Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
|This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice if and when the backlog is cleared.
|Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard|
|Search this noticeboard & archives|
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
- 1 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article
- 2 Constructal law
- 3 Ivan Gundulić
- 4 OMICS Group dispute/Open for discussion
- 5 The Italian marines incident or how to correctly apply NPOV police in an article about a per se controversial fact
- 6 Israel and the apartheid analogy
- 7 Violation of WP:ASF?
- 8 please help syrian people article
The above states article lacks a natural point of view. What, I wrote in the article's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LardoBalsamico#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_articleRivaner (talk) 10:36, 2 March 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 . Hope you can find a solution to this. Thanks.Rivaner (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment -as an (impartial on this subject) editor who reverted some of Rivaner's reverts, may I now take the opportunity, on re-examination, to state that I believe his edits to have been well-intentioned, and, more importantly, motivated by a desire to improve the quality of this article. To someone with no expert knowledge of the situation, the original article did read as biased and therefore unencyclopaedic for our current purposes. Hope this clarifies. Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:51, 14 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 , and his language as Serbian , 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:
- The sources are claimed to be fringe - they are not. These are very important institutions of high visibility. They reflect opinions of hundreds of scholars.
- Gundulić never called himself Serb or his language Serbian - but neither did he call it Croatian either to my knowledge (not that it matters actually).
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)
OMICS Group dispute/Open for discussion
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:
- Educational Society- Holding around 6000 students from primary school level to degree level
- Films and movies- turnover of INR 300 Crores / 65 Million USD Business as per the box office records
- Conferences- only publishing group organizing scientific conferences; world-wide conferences and the largest conference organizer; organizing around 100 conferences per year
- Health TV Channel- 1st Health Channel; monitored exclusively by OMICS Group; operating in English, Hindi and Telugu languages
- Scientific Alliance- Collaboration with more than 150 non-profit scientific associations
- Journals- operating 350 open access journals for the sake of disseminating knowledge for free
- Since Journals is just a part of the business, a general page is of course required. To prove the matter, please refer to reliable sources published on OMICS Group page
- Lizia7 - I'm not sure I understand what's going on. Are both articles about the same company? It looks to have a heavy amount of critical material. Though it is sourced, I am speculative on whether the balance is appropriate on the whole. CorporateM (Talk) 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The Italian marines incident or how to correctly apply NPOV police in an article about a per se controversial fact
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 22.214.171.124, 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 126.96.36.199 (formerly editor 188.8.131.52, non-fixed IP number) relates to NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stance supporting Italy that, according to editor 184.108.40.206 would have been in favour of Italy just because Rassmussen would have been mislead by the Italian journalist wording who, again in editor 220.127.116.11 opinion, would have misreported an analogous statement by EEAS High Representative Baroness Ashton. Please refer to diffs here below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=595402186&oldid=595399446 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595402255 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595402779 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595403681 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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 18.104.22.168 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)
- This is an incredibly cumbersome article, rife with every imaginable detail and it is very hard to follow. Both sides seem more interested with establishing their POV than presenting coherent facts. The best thing would be to eliminate much of day to day minutia, but this I suspect will not happen until the entire matter is closed. As for eliminating sources because of the belief that the journalists are not credible, that is POV and is unacceptable. The only relevant issue is whether the source is reliable, as per WP:NOR and if there are doubts about ANSA as a source, a posting should be made to the RS noticeboard. In general keep in mind that per WP:NONENG English language sources should be given preference over non English ones. The editor's personal belief that the journalists should not be trusted is not relevant. On a further note, that entire section could be significantly pruned, given that the argument is now moot; India will not try the sailor under the anti-piracy laws http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-26319402. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to contribute to slimming down the article, but I am afraid that without "active arbitration remedies" and WP:1RR rules, some editors wan't have a chance against IP editors (of both sides), less a heavy commitment in NPOV's and conflict resolution procedures. --Robertiki (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Something that should be done is remove the section with links to court documents. There's simply no reason for them. We summarize information using reliable, secondary sources. Court documents are primary sources and at least one is hosted by a wordpress blog. If the information in a court document is relevant, then there WILL be secondary sources about that document. We should be citing those and pulling in the analysis done by those sources. If a particular court document is truly important, put it as an external link at the end of the article. Ravensfire (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the court documents should be removed from this article, they could be added at the bottom under "External Links". With so many other secondary sources available, court documents are unnecessary and removing them would be a good start towards cleaning the article. As an aside, I do not always agree that if a court case is notable a secondary source will be available. This is because I have seen court cases cited in newspapers as they started, but not when they ended, if their ending was particularly unremarkable. In those situations strict adherence to requiring a secondary source can lead to lopsided reports of a case in WP. However, this article is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum, almost every single court event, no matter how minor, is listed and referenced to a primary source, and the case is still in the preliminary stages, or at least far from resolved. Applying the secondary source policy could not be more appropriate in this case. By all means, reduce the amount of primary source material.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Robertiki: as I've said on the article's talk page, discretionary sanctions have been authorized by ArbCom for all pages related to India, cf. WP:ARBIPA. Under the terms of the remedy, uninvolved admins may block, restrict and topic ban users editing disruptively and may also impose article-level restrictions (such as a general 1-rr coupled with semi-protection, if needed). My advice would be to follow WP:BRD and, in the event of disruption, file an WP:AE request. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:02, 26 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.
