This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
"Justin Olypen" has been, as I understand Wikipedia conventions, violating NPOV guidelines with the following inflammatory entries:
"Special Interest Lobby Groups and Middle East Policy
Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [16], Rep. Kilmer works to send more Washington State tax dollars to Israel for weapons that have been widely documented in their use against Palestinian civilians.[17]
Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military [18]
In January of 2014, Kilmer plans to hold an "exclusive" meeting for major pro-Israel lobby donors behind closed doors. [19]"
I have amended the entries thus:
"Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [16], Rep. Kilmer supports Israel's national defense.[17]
Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's defense.
[18] On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon. [19]"
Please compare for "neutrality."
We have been reverting each other's revisions; if the intent of this noticeboard is to weigh and resolve such POV disputes, please do so here; I would rather not continue this cycle ad infinitum.
I have notified "Justin Olypen" of this New Section in Wikipedia NPOV/noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Please notice difference in wording between "defense" and "military", twice. Also, please see source regarding AIPAC meeting as the complaintant is merely arguing for less specificity. - Justin olypen
I have again added increased specificity from cited articles, so article now reads: "Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013, [1] Rep. Kilmer supports increased US taxpayer funding of Israel's military.
Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military. He describes situation as "complicated" [2].
On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon, behind closed doors, in a location only known to those who donate $1,500 to pro Israel lobby group, AIPAC. [3]"
czypcamayoc replies: Looks good. I have no objection to the current language.
("Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [17], Rep. Kilmer supports Israel's military. Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel. He describes situation as "complicated"[18]. On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon, behind closed doors, in a location only known to those who donate $1,500 to pro Israel lobby group, AIPAC. [19]") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
1/28/14 - I (czypcamayoc) notice that "206.63.116.11" has sneaked back in to re-introduce propaganda noted above and corrected. I reverted to the version above. Below is the relapse version.
"Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013,[17] Rep. Kilmer supports increased US taxpayer funding of Israel's military despite Israel's use of white phosphorous as a chemical weapon, constituting evidence of a war crime [18] and evidence of weaponry tied to US funding being used against civilians" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Subsequently another moderator further pared the entry.
2/4/14 - "Justin Olypen" returns with the following:
"Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013, [17] Rep. Kilmer works to send more Washington State tax dollars to Israel for weapons that have been widely documented in their use against Palestinian civilians,[18] and despite Israel's use of white phosphorous as a chemical weapon, constituting evidence of a war crime.[19] Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military [20] In January of 2014, Kilmer plans to attend an "exclusive" meeting for major pro-Israel lobby donors behind closed doors. [21]"
That I amend to:
Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [17], Rep. Kilmer supports I increased US taxpayer funding of Israel's military, and to provide assistance for cooperation in the fields of energy, water, homeland security, agriculture, and alternative fuel technologies.[18] Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel. He describes situation as "complicated." [19] On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon. [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Constitutionist ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created by the same editor as the one editing articles on the Constutionalist Party mentioned above, is basically a party political statement, eg "We believe that by returning to the limited federal government, as authorized in the Constitution, we will see Liberty and Prosperity return to the nation. In order to separate ourselves those who wish to keep the current government functioning outside the Constitution, we call ourselves Constitutionists and call for a complete re-establishment of the original American Constitutional Republic." AfD may be the best way to deal with this unless someone has other suggestions. Dougweller ( talk) 08:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Mteberle ( talk · contribs) has been making NPOV edits at a range of affiliates of this party, eg adding " It is time for the Constitution, and the American people who believe it its principles, to have duly elected officials willing to make the tough decisions necessary to save the American economy and American Liberty." to articles. I haven't checked the ELs either. I'll notify the editor. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 06:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Steve Stockman is a controversial American congressman who is currently running for the Senate. Two sets of editors are working on his page, and each is accusing the other of POV violations. The result is a complete mess.
I'm not an experienced editor, so I'm not sure what additional information should be posted here. The instructions say to post diffs, but there are far too many to list here. There have been over 100 edits on the page in the last four days, plus another >100 on the talk page.
I'll admit that I have a definite opinion as to which side is in the right, but I'm honestly trying to get some outside help to sort things out. -- Alexbook ( talk) 16:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not which side of the issue you are on Laylah, GabrielF and team have been constantly vandalizing this page by removing Congressmans positions, citations, bills, interviews etc and are engaged in putting out of context quips to describe his term in office 1houstonian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
You have repeatedly been told that your accusations of vandalism are incorrect under the meaning of that word at Wikipedia and yet you continue to make them ... in fact virtually every post of yours, on the article talk page, on your own talk page, and even here (and by your apparent sock Achtungberlin), includes the erroneous charge. That you never respond to other editors' points about the vandalism charges as well as about the POV nature of your edits and your deletions of material from reliable sources based only on your perception that those sources have an agenda you disagree with, leaves the impression that you have no interest in cooperating with other editors or following Wikipedia policies. -- Jibal ( talk) 05:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Mint Press News ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The discussion on this article talk page regarding how much weight to give the company's self-description and how much weight to give coverage of the response from one of their articles seems to be declining. Some fresh eyes to refocus the discussion on policy-based content would be productive. VQuakr ( talk) 22:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The Picts , according to historic knowledge were, indegiounious ancient people from pre-Celtic Albion ,who were conquered by warlike Irish Scotti migrants from Ulster in the 8th century AC ,due to loosing much of their troops against the Viking invasion in the Northern parts of now conquered Scotland . British encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/459553/Pict does not count them as Celts but this version is impossible to edit in the Picts article because biased Scottish nationalist editors don't allow to include it . Edelward ( talk) 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Edelward ( talk) 00:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Serious issues of POV in this WP:FRINGE article. Language and undue weight given to supporting citations are all problematic. Suggest some of our resident physics buffs take a look and sort out the chaff from the wheat. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The dispute involves the ethnicity and language of this writer. Ivan Gundulić is listed among The 100 most prominent Serbs by the Serbian Academy of Sciences (SANU), and his works (as are the works of other Old Ragusan writers) are considered part of Serbian literature by Matica srpska, which is the chief Serbian cultural institutions. Matica srpska has included Gundulić (among others) in their 200+-volume series of the most prominent Serbian writers from the earliest days to present (Deset vekova srpske književnost "Ten centuries of Serbian literature"). I've categorized him also as a Serbian poet [2], and his language as Serbian [3], but my edits got reverted (see edit history). Gundulić himself to my knowledge never professed his ethnicity/nationality because at that time Croatian nation wasn't yet "constructed" and Republic of Ragusa was an independent political entity. Older sources categorize him as a Serbo-Croatian or Serbian writer (such as the 1911 Britannica), but after the dissolution of Yugoslavia Croatian literature historians claims exclusivity on the entire Old Ragusan literature on the basis of territorial coverage (Dubrovnik is now in Croatia), while the Serbian side simply continues as it did before. Inclusion of Old Ragusan writers as a part of Serbian literature is frowned upon by Croatian academicians publicly, but Serbian academicians generally see nothing wrong with this and consider Ivan Gundulić, Marin Držić and other important Old Ragusan writers as a part of the Serbian literature. Specifically commenting the issue of including Old Ragusan writers, Miro Vuksanović, the Editor-in-Chief of the abovementioned Matica srpska's series, stated that the works included in the series "represent literature written in the Serbian language, in all its forms and dialects" (da bude zastupljena književnost pisana na srpskom jeziku, na svim njegovim 'oblicima' i narječjima, u desetvjekovnim vremenima i narječjima.). Other similar cases such as mixed Serbian/Croatian ancestry, or Serb writers from Crotia or vice versa, such as Ivo Andrić, are handled by dual categorization as well as mentioning language as Serbo-Croatian, or not mentioning the language name at all. That is the approach that I suggest here. Both SANU and Matica srpska are important and reliable sources, representing a major POV that should be included in the article IMHO. Croatian editors don't want that on the basis of arguments such as:
So in short, a major POV from the Serbian side should be included following the established practice as I mentioned above. Note that the article is currently protected because I requested intervention at wrong noticeboard. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 21:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy#Discrimination_sidebar. I argued there that the inclusion of Template:Discrimination sidebar in the article's lead is a violation of the NPOV editing policy in this very heated topic. Thanks, Yambaram ( talk) 01:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The
2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea is an article about an incident that created a diplomatic row between the two involved countries (Italy and India) which, to date, are not concluded yet. Italy and India maintain rather different views on the subject, and the public opinions of the two countries are deeply polarized. Outside of the a/m countries the fact has and has had little echo, except for some specialized circles like those related to international law, navigation etc.
As a result, the vast majority of sources, including each countries officials and media both, is biased towards (or supporting) one of the two sides, which creates difficulties for Wikipedia editors at balancing them.
In this contest editor 109.134.121.9, who apparently endorses the Indian side, repeatedly reversed Italian editors contributions by quoting the POV policy, that in my humble opinion she/he wrongly interprets as a prohibition to cite any non-neutral source in the article, and (s)he arrived to state on the talk page that "The Italian media has no credibility because what they claim is false", thus rejecting ipso facto everything reported on Italian news (including top Italian TV channels, international press agencies as ANSA, leading Italian newspaper). Viceversa, my understanding of NPOV policy application in a case like the present is that both the Italian and the Indian perspectives must be present in the article, avoiding loaded language to promote one position over another, and that can be done also by citing non-neutral sources, providing that wikipedia editors balance the respective POVs, as suggested in the "Achieving neutrality" paragraph of WK: NPOV
The latest dispute with editor 109.134.121.9 (formerly editor 109.134.121.228, non-fixed IP number) relates to
NATO Secretary-General
Anders Fogh Rasmussen stance supporting Italy that, according to editor 109.134.121.9 would have been in favour of Italy just because Rassmussen would have been mislead by the Italian journalist wording who, again in editor 109.134.121.9 opinion, would have misreported an analogous statement by EEAS High Representative Baroness Ashton. Please refer to diffs here below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=595402186&oldid=595399446
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595402255
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595402779
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595403681
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595417865
and section Interpretation of Baroness Ashton's February 14 statements. of
relevant talk page
Please notice that also there editor 109.134.121.9 restates his/her idea according to which Italian Media reports are to be rejected because "what they claim is false".
Regards
LNCSRG (
talk) 15:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your replies and your inputs, I appreciate a lot and I substantially agree with. Yes the article should be pruned and made more fluent. I do not think I will able to do it personally, since 1) I am not a native English speaker, so my idea of fluent English could sound quite ... alien to a mother tongue speaker, 2) I took a side on this controversy, so my summaries could be accused to be non-neutral simplifications 3) I am honestly afraid I am quite busy these days because of work and personal matters. However I would welcome such a concise rewriting, if and when somebody volunteers to do so.
Now, I would like to have your opinion about this revert of one entry of mine by editor 81.240.144.24:
[4]
Thanks again, regards --
LNCSRG (
talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
OMICS Group page is being reverted and redirected to OMICS Publishing Group again & again and OMICS Publishing Group page does not keep up with the neutrality policy of Wikipedia. However to consider for notability, the group is into various businesses:
Link to Talk:OMICS Publishing Group and Talk:OMICS Group
A case should be opened for discussion and consideration with above notability. Lizia7 ( talk)
The above states article lacks a natural point of view. What, I wrote in the article's talk page ( /info/en/?search=Talk:2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal) sums up the situation really well, that's why, I am going to copy and paste it here;
Unfortunately, in Turkey football is taken seriously more than it should and every fan is looking for a way to make their team "better-looking" than the other teams. Although this investigation started with 8 teams, in this article it seems that the whole scandal is about Fenerbahce and Besiktas. For example, in the first paragraph it is implied that Emenike was caught up in the scandal but he was cleared off all charges hence his return to Fenerbahce. I don't know why it was not corrected by the people who put it there in the first place. Secondly, when I wrote this part at 18th of November; this scandal was in the hands of the high courts in Turkey and they haven't had given any final verdict about this investigation but if you read this arictle, there is no room to belive that Fenerbahce is not guilty. What happened to natural point of view? Thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Please look ay my last edit with updated news about this investigation, I have shared 5 names from a news article but if you read the article from top to bottom, It is the first time that their names are stated even though those 5 people were also a part of the investigation. This is my proof of this article being biased. Again, thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
As you can see, the last paragraph in "copy paste" clearly shows the article as being biased and I have tried everything I can but now, it's in your hands. Thanks for your time and understanding, I hope this clarifies the situation about this article. Rivaner ( talk) 07:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have tried my best to clear the article a bit and gave reason for my every edit, hope it will help to wikipedia's policiy of natıral point of view. Rivaner ( talk) 22:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC) You can check my reasonings from the users talk page here: /info/en/?search=User_talk:LardoBalsamico#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article Rivaner ( talk) 10:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
My edits are being refered as vandalism while the stated article, still, lacks a natural point of view. Rivaner ( talk) 13:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Earlier, I didn't want to accuse anyone about this article but since we've started a discussion both on his talk page and the above stated articles talk page, it can be said that the user who were making these edits is LardoBalsamico ( talk · contribs). Hope you can find a solution to this. Thanks. Rivaner ( talk) 13:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Some anonymous IP adresses are still editing the article without a natural point of view and still the article lacks it. Rivaner ( talk) 09:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
i asked for an RfC on Talk:Syrian people, sadly the article was provided with over 20 reliable references yet an editor disagree, please help and participate on the RfC -- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
On Software testing, I've tried raising the issue of neutral point of view, but it seems one user is dominating the discussion and edits there. The article claims, for example, that "No certification is based on a widely accepted body of knowledge" whereas there are a lot of people that think otherwise - people at ISTQB, for instance - and it seems that mainly just people of so-called context-sensitive school are opposed. The user dominating the discussion seems to also believe in what the school says, disallowing other views. The views of the school are even included in the beginning of Software testing controversies article, implying that they are controversial, but the user dominating the Software Testing page refuses to label the claims in Software Testing article as so. A wikipedia article should not label the view of one school of thought as a fact. Slsh ( talk) 11:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time tonight to tear this apart, but Google Bus looks primarily like it's pushing a POV, and probably needs some surgery at least. -- j⚛e decker talk 04:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of off-wiki canvassing, here. I cleaned up the diatribe against the development and did my best to make it NPOV-compliant, but it is getting reverted without discussion by a couple of IP's. I think having more eyes on it would be a good idea. VQuakr ( talk) 19:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The article on entrepreneur Larry Ryckman appears at first glance to be an autobiography. It is a word-for-word copy of the content on the man's personal website, larryryckman.com. The article is written from an overwhelmingly positive point of view that glosses over his involvement in stock manipulation schemes and fails to make mention of the doubts surrounding the companies he once owned or was involved in. Fresh eyes on the article would be greatly appreciated. CplDHicks ( talk) 23:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This article concerns a controversial proposal for a bridge between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie, Alaska. Up until now it has been fairly quiet, just documenting the progress (or lack thereof) of the project. All of the sudden today it has been the subject of edits from several SPA accounts and IPs, at least one of which is being operated by someone from a PR firm in Anchorage. They have now changed their username to something less obvious but I am concerned that the article is being slanted to favor the pro-bridge side by paid advocates. There were also some serious formatting errors introduced by some of these edits. I thought I could fix them but it is something I don't think I have seen before and so I have reverted them as they made the page unreadable on smaller screens. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about the following sentences from the Battle of Berlin article:
Does the first sentence violate WP:ASF? The guidelines for WP:ASF and WP:NPOV in general state:
I think it is obvious that in this case the view in the first sentence is disputed by other historians as mentioned in the second sentence, so the statement in the first sentence cannot be presented as fact and has to be attributed. - YMB29 ( talk) 22:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump please see this edit Then see Removal of tag and these two edits: one two in my opinion YMB29 is acting in bad faith over this, and you have just been mugged. For more background please Goebbels's fevered prophecies
There is next to no dispute that mass rapes took place. To date only one Russian historian has been brought forward who to put it widely is not an
objective historian, as she relies on one official soviet source to justify her argument. The source that YMB29 refers to on this page writes Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale. Well anyone "offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished" will be likely to deny the allegations (
MRDA). There is nothing there to say how many Russians historians are "offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished". Now for a technical point. The scale of the rapes was discussed back in 2010 and the numbers were moved out of the body of the text into a footnote, precisely because they are debated, but there is next to no debate that mass rapes took place. Therefore the Russian sentence should probably be put into the footnote, but as a way of ending a tedious debate on the talk page, the two editors who are sill willing to discuss this with
YMB29 gave in and agreed that if
YMB29 would remove a tag for which
YMB29 placed in the article then we would agree against our better judgement to the placing of a sentence about Russian historians in the body of the text.
