial figure, and his WP biography has been very contentious in the past, so an overall review of the article's compliance with NPOV would also be helpful. Thank you, Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see current spiteful dispute I am having with Semitransgenic at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and at the Noise music page. See talk pages at both. Thank you Valueyou ( talk) 16:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Distortion of facts.
Wknight94 conclusion following 'checkuser' was (clerk) Abandoned account blocked but current one is not per lack of
WP:SOCK abuse. One account was switched for another).
Semitransgenic (
talk) 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This case might be RfC material, but the situation seems straight forward enough to most of us that I'd like to try this route first. Israelites had a healthy(ish) NPOV discussion going on over the summer and early fall (pertaining to whether or not the article contained too many religious sources as references) and was moving towards a more neutral tone (based on genetics and archeology). Last week a new editor appeared and began making the article entirely slanted towards what seems to be an Orthadox Jewish position, using Genesis and other religious texts as references for genetic heiritage, and ignoring previous and current discussions along these very lines. Could someone please have a look and see if they can help steer the conversation in a more productive direction (though just be forwarned the editor has a history of doing this). Thanks in advance. NJGW ( talk) 17:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is little more than uncited conjecture and in no way meets Wikipedia standards:
[ [20]]
I've also posted a comment on the article's Talk page.
Simon
Glasgow
Wikiweesimon ( talk) 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The Tommy Tutone page features the following passage in the introduction:
Although they are frequently remembered as a "one-hit wonder", they actually had another top 40 hit on the Hot 100 with "Angel Say No" in 1980, predating "Jenny" by a couple of years.
This kind of statement occurs in many pages which discuss alleged one-hit wonders. It seems to be written from the point of view of a fan who wishes to defend their favourite band from being labelled as a one-hit wonder. One problem is that "one-hit wonder" is not clearly defined, which allows it to be used when writing from either point of view. The fact that "Angel Say No" reached Number 38 would not prevent me from thinking of Tommy Tutone as a one-hit wonder, but others would argue that two top-40 songs does preclude that status.
A separate issue is that the assertion that a band is a one-hit wonder usually involves weasel words, as is the case in the extract shown above. I suggest that "one-hit wonder" is a subjective term that is difficult to define and interpret. As something which invites POV, I propose that claims and counter-claims as to one-hit wonder status should be avoided in articles about bands and musical artists, and their songs.
I am not in dispute with anybody over this. The reason I am posting is that I have seen statements like the one above on many Wikipedia pages. I would like to receive some expert opinions before editing them. Thank you, Labalius ( talk) 20:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I went to this article to add a recent interview quote that I felt was relevant, and I saw a tag questioning the POV of this article. I went to the talk page as diercted and saw no explantation of why the NPOV is disputed. Can someone answer why and remove the tag if it is unjustified? Ilostmyshoeinthewasher ( talk) 01:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This Iran based international TV chain has a holocaust denial article on its official website and was criticised for this by the Jerusalem Post, an opinion piece in the Jewish Chronicle, and numerous blogs. Two new SPAs tried to put this and additional information into the article, somewhat excessively and with improper synthesis, before they were temporarily blocked as sockpuppets of each other. (See WP:AN#Synthesis, editorializing, and abuse of primary sources.) Should the fact be mentioned in at least one short sentence, with proper framing, or is that impossible because the Jerusalem Post, being "Zionist", is a "questionable source"? The discussion at Talk:Press TV#Synthesis, editorializing, and abuse of primary sources seems to have stalled. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 07:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The situation is a bit more complex than that. In fact, three newly-created single-purpose accounts ( 1, 2, 3) over the past few days have been attempting to insert (e.g. 1, 2, 3) the same rather lengthy bit of original research into the Press TV article. Besides myself, two other editors ( 1, 2) as well as an administrator have also taken notice of this. In addition, one of the single-purpose accounts has been blocked for evading WP:3RR through the creation of multiple accounts. I and others have fully analyzed, explained and discussed the situation over at the Press TV article's talk page. To all reading parties, please refer to that discussion page for the specifics. Causteau ( talk) 10:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a point of principle here: Causteau has suggested that a newspaper which supports Zionism is a "questionable source" and cannot be cited. This does not seem right to me, but I'm not sure which is the correct forum - I see Hans has raised it here, and I've raised it at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability (but happy for an admin to move it here if that is more appropriate). LeContexte ( talk) 22:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
There are a large number of entries related to Indian guru Meher Baba, several of which do not conform with NPOV guidelines, especially with regard to sources. Nearly all of the sources are works by Meher Baba devotees and/or Meher Baba newsletters, website, and the like. I added a notablity tag to the most obviously problematic entries (not to the main Meher Baba entry), having tried unsuccessfully to find neutral source material. However, this tag was removed without change to the entries. If appropriate neutral source material cannot be found, then I suggest that these entries be deleted or merged - in some cases perhaps in a new entry or in some cases with other Meher Baba pages. I'm not very technically minded but I suspect that aside from the issue of sources, having them merged with more major topics would draw more readers to their content anyway. The pages concerned and the discussion that followed can be found on my talk page, with additional discussion on the main Meher Baba discussion page (another editor objected to having it there but I wanted to alert others with an interest in the topic that it was going on). I am now restoring the "notability" tag so that other editors are alerted to the sourcing problems and discussion. Hope this is the right page to turn to. -- Editwondergirl ( talk) 01:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Myself and a few other editors have agreed to allow Naturstud to edit the article Medical degree to include his degree with the only exception that he also equally include ALL other "complementary and alternative medicine" professional degrees, diplomas, and certificates equally as per Wiki (NPOV) policy. He refuses and has continued to push and promote his profession on wikipedia at the expense of others.
