Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

Prager University

You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at WP:ELN#Linking to Prager University, which addresses the allegedly non-neutral creation of external links to Prager University, a website associated with radio host Dennis Prager. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As the discussion has not reached a close I have started an RfC. You are more than welcome to participate if you have not already done so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide

The above article and topic area was recently encouraged to have more eyes on it by the ArbCom. I have started a new thread on the talk page of that article, at Talk:Landmark Worldwide#"Comment" committee persuant to a suggestion I made during the arbitration to try to get some specific editors who might have some sort of experience in similar topics involved, and have actually already binged them in the thread. It is of course understood that none of those individuals, or any others, will have more authority than any others, but I thought their input might be welcome in drafting one or more RfCs on the topic down the road. Of course, any additional eyes would be welcome as well, particularly as I have no reason at this point to think that any of the individuals who I pinged have even responded yet. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Thanks for starting this thread. I dove into the article a bit, and oh boy there is a big problem there. Significant criticism is being repeatedly removed, with attempted justifications via long, tendentious arguments on the talk page. Many of the arguments make little sense. Apparently the article has been drifting away from NPOV over the years; see e.g. this revision from 2011, which I got from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide/Evidence#Behavior. I am surprised the arbitration case did not lead to sanctions on any editors. I've even noticed a few borderline cases of intimidation since I've been there. Manul ~ talk 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Manul that there is a problem at that article. I have tagged it again for NPOV, as there are multiple active talk page discussions related to POV issues. I would characterise the issue as see-sawing rather than one-sided, as the article swings between extremes. At the moment, for instance, half+ of the article reads like an attack on Werner Erhard. Additional eyes and commentary at the article talk page would definitely be valuable. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

American Left

The main issue I see with American Left is that it deviates from the existing left wing and left right politics articles. It defines "The left" in a different way to exclude pretty much everything but socialism, Marxism, and communism - something that deviates from the normal American sense what is left of center. It appears that it might be better titled as American Socialism since that is it main focus.

I think it would fall under POV-lead or POV-title. I haven't put up the templates but posted here first. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact it is consistent with both those articles. On the talk page, you presented American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation as a source.[1] Your source says, "If Barack Obama and Noam Chomsky are both on "the left," then how does one make sense of their opposing views on U.S. foreign policy, and a good many other subjects? So I adhere to the classical definition. The left is that social movement, or congeries of mutually sympathetic movements, that are dedicated to a radically egalitarian transformation of society." Could you please explain why your source is wrong and why you presented it in the first place. TFD (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
"left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality"
"The spectrum of left-wing politics ranges from centre-left to far left (or ultra-left). The term centre left describes a position within the political mainstream. The terms far left and ultra-left refer to positions that are more radical. The centre-left includes social democrats, social liberals, progressives and also some democratic socialists and greens (in particular the eco-socialists). Centre-left supporters accept market allocation of resources in a mixed economy with a significant public sector and a thriving private sector." Left-wing politics
"The left" in American, is it left wing or or only a subsection of left wing? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Any article on American Left must pretty much be expected to be in line with "left" in current American usage - which is your issue? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Here are links to "american left" in Google books[2] and Google scholar.[3] TFD (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Does inclusion of contemporary liberalism in the US dilute American Left? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The only thing the Left and the Right have to do with being on opposing ends of something are the words. There is no center. There is no spectrum. These are mind tricks played on symmetrical beings. Unlike accounting, see-saws and the Zoroastrian world, nothing that happens on one "side" affects the other equally. Or should. Likewise, what one person, nation or media mogul thinks Left means doesn't affect what another does. Or Right. There's absolutely no need for consistency or balance among these different articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
That makes little sense.
"The only thing the Left and the Right have to do with being on opposing ends of something are the words."
This post isn't about opposition. Nothing to do with "right."
"These are mind tricks played on symmetrical beings."
The term is pattern recognition. We categorize things to make sense of the world. The left, left-wing, liberalism can be put on a spectrum.
One side affect the other? What? There is not need for it to affect equally to be put on a spectrum and to distinguish between differences.
"Likewise, what one person, nation or media mogul thinks Left means doesn't affect what another does."
This goes without saying. However this is an encyclopedia and we have to be able to write about things even when there's a gray area, and include that grey area. Your sentence following this one implies that the current lack of modern liberalism in the article is fine unlike the second to last which would be open to the inclusion of liberalism to American Left. They appear to conflict with each other. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Amazingly enough- this has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NPOV and thus has no place at WP:NPOV/N either. Go to mediation or the like - but the folks here can not possibly do anything as a NPOV matter. Collect (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The complaint seemed about American Left deviating from Generic Left and Generic Right, like that would be something unfair or contradictory. Some Lefts can be a lot like other Rights. Basically, like you said, it's not a neutrality problem. It's a semantics thing.
Didn't mean to imply anything in any article should change or stay the same, only that no edit should be made due to what another article does. That's FOX and CNN's bag, not Wikipedia's. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
I seem to have confused the two of you with one of you. I think my response still makes sense, though. Sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa

Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was reverted

Do you think my version or the version to which the article was reverted is more neutral?

jps (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

jps Caveat reverting on basis of Talk is working seemed reasonable, and it has to say the same thing to be more NPOV. NPOV is asking you to find a way to present that viewpoint fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias. You might find it useful to try looking into the wording of a RS and TALK to what this line meant. Word what it is better -- maybe as a POV item (e.g. 'Said by members'), tie to the para start ("This focus on the holy spirit'), or as an assertion instead of as a fact (e.g. 'Attributed to the stirring') would be more neutral and fidelity than the shorter 'This stirring'). Markbassett (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Big Bottom Massacre bias Posted to this Talk page in 2011. I responded a few days ago, but it appears this contributor is no longer active. I would like to get the Neutrality issue resolved. Any help here, or am I in the wrong place. Doesn't seem like a big problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonbill (talkcontribs) 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair Partisans?

[This is copied verbatim from a query initially at the Help desk, moved per the suggestion of a fellow editor]

Now, I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time, but I've always wondered this:

What is Wikipedia's stance on partisans?

I've read WP:REP in the past, but I've always wondered what the general community thinks of this.

(Note that the partisans that I speak of are the ones that follow the rules for the most part, but do still obfuscate information that they find unfavourable from their own edits.)

If a partisan were to edit Wikipedia within the general rules, but yet obfuscate some information or otherwise "shadow" an article, and then in the long term the information that they added ended up being reworked by future editors so that the page turned out quite well balanced, could the presence of such a person truly be seen as a problem? If the partisan added legitimate information, and then the pages were later improved upon by others to add the information that they had left out, then wouldn't "the (first-version-writing) partisan" just be another step in the life of the general creation and improvement of an article? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 11:56 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

