This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This article is almost entirely in favor of vegetarians and their lifestyle as the most healthy, ethical, moral, etc etc. All criticisms of any pro-vege statement is removed without due reason or discussion even with citations. No criticism section or article fork is present. Sincerely and truly yours, C6541 ( T↔ C) at 21:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I understood "kosher tax" to be fees paid for kosher certification. When trying to quantify this, I checked the Wikipedia entry called "kosher tax", where I found out, to my horror, that I was a white supremacist. This hardly seems fair, because these markings are on many food products, and the article implies that in merely questioning them, one is commiting a racist act. I consider it a consumer issue, in both pricing and preparation, and should not be called an anti-Semite or an extremist for merely questioning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHerbertSewell ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I request some help on the Soviet war crimes (section During the Continuation War). The discussion is here. The current article does not give any reference to the deeds of the opposite side, which, in my view, violates the "Bias" section of the WP:NPOV. I proposed creating a new article abt. alleged Finnish war crimes and giving a link to it in the section about alleged Soviet war crimes in Finland, but was rejected by User:Whiskey. In order to stop the edit war I ask someone to help us resolve this dispute. Thank you in advance! FeelSunny ( talk) 23:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. Finnish atrocities that were documented in 1941-1944 surely had influences the nature of WWII in Karelia and made it much more cruel. FeelSunny ( talk) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Under the Peer Review (6.2) section on the intelligent design article, there is a sentence that says the following:
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being considered as valid science. [1] To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, [1] [2]
I then added the following:
although Discovery Institute claims to have a list of peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications. [3]
it got reverted 3 times in one day. One moderator said it was NPOV, another said it was SELFPUB. I agree that it is NPOV. You?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrafan007 ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 4 January 2009
We are having a dispute over whether to ascribe opinions to sources or not. Peter Damian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is arguing on the talk page and through reversions that if an opinion is in a reliable source then you can assert the opinion without using "X claims that Y". He says you can just "that Y". I argued on the talk quoting wikipedia policy that it is necessary to identify the year and person making the claim, especially when it is an opinion. It might be different if the claim is backed by experimental evidence and is well accepted fact.
Here are some examples of reverted diffs subject to dispute: [1] [2] [3] - My self-revert pending comment from third party: [4]
Notice that each time where I've tried to ascribe a POV to a source it has been reverted. Snowded ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) says that that "X claims/states/asserts Y" is a weasel phrase. I believe it is necessary to characterize competing perspectives within NPOV.
I'll give a specific example of when I think it is necessary to qualify an assertion -- when it is an opinion. In the introduction to the current article, it says "[NLP] continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology, and only limited impact on mainstream psychotherapy and counselling". This is a blatant violation of wikipedia policy. First it asserts an opinion as fact. I checked Heap's paper from 1988, actually says "informal soundings amongst academic psychologists revealed an almost total absence of awareness of NLP" see page 9 for quote in context. Heap explicitly is using personal experience as evidence (opinions of his academic psychology colleagues). This is not a scientific evidence and is therefore mere opinion. He did not conduct a survey or whatever. He was simply using his personal judgment which is fallible. It must be presented as opinion and nothing more. Second this information is twenty years old and written in present-continuous tense. If we are to paraphrase Heap about the awareness of NLP in 1988 it must be clear we're talking about that timeframe. The current statement implies that we're talking about the present state of affairs which may or may not be true. There are similar examples in the "NLP and science" section that need similar treatment. This is directly related to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."
Action potential t c 11:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I would point out that the issue under consideration is mainly a factual one (frequency with which scientific articles support/reject/ignore NLP, etc), not one of opinion (underlying value of NLP). While it is possible that the cited author may be subject to some degree of confirmation bias (or similar), I think it presents prima facie evidence, and should be accepted at face value as fact (and thus not requiring attribution), unless and until reliable countervailing evidence is produced. I would further point out that "claim" is a WP:WTA. Hrafn Talk Stalk 13:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to deal with another editor who continues to insert non-neutral POV. I've tried twice to rewrite while capturing the core of that person's arguments in a neutral POV. He always reasserts the non-neutral POV. He's persistent - I see no value in a revert war. Someone other than me needs to explain NPOV to him. Can someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.115 ( talk) 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
We're having trouble with this article with an editor (( 83.67.217.135 ( talk))) who seems to want to break WP:OR in order to break WP:NPOV. The issue is thus: Stuart Campbell has a verifiable involvement in the FairPlay campaign, to the extent of "supporter" and "spokesman". The FairPlay campaign encouraged a boycott of games buying in the UK during the first full week of December. The campaign website claims that there was a "big sales blip during the campaign week which saw Game, Europe's biggest videogame retailer, lose a massive 80% of its share value overnight in response to disappointing sales". It also claims "When the campaign was over, sales shot up again, just as we said they would". [7] Taking these claims at face value, they are all either false or unverifiable. Sales blip: Game's sales figures for the weeks surrounding the boycott are not available. 80% of share value lost overnight: verifiably false using historical share price information. And sales shooting up again: again, no sales figures are available.
It is true, however, that GAME did issue a profit warning on 17th December 2002. News articles ( [8] [9]) blame this on a price war with Argos and Dixons. The share price did drop on this profit warning, which came on 17th December (just over a week after the end of the boycott). In order to get close to the "80% overnight" claim, we have to interpret "80%" as "70%", and "overnight" as "15 days". Now, obviously, if we include this information and link it to the boycott, it would be synthesis ( WP:OR). What 83.67.217.135 wants to do is to include all this information in the section about the boycott, but not to explicitly link it to the boycott, which he considers not to be a breach of WP:OR. The other editors concerned in the debate all think that to mention one after the other like this implies a link. 83.67.217.135 thinks that this will allow the reader to determine for themselves the "notability" of the campaign. To read this debate, simply scroll to the bottom of the talk page for article in question.
It seems to me that the only reason to include information on a share price relating a claim made on a website for a campaign that the subject of the article is not particularly closely linked with, is to push the POV that the boycott was a success.
As can be seen from the history of the article, 83.67.217.135 considers himself the "owner" of the article, reverting others' changes whenever he disagrees with them, sometimes with an edit summary such as "what the fuck is wrong with you?". From the talk page you can see that he will not listen to other editors, considering himself to be the ultimate authority on what changes are allowed to be made. He has had to be warned about civility on several occasions (indeed, he has recently called me a liar, ignoring me when I show that what I have said is true).
Frustratingly, this debate would probably not be occurring if 83.67.217.135 would declare the WP:COI that he seems to have. He refuses to confirm his identity, or rule anything out. He has almost certainly used at least one sockpuppet on the talk page. With deference to WP:OUTING, examining his contributions reveal that he is almost entirely concerned with mentions of the name 'Stuart Campbell' on wikipedia. His writing style and way of treating people is recognisable from other websites. Yet this article cannot currently be changed without his say-so, as he will just revert the change.
All we really need is a few more than the 3 or 4 editors we currently have to come along and chat for a few minutes. Maybe you will all agree with him, but at least the debate will be resolved. Please do help - it could all be resolved so easily and quickly! Thank you. Jumble Jumble ( talk) 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear to me that the purpose of the article is to list those on the receiving end of the boycott in the hopes of furthering the goals of the boycott. I don't think including a "hit list" in a Wikipedia article is appropriate. 24.21.105.252 ( talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The article strengths and weaknesses of evolution needs to be checked for WP:NPOV. The basis for this challenge are as follows:
Undue Weight states, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." (Emphasis added.) Attempts to insert a neutral explanation of the subject have met with reverts by editors who doggedly insist that "this article will, of necessity, give an entirely negative weight on the topic " to the exclusion of all else. (emphasis added.) [10] While Undue Weight rightly dictates that majority scientific opinion be given more weight than the the minority opinion, it does not - as the authors claim - PRECLUDE a neutral airing of the minority opinion.
Undue Weight further states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." (emphasis added.) Again, the very subject of the article is "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" which by it's very existence implies a POV that there are "weaknesses" in the science of evolution. That is the subject of the article, so regardless of "fringe opinion" arguments, SOME weight should be given to the subject from the proponents' POV because of it's "significance to the subject." per WP:NPOV. That the majority opinion be given more weight is not in dispute. What IS in dispute is the notion as stated above by authors that they will "not allow" any representation of the minority opinion.
Impartial Tone states"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." The wording of the article is not just weighted to the majority opinion, it is simply a recitation of that POV. The authors argue that opposing POV reliable sources simply do not exist, therefor the POV cannot be cited. Their argument is to forbid citing the source of the POV itself (an advocacy group) as inherently "unreliable" because they are by definition "ignorant" "fringe" creationists who cannot be given any inclusion in the article at all, even though their movement is the SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE.
Impartial Tone also states "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." The entire article is not just an endorsement of one POV, but a sustained argument of that POV's positions. The use of dismissive quotes and advocacy wording is so pervasive in the article as to not require citations of instances. A read of the article leaves one with the impression that this is an position paper in opposition to the subject, not an encyclopedic article.
Neutrality and verifiability states, "Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." Authors insist (see links above) that absolutely no weight can be given to the subject POV because all reliable sources are on their side, and none exist for the subject POV. Clearly the NPOV rules address this. Such is not an argument for excluding neutrality from an article, as the authors maintain.
There are certain factual errors in the article. The errors (surprise surprise) lend weight to the POV of the authors, and tend to discredit the subject POV. I have suggested that such errors be corrected.... we shall see if the authors comply. Error: Language not "proposed." It already exists. "Proposal" is to remove it.
Finally, the subject article may violate POV fork in that it creates a topic covered ad nauseum in other topics, for the sole purpose of criticizing it.
If the authors hold to form, they will accuse me of being a creationist with an agenda. Such is not the case, and I challenge them to prove such slanderous accusations. I am in fact an unapologetic believer in evolution science. However, I have the ability to put my personal opinions in the back seat and let neutrality be my compass when editing Wikipedia. Neutrality and a fairly balanced representation of the subject is all I am looking for. 24.21.105.252 ( talk) 19:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Based upon this IP user's complaint I expect a very different article than what I saw when I went to check. It certainly appears to follow our NPOV policy quite well, and certainly is not an attempt to create a POV fork because the content in no way contradicsts the facts or tone of the main evolution article.
If you have specific things you want explained to you, it's best to keep it to the article talk page instead of cluttering up things here. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see this article doesn't violate any part of the NPOV policy. Teapot george Talk 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like an opinion on this part of the article on the Swedish Armed Forces: [11]
The paragraph is based on a debate article (which of course is biased), but the results is refered to as if it was more or less an absolute truth. In my opinion sentences like "The Defense force is preoccupied with providing its officers with high titles, building a nice façade and in changing logotypes" is not neutral. It is clerarly pointed criticism and should be refered to as such.
The paragraph starting "How do we compare ranks ..." seem to be a personal reflection by the editor. Is that NPOV?
/ B****n ( talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I please request advice on dealing with an WP:UNDUE issue with respect to certain content in an article on a Chicago alderman WP:BLP. Paragraph at issue begins "In 1998 and 2002 Preckwinkle ... " in the Alderman section. About one sentence mentioning the subject's vote and for clarity the subsequent veto would be the appropriate weight for this ordinance in this article. More than one sentence, if they belong in this subject's article, they belongs in 35 others as well, who also voted in favor. No reliable source supports a role for the subject of this article in this ordinance beyond the vote in favor. This subject's article has more background on the ordinance than the ordinance's sponsor's article. The current text suggest more of a role for the subject of this article in this ordinance than is supported by reliable sources and so may represent an attempt at WP:OR. At least 3 rounds of reverts have been exchanged, although not within the same day, and the text has evolved somewhat with successive reverts. Extensive discussion on talk page completed without resolution at Talk:Toni Preckwinkle: Level of detail of background information on big box ordinance, please see. A round of WP:3 completed without resolution. Separate article established at 2006_Chicago_Big_Box_Ordinance without resolution. Assistance requested on the project page without response (other editor is project Manager/Director). Please edit the article or suggest approaches here or on the article talk page. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
I read a newspaper article on Tomb Raider: Underworld and so I attempted to add material from that article to the Wikipedia article on the game. The Wikipedia article does not appear to be written overly neutral, and given that some of the concerns in the article were that Eidos had attempted to manage the reception the game received, and given that Eidos have openly admitted this, and given that there are a large number of anonymous editors editing the article, I would appreciate it if experienced, neutral Wikipedians could review the article and the situation and offer a way forwards. I had thought there would be a more collegiate atmosphere, but I can't find any reason for my changes being removed from the article. Page differences follow: [12], [13], [14] and [15]. If my amendments were also not neutral, I am happy to discuss ways to make the article more compliant with WP:NPOV, and how better to collaborate to achieve such a goal. Someplace else ( talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The Jesus myth hypothesis article is having an issue regarding how the term is even defined as the terms Jesus myth and Christ myth are used interchangeably in the literature. The problem is different reliable sources with clearly contradictory definitions.
You have reliable references like Farmer, ("A Fresh Approach to Q," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, eds. Jacob Neusner, Morton Smith (Brill, 1975), p. 43), Jones, (Independence and Exegesis: The Study of Early Christianity in the Work of Alfred Loisy, Charles Guignebert, and Maurice Goguel (Mohr Siebeck, 1983), p. 47), and Horbury ("The New Testament," A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain (Oxford 2003) p. 55) all staying that 'Christ-myth' theory is that Jesus NEVER existed but this would by very definition excludes theorists like Mead and Ellegard who hold the Jesus DID exist abet in a different century as people who hold Robin Hood existed have put put forth people like Sire Johannes d'Eyvile who lived during Henry III's reign a full century after Robin Hood supposedly lived. Never means NEVER ie Jesus not existing AT ALL, not in the 1st century CE or 1st BCE or any other century for that matter. A few editors don't understand this simple matter of logic and support the Farmer/Jones/Horbury definition definition while also supporting the idea Mead and Ellegard are "Christ Mythers"
On other end you have reliable references have "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." (Dodd, C. H. (1938) History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17) and Remsburg The Christ both of whom define "Christ Myth theory" and "Christ Myth" as including the idea that there is a possible historical person behind it all. Worse, Dodd doesn't give a time period to his "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" statement so there is no way to say if he is talking about the position of Mead and Ellegard or something similar to the position Wells puts for in The Jesus Myth (1999) and better explains in Can We Trust the New Testament? (2003) pg 43: "This Galilean Jesus was not crucified and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ — devoid of time and place - of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin." Related you have Price's position of "My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." Christ a Fiction (1997)
The definition of what "Jesus myth hypothesis"/"Christ Myth"/"Jesus Myth" even is should not be a game of pick that reference but that is a big part of this article's NPOV problems.