Could we please have some assistance cleaning up or rewriting this article to better comply with NPOV policy?
Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 ( talk) 04:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering if I could get some feedback on this article - does the Controversies section seem like undue weight? I don't know anything about this article although I've been working on it in the past and had it watchlisted for a while.
I think it has a bit of undue weight and want to streamline it somehow. x42bn6 Talk Mess 08:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
On List_of_Keith_Olbermann's_special_comments, one editor is changing several descriptions of excerpts from the Countdown with Keith Olbermann television show. Examples:
Keith Olbermann criticizes John McCain for not speaking out against statements made by Sarah Palin, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and McCain spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer for their use of the phrases "real America" and "real Virginia" in public statements and Rush Limbaugh's assertion that Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama solely because of race.
becomes
Keith Olbermann lists examples of hateful, divisive politics from the right that actually do more to undermine America than the bogus accusations of anti-Americanism being leveled against Barack Obama.
and
In light of recent attacks on the Obama campaign, Olbermann focuses upon Sarah Palin's connections to controversial figures.
becomes
Keith Olbermann points out in a Special Comment that while John McCain might want to use Sarah Palin to hit Barack Obama below the belt and accuse him of terrorist associations, he overlooked the unfortunate fact that "pallin' around with terrorists" is one area where Palin has more experience.
He argues that NPOV is not a concern here, that the original text is original research and his revisions reflect what the primary source is saying. Thoughts?
Switzpaw ( talk) 17:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This is just libel. No source, nothing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 ( talk) 03:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China could use some attention from people who actually know what the situation there involves. One user User:Ohconfucius is raising a herd of objections, claiming that any reports that support the allegations are biased, and calling WP:COATRACK on mention of a study supporting the allegations. This user, for all I know about the goings-on in China, could very well have a valid point; however, since I'm not equipped to make that call myself, and since User:Ohconfucius seems to be a lone voice in his/her contentions, I'd appreciate it if someone with actual KNOWLEDGE of the issues here take a look and see whether the article and its sources are in line with WP:NPOV. Thanks in advance! Gladys J Cortez 10:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Anthony Pollina is a current gubernatorial candidate in the state of Vermont, US. A new user with only one prior edit added a large amount of content to Pollina's page, most of which was copied directly off of the candidate's website (see [24] and [25] for examples). I reverted this, as a blatant violation of NPOV, and warned the user. Another new user has reverted the page back to the version that violated NPOV, including reverting several of my edits since. I have re-reverted, but I wanted to alert others about this issue since I don't want to become involved in an edit war. If users continue to use this article as a political advertisement, what should I do? Should I request the article be protected? Contact the campaign and ask them to stop? Any help watching this page, or input on how I should best protect it, would be appreciated. Thanks! — λ ( talk) 03:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda- Me and another user have raised some pov issues at article talk page. I feel this article desperately in need of cleaning up (see talk). Additionally, I feel the section "Murder" looks like a news report per WP:NOT. When I removed those contents, another pov editor undid my edits. Please have a look at this and resolve the issue. -- Googlean Results 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
In the Yamashita's gold article this sentence is added by an anonymous (ip editor)
On February 28, 2000, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold [ reference 1 here] and awarded approximately $13 million. [ reference 2 here]
Reference 2 makes no mention of the events that took place in Reference 1. Is this neutral? Jim ( talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ongoing NPOV issues with Jack Ross (writer), which may be part autobiography.
The article has improved since it was created but it still doesn't read like a wikipedia article to me. It does not seem balanced. Am I being too critical? What is the best approach to this kind of problem?
Is there a polite way of suggesting to users that autobiography is a bad idea? I noticed that another user has been encouraging the creator of the article to improve it. Bonfire of vanities ( talk) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If you look here you see Wyher essentially replaced the evolution page with scripture from Genisis. This is severe vandalism and may even be indicitive of good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry going on.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The Steve Munsey article appears to contain information verbatim from the official stevemunsey.com website, and the remainder of the article almost sounds like it's being written by a faithful parishioner of Munsey.
The article contains absolutely no criticisms of any kind, and even comments on his "trendy creative edge."
The article is 100% praise with no balance at all.
Read below @: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Munsey Jonpaulusa ( talk) 00:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this article considered by any way a violation of the NPOV rules? I have recently translated this article to the Hebrew Wikipedia and some folks over there say that it is since there is no real criterion for that list... ("a selective list of movie titles mostly from Hollywood which only the authors of the article think are notable"). Any ideas you might have which could help convincing them that it doesn't violate NPOV rules (such as an Inclusion criteria for this article or any film list article) would be greatly appreciated.
Please tell me what the film lists inclusion criteria are. 24.12.234.123 ( talk) 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
there is an inordinate number of photographs depicting bound females in comparison to those of bound males —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icevixen17 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I added some information in the Names of God in Judaism article, under Tetragrammaton in the relevant section about Bibles. I found that although the context was about YHWH, and Yahweh, Bibles about Jehovah were being discussed. I decided to add perhaps one of the most well-read, known Bible in the sacred Name Movement, the SSBE, Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition which uses the Name Yahweh both in the Old Testament and New, and it is removed [26] [27] [28].
Would someone please help to get across a clearly acceptable source in to this section of the article. Jehovah Witnesses are entitled to have their say, but not to the point of UNDUE weight: [ [31]]
Discuss: Skywriter.