every editor in WP is obligated to follow the policy WP:NPOV. Each time you or anybody edits WP, under a username or without signing in, you agree to the Terms of Use (linked at the bottom of every page) which obligates you to abide by WP's policies and guidelines. So yes it is a problem, at a basic level. It is also a practical issue. While WP self-corrects over time (hopefully) that doesn't always occur quickly, and during the time when the partisan information is in WP, readers are harmed. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))
True enough, but do you believe that there have never been any partisans that have ultimately added good information to Wikipedia? I mean, some of what makes many of Wikipedia's articles the least biased on certain subjects is that so many people are working on it that the biases tend to balance out over time, and some articles only have the sources cited and information that they do because people were compelled to add their sides' informations, and then someone else came in and balanced it all out later; retaining the good parts of what the partisans added. Is that not one method in which a neutral point a view can be achieved? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Everybody is obligated to follow PAG. You seem to be trying to create a general justification for behavior that violates PAG and that is not of interest to me and I think it is bad thing. I will say that people come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which in my view is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. All editors are meant to check their POV at the door when they start to edit, and to strive to provide NPOV, reliably sourced content, for the public good. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))
I am trying to do nothing of the sort. All that I am merely doing is generally remarking based on my own observations on how several pages were constructed, developed, and have come to be now. I don't approve of biased editing of Wikipedia, but I have seen instances where it actually ended up all working out in the end. That's all that I was saying.
Indeed, I agree with your analysis there. Everyone should most certainly strive for every article on Wikipedia to be written in a neutral point of view. I never said otherwise.
What I am saying is basically this: you have said that passion is a double-edged sword. Can the bad end of that blade not be made dull by the well intentioned editors of a page so as to not leave a page in a biased state?
Wikipedia is a work in progress, and as such we will always be striving to be even better than we are at the moment. As such, is it not unreasonable to say that some articles, perhaps ones on debates, arguments or whatever (I don't read those kinds of articles, so I don't know how exactly to categorise them) are only at their current states due to contributions from many different kinds of people that have been ironed out to become the product we now see today? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. Everybody is different, and there are often different perspectives on what an article should say, and also on how to interpret WP policies. That is normal and every WP article is the product of people working out reasonable compromises. Things tend to get very ugly when people come with axes to grind on top of that - partisan editors tend to behave tendentiously (please read that). That behavior is destructive to the community, as well as to article content. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))
Fair enough. I see your point. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
. . .
Tharthandorf Aquanashi, Jytdog - wow, I think that went strongly wrong in four ways
* WP:PAG says make exceptions - observing wording carefully is limited "should" and "normally follow" and goes on to "apply using reason and common sense" which wikilinks to "there are times when it is better to ignore a rule"
* WP:NPOV says include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. That's not exclude all partisans, it's to channel their views to a fair presentation.
* False basis re WP:Terms of use -- that has the legalese on copyright and lawsuits, but I see no such words to match the attributed. Welcome a specific quote if there is something, but I think that was just a false basis and best to be trying to restart focused to the concern than to try and force that to work.
* Censorship effect - allowing judgmental or accusatory WP claims without any explanation how it applies or a constructive criticism try of suggesting improved wording or placement seems just an invitation to one POV censoring another. We're basically talking what's good or necessary censorship and what ways censorship should be done here, so I think about such needing to be seeking goodness in nature and even in TALK trying to be consistent to WP:W2W, specifically WP:LABEL and WP:WEASEL and WP:CONSENSUS.
... Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Mark we seem to be interpreting the question differently. I took it as asking if it is somehow OK if people come and edit with an ax to grind. (The answer to that question is a profound "no", per WP:SOAPBOX) and WP:NPOV (policy). Each of us are obligated to understand the relevant literature on a topic and to represent the literature in WP articles, as best we can per NPOV. We follow the sources, not our own POV.) What do you understand the question to be? Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))
I very much agree with Markbassett. He sees what I was trying to say more so than you do, I feel, Jytdog. His points anent WP:NPOV are on the very same wavelength as mine: isn't the point of having NPOV to give just weight to all points that are deserving of that amount of weight and that are sufficiently cited, and also to not go and take sides so long as all published citation-worthy sources do not ultimately take sides to the extent that it would be citationally unavoidable to do so?
"allowing judgmental or accusatory WP claims without any explanation how it applies or a constructive criticism try of suggesting improved wording or placement seems just an invitation to one POV censoring another" Forsooth and siccor, Markbassett!
@Jytdog: When did I ever frain the question "Is it fair for activists to jump in and spout promotional or completely bias-filled, useless information on Wikipedia?" That was not even close to the question that I asked. Not even close.
Wikipedia works because it has something similar to an assembly line process going on here for many articles. In plenty of instances, it cannot be reasonably expected for everyone to suddenly become Mister Perfect and play the world's best devil's advocate. That's something that only certain personality types can make work. In very many cases, articles grow into great states due to the efforts of scores of individuals working together to produce neutral, informative and useful articles for anyone who has the ability to view Wikipedia to see and learn from. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))
Jytdog Above I was indented to show inputting re the discourse trail from 'Terms of Use' had gone badly wrong in several ways. I'm in harmony with you and commonly refrain on just follow the cites or show me the cites, and yes we seem to be interpreting the topic differently, and that there we start to have some fundamental different thoughts. I've separately posted back to that top thread, which appears at that indenting below here. To your phrasing above in an answer paradigm, I would offer the complicating observation that in the contentious areas, WP policy seems more honored in the breach and evidenced as an added symptom ... Markbassett (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Tharthandorf Aquanashi, back to the WP:REP#Partisans question itself, short form partisans always exist and mostly OK with interesting complications and cases. I think thats a general statement but the situation generally is one of those "its complicated" and while general and pointing at the positives the details are varied and most but not all ways work out wonderful. Seems to me like everyone is inherently somewhat POV and every editor someway partisan, and most articles are not significantly controversial for that to matter. The WP:CONT ones are those where the positions are strong enough to overwhelm any common goals and methods, that by definition have not reached WP:CONSENSUS and implicitly will not do so. But they're the boundary where Wiki policy consideration actually happens and effects occur. Also, for such Wikipedia has some record value in capturing (roughly) what areas where that's the case, and the Wiki ideals form a means to narrow it by testing against Wiki ideals in an open arena. I'll offer the view as well I see cases where it fails that it still mitigates the damage -- in a gaming area I think discourse broken but think that sort of conveys the nature/level of the topic area, and at a different article I think it unretrievably biased but since it goes so far it is obvious and hurts it's own POV it seems two wrongs make a kind-of right. Markbassett (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The biggest problem happens when a group of partisans take hold of an article. This isn't all so common that it causes a terrible problem generally, but it does happen. What can make this worse is when the vast majority of editors act in a partisan manner (even if subconsciously) towards something that is not so black and white. Those types of problems are what has led to the English Wikipedia being labelled as having a western bias in the media. We do all inherently have biases, and as long as we can suppress them to the extent that we can all together produce neutral, informational, and useful articles, that isn't really a problem. When it does become a problem is when a masquerading gang of ill-intentioned partisans fights off edits from a well-intentioned user that is trying to give fair weight to deserving, non-fringe, not of the type where a question of "truthfulness or falseness" "fact or fiction" would be an issue, points that are not included in an article due to the efforts of the aforementioned gang of ill-intentioned partisans trying to (by way of intimidation and wikilawyering) force their bias into an article. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Tharthan with all the latin you are using i suspect you have some kind of law background. maybe i am wrong. You both are missing the point of NPOV, which is really sad to me. We are supposed to work like scholars - each of us is responsible to read the literature on a topic and try to represent what the literature says, giving WEIGHT to various aspects of the topic according to the weight given in the literature. You both have it backwards, where we start with the editor pushing a POV, and going out and finding sources to support it, and adding content based on those sources, and then battling with other editors to determine how much weight any perspective gets. Editors acting that way, are basically doing that on the basis of complete bullshitting because they are not actually following the heart of NPOV - they are all just using NPOV as a tool to get what they want. We call that "wikilawyering". Wikipedia is not a court of law where lawyers do their best to outlawyer each other, and are happy with a win on a technicality. In WP there is no "judge" or "jury" that is the arbiter of which editor/lawyer best played the game. We are not "mad max" either, where editors just battle out POVs under a veneer of NOPV policy. We are not an ugly garbage dump of POV. Editors acting under those metaphors, are the ones who make this place suck. It is not what we are meant to do here. Does it happen? Sure. Is it a good thing. Hell no. Please - try to work in a really NPOV fashion - read all the relevant literature and try to work from it, and urge others to do the same. That is our responsibility here - one that comes with the privilege of editing Wikipedia. That is only way this place really works; the only way you can have really honest, rational discussions about weight and NPOV is from a shared grounding on what the relevant literature says and a shared desire to have the article reflect the literature (not anyone's POV). Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))
^^^^ Nominate for Comment of the Year Award (CYA). ―Mandruss  21:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)(Stricken commments may not be nominated for CYA)―Mandruss  11:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
that is kind of you! Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Once again: not all of us can become Mr. Perfect and play the world's best devil's advocates. That kind of thing can only be achieved by persons of a specific nature. The process that you describe is not incorrect, but the idea that every single person would be able to indiscriminately collect, cite & summarise an equal number of sources for every single legitimate point of view in the entire galaxy all by themselves is unrealistic. My best friend, for instance, can do that kind of thing quite easily. That is one of his notable traits; being able to break everything down to a more-or-less unbiased account of something. However, not everyone is like my best friend. We cannot all be reasonably expected to magically create a perfectly NPOV article all by ourselves. That's an absolutely ridiculous assertion! If such a thing were possible, some other encyclopaedia would already have done so.
Furthermore, you don't seem to have read everything that I wrote before your post. I already discussed how wikilawyering can render something. Furthermore, I absolutely do not approve of shysters following the American lawyer method of "winning" something by way of technicalities. Had you read what I actually wrote, you would have realised that, Jytdog.
The rest of what you wrote is based on the assumptions of what I do and do not approve of, based not on what I actually wrote, but on what you have assumed about me. Please try not to assume, thank you. If you are unsure of what I am trying to say, just ask and I will happily answer. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
sorry that you don't feel i am addressing your point. Here are some questions that may help me understand.
1) in your original question you used the term "partisan" which is not a term in PAG. can you define this better? (i have been reading that as "an editor behaving as an advocate" (which is disallowed per WP:SOAPBOX
2) in your original question you said that the partisan makes a "legitimate edit". Can you flesh that out for me? if it is a legitimate edit (following NPOV, VERIFY, OR, and is reliably sourced), why does the "partisan" nature of the editor matter?
3) What is the article where a gang of ill-intentioned partisans is owning an article and a well intentioned editor is getting crushed?
4) how does that relate to your original question?
thanks. if there is something you think i am just not getting in your original question, please clarify. i will try to hear. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))
1. Close, but not exactly. In this case, I was referring to "an individual that feels strongly about a subject, and (outside of Wikipedia) might act in the manner of an activist for that subject". The individual in question, both on Wikipedia and in regards to matters involving Wikipedia in other places or websites, would essentially be following Wikipedia protocol (except for one specific thing that I will mention in the answer to your second question). However, that only referred to the partisan in my initial question; the "hypothetical partisan" as I will now call him so as to differentiate from the partisans being referred to in my reference to a "gang of partisans", by which I mean "a gang of activists that have clear ulterior motives".
2. Because the hypothetical partisan that I refer to would either not go out of their way to find sources covering all non-fringe POVs, essentially leaving it to others to find them after his/her edits OR would indeed cite sources that covered all sides, but would not bother to mention that. So, essentially, whilst their edits may contain useful, absolutely retention-worthy for the article, information, they would also stay silent on certain perspectives that the partisan did not agree with, or would only mention them in brief. Essentially, the article would contain a significant amount of information on the topic in general, as well as on outlooks A B and C, but would have little if anything on outlook D. Essentially, the partisan is saying to themselves "there's no way that I'm going to bother including loads of information on that ridiculous outlook D, so I'll leave it to other editors to do."
3. It's just a general trend that I've seen on a small few articles. There are no current cases of that that have not been resolved as we speak that I am aware of, but there have been in the past.
4. How does what relate to my original question? What I am referring to in answer three? I'm afraid that you'll have to rephrase that, because I'm not sure what you're asking. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I think in many instances we don't even know what a neutral point of view is. To put it another way, we disagree over what neutrality is in a given instance. Sentences within an article can be at odds with one another. I think we aim to cause an overall fairness, or neutrality, to prevail over an article as a whole. I think we'd have to consider this as much an art as a science. Anyone who has edited in this environment knows that disagreements are anything but uncommon. Communication in language implies extreme flexibility. We often argue over a word or two. How something is said is sometimes of great importance and at the heart of disputation. Each side thinks the other unfair but it is creative compromise that almost inevitably results—sometimes after long, heated argument. Neutrality is an ideal. We all should be urged to value that ideal. But I think that ideal escapes all-encompassing and strict definition. Bus stop (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Tharthandorf Aquanashi Note you've got my input and otherwise seems evidence of POV blindness here. Jytdog says "you used the term partisan which is not a term in PAG" - which seems did not see the original post saying WP:REP, nor follow my link to WP:REP#Partisans. And nitpicking, this is in the thread where I said fundamentally POV as unavoidable and actions come from motivating forces is just a fact of the universe, true for all cases at all times -- which seems not visible to some or something able to participate in. Can also take the NPOV mention as yet another example where it causes dysfunction rather than gets used for good. Suggest you take it as you have two inputs and cross statements and now just wait to see if a third poster shows. Markbassett (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm just waiting for Jytdog to respond, is all. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Markbassett I said that "partisan which is not a term in PAG" and you linked to an essay. So...?? Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thartan, thanks for answering. My question in 4), was asking how your bringing up 3), related to your original question in 1). You lost me when you introduced that matter. It doesn't matter though. I am striking all my answers above. Your question is too hypothetical for me to address adequately and all I am doing is upsetting you. So, I'll leave this alone. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog - The "So" was to Thartan ... thatWP:REP and WP:REP#Partisans being the topic, not reflected after prolonged exchange, I suggested in interest of what best for the question to just take spot blindness as being part of the issue and accept what he had and wait for next poster if any ... I do appreciate your scratching out your earlier posts since then. Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the "neutrality dispute" notice mean what it says?