YMB29 took that as consent and has now started to attribute the first sentence. This attribution is clearly a breach of of
WP:WEIGHT and the first paragraph of the section could have been tailor written for this example, as could
WP:VALID. --
PBS (
talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I need help with the Legal aspects section of the following two articles:
The statements are sourced, but they are a legal opinion. They also seem to fall for what Wikipedia considers WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I'm highly concerned that this might spiral into a litigation against Wikipedia as it identifies a professional by his name. See WP:NOLEGAL for another pertinent policy as well.
I need an admin to intervene on this matter. I don't want to remove text on a highly controversial topic and cause anger all around because of it.— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 20:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add to this that there is also a lot of violations on WP:NPOV being made.
These people /info/en/?search=User:Owner_Ming and 31.48.69.109 are blatantly pushing an agenda, can we please have the article protected and some sort of action taken against these people? Avion365 ( talk) 04:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The user "The Rambling Man" when editing the template "in the news", used the word "annexed" in regard to the Crimea becoming a federal subject of Russian Federation. I think using this word violates neutral point of view, because in the official act, signed by president of Russia, the word "reunion" (воссоединении) is used. And this is also how the overwhelming majority of Crimean population see it. And in the Putin's speech, was said that due to historical context, the Crimea returned to Russia. And there's a lot of talk about historical justice taking place (Khruschev giving the area to the Ukrainian SSR, even though the core population there, at then time, were ethnic Russians, and the Crimea itself was part of Russian Empire prior to USSR). As an example, BBC, a reliable source, uses a neutral tone in describing how Crimea became part of Russia, by using the word "absorbed" instead of "annexation". The wording is controversial (reunion/annexation), the former being pro-Russian, while the latter being pro-American/"pro-western" preference in media. I think wikipedia should use a neutral word, and let others decide whether it's an annexation or a reunion. Pessimist2006 ( talk) 17:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This is revival for a discussion as the discussion was archived but the matter is not resolved and I was unable to answer comment directed at me at the time.
On Software testing, I've tried raising the issue of neutral point of view, but it seems one user is dominating the discussion and edits there. The article claims, for example, that "No certification is based on a widely accepted body of knowledge" whereas there are a lot of people that think otherwise - people at ISTQB, for instance - and it seems that mainly just people of so-called context-sensitive school are opposed. The user dominating the discussion seems to also believe in what the school says, disallowing other views. The views of the school are even included in the beginning of Software testing controversies article, implying that they are controversial, but the user dominating the Software Testing page refuses to label the claims in Software Testing article as so. A wikipedia article should not label the view of one school of thought as a fact.
This is an example of a contradicting view: "The scheme relies on a Body of Knowledge (Syllabi and Glossary) and exam rules that are applied consistently all over the world, with exams and supporting material being available in many languages." (source: ISTQB). ISTQB is a big organization in the field of software testing certifications, as confirmed by these figures, so their view should be considered a notable one, at least as notable as few individuals from a specific school of thought. I'm not saying that we should take it as a fact, but we shouldn't be saying the opposite as a fact either unless we have real good sources on claiming so. Slsh ( talk) 15:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a notice in accordance to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC. I have created a Request for Comment on the concern that potential offensiveness or objectionability of many biography articles of people from disputed areas (when they include only one 'nationality'-like description, including Scottish and Welsh) may be in violation of NPOV and if so are not covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer leaving Wikipedia exposed to potential legal liability, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Nationality of people from disputed territory/country/colony/region. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 00:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Seeking input regarding a long-running dispute going on at Dreams from My Real Father — an article about a documentary-style film claiming that Barack Obama's biological father was Frank Marshall Davis, an African-American Communist activist. The dispute involves whether the lead section of the article should describe the above claim as being "improbable" (or "preposterous"), or whether the lead should simply say that the film makes this claim. One editor ( Froglich) insists that calling the claim "preposterous" or "improbable" is POV, and he has been removing such wording (see here and here, for example) — while two other editors ( Milowent and Weazie) have insisted on putting the disputed language back in (see here and here). I advised everyone on the article's talk page (see here) to pursue WP:DR rather than continue to edit-war, but this suggestion appears to have gone unheeded. I would prefer not to take admin action here myself, since I expressed an opinion on the issue on the article's talk page (see here), and also because I believe editors may disagree in good faith over which of these possible lead wordings is appropriate. I'd like to see at least some attempt at dispute resolution here before people start getting blocked. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Froglich saying in wikis voice that the film is "improbable" is much more pov and subjective than saying "described as preposterous" which is an objective and verifiable fact. It does have a bit of WP:WEASEL to it, but since there are multiple sources for that description, and this is just the lede (and we go into the details in the body) I don't see that as an issue. Drmies My main objection was stating in wikis voice as a fact that the claim was preposterous/improbable etc. I have no objection to saying as a fact that others have described it as preposterous (although "widely" etc I think may run into WP:RS/AC type issues) - I have no substantial objection to Mastcell's version. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Rollcall: Now voting on the motion — submitted by Mssrs. Richwales, Weazie, MastCell, Drmies and Gaijin42 — that editors may now grossly violate Wikipedia's consensus-derived NPOV policy in the event said editors are sufficiently convinced that an article is obscure enough that they're willing to gamble that no unbiased administrator will ever come around to dish out richly-deserved 30-day blocks and 6-month topic bans.
Your signatures (for the record): X__________, X__________, X__________, X__________, X__________-- Froglich ( talk) 11:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Putting the juiciest quotes of screamingly negative reviews to a film into the lead of that film's article is not appropriate. If the overwhelming reaction to a film is negative than, by all means, mention it in the lead. What has happened in this particular article appears to me to be the inappropriate framing of the topic by the use direct quotation of the most inflammatory language available. That the initial straw-poll consensus seems to be to encourage such behavior is worrisome. While I'm always loath to follow the invocation Godwin's Law I have to admit that Froglich's analogy to Mein Kampf is not without merit some merit. If reviews are so comprehensibly bad then such a fact is easily attributable in the lead and all of that red meat can be put into the body of the article, where it belongs. GraniteSand ( talk) 04:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
User Volunteer Marek repeatedly changes the whole article from encyclopedic to outright denigrating.
Anyway, in a few edits he makes an article an attack piece, like this:
Comrades Colleagues, be polite. While this organisation really seems to lean towards supporting Russian government ("...
the nightmare of the Junta of Kiev..." sentence says all for itself, although I'm not supporter of the
2014 February Revolution) it has to be described in a neutral way (and labels such as neo-Nazi and etc. are controversial, even when (and if) it's true - remember that edit warring on
Right Sector page) and with reliable sources.
Seryo93 (
talk) 11:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
So what do I propose? Remove "far right" from "far-right non-governmental organization" (but retain it in "far right activist"). Maybe add "some media view it as supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin[here goes references]". Otherwise this version seems pretty neutral for me. Seryo93 ( talk) 11:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
User
LiphradicusEpicus is
pushing pro-Ukrainian/pro-American POV on VERY controversial grounds of "
civilized world". Annexation has very negative connotation in regards to that event, but user IGNORES it and pushes his favorite point.
Seryo93 (
talk) 06:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
UPD:Withdrawing my request. Seryo93 ( talk) 19:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
There are several editors who add and remove a sentence about the fact that the event is considered an unconstitutional coup by some sources. Like this: [22].
Do something about it. I believe the sources for the sentence are reliable and per WP:NPOV they should remain in the article. I've reverted once right now, but I can't participate in the edit warring.
Also, some editors remove all references to Russia Today under what I regard as false pretences: [23]. (I actually tried to reason with the editor here on his talk page, but it looks like someone just wants to remove the sources without any regard to the rules.)
It has been going on for days. Someone must revert the article to a more neutral state and protect it. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 11:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek adds "associated with fascist and neo nazi groups" to the first sentence. The result is:
Jean-François Thiriart (22 March 1922, Brussels — 23 November 1992) was a Belgian politician associated with fascist and neo-Nazi groups.
Is this a neutral way to define a person in an encyclopedia? I have tried to revert him, but he reverted me back. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 12:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Jason Russell has a current RfC dealing with how to treat his famed "incident." This was proceeding apace until a new editor states that it is violating NPOV to say he was in his underwear when "The article should properly describe what happened or, if it's not deemed relevant for inclusion, remain silent about it; but you can't have it both ways and write the section in that way, pretending that Russell never exposed his genitals in public." Note the RfC appears, IMO, to be strongly leading towards minimal coverage of the incident, using conservative wording. Which is fine, but that editor now pasted a POV tag on that section, despite the fact I cannot see any particular direct relevance of WP:NPOV myself to what is clearly a WP:BLP dispute. But since the tag is in place, it seems fitting to present the claim here.
Is a description choice among "naked and masturbating", "naked" "nude" or "in his underwear" (where the police report and a number of reliable sources state "underwear") a matter appropriate for this noticeboard as being one of violating the neutral point of view policy by using the most conservative reliably sourced description, where more "interesting" wording is preferred by some editors? Thanks. Collect ( talk) 16:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Moved to non-neutral title (but I admit, that past title was seemingly non-neutral too) without consensus. Seryo93 ( talk) 05:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that a bunch of IPs are turning Adithya Srinivasan into a puff piece. I've been trying to deal with it for a long time, but the IPs keep restoring the peacock material and removing the POV tag. Lately, I've been getting this kind of stuff over it. Can someone else take a look at this? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 12:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, I need help in a dispute concerning two articles Kvenland and King of Kvenland. I have been trying to remove a reference to King Charles IX of Sweden (1550-1611) from those articles, because Charles IX was never a king of Kvenland, nor was he linked to Kvenland in any way by any known historian. Kvenland, the land, vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century, i.e., long before his time. We are talking about a historical fact, not an individual opinion. Including the name of a random king in the articles is an utterly incomprehensible idea, extremely poorly defended by the opponents. The opponents, a group of 4 editors (including 3 Swedes) Thomas.W, Yngvadottir, BogatusAB and Bishonen, act as if they have a monopoly over these two articles. It's too obvious these editors have an agenda. The matter was already discussed on the Dispute resolution noticeboard with the help of Guy Macon, who at first promised to "focus on article content", but ended up not keeping his "promise" to judge the dispute solely on the article content. It appears he was pressured to change his approach. The Russian source writes correctly that "it is often, and erroneously, referenced that king Charles IX of Sweden would have called himself as the "King of the Kvens"." [25] [26] (Let alone called himself the King of Kvenland or, even more importantly, been one). What makes it easier for a volunteer to give his/her neutral opinion, is that a personal opinion is not what matters here as we're dealing with a historical fact. http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvenland Anyone courageous enough to support the removal of the reference to Charles IX from the articles? Please note that this is definitely not a political question. Finnedi ( talk) 03:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
|
This was resolved with the blocking of the person posting the notice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Could I get some help here. This book, Signature in the Cell, clearly advocates a certain view. Writing a synopsis of the book is allowed for in WP:SOAP, since it is an WP article about a book advocating for a religious/scientific/political position, not simply a WP article advocating said position. An edit war commenced on said issue, with myself contributing to the Talk:Signature in the Cell page, and the other editors not contributing much at all. Was the main points section, found here, not written from a NPOV? Best, Purefury182 ( talk) 18:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:UK Independence Party#Request for comment about whether academic sources describing the UK Independence Party as far-right are reliable. LordFixit ( talk) 07:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Is a category like this a violation of the WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE-rule? I think it is a "the view of a significant minority," but maybe the SPLC's view is an "significant viewpoint," and in that case,, this category that calls organisations a "hate group" is no violation. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 12. Best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 13:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In addition, the SPLC works with the FBI: 'The FBI has partnered with the SPLC "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems"' As long as the article of the hate group contains a citation of the specific claim by the SPLC that the group is a hate group, I can't see how the category itself violates WP:NPOV because we are not endorsing the SPLC's view - we are simply reporting it. LordFixit ( talk) 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Unfortunately, category (and template) abuse has become one of the holes in current process of curating content. When POV pushers cannot get their content into the main body of the article, they often turn to these less monitored alternatives to present their own agenda. In this case, that agenda appears to be that of agrandizing the SLPC's rather controversial labeling of various organizations with the moniker of "hate group". More general and essential categories apply, and where multiple sources support the categorization, those categories can be applied. Allowing the SLPC alone to label organziations on wikipedia doesn't adhere to the guidelines set out in WP:CATEGORY or WP:NPOV. aprock ( talk) 01:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I just saw there is also a Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners. I might be violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but since that category is also about a negative expert opinion, it touches the same vein, according to me. See what you can do with that info, boys and girls Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: The general threshold for categorization is not just V and NPOV; it is also that the article subject (or at least one thereof) has the defining characteristics embodied by the category. To qualify as defining, a characteristic will usually be established in the article lead section (if it's the lead sentence, so much the better), with the implication of significance to the article that this brings. See CAT and OCAT for more discussion on defining characteristics. If a significant number of articles have the defining characteristics embodied by a category, then the category is warranted. If there are fewer such articles, then categorisation to a less-specific set of characteristics may be appropriate. HTH, Aquegg ( talk) 08:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Ken Ham is a Young Earth creationist. In the lead of his article it is currently stated that his views are "incorrect". There has been an extensive argument at Talk:Ken Ham as to whether this is an appropriate form of words. Both sides claim to be suppporting NPOV, but only one of them is right. New eyes on this might help. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 12:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that his views are clearly based on religious views of the literal inerrancy of the Bible -- thus we are in a quandary, as if we assert everyone who holds such a belief is "incorrect" we are verging into the "religion" v. "science" category. IIRC, the community has decided that where religion is concerned, calling a belief "incorrect" is problematic. We might as well add "incorrect" to anyone who does not know the "one true religion" whichever one it might be. We can say his views on creationism are not in concord with "scientific consensus" but "incorrect" in Wikipedia's voice could be applied to essentially every single person who avers a religious belief, including Pope Francis. We could do so, but so far the community appears to believe that conservative writing of BLPs per WP:BLP is policy. Collect ( talk) 12:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course young earth views are incorrect. But we can write informative articles without using every possible opportunity to kick sand in the face of people who follow various faith-based beliefs. There is no need (or legitimacy) for the wikipedia editors to, in the voice of Wikipedia, make an overall pronouncement regarding incorrectness vs. correctness of his views in covering this person in this article. North8000 ( talk) 13:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The article on Young Earth creationism calls it "pseudoscience," which is mostly the same as calling it incorrect. Howunusual ( talk) 21:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I recently removed links to derogatory terms on the page [Scotch-Irish_American]. However, a user Eastcote keeps restoring them and now appears tobe doing the same via a sockpuppet BilCat. As other articles on ethnic commmunities do NOT link to derogatory terms, these should be removed in order to keep the article more neutral. Duedemagistris ( talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Due to repeated uglifications of the lead of the David Horowitz article, I've added a Neutrality tag, and would like to see an administrator step in and deal with the "wolfpack" tactics of a small group of editors claiming their at-present numerical majority entitles them to violate the Wikipedia:Manual of Style with impunity.-- Froglich ( talk) 03:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Until yesterday History of science and technology in China said "Ancient Chinese scientists, mathematicians and doctors made significant advances in science, technology, mathematics, and astronomy. Traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture and herbal medicine were also developed through empirical observation and scientific experimentation. citation needed"
It now says "For over 9,000 years until the 18th century China was the worlds most technologically advanced civilization. Ancient Chinese scientists, engineers, metallurgists, mathematicians and medical doctors made significant innovative advances in science, technology, mathematics, and astronomy. Traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture and herbal medicine were also developed through empirical observation and scientific experimentation. citation needed"
I reverted this but was reverted again with the edit summary "Please refer to Science and Civilisation in China by Sir Joseph Needham and read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6669569.stm". That's in my response to saying that writing developed in the Middle East, which I believe is still consensus even if early pictographs which may be the origins of Chinese writing existed before writing. Of course both statements are unsourced.