- @LNCSRG with regard to  (Reasons for the removal of Jaideep A. Prabhu remarks in public opinion section) : Jaideep A.Prabhu is currently a doctoral student in History at Vanderbilt University. Whereas, the subject matter of this article deals with the fields of maritime law and international relations where-in academic credentials and expertise of Jaideep A.Prabhu in are neither noteworthy nor significant. Jaideep A.Prabhu qualifications as an engineer are not relevant to this article because this article does not deal with an engineering subject matter.
- Bear in mind that it is incumbent on contributors of text submissions to make a case and defend a text in the event of a challenge.
- In this instance, there are two reasons given for the deletion : (A) that the information is not noteworthy of inclusion (B) that the cited source albeit reproduced by news-media, is an essay by a doctoral student in history without domain expertise in the subject matter. Either of these reasons has merit, independently, to warrant deletion of the text until the stated concerns are addressed/defended adequately in line with Wikipedia rules for content contributions.
- Viz your comment regarding the phrase "In Italy, the humiliating volte-face was perceived as a distressing foreign policy mess leading to an embarrassing climbdown....". After checking the source citation of this phrase, it is evident that the sentence has been compiled from a Wall Street Journal  article written by Italian journalist Margherita Stancati who captured Italian public sentiment of the time by drawing from editorials from prominent Italian newspapers. The article is neither controversial nor from a questionable newspaper media agency. It conforms to WP:VERIFY, WP:NONENG, WP:NOR & WP:USEPRIMARY. Also, most of the wording used is exactly the same as the ones which appeared in the cited Italian-language news articles. Hence, the phrase has the merit to remain on the article and bears no relation to the text inclusion by LNCSRG of an opinionated essay by the doctoral student Jaideep A.Prabhu. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 17:00, 2 March 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)
Violation of WP:ASF?
I have a question about the following sentences from the Battle of Berlin article:
- During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder. Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread.
- Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
- The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.
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)
- Yup - seems reasonable. There are really only two possibilities here: (a) The 'Russian historians' view on the matter is significant - in which case we shouldn't be implying that it is wrong, or (b) it isn't significant (i.e. hasn't been commented on in secondary sources etc) in which case we shouldn't be including it in the first place. I make no comment as to which is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 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)
- The question I asked about WP:ASF was simple, and when the response was not in your favor you complain...
- What have you done to establish how much weight one view has over the other? I have provided more than enough sources to prove my point, while you mostly ignore this and claim to have consensus.
- There are many historians that dispute the claims of mass rape. I have quoted some of them here . It is not my problem that you ignore the quotes.
- The dispute, generally between Western and Russian historians, is also mentioned in many sources (like the source I provided above ).
- The Russian view is not fringe and must be mentioned in the article (like it is mentioned in other articles on the issue) and you must follow WP:ASF.
- You have to stop being misleading and ignoring rules and sources to push your POV. -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if you are going to talk about weight, the three Russian historians I quoted have a higher doctorate in history, while Antony Beevor, your main source, has no such qualifications (honorary doctorate is obviously not the same thing). Beevor is just a popular writer. -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- To be clear about what I wrote, my comments concerned the specific sentences cited by by YMB29: "During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder. Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread." It seems self-evident to me that this assertion in Wikipedia's voice that particular historians are wrong isn't compatible with WP:NPOV policy - which is what my reply was directed at. As I said, I am making no comment as to whether a particular viewpoint is significant or not - you need to sort that out amongst yourselves, or ask for wider input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
please help syrian people article
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)