The "neutrality dispute" notice reads: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I placed the notice on the article "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" on January 10, and provided an explanation on the talk page. The neutrality notice was reverted slightly over an hour later [4]. It was restored today by someone else, at which point an edit war began.[5][6][7] It seems to me that the wording of the notice ought to be either obeyed, or the wording changed. Also, I would appreciate it if people would take a look at this article, because it seems to have a really severe neutrality problem. 55 Gators (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

looking at the talk page... I am not sure that there is a real "dispute" to be resolved here. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I appreciate that you posted here. I wish you had asked a question instead of making an assertion about how to use the template. You used it wrongly.
If you read the template instructions, Template:POV (please do so), you will see that the instructions warn against "drive-by tagging", which is what you did. (you tagged the article, then opened a pretty sharp discussion on Talk (didn't ask a single question), and then vanished) The instructions also make it clear that in Talk, you should "point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" and it says that the "template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.".
In your comments on Talk, you didn't say a single word about policies nor about what sources say. You just gave your opinion.
The tag was therefore rightly removed.
In my view, you acted badly here. On an article on a very controversial topic (a shooting war) like this, it is much better to take your time, read the article carefully, read the Talk page carefully, make sure you have a solid grasp of policies and guidelines, and enter the discussion on Talk by asking a question instead of coming in with accusations. There are very experienced editors working on that article, and if you had actually asked why things were as they were, and listened to the answer, and thought about it, you could have learned something and been in a much better position to actually raise a neutrality dispute. Too many times, inexperienced editors jump into controversial articles and don't understand what is going on - and just end up making difficult situations worse. Please do read WP:COMPETENCE. I hope that you are open to feedback like this and I hope you stick around and grow as an editor. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You did not identify a neutrality dispute, merely that the article is more favorable to one side than another. TFD (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