We actually don't talk about Chinese civilization being anywhere near 9000 years old. Look at Chinese history and for instance Longshan culture. The written history of China only goes back to the Shang Dynasty and the development of cities in China seems to have started later than elsewhere. I'm not trying to denigrate their wonderful achievements but this claim is not correct. I also reverted [35] based on a book by Gavin Menzies.
While I'm at it, is there a decision on PRC/ROC that would be relevant to this template change? [36] Thanks Dougweller ( talk) 05:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Can we get a few eyes over at Vladimir Putin - we have some undue weight in re-guards to the current Intervention in Crimean Peninsula. Not sure what is there is the norm for a bio - odd to go into so much detail about the conflict in a bio. What do others think ? -- Moxy ( talk) 17:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Appears on its face not quite to conform to WP:NPOV. I asked about this at its talk page and was told it was no more hagiographic than Political positions of Sarah Palin which I then looked at. I seem to discern a difference on how the two people are treated. This is "silly season" but I also doubt that articles should be campaign documents either (sigh). I avoid editing in this type of morass where people insist that NPOV does not apply here but trust that other eyes will look at this political tract of an article. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to get my head around some reversions by User:Til Eulenspiegel at Ethiopia. A sentence that read "Ethiopia is one of the oldest locations of human life known to scientists" was changed by User:Jérôme to "The oldest known traces of human life are known from Ethiopia". Til reverted this saying it needed attribution (ie it had to say "known to scientists", it was restored, then reverted again by Til. I reworded it to say ""Some of the oldest evidence for modern humans is found in Ethiopia" which is better as we the source is about homo sapiens, and then I was reverted by Til whose edit summary says "Uh oh, seems Doug Weller prefers to flare this into a dispute, says "attribution isn't necessary" for what European regime-paid scientists say, published views of Ethiopian scholars he deems irrelevant but theirs is the more prominent voice in that nation").
My question is do we actually need this "known to scientists" in situations like this one? If we do, we may need to look at another article. Note also that of course the lead is a summary of the article, and the relevant section in the article just says "Ethiopia is widely considered the site of the emergence of anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, in the Middle Paleolithic 200,000 years ago. The earliest known modern human bones were found in Southwestern Ethiopia, and are known as the Omo remains.[39] Additionally, skeletal remains of Homo sapiens idaltu were found at a site in the Middle Awash in Ethiopia. Dated to around 160,000 years ago, they may represent an extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens sapiens, or the immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans." Nothing about "known to scientists" there, so it's unclear to me why Til thinks it is necessary in the lead. Dougweller ( talk) 13:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
From my point of view, phrases such as "known to scientists" and "known to science" are weasel words – they attribute a fact to unnamed scientists, but do not give a precise reference. It would be much better to simply provide a reference in such cases, which then would make the phrase "known to science" redundant. What is more, everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be referenced, so adding "known to scientists" does not add anything to a sentence in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia as a whole should reflect facts that are known to science. Also, the particular phrase "known to scientists" is reminiscent of unscientific texts, such as those written in tabloids; this is definitely not the tone that an encyclopedia should have. – Jérôme ( talk) 13:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
To wrap my head around this, I took a look at the Earth article. If we added "according to scientists" or "known to science" to every relevant fact there, it would make the article unreadable. Attribution like this should be done on a case-by-case basis with a reason specifically applicable to the case being provided. -- NeilN talk to me 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Twenty days late -- "known" is pretty clear as a single word -- "to scientists" implies that some non-scientists know something else. They don't. This is worth not a lot of discussion IMO. Collect ( talk) 14:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this edit in conformance with the WP:NPOV policy?
changing
to
Removing a reliable source for the first sentence as originally stated. The Issue of gun control, Volume 53] H.W. Wilson, 1981; 192 pages; page 43 and only retaining the problematic Halbrook and LaPierre sources. By so doing, they remove an actual academic source (H.. W. Wilson is a reputable publisher) in favour of two non-academic sources which are then demolished in succeeding sentences. I suggest that removing an unquestioned reliable source source about a "non-Godwinian" point of view and asserting by inference that all are invoking Hitler, that NPOV is clearly violated. Other views? Thanks. Collect ( talk) 22:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a disagreement between myself and several other Wikipedia users regarding the biography of The Ultimate Warrior.
There is a sentence in his death section that reads, "Warrior was admittedly a heavy user of steroids during his professional wrestling career; since the heart is a muscle, steroids can affect its condition." and lists the following articles as reference....
http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_77724.shtml http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ultimate-warrior-death-wwe-hall-of-famer-died-from-heart-disease-autopsy-concludes-9262036.html
most notably, the following quote from James Caldwell is the main point of reference,
"Warrior was an admittedly heavy steroid user during his pro wrestling career, which affects the condition of a person's heart due to the heart also being a muscle. He had a family history of heart attacks, as his father died at age 57 and one of his grandfathers died at age 52."
Their argument is that they have a source that states "steroids can effect the heart since the heart is a muscle."
My argument is that James Caldwell is a beat writer for professional wrestling. He is not licensed to practice medicine, and as far as I know has no education or expertise in pharmacology, chemistry, physiology, biology or any other practice that would qualify him to give an opinion on steroids and whether or not steroids had any part in Warrior's death.
What we do have is an official autopsy report, and there is no reference to steroids whatsoever. Since the medical professional did not list steroids, I believe no mention of steroids should be listed in Warrior's death section. I have no problem if Warrior's past steroid use is mentioned, but to place it in his death section is misleading and possibly suggests steroids played a part in his death. Since his official report omits any reference to steroids, I believe his official wiki bio should also omit any reference.
I would welcome any help in resolving this issue.-- Jmurdock21 ( talk) 23:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not linking to any dispute here (there isn't any yet), but I would be very grateful if someone took a look at the National Religious Broadcasters article. I've read the lead section a few times now and I am still... confused. The lead states bluntly that "the mission of NRB is to advance biblical truth, promote media excellence, and defend free speech, so that the Gospel of Christ may be freely proclaimed in the United States and around the world". No quotation marks in the article. According to the article history, this has been there for years. I would gladly do something, but I wonder if I am just imagining things. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Creation story/myth/narrative concerning NPOV as applied to article titles. The discussion arises from the discovery that articles about traditional/folkloric/religious accounts of the creation are not named in a consistent manner. Most are called "Foo creation myth" (e.g. Japanese creation myth) but a few are titled "Foo creation narrative" (e.g. Genesis creation narrative). The overall article about the subject is called Creation myth (with redirects from "creation narrative" and "creation story").
Points of discussion include: Do these titles show favoritism to some religions over others? Is the difference in titling the result of WP:Systemic bias or is it appropriately based on what Reliable Sources use? Should such articles be named consistently or on a case-by-case basis? Any input appreciated. Thanks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
We could definitely use some neutral editors at the terrible mess that is the article Jews and Communism, take a look at its talk page, there is rampant edit-warring, what I would say is obvious original research from the very first sentence, highly suspect POV-pushing, ownership issues, on and on it goes, if anybody feels that they can bring a NPOV to a whole series of disputes between two very entrenched "sides" and dares to wade in over there that might be helpful. There are so many issues that I don't feel I can single a particular one out and provide diffs. Smeat75 ( talk) 19:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Sourced mentions of rape, torture, murder, profiteering and more have been removed from Uday Hussein with edit comments claiming NPOV and propaganda.
This edit by
167.187.101.241 was first, with the edit comment NPOV
. I
reverted, commenting While torture (for example) does not reflect well on Uday Hussein, it would be a breach of WP:NPOV to omit such significant and sourced material.
I also
left a warning on the IP talk page though it geolocates to a US hotel chain, so I didn't expect much and there's been no response there.
About an hour later, the IP
reverted to their rewrite with the edit comment NPOV U.S. pro-war propaganda
and made
a further edit commenting npov
.
I opened discussion on the talk page
here but had no response and about an hour and a half later
restored the article to its original state with the edit comment Please follow WP:BRD and do not revert without discussion at Talk:Uday Hussein#Removal of material as NPOV and propaganda
.
Another IP
98.219.116.125 has now
reverted to the pruned version with the edit comment better version
. I don't want to carry on simply reverting so that is how the article now stands, without the mentions of torture, rape, murder and so forth.
I'll notify the IPs now. NebY ( talk) 09:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This is what the article Grovo looked like when I came to it a few minutes ago. There are copyvios mixed in with the obviously promotional tone. I pared back and tried to fix the lead, then started moving down. This looks like it must have been written by a PR firm or someone in-house because, to me anyway, the entirety appears to be an ad. In such a case I'd likely CSD G11 it, but now that I've made changes to the lead someone looking at it might not have the immediate impression I do. Best to just tag appropriately, add CSD, or (and this seems pretty unlikely) rv myself and csd? --— Rhododendrites talk | 15:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the reliable sources noticeboard.
User Genoasalami ( talk · contribs), along with 68.8.110.141 ( talk · contribs), 70.197.81.74 ( talk · contribs), 70.197.89.8 ( talk · contribs), and 70.209.200.121 ( talk · contribs), made some edits to Cursillo that are biased and based on unreliable sources. ([ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cursillo&diff=607218903&oldid=607184789 diffs). All of these users have little or no activity except in relation to the edits in question. Some or all of the IP users are likely the same person; I'll leave it to others to judge whether it's intentional sockpuppetry or a new user who forgot to log in.
After only a couple of back and forths and little discussion they requested page protection and were told by an admin that their behavior was not acceptable. I've explained what the problems are with the sources and how they are used in the article, but they persist in reapplying the edits and removing templates by me and other editors disputing neutrality, insisting that the sources are reliable and the article as edited represents a neutral point of view, generally acting as a tenditious editor.
That's not to say the article (before any of this happened) is as neutral or its sources are as reliable as we like to see on Wikipedia, but the edits in question make it far worse. mwalimu59 ( talk) 19:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
an editor placed this template ({{POV-check|date=April 2014}} ) on the above article. I don't know what the mechanism of that template is, but other than the editor that placed it and myself, there has been no discussion at the article talk page. The article is, from reviewing the talk page, been a bit of a POV playground for a long while. the POV spins around some local gun control or gun mandate law and the article appears to have been turned into a platform for the pro gun factions. I don't care too much either way, but when the copy about a relatively new law exceeds the copy on the civil war by approx. triple, there is obviously a problem. My proposed solution would be to mention the passing of the law and that is it. Everything else seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS, never mind the claims of lack of WP:RS and failure of references to verify. Can we please get some help here? Not notifying anyone because I am not asking for any sanctions (yet) nor an I discussing any particular editor. John from Idegon ( talk) 00:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Should the flags of secessionist movements be used to represent country subdivisions which do not have their own flag? Currently, Türkvizyon Song Contest uses the flag of the East Turkestan Liberation Organization to represent the region of Xinjiang (a volatile region of China which is 43% Muslim, 41% Chinese, and home to frequent ethnic violence), which seems to me like a serious POV issue. This flag is used in a manner which suggests that it is either a legitimate or official usage, which is at odds with other articles on Wikipedia relating to the topic.
On the article talk page, it is argued that the official Türkvizyon Song Contest website uses this flag, and therefore it should be allowed, however no other page on Wikipedia uses this flag to officially represent the region, and the reasoning behind this relies on a partisan source with a WP:FRINGE stance. In response to my concerns, I have also been accused of "pushing the POV of the (Chinese government)".