What do you do when reliable sources are in conflict over something so simple as a definition and some editors favor certain definitions (I favor the Remsburg/Dodd definition as it is the most encompassing) over others which appear to put a POV slant on what the article even covers?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 13:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Capasitor was suggested not to use the partisan sources at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Sources. However he engaged into bad-faith assumptions here, but was stopped by mediator User:Golbez and me. In this section further evidences on violation of existing policy have been given so that Capasitor retracted, resorting to the off-topic. I reverted the article once. Additional recent evidence is here. -- Brand спойт 07:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, there was a suggestion - or, more precisely, a violent racist demand - not to use certain sources based entirely on alleged [and unproven] ethnic origin of well-published, well-quoted and well-respected Western academics. These scholars have nothing to do with nationalist biases of some Soviet and post-Soviet academics that from Armenia and Azerbaijan WP should indeed shun. There were three quotes brought up to discredit mentioned academics by User:Grandmaster; all three of them were proven irrelevant and/or offensive of WP's regulations and spirit (one was from a nationalist-minded scholar who used factually mistaken info to press his emotionally-charged accusations). Since then, after suffering a moment of intellectual bankruptcy, Brand спойт engaged in a series of blind reverts and acts of edit-warring. Please block Brand спойт from editing Nagorno Karabakh - he is a disruptive user with poor English who is contributng nothing of substance to this and ALL other articles he tries to influence. Capasitor ( talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am not experienced at this, but I try to correct something I perceive as unfair hampering, and biased editing of the article about Plasma Cosmology. It started with a search for "Electric Universe" which turned up an article about a band, and after a while I discovered an almost hidden line that linked to "Plasma Cosmology" - which as I understand it is not a 100% correct pointer. Then when reading about P.C. I saw a definitive bias in the article not exactly in favour of it, and also links the size of a billboard to the Big Bang etc. - which is *not* the subject for that article. I was stunned by this and it looked like someone has been wingclipping the article.
I then started a long read in the discussion page, and made a few discoveries. One person in particular seems to have hijacked the whole thing, made ad hominem attacks, made accusations about "fringe science", "rubbish" (or similar wording), and came across as biased to the degree of being a "crusader on a mission". This person made claims that he rarely supported, but demanded support for any claims from the opponents. he even threatened to report someone for disagreeing with him. I the discovered a link to the former article in it's full length, and this wasn't just a wingclipping, it was in my view vandalism - where lots of relevant information was just removed, even making remarks in the article leading to the BB theory wasn't enough it seems. even though, again, this was about P.C. and related, not Big Bang. Does the articles about Big Bang (and related) link to it's "opponents" - like the P.C. consept?
The discussion led me to the page about "gaming" - where rules are (ab)used to crush opponents, I find that this whole affair reeks of "gaming". Anyone reading the discussion will see who I have in mind, also the edit statistics will show this. I would like Wiki to be neutral and fair and educational, not biased and preconceived.
The discussion arguments, if applied to the BB theory articles (and related) would largely do the same to those, as if one scientist mentions G-d or something religious at any time, or goes to church, or f.ex. at any time talks to a member of the Flat Earth Society or have a beer with Mr. Sitchin he is automatically discredited, and his experiments and theories along with him. Anyone can see that this is rubbish.
This "slaughter" of an article stops it from developing, and as it seems, noone dares or bothers to contribute to it anymore. Oh. and I must add, that the basis for P.C. is founded in well researched and proven science, and derivates are as relevant as any speculation from the so-called "Big-Bangers" (reffering here to highly unproven "facts" that may come across as mere speculations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenzofeis ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Kenzofeis ( talk) 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba
This article is poorly written, not in compliance with quality standards, lacks flow and difficult to navigate. It needs improvement to grammar, style, cohesion, "tone" and spelling. These are some of the problems when accuracy and neutrality should be the norm.
The article appears to have been developed under a "one sided" point of view and "biased" within the following areas,
Demographics Emigration Economy Culture Religion Batista's control ends with democratic rule From Batista to Castro Cuba following revolution Cuba during the Cold War Post Cold War Cuba Transfer of presidency from Fidel to Raúl Castro Military Latin America
I respectfully request permission to edit and/or prepare an article covering the above topics with verifiable, authoritative references and backup information.
Al (padwriter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padwriter ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged this article as possible POVish, explained at talk page why. Because it's a featured article, I think it should get it's mention here. I'm not too aware with the process stages on Wikipedia, I probably won't come back to see the outcome, but I'll accept what the community has to say, I'm just stating a concern. -- Kybalion from Wind ( talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this recent unsourced [ ] by User 66.166.53.194 whose other recent unsourced edits seemed racist as in this [ ], which has been reverted. I've tagged the Jack Comer article with "POV" and "unreferenced" but I don't know if I should undo all his edits or just the racist POV stuff in the Jack Comer article because some of it actually seems informative and considering it's not a living person maybe I should just wait until the editor provides a source? Can someone give advice on how to proceed please. OlEnglish ( talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been working with another other editor, Bert Schlossberg to try to get Korean Airlines Flight 007 to GA. He added most of the initial content, while I have been doing most of the cleanup in the past 2 weeks following its submission to GA (which it failed). Despite some major work on the article, I still have a few nagging concerns about its neutrality as the primary contributor is associated with a website called rescue.org that has a theory that the aircraft ditched instead of crashing, and that survivors are being kept in the Russian prison system. In particular, my concerns are around the weighting given to certain arguments that would support the rescue007.org theory, even though most of the really obvious POV has now been edited out. Secondly, the way in which some of the material is presented, e.g. the lack of human remains, appears to be slanting towards OR because of the way in which the quotes from the source article have been selectively highlighted and presented to make a new argument that I don't see in any secondary sources. Maybe I'm being overly analytical, however I'd appreciate a second look before this article goes up for GA review again (which I'm expecting it will pass this time round). PS: Despite some strong differences of opinion over the article, Bert & I are working together towards a common goal of getting this to GA. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to get some feedback from previously uninvolved editors on the neutrality of Osho. I believe that the article is overly pedantic, includes unnecessary quotation, and undue weight leaning towards viewpoints in favor of the subject. I would like to request that previously involved editors comment in the appropriate section below (which includes myself). ← Spidern → 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment In this section I present a few examples of why I believe the page is suffering from POV issues.
I have shrank this section to avoid cluttering the page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Lead
-Opinion, unsourced
-Unsourced
-Opinion. Childhood and adolescence (1931–1950)
-Undue weight to Osho's testimony. University years and public speaker (1951–1970)
-Unnecessary. University years and public speaker (1951–1970)
-Presents self as fact, rather than opinion of Osho. Mumbai (1970–1974)
-Unverifiable, qualitative speculation The ashram in Pune (1974–1981)
-Unsourced, and "constant expansion" is rather vague.
-Sharply opinionated.
- Informal. Move to America (1981)
- Synthesis. The Oregon commune (1981–1985)
-Opinion. No attribution given to person holding it.
- Synthesis on both accounts.
-Selectively using Turner's religious background as a subtle critique against him. Ego and the mind
-Every sentence in this paragraph is a qualitative opinion, not a verifiable fact. Therefore, each one of theses opinions should be connected with their associated scholar.
-Unnecessary direct quotes, reintroduced by Jalal.
-Presents unverifiable speculation as fact. No context. Which people? When? Meditation
- WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTADVERTISING (see this)
-"Key ingredient" is a qualitative judgement, and opinion. The proceeding quote is ambiguous and doesn't improve the quality of the article.
- Undue weight and justification in Osho's favor.
-Ambiguous. What does "such device" refer to? Quote does not necessesarily add quality to the article.
-Completely ambiguous statement with no context. Renunciation and the "New Man"
-Opinion. Need to explain whose it is.
-This entire section is given undue weight, for a comment Osho made in passing. |
← Spidern → 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No criticism at all, even though the article claims some of the plans specify eating only 415 calories a day. (?!) That fact sounds unlikely though. All help appreciated. Sticky Parkin 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Article seems to me to favour one POV, some contributors are very enthusiastic. All help appreciated. Sticky Parkin 02:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a lot of issues with this article. One more or less major thing is the absolute size of it. But what I would say is the main thing is that the references they use for this article are basically far-left websites such as; CSN.com, The Huffington Post, Media Matters, and MSNBC.com just to name a few (as I've mentioned on the talk page). This article needs some serious looking into, at least by an administrator or somebody thereby qualified. Thanks. Lighthead þ 03:27, 22 January (2009) (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_goodman
A few concerns about this article:
1.
WP:UNDUE
A section was added in on her "a supporter of anti-semetic and anti-zionist" views.
I believe the section contravenes WP:UNDUE - "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.". There is only one reference making such a claim. I have read quite a few reviews of her work, and only come across such descriptions of her from politically biased sources. The sort of sources that labels anyone "anti-semitic", who dares to question Israeli actions. I don't think the anti-semitic supporter claims are proportional to the opinions of her.
2.
WP:MORALIZE
While not moralizing, I believe the same guideline applies here - "That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately". A section labelling her as anti-semetic, without providing any proof of the charges or defense on her part? Again, I believe this is misleading to any readers, in it presents (fringe) opinion without providing any details or counterpoints.
3.
WP:YESPOV
As the NPOV states, "Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.". There is no background on the supposed charges. There is no indication as to how representative that view is of "popular views". The claims against her are not presented with any of the stated guidelines in mind.
4. extremist source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources The source cited, The Jewish Press - is clearly extremist in its viewpoint. Its articles are harshly critical of anyone questioning Israeli actions, while glossing over or ignoring any contrary information. It's a religious paper, as is clearly shown in its name. I don't think the source is "reliable" or "neutral", and can only be categorized as "fringe or extremist". The real complaint they have about her, it seems, is that she presents views on her show which aren't supportive of Israel. Thus, they attack her. Thus, they are extremists - or in so far as reliable sources are concerned.
Normally I'd just go and nuke the whole "anti-semitic supporter" claims section, but I thought it might be better to see if an editor could weigh in first.
LimeyBugger (
talk) 01:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I clicked on "The Ting Tings" link on Ladyhawke's Wikipedia site. And it said " and they are terrible". so I guess someone has erased the Ting Tings info and replaced it with that line. Wonder if they have messed with other sites,too..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.100.218 ( talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is written in a way that is more about conflicts with the radio station instead of being about the radio station. Terminology, weight of certain conflicts, original research, sources, and leangth of sections all need to be addressed. Cptnono ( talk) 06:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has concerns that this article is biased, and that it would "..fit well on a fanatical site but here a balanced article is prefered". I'd appreciate the input of a third-party who has no opinion of the subject himself. Would someone experienced be able to take a look? Cheers, – Toon (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That seems to be the claim here, I would appreciate people commenting. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like some input on the issue of redirecting St. Pancake and Saint Pancake to Rachel Corrie and NPOV as it applies to redirects in general.
"Saint Pancake" is a disparaging nickname for the deceased Rachel Corrie, invented, I believe, by the "Little Green Footballs" guy and used on various right-wing message boards. The term does not appear anywhere in our Rachel Corrie article. It appears that there have been several efforts to add it, but it is always removed (see Rachel Corrie talk page archives for lots of "pancake"-related discussion).
Is Jclemens wrong here? Am I? What is the relationship of the NPOV policy to redirects such as St. Pancake? I have notified all users named above of this post. Thanks, Mike R ( talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Utility Statistics: Per http://stats.grok.se/, Saint Pancake was accessed 62 times in 2008. St. Pancake was accessed 79 times in 2008. Clearly, there are an average of ~12 people a month who use it, indicating that it's a useful redirect. Jclemens ( talk) 01:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am writing to ask that someone intervene on the Savannah College of Art and Design page. The history section has several times been purged of any reference to SCAD's litigation against another art college, the School of Visual Arts. Also, a period of unrest which was widely documented both in regional and national publications and which resulted in censure of the school by the American Association of University Professors is completely absent from the history section on this page. It appears that somebody with the user name Somno is censoring the page and has engaged in an ugly personality conflict with another editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.42.204 ( talk) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please look at the section called "NLP and science" on the article Neuro-linguistic programming and comment on whether it meets NPOV. I want to edit this sentence to adhere to WP:NPOV. I have a problem with the word 'pretends'. I also think 'but is really pseudoscience' is POV pushing. Follow is my proposed alternative. could someone help me word this for NPOV?
Action potential t c 05:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Warren is a prominent religious figure in the US. Obama chose Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. This created controversy. Some editors claim that the invocation controversy is not notable. And they claim that the current wording of the article accurately explains that controversy. Current wording is simply this: "The decision angered pro-choice and LGBT advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.[15]" without any explanation as to why. They are opposing addition of more information eventhough it has many reliable sources. Please comment in: Talk:Rick_Warren#Warren.2C_invocation.2C_views_on_homosexuality Phoenix of9 ( talk) 00:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Two related articles, Real Canadian Superstore and Loblaw Companies are close to having an edit war, and I'm trying to stop it before it happens. Two months ago, a new logo appeared in advertising for the stores, and an anon IP is convinced this indicates all the stores in the chain in Ontario, Canada are changing their name. This appears unlikely. A more reasonable explanation is that there are two versions of the store, and the new logo is for either type, for advertising only This has been explained on his user talk page by several people, but he does not appear to accept it. This situation started at the beginning of December, and there have been 13 changes and reverts to the first article, and 9 to the second. These are all from anon IPs, and 2 of the most recent and persistent, User talk:99.224.112.64 and User talk:99.224.42.232, are clearly the same person based on their posting style and similar message, stating he is getting this information from his father who works at one of the stores. (That's why I've decided to take it to the NPOV board.) I've tried taking this to Page Protection (and also asked if a block on this IP might be in order), but was turned down because there is not enough recent activity to justify action at this time. The changes and reverts have happened several times in the past 2 days. I don't know if maybe they are waiting for it to turn into a full edit war before taking action? Surely we should be trying to stop that. More info: until today, this person refused to respond on the article's talk page. Now he has done so, but still insists on changing the article, and provides no citations, only rumours and speculation. His latest edit summary says one of the stores has actually changed its sign, but I think he might be pulling my leg. I can find no press release about a name change, and the store he is talking about is about 1000 miles away from his location in Toronto. I still think page protection is the best way to deal with this. Please advise? -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 14:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Dispute over the title of the article. Two questions: a) Is the title POV or not? b) Is this title too ambiguous? Please opine at the article talk page. Thanks Blueboar ( talk) 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I have had my posting classified as vandalism simply because they stated facts and events that are not flattering to a USC player. My mention of the circumstances surrounding the player being charged with sexual assault, and the dismissal of the case, was deleted and I was given a warning on my IP. Also, all other postings I have made since then have been deleted, on any subject. This is harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.235.184 ( talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The whole article reads like a partisan smear against a noted author and activist.