Kiddish.K ( talk) 18:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I've had a look on the web and found a few interesting sites:
The article about Trianon is clearly onesided (!!!), focus at lost a lot of territorry and people, but Austria-Hungary 1916 and Hungary 1921 were two absolute different countries, Hungary is not successor, not heritage, de jure and in reality it is a complete new startup. And Trianon is still in force and valid. In article abot Saint Germain is this balancing act successful, this article it is a clear falsification of history and the trample at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please give your position after comparing with Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) and another article. -- Nina.Charousek ( talk) 17:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you too realize that is a weak "explanation". Squash Racket ( talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
What is your problem with that? Hungary is a successor of
Austria-Hungary - that is true. Two states, Austria and Hungary lived in a
dual monarchy for a few decades after the
Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. Then at the end of WWI (
1918) this was over.
I don't see how on Earth that would "violate" the Treaty of Trianon of
1920.
Squash Racket (
talk) 19:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Ich habe überhaupt keine Lust mich zu wiederholen,aber leider muss ich es tun, ich sehe dass sie gut deutsch sprechen, also nochmal Text des Vertrages: in Anbetracht, daß die ehemalige Österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie heute aufgehört hat zu existieren und daß an ihre Stelle in Ungarn eine ungarische Nationalregierung getreten ist - und dann die Bestimming der Grenzen, also Der Friedensvertrag von Trianon hat Oesterreich-Ungarn aufgeloest und für Ungarn neue Grenzen bestimmt, sprich es gibt keien Kontinuität zwischen Oesterreich-Ungarn 1916 und Ungarn 1920, es ist eine komplette Neugründung. --
Nina.Charousek (
talk) 20:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Due to disagreements over theology and social issues, two dioceses in Episcopal Church (United States) have decided to change their allegiance to other "provinces" or hierarchies. In both cases, some churches decided to stay within the U.S. hierarchy, effectively splitting the dioceses. The problem we have is that now we have articles on both sets of dioceses that are POV forks:
The problem is worse for Pittsburgh, where the articles(s) include a long history dating back to 1755. Both dioceses now claim to be the "true" dioceses, and so both claim the history, etc. One suggested solution is to have one article on the pre-schism dioceses and one each on the new bodies. Any other ideas? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really certain if I am posting this in the right place, but the article "Conservative Christian" is being used by user N0nr3s to put forth his opinion of Catholic Teaching (on Biblical inerrancy) rather than the Catholic Church's stated position. The page has been subject to repeated edits and undos. Catholic monarchist ( talk) 09:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Heyo. We could use some more eyes over at American Family Association. The article is included in some questionable categories and editors are warring over whether to include some user-generated content about the organization as a "reliable source". I've been watching this page for awhile and really don’t have the energy to push back that the moment. Cheers, HiDrNick! 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems like many of the previous authors of the Cinema Rex fire article wrote it in the point of view that Islamic fundamentalists started the fire. In many reports I read the Iranian public believed, and believes that the Shah did it. We should review the POV and sourcing of this article. WhisperToMe ( talk) 13:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This article was written from a modern American conservative point of view, presents history in a way that is not generally accepted by scholars, and has attracted numerous edits and comments. I have described how this article could be re-written. In the meantime, could the article be labelled POV? The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the question of notability, this article is written in a way that does not conform to Wikipedia's neutrality standards. The author's biases emerge loud and clear. It also reads like promotional literature in places. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Christian_School —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbaline69 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
For some time now, these articles have been passionately defended by libertarian editors trying to make right-wing/conservative = free markets and limited government and deleting any other aspect posted. Bobisbob2 ( talk) 20:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure this is the best board to ask for input but ... does anyone see Template:BBL sidebar as being a bit POV-ish? The "BBL Controversy" also known as the "Autogynephilia Controversy" is an ongoing and heated line of discussion in the transgender community. We might have a content fork here as well. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
see Talk:Six-Day War#Section Break This Dispute is over Censorship and Talk:Six-Day War#"Disputed", Israel's refusal to host UNEF
A dispute has arisen over a series of deletions of material from scholarly WP:V secondary sources, i.e. The Making of Resolution 242, by Sydney Dawson Bailey; International History of the Twentieth Century, by Anthony Best; Peacekeeping Fiascoes, by Frederick H. Fleitz; The Evolution of UN Peacekeeping, By William Durch; and The UN Yearbook (a reference work published by the United Nations Information Service. Those secondary sources also happen to be supported by a published primary source document -UN Secretary General U Thant's report on the situation in the Middle East. One of the editors has selectively picked WP:V sources which support his master narrative, and is acting as a gatekeeper to exclude any other published views. I appears to be a violation WP:NPOV policy.
After a lengthy discussion on the talk page these well-sourced quotations from WP:V secondary sources were added, but they were immediately deleted by the same editor:
After the war Yitzhak Rabin, who had served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." Menachem Begin stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." [61] both men quoted in One Land, Two Peoples: The Conflict Over Palestine, By Deborah J. Gerner PhD, Westview Press, 1994, ISBN 0813321808, Page 112
Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli." Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, claimed the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war... ..."When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today." [62] both men were quoted in "Was the War Necessary?", Time Magazine. Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal (Israeli military)[63] quoted from 'The Terrorist Conjunction: The United States, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by Alfred G. Gerteiny, and Jean Ziegler, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, ISBN 0275996433, page 142 harlan ( talk) 16:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A new account, Humormekill ( talk · contribs), has been adding some "See Also" stuff, in bad English, that is surely intended to push some sort of point: a couple of sentences like "North Kosovo 1420km2 with Stprce area and Titova Mitrovica, its 13% of Kosovo under Serbian Beograd control!" I reverted once but he put it back. Since I'm not really up on Balkans issues, I should probably let somebody else take charge of this. looie496 ( talk) 06:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Grossmont Union High School District article had edits made after the recent election [ [35]][ [36]][ [37]][ [38]][ [39]] may contain possible problems. Some of them I reverted, but they were placed back. After a brief discussion, I decided to allow him to keep the information for now, as long as he cleaned it up a bit, but I made it clear that I was still not in favor of the information and would seek an outside opinion. Could someone take a look and explain it to the other editor or if I am wrong, explain it to me. The more editors that we get in on this the better. The page has been changing so much in the past two weeks, I can't even keep up.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 02:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_College
Most of this article was clearly written from the perspective of a student or employee trying to further this school's agenda. I attended this school, so I clearly do not have an "objective" opinion. However, the article is not at all written in an objective way, particularly in the sections entitled, "Degree Programs", "Student Housing and Activities", "Houses" and "Criticism and Response".