Is my POV concern regarding this page legitimate, or am I thinking in the wrong direction? -- benlisquare T• C• E 10:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:2013 IRS scandal#Requested move #2 that partly revolves around how to interpret WP:POVNAMING. Opinions from the folks at this noticeboard are solicited. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the WP:LEDE should summarise the body but any attempt to expand the lede to summarise the body is reverted. The bottom line is that the lede is too short. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The above named article, and related articles, have for years now been, basically, a battleground between editor(s) who may or may not be rather POV driven given their stated allegiances. Also, so far as I can see, at least one of those editors, on the article talk page, seems to post statements which might be even longer than some of my book-length commentaries(!) which have so far as I can see little if anything to do with actually improving the article. I regret to say that I myself have at best limited access to a lot of material regarding this topic, but I believe that it would very much be in the interests of the encyclopedia to have more significant, sustained, input regarding the article, and, possibly, review of the actions of some of the editors involved to see if some sort of further action may be required. John Carter ( talk) 15:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd say no and have removed it from both, but Teaksmitty ( talk · contribs) disagrees and added the material I removed from Persecution of Muslims to [{Talk:Persecution of Muslims]] but with no discussion. The fact that Muslims have died in military actions in various countries does not prove that these were aimed at Muslims due to their religion. Dougweller ( talk) 14:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict):::And now we have [39] added by 24.88.85.64 ( talk · contribs) who I now realise added the Lynndie England & Abu Ghraib material earlier today. A bit odd that all these edits are occurring in the last few hours, although perhaps Teaksmitty simply inadvertently edited logged out. Responding to Drowning, I am sure that there were many American and UK soldiers involved in these events who hated Muslims (and there's another issue about hating the enemy I won't go into), but that's not the issue. Can we call the events themselves persecution of Muslims or Islamophobic? Or to put it another way, can we say that the US and UK governments persecuted Muslims and are or were Islamophobic? Can we call Lyndon Eddie Islamophobic? And remember that most of this material was added today. Dougweller ( talk) 18:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
"Isn't the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal intrinsically Islamophobic for its content?"Perhaps, but for purposes of writing an encyclopedia, only if we have sources that reach that conclusion themselves. - Mr X 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The page Mariupol standoff is about very recent clashes in Mariupol, east Ukraine, which peaked on 9 May. That day there was shoot-out between Kiev troops in armoured vehicles versus some people in the central police station, which ended up gutted by fire. Kiev's armoured vehicles were also opposed by crowds of residents in the streets. People were killed and wounded, most on the Mariupol side of the conflict rather than the Kiev side.
Ukrainian interior minister Arsen Avakov explained the 9 May clash as a military engagement against a force of 60 separatist militants, who had tried to take the police station by storm — i.e. the troops came in to help the local police.
But local residents contested this in interviews shortly after the incident, with reporters from the New York Times, the BBC, the Independent and the Telegraph. They said Kiev's troops had attacked the local police, all or most of whom were friendly to the protest movement.
At present Avakov's POV dominates the page, though there is some mention of other views, and some attempt to reconcile the two. (E.g. by mentioning "renegade police" as an element in the claimed "takeover" of the station by the militants.)
Discussion has been polarized, between editors (such as RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, Lvivske) who think its OK to present Avakov's statements as facts (rather than assertions), and editors (including FakirBakir, MyMoloboaccount, and myself) who have wanted more attention to the POV of the residents.
My own position is this: I certainly support including Avakov's explanations in the article, (in fact I've added more of his statements), but NPOV requires that the Avakov POV should be presented as assertion not fact, e.g. by using expressions like "according to..." After all, he's hardly a disinterested observer, hardly a third-party source. (The fact that he said these things is established by reliable third-party sources, but they do not establish that his statements are factual.)
I've also questioned the assertion that separatists were forced out of Mariupol on May 15 by patriotic steelworkers and police. It's true that barricades in the centre of the city were dismantled then, and that some usually reliable media (including the New York Times) thought this meant separatists were gone from the city.
But... a day or two later, Radio Free Europe reported than separatist militants were patrolling Mariupol alongside local cops, and then CNN conducted an affable interview with the separatist leader and his kalashnikov-toting side-kick, who continued to have a headquarters in Mariupol.
I have been accused of going against the due weight principle. RGloucester has reminded me that NPOV does not mean treating statements by David Irving the same as those by Simon Wiesenthal.
A series of sourced edits I made recently (adding well over 1,000 bytes) was described as "an outrage" by RGloucester on the talk page, and reverted en bloc by Volunteer Marek. [42] Mention of civilian crowds in the page's infobox has been deleted as well. [43]
I have tried to reason with these people on the talk page, but to no avail.
How to apply NPOV policy to this page? Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 10:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Kalidasa 777, RGloucester is very difficult to argue. Previously, I had a silly argument with him about infobox information (I think on different subject, but similar), but the user simply goes and conducts edits when he or she requires others to reason with him. What you are talking about, I personally do not understand the term "Avakov's POV"? Arsen Avakov is a government official. Have you ever heard anything like "Putin's POV" or "Merkel's POV"? There is no split in the Ukrainian government, so "Avakov's POV" in fact is the official policy of Ukraine and thus should be treated. The Avakov's post was approved by the Supreme Council of Ukraine and his statements are official reflection of the government. Calling an information as the "Avakov's POV" just does not make any sense and it is somewhat disrespectful towards the government of the country (But I guess that is just my own point of view). Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The world officially recognizes the obvious aggression of Russia against Ukraine, yet the article that is being policed by RGloucester tries not to openly recognize the fact and constantly makes careful circles. How is NYTimes more reliable than any Ukrainian media? NYTimes mostly reflects POV of the US. Considering the fact that the US, the UK and the RF collectively made toilet paper out of the Budapest memorandum and Geneva Accords, the US foreign policy goes into the same bin with all these documents and with them the POV of any American media. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The article creator persists in adding lines such as "He set aside from everything other than Allah and drowned in the love of the Almighty All Powerful." Edward321 ( talk) 03:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The article introduction uses extremely POV (and highly inaccurate) language, to discredit the UN Secretary General's report/Palmer Report. The article presently uses a UNHCR op-ed featuring hand-picked authors to claim that the report was "heavily criticized by United Nations independent experts" when in fact it was just a particular op-ed and particular authors. Two editors have simultaneously deleted any and all criticism of the (competing) UNHCR report that came to the opposite conclusion. The article also recently used non-reliable sources such as counterpunch and deceptively linked to an opinion piece in a journal(behind a paywall) claiming that it's (opposite) findings reflected the decisions of Palmer report (they don't, they contradict it).
Additionally, User:Engelo, who is one of the editors dominating the article along with User:Tecspk@aol.com, deleted a section about the IHH members being "ready for martrydom" posted by User:Tecspk@aol.com stating "no it doesn't help." [ [45]] User:Tecspk@aol.com had, when inserting the information, stated "Unclear if this helps"
User:Engelo similarly displayed a WP:Own attitude to the article stating that edits made by User:Tecspk@aol.com "will stay put" as opposed to relying on the wikipedia community. [ [46]]
There is additionally reason to believe there is a conflict of interest with User:Tecspk@aol.com, which I've detailed at [ [47]]
Drsmoo ( talk) 22:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
POV edits:
[ [49]] (Initial edit which adds summaries of UNHCR and Palmer/UN reports. The UNHRC description is presented matter-of-factly, while the UN/Palmer Report is presented in a way intended to diminish the report)
[ [50]] (Edit summary indicating non npov editing)
[ [51]] (Non npov revision of a neutral paragraph)
[ [52]]
[ [53]] (Inaccurate information sourced behind a paywall that contradicts/misrepresents the primary source)
[ [54]] (Removal of information pointing out controversy with the UNHRC)
I noticed the other day, that on the Americans page, on the right-hand side of the page where there is a list of notable American's there was Neil Armstrong, Ben Franklin and ... Albert Einstein. As a physics student, I had a laugh over this, but changed it anyway knowing full well that while during a SMALL 15-year period of his 76 year life he had an DUAL american-swiss citizenship, that he is NOT considered American but considered by anyone who knows something on the subject, German, or perhaps even Swiss-German. But by no means of the stretch of the imagination was he considered an American alongside Armstrong, Washington and Franklin. This is completely ridiculous and clearly there is a one-sided view on this page, as later Einstein was added back to the list. Please can someone with some authority clear up this nonsense, thank you. Dirac740 ( talk) 17:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The Waubra Foundation is an Australian organisation, casting itself as one supporting independent medical research into the health effects of low frequency noise from wind turbines, the so-called "Waubra disease" reported by residents of this small Victorian town which is home to a windfarm.
I first noticed the article in April - as this version - and noted that it was an attack article on the talk page. Discussion began on 30 April under the heading "Attack page" and has continued since. There's been a lot of improvement, but it has now reached the stage of two editors arguing and edit-warring back and forth, which is hardly a satisfactory situation and I'd like some wider eyes on the topic.
My major problems with the article as it currently stands is that it is centred around a " criticism" section, and there are sourcing problems. The Waubra Foundation attracts some steady attacks from the Greens, mainly through attempting to link it with fuel-mining interests. There are some links, but only through the Chairman, Peter Mitchell, and it is unclear how strong those links are. In any case, the WF doesn't claim to be independent, and attacking it through Wikipedia for a perceived lack of independence seems to me to be a strawman.
The Waubra Foundation is a registered not-for-profit group. In 2013 a Greens Senator made a fuss about seeking a review of this status. He claimed in December 2013 that a resolution was expected "this month". It is now six months later, WF retains its tax-free status, and it is a reasonable assumption that the review requested by the Greens failed to have any effect. In a short article, I fail to see how devoting a paragraph to what is a failed political stunt is anything but giving the incident undue WP:WEIGHT. If the tax-free status changes in future, we might include it, but realistically the incident is just a politician thumping his tub to no effect.
If I could get some comments and advice on how to proceed from editors with some experience in current NPOV policy, that would be a big help. Thanks. -- Pete ( talk) 16:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Link to discussion: /info/en/?search=Talk:Misandry#The_Myth_of_Male_Power
Article: /info/en/?search=Misandry
Specific change proposed: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Misandry&diff=610462023&oldid=610461203
Perceived problem: 'He focuses exclusively on what supports his POV. Not an encompassing view. Jim1138 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)'
The article's subject is on the 'ingrained prejudice against men and/or boys', yet some concise examples like in the proposed change is POV? It is allright to critique the comparison with societal misogyny like the article does under the same header:
'In the 2007 book International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities, Marc A. Ouellette dismissively contrasted misandry with misogyny, arguing that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny" though acknowledging the possibility of specific "racialized" misandries.[9] Anthropologist David D. Gilmore argues that while misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" there is no male equivalent to misogyny. He writes: Man hating among women has no popular name because it has never (at least not until recently) achieved apotheosis as a social fact, that is, it has never been ratified into public, culturally recognized and approved institutions (...) As a cultural institution, misogyny therefore seems to stand alone as a gender-based phobia, unreciprocated.[10]'
But like this, it is mostly critique, leaving out the basis of the comparison which is crucial for an understanding of the concept of misandry. Furthermore, the source of the proposed edit is very reliable, he does have an encompassing view on the subject: /info/en/?search=Warren_Farrell
Leaving this crucial information out is a clear case of WP:CIVILITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuffie18 ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure its challenged, that can all be reflected in the article. Just dont supress information that you think is wrong, please. Also, as you've seen in the edits, There are plenty of editors that agree with me. ( Snuffie18 ( talk) 21:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
I am asking for editors to weigh in on this RfC. It involves whether we can include a mention of the subject's discipline problems in school. There is a dispute about the content, and you can help determine consensus. Thank you. Useitorloseit ( talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
There has been a recent fully of activity at the above page, Dorje Shugden controversy, and Western Shugden Society. Some of that editing has been seen by some, such as me, as being based on information supplied by many of those involved as being perhaps to a degree POV driven. It would be very, very useful if we could get a few more editors who do not have strongly held existing opinions on the subject involved. John Carter ( talk) 23:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
At the top of the discussion page on the wikipedia article on Homeopathy, we have, 'Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV?' which says that both positive and negative view-points should be included in that article. However, the article is an attack piece - there's nothing positive there! One can see a list of positive studies and clinical trials here: [59] Can we have an NPOV tag on the top of that article please (I observed that some users are not allowing an NPOV tag to be used at the top of that article)?— Khabboos ( talk) 16:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The following paragraph: [61] is a phrase taken out of context of a speech, apparently to justify the WP:EXCEPTIONAL accusation that WLC is a defender of genocide. The paragraph is being defended and reverted by 2 users. I have explained in many different angles why this paragraph shouldn't be there on the talk page. [62] GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 11:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC: Move criticism up lede?
Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para.
Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 11:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The Whitehouse Institute of Design article consists of two sections. The first, of six lines, is an unremarkable summary of a small educational institution. The second, of ten lines, discusses one student, who happens to be the daughter of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. I see this as an example of undue WP:WEIGHT, particularly as Frances Abbott has no BLP, and the Tony Abbott BLP does not mention the story. The problem has been discussed on the talk page, but there seems little point in continuing when comments such as this one enter the discussion. -- Pete ( talk) 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Page:
Elizabeth II (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Should the article about Elizabeth I say in the lead that she is
The Queen is generally known in the world as the "Queen of the United Kingdom" or the "Queen of England." When she travels outside her realms she represents the United Kingdom. Her own website says, "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." [63] The Royal Style and Titles Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, says that her title in Canada is "Elizabeth the Second...of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen." [64]
The Queen's title derives from reigning over the United Kingdom, and she is called "Queen" in other realms, although they are not kingdoms. While she is called Queen of St. Lucia in St. Lucia, Queen of Barbados in Barbados, etc., she is never referred to by those titles outside those countries.
TFD ( talk) 17:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The site says, "This is the official web site of the British Monarchy. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present." [65] Of course it is independent of the "state or government", except to the extent that the Queen is head of state of the U.K. and fifteen other sovereign states. The Canadian website on the other hand is a Canadian government website and does not pretend to be otherwise. And you distinction between "royal style and titles" is false. It is one term. Anyway, rather than continuing to make unsupported assertions, could you kindly provide sources. Your reasoning is just original research, personal speculation. TFD ( talk) 02:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The section entitled "MPs with pending criminal charges", was initially added by User:Manchurian candidate. The information is the result of mandatory sworn statements that candidates have to submit to the election officials that is naturally made public. After the election, the information has been the subject of analysis by some NGO specialising in governance, and has received coverage in the press ( [66] [67] [68] [69] [70])
Three editors have raised similar objections to including the content. Since the discussion has been processing, the section has grown to include financial information relating to the candidates also derived from said affadavits. Aside from the behavioural issue, I would seek some further advice on the substantive issue of whether it is proper to include this information. The discussion can be seen at Talk:Indian general election, 2014#Constant removal of MPs with criminal background. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
"Justin Olypen" has been, as I understand Wikipedia conventions, violating NPOV guidelines with the following inflammatory entries:
"Special Interest Lobby Groups and Middle East Policy
Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [16], Rep. Kilmer works to send more Washington State tax dollars to Israel for weapons that have been widely documented in their use against Palestinian civilians.[17]
Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military [18]
In January of 2014, Kilmer plans to hold an "exclusive" meeting for major pro-Israel lobby donors behind closed doors. [19]"
I have amended the entries thus:
"Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [16], Rep. Kilmer supports Israel's national defense.[17]
Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's defense.