Among, but not limited to, are:
1. An entire section titled, "Accusations of antisemitism" - which refers almost exclusively to extremist or fringe sources.
2. Repeated use of CAMERA (and the like) articles which are full of weasel words to justify their POV pushing
3.
WP:WEIGHT critical (sometimes slanderous) sources are quoted in full in several places, giving far more prominence than they deserve.
4. overly large section to one rather minor incident - cuppa
WP:WEIGHT, anyone?
I really don't have the background and knowledge to correct this article, unfortunately. GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 00:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Article name is really not important. There is small dispute if we can say about state or regime that it is "most murderous". We are having 2 books which are saying that, so statement "most murderous regime" is sourced, but what is situation with NPOV rules ?-- Rjecina ( talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Satellite9876has removed a previous NPV dispute and has made 17 changes to the article.
Some of the changes posted are misleading and contain inaccurate informtaion.
Satellite9876 says Cohen sold his SoJewish business to Totally plc for £40,000 quoting an article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2755457/Back-to-the-real-world.html. But the article says his share of the sale of SoJewish to Totally was £310,000. It later says he sold half of his stake in Totally plc for cash at a value of £40,000.
The company he founded was sold to Totally plc for just over £4m. The company was sold of 12.5m shares worth 32.5p http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=373707&in_page_id=2&in_a_source=This%20is%20Money
Satellite9876later confuses revenue with profit, quoting http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2755457/Back-to-the-real-world.htmland to claim that his CyberBritain company made just £165 of sales per year. The article says the company made a profit of £165, very different from revenue.
( Jebuss ( talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
-- Satellite9876 ( talk) 05:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
To what extent does WP:NPOV require the inclusion of a murder defendant's theory of the case? The article widely quotes prosecutors, activists, and the self-interested trial lawyer bringing a multi-million dollar suit against the city, but there is not a full accounting of the defendant's factual arguments based on witness statements from the police investigation, and a single editor demands they be omitted because they are "emotional"--even as accusations of "execution" are in the lead of the article. Discussion at Talk:BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant#NPOV tag. THF ( talk) 11:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.
User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.
(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)
The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar. THF ( talk) 12:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) regarding whether or not the inclusion of the Boy Scout's Oath is POV or not. All input there would be much appreciated. Thanks! -- LexCorp ( talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Tagging resolved as discussion seem to have been, er well, resolved.-- LexCorp ( talk) 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The current article about this important woman in history may not be accurate. For example, in Daniel Radinsky's book "Love Poems from God" (2002), he states on pp. 1-2 that, due to Rabia's being separated from her parents, perhaps because of their deaths, she was sold into a brothel where she worked until the age of 50. To quote from Radinsky: "Many myths surround her life and poems, but one has been recently confirmed by one of the most respected contemporary spiritual teachers..." He goes on to explain the forgoing.
Some may be offended by this. Personally, I don't think it diminishes at all the wonder and holiness of this woman, surrounded by so much pain and suffering of this earthly world--none of which seemed to affect her mystical love of God. Whatever the case, there's reason for me to doubt the current author's objectivity and/or being completely informed.
Timcollardey ( talk) 04:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Competition_law#Reason_for_tags, I have identified forty separate problems with the article justifying an NPOV tag; a user reverted on the grounds that he doesn't like my employer, and refuses to engage with the issues I have raised on the talk page, instead launching a personal attack against me. Other than attempting to add the tags once, I have confined my edits to the talk page. Can I get a third opinion? THF ( talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
A "pro-conspiracy theory" POV warring SPA is upsetting the carefully crafted neutrality of this article... remarkably conversant in quoting Wiki guidelines for someone who's account is only four days old. We are attempting to stay civil to him... he is not responding in kind. Some assistance would be appreciated. Blueboar ( talk) 05:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, The biography of living persons (myself) has been labeled "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The biography is also a "stub."
I am the victim of a drive-by tagging, and would like to resolve the neutrality question. Also I'd like to cooperate with you to upgrade the quality of the bio so that it is more than a stub.
Very truly yours, Larry Bodine, Esq. Apollo Business Development 4601 E. Camino Pimeria Alta Tucson, AZ 85718 630.942.0977 Lbodine@LawMarketing.com http://www.LarryBodine.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.35.59 ( talk) 17:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It would appear that the article on William Dembski was not written by a person with a neutral point of view. The biographical information about him largely questions his abilities and presents information in a manner that would arouse disdain by a materialist. An extended list of controversies also appears to come from this angle. This is especially evident in the "talk" tab under "Oklahoma" where the author hopes to track down articles criticizing Dembski so that it could be used as source material. This seems to violate the requirements for biographies of living persons to mock or disparage and also criticism and praise being balanced and not too one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommie113 ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
We have an article on a fringe theory that also contains debunking of this fringe theory. So far, so good. But the article seems to go out of its ways to debunk the theory such that it seems to violate WP:NPOV. In particular, it does two things that give me the impression that it is attempting to promote a POV. First, it gives a point by point rebuttals. When I look at similar articles on other fringe theories such as Holocaust Denial or Creationism they don't seem to do this. Second, the majority of the article is about debunking the fringe theory rather than the fringe theory itself. In some sections, we have 11-to-1 converage where the fringe theory gets one sentence and the rebuttal gets 11 sentences. Is that appropriate? While I'm all for educating the public, at what point does the debunking violate WP:NPOV? Do we have any policy or guideline that can shed some light on this? I've read WP:NPOV and fringe theory and I'm not sure it really answers my questions. The article to which I refer is the Apollo_hoax. It starts off OK and then seems to promote a point of view. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
etc. Not satisfactory, in my opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 17:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to keep the claim-rebuttal format, I would suggest something like this:
I think there needs to be more balance. As far as I know, we're supposed to follow NPOV even in fringe articles.
As I mentioned earlier, if you look at the holocaust denial page, they don't have a point-by-point rebuttal of holocaust denial and they do have a separate page for Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial. I think that format works quite well.
Can we split this article into two and put the detailed point-by-point rebuttals in a separate criticism article? Then it doesn't come across as so POV because it's a criticism article. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Protonk has raised (I think) an interesting point (assuming I understand it correctly) so I'll repeat it here: "Unreliable sources" are only allowed in this articles insofar as they speak about themselves--if we want to describe the hoax claims themselves we may use the books/pamphlets/etc to do so. Otherwise the same expectations about reliable sources apply. As for my statement about proportion, I see no reason to think why it should not be true for fringe science/hoaxes when it is true for everything else.
Obviously, this is an article about a fringe theory so unreliable sources are allowed - I think that we agree on that point. However, Protonk seems to make a distinction between neutrality (in general) and neutrality based on what reliable sources are saying. That is to say, if all reliable sources are biased to a particular view point, then it's perfectly acceptable for such an article to present repeat that bias.
So, for example, if the reliable sources say that Apollo hoax believers are wrong, it's OK for us to do the same. That is to say, we don't have to give the fringe theory equal footing with reality even in an article about fringe theories.
EDIT: Or to put it another way, there's a difference between being biased (in a general, non-Wikipedia sense) and being biased according to reliable sources?
Protonk, is my understanding of what you said correct? If so, can everyone please confirm (or reject) that Protonk's point is correct?
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to muddy the waters a bit, here's another possible approach, for those who fear that there are too many words supporting the debunking. Part of the problem is the confrontational approach of the questions. The hoaxsters say such-and-such, and the debunkers say, not such-and-such. It could be done a different way, with this abbreviated example derived from Bubba73's comments. Each simple answer shown here would have some elaboration:
The next question is why the Apollo line always seems to get the last word. That's because the question was actually raised by the hoax supporters. They could be switched around, but the result is the same, as the Apollo explanation has already said why the hoax explanation is factually inaccurate. Hard to tell which approach is more "biased".
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I was so dense and it took me so long to 'get it'. Thanks to everyone for their help. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As a result of the previous discussion on the Apollo Lunar Landing Hoax, above, I would like to clean-up our 9/11 conspiracy theories article. As it stands, it attempts to portray a fringe theory on equal footing with the mainstream view. As I make these changes, I anticipate (perhaps significant) resistance from proponents of the fringe theory. I would appreciate any advice or help on how to go about this.
So far, this is what I am planning to do.
1. Clarify Wikipedia's policies on the article's discussion page. I want to give everyone time to understand the policies before making any changes. I've already begun doing this [20].
2. In order to make sure undue weight isn't given to the fringe theory, I want to assemble a list of reliable sources that support this theory. If there are none, it makes it a lot easier to determine how much weight the fringe theory gets. If there are any, then we have a list of reliable sources that can be used as a reference for what fringe theory proponents claim.
So, in a couple weeks or so, I plan on posting something like this in the article's discussion page.
"Per the previous discussion titled "Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics" [21], I would like to begin changing this article so that it follows Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. As I mentioned, I don't think that there are many reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. If there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. So I think a good place to start is to find out, are there any reliable sources that support 9/11 conspiracy theories?" Then wait to see if anyone can come up with any.
3. Research the topic/read the sources.
4. Reread and analyze the article and begin making suggestions on the article's discussion page.
5. For each suggestion, if I can acheive consensus on the article discussion page, I will make the change. If I cannot acheive consensus, I'm not sure what to do.
As I mentioned, I anticipate (perhaps) significant resistance from 9/11 conspiracy proponents. I would appreciate any advice or help on how to go about this. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This resume-like article is full of wikipuffery, and needs some scrubbing. I'd do it, but the article has a protective editor, and I'm trying to avoid wikidrama where someone might accuse me of pushing an agenda, so if an editor with avowedly neutral eyes could handle it, that would be good. THF ( talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
.
An editor insists that the main article on Scientology should mention the availability of Scientology documents on Wikileaks: [22] Apart from the Register, there are very few sources that have commented on this at all [23]. Is it due weight in an encyclopedic overview of Scientology, or is it merely designed to promote the Wikileaks page? Related talk page discussion: Talk:Scientology#Removing_verifiable_content Jayen 466 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
SamJ is a biased editor. He seems to be bullying certain other editors regarding the Netbook article. Sam runs the "save the Netbooks" blog/site reference in this article Save the Netbooks and certainly should not have any nfluence over other opinions regarding the term. His bias manifests itself in a general dislike of the Psion trademark and a particular attitude that seems to make him believe that he should be able to force the issue of non-validity of their trademark claim. I believe the Psion claim is valid and the article should revert any changes that Sam has made to remove this wording. The article should mention Psion more prominently, and on winning the case, the article should be moved to whatever the new term coined to replace the Netbook is.
I would also like to call in to question the non biased nature of the Save_the_Netbooks article. It seems to me to be highly critical of a public company that has legally enforced its trademark, and has yet to be proven to no longer hold that trademark. His attempt to railroad the case is quite astounding. I believe it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to remove the article; it could be held to be liable for a cease and desist as it stands and also could cause legal issues for Wikipedia at a future juncture, should Psion win their court case{.
I call for this editor to be prevented from meddling with the Netbook related articles and for his own biased article on his blog to be removed.
Pointing fingers and casting stones (and pasting fact tags all over the other person's comment) isn't really helpful to either of you. Please try to stay calm when editing, be civil, and assume good faith. Part of the neutral point of view policy is that we acknowledge that there may be numerous point of views towards a subject, and address all of the notable ones in turn, without giving any undue weight to a specific one. If the article has a bias in it, then please, feel free to remove it -- Wikipedia is a wiki after all! But you know what? It's probably _much_ more helpful to edit that section to acknowledge that viewpoint, so long as it is notable, and then provide the balance that is the counterpoint. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 09:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Crossposting to my posting at Reliable Sources noticeboard, to get more responses.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
In our article on the September_11_attacks, there is a lot of debate as to how much weight should be given to conspiracy theories and whether any possible undue weight is in violation of WP:NPOV. I would like some assistance in resolving this WP:NPOV dispute. Can some other editors follow the link and provide comments on WP:NPOV? The relevent discussion is here [24]. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged these two articles (and many more) with the peacock tag as they contain the following lead sentences:
Both sentences blatantly violate WP:PEACOCK and also infringe upon violating WP:NPOV. Calling someone "Academy Award-winning" provides zero context. I have stated that the lead sentence/paragraph needs to be reworked to expand upon the awards, and eliminate the "award-winning" gibberish. Binksternet has begun edit-warring on these articles, removing the maintenance template without reason, claiming "award-winning" is acceptable. I am requesting third-party assistance.
Crotchety Old Man ( talk) 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Cited references from reliable sources describing the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi past and swastika flag are being systematically purged. This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Histopher Critchens ( talk) 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at the article Energy Accounting? I think it describes the concept not in a NPOV, but instead have undue weight to the views of TechInc. That's not how a WP article should be written. Also we have had a quite heavy dispute of whether to put up a POV-tag or not, and some more things - see here for a summary I've written of the whole conflict at WP:EA (no editor assistance was provided there though). Mårten Berglund ( talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This article violates the term Neutral. There are comments made in the article against the Naturopathic doctor community. Not only are these false, providing a reference by someone who is also bias does not mean one can use an Encyclopedia to state ones opinion or degrade ones profession.
To call Natural care dangerous is to persuade the public to view a Naturopathic doctor with caution suggesting they are not capable in their chosen field. I have edited this article twice and explained it to the editor. Unfortunately this seems to keep popping back up in the article. This should not be allowed to be printed. When one reads an article about an MD or the conventional medical profession in an encyclopedia, It is not noted that 100's of 1000's of people die each year due to the mis-diagnosis or wrong prescriptions given to them by conventional doctors. This is however written in available prominent periodicals such as "The American journal of Medicine" Where people are seeking this kind of information.
There should be no arguments or opinions between Natural medicine and conventional medicine. Just the facts when writing in an educational article. This article otherwise appears to be neutral. Please edit these two comments as to allow the public to decide for themselves based on a neutral article whether to use natural care as a means of healing themselves, and so that children reading this encyclopedia do not form negative opinions of Naturopathy early on, by a respected source such as Wikipedia.