I find the article entirely misleading, particularly concerning the fact that the school is only made up of several hundred students and the programs are small and limited. This article makes the programs sound enticing and full of opportunity. I suppose all I have to say is that I experienced the exact opposite in my year at this college. Perhaps I am not able to express myself very well due to my bias, however, I feel the article is rather biased and misleading if you look over it carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgill lass ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please check this page and the talk page. It's about the infobox, where user:fowler&fowler regularly reverts the WP:NPOV version. -- Kalarimaster ( talk) 09:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
ETA is a group that advocates violence, kidnapping and murder by their own publications of the group (zutabes) they have acknowledge killing 821 people so far. A group of editors continuously edit the first paragraph, if the word violence, or similar is used. ETA printed zutabes are illegal and it is difficult to find the full versions in the web to reference as the police decides what or not to release, but many had posted enough references from mayor newspapers quoting them. It has been thoroughly discussed and I find important that the description includes what characterize this group from any other separatist group= they advocate and execute kidnappings, murders, and bombings to promote the independence of a part in the north of spain. thanks in advance lolailando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolailando ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing dispute on this discussion page and in archive about Obama as President-elect.
There seems to be a serious neutrality issue here. Obama is certainly referred to, incorrectly, as "President-Elect" by verifiable sources. The problem is that said sources are incorrect, so continuing to refer to him in this way undermines the constitutional process and perpetuates ignorance about the way the President of the United States is elected to the office.
I quite from the dispute resolution guide:
"In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias."
Referring to Obama as the President-Elect prior to the electoral college meeting and voting, which is not bound by the popular vote in most states, is both factually incorrect and lacking in neutrality. It is irrelevant that the counterexample to this has never occurred because it is still theoretically and legally possible for it to happen.
This case would be different if the electoral college had voted, but the votes not yet ratified by the Congress, but most legal scholars agree that once the votes are cast, Obama would become the President-elect.
Perpetuating truth rather than biased opinion is much more important than verifiability in this case. I would like to open this dispute for further discussion. Downzero ( talk) 10:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. What I am arguing for is that neutrality is both required by the policies of wikipedia and just as important as variability. We are not in the business of perpetuating ignorance, making subjective value judgments on semantics, or democratically silencing the truth through bias. This discussion is as valid now as it was when it was first had on that talk page. Barack Obama is not the President-Elect and will not be so until the electors meet and vote him into that position. This is empirical and constitutional.
The only counterexample is a 1963 law that refers to the person who has been projected to win the necessary electoral votes ONLY for the purpose of acquiring federal funding for his or her office and adds nothing to the pragmatic or legal debates surrounding the use of this term. Downzero ( talk) 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The constitution of the United States IS a verifiable source, as well as relevant case law on the subject. The purpose of arbitrating this issue is that "consensus" is a dynamic and evolving issue, and absent the necessarily legal reasoning, the pragmatic use of the term in the media is irrelevant. This must be considered in arbitrating this on the basis of a neutral point of view, which would find relevant case law binding as to how the term is used in an encyclopedia. That is why this dispute must be resolved. Downzero ( talk) 10:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that Rahm Emanuel has not resigned from the House of Representatives, despite being the proposed Chief of Staff nominee for future-President Barack Obama. If Zsero had no leg to stand on, Congressman Emanuel would be out of a job. You have trolled this page and the talk page for Obama continually, claiming that no neutrality exists despite evidence to the contrary. Downzero ( talk) 11:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That is meaningless to this dispute, and the point you expressed is not entirely factual but not worthy of discussion when there are more pressing issues here. Downzero ( talk) 11:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, of course there's no neutrality issue, as long as your viewpoint is represented. That's all you really care about, anyway, not the legal reasoning of scholars surrounding the issue. Downzero ( talk) 12:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The electoral college has defied the popular vote before. Downzero's correct, as far as the facts go. That Obama IS the president-elect, though, is a lock, unless Clarence Thomas can convince 3 of his fellows that make the citizenship case a part of their docket, then to hear it immediately, then to vote his way. That chance is minuscule, but tangible. As such, I'm with Downzero. The factuality trumps a consensus based on media presentations. Let's be accurate and factual, if not as gung=ho as the media. Remember, we don't have to sell commercials here. ThuranX ( talk) 12:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The Constitution defines the office of the President and how he or she must be "elected." Obama has NOT been elected and thus there is a serious flaw in your use of the term "President-elect" to refer to him. It is undisputed that he WILL be elected. The factual question is whether is HAS been elected, and the constitutional answer is NO.
The electoral college has overridden the popular vote at least five times, the most recent in the 2000 election. The popular vote is a meaningless statistic because it has nothing to do with who gains the necessary electoral votes to be elected to the office. That is the entire point of this discussion--the United States is not a direct democracy.