55 Gators - in response to your question, this seems de facto definition, an example that removers ignore the process and then victim-blaming happens over the claim of you didn't do it perfect as judged by ... Yah, it's a largely malfunctioning process. Nobody gave acknowledgement that you posted to TALK and the deletion did not participate in TALK, it's more assertions the other way and that you didn't do everything perfect which to me reads like evidence a tag is needed and they should TALK but that behaviour is not motivated. Removal might work closer to basis of talk use if a tag was semi-protected and criteria set for admins to meet before applying or removing but that's not the way it is. Annnnnnd I expect to see complaints about the 'but he poked me first...' flavor and red herring type. You raised the issue, but should not expect all parties to play fair when they really care. Markbassett (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight to mention failed bills about the subject of the article

Is it undue weight to mention bills that do not pass in articles about the subject of the article?

These about the Gun show loophole:

In July 2009, Representatives Michael Castle and Carolyn McCarthy introduced the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 (H.R. 2324)[1] in the U.S. House of Representatives. Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced similar legislation, the "Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009"(S. 843), in the U.S. Senate. As of October 2009, the House version of the bill had 35 co-sponsors (mostly Democrats) and the Senate version had 15 co-sponsors, all Democrats.
On January 3rd of 2013, Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York introduced the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013 - H.R.141. The bill, which has 47 co-sponsors, amends the federal criminal code to make it unlawful for any person to operate a gun show unless said person meets certain criteria. It also imposes record-keeping requirements on gun show operators, grants the Attorney General more authority over gun show operators, increases criminal penalties, and authorizes the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to hire additional investigators to carry out inspections of gun shows. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations on January 25th of 2013, but has not been passed.[2]
  1. ^ "Gun show loophole bill is back in Congress". United Press International (UPI). July 19, 2009. 
  2. ^ "H.R.141 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013". Retrieved January 16, 2015. 

Diff of the edit that removed the text - [8].

Link to discussion about bills - [9].