Following are the negative and or non neutral aspects of the article:
1. Naturopathy relies on scientifically unproven treatments,[5][6] including homeopathy, which is often considered a form of pseudoscientific quackery.[7][8]
2. Naturopathy is viewed with skepticism by critics who contend that it relies on unproven and controversial alternative medical treatments. Certain naturopathic treatments, such as homeopathy and iridology, are widely considered pseudoscience or quackery.[7][8][33]
Dr. Stephen Barrett (of Quackwatch and the National Council Against Health Fraud) has stated that the philosophy of naturopathy is "simplistic and that its practices are riddled with quackery."[5]
K. C. Atwood writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine, "'Naturopathic physicians' now claim to be primary care physicians proficient in the practice of both "conventional" and "natural" medicine. Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care. An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices."[6]
Harmonica5 23:57, February 23, 2009 (UTC)
Additional eyes needed for this fringe theory. I've rewritten the lead, but the main text needs a thorough scrubbing. Very vociferous editor who is confident of the WP:TRUTH at issue. THF ( talk) 15:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
In 20 July plot, use of the term "execution" has recently been changed to "murder, by execution". To me, this sounds like an NPOV violation. The opposing reasoning seems to be that since the Nazi government was not generally considered legal by historians (true? not true?), any execution that it carried out was actually a murder. Opinions? Mkcmkc ( talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The official description in a police report would be an "execution-style murder" if it was a murder done in such a style - but really that is not entirely true here. There _were_ executions. There isn't a lot of people, or sources, who would try to "doublespeak" it as anything else. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 19:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Serg36 ( talk · contribs) continues to add the " Obama" section of The Sean Hannity Show. The section states, based on a forum link, that Hannity is "advocating for a violent overthrow of the Obama administration." The section goes on quote a part of the constitution, and says, based on nothing, that Hannity is commiting treason. In fact, Hannity hasn't endorsed any of it, it is just some forum discussion, and total anti-Hannity POV. TheAE talk/ sign 07:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Are there any specific guidelines on biographies of recently-deceased people, that prevent them from reading too much like loving obituaries? I am looking at the example of Ilya Pyatetskii-Shapiro (who was indeed a great man but that's not the point). McKay ( talk) 14:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, can you take a look at the malicious and politically motivated editing that has been added to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party article recently. Over the past few days the page has been attacked and remade framing the party as a fascist Nazi spin off. The sources being used are all polemicists with a hostile agenda against the party. I suggest reversing the past weeks edits to around this edit [27] and fully protecting the page from any further changes for a while. What do you think? 94.192.38.247 ( talk) 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
User: THF ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is incorrect in stating multiple users have rejected this request. It seems he prefers to support WP:SOAP violations and WP:BITE rather than WP:AGF.
WP:CONS is required and that's what i'm seeking, not WP:FORUMSHOP. The editing in question was added by someone with a username suggesting WP:COI given recent events [28]. I think my suggestion to reverse the contested and dubious editing and put the page on full protection is sensible. What do you think? 94.192.38.247 ( talk) 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
A Men's Rights advocate is persistently editing the Mary Winkler article to represent _only_ the Men's Rights movement perspective on the allegations of abuse. How do I dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomundergrad ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The edits made by 1shamrocks9 to the Michele Bachmann article is very biased. If you look at the diff [29], the changes put her in an extremely positive light while casting her opponents negatively. It's like a campaign ad. The user only contributed edits to that one article over a period of two hours and nothing else to Wikipedia. I suspect it was created just to add those edits. What is the best way to handle this? The information add is valuable but they're all so heavily tainted. For example, it called mark-to-market accounting rule a way to artificially value assets sold on an artifical timetable. That's a gross misrepresentation of mark-to-market, as anyone who've worked in finance will tell you. I'm hestitant to remove all the edits but there's a lot of work to clean them up and even then I would doubt the neutrality of it.
Comatose51 ( talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Anon editor edit-warring to add slanted opinions not consistent with cited sources. Strongly suspect it's a sock of User:Jacksbernstein. Could use some help protecting this BLP. THF ( talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The page has extensive discussion of criticism of Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart is also one of the most praised companies in the United States. E.g., (and this is hardly a comprehensive list, just stuff I could quickly find because I knew about it off the top of my head) [30] [31] [32] Yet that praise is to be found nowhere in the article, while union criticism of Wal-Mart is prominently featured in the lead paragraphs. A single editor is edit-warring to remove the NPOV tag, with his only defense "I disagree." Can someone please restore the tag? THF ( talk) 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
More specifically, and this is just off the top of my head. This is just off the top of my head.
For these eleven reasons, I am placing an {unbalanced} tag on the article. THF ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC), updated with cites 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at this page rather expecting to find a one-sided article and instead find something that while not perfect, does not seem grossly unbalanced. The bulk of the article is about the company as a successful business, which is to be expected. The criticisms do have some balance and mostly include Walmart's responses. Nevertheless, much of what TDF is suggesting here could be included. As this is a content dispute, discussion belongs on the talk page. Can I suggest both sides stop taking potshots at each other here and concentrate on trying to find consensus on the talk page. By my reading of the talk page, where discussion is taking place, I expect this should be possible. Dean B ( talk) 19:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This short article is about an event celebrated by the Nation of Islam to honour its founder Wallace Fard Muhammad. I have been reverting additions to the page by user:LoveFest in which LF wants to inform readers that the NOI's spelling is incorrect because they have misplaced the apostrophe. [65] LF's edits had previously been removed by another user [66]. While I strongly believe that LF's comments are inappropriate, might there be a better and less ORish and POV form of words? The matter is complicated because NOI doctrine apparently accepts that more than one 'saviour' has existed. Paul B ( talk) 11:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This has been going on for over a year now. The whole genre of related articles has become problematic with one editor ( Sherzo) affirm to his point of view on a lack of notability, backing it up with edits, redirects accusations and insults. Can the community please help resolve this dispute as edits are being reverted for fun now. TorstenGuise ( talk) 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The subject isnt notable enough to be forked into its own article, TortenGuise believes all university and student groups are notable and aims to push this. please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_student_television/Archive_1#rewrite_and_possible_re_name Sherzo ( talk) 01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently, User:Collect inserted a sentence from a NY Times article used as a source for the Geronimo lawsuit section. [67] It says the lawyer for the family has acknowledged he has no hard proof. I believe the result for anybody reading this after the edit is that the lawsuit is described and then it says the lawyer has no hard proof. So I saw it as a violation of NPOV.
Collect seemed to have a hard time understanding this, claiming that since WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied how can including the "view" of the family laywer be against policy? I then emphasized that we cannot just include anything, even if it satisfies V and RS, since that could violate NPOV, but I seem to have trouble getting through. I also think the phrasing of the sentence as the lawyer "acknowledged" is important. It's more along the lines of, if pressed on it, yes he'll admit they have no hard evidence. But obviously he must think there is merit to the case, otherwise why would a former US Attorney General bother representing the Geronimo family?
Rather than fighting on it, I sought to make the summary of the NY Times article closer to the perspective of the journalist who wrote it. In apparent retaliation, Collect has rather cavalierly inserted a long rambling quote from a Cecil Adams Straight Dope article.
Discussion is here: Talk:Skull_and_Bones#Insertion_of_Clark_quote -- C S ( talk) 22:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Collect is entirely correct in his edit per NPOV. It is a significant statement by the attorney. It would be a violation of NPOV not to include such an important aspect of the case. The argument disputing its inclusion, "It's more along the lines of, if pressed on it, yes he'll admit they have no hard evidence", is original research and invalid. It would be helpful to add some more material on the background also, giving more information on both sides. That is a NPOV approach. NPOV applies to editors, not sources. NPOV is to represent those sources neutrally without distorting what they say, bearing in mind WP:UNDUE. Ty 04:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I note that Ramsey Clark's lawsuit has also named Barack Obama and Robert Gates as co-defendants. It's a publicity stunt without legal merit, and editors can use their common sense to note that it has no business in Wikipedia. THF ( talk) 21:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There is one issue here, which is NPOV, which demands that editors do not impose their own viewpoints on sources, but represent the viewpoints of the sources. In this case there is information which has received international coverage, and clearly needs to be represented. Regardless of the eventual outcome, it is a memorable event. There are 106,000 google returns for "geronimo" and "skull and bones", [68] and 146 google news results. [69] Major international sources in addition to The New York Times include Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, ABC News, Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, The Scotsman, Irish Times, The Canberra Times, Toronto Star, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Ty 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
If it is truly a notable event, it should be easy to substantiate with multiple stories from notable sources, and not simply a single story given by a wire service that was since reprinted into multiple sources. Please also note that simply because something is given a lot of coverage in any one source does not mean it is notable. To provide an example, there are approximately 14,300 hits across sourceforge, slashdot, the website, and blogs for a project I am working on, but that does not, by itself, say that the project is notable (even I as the person leading the project would say it isn't). Please remember that NPOV also means that we avoid giving things undue weight. While it is not directly applicable, the spirit of the fringe theories policy applies here too, I think - we have to be very careful not to perpetuate hoaxes and publicity stunts. In fact, that same idea is why we have the policy on spam links - because of how powerful a position Wikipedia has, both as a credible encyclopedia and as a source indexed by search engines such as Google, we have to use discretion about such things. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 23:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
A single story duplicated among numerous papers by numerous papers is still only a single source. Surely if it is notable, it should not be hard to find more? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 00:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Well the problem is that this claim is controversial, in the case - so perhaps a reasonable compromise may be saying something like "The case has been covered in numerous papers (ref and expand here). Some people feel the case is a merely a publicity stunt (refs and expand), while others feel the case has merit (refs and expand)" Of course that is hardly a perfect template and has some issues of its own, but the underlying idea is "okay, we have some conflicting views on the case here. Here's what one person says, and why, and here's what another says, and why." Cheers, Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 02:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Can uninvolved parties assess which of these wordings, if either, conform to the neutral point of view policy? Thanks, Skomorokh 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm new here, so apologies in advance if I'm breaking some protocol by posting this, but I was reading the Desertification article, and I found it somewhat biased, in particular: It is a common misconception that droughts by themselves cause desertification. While drought is a contributing factor, the root causes are all related to man's overexploitation of the environment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always taught in school that desertification has been happening for millions of years at least partially as a result of the ice ages freezing the available water for precipitation. The cited source is also a partisan environmental book.--Freyyr890 07:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freyyr890 ( talk • contribs)
One user, Haberstr is trying to push a personal view that the alleged terror bombings of world war 2 should be put into this article, on the basis that they both have terror in the name, he also appears to push a left wing bias to a degree. Sherzo ( talk) 00:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
80%+ of this article was written by SPA Eec17736 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and it now reads like an advertisement; there's not even a mention of the firm's relationship with convicted felon William Lerach. I'd do the required rewrite, but since I've testified before Congress about the scheme that sent Lerach to prison, and criticized the plea deal that spared his firm the fate of Milberg, I might be accused of a COI. THF ( talk) 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody help me out with the Mehmed Talat article. Somebody made this biography about a Turkish minister and made it part of the wikiproject Armenia and gave very biased information about him with the sole purpose of creating support for the Armenian genocide accusation. Somebody put a neutrality tag on it but they removed it despite objections. After more objections from various users some changes were made but they didn't put the neutrality tag back and it is still controlled by a very pro Armenian group who keep reverting any changes they don't like. For example I wrote "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide since it is only recognized by 21 countries out of the 194 countries in the world, most of whom were at war with the Ottoman Empire at the time. The few who had no part in WWI but recognize it are catholic countries who followed the decision of Vatican city to recognize the Armenian genocide or have strong Armenian lobbies in their country. Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Sweden and the United Kingdom all rejected bills for the recognition of the Armenian genocide and Israel, Denmark and most other countries find that there isn't enough proof for genocide although they condemn the massacres. It is obvious that the Armenian genocide is disputed and not an established fact. Therefore it is acceptable that I write "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide especially since this is a biography about a Turkish minister and not the Armenian genocide article. They also wrote that Mehmed Talat is quoted as saying "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" [4] recorded in the " The Memoirs of Naim Bey. In that article there is a section in which several European and Turkish historians dispute the authenticity of these papers so I changed it into Mehmet Talat is allegedly quoted as ordering to "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" [5] recorded in the " Andonian Telegrams" which is disputed for it's authenticity. [6]. They reverted these changes without discussion on the talk page so I changed it back and this went on a couple of time until one of them "Kansas Bear" reported me to an administrator and I got blocked. I am new and didn't know about the 3RR rule. And Kansas Bear broke the 3RR rule himself as you will see if you look at the history. I pointed that out to the administrators but they didn't do anything and didn't even read my objections but strictly followed 3RR rules without looking who was right. You can see that on my talk page. They were not so strict towards Kansas Bear despite him breaking the 3RR rules too. But other than that they reverted my changes again, and NOW they want to discuss it AFTER I got blocked. I have given my reasons again why I made these changes but am afraid to change them back. Can somebody who is experienced come and look at this article and read the talk page and help me out? Ibrahim4048 ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've recently had a discussion with an editor who seemed to think he knew enough to comment on a technical subject but clearly didn't. He was reasonably civil but preferred dodging the question & trying to mislead me in preference to admitting ignorance. Had I not know considerably more than he, I and other users of that page would have been confused or quite simply mislead. This would have undermined the point of wiki (of providing accurate information). I may be being over sensitive but - should I complain, and to where? Water pepper ( talk) 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The article about the incident at the USS Impeccable seems completely written from the US navy perspective. Surely this can't be complicant with the Wikipedia NPOV policy—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.78.111 ( talk • contribs)
I noticed when reading the Wiki bio of Ray Charles that it stated: Years active 1947-2015 That would be tricky since its only 2009 and the gentleman died in 2004!
Thanks for allowing me to presume that this is a mistake! I think it verifies itself!
NV Barbara —Preceding unsigned comment added by NV Barbara ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There's been an RFC going on at the talk page for the Abortion article about whether that article is being censored to favor one POV, and in particular whether Wikipedia should allow a discernible image of what will be aborted in a typical abortion. Neither that article nor any other Wikipedia article presently describes what will be aborted in a typical induced abortion, and instead that article only provides positive info about abortion, e.g. it is "safer than childbirth", there is no substantial risk of breast cancer, or fetal pain, or mental health problems, et cetera. Since that RFC has been closely divided, I thought it might help to get some input here. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
So, uh, is no one going to express an opinion about whether this article is currently a censored, slanted, POV propaganda piece?
Ferrylodge (
talk) 19:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been directed here from WP:RSN. We have a situation where there is consensus that a General Accounting Office report is WP:RS, but citing information from it is considered NPOV. I have tried to get the editors that hold that view to explain their position and their response seems to be that they find me to be 'Data mining' and 'Quote Mining' without going into further detail. This was my response when this most recent explanation for the brusque deletions was given:
Actually I think the table was a bad move because this kind of detailed information really doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. But it's painfully obvious how a new editor in your situation would make this kind of mistake. An intelligent person who finds themselves in front of a huge brick wall will change direction. If this brick wall was illegally erected in the middle of a motorway, this may lead to them being stopped by the police in the middle of a field. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to ask those who built the brick wall to show a permit for it.