An encyclopedia is not a dictionary of "common usage." An incorrectly used and defined term in common speech has no place in an encyclopedia, which should be defined by fact and reason. If you want to put a footnote in the article to explain to the user why and how the President-elect comes about, I don't think anyone would argue with you, but to continue to assert that a man who has not been elected to the office is the "President-elect" of the United States is factually and legally incorrect. On December 15, 2008, this will change, and Obama WILL become the President-elect, but there are few laws binding electors and any presumption that Obama will aquire those votes is speculation. I can't understand why any encyclopedia would contradict its own President-elect article and engage in speculation to make a point which adds nothing to the man's page and only serves to perpetuate ignorance about the electoral process and push the individual agendas, however incorrect, of people who do not respect the policy of neutral point of view.. Downzero ( talk) 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Per wikipedia policy, articles must express a neutral point of view. You are expressing an opinion that is contradicted by other articles on the encyclopedia and the Constitution of the United States. The media cannot and never will be the final arbiter of issues which need a legal resolution. Relevant case law and documentation counters your point.
You are attempting to push your opinion as mainstream consensus when there are clear and verifiable sources to the contrary. You have made your facts fit your position rather than interpret relevant information and draw a reasonable conclusion. You have also trolled every page that I have posted this on an parroted your scare tactics because you are an experienced editor. Downzero ( talk) 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There isn't a cold thing's chance in a very warm place that this will go anywhere productive. This should be archived with prejudice. -- Good Damon 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This certainly is a POV question, giving a status that is not warranted or deserving to a political figure for the purpose of perpetuating ignorance instead of reality. As long as this continues, where you deny the facts regarding our electoral process and continue to assert that you have met the standard of verifiability, but yet continue to assert a false point unsupported by legal sources.
Obama's presidency is equally uninteresting to me as it is to the Brit or Canadian to continues to contest my point. Dismissing my neutrality concern jeopardizes the integrity of the encyclopedia for the purpose of making a political point unsupported by empirical evidence.
Until Obama is "elected," asserting that he is the President-Elect serves no purpose and is factually incorrect. The Constitution of the United States is the legally binding document which explains the election process in Article III.
This is not orignal research, but citation from a primary source, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
and, "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Obama has not been constitutionally elected. Recognizing this, he is NOT the "President-elect" until that happens. If the votes had been cast and not counted, we'd be having a different discussion and I wouldn't waste time with that one. But, clearly, Obama has not YET met the constitutional requirement for election to the office of President of the United States, and the continued referral to him as President elect is logically and factually wrong. Downzero ( talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
1. The quoted law defines the individual for a particular and limited purpose. It obviously does not and cannot define an election differently than that of the U.S. Constitution, which trumps any public law on the matter. 2. You and others have continued to stipulate this nonsense regarding consensus. Consensus is dynamic and evolving in light of new evidence, and your position is supported only by the news media. 3. Article III clearly identifies what it takes to become elected, anyone with a lick of common sense can deduce that you cannot be the "President-Elect" without first being elected. This is scheduled to happen on the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December, aka, December 15, 2008. Debate exists among legal scholars as to whether or not Obama will become the President-Elect at that point because Congress has not yet certified the results, but I would concede that once he is "elected" by the votes, he is and will be the "President-Elect."
Instead of having a discussion on the legal findings of fact, you keep parroting the same information repeatedly. Lacking any evidience to support the position that Obama has been "elected" at all, you continue to make accusations about myself personally because you cannot deny the findings of fact.
The only disruption is the perpetuation of ignorance by a bunch of parrots who will publish whatever the news media tells them to publish, destroying any accuracy and validity that this encyclopedia once had, all to make a political stance that in the end is still false. You have violated wikipedia policies, refused to discuss this despite the concerns of several users, and now you're trying to make me into the scapegoat of your political banter.
The original debate had on this topic on the forums' talk page, now back several dozen pages in archive, was to add a footnote explaining this to the users. Even this was overruled by this nonsensical banter of democracy regarding verifiable sources publishing this information.
I will not stand for it. Everyone has a voice in this medium. Yours happens to be wrong. I respect your right to hold an incorrect opinion based on deductive reasoning. Downzero ( talk) 00:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yours reminds me of a man arguing about abortion. You are not an American and yet you're arguing about something that you cannot change or affect, because the outcome is outside of the scope of your life. Downzero ( talk) 01:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Pointless indeed: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/25/despite-bells-whistles-office-president-elect-holds-authority/ Downzero ( talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This article, about a preacher notable mainly for having written a bestselling Christian Diet book, has gone wildly astray, chiefly as a result of editing by Derekwikipedian ( talk · contribs) (currently editing as D wikipedian ( talk · contribs), but it isn't socking because the older account has not edited recently). The section Josef Smith Case and Shamblin on Child Discipline is particularly bad. I can tell from the history that trying to fix this would simply cause an edit war, so I bring it here. looie496 ( talk) 21:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
A small fringe group seems to have taken over the English Qabalah page. They want only their literature or books mentioned and are removing any additions by other contributors. They have also hijacked the page so that it is redirected to the "English Qaballa" versus "English Qabalah" in further attempts to monopolize the subject--English Qaballa being admittedly a book by one of their "gurus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.206.226 ( talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really certain if I am posting this in the right place, but the article Conservative Christianity is being used by user N0nr3s to put forth his opinion of Catholic Teaching (on Biblical inerrancy) rather than the Catholic Church's stated position. The page has been subject to repeated edits and undos. Catholic monarchist ( talk) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The term is ambiguous and there is no evidence that it clearly identifies any group of people or set of beliefs, it overlaps with other identified groups, and there are no references to prove otherwise. Compare this with the article on Conservative Judaism, which is well-understood and refers to a specific group of people. This article should be deleted. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Any interest in actually addressing my concern? Catholic monarchist ( talk) 23:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a similar message to Ssolbergj (in Wikimedia Common) who created these retarded maps. I hope you guys here can back me. It's a clear bias and I don't think that being bias is a policy of Wikipedia. It is high time things are straightened out.