[18] On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon. [19]"
Please compare for "neutrality."
We have been reverting each other's revisions; if the intent of this noticeboard is to weigh and resolve such POV disputes, please do so here; I would rather not continue this cycle ad infinitum.
I have notified "Justin Olypen" of this New Section in Wikipedia NPOV/noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Please notice difference in wording between "defense" and "military", twice. Also, please see source regarding AIPAC meeting as the complaintant is merely arguing for less specificity. - Justin olypen
I have again added increased specificity from cited articles, so article now reads: "Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013, [1] Rep. Kilmer supports increased US taxpayer funding of Israel's military.
Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military. He describes situation as "complicated" [2].
On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon, behind closed doors, in a location only known to those who donate $1,500 to pro Israel lobby group, AIPAC. [3]"
czypcamayoc replies: Looks good. I have no objection to the current language.
("Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [17], Rep. Kilmer supports Israel's military. Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel. He describes situation as "complicated"[18]. On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon, behind closed doors, in a location only known to those who donate $1,500 to pro Israel lobby group, AIPAC. [19]") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
1/28/14 - I (czypcamayoc) notice that "206.63.116.11" has sneaked back in to re-introduce propaganda noted above and corrected. I reverted to the version above. Below is the relapse version.
"Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013,[17] Rep. Kilmer supports increased US taxpayer funding of Israel's military despite Israel's use of white phosphorous as a chemical weapon, constituting evidence of a war crime [18] and evidence of weaponry tied to US funding being used against civilians" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Subsequently another moderator further pared the entry.
2/4/14 - "Justin Olypen" returns with the following:
"Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013, [17] Rep. Kilmer works to send more Washington State tax dollars to Israel for weapons that have been widely documented in their use against Palestinian civilians,[18] and despite Israel's use of white phosphorous as a chemical weapon, constituting evidence of a war crime.[19] Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military [20] In January of 2014, Kilmer plans to attend an "exclusive" meeting for major pro-Israel lobby donors behind closed doors. [21]"
That I amend to:
Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [17], Rep. Kilmer supports I increased US taxpayer funding of Israel's military, and to provide assistance for cooperation in the fields of energy, water, homeland security, agriculture, and alternative fuel technologies.[18] Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel. He describes situation as "complicated." [19] On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon. [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Constitutionist ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created by the same editor as the one editing articles on the Constutionalist Party mentioned above, is basically a party political statement, eg "We believe that by returning to the limited federal government, as authorized in the Constitution, we will see Liberty and Prosperity return to the nation. In order to separate ourselves those who wish to keep the current government functioning outside the Constitution, we call ourselves Constitutionists and call for a complete re-establishment of the original American Constitutional Republic." AfD may be the best way to deal with this unless someone has other suggestions. Dougweller ( talk) 08:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Mteberle ( talk · contribs) has been making NPOV edits at a range of affiliates of this party, eg adding " It is time for the Constitution, and the American people who believe it its principles, to have duly elected officials willing to make the tough decisions necessary to save the American economy and American Liberty." to articles. I haven't checked the ELs either. I'll notify the editor. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 06:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Steve Stockman is a controversial American congressman who is currently running for the Senate. Two sets of editors are working on his page, and each is accusing the other of POV violations. The result is a complete mess.
I'm not an experienced editor, so I'm not sure what additional information should be posted here. The instructions say to post diffs, but there are far too many to list here. There have been over 100 edits on the page in the last four days, plus another >100 on the talk page.
I'll admit that I have a definite opinion as to which side is in the right, but I'm honestly trying to get some outside help to sort things out. -- Alexbook ( talk) 16:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not which side of the issue you are on Laylah, GabrielF and team have been constantly vandalizing this page by removing Congressmans positions, citations, bills, interviews etc and are engaged in putting out of context quips to describe his term in office 1houstonian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
You have repeatedly been told that your accusations of vandalism are incorrect under the meaning of that word at Wikipedia and yet you continue to make them ... in fact virtually every post of yours, on the article talk page, on your own talk page, and even here (and by your apparent sock Achtungberlin), includes the erroneous charge. That you never respond to other editors' points about the vandalism charges as well as about the POV nature of your edits and your deletions of material from reliable sources based only on your perception that those sources have an agenda you disagree with, leaves the impression that you have no interest in cooperating with other editors or following Wikipedia policies. -- Jibal ( talk) 05:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Mint Press News ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The discussion on this article talk page regarding how much weight to give the company's self-description and how much weight to give coverage of the response from one of their articles seems to be declining. Some fresh eyes to refocus the discussion on policy-based content would be productive. VQuakr ( talk) 22:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The Picts , according to historic knowledge were, indegiounious ancient people from pre-Celtic Albion ,who were conquered by warlike Irish Scotti migrants from Ulster in the 8th century AC ,due to loosing much of their troops against the Viking invasion in the Northern parts of now conquered Scotland . British encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/459553/Pict does not count them as Celts but this version is impossible to edit in the Picts article because biased Scottish nationalist editors don't allow to include it . Edelward ( talk) 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Edelward ( talk) 00:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Serious issues of POV in this WP:FRINGE article. Language and undue weight given to supporting citations are all problematic. Suggest some of our resident physics buffs take a look and sort out the chaff from the wheat. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The dispute involves the ethnicity and language of this writer. Ivan Gundulić is listed among The 100 most prominent Serbs by the Serbian Academy of Sciences (SANU), and his works (as are the works of other Old Ragusan writers) are considered part of Serbian literature by Matica srpska, which is the chief Serbian cultural institutions. Matica srpska has included Gundulić (among others) in their 200+-volume series of the most prominent Serbian writers from the earliest days to present (Deset vekova srpske književnost "Ten centuries of Serbian literature"). I've categorized him also as a Serbian poet [2], and his language as Serbian [3], but my edits got reverted (see edit history). Gundulić himself to my knowledge never professed his ethnicity/nationality because at that time Croatian nation wasn't yet "constructed" and Republic of Ragusa was an independent political entity. Older sources categorize him as a Serbo-Croatian or Serbian writer (such as the 1911 Britannica), but after the dissolution of Yugoslavia Croatian literature historians claims exclusivity on the entire Old Ragusan literature on the basis of territorial coverage (Dubrovnik is now in Croatia), while the Serbian side simply continues as it did before. Inclusion of Old Ragusan writers as a part of Serbian literature is frowned upon by Croatian academicians publicly, but Serbian academicians generally see nothing wrong with this and consider Ivan Gundulić, Marin Držić and other important Old Ragusan writers as a part of the Serbian literature. Specifically commenting the issue of including Old Ragusan writers, Miro Vuksanović, the Editor-in-Chief of the abovementioned Matica srpska's series, stated that the works included in the series "represent literature written in the Serbian language, in all its forms and dialects" (da bude zastupljena književnost pisana na srpskom jeziku, na svim njegovim 'oblicima' i narječjima, u desetvjekovnim vremenima i narječjima.). Other similar cases such as mixed Serbian/Croatian ancestry, or Serb writers from Crotia or vice versa, such as Ivo Andrić, are handled by dual categorization as well as mentioning language as Serbo-Croatian, or not mentioning the language name at all. That is the approach that I suggest here. Both SANU and Matica srpska are important and reliable sources, representing a major POV that should be included in the article IMHO. Croatian editors don't want that on the basis of arguments such as:
So in short, a major POV from the Serbian side should be included following the established practice as I mentioned above. Note that the article is currently protected because I requested intervention at wrong noticeboard. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 21:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy#Discrimination_sidebar. I argued there that the inclusion of Template:Discrimination sidebar in the article's lead is a violation of the NPOV editing policy in this very heated topic. Thanks, Yambaram ( talk) 01:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The
2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea is an article about an incident that created a diplomatic row between the two involved countries (Italy and India) which, to date, are not concluded yet. Italy and India maintain rather different views on the subject, and the public opinions of the two countries are deeply polarized. Outside of the a/m countries the fact has and has had little echo, except for some specialized circles like those related to international law, navigation etc.
As a result, the vast majority of sources, including each countries officials and media both, is biased towards (or supporting) one of the two sides, which creates difficulties for Wikipedia editors at balancing them.
In this contest editor 109.134.121.9, who apparently endorses the Indian side, repeatedly reversed Italian editors contributions by quoting the POV policy, that in my humble opinion she/he wrongly interprets as a prohibition to cite any non-neutral source in the article, and (s)he arrived to state on the talk page that "The Italian media has no credibility because what they claim is false", thus rejecting ipso facto everything reported on Italian news (including top Italian TV channels, international press agencies as ANSA, leading Italian newspaper). Viceversa, my understanding of NPOV policy application in a case like the present is that both the Italian and the Indian perspectives must be present in the article, avoiding loaded language to promote one position over another, and that can be done also by citing non-neutral sources, providing that wikipedia editors balance the respective POVs, as suggested in the "Achieving neutrality" paragraph of WK: NPOV
The latest dispute with editor 109.134.121.9 (formerly editor 109.134.121.228, non-fixed IP number) relates to
NATO Secretary-General
Anders Fogh Rasmussen stance supporting Italy that, according to editor 109.134.121.9 would have been in favour of Italy just because Rassmussen would have been mislead by the Italian journalist wording who, again in editor 109.134.121.9 opinion, would have misreported an analogous statement by EEAS High Representative Baroness Ashton. Please refer to diffs here below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=595402186&oldid=595399446
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595402255
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595402779
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595403681
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595417865
and section Interpretation of Baroness Ashton's February 14 statements. of
relevant talk page
Please notice that also there editor 109.134.121.9 restates his/her idea according to which Italian Media reports are to be rejected because "what they claim is false".
Regards
LNCSRG (
talk) 15:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your replies and your inputs, I appreciate a lot and I substantially agree with. Yes the article should be pruned and made more fluent. I do not think I will able to do it personally, since 1) I am not a native English speaker, so my idea of fluent English could sound quite ... alien to a mother tongue speaker, 2) I took a side on this controversy, so my summaries could be accused to be non-neutral simplifications 3) I am honestly afraid I am quite busy these days because of work and personal matters. However I would welcome such a concise rewriting, if and when somebody volunteers to do so.
Now, I would like to have your opinion about this revert of one entry of mine by editor 81.240.144.24:
[4]
Thanks again, regards --
LNCSRG (
talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
OMICS Group page is being reverted and redirected to OMICS Publishing Group again & again and OMICS Publishing Group page does not keep up with the neutrality policy of Wikipedia. However to consider for notability, the group is into various businesses:
Link to Talk:OMICS Publishing Group and Talk:OMICS Group
A case should be opened for discussion and consideration with above notability. Lizia7 ( talk)
The above states article lacks a natural point of view. What, I wrote in the article's talk page ( /info/en/?search=Talk:2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal) sums up the situation really well, that's why, I am going to copy and paste it here;
Unfortunately, in Turkey football is taken seriously more than it should and every fan is looking for a way to make their team "better-looking" than the other teams. Although this investigation started with 8 teams, in this article it seems that the whole scandal is about Fenerbahce and Besiktas. For example, in the first paragraph it is implied that Emenike was caught up in the scandal but he was cleared off all charges hence his return to Fenerbahce. I don't know why it was not corrected by the people who put it there in the first place. Secondly, when I wrote this part at 18th of November; this scandal was in the hands of the high courts in Turkey and they haven't had given any final verdict about this investigation but if you read this arictle, there is no room to belive that Fenerbahce is not guilty. What happened to natural point of view? Thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Please look ay my last edit with updated news about this investigation, I have shared 5 names from a news article but if you read the article from top to bottom, It is the first time that their names are stated even though those 5 people were also a part of the investigation. This is my proof of this article being biased. Again, thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
As you can see, the last paragraph in "copy paste" clearly shows the article as being biased and I have tried everything I can but now, it's in your hands. Thanks for your time and understanding, I hope this clarifies the situation about this article. Rivaner ( talk) 07:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have tried my best to clear the article a bit and gave reason for my every edit, hope it will help to wikipedia's policiy of natıral point of view. Rivaner ( talk) 22:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC) You can check my reasonings from the users talk page here: /info/en/?search=User_talk:LardoBalsamico#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article Rivaner ( talk) 10:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
My edits are being refered as vandalism while the stated article, still, lacks a natural point of view. Rivaner ( talk) 13:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Earlier, I didn't want to accuse anyone about this article but since we've started a discussion both on his talk page and the above stated articles talk page, it can be said that the user who were making these edits is LardoBalsamico ( talk · contribs). Hope you can find a solution to this. Thanks. Rivaner ( talk) 13:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Some anonymous IP adresses are still editing the article without a natural point of view and still the article lacks it. Rivaner ( talk) 09:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
i asked for an RfC on Talk:Syrian people, sadly the article was provided with over 20 reliable references yet an editor disagree, please help and participate on the RfC -- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
On Software testing, I've tried raising the issue of neutral point of view, but it seems one user is dominating the discussion and edits there. The article claims, for example, that "No certification is based on a widely accepted body of knowledge" whereas there are a lot of people that think otherwise - people at ISTQB, for instance - and it seems that mainly just people of so-called context-sensitive school are opposed. The user dominating the discussion seems to also believe in what the school says, disallowing other views. The views of the school are even included in the beginning of Software testing controversies article, implying that they are controversial, but the user dominating the Software Testing page refuses to label the claims in Software Testing article as so. A wikipedia article should not label the view of one school of thought as a fact. Slsh ( talk) 11:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time tonight to tear this apart, but Google Bus looks primarily like it's pushing a POV, and probably needs some surgery at least. -- j⚛e decker talk 04:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of off-wiki canvassing, here. I cleaned up the diatribe against the development and did my best to make it NPOV-compliant, but it is getting reverted without discussion by a couple of IP's. I think having more eyes on it would be a good idea. VQuakr ( talk) 19:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The article on entrepreneur Larry Ryckman appears at first glance to be an autobiography. It is a word-for-word copy of the content on the man's personal website, larryryckman.com. The article is written from an overwhelmingly positive point of view that glosses over his involvement in stock manipulation schemes and fails to make mention of the doubts surrounding the companies he once owned or was involved in. Fresh eyes on the article would be greatly appreciated. CplDHicks ( talk) 23:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This article concerns a controversial proposal for a bridge between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie, Alaska. Up until now it has been fairly quiet, just documenting the progress (or lack thereof) of the project. All of the sudden today it has been the subject of edits from several SPA accounts and IPs, at least one of which is being operated by someone from a PR firm in Anchorage. They have now changed their username to something less obvious but I am concerned that the article is being slanted to favor the pro-bridge side by paid advocates. There were also some serious formatting errors introduced by some of these edits. I thought I could fix them but it is something I don't think I have seen before and so I have reverted them as they made the page unreadable on smaller screens. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about the following sentences from the Battle of Berlin article:
Does the first sentence violate WP:ASF? The guidelines for WP:ASF and WP:NPOV in general state:
I think it is obvious that in this case the view in the first sentence is disputed by other historians as mentioned in the second sentence, so the statement in the first sentence cannot be presented as fact and has to be attributed. - YMB29 ( talk) 22:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump please see this edit Then see Removal of tag and these two edits: one two in my opinion YMB29 is acting in bad faith over this, and you have just been mugged. For more background please Goebbels's fevered prophecies
There is next to no dispute that mass rapes took place. To date only one Russian historian has been brought forward who to put it widely is not an
objective historian, as she relies on one official soviet source to justify her argument. The source that YMB29 refers to on this page writes Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale. Well anyone "offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished" will be likely to deny the allegations (
MRDA). There is nothing there to say how many Russians historians are "offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished". Now for a technical point. The scale of the rapes was discussed back in 2010 and the numbers were moved out of the body of the text into a footnote, precisely because they are debated, but there is next to no debate that mass rapes took place. Therefore the Russian sentence should probably be put into the footnote, but as a way of ending a tedious debate on the talk page, the two editors who are sill willing to discuss this with
YMB29 gave in and agreed that if
YMB29 would remove a tag for which
YMB29 placed in the article then we would agree against our better judgement to the placing of a sentence about Russian historians in the body of the text.