I didn't follow this very closely, but after a cursory reading I got the impression that secondary sources are being used to make claims about what a government document ("GAO87") allegedly says which are explicitly contradicted by what the document says. When Unomi tried to fix this problem they found themselves under a torrent of accusations, most of which consisted of an abbreviated link to a policy or guideline which he supposedly had broken. Most or all of these accusations were never substantiated or withdrawn. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 10:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
aaas_pr
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This article is almost entirely in favor of vegetarians and their lifestyle as the most healthy, ethical, moral, etc etc. All criticisms of any pro-vege statement is removed without due reason or discussion even with citations. No criticism section or article fork is present. Sincerely and truly yours, C6541 ( T↔ C) at 21:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I understood "kosher tax" to be fees paid for kosher certification. When trying to quantify this, I checked the Wikipedia entry called "kosher tax", where I found out, to my horror, that I was a white supremacist. This hardly seems fair, because these markings are on many food products, and the article implies that in merely questioning them, one is commiting a racist act. I consider it a consumer issue, in both pricing and preparation, and should not be called an anti-Semite or an extremist for merely questioning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHerbertSewell ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I request some help on the Soviet war crimes (section During the Continuation War). The discussion is here. The current article does not give any reference to the deeds of the opposite side, which, in my view, violates the "Bias" section of the WP:NPOV. I proposed creating a new article abt. alleged Finnish war crimes and giving a link to it in the section about alleged Soviet war crimes in Finland, but was rejected by User:Whiskey. In order to stop the edit war I ask someone to help us resolve this dispute. Thank you in advance! FeelSunny ( talk) 23:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. Finnish atrocities that were documented in 1941-1944 surely had influences the nature of WWII in Karelia and made it much more cruel. FeelSunny ( talk) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Under the Peer Review (6.2) section on the intelligent design article, there is a sentence that says the following:
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being considered as valid science. [1] To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, [1] [2]
I then added the following:
although Discovery Institute claims to have a list of peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications. [3]
it got reverted 3 times in one day. One moderator said it was NPOV, another said it was SELFPUB. I agree that it is NPOV. You?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrafan007 ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 4 January 2009
We are having a dispute over whether to ascribe opinions to sources or not. Peter Damian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is arguing on the talk page and through reversions that if an opinion is in a reliable source then you can assert the opinion without using "X claims that Y". He says you can just "that Y". I argued on the talk quoting wikipedia policy that it is necessary to identify the year and person making the claim, especially when it is an opinion. It might be different if the claim is backed by experimental evidence and is well accepted fact.
Here are some examples of reverted diffs subject to dispute: [1] [2] [3] - My self-revert pending comment from third party: [4]
Notice that each time where I've tried to ascribe a POV to a source it has been reverted. Snowded ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) says that that "X claims/states/asserts Y" is a weasel phrase. I believe it is necessary to characterize competing perspectives within NPOV.
I'll give a specific example of when I think it is necessary to qualify an assertion -- when it is an opinion. In the introduction to the current article, it says "[NLP] continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology, and only limited impact on mainstream psychotherapy and counselling". This is a blatant violation of wikipedia policy. First it asserts an opinion as fact. I checked Heap's paper from 1988, actually says "informal soundings amongst academic psychologists revealed an almost total absence of awareness of NLP" see page 9 for quote in context. Heap explicitly is using personal experience as evidence (opinions of his academic psychology colleagues). This is not a scientific evidence and is therefore mere opinion. He did not conduct a survey or whatever. He was simply using his personal judgment which is fallible. It must be presented as opinion and nothing more. Second this information is twenty years old and written in present-continuous tense. If we are to paraphrase Heap about the awareness of NLP in 1988 it must be clear we're talking about that timeframe. The current statement implies that we're talking about the present state of affairs which may or may not be true. There are similar examples in the "NLP and science" section that need similar treatment. This is directly related to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."
Action potential t c 11:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I would point out that the issue under consideration is mainly a factual one (frequency with which scientific articles support/reject/ignore NLP, etc), not one of opinion (underlying value of NLP). While it is possible that the cited author may be subject to some degree of confirmation bias (or similar), I think it presents prima facie evidence, and should be accepted at face value as fact (and thus not requiring attribution), unless and until reliable countervailing evidence is produced. I would further point out that "claim" is a WP:WTA. Hrafn Talk Stalk 13:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to deal with another editor who continues to insert non-neutral POV. I've tried twice to rewrite while capturing the core of that person's arguments in a neutral POV. He always reasserts the non-neutral POV. He's persistent - I see no value in a revert war. Someone other than me needs to explain NPOV to him. Can someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.115 ( talk) 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
We're having trouble with this article with an editor (( 83.67.217.135 ( talk))) who seems to want to break WP:OR in order to break WP:NPOV. The issue is thus: Stuart Campbell has a verifiable involvement in the FairPlay campaign, to the extent of "supporter" and "spokesman". The FairPlay campaign encouraged a boycott of games buying in the UK during the first full week of December. The campaign website claims that there was a "big sales blip during the campaign week which saw Game, Europe's biggest videogame retailer, lose a massive 80% of its share value overnight in response to disappointing sales". It also claims "When the campaign was over, sales shot up again, just as we said they would". [7] Taking these claims at face value, they are all either false or unverifiable. Sales blip: Game's sales figures for the weeks surrounding the boycott are not available. 80% of share value lost overnight: verifiably false using historical share price information. And sales shooting up again: again, no sales figures are available.
It is true, however, that GAME did issue a profit warning on 17th December 2002. News articles ( [8] [9]) blame this on a price war with Argos and Dixons. The share price did drop on this profit warning, which came on 17th December (just over a week after the end of the boycott). In order to get close to the "80% overnight" claim, we have to interpret "80%" as "70%", and "overnight" as "15 days". Now, obviously, if we include this information and link it to the boycott, it would be synthesis ( WP:OR). What 83.67.217.135 wants to do is to include all this information in the section about the boycott, but not to explicitly link it to the boycott, which he considers not to be a breach of WP:OR. The other editors concerned in the debate all think that to mention one after the other like this implies a link. 83.67.217.135 thinks that this will allow the reader to determine for themselves the "notability" of the campaign. To read this debate, simply scroll to the bottom of the talk page for article in question.
It seems to me that the only reason to include information on a share price relating a claim made on a website for a campaign that the subject of the article is not particularly closely linked with, is to push the POV that the boycott was a success.
As can be seen from the history of the article, 83.67.217.135 considers himself the "owner" of the article, reverting others' changes whenever he disagrees with them, sometimes with an edit summary such as "what the fuck is wrong with you?". From the talk page you can see that he will not listen to other editors, considering himself to be the ultimate authority on what changes are allowed to be made. He has had to be warned about civility on several occasions (indeed, he has recently called me a liar, ignoring me when I show that what I have said is true).
Frustratingly, this debate would probably not be occurring if 83.67.217.135 would declare the WP:COI that he seems to have. He refuses to confirm his identity, or rule anything out. He has almost certainly used at least one sockpuppet on the talk page. With deference to WP:OUTING, examining his contributions reveal that he is almost entirely concerned with mentions of the name 'Stuart Campbell' on wikipedia. His writing style and way of treating people is recognisable from other websites. Yet this article cannot currently be changed without his say-so, as he will just revert the change.
All we really need is a few more than the 3 or 4 editors we currently have to come along and chat for a few minutes. Maybe you will all agree with him, but at least the debate will be resolved. Please do help - it could all be resolved so easily and quickly! Thank you. Jumble Jumble ( talk) 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear to me that the purpose of the article is to list those on the receiving end of the boycott in the hopes of furthering the goals of the boycott. I don't think including a "hit list" in a Wikipedia article is appropriate. 24.21.105.252 ( talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The article strengths and weaknesses of evolution needs to be checked for WP:NPOV. The basis for this challenge are as follows:
Undue Weight states, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." (Emphasis added.) Attempts to insert a neutral explanation of the subject have met with reverts by editors who doggedly insist that "this article will, of necessity, give an entirely negative weight on the topic " to the exclusion of all else. (emphasis added.) [10] While Undue Weight rightly dictates that majority scientific opinion be given more weight than the the minority opinion, it does not - as the authors claim - PRECLUDE a neutral airing of the minority opinion.
Undue Weight further states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." (emphasis added.) Again, the very subject of the article is "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" which by it's very existence implies a POV that there are "weaknesses" in the science of evolution. That is the subject of the article, so regardless of "fringe opinion" arguments, SOME weight should be given to the subject from the proponents' POV because of it's "significance to the subject." per WP:NPOV. That the majority opinion be given more weight is not in dispute. What IS in dispute is the notion as stated above by authors that they will "not allow" any representation of the minority opinion.
Impartial Tone states"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." The wording of the article is not just weighted to the majority opinion, it is simply a recitation of that POV. The authors argue that opposing POV reliable sources simply do not exist, therefor the POV cannot be cited. Their argument is to forbid citing the source of the POV itself (an advocacy group) as inherently "unreliable" because they are by definition "ignorant" "fringe" creationists who cannot be given any inclusion in the article at all, even though their movement is the SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE.
Impartial Tone also states "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." The entire article is not just an endorsement of one POV, but a sustained argument of that POV's positions. The use of dismissive quotes and advocacy wording is so pervasive in the article as to not require citations of instances. A read of the article leaves one with the impression that this is an position paper in opposition to the subject, not an encyclopedic article.
Neutrality and verifiability states, "Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." Authors insist (see links above) that absolutely no weight can be given to the subject POV because all reliable sources are on their side, and none exist for the subject POV. Clearly the NPOV rules address this. Such is not an argument for excluding neutrality from an article, as the authors maintain.
There are certain factual errors in the article. The errors (surprise surprise) lend weight to the POV of the authors, and tend to discredit the subject POV. I have suggested that such errors be corrected.... we shall see if the authors comply. Error: Language not "proposed." It already exists. "Proposal" is to remove it.
Finally, the subject article may violate POV fork in that it creates a topic covered ad nauseum in other topics, for the sole purpose of criticizing it.
If the authors hold to form, they will accuse me of being a creationist with an agenda. Such is not the case, and I challenge them to prove such slanderous accusations. I am in fact an unapologetic believer in evolution science. However, I have the ability to put my personal opinions in the back seat and let neutrality be my compass when editing Wikipedia. Neutrality and a fairly balanced representation of the subject is all I am looking for. 24.21.105.252 ( talk) 19:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Based upon this IP user's complaint I expect a very different article than what I saw when I went to check. It certainly appears to follow our NPOV policy quite well, and certainly is not an attempt to create a POV fork because the content in no way contradicsts the facts or tone of the main evolution article.
If you have specific things you want explained to you, it's best to keep it to the article talk page instead of cluttering up things here. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see this article doesn't violate any part of the NPOV policy. Teapot george Talk 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like an opinion on this part of the article on the Swedish Armed Forces: [11]
The paragraph is based on a debate article (which of course is biased), but the results is refered to as if it was more or less an absolute truth. In my opinion sentences like "The Defense force is preoccupied with providing its officers with high titles, building a nice façade and in changing logotypes" is not neutral. It is clerarly pointed criticism and should be refered to as such.
The paragraph starting "How do we compare ranks ..." seem to be a personal reflection by the editor. Is that NPOV?
/ B****n ( talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I please request advice on dealing with an WP:UNDUE issue with respect to certain content in an article on a Chicago alderman WP:BLP. Paragraph at issue begins "In 1998 and 2002 Preckwinkle ... " in the Alderman section. About one sentence mentioning the subject's vote and for clarity the subsequent veto would be the appropriate weight for this ordinance in this article. More than one sentence, if they belong in this subject's article, they belongs in 35 others as well, who also voted in favor. No reliable source supports a role for the subject of this article in this ordinance beyond the vote in favor. This subject's article has more background on the ordinance than the ordinance's sponsor's article. The current text suggest more of a role for the subject of this article in this ordinance than is supported by reliable sources and so may represent an attempt at WP:OR. At least 3 rounds of reverts have been exchanged, although not within the same day, and the text has evolved somewhat with successive reverts. Extensive discussion on talk page completed without resolution at Talk:Toni Preckwinkle: Level of detail of background information on big box ordinance, please see. A round of WP:3 completed without resolution. Separate article established at 2006_Chicago_Big_Box_Ordinance without resolution. Assistance requested on the project page without response (other editor is project Manager/Director). Please edit the article or suggest approaches here or on the article talk page. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
I read a newspaper article on Tomb Raider: Underworld and so I attempted to add material from that article to the Wikipedia article on the game. The Wikipedia article does not appear to be written overly neutral, and given that some of the concerns in the article were that Eidos had attempted to manage the reception the game received, and given that Eidos have openly admitted this, and given that there are a large number of anonymous editors editing the article, I would appreciate it if experienced, neutral Wikipedians could review the article and the situation and offer a way forwards. I had thought there would be a more collegiate atmosphere, but I can't find any reason for my changes being removed from the article. Page differences follow: [12], [13], [14] and [15]. If my amendments were also not neutral, I am happy to discuss ways to make the article more compliant with WP:NPOV, and how better to collaborate to achieve such a goal. Someplace else ( talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The Jesus myth hypothesis article is having an issue regarding how the term is even defined as the terms Jesus myth and Christ myth are used interchangeably in the literature. The problem is different reliable sources with clearly contradictory definitions.
You have reliable references like Farmer, ("A Fresh Approach to Q," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, eds. Jacob Neusner, Morton Smith (Brill, 1975), p. 43), Jones, (Independence and Exegesis: The Study of Early Christianity in the Work of Alfred Loisy, Charles Guignebert, and Maurice Goguel (Mohr Siebeck, 1983), p. 47), and Horbury ("The New Testament," A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain (Oxford 2003) p. 55) all staying that 'Christ-myth' theory is that Jesus NEVER existed but this would by very definition excludes theorists like Mead and Ellegard who hold the Jesus DID exist abet in a different century as people who hold Robin Hood existed have put put forth people like Sire Johannes d'Eyvile who lived during Henry III's reign a full century after Robin Hood supposedly lived. Never means NEVER ie Jesus not existing AT ALL, not in the 1st century CE or 1st BCE or any other century for that matter. A few editors don't understand this simple matter of logic and support the Farmer/Jones/Horbury definition definition while also supporting the idea Mead and Ellegard are "Christ Mythers"
On other end you have reliable references have "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." (Dodd, C. H. (1938) History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17) and Remsburg The Christ both of whom define "Christ Myth theory" and "Christ Myth" as including the idea that there is a possible historical person behind it all. Worse, Dodd doesn't give a time period to his "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" statement so there is no way to say if he is talking about the position of Mead and Ellegard or something similar to the position Wells puts for in The Jesus Myth (1999) and better explains in Can We Trust the New Testament? (2003) pg 43: "This Galilean Jesus was not crucified and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ — devoid of time and place - of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin." Related you have Price's position of "My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." Christ a Fiction (1997)
The definition of what "Jesus myth hypothesis"/"Christ Myth"/"Jesus Myth" even is should not be a game of pick that reference but that is a big part of this article's NPOV problems.