Dear Ssolbergj, your map of China colors Arunachal Pradesh in light green which implies it is somehow rather a part of China although under Indian administration and claimed as an integral part of India. I agree this is a disputed region by both countries. In that case why doesn't the India map have Aksai Chin (a Chinese administered region claimed by India) be colored light green on the India map? Why double standards apply for Aksai and Arunachal although they are both disputed?
Same goes with Pakistan occupied kashmir. Shouldn't those areas be indicated in light green too? Please maintain neutrality as prescribed under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I look forward to you recoloring those maps with a NPOV in mind and not China slanted views. Thank you.
If they don't want to change it, I suggest we change the map of India to its old form (2d one) as it is more accurate.
I look forward to all your replies / opinions / assistance as I am not an established user on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.245.138 ( talk)
I did contact Ssolbergj earlier, for another issue on the Wikipedia logo. His responses unfortunately are usually delayed, or he does not respond at all. When drawing up my NPOV map of India ( Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg – now a featured picture), I thought about the best possible method of depicting disputed areas would be to have varying levels of transparency. In addition we also have dotted borders where the disputed territory exists. See the map page for a description. This set up should be replicated across all such maps. When I met Jimbo, I raised the issue about maps of India and he agreed that NPOV maps are necessary on Wikipedia. So I then went ahead and created the {{ POV-map}} template to tag all such maps. Now, unfortunately for us, wikimedia commons allows POV maps (See Commons:Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, so editors there place less of an emphasis on producing NPOV works. The best way to go about it by petitioning the author to modify the image. If 10 people keep pinging him, sooner or later he will have to yield (Note: it's not necessarily directed to Ssolbergj)
Nevermind Jayan sir, you don't need to call yourself a idiot. everyone makes mistakes. but million thanks for letting Nichap bhai know; now he has fixed things in a NPOV manner. Somebody said that Common allows POV maps so this is our POV and it should be allowed too just like how the Chinese POV is allowed. Thanks again to the both of you!!! 218.111.30.197 ( talk) 11:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
OK now this current one looks fine ( [43]). At least SHIBO is a better person than Ssolbergj who is actually reading this message but pretending deaf. Good job SHIBO. I have to praise her, although she is a Chinese she is fair and square and acting in the interest of everyone not acting bias.
Everyone please note I am not demanding in any way for Pakistan occupied kashmir and China occupied kashmir to be colored in light green, all i am asking for is consistancy, because Arunachal and Taiwan is marked in light green in China's map. Now it is consistant, thanks to SHIBO. Again well done to her. The new map on the India page looks good. And to Jayan, thanks for your coorperation and bringing this to her attention. 218.208.204.181 ( talk) 18:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
OK sounds good. Thank you for resolving the issue! 11:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.29.171 ( talk)
I'm concerned that this article reads like a piece of sales literature. On checking the history section a number of the editors names appear to be that of the company or its products. I beleive this article chould be removed as it is not from a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.17.141 ( talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate wider community input on the above article, notably the sections on (1) the Jason Scott case and (2) the Branch Davidians.
The article subject, Mr Ross, as well as editors Cirt ( talk · contribs) and Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs), feel that these sections are too unkind to Mr Ross:
The article shouldn't be a hatchet job, but on the other hand, such notable criticism as there has been should be fairly represented. The Jason Scott case was a landmark case that set an important legal precedent (it ended the North American practice of forcibly abducting adult "cult" members in order to change their beliefs).
Also, I feel unduly pressurised by the subject, Mr Ross, on the talk page; for example to portray events in a light flattering to him, based solely on his own assertions made on the talk page, when this flattering interpretation of events is flatly contradicted by a statement reported in a reliable source – which Mr Ross says is "of little value here".
As I see it, the article has for many years suffered from the inclusion of many statements that were either unsourced, or sourced to Mr Ross's writings on his website, thus failing to reflect significant published views on this subject in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Here, for reference, is an old version of the article, which Mr Ross prefers – it has multiple clear violations of Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. I was also concerned to find that around a quarter of all edits that the article had received over the past five years were made by single-purpose IP accounts that seem reasonably attributable to Mr Ross himself, as they are all consistent with a New Jersey location, use the same diction and lines of argument as Mr Ross's (recently-established) account on the talk page, do not cite published sources but personal knowledge, seek to attach a " cult apologist" label to any academic that has been critical of Mr Ross, etc.
I'd appreciate uninvolved editors' input on how to find the right balance. Jayen 466 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Both my bio and the article about the Jason Scott case have become dominated by single editor Jayen466, who seems to be either a volunteer or staffer working for a guru group often called a "cult" founded by Osho/Shree Rajneesh, now deceased. Anyone interested should also see the article about Osho/Rajneesh, which Jayen466 has sought to turn into promotional advertising for the guru.
However, Osho/Rajneesh was most well-known historically as a notorious "cult leader" that was deported from the United States after being jailed by authorities.
I am pointing this out because Jayen466 seems to be an editor at Wikipedia because of such personal interests and his participation at my bio and the Jason Scott article reflect his unhappiness that the Ross Institute Internet Archives contains a subsection with critical information about Osho/Rajneesh.
See http://www.rickross.com/groups/rajneesh.html
Jayen466 bias is reflected by his work here at Wikipedia and there are specific problems with his editing of my bio and the Jason Scott article, which I have noted specifically at the talk/discussion pages attached to those articles.
Jayen466 has used various quotes from unreliable and biased sources, edited/parsed language and inserted opinions in an effort to mislead readers and generally promote his POV. For example, he has relied heavily upon the writings of Anson Shupe, who was paid by Scientology lawyers to become their "expert." Shupe worked very closely with Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon.