YMB29 took that as consent and has now started to attribute the first sentence. This attribution is clearly a breach of of
WP:WEIGHT and the first paragraph of the section could have been tailor written for this example, as could
WP:VALID. --
PBS (
talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I need help with the Legal aspects section of the following two articles:
The statements are sourced, but they are a legal opinion. They also seem to fall for what Wikipedia considers WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I'm highly concerned that this might spiral into a litigation against Wikipedia as it identifies a professional by his name. See WP:NOLEGAL for another pertinent policy as well.
I need an admin to intervene on this matter. I don't want to remove text on a highly controversial topic and cause anger all around because of it.— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 20:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add to this that there is also a lot of violations on WP:NPOV being made.
These people /info/en/?search=User:Owner_Ming and 31.48.69.109 are blatantly pushing an agenda, can we please have the article protected and some sort of action taken against these people? Avion365 ( talk) 04:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The user "The Rambling Man" when editing the template "in the news", used the word "annexed" in regard to the Crimea becoming a federal subject of Russian Federation. I think using this word violates neutral point of view, because in the official act, signed by president of Russia, the word "reunion" (воссоединении) is used. And this is also how the overwhelming majority of Crimean population see it. And in the Putin's speech, was said that due to historical context, the Crimea returned to Russia. And there's a lot of talk about historical justice taking place (Khruschev giving the area to the Ukrainian SSR, even though the core population there, at then time, were ethnic Russians, and the Crimea itself was part of Russian Empire prior to USSR). As an example, BBC, a reliable source, uses a neutral tone in describing how Crimea became part of Russia, by using the word "absorbed" instead of "annexation". The wording is controversial (reunion/annexation), the former being pro-Russian, while the latter being pro-American/"pro-western" preference in media. I think wikipedia should use a neutral word, and let others decide whether it's an annexation or a reunion. Pessimist2006 ( talk) 17:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This is revival for a discussion as the discussion was archived but the matter is not resolved and I was unable to answer comment directed at me at the time.
On Software testing, I've tried raising the issue of neutral point of view, but it seems one user is dominating the discussion and edits there. The article claims, for example, that "No certification is based on a widely accepted body of knowledge" whereas there are a lot of people that think otherwise - people at ISTQB, for instance - and it seems that mainly just people of so-called context-sensitive school are opposed. The user dominating the discussion seems to also believe in what the school says, disallowing other views. The views of the school are even included in the beginning of Software testing controversies article, implying that they are controversial, but the user dominating the Software Testing page refuses to label the claims in Software Testing article as so. A wikipedia article should not label the view of one school of thought as a fact.
This is an example of a contradicting view: "The scheme relies on a Body of Knowledge (Syllabi and Glossary) and exam rules that are applied consistently all over the world, with exams and supporting material being available in many languages." (source: ISTQB). ISTQB is a big organization in the field of software testing certifications, as confirmed by these figures, so their view should be considered a notable one, at least as notable as few individuals from a specific school of thought. I'm not saying that we should take it as a fact, but we shouldn't be saying the opposite as a fact either unless we have real good sources on claiming so. Slsh ( talk) 15:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a notice in accordance to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC. I have created a Request for Comment on the concern that potential offensiveness or objectionability of many biography articles of people from disputed areas (when they include only one 'nationality'-like description, including Scottish and Welsh) may be in violation of NPOV and if so are not covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer leaving Wikipedia exposed to potential legal liability, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Nationality of people from disputed territory/country/colony/region. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 00:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Seeking input regarding a long-running dispute going on at Dreams from My Real Father — an article about a documentary-style film claiming that Barack Obama's biological father was Frank Marshall Davis, an African-American Communist activist. The dispute involves whether the lead section of the article should describe the above claim as being "improbable" (or "preposterous"), or whether the lead should simply say that the film makes this claim. One editor ( Froglich) insists that calling the claim "preposterous" or "improbable" is POV, and he has been removing such wording (see here and here, for example) — while two other editors ( Milowent and Weazie) have insisted on putting the disputed language back in (see here and here). I advised everyone on the article's talk page (see here) to pursue WP:DR rather than continue to edit-war, but this suggestion appears to have gone unheeded. I would prefer not to take admin action here myself, since I expressed an opinion on the issue on the article's talk page (see here), and also because I believe editors may disagree in good faith over which of these possible lead wordings is appropriate. I'd like to see at least some attempt at dispute resolution here before people start getting blocked. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Froglich saying in wikis voice that the film is "improbable" is much more pov and subjective than saying "described as preposterous" which is an objective and verifiable fact. It does have a bit of WP:WEASEL to it, but since there are multiple sources for that description, and this is just the lede (and we go into the details in the body) I don't see that as an issue. Drmies My main objection was stating in wikis voice as a fact that the claim was preposterous/improbable etc. I have no objection to saying as a fact that others have described it as preposterous (although "widely" etc I think may run into WP:RS/AC type issues) - I have no substantial objection to Mastcell's version. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Rollcall: Now voting on the motion — submitted by Mssrs. Richwales, Weazie, MastCell, Drmies and Gaijin42 — that editors may now grossly violate Wikipedia's consensus-derived NPOV policy in the event said editors are sufficiently convinced that an article is obscure enough that they're willing to gamble that no unbiased administrator will ever come around to dish out richly-deserved 30-day blocks and 6-month topic bans.
Your signatures (for the record): X__________, X__________, X__________, X__________, X__________-- Froglich ( talk) 11:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Putting the juiciest quotes of screamingly negative reviews to a film into the lead of that film's article is not appropriate. If the overwhelming reaction to a film is negative than, by all means, mention it in the lead. What has happened in this particular article appears to me to be the inappropriate framing of the topic by the use direct quotation of the most inflammatory language available. That the initial straw-poll consensus seems to be to encourage such behavior is worrisome. While I'm always loath to follow the invocation Godwin's Law I have to admit that Froglich's analogy to Mein Kampf is not without merit some merit. If reviews are so comprehensibly bad then such a fact is easily attributable in the lead and all of that red meat can be put into the body of the article, where it belongs. GraniteSand ( talk) 04:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
User Volunteer Marek repeatedly changes the whole article from encyclopedic to outright denigrating.
Anyway, in a few edits he makes an article an attack piece, like this:
Comrades Colleagues, be polite. While this organisation really seems to lean towards supporting Russian government ("...
the nightmare of the Junta of Kiev..." sentence says all for itself, although I'm not supporter of the
2014 February Revolution) it has to be described in a neutral way (and labels such as neo-Nazi and etc. are controversial, even when (and if) it's true - remember that edit warring on
Right Sector page) and with reliable sources.
Seryo93 (
talk) 11:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
So what do I propose? Remove "far right" from "far-right non-governmental organization" (but retain it in "far right activist"). Maybe add "some media view it as supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin[here goes references]". Otherwise this version seems pretty neutral for me. Seryo93 ( talk) 11:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
User
LiphradicusEpicus is
pushing pro-Ukrainian/pro-American POV on VERY controversial grounds of "
civilized world". Annexation has very negative connotation in regards to that event, but user IGNORES it and pushes his favorite point.
Seryo93 (
talk) 06:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
UPD:Withdrawing my request. Seryo93 ( talk) 19:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
There are several editors who add and remove a sentence about the fact that the event is considered an unconstitutional coup by some sources. Like this: [22].
Do something about it. I believe the sources for the sentence are reliable and per WP:NPOV they should remain in the article. I've reverted once right now, but I can't participate in the edit warring.
Also, some editors remove all references to Russia Today under what I regard as false pretences: [23]. (I actually tried to reason with the editor here on his talk page, but it looks like someone just wants to remove the sources without any regard to the rules.)
It has been going on for days. Someone must revert the article to a more neutral state and protect it. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 11:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek adds "associated with fascist and neo nazi groups" to the first sentence. The result is:
Jean-François Thiriart (22 March 1922, Brussels — 23 November 1992) was a Belgian politician associated with fascist and neo-Nazi groups.
Is this a neutral way to define a person in an encyclopedia? I have tried to revert him, but he reverted me back. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 12:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Jason Russell has a current RfC dealing with how to treat his famed "incident." This was proceeding apace until a new editor states that it is violating NPOV to say he was in his underwear when "The article should properly describe what happened or, if it's not deemed relevant for inclusion, remain silent about it; but you can't have it both ways and write the section in that way, pretending that Russell never exposed his genitals in public." Note the RfC appears, IMO, to be strongly leading towards minimal coverage of the incident, using conservative wording. Which is fine, but that editor now pasted a POV tag on that section, despite the fact I cannot see any particular direct relevance of WP:NPOV myself to what is clearly a WP:BLP dispute. But since the tag is in place, it seems fitting to present the claim here.
Is a description choice among "naked and masturbating", "naked" "nude" or "in his underwear" (where the police report and a number of reliable sources state "underwear") a matter appropriate for this noticeboard as being one of violating the neutral point of view policy by using the most conservative reliably sourced description, where more "interesting" wording is preferred by some editors? Thanks. Collect ( talk) 16:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Moved to non-neutral title (but I admit, that past title was seemingly non-neutral too) without consensus. Seryo93 ( talk) 05:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that a bunch of IPs are turning Adithya Srinivasan into a puff piece. I've been trying to deal with it for a long time, but the IPs keep restoring the peacock material and removing the POV tag. Lately, I've been getting this kind of stuff over it. Can someone else take a look at this? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 12:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, I need help in a dispute concerning two articles Kvenland and King of Kvenland. I have been trying to remove a reference to King Charles IX of Sweden (1550-1611) from those articles, because Charles IX was never a king of Kvenland, nor was he linked to Kvenland in any way by any known historian. Kvenland, the land, vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century, i.e., long before his time. We are talking about a historical fact, not an individual opinion. Including the name of a random king in the articles is an utterly incomprehensible idea, extremely poorly defended by the opponents. The opponents, a group of 4 editors (including 3 Swedes) Thomas.W, Yngvadottir, BogatusAB and Bishonen, act as if they have a monopoly over these two articles. It's too obvious these editors have an agenda. The matter was already discussed on the Dispute resolution noticeboard with the help of Guy Macon, who at first promised to "focus on article content", but ended up not keeping his "promise" to judge the dispute solely on the article content. It appears he was pressured to change his approach. The Russian source writes correctly that "it is often, and erroneously, referenced that king Charles IX of Sweden would have called himself as the "King of the Kvens"." [25] [26] (Let alone called himself the King of Kvenland or, even more importantly, been one). What makes it easier for a volunteer to give his/her neutral opinion, is that a personal opinion is not what matters here as we're dealing with a historical fact. http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvenland Anyone courageous enough to support the removal of the reference to Charles IX from the articles? Please note that this is definitely not a political question. Finnedi ( talk) 03:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
|
This was resolved with the blocking of the person posting the notice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Could I get some help here. This book, Signature in the Cell, clearly advocates a certain view. Writing a synopsis of the book is allowed for in WP:SOAP, since it is an WP article about a book advocating for a religious/scientific/political position, not simply a WP article advocating said position. An edit war commenced on said issue, with myself contributing to the Talk:Signature in the Cell page, and the other editors not contributing much at all. Was the main points section, found here, not written from a NPOV? Best, Purefury182 ( talk) 18:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:UK Independence Party#Request for comment about whether academic sources describing the UK Independence Party as far-right are reliable. LordFixit ( talk) 07:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Is a category like this a violation of the WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE-rule? I think it is a "the view of a significant minority," but maybe the SPLC's view is an "significant viewpoint," and in that case,, this category that calls organisations a "hate group" is no violation. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 12. Best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 13:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In addition, the SPLC works with the FBI: 'The FBI has partnered with the SPLC "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems"' As long as the article of the hate group contains a citation of the specific claim by the SPLC that the group is a hate group, I can't see how the category itself violates WP:NPOV because we are not endorsing the SPLC's view - we are simply reporting it. LordFixit ( talk) 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Unfortunately, category (and template) abuse has become one of the holes in current process of curating content. When POV pushers cannot get their content into the main body of the article, they often turn to these less monitored alternatives to present their own agenda. In this case, that agenda appears to be that of agrandizing the SLPC's rather controversial labeling of various organizations with the moniker of "hate group". More general and essential categories apply, and where multiple sources support the categorization, those categories can be applied. Allowing the SLPC alone to label organziations on wikipedia doesn't adhere to the guidelines set out in WP:CATEGORY or WP:NPOV. aprock ( talk) 01:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I just saw there is also a Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners. I might be violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but since that category is also about a negative expert opinion, it touches the same vein, according to me. See what you can do with that info, boys and girls Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: The general threshold for categorization is not just V and NPOV; it is also that the article subject (or at least one thereof) has the defining characteristics embodied by the category. To qualify as defining, a characteristic will usually be established in the article lead section (if it's the lead sentence, so much the better), with the implication of significance to the article that this brings. See CAT and OCAT for more discussion on defining characteristics. If a significant number of articles have the defining characteristics embodied by a category, then the category is warranted. If there are fewer such articles, then categorisation to a less-specific set of characteristics may be appropriate. HTH, Aquegg ( talk) 08:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Ken Ham is a Young Earth creationist. In the lead of his article it is currently stated that his views are "incorrect". There has been an extensive argument at Talk:Ken Ham as to whether this is an appropriate form of words. Both sides claim to be suppporting NPOV, but only one of them is right. New eyes on this might help. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 12:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that his views are clearly based on religious views of the literal inerrancy of the Bible -- thus we are in a quandary, as if we assert everyone who holds such a belief is "incorrect" we are verging into the "religion" v. "science" category. IIRC, the community has decided that where religion is concerned, calling a belief "incorrect" is problematic. We might as well add "incorrect" to anyone who does not know the "one true religion" whichever one it might be. We can say his views on creationism are not in concord with "scientific consensus" but "incorrect" in Wikipedia's voice could be applied to essentially every single person who avers a religious belief, including Pope Francis. We could do so, but so far the community appears to believe that conservative writing of BLPs per WP:BLP is policy. Collect ( talk) 12:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course young earth views are incorrect. But we can write informative articles without using every possible opportunity to kick sand in the face of people who follow various faith-based beliefs. There is no need (or legitimacy) for the wikipedia editors to, in the voice of Wikipedia, make an overall pronouncement regarding incorrectness vs. correctness of his views in covering this person in this article. North8000 ( talk) 13:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The article on Young Earth creationism calls it "pseudoscience," which is mostly the same as calling it incorrect. Howunusual ( talk) 21:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I recently removed links to derogatory terms on the page [Scotch-Irish_American]. However, a user Eastcote keeps restoring them and now appears tobe doing the same via a sockpuppet BilCat. As other articles on ethnic commmunities do NOT link to derogatory terms, these should be removed in order to keep the article more neutral. Duedemagistris ( talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Due to repeated uglifications of the lead of the David Horowitz article, I've added a Neutrality tag, and would like to see an administrator step in and deal with the "wolfpack" tactics of a small group of editors claiming their at-present numerical majority entitles them to violate the Wikipedia:Manual of Style with impunity.-- Froglich ( talk) 03:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Until yesterday History of science and technology in China said "Ancient Chinese scientists, mathematicians and doctors made significant advances in science, technology, mathematics, and astronomy. Traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture and herbal medicine were also developed through empirical observation and scientific experimentation. citation needed"
It now says "For over 9,000 years until the 18th century China was the worlds most technologically advanced civilization. Ancient Chinese scientists, engineers, metallurgists, mathematicians and medical doctors made significant innovative advances in science, technology, mathematics, and astronomy. Traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture and herbal medicine were also developed through empirical observation and scientific experimentation. citation needed"
I reverted this but was reverted again with the edit summary "Please refer to Science and Civilisation in China by Sir Joseph Needham and read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6669569.stm". That's in my response to saying that writing developed in the Middle East, which I believe is still consensus even if early pictographs which may be the origins of Chinese writing existed before writing. Of course both statements are unsourced.