What do you do when reliable sources are in conflict over something so simple as a definition and some editors favor certain definitions (I favor the Remsburg/Dodd definition as it is the most encompassing) over others which appear to put a POV slant on what the article even covers?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 13:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Capasitor was suggested not to use the partisan sources at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Sources. However he engaged into bad-faith assumptions here, but was stopped by mediator User:Golbez and me. In this section further evidences on violation of existing policy have been given so that Capasitor retracted, resorting to the off-topic. I reverted the article once. Additional recent evidence is here. -- Brand спойт 07:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, there was a suggestion - or, more precisely, a violent racist demand - not to use certain sources based entirely on alleged [and unproven] ethnic origin of well-published, well-quoted and well-respected Western academics. These scholars have nothing to do with nationalist biases of some Soviet and post-Soviet academics that from Armenia and Azerbaijan WP should indeed shun. There were three quotes brought up to discredit mentioned academics by User:Grandmaster; all three of them were proven irrelevant and/or offensive of WP's regulations and spirit (one was from a nationalist-minded scholar who used factually mistaken info to press his emotionally-charged accusations). Since then, after suffering a moment of intellectual bankruptcy, Brand спойт engaged in a series of blind reverts and acts of edit-warring. Please block Brand спойт from editing Nagorno Karabakh - he is a disruptive user with poor English who is contributng nothing of substance to this and ALL other articles he tries to influence. Capasitor ( talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am not experienced at this, but I try to correct something I perceive as unfair hampering, and biased editing of the article about Plasma Cosmology. It started with a search for "Electric Universe" which turned up an article about a band, and after a while I discovered an almost hidden line that linked to "Plasma Cosmology" - which as I understand it is not a 100% correct pointer. Then when reading about P.C. I saw a definitive bias in the article not exactly in favour of it, and also links the size of a billboard to the Big Bang etc. - which is *not* the subject for that article. I was stunned by this and it looked like someone has been wingclipping the article.
I then started a long read in the discussion page, and made a few discoveries. One person in particular seems to have hijacked the whole thing, made ad hominem attacks, made accusations about "fringe science", "rubbish" (or similar wording), and came across as biased to the degree of being a "crusader on a mission". This person made claims that he rarely supported, but demanded support for any claims from the opponents. he even threatened to report someone for disagreeing with him. I the discovered a link to the former article in it's full length, and this wasn't just a wingclipping, it was in my view vandalism - where lots of relevant information was just removed, even making remarks in the article leading to the BB theory wasn't enough it seems. even though, again, this was about P.C. and related, not Big Bang. Does the articles about Big Bang (and related) link to it's "opponents" - like the P.C. consept?
The discussion led me to the page about "gaming" - where rules are (ab)used to crush opponents, I find that this whole affair reeks of "gaming". Anyone reading the discussion will see who I have in mind, also the edit statistics will show this. I would like Wiki to be neutral and fair and educational, not biased and preconceived.
The discussion arguments, if applied to the BB theory articles (and related) would largely do the same to those, as if one scientist mentions G-d or something religious at any time, or goes to church, or f.ex. at any time talks to a member of the Flat Earth Society or have a beer with Mr. Sitchin he is automatically discredited, and his experiments and theories along with him. Anyone can see that this is rubbish.
This "slaughter" of an article stops it from developing, and as it seems, noone dares or bothers to contribute to it anymore. Oh. and I must add, that the basis for P.C. is founded in well researched and proven science, and derivates are as relevant as any speculation from the so-called "Big-Bangers" (reffering here to highly unproven "facts" that may come across as mere speculations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenzofeis ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Kenzofeis ( talk) 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba
This article is poorly written, not in compliance with quality standards, lacks flow and difficult to navigate. It needs improvement to grammar, style, cohesion, "tone" and spelling. These are some of the problems when accuracy and neutrality should be the norm.
The article appears to have been developed under a "one sided" point of view and "biased" within the following areas,
Demographics Emigration Economy Culture Religion Batista's control ends with democratic rule From Batista to Castro Cuba following revolution Cuba during the Cold War Post Cold War Cuba Transfer of presidency from Fidel to Raúl Castro Military Latin America
I respectfully request permission to edit and/or prepare an article covering the above topics with verifiable, authoritative references and backup information.
Al (padwriter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padwriter ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged this article as possible POVish, explained at talk page why. Because it's a featured article, I think it should get it's mention here. I'm not too aware with the process stages on Wikipedia, I probably won't come back to see the outcome, but I'll accept what the community has to say, I'm just stating a concern. -- Kybalion from Wind ( talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this recent unsourced [ ] by User 66.166.53.194 whose other recent unsourced edits seemed racist as in this [ ], which has been reverted. I've tagged the Jack Comer article with "POV" and "unreferenced" but I don't know if I should undo all his edits or just the racist POV stuff in the Jack Comer article because some of it actually seems informative and considering it's not a living person maybe I should just wait until the editor provides a source? Can someone give advice on how to proceed please. OlEnglish ( talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been working with another other editor, Bert Schlossberg to try to get Korean Airlines Flight 007 to GA. He added most of the initial content, while I have been doing most of the cleanup in the past 2 weeks following its submission to GA (which it failed). Despite some major work on the article, I still have a few nagging concerns about its neutrality as the primary contributor is associated with a website called rescue.org that has a theory that the aircraft ditched instead of crashing, and that survivors are being kept in the Russian prison system. In particular, my concerns are around the weighting given to certain arguments that would support the rescue007.org theory, even though most of the really obvious POV has now been edited out. Secondly, the way in which some of the material is presented, e.g. the lack of human remains, appears to be slanting towards OR because of the way in which the quotes from the source article have been selectively highlighted and presented to make a new argument that I don't see in any secondary sources. Maybe I'm being overly analytical, however I'd appreciate a second look before this article goes up for GA review again (which I'm expecting it will pass this time round). PS: Despite some strong differences of opinion over the article, Bert & I are working together towards a common goal of getting this to GA. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to get some feedback from previously uninvolved editors on the neutrality of Osho. I believe that the article is overly pedantic, includes unnecessary quotation, and undue weight leaning towards viewpoints in favor of the subject. I would like to request that previously involved editors comment in the appropriate section below (which includes myself). ← Spidern → 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment In this section I present a few examples of why I believe the page is suffering from POV issues.
I have shrank this section to avoid cluttering the page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Lead
-Opinion, unsourced
-Unsourced
-Opinion. Childhood and adolescence (1931–1950)
-Undue weight to Osho's testimony. University years and public speaker (1951–1970)
-Unnecessary. University years and public speaker (1951–1970)
-Presents self as fact, rather than opinion of Osho. Mumbai (1970–1974)
-Unverifiable, qualitative speculation The ashram in Pune (1974–1981)
-Unsourced, and "constant expansion" is rather vague.
-Sharply opinionated.
- Informal. Move to America (1981)
- Synthesis. The Oregon commune (1981–1985)
-Opinion. No attribution given to person holding it.
- Synthesis on both accounts.
-Selectively using Turner's religious background as a subtle critique against him. Ego and the mind
-Every sentence in this paragraph is a qualitative opinion, not a verifiable fact. Therefore, each one of theses opinions should be connected with their associated scholar.
-Unnecessary direct quotes, reintroduced by Jalal.
-Presents unverifiable speculation as fact. No context. Which people? When? Meditation
- WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTADVERTISING (see this)
-"Key ingredient" is a qualitative judgement, and opinion. The proceeding quote is ambiguous and doesn't improve the quality of the article.
- Undue weight and justification in Osho's favor.
-Ambiguous. What does "such device" refer to? Quote does not necessesarily add quality to the article.
-Completely ambiguous statement with no context. Renunciation and the "New Man"
-Opinion. Need to explain whose it is.
-This entire section is given undue weight, for a comment Osho made in passing. |
← Spidern → 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No criticism at all, even though the article claims some of the plans specify eating only 415 calories a day. (?!) That fact sounds unlikely though. All help appreciated. Sticky Parkin 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Article seems to me to favour one POV, some contributors are very enthusiastic. All help appreciated. Sticky Parkin 02:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a lot of issues with this article. One more or less major thing is the absolute size of it. But what I would say is the main thing is that the references they use for this article are basically far-left websites such as; CSN.com, The Huffington Post, Media Matters, and MSNBC.com just to name a few (as I've mentioned on the talk page). This article needs some serious looking into, at least by an administrator or somebody thereby qualified. Thanks. Lighthead þ 03:27, 22 January (2009) (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_goodman
A few concerns about this article:
1.
WP:UNDUE
A section was added in on her "a supporter of anti-semetic and anti-zionist" views.
I believe the section contravenes WP:UNDUE - "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.". There is only one reference making such a claim. I have read quite a few reviews of her work, and only come across such descriptions of her from politically biased sources. The sort of sources that labels anyone "anti-semitic", who dares to question Israeli actions. I don't think the anti-semitic supporter claims are proportional to the opinions of her.
2.
WP:MORALIZE
While not moralizing, I believe the same guideline applies here - "That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately". A section labelling her as anti-semetic, without providing any proof of the charges or defense on her part? Again, I believe this is misleading to any readers, in it presents (fringe) opinion without providing any details or counterpoints.
3.
WP:YESPOV
As the NPOV states, "Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.". There is no background on the supposed charges. There is no indication as to how representative that view is of "popular views". The claims against her are not presented with any of the stated guidelines in mind.
4. extremist source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources The source cited, The Jewish Press - is clearly extremist in its viewpoint. Its articles are harshly critical of anyone questioning Israeli actions, while glossing over or ignoring any contrary information. It's a religious paper, as is clearly shown in its name. I don't think the source is "reliable" or "neutral", and can only be categorized as "fringe or extremist". The real complaint they have about her, it seems, is that she presents views on her show which aren't supportive of Israel. Thus, they attack her. Thus, they are extremists - or in so far as reliable sources are concerned.
Normally I'd just go and nuke the whole "anti-semitic supporter" claims section, but I thought it might be better to see if an editor could weigh in first.
LimeyBugger (
talk) 01:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I clicked on "The Ting Tings" link on Ladyhawke's Wikipedia site. And it said " and they are terrible". so I guess someone has erased the Ting Tings info and replaced it with that line. Wonder if they have messed with other sites,too..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.100.218 ( talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is written in a way that is more about conflicts with the radio station instead of being about the radio station. Terminology, weight of certain conflicts, original research, sources, and leangth of sections all need to be addressed. Cptnono ( talk) 06:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has concerns that this article is biased, and that it would "..fit well on a fanatical site but here a balanced article is prefered". I'd appreciate the input of a third-party who has no opinion of the subject himself. Would someone experienced be able to take a look? Cheers, – Toon (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That seems to be the claim here, I would appreciate people commenting. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like some input on the issue of redirecting St. Pancake and Saint Pancake to Rachel Corrie and NPOV as it applies to redirects in general.
"Saint Pancake" is a disparaging nickname for the deceased Rachel Corrie, invented, I believe, by the "Little Green Footballs" guy and used on various right-wing message boards. The term does not appear anywhere in our Rachel Corrie article. It appears that there have been several efforts to add it, but it is always removed (see Rachel Corrie talk page archives for lots of "pancake"-related discussion).
Is Jclemens wrong here? Am I? What is the relationship of the NPOV policy to redirects such as St. Pancake? I have notified all users named above of this post. Thanks, Mike R ( talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Utility Statistics: Per http://stats.grok.se/, Saint Pancake was accessed 62 times in 2008. St. Pancake was accessed 79 times in 2008. Clearly, there are an average of ~12 people a month who use it, indicating that it's a useful redirect. Jclemens ( talk) 01:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am writing to ask that someone intervene on the Savannah College of Art and Design page. The history section has several times been purged of any reference to SCAD's litigation against another art college, the School of Visual Arts. Also, a period of unrest which was widely documented both in regional and national publications and which resulted in censure of the school by the American Association of University Professors is completely absent from the history section on this page. It appears that somebody with the user name Somno is censoring the page and has engaged in an ugly personality conflict with another editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.42.204 ( talk) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please look at the section called "NLP and science" on the article Neuro-linguistic programming and comment on whether it meets NPOV. I want to edit this sentence to adhere to WP:NPOV. I have a problem with the word 'pretends'. I also think 'but is really pseudoscience' is POV pushing. Follow is my proposed alternative. could someone help me word this for NPOV?
Action potential t c 05:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Warren is a prominent religious figure in the US. Obama chose Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. This created controversy. Some editors claim that the invocation controversy is not notable. And they claim that the current wording of the article accurately explains that controversy. Current wording is simply this: "The decision angered pro-choice and LGBT advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.[15]" without any explanation as to why. They are opposing addition of more information eventhough it has many reliable sources. Please comment in: Talk:Rick_Warren#Warren.2C_invocation.2C_views_on_homosexuality Phoenix of9 ( talk) 00:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Two related articles, Real Canadian Superstore and Loblaw Companies are close to having an edit war, and I'm trying to stop it before it happens. Two months ago, a new logo appeared in advertising for the stores, and an anon IP is convinced this indicates all the stores in the chain in Ontario, Canada are changing their name. This appears unlikely. A more reasonable explanation is that there are two versions of the store, and the new logo is for either type, for advertising only This has been explained on his user talk page by several people, but he does not appear to accept it. This situation started at the beginning of December, and there have been 13 changes and reverts to the first article, and 9 to the second. These are all from anon IPs, and 2 of the most recent and persistent, User talk:99.224.112.64 and User talk:99.224.42.232, are clearly the same person based on their posting style and similar message, stating he is getting this information from his father who works at one of the stores. (That's why I've decided to take it to the NPOV board.) I've tried taking this to Page Protection (and also asked if a block on this IP might be in order), but was turned down because there is not enough recent activity to justify action at this time. The changes and reverts have happened several times in the past 2 days. I don't know if maybe they are waiting for it to turn into a full edit war before taking action? Surely we should be trying to stop that. More info: until today, this person refused to respond on the article's talk page. Now he has done so, but still insists on changing the article, and provides no citations, only rumours and speculation. His latest edit summary says one of the stores has actually changed its sign, but I think he might be pulling my leg. I can find no press release about a name change, and the store he is talking about is about 1000 miles away from his location in Toronto. I still think page protection is the best way to deal with this. Please advise? -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 14:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Dispute over the title of the article. Two questions: a) Is the title POV or not? b) Is this title too ambiguous? Please opine at the article talk page. Thanks Blueboar ( talk) 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I have had my posting classified as vandalism simply because they stated facts and events that are not flattering to a USC player. My mention of the circumstances surrounding the player being charged with sexual assault, and the dismissal of the case, was deleted and I was given a warning on my IP. Also, all other postings I have made since then have been deleted, on any subject. This is harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.235.184 ( talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The whole article reads like a partisan smear against a noted author and activist.