This one, regarding Universal background checks:

Two months after the shooting, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL), introduced H.R. 2122, the "Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act." A highlight of the bill was that it would have required background checks "of all buyers of guns at gun shows that involve or in some way affect interstate commerce, with at least 50 firearms for sale and 10 firearm vendors present."[1]
  1. ^ McCollum, Bill; Hyde, Henry J. (June 18, 1999). "H.R. 2122 (106th): Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act (1999; 106th Congress H.R. 2122)". Retrieved June 27, 2014. 

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the purpose of mentioning bills that did not pass?--MONGO 23:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
To improve the article, of course. If a nation has a problem, and lawmakers propose solutions, and those bills are debated nationally and covered by numerous high-quality RS, concurrent with the debate about the problem, or even months or years later when discussing the problem and how it was solved, or how it has yet to be solved... Is it undue weight to mention those bills in an article about the problem/topic? Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
On average 4,000 bills are introduced each year that don't pass the US House. I think it is extremely undue to include such bills in an encyclopedia article. Inclusion of such would not be an improvement in any article. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Source please? Also, do you know how many of those 4,000 bills are mentioned repeatedly in high-quality RS for days, weeks, months - sometimes even years - before they're voted on and even after they die? Lightbreather (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC), it's a tool that allows people to find out quite a lot of interesting information. It may be a shock to learn, but some cynical politicians introduce bills they know will not pass in order to please supporters, garner political attention, get press attention (big reason), and to make a point. Given that reality, I think there are a lot of unpassed bills that garner RS coverage. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that whether a bill passed or not is the wrong question. We should be asking whether any given bill, pass or fail, is sufficiently important to the biography of the legislator, which we can decide by considering its coverage in reliable sources. Formerip (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the question posed is about BLP articles (biographies). It seems specifically about policy related articles. I imagine there could possibly be a bill that didn't pass that was still so significant in an individual legislator's life that it might be included in a bio. It seems unlikely though. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah OK, I didn't get that. I think the same principle applies, though. Of course a failed bill *can* be relevant to any article. It's a question about sourcing, and its also relative to the subject of the article. Clearly, our article on tax does not to mention all failed bills in the US (probably not any). A failed bill relating to a Tobin tax or Flat tax *might* be relevant to the relevant article, though. I think its a question for talkpage consensus, but definitely not general prohibition. Formerip (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Consider Carolyn McCarthy. A big part of what some people admired about her, and others loathed, was that she kept trying and trying to pass a new assault weapons ban. She started before the original expired in 2004 and kept on trying after it expired, too. That's one of the things that RS talk about the most when they write about her. Lightbreather (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The unlikely rep! I'd say that might be the exception that proves the rule. She was a Representative whose entire career was built around a single gun control bill that never passed (even when her party had supermajorities). It is appropriate to discuss it in her unique case. The broader question stands. There are way too many unpassed bills annually to go adding them to articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Re the question "Is it undue weight to mention bills that do not pass in articles about the subject of the article?" I think that's a "it depends" kind of question. For the political concept of gun show loophole, the bills that share that name and growing from that political concept I would say just follow the cites and present them in the same weight as fairly they may be re the political concept discussion. There seems a risk or danger of gerrymandering here, but are the cites about the political concept or are they just sharing the name and mention the concept is at least part of what I would look for. In this case for example, if a cite is primarily about McCarthy then the bill mention goes onto her article and the political concept is just named as part of that mention. If the cites about the concept typically mention a bill then it goes in here. If the cite is mostly about the bill and just inherently ties by name and known background seems not enough by itself, it should be on the article topic and look and weight the explicit statements more than our understanding of unstated context. Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather...if the bills didn't pass them maybe the legislature failed to see that there is a problem that needs addressing. I think a brief mention of a specific bill that did not pass is probably long as most of the bill that did not pass is about the specific article and not just some pork that was attached to a larger bill.--MONGO 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Gun show loophole

Is the title "Gun show loophole" contrary to WP:POVNAMING for the article about the gun show loophole?

It was discussed about a week ago - [10] - and then another discussion was started today - [11].

Others want to title the article "Gun show loophole controversy."