We actually don't talk about Chinese civilization being anywhere near 9000 years old. Look at Chinese history and for instance Longshan culture. The written history of China only goes back to the Shang Dynasty and the development of cities in China seems to have started later than elsewhere. I'm not trying to denigrate their wonderful achievements but this claim is not correct. I also reverted [35] based on a book by Gavin Menzies.
While I'm at it, is there a decision on PRC/ROC that would be relevant to this template change? [36] Thanks Dougweller ( talk) 05:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Can we get a few eyes over at Vladimir Putin - we have some undue weight in re-guards to the current Intervention in Crimean Peninsula. Not sure what is there is the norm for a bio - odd to go into so much detail about the conflict in a bio. What do others think ? -- Moxy ( talk) 17:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Appears on its face not quite to conform to WP:NPOV. I asked about this at its talk page and was told it was no more hagiographic than Political positions of Sarah Palin which I then looked at. I seem to discern a difference on how the two people are treated. This is "silly season" but I also doubt that articles should be campaign documents either (sigh). I avoid editing in this type of morass where people insist that NPOV does not apply here but trust that other eyes will look at this political tract of an article. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to get my head around some reversions by User:Til Eulenspiegel at Ethiopia. A sentence that read "Ethiopia is one of the oldest locations of human life known to scientists" was changed by User:Jérôme to "The oldest known traces of human life are known from Ethiopia". Til reverted this saying it needed attribution (ie it had to say "known to scientists", it was restored, then reverted again by Til. I reworded it to say ""Some of the oldest evidence for modern humans is found in Ethiopia" which is better as we the source is about homo sapiens, and then I was reverted by Til whose edit summary says "Uh oh, seems Doug Weller prefers to flare this into a dispute, says "attribution isn't necessary" for what European regime-paid scientists say, published views of Ethiopian scholars he deems irrelevant but theirs is the more prominent voice in that nation").
My question is do we actually need this "known to scientists" in situations like this one? If we do, we may need to look at another article. Note also that of course the lead is a summary of the article, and the relevant section in the article just says "Ethiopia is widely considered the site of the emergence of anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, in the Middle Paleolithic 200,000 years ago. The earliest known modern human bones were found in Southwestern Ethiopia, and are known as the Omo remains.[39] Additionally, skeletal remains of Homo sapiens idaltu were found at a site in the Middle Awash in Ethiopia. Dated to around 160,000 years ago, they may represent an extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens sapiens, or the immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans." Nothing about "known to scientists" there, so it's unclear to me why Til thinks it is necessary in the lead. Dougweller ( talk) 13:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
From my point of view, phrases such as "known to scientists" and "known to science" are weasel words – they attribute a fact to unnamed scientists, but do not give a precise reference. It would be much better to simply provide a reference in such cases, which then would make the phrase "known to science" redundant. What is more, everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be referenced, so adding "known to scientists" does not add anything to a sentence in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia as a whole should reflect facts that are known to science. Also, the particular phrase "known to scientists" is reminiscent of unscientific texts, such as those written in tabloids; this is definitely not the tone that an encyclopedia should have. – Jérôme ( talk) 13:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
To wrap my head around this, I took a look at the Earth article. If we added "according to scientists" or "known to science" to every relevant fact there, it would make the article unreadable. Attribution like this should be done on a case-by-case basis with a reason specifically applicable to the case being provided. -- NeilN talk to me 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Twenty days late -- "known" is pretty clear as a single word -- "to scientists" implies that some non-scientists know something else. They don't. This is worth not a lot of discussion IMO. Collect ( talk) 14:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this edit in conformance with the WP:NPOV policy?
changing
to
Removing a reliable source for the first sentence as originally stated. The Issue of gun control, Volume 53] H.W. Wilson, 1981; 192 pages; page 43 and only retaining the problematic Halbrook and LaPierre sources. By so doing, they remove an actual academic source (H.. W. Wilson is a reputable publisher) in favour of two non-academic sources which are then demolished in succeeding sentences. I suggest that removing an unquestioned reliable source source about a "non-Godwinian" point of view and asserting by inference that all are invoking Hitler, that NPOV is clearly violated. Other views? Thanks. Collect ( talk) 22:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a disagreement between myself and several other Wikipedia users regarding the biography of The Ultimate Warrior.
There is a sentence in his death section that reads, "Warrior was admittedly a heavy user of steroids during his professional wrestling career; since the heart is a muscle, steroids can affect its condition." and lists the following articles as reference....
http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_77724.shtml http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ultimate-warrior-death-wwe-hall-of-famer-died-from-heart-disease-autopsy-concludes-9262036.html
most notably, the following quote from James Caldwell is the main point of reference,
"Warrior was an admittedly heavy steroid user during his pro wrestling career, which affects the condition of a person's heart due to the heart also being a muscle. He had a family history of heart attacks, as his father died at age 57 and one of his grandfathers died at age 52."
Their argument is that they have a source that states "steroids can effect the heart since the heart is a muscle."
My argument is that James Caldwell is a beat writer for professional wrestling. He is not licensed to practice medicine, and as far as I know has no education or expertise in pharmacology, chemistry, physiology, biology or any other practice that would qualify him to give an opinion on steroids and whether or not steroids had any part in Warrior's death.
What we do have is an official autopsy report, and there is no reference to steroids whatsoever. Since the medical professional did not list steroids, I believe no mention of steroids should be listed in Warrior's death section. I have no problem if Warrior's past steroid use is mentioned, but to place it in his death section is misleading and possibly suggests steroids played a part in his death. Since his official report omits any reference to steroids, I believe his official wiki bio should also omit any reference.
I would welcome any help in resolving this issue.-- Jmurdock21 ( talk) 23:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not linking to any dispute here (there isn't any yet), but I would be very grateful if someone took a look at the National Religious Broadcasters article. I've read the lead section a few times now and I am still... confused. The lead states bluntly that "the mission of NRB is to advance biblical truth, promote media excellence, and defend free speech, so that the Gospel of Christ may be freely proclaimed in the United States and around the world". No quotation marks in the article. According to the article history, this has been there for years. I would gladly do something, but I wonder if I am just imagining things. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Creation story/myth/narrative concerning NPOV as applied to article titles. The discussion arises from the discovery that articles about traditional/folkloric/religious accounts of the creation are not named in a consistent manner. Most are called "Foo creation myth" (e.g. Japanese creation myth) but a few are titled "Foo creation narrative" (e.g. Genesis creation narrative). The overall article about the subject is called Creation myth (with redirects from "creation narrative" and "creation story").
Points of discussion include: Do these titles show favoritism to some religions over others? Is the difference in titling the result of WP:Systemic bias or is it appropriately based on what Reliable Sources use? Should such articles be named consistently or on a case-by-case basis? Any input appreciated. Thanks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
We could definitely use some neutral editors at the terrible mess that is the article Jews and Communism, take a look at its talk page, there is rampant edit-warring, what I would say is obvious original research from the very first sentence, highly suspect POV-pushing, ownership issues, on and on it goes, if anybody feels that they can bring a NPOV to a whole series of disputes between two very entrenched "sides" and dares to wade in over there that might be helpful. There are so many issues that I don't feel I can single a particular one out and provide diffs. Smeat75 ( talk) 19:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Sourced mentions of rape, torture, murder, profiteering and more have been removed from Uday Hussein with edit comments claiming NPOV and propaganda.
This edit by
167.187.101.241 was first, with the edit comment NPOV
. I
reverted, commenting While torture (for example) does not reflect well on Uday Hussein, it would be a breach of WP:NPOV to omit such significant and sourced material.
I also
left a warning on the IP talk page though it geolocates to a US hotel chain, so I didn't expect much and there's been no response there.
About an hour later, the IP
reverted to their rewrite with the edit comment NPOV U.S. pro-war propaganda
and made
a further edit commenting npov
.
I opened discussion on the talk page
here but had no response and about an hour and a half later
restored the article to its original state with the edit comment Please follow WP:BRD and do not revert without discussion at Talk:Uday Hussein#Removal of material as NPOV and propaganda
.
Another IP
98.219.116.125 has now
reverted to the pruned version with the edit comment better version
. I don't want to carry on simply reverting so that is how the article now stands, without the mentions of torture, rape, murder and so forth.
I'll notify the IPs now. NebY ( talk) 09:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This is what the article Grovo looked like when I came to it a few minutes ago. There are copyvios mixed in with the obviously promotional tone. I pared back and tried to fix the lead, then started moving down. This looks like it must have been written by a PR firm or someone in-house because, to me anyway, the entirety appears to be an ad. In such a case I'd likely CSD G11 it, but now that I've made changes to the lead someone looking at it might not have the immediate impression I do. Best to just tag appropriately, add CSD, or (and this seems pretty unlikely) rv myself and csd? --— Rhododendrites talk | 15:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the reliable sources noticeboard.
User Genoasalami ( talk · contribs), along with 68.8.110.141 ( talk · contribs), 70.197.81.74 ( talk · contribs), 70.197.89.8 ( talk · contribs), and 70.209.200.121 ( talk · contribs), made some edits to Cursillo that are biased and based on unreliable sources. ([ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cursillo&diff=607218903&oldid=607184789 diffs). All of these users have little or no activity except in relation to the edits in question. Some or all of the IP users are likely the same person; I'll leave it to others to judge whether it's intentional sockpuppetry or a new user who forgot to log in.
After only a couple of back and forths and little discussion they requested page protection and were told by an admin that their behavior was not acceptable. I've explained what the problems are with the sources and how they are used in the article, but they persist in reapplying the edits and removing templates by me and other editors disputing neutrality, insisting that the sources are reliable and the article as edited represents a neutral point of view, generally acting as a tenditious editor.
That's not to say the article (before any of this happened) is as neutral or its sources are as reliable as we like to see on Wikipedia, but the edits in question make it far worse. mwalimu59 ( talk) 19:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
an editor placed this template ({{POV-check|date=April 2014}} ) on the above article. I don't know what the mechanism of that template is, but other than the editor that placed it and myself, there has been no discussion at the article talk page. The article is, from reviewing the talk page, been a bit of a POV playground for a long while. the POV spins around some local gun control or gun mandate law and the article appears to have been turned into a platform for the pro gun factions. I don't care too much either way, but when the copy about a relatively new law exceeds the copy on the civil war by approx. triple, there is obviously a problem. My proposed solution would be to mention the passing of the law and that is it. Everything else seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS, never mind the claims of lack of WP:RS and failure of references to verify. Can we please get some help here? Not notifying anyone because I am not asking for any sanctions (yet) nor an I discussing any particular editor. John from Idegon ( talk) 00:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Should the flags of secessionist movements be used to represent country subdivisions which do not have their own flag? Currently, Türkvizyon Song Contest uses the flag of the East Turkestan Liberation Organization to represent the region of Xinjiang (a volatile region of China which is 43% Muslim, 41% Chinese, and home to frequent ethnic violence), which seems to me like a serious POV issue. This flag is used in a manner which suggests that it is either a legitimate or official usage, which is at odds with other articles on Wikipedia relating to the topic.
On the article talk page, it is argued that the official Türkvizyon Song Contest website uses this flag, and therefore it should be allowed, however no other page on Wikipedia uses this flag to officially represent the region, and the reasoning behind this relies on a partisan source with a WP:FRINGE stance. In response to my concerns, I have also been accused of "pushing the POV of the (Chinese government)".