Among, but not limited to, are:
1. An entire section titled, "Accusations of antisemitism" - which refers almost exclusively to extremist or fringe sources.
2. Repeated use of CAMERA (and the like) articles which are full of weasel words to justify their POV pushing
3.
WP:WEIGHT critical (sometimes slanderous) sources are quoted in full in several places, giving far more prominence than they deserve.
4. overly large section to one rather minor incident - cuppa
WP:WEIGHT, anyone?
I really don't have the background and knowledge to correct this article, unfortunately. GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 00:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Article name is really not important. There is small dispute if we can say about state or regime that it is "most murderous". We are having 2 books which are saying that, so statement "most murderous regime" is sourced, but what is situation with NPOV rules ?-- Rjecina ( talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Satellite9876has removed a previous NPV dispute and has made 17 changes to the article.
Some of the changes posted are misleading and contain inaccurate informtaion.
Satellite9876 says Cohen sold his SoJewish business to Totally plc for £40,000 quoting an article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2755457/Back-to-the-real-world.html. But the article says his share of the sale of SoJewish to Totally was £310,000. It later says he sold half of his stake in Totally plc for cash at a value of £40,000.
The company he founded was sold to Totally plc for just over £4m. The company was sold of 12.5m shares worth 32.5p http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=373707&in_page_id=2&in_a_source=This%20is%20Money
Satellite9876later confuses revenue with profit, quoting http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2755457/Back-to-the-real-world.htmland to claim that his CyberBritain company made just £165 of sales per year. The article says the company made a profit of £165, very different from revenue.
( Jebuss ( talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
-- Satellite9876 ( talk) 05:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
To what extent does WP:NPOV require the inclusion of a murder defendant's theory of the case? The article widely quotes prosecutors, activists, and the self-interested trial lawyer bringing a multi-million dollar suit against the city, but there is not a full accounting of the defendant's factual arguments based on witness statements from the police investigation, and a single editor demands they be omitted because they are "emotional"--even as accusations of "execution" are in the lead of the article. Discussion at Talk:BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant#NPOV tag. THF ( talk) 11:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.
User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.
(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)
The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar. THF ( talk) 12:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) regarding whether or not the inclusion of the Boy Scout's Oath is POV or not. All input there would be much appreciated. Thanks! -- LexCorp ( talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Tagging resolved as discussion seem to have been, er well, resolved.-- LexCorp ( talk) 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The current article about this important woman in history may not be accurate. For example, in Daniel Radinsky's book "Love Poems from God" (2002), he states on pp. 1-2 that, due to Rabia's being separated from her parents, perhaps because of their deaths, she was sold into a brothel where she worked until the age of 50. To quote from Radinsky: "Many myths surround her life and poems, but one has been recently confirmed by one of the most respected contemporary spiritual teachers..." He goes on to explain the forgoing.
Some may be offended by this. Personally, I don't think it diminishes at all the wonder and holiness of this woman, surrounded by so much pain and suffering of this earthly world--none of which seemed to affect her mystical love of God. Whatever the case, there's reason for me to doubt the current author's objectivity and/or being completely informed.
Timcollardey ( talk) 04:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Competition_law#Reason_for_tags, I have identified forty separate problems with the article justifying an NPOV tag; a user reverted on the grounds that he doesn't like my employer, and refuses to engage with the issues I have raised on the talk page, instead launching a personal attack against me. Other than attempting to add the tags once, I have confined my edits to the talk page. Can I get a third opinion? THF ( talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
A "pro-conspiracy theory" POV warring SPA is upsetting the carefully crafted neutrality of this article... remarkably conversant in quoting Wiki guidelines for someone who's account is only four days old. We are attempting to stay civil to him... he is not responding in kind. Some assistance would be appreciated. Blueboar ( talk) 05:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, The biography of living persons (myself) has been labeled "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The biography is also a "stub."
I am the victim of a drive-by tagging, and would like to resolve the neutrality question. Also I'd like to cooperate with you to upgrade the quality of the bio so that it is more than a stub.
Very truly yours, Larry Bodine, Esq. Apollo Business Development 4601 E. Camino Pimeria Alta Tucson, AZ 85718 630.942.0977 Lbodine@LawMarketing.com http://www.LarryBodine.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.35.59 ( talk) 17:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It would appear that the article on William Dembski was not written by a person with a neutral point of view. The biographical information about him largely questions his abilities and presents information in a manner that would arouse disdain by a materialist. An extended list of controversies also appears to come from this angle. This is especially evident in the "talk" tab under "Oklahoma" where the author hopes to track down articles criticizing Dembski so that it could be used as source material. This seems to violate the requirements for biographies of living persons to mock or disparage and also criticism and praise being balanced and not too one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommie113 ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
We have an article on a fringe theory that also contains debunking of this fringe theory. So far, so good. But the article seems to go out of its ways to debunk the theory such that it seems to violate WP:NPOV. In particular, it does two things that give me the impression that it is attempting to promote a POV. First, it gives a point by point rebuttals. When I look at similar articles on other fringe theories such as Holocaust Denial or Creationism they don't seem to do this. Second, the majority of the article is about debunking the fringe theory rather than the fringe theory itself. In some sections, we have 11-to-1 converage where the fringe theory gets one sentence and the rebuttal gets 11 sentences. Is that appropriate? While I'm all for educating the public, at what point does the debunking violate WP:NPOV? Do we have any policy or guideline that can shed some light on this? I've read WP:NPOV and fringe theory and I'm not sure it really answers my questions. The article to which I refer is the Apollo_hoax. It starts off OK and then seems to promote a point of view. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
etc. Not satisfactory, in my opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 17:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to keep the claim-rebuttal format, I would suggest something like this:
I think there needs to be more balance. As far as I know, we're supposed to follow NPOV even in fringe articles.
As I mentioned earlier, if you look at the holocaust denial page, they don't have a point-by-point rebuttal of holocaust denial and they do have a separate page for Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial. I think that format works quite well.
Can we split this article into two and put the detailed point-by-point rebuttals in a separate criticism article? Then it doesn't come across as so POV because it's a criticism article. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Protonk has raised (I think) an interesting point (assuming I understand it correctly) so I'll repeat it here: "Unreliable sources" are only allowed in this articles insofar as they speak about themselves--if we want to describe the hoax claims themselves we may use the books/pamphlets/etc to do so. Otherwise the same expectations about reliable sources apply. As for my statement about proportion, I see no reason to think why it should not be true for fringe science/hoaxes when it is true for everything else.
Obviously, this is an article about a fringe theory so unreliable sources are allowed - I think that we agree on that point. However, Protonk seems to make a distinction between neutrality (in general) and neutrality based on what reliable sources are saying. That is to say, if all reliable sources are biased to a particular view point, then it's perfectly acceptable for such an article to present repeat that bias.
So, for example, if the reliable sources say that Apollo hoax believers are wrong, it's OK for us to do the same. That is to say, we don't have to give the fringe theory equal footing with reality even in an article about fringe theories.
EDIT: Or to put it another way, there's a difference between being biased (in a general, non-Wikipedia sense) and being biased according to reliable sources?
Protonk, is my understanding of what you said correct? If so, can everyone please confirm (or reject) that Protonk's point is correct?
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to muddy the waters a bit, here's another possible approach, for those who fear that there are too many words supporting the debunking. Part of the problem is the confrontational approach of the questions. The hoaxsters say such-and-such, and the debunkers say, not such-and-such. It could be done a different way, with this abbreviated example derived from Bubba73's comments. Each simple answer shown here would have some elaboration:
The next question is why the Apollo line always seems to get the last word. That's because the question was actually raised by the hoax supporters. They could be switched around, but the result is the same, as the Apollo explanation has already said why the hoax explanation is factually inaccurate. Hard to tell which approach is more "biased".
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I was so dense and it took me so long to 'get it'. Thanks to everyone for their help. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As a result of the previous discussion on the Apollo Lunar Landing Hoax, above, I would like to clean-up our 9/11 conspiracy theories article. As it stands, it attempts to portray a fringe theory on equal footing with the mainstream view. As I make these changes, I anticipate (perhaps significant) resistance from proponents of the fringe theory. I would appreciate any advice or help on how to go about this.
So far, this is what I am planning to do.
1. Clarify Wikipedia's policies on the article's discussion page. I want to give everyone time to understand the policies before making any changes. I've already begun doing this [20].
2. In order to make sure undue weight isn't given to the fringe theory, I want to assemble a list of reliable sources that support this theory. If there are none, it makes it a lot easier to determine how much weight the fringe theory gets. If there are any, then we have a list of reliable sources that can be used as a reference for what fringe theory proponents claim.
So, in a couple weeks or so, I plan on posting something like this in the article's discussion page.
"Per the previous discussion titled "Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics" [21], I would like to begin changing this article so that it follows Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. As I mentioned, I don't think that there are many reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. If there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. So I think a good place to start is to find out, are there any reliable sources that support 9/11 conspiracy theories?" Then wait to see if anyone can come up with any.
3. Research the topic/read the sources.
4. Reread and analyze the article and begin making suggestions on the article's discussion page.
5. For each suggestion, if I can acheive consensus on the article discussion page, I will make the change. If I cannot acheive consensus, I'm not sure what to do.
As I mentioned, I anticipate (perhaps) significant resistance from 9/11 conspiracy proponents. I would appreciate any advice or help on how to go about this. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This resume-like article is full of wikipuffery, and needs some scrubbing. I'd do it, but the article has a protective editor, and I'm trying to avoid wikidrama where someone might accuse me of pushing an agenda, so if an editor with avowedly neutral eyes could handle it, that would be good. THF ( talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
.
An editor insists that the main article on Scientology should mention the availability of Scientology documents on Wikileaks: [22] Apart from the Register, there are very few sources that have commented on this at all [23]. Is it due weight in an encyclopedic overview of Scientology, or is it merely designed to promote the Wikileaks page? Related talk page discussion: Talk:Scientology#Removing_verifiable_content Jayen 466 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
SamJ is a biased editor. He seems to be bullying certain other editors regarding the Netbook article. Sam runs the "save the Netbooks" blog/site reference in this article Save the Netbooks and certainly should not have any nfluence over other opinions regarding the term. His bias manifests itself in a general dislike of the Psion trademark and a particular attitude that seems to make him believe that he should be able to force the issue of non-validity of their trademark claim. I believe the Psion claim is valid and the article should revert any changes that Sam has made to remove this wording. The article should mention Psion more prominently, and on winning the case, the article should be moved to whatever the new term coined to replace the Netbook is.
I would also like to call in to question the non biased nature of the Save_the_Netbooks article. It seems to me to be highly critical of a public company that has legally enforced its trademark, and has yet to be proven to no longer hold that trademark. His attempt to railroad the case is quite astounding. I believe it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to remove the article; it could be held to be liable for a cease and desist as it stands and also could cause legal issues for Wikipedia at a future juncture, should Psion win their court case{.
I call for this editor to be prevented from meddling with the Netbook related articles and for his own biased article on his blog to be removed.
Pointing fingers and casting stones (and pasting fact tags all over the other person's comment) isn't really helpful to either of you. Please try to stay calm when editing, be civil, and assume good faith. Part of the neutral point of view policy is that we acknowledge that there may be numerous point of views towards a subject, and address all of the notable ones in turn, without giving any undue weight to a specific one. If the article has a bias in it, then please, feel free to remove it -- Wikipedia is a wiki after all! But you know what? It's probably _much_ more helpful to edit that section to acknowledge that viewpoint, so long as it is notable, and then provide the balance that is the counterpoint. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 09:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Crossposting to my posting at Reliable Sources noticeboard, to get more responses.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
In our article on the September_11_attacks, there is a lot of debate as to how much weight should be given to conspiracy theories and whether any possible undue weight is in violation of WP:NPOV. I would like some assistance in resolving this WP:NPOV dispute. Can some other editors follow the link and provide comments on WP:NPOV? The relevent discussion is here [24]. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged these two articles (and many more) with the peacock tag as they contain the following lead sentences:
Both sentences blatantly violate WP:PEACOCK and also infringe upon violating WP:NPOV. Calling someone "Academy Award-winning" provides zero context. I have stated that the lead sentence/paragraph needs to be reworked to expand upon the awards, and eliminate the "award-winning" gibberish. Binksternet has begun edit-warring on these articles, removing the maintenance template without reason, claiming "award-winning" is acceptable. I am requesting third-party assistance.
Crotchety Old Man ( talk) 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Cited references from reliable sources describing the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi past and swastika flag are being systematically purged. This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Histopher Critchens ( talk) 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at the article Energy Accounting? I think it describes the concept not in a NPOV, but instead have undue weight to the views of TechInc. That's not how a WP article should be written. Also we have had a quite heavy dispute of whether to put up a POV-tag or not, and some more things - see here for a summary I've written of the whole conflict at WP:EA (no editor assistance was provided there though). Mårten Berglund ( talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This article violates the term Neutral. There are comments made in the article against the Naturopathic doctor community. Not only are these false, providing a reference by someone who is also bias does not mean one can use an Encyclopedia to state ones opinion or degrade ones profession.
To call Natural care dangerous is to persuade the public to view a Naturopathic doctor with caution suggesting they are not capable in their chosen field. I have edited this article twice and explained it to the editor. Unfortunately this seems to keep popping back up in the article. This should not be allowed to be printed. When one reads an article about an MD or the conventional medical profession in an encyclopedia, It is not noted that 100's of 1000's of people die each year due to the mis-diagnosis or wrong prescriptions given to them by conventional doctors. This is however written in available prominent periodicals such as "The American journal of Medicine" Where people are seeking this kind of information.
There should be no arguments or opinions between Natural medicine and conventional medicine. Just the facts when writing in an educational article. This article otherwise appears to be neutral. Please edit these two comments as to allow the public to decide for themselves based on a neutral article whether to use natural care as a means of healing themselves, and so that children reading this encyclopedia do not form negative opinions of Naturopathy early on, by a respected source such as Wikipedia.