If Wikipedia is to be a credible and reliable source for objective information editors like Jayen466, who wish to use this site as a platform for propaganda, need to reigned in and held accountable. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is the point about editors like Jayen466. It is probable that he/she is either a staffer for Osho or doing specific volunteer work for the group, i.e. to advance a propaganda effort through Wikipedia (e.g. as Jossi has done for Prem Rawat/guru Maharaji). Look at the time expended and the pattern of behavior regarding the control of certain articles. It's a shame to see Wikipedia used this way. The relatively tight knit and small group of academics Jayen466 has selectively chosen to quote are a notably biased group with a POV, which as no surprise coincides with Jayen466 POV. There is no meaningful balance to reflect this or the historical facts that dispute their conclusions. It's a choice, does Wikipedia want to be a place for fringe conspiracy theories, cranks and propaganda, or reflect the facts in a more mainstream and objective manner, in order to be considered a reliable source for research? Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Long-term_effects_of_alcohol and some related articles have many sections (eg: cardiovascular effects) which focus solely on the effects of moderate consumption, which are often positive, whereas discussion of heavy consumption on those same metrics would highlight deleterious effects. Within discussion of moderate consumption, the articles are reasonably neutral, however, the selective attention to moderate consumption is itself biasing.
NcLean 114.76.96.115 ( talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to put up a Wikipedia page about a company that does a lot of pro bono marketing for charities, but it keeps getting flagged. I followed all the rules listed by Wikipedia and made sure it was straight facts and completely unbiased but for some reason still can't put it up. Any thoughts on how to keep this page from being erased every time we create it? Are there other wikipedia rules that we don't know about or certain subjects that aren't allowed to have pages? Thanks for your help in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.14.226 ( talk) 17:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There's been much back and forth over the NPOV validity of including a referenced statement in the lead section stating "The title is widely considered to be among the greatest games ever." There's been much discussion on the talk page under heading #20: "More info on reception in head paragraph: the Greatest Game Ever Made?" Some review of whether such a statement conflicts NPOV would be very much appreciated. -- The Fwanksta ( talk) 00:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Skarl_the_Drummer continues to remove a relevant category listing for this minority politician, who should be properly listed both as an American politican and as a Missouri politician. Posts 3RR warnings while deleting the same warning given him for the same action. This may possible be a POV issue as well, given that the listing is about a minority political party activist. Request admin review. -- Davidkevin ( talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
User SMP0328 and myself cannot agree [55] whether it is appropriate to add a POV warning tag to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. I really want to avoid starting an edit war, putting the tag in, taking the tag out, over and over. The question seems simple to me: Is there presently a neutrality dispute? If yes, then add the POV tag, resolve the dispute, then remove the tag. I would appreciate outside opinion about whether there is presently a neutrality dispute, and if appropriate could another editor add the POV tag so I may avoid edit warring? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
hello I am quite new here .. less than a week old so excuse my unenlightened ways. the article that I am interested to tidy up has been nominated for its neutrality. the name of the article is Osho. the article is stagnating with two editors glaring at each other from opposite sides of the fence. I am attempting to bring them together to help create a good article. Is there anybody available to help resolve the issue? I would greatly appreciate it. thanks. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
thanks for that judith I appreciate the advice... the future.. yes looking at why the article failed requires improving is cool. request for comment like that too.. i'll look more tomorrow. thanks. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC))
I've "corrected" a few of names in the predecessor/successor box at the bottom of the bio pages for members of Congress. But there is a problem: Because that box contains a district number someone is going to change it back. Michigan (and surely other states) renumbers its districts so that, while the geography stays the same or similar, the number changes when redistricting.
Example: Bart Stupak represents the UP and northern Lower Michigan. Currently that is the first district. Someone listed John Conyers (whose district used to be number one and is now 14) as his predecessor. John Conyers district is primarily in the city of Detroit. About as far as one can get from Stupak's district. How can John Conyers be Bart Stupak's predecessor when Conyers still serves much of the same district he has since 1964? William Davis is in fact Bart Stupak's predecessor (in the old district numbered 11, which contained the UP and northern lower Michigan).
Someone/people are strictly adhering to the numbers which makes it innaccurate. Any ideas on how to resolve this? Has there been another category/topic where a precedent has been established?
I would suggest mentioning all applicable numbers in the box. If the district is dramatically altered, mention all predecessor who'd represented a significant (20-25%) number of the current district's constituents. mp2dtw ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC).
The addition of this simple, referenced statement has been summarily reverted repeatedly by User:Koalorka without appropriate explanation and he and several members of WP:GUN opposed the addition at the article talk page first as "violating WP:GUN#Criminal use", then later as being "trivia" and as violating WP:UNDUE. It was then proposed to hide (for all practical purposes) this "[promotion of] a criminal Marxist terror organization and their actions in an article free of politics" [56] in the article's section on Users. But the RAF never did actually use the gun, and imho the "compromise" to put it there was suggested out of the same underlying POV motivation. Barring a reorganisation of the article to create a better place for this sentence, I believe the end of the article's lead is the only place and perfectly appropriate for this statement, especially considering the fact that the RAF logo is easily the most notable depiction of the MP5 ever. Yes or no? Everyme 02:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's biography of the band Smack isn't especially neutral and worse still, most of it is copy-pasted from this site: http://smackonyou.com/history.html
Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smack_(Finnish_band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.168.157 ( talk) 09:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have a small, really small, question that I wish for a neutral editor to answer concerning a possible NON neutral statement.
This is what User:Likeminas keeps favoring as a sentence (which sounds highly PoV) in the Chile article:
"According to one theory the Incas of Peru, who had failed to conquer the Araucanians, called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest."
As you can see, he uses the weasel word "who had failed to conquer the Araucanians." It's a fact, but there is really little to no necessity to mention it in that particular way.