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the article's original title was "Gun show loophole" but "controversy" was tacked onto the end of it on December 2, 2014,[12] by an editor who is now topic-banned[13] from gun control articles. Lightbreather (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss this naming issue at the talk page rather than jumping it to the noticeboards? Perhaps consensus can be achieved. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It has been discussed at the article. See links above. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not yet ripe for discussion here. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
According to which policy/guideline? Lightbreather (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not this question should be discussed here. Note however that I have just added a Request For Comment to the article's talk page. -- Talk:Gun show loophole#RFC to rename article. Mudwater (Talk) 01:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather -- Umm "Is the title Gun show loophole contrary to WP:POVNAMING for the article about the gun show loophole?" is kind of a leading RFC phrasing so maybe start TALK at what to look at and how the concerns might be addressed. I'll offer that there seems consensus it's a non-neutral but common name, submit it might be agreed to expect political concepts do label games, so perhaps look at Death panels which gets that title and also puts mention of title sensitivity prominent in lead section which sets context and weight. Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Re your first comment, I don't think it's leading, but I respect that you might come to a different conclusion. (Though I thought your edit summary, "yes example of inflammatory label so suggest..."[14] could have been friendlier.) I do not see a consensus that the term is non-neutral - but yes, that it is common.
As for the "Death panel" argument, were any bills introduced called the "Death Panel Act of 2009" or similar? Because "Gun Show Loophole" (using those exact words) bills were introduced in seven consecutive Congresses, in 2001 (H.R. 2377), 2004 (H.R. 3832), 2005 (H.R. 3540), 2007 (H.R. 96), 2009 (H.R. 2324), 2011 (H.R. 591), and 2013 (H.R. 141). I think that's a big-difference between "death panel" and "gun show loophole."
--Lightbreather (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension

You are invited to participate in an RfC on Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension (Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#habeas_corpus_section) pertaining to the section of the Lincoln article (Abraham_Lincoln#Beginning_of_the_war). Piledhighandeep (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Request assistance

I was on the Talk Page of an article (Talk:Tom Brady). Per an "Admin Help" Template request, an administrator told me that I should come to this page with my questions and concerns. There is an article (Tom Brady) that is being edited in a very POV manner (in my opinion). Editors on that page will not allow any mention (whatsoever) of the word "Deflategate" in that article. Even though Tom Brady is a central figure in that topic; Tom Brady himself held a press conference on that very topic; and the topic has a million reliable sources. One editor in particular, in my opinion, is editing in a POV manner and interpreting Wikipedia "rules" to his convenience (User:Calidum). He says that, per BLP, we cannot "infer guilt by association". And, on top of all that, he keeps deleting a post that I placed on that Talk Page. He has deleted my post about 3 or 4 times now. My post contains nothing but (A) factual information; and (B) my concerns for editing that specific article. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed at the top of this page, there is a red statement that says: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so." How do I notify that person? (Quite frankly, I'd like some neutral person to notify that person.) Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hate to play noticeboard tag with you, but this is for situations where an article presents a non-neutral point of view, not for conflicts with an editor who has a non-neutral point of view. For what it's worth I agree in outline with what you and "Friendly Person" have said on the talk page. If the locus of dispute is about BLP then Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard is the place to go. Other content disputes can go to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. If its about the conduct of a user edit warring, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring is the place to be. Rhoark (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh? If the article is being edited in a non-POV manner, then the article itself presents a non-neutral POV. No? What am I missing? What's the distinction you are making? Are they not one and the same? That is, (A) if an article is being edited in a non-POV manner, then it follows that (B) that article presents a non-neutral point of view. No? How are (A) and (B) different? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro - Deleting anothers Talk when that Talk is about the editor deleting it ("It should be noted that User Calidum") seems understandable that you would want to type that and that he would then feel free to delete material that seems just about him. Kind of two wrongs make a sorta-OK protocol item than a Neutrality topic. The positive outcome is each editor got to vent some steam out, it's in the history, and Talk winds up more polite and on topic at the end. But I'll suggest talking the article topic and ways to proceed in this at the article Talk more likely to stick and looks better. Markbassett (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I did not understand your comment at all. Please re-phrase it. And it is my understanding that one editor cannot delete (completely remove) the comments of another editor on a Talk Page. I am not talking about an article; I am talking about a Talk Page. So, even if you disagree with someone's Talk Page comment, the proper course is to reply or respond to it. Not to delete it. (Barring extreme circumstances, like to remove contact information or such.) So, please re-phrase your comment above. I really did not understand what you were saying. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)