Is my POV concern regarding this page legitimate, or am I thinking in the wrong direction? -- benlisquare T• C• E 10:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:2013 IRS scandal#Requested move #2 that partly revolves around how to interpret WP:POVNAMING. Opinions from the folks at this noticeboard are solicited. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the WP:LEDE should summarise the body but any attempt to expand the lede to summarise the body is reverted. The bottom line is that the lede is too short. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The above named article, and related articles, have for years now been, basically, a battleground between editor(s) who may or may not be rather POV driven given their stated allegiances. Also, so far as I can see, at least one of those editors, on the article talk page, seems to post statements which might be even longer than some of my book-length commentaries(!) which have so far as I can see little if anything to do with actually improving the article. I regret to say that I myself have at best limited access to a lot of material regarding this topic, but I believe that it would very much be in the interests of the encyclopedia to have more significant, sustained, input regarding the article, and, possibly, review of the actions of some of the editors involved to see if some sort of further action may be required. John Carter ( talk) 15:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd say no and have removed it from both, but Teaksmitty ( talk · contribs) disagrees and added the material I removed from Persecution of Muslims to [{Talk:Persecution of Muslims]] but with no discussion. The fact that Muslims have died in military actions in various countries does not prove that these were aimed at Muslims due to their religion. Dougweller ( talk) 14:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict):::And now we have [39] added by 24.88.85.64 ( talk · contribs) who I now realise added the Lynndie England & Abu Ghraib material earlier today. A bit odd that all these edits are occurring in the last few hours, although perhaps Teaksmitty simply inadvertently edited logged out. Responding to Drowning, I am sure that there were many American and UK soldiers involved in these events who hated Muslims (and there's another issue about hating the enemy I won't go into), but that's not the issue. Can we call the events themselves persecution of Muslims or Islamophobic? Or to put it another way, can we say that the US and UK governments persecuted Muslims and are or were Islamophobic? Can we call Lyndon Eddie Islamophobic? And remember that most of this material was added today. Dougweller ( talk) 18:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
"Isn't the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal intrinsically Islamophobic for its content?"Perhaps, but for purposes of writing an encyclopedia, only if we have sources that reach that conclusion themselves. - Mr X 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The page Mariupol standoff is about very recent clashes in Mariupol, east Ukraine, which peaked on 9 May. That day there was shoot-out between Kiev troops in armoured vehicles versus some people in the central police station, which ended up gutted by fire. Kiev's armoured vehicles were also opposed by crowds of residents in the streets. People were killed and wounded, most on the Mariupol side of the conflict rather than the Kiev side.
Ukrainian interior minister Arsen Avakov explained the 9 May clash as a military engagement against a force of 60 separatist militants, who had tried to take the police station by storm — i.e. the troops came in to help the local police.
But local residents contested this in interviews shortly after the incident, with reporters from the New York Times, the BBC, the Independent and the Telegraph. They said Kiev's troops had attacked the local police, all or most of whom were friendly to the protest movement.
At present Avakov's POV dominates the page, though there is some mention of other views, and some attempt to reconcile the two. (E.g. by mentioning "renegade police" as an element in the claimed "takeover" of the station by the militants.)
Discussion has been polarized, between editors (such as RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, Lvivske) who think its OK to present Avakov's statements as facts (rather than assertions), and editors (including FakirBakir, MyMoloboaccount, and myself) who have wanted more attention to the POV of the residents.
My own position is this: I certainly support including Avakov's explanations in the article, (in fact I've added more of his statements), but NPOV requires that the Avakov POV should be presented as assertion not fact, e.g. by using expressions like "according to..." After all, he's hardly a disinterested observer, hardly a third-party source. (The fact that he said these things is established by reliable third-party sources, but they do not establish that his statements are factual.)
I've also questioned the assertion that separatists were forced out of Mariupol on May 15 by patriotic steelworkers and police. It's true that barricades in the centre of the city were dismantled then, and that some usually reliable media (including the New York Times) thought this meant separatists were gone from the city.
But... a day or two later, Radio Free Europe reported than separatist militants were patrolling Mariupol alongside local cops, and then CNN conducted an affable interview with the separatist leader and his kalashnikov-toting side-kick, who continued to have a headquarters in Mariupol.
I have been accused of going against the due weight principle. RGloucester has reminded me that NPOV does not mean treating statements by David Irving the same as those by Simon Wiesenthal.
A series of sourced edits I made recently (adding well over 1,000 bytes) was described as "an outrage" by RGloucester on the talk page, and reverted en bloc by Volunteer Marek. [42] Mention of civilian crowds in the page's infobox has been deleted as well. [43]
I have tried to reason with these people on the talk page, but to no avail.
How to apply NPOV policy to this page? Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 10:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Kalidasa 777, RGloucester is very difficult to argue. Previously, I had a silly argument with him about infobox information (I think on different subject, but similar), but the user simply goes and conducts edits when he or she requires others to reason with him. What you are talking about, I personally do not understand the term "Avakov's POV"? Arsen Avakov is a government official. Have you ever heard anything like "Putin's POV" or "Merkel's POV"? There is no split in the Ukrainian government, so "Avakov's POV" in fact is the official policy of Ukraine and thus should be treated. The Avakov's post was approved by the Supreme Council of Ukraine and his statements are official reflection of the government. Calling an information as the "Avakov's POV" just does not make any sense and it is somewhat disrespectful towards the government of the country (But I guess that is just my own point of view). Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The world officially recognizes the obvious aggression of Russia against Ukraine, yet the article that is being policed by RGloucester tries not to openly recognize the fact and constantly makes careful circles. How is NYTimes more reliable than any Ukrainian media? NYTimes mostly reflects POV of the US. Considering the fact that the US, the UK and the RF collectively made toilet paper out of the Budapest memorandum and Geneva Accords, the US foreign policy goes into the same bin with all these documents and with them the POV of any American media. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The article creator persists in adding lines such as "He set aside from everything other than Allah and drowned in the love of the Almighty All Powerful." Edward321 ( talk) 03:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The article introduction uses extremely POV (and highly inaccurate) language, to discredit the UN Secretary General's report/Palmer Report. The article presently uses a UNHCR op-ed featuring hand-picked authors to claim that the report was "heavily criticized by United Nations independent experts" when in fact it was just a particular op-ed and particular authors. Two editors have simultaneously deleted any and all criticism of the (competing) UNHCR report that came to the opposite conclusion. The article also recently used non-reliable sources such as counterpunch and deceptively linked to an opinion piece in a journal(behind a paywall) claiming that it's (opposite) findings reflected the decisions of Palmer report (they don't, they contradict it).
Additionally, User:Engelo, who is one of the editors dominating the article along with User:Tecspk@aol.com, deleted a section about the IHH members being "ready for martrydom" posted by User:Tecspk@aol.com stating "no it doesn't help." [ [45]] User:Tecspk@aol.com had, when inserting the information, stated "Unclear if this helps"
User:Engelo similarly displayed a WP:Own attitude to the article stating that edits made by User:Tecspk@aol.com "will stay put" as opposed to relying on the wikipedia community. [ [46]]
There is additionally reason to believe there is a conflict of interest with User:Tecspk@aol.com, which I've detailed at [ [47]]
Drsmoo ( talk) 22:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
POV edits:
[ [49]] (Initial edit which adds summaries of UNHCR and Palmer/UN reports. The UNHRC description is presented matter-of-factly, while the UN/Palmer Report is presented in a way intended to diminish the report)
[ [50]] (Edit summary indicating non npov editing)
[ [51]] (Non npov revision of a neutral paragraph)
[ [52]]
[ [53]] (Inaccurate information sourced behind a paywall that contradicts/misrepresents the primary source)
[ [54]] (Removal of information pointing out controversy with the UNHRC)
I noticed the other day, that on the Americans page, on the right-hand side of the page where there is a list of notable American's there was Neil Armstrong, Ben Franklin and ... Albert Einstein. As a physics student, I had a laugh over this, but changed it anyway knowing full well that while during a SMALL 15-year period of his 76 year life he had an DUAL american-swiss citizenship, that he is NOT considered American but considered by anyone who knows something on the subject, German, or perhaps even Swiss-German. But by no means of the stretch of the imagination was he considered an American alongside Armstrong, Washington and Franklin. This is completely ridiculous and clearly there is a one-sided view on this page, as later Einstein was added back to the list. Please can someone with some authority clear up this nonsense, thank you. Dirac740 ( talk) 17:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The Waubra Foundation is an Australian organisation, casting itself as one supporting independent medical research into the health effects of low frequency noise from wind turbines, the so-called "Waubra disease" reported by residents of this small Victorian town which is home to a windfarm.
I first noticed the article in April - as this version - and noted that it was an attack article on the talk page. Discussion began on 30 April under the heading "Attack page" and has continued since. There's been a lot of improvement, but it has now reached the stage of two editors arguing and edit-warring back and forth, which is hardly a satisfactory situation and I'd like some wider eyes on the topic.
My major problems with the article as it currently stands is that it is centred around a " criticism" section, and there are sourcing problems. The Waubra Foundation attracts some steady attacks from the Greens, mainly through attempting to link it with fuel-mining interests. There are some links, but only through the Chairman, Peter Mitchell, and it is unclear how strong those links are. In any case, the WF doesn't claim to be independent, and attacking it through Wikipedia for a perceived lack of independence seems to me to be a strawman.
The Waubra Foundation is a registered not-for-profit group. In 2013 a Greens Senator made a fuss about seeking a review of this status. He claimed in December 2013 that a resolution was expected "this month". It is now six months later, WF retains its tax-free status, and it is a reasonable assumption that the review requested by the Greens failed to have any effect. In a short article, I fail to see how devoting a paragraph to what is a failed political stunt is anything but giving the incident undue WP:WEIGHT. If the tax-free status changes in future, we might include it, but realistically the incident is just a politician thumping his tub to no effect.
If I could get some comments and advice on how to proceed from editors with some experience in current NPOV policy, that would be a big help. Thanks. -- Pete ( talk) 16:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Link to discussion: /info/en/?search=Talk:Misandry#The_Myth_of_Male_Power
Article: /info/en/?search=Misandry
Specific change proposed: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Misandry&diff=610462023&oldid=610461203
Perceived problem: 'He focuses exclusively on what supports his POV. Not an encompassing view. Jim1138 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)'
The article's subject is on the 'ingrained prejudice against men and/or boys', yet some concise examples like in the proposed change is POV? It is allright to critique the comparison with societal misogyny like the article does under the same header:
'In the 2007 book International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities, Marc A. Ouellette dismissively contrasted misandry with misogyny, arguing that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny" though acknowledging the possibility of specific "racialized" misandries.[9] Anthropologist David D. Gilmore argues that while misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" there is no male equivalent to misogyny. He writes: Man hating among women has no popular name because it has never (at least not until recently) achieved apotheosis as a social fact, that is, it has never been ratified into public, culturally recognized and approved institutions (...) As a cultural institution, misogyny therefore seems to stand alone as a gender-based phobia, unreciprocated.[10]'
But like this, it is mostly critique, leaving out the basis of the comparison which is crucial for an understanding of the concept of misandry. Furthermore, the source of the proposed edit is very reliable, he does have an encompassing view on the subject: /info/en/?search=Warren_Farrell
Leaving this crucial information out is a clear case of WP:CIVILITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuffie18 ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure its challenged, that can all be reflected in the article. Just dont supress information that you think is wrong, please. Also, as you've seen in the edits, There are plenty of editors that agree with me. ( Snuffie18 ( talk) 21:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
I am asking for editors to weigh in on this RfC. It involves whether we can include a mention of the subject's discipline problems in school. There is a dispute about the content, and you can help determine consensus. Thank you. Useitorloseit ( talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
There has been a recent fully of activity at the above page, Dorje Shugden controversy, and Western Shugden Society. Some of that editing has been seen by some, such as me, as being based on information supplied by many of those involved as being perhaps to a degree POV driven. It would be very, very useful if we could get a few more editors who do not have strongly held existing opinions on the subject involved. John Carter ( talk) 23:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
At the top of the discussion page on the wikipedia article on Homeopathy, we have, 'Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV?' which says that both positive and negative view-points should be included in that article. However, the article is an attack piece - there's nothing positive there! One can see a list of positive studies and clinical trials here: [59] Can we have an NPOV tag on the top of that article please (I observed that some users are not allowing an NPOV tag to be used at the top of that article)?— Khabboos ( talk) 16:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The following paragraph: [61] is a phrase taken out of context of a speech, apparently to justify the WP:EXCEPTIONAL accusation that WLC is a defender of genocide. The paragraph is being defended and reverted by 2 users. I have explained in many different angles why this paragraph shouldn't be there on the talk page. [62] GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 11:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC: Move criticism up lede?
Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para.
Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 11:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The Whitehouse Institute of Design article consists of two sections. The first, of six lines, is an unremarkable summary of a small educational institution. The second, of ten lines, discusses one student, who happens to be the daughter of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. I see this as an example of undue WP:WEIGHT, particularly as Frances Abbott has no BLP, and the Tony Abbott BLP does not mention the story. The problem has been discussed on the talk page, but there seems little point in continuing when comments such as this one enter the discussion. -- Pete ( talk) 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Page:
Elizabeth II (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Should the article about Elizabeth I say in the lead that she is
The Queen is generally known in the world as the "Queen of the United Kingdom" or the "Queen of England." When she travels outside her realms she represents the United Kingdom. Her own website says, "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." [63] The Royal Style and Titles Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, says that her title in Canada is "Elizabeth the Second...of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen." [64]
The Queen's title derives from reigning over the United Kingdom, and she is called "Queen" in other realms, although they are not kingdoms. While she is called Queen of St. Lucia in St. Lucia, Queen of Barbados in Barbados, etc., she is never referred to by those titles outside those countries.
TFD ( talk) 17:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The site says, "This is the official web site of the British Monarchy. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present." [65] Of course it is independent of the "state or government", except to the extent that the Queen is head of state of the U.K. and fifteen other sovereign states. The Canadian website on the other hand is a Canadian government website and does not pretend to be otherwise. And you distinction between "royal style and titles" is false. It is one term. Anyway, rather than continuing to make unsupported assertions, could you kindly provide sources. Your reasoning is just original research, personal speculation. TFD ( talk) 02:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The section entitled "MPs with pending criminal charges", was initially added by User:Manchurian candidate. The information is the result of mandatory sworn statements that candidates have to submit to the election officials that is naturally made public. After the election, the information has been the subject of analysis by some NGO specialising in governance, and has received coverage in the press ( [66] [67] [68] [69] [70])
Three editors have raised similar objections to including the content. Since the discussion has been processing, the section has grown to include financial information relating to the candidates also derived from said affadavits. Aside from the behavioural issue, I would seek some further advice on the substantive issue of whether it is proper to include this information. The discussion can be seen at Talk:Indian general election, 2014#Constant removal of MPs with criminal background. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)