This is what I, User:MarshalN20 favor as a better "Non-POV" sentence:
"According to one theory, the Incas of Peru called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a Picunche tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest."
What is your opinion on this matter? Do you agree that my proposition is more Non-PoV and less "Weasely"?-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the phrase:
is a combination of two sources: 1) Resumen de la Historia de Chile by Encina & Castedo and 2) "Chile: A Country Study" from the US Library of Congress.
The original text from Source 1 is:
The original text from Source 2 is:
☆ CieloEstrellado 04:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
He gave a $1 million life insurance policy to Stuyvesant HS, not a contribution, I am told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.115.220 ( talk) 10:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed some material that violated NPOV from the article
Religion in Nazi Germany. The disputed material is in the section entitled "Nazism and religion". I removed the following material:
"Heclo, who recently published a book ''Christianity and American democracy'', argues that "religion is to have a place in public life"<ref name="Helco14">Hugh Heclo, Religion and Public Policy, p.14; Journal of Policy History, Vol 13. No.1, 2001</ref> and emphasizes its importance for a developed democracy:
"If traditional religion is absent from the public arena, secular religions are likely to satisfy man's quest for meaning. ... It was an atheistic faith in man as creator of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of Communism, fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century. And it was adherents of traditional religions - a Martin Niemöller, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber - who often warned most clearly of the tragedy to come from attempting to build man's own version of the New Jerusalem on Earth."<ref name="Helco14"/>"
I wrote about my issues on the
discussion page:
"I have removed the quotation block for the following reasons: 1. The book that the quotation came from is "Christianity and American democracy", which is not even a history book and so is not an appropriate source for the article. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 2. It is off topic, this article is NOT about the role of religion in communism or fascism in general, it is about the role is religion specifically in Nazi Germany. 3. This article is also not about whether or not "religion is to have a place in public life"; if you want to include this somewhere then find the correct article for it (not this article). 4. It pushes a point of view by being blatantly anti-secular/anti-atheist; blaming "secular religions" and "atheistic faith" for "fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century", which is no way a generally accepted statement among historians. This violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."
User
Zara1709 reverted my edit and added a reply to the discussion board that did not even address my concerns.
I do not want to start an edit war and am hoping for help in resolving this problem. Thank you for your time.
selfworm
Talk) 10:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, there are a number of ongoing NPOV disputes at the Stormfront (website) article which would benefit from the input of neutral and experienced editors. Talk:Stormfront_(website)#Removed_per_POV, Talk:Stormfront_(website)#Racial.2Fracialist_and_NPOV are the specific discussions. Any assistance keeping the article neutral appreciated, Skomorokh 20:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Please check Banana plantation for neutrality. Biscuittin ( talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This article was suffering from serious NPOV issues and so I originally tagged it with {{ peacock}}. The tag was removed four times by an anonymous editor (later determined to be User:Lake Central). The user left messages on my talk page objecting to my actions here, here, here, and the latest one (where I am called a liar and a fool) here.
I have attempted to remove the more blatant POV edits as well as some unencyclopedic content here, only to have it reverted by the above user editing anonymously. I suspect that this is going to continue, so I am bringing the issue here for wider discussion. ... discospinster talk 04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
DIFFS (I'll send you a bill)
Peacock Tag Reverts
............................Looks like same user, different IP - AOL?
Good Faith Edit Reverts Without Cause
...........Note similarity to 216.209.115.73 above - Same user? - AOL?
Just Too Funny. Must See
This is not a war of the titans, and certainly not an earth-shaking topic. But it does deserve attention.
72.11.124.226 ( talk) 00:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to effectively deal with to an individual who:
a. Attempts to make their complaint known by the use of highly ambiguous, unspecific tags.
b. Finally makes some specific complaints regarding the so-called promotion of a non-profit lake conservation association, which makes no sense, and the mere mention of the nearest downhill ski facility to Paudash Lake, for which an explanation was provided.
c. Suddenly proceeds to make a quick and clumsy audit of the Paudash Lake article, removing content on which no specific complaint had been made and leaving a rather strange explanation that certain words, listed for the first time, were not acceptable in Wikipedia articles.
d. Fails to address a demonstration that the allegedly unacceptable words are utilized in Wikipedia best-practice Featured Articles and, instead, raises yet another complaint.
If this individual actually believes that certain words are unacceptable in Wikipedia, then I would expect her to edit them out of the noted Featured Articles. But, of course, I don’t see this happening. What I do see, is a damaged Paudash Lake article, and one which is damaged for no apparent reason other than personal whim. Furthermore, there seems to be no sense of proportion on this matter, which simply involves a pleasant resort area, rather than some controversial politial or religious matter. Lake Central ( talk) 08:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Written clearly as an advertisement. Mhym ( talk) 04:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
In this article about subjects criticized as pseudoscientific, only negative judgments about a subject's scientific nature are currently permitted to appear; references that supports a subject's scientific validity are systematically excluded. The substance of the current dispute can be seen in this diff and this talk page discussion. Is this not a POV-fork? hgilbert ( talk) 18:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it could be stated more clearly in the lead that inclusion on the list is not a definitive judgment on the value of the discipline as a legitimate science, but a "sense" of the scientific community which may or may not change with time and further research. Wording to that effect is there, but it is rather vague and weak. Other than that, I don't see huge issues. I can see where a fan of a listed topic might get their knickers in a twist over being listed, but that's life in the big city. 24.21.105.252 ( talk) 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion concerning WP:TERRORIST ongoing, and User:Dank55 suggested that I raise the topic over here, for resolution by people with more experience on POV issues. Specifically, the current discussion centers on whether words like "terrorist" should be banned from the narrative voice of the article. RayAYang ( talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW, why is this discussion here and not in WT:WTA? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)