Following are the negative and or non neutral aspects of the article:
1. Naturopathy relies on scientifically unproven treatments,[5][6] including homeopathy, which is often considered a form of pseudoscientific quackery.[7][8]
2. Naturopathy is viewed with skepticism by critics who contend that it relies on unproven and controversial alternative medical treatments. Certain naturopathic treatments, such as homeopathy and iridology, are widely considered pseudoscience or quackery.[7][8][33]
Dr. Stephen Barrett (of Quackwatch and the National Council Against Health Fraud) has stated that the philosophy of naturopathy is "simplistic and that its practices are riddled with quackery."[5]
K. C. Atwood writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine, "'Naturopathic physicians' now claim to be primary care physicians proficient in the practice of both "conventional" and "natural" medicine. Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care. An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices."[6]
Harmonica5 23:57, February 23, 2009 (UTC)
Additional eyes needed for this fringe theory. I've rewritten the lead, but the main text needs a thorough scrubbing. Very vociferous editor who is confident of the WP:TRUTH at issue. THF ( talk) 15:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
In 20 July plot, use of the term "execution" has recently been changed to "murder, by execution". To me, this sounds like an NPOV violation. The opposing reasoning seems to be that since the Nazi government was not generally considered legal by historians (true? not true?), any execution that it carried out was actually a murder. Opinions? Mkcmkc ( talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The official description in a police report would be an "execution-style murder" if it was a murder done in such a style - but really that is not entirely true here. There _were_ executions. There isn't a lot of people, or sources, who would try to "doublespeak" it as anything else. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 19:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Serg36 ( talk · contribs) continues to add the " Obama" section of The Sean Hannity Show. The section states, based on a forum link, that Hannity is "advocating for a violent overthrow of the Obama administration." The section goes on quote a part of the constitution, and says, based on nothing, that Hannity is commiting treason. In fact, Hannity hasn't endorsed any of it, it is just some forum discussion, and total anti-Hannity POV. TheAE talk/ sign 07:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Are there any specific guidelines on biographies of recently-deceased people, that prevent them from reading too much like loving obituaries? I am looking at the example of Ilya Pyatetskii-Shapiro (who was indeed a great man but that's not the point). McKay ( talk) 14:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, can you take a look at the malicious and politically motivated editing that has been added to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party article recently. Over the past few days the page has been attacked and remade framing the party as a fascist Nazi spin off. The sources being used are all polemicists with a hostile agenda against the party. I suggest reversing the past weeks edits to around this edit [27] and fully protecting the page from any further changes for a while. What do you think? 94.192.38.247 ( talk) 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
User: THF ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is incorrect in stating multiple users have rejected this request. It seems he prefers to support WP:SOAP violations and WP:BITE rather than WP:AGF.
WP:CONS is required and that's what i'm seeking, not WP:FORUMSHOP. The editing in question was added by someone with a username suggesting WP:COI given recent events [28]. I think my suggestion to reverse the contested and dubious editing and put the page on full protection is sensible. What do you think? 94.192.38.247 ( talk) 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
A Men's Rights advocate is persistently editing the Mary Winkler article to represent _only_ the Men's Rights movement perspective on the allegations of abuse. How do I dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomundergrad ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The edits made by 1shamrocks9 to the Michele Bachmann article is very biased. If you look at the diff [29], the changes put her in an extremely positive light while casting her opponents negatively. It's like a campaign ad. The user only contributed edits to that one article over a period of two hours and nothing else to Wikipedia. I suspect it was created just to add those edits. What is the best way to handle this? The information add is valuable but they're all so heavily tainted. For example, it called mark-to-market accounting rule a way to artificially value assets sold on an artifical timetable. That's a gross misrepresentation of mark-to-market, as anyone who've worked in finance will tell you. I'm hestitant to remove all the edits but there's a lot of work to clean them up and even then I would doubt the neutrality of it.
Comatose51 ( talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Anon editor edit-warring to add slanted opinions not consistent with cited sources. Strongly suspect it's a sock of User:Jacksbernstein. Could use some help protecting this BLP. THF ( talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The page has extensive discussion of criticism of Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart is also one of the most praised companies in the United States. E.g., (and this is hardly a comprehensive list, just stuff I could quickly find because I knew about it off the top of my head) [30] [31] [32] Yet that praise is to be found nowhere in the article, while union criticism of Wal-Mart is prominently featured in the lead paragraphs. A single editor is edit-warring to remove the NPOV tag, with his only defense "I disagree." Can someone please restore the tag? THF ( talk) 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
More specifically, and this is just off the top of my head. This is just off the top of my head.
For these eleven reasons, I am placing an {unbalanced} tag on the article. THF ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC), updated with cites 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at this page rather expecting to find a one-sided article and instead find something that while not perfect, does not seem grossly unbalanced. The bulk of the article is about the company as a successful business, which is to be expected. The criticisms do have some balance and mostly include Walmart's responses. Nevertheless, much of what TDF is suggesting here could be included. As this is a content dispute, discussion belongs on the talk page. Can I suggest both sides stop taking potshots at each other here and concentrate on trying to find consensus on the talk page. By my reading of the talk page, where discussion is taking place, I expect this should be possible. Dean B ( talk) 19:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This short article is about an event celebrated by the Nation of Islam to honour its founder Wallace Fard Muhammad. I have been reverting additions to the page by user:LoveFest in which LF wants to inform readers that the NOI's spelling is incorrect because they have misplaced the apostrophe. [65] LF's edits had previously been removed by another user [66]. While I strongly believe that LF's comments are inappropriate, might there be a better and less ORish and POV form of words? The matter is complicated because NOI doctrine apparently accepts that more than one 'saviour' has existed. Paul B ( talk) 11:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This has been going on for over a year now. The whole genre of related articles has become problematic with one editor ( Sherzo) affirm to his point of view on a lack of notability, backing it up with edits, redirects accusations and insults. Can the community please help resolve this dispute as edits are being reverted for fun now. TorstenGuise ( talk) 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The subject isnt notable enough to be forked into its own article, TortenGuise believes all university and student groups are notable and aims to push this. please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_student_television/Archive_1#rewrite_and_possible_re_name Sherzo ( talk) 01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently, User:Collect inserted a sentence from a NY Times article used as a source for the Geronimo lawsuit section. [67] It says the lawyer for the family has acknowledged he has no hard proof. I believe the result for anybody reading this after the edit is that the lawsuit is described and then it says the lawyer has no hard proof. So I saw it as a violation of NPOV.
Collect seemed to have a hard time understanding this, claiming that since WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied how can including the "view" of the family laywer be against policy? I then emphasized that we cannot just include anything, even if it satisfies V and RS, since that could violate NPOV, but I seem to have trouble getting through. I also think the phrasing of the sentence as the lawyer "acknowledged" is important. It's more along the lines of, if pressed on it, yes he'll admit they have no hard evidence. But obviously he must think there is merit to the case, otherwise why would a former US Attorney General bother representing the Geronimo family?
Rather than fighting on it, I sought to make the summary of the NY Times article closer to the perspective of the journalist who wrote it. In apparent retaliation, Collect has rather cavalierly inserted a long rambling quote from a Cecil Adams Straight Dope article.
Discussion is here: Talk:Skull_and_Bones#Insertion_of_Clark_quote -- C S ( talk) 22:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Collect is entirely correct in his edit per NPOV. It is a significant statement by the attorney. It would be a violation of NPOV not to include such an important aspect of the case. The argument disputing its inclusion, "It's more along the lines of, if pressed on it, yes he'll admit they have no hard evidence", is original research and invalid. It would be helpful to add some more material on the background also, giving more information on both sides. That is a NPOV approach. NPOV applies to editors, not sources. NPOV is to represent those sources neutrally without distorting what they say, bearing in mind WP:UNDUE. Ty 04:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I note that Ramsey Clark's lawsuit has also named Barack Obama and Robert Gates as co-defendants. It's a publicity stunt without legal merit, and editors can use their common sense to note that it has no business in Wikipedia. THF ( talk) 21:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There is one issue here, which is NPOV, which demands that editors do not impose their own viewpoints on sources, but represent the viewpoints of the sources. In this case there is information which has received international coverage, and clearly needs to be represented. Regardless of the eventual outcome, it is a memorable event. There are 106,000 google returns for "geronimo" and "skull and bones", [68] and 146 google news results. [69] Major international sources in addition to The New York Times include Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, ABC News, Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, The Scotsman, Irish Times, The Canberra Times, Toronto Star, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Ty 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
If it is truly a notable event, it should be easy to substantiate with multiple stories from notable sources, and not simply a single story given by a wire service that was since reprinted into multiple sources. Please also note that simply because something is given a lot of coverage in any one source does not mean it is notable. To provide an example, there are approximately 14,300 hits across sourceforge, slashdot, the website, and blogs for a project I am working on, but that does not, by itself, say that the project is notable (even I as the person leading the project would say it isn't). Please remember that NPOV also means that we avoid giving things undue weight. While it is not directly applicable, the spirit of the fringe theories policy applies here too, I think - we have to be very careful not to perpetuate hoaxes and publicity stunts. In fact, that same idea is why we have the policy on spam links - because of how powerful a position Wikipedia has, both as a credible encyclopedia and as a source indexed by search engines such as Google, we have to use discretion about such things. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 23:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
A single story duplicated among numerous papers by numerous papers is still only a single source. Surely if it is notable, it should not be hard to find more? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 00:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Well the problem is that this claim is controversial, in the case - so perhaps a reasonable compromise may be saying something like "The case has been covered in numerous papers (ref and expand here). Some people feel the case is a merely a publicity stunt (refs and expand), while others feel the case has merit (refs and expand)" Of course that is hardly a perfect template and has some issues of its own, but the underlying idea is "okay, we have some conflicting views on the case here. Here's what one person says, and why, and here's what another says, and why." Cheers, Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 02:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Can uninvolved parties assess which of these wordings, if either, conform to the neutral point of view policy? Thanks, Skomorokh 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm new here, so apologies in advance if I'm breaking some protocol by posting this, but I was reading the Desertification article, and I found it somewhat biased, in particular: It is a common misconception that droughts by themselves cause desertification. While drought is a contributing factor, the root causes are all related to man's overexploitation of the environment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always taught in school that desertification has been happening for millions of years at least partially as a result of the ice ages freezing the available water for precipitation. The cited source is also a partisan environmental book.--Freyyr890 07:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freyyr890 ( talk • contribs)
One user, Haberstr is trying to push a personal view that the alleged terror bombings of world war 2 should be put into this article, on the basis that they both have terror in the name, he also appears to push a left wing bias to a degree. Sherzo ( talk) 00:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
80%+ of this article was written by SPA Eec17736 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and it now reads like an advertisement; there's not even a mention of the firm's relationship with convicted felon William Lerach. I'd do the required rewrite, but since I've testified before Congress about the scheme that sent Lerach to prison, and criticized the plea deal that spared his firm the fate of Milberg, I might be accused of a COI. THF ( talk) 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody help me out with the Mehmed Talat article. Somebody made this biography about a Turkish minister and made it part of the wikiproject Armenia and gave very biased information about him with the sole purpose of creating support for the Armenian genocide accusation. Somebody put a neutrality tag on it but they removed it despite objections. After more objections from various users some changes were made but they didn't put the neutrality tag back and it is still controlled by a very pro Armenian group who keep reverting any changes they don't like. For example I wrote "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide since it is only recognized by 21 countries out of the 194 countries in the world, most of whom were at war with the Ottoman Empire at the time. The few who had no part in WWI but recognize it are catholic countries who followed the decision of Vatican city to recognize the Armenian genocide or have strong Armenian lobbies in their country. Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Sweden and the United Kingdom all rejected bills for the recognition of the Armenian genocide and Israel, Denmark and most other countries find that there isn't enough proof for genocide although they condemn the massacres. It is obvious that the Armenian genocide is disputed and not an established fact. Therefore it is acceptable that I write "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide especially since this is a biography about a Turkish minister and not the Armenian genocide article. They also wrote that Mehmed Talat is quoted as saying "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" [4] recorded in the " The Memoirs of Naim Bey. In that article there is a section in which several European and Turkish historians dispute the authenticity of these papers so I changed it into Mehmet Talat is allegedly quoted as ordering to "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" [5] recorded in the " Andonian Telegrams" which is disputed for it's authenticity. [6]. They reverted these changes without discussion on the talk page so I changed it back and this went on a couple of time until one of them "Kansas Bear" reported me to an administrator and I got blocked. I am new and didn't know about the 3RR rule. And Kansas Bear broke the 3RR rule himself as you will see if you look at the history. I pointed that out to the administrators but they didn't do anything and didn't even read my objections but strictly followed 3RR rules without looking who was right. You can see that on my talk page. They were not so strict towards Kansas Bear despite him breaking the 3RR rules too. But other than that they reverted my changes again, and NOW they want to discuss it AFTER I got blocked. I have given my reasons again why I made these changes but am afraid to change them back. Can somebody who is experienced come and look at this article and read the talk page and help me out? Ibrahim4048 ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've recently had a discussion with an editor who seemed to think he knew enough to comment on a technical subject but clearly didn't. He was reasonably civil but preferred dodging the question & trying to mislead me in preference to admitting ignorance. Had I not know considerably more than he, I and other users of that page would have been confused or quite simply mislead. This would have undermined the point of wiki (of providing accurate information). I may be being over sensitive but - should I complain, and to where? Water pepper ( talk) 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The article about the incident at the USS Impeccable seems completely written from the US navy perspective. Surely this can't be complicant with the Wikipedia NPOV policy—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.78.111 ( talk • contribs)
I noticed when reading the Wiki bio of Ray Charles that it stated: Years active 1947-2015 That would be tricky since its only 2009 and the gentleman died in 2004!
Thanks for allowing me to presume that this is a mistake! I think it verifies itself!
NV Barbara —Preceding unsigned comment added by NV Barbara ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There's been an RFC going on at the talk page for the Abortion article about whether that article is being censored to favor one POV, and in particular whether Wikipedia should allow a discernible image of what will be aborted in a typical abortion. Neither that article nor any other Wikipedia article presently describes what will be aborted in a typical induced abortion, and instead that article only provides positive info about abortion, e.g. it is "safer than childbirth", there is no substantial risk of breast cancer, or fetal pain, or mental health problems, et cetera. Since that RFC has been closely divided, I thought it might help to get some input here. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
So, uh, is no one going to express an opinion about whether this article is currently a censored, slanted, POV propaganda piece?
Ferrylodge (
talk) 19:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been directed here from WP:RSN. We have a situation where there is consensus that a General Accounting Office report is WP:RS, but citing information from it is considered NPOV. I have tried to get the editors that hold that view to explain their position and their response seems to be that they find me to be 'Data mining' and 'Quote Mining' without going into further detail. This was my response when this most recent explanation for the brusque deletions was given:
Actually I think the table was a bad move because this kind of detailed information really doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. But it's painfully obvious how a new editor in your situation would make this kind of mistake. An intelligent person who finds themselves in front of a huge brick wall will change direction. If this brick wall was illegally erected in the middle of a motorway, this may lead to them being stopped by the police in the middle of a field. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to ask those who built the brick wall to show a permit for it.
I didn't follow this very closely, but after a cursory reading I got the impression that secondary sources are being used to make claims about what a government document ("GAO87") allegedly says which are explicitly contradicted by what the document says. When Unomi tried to fix this problem they found themselves under a torrent of accusations, most of which consisted of an abbreviated link to a policy or guideline which he supposedly had broken. Most or all of these accusations were never substantiated or withdrawn. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 10:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
aaas_pr
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).