Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neutrality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Neutrality Project)
Jump to: navigation, search
Discuss the Wikipedia Neutrality Project
WNP Logo

The Wikipedia Neutrality Project
Dedicated to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia
through Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy


Dealing with articles and backlog (opinion)[edit]

I've been away for a while and just returned; but I think it's necessary to discuss the (potential) backlog problem.

What I think is a major danger for us is developing a backlog. There already exist categories for NPOV tagged articles, and their problem is immense backlog, making categories nearly useless. The reason I've originally seen the necessity of WNP is to enable more specifics in resolving issues, creating a working initiative. The most difficult issues in NPOV check, at least for me, are finding the actual concerning POV problems, and deciding what is correct and what is not, and what to do. What we've already achieved is receiving requests with explanation, not just a tag; but, still, not as much on the decision side. I'd suggest to have more discussion of the articles here, just asking for the opinion of others on specific issues, when in doubt - it's one of the goals of WNP, after all.

Also, for specific dealing with articles, it's often hard to eliminate the problem or make sure there are none. Sometimes POV is hidden, sometimes it just requires specific knowledge to distinguish facts from presentation. In my opinion, it's best if we, in such cases, create a section to ask for specific opinions or pointing issues, sometimes ask the corresponding Wikiproject to review the article, and don't hesitate to clean the tag if no POV is visible and nobody responds in considerable time. This is both about requests and just POV check category. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your points are here, it may just be a tired mind after a long three days work with only an hour of sleep between them. Maybe you could summate it in some points? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a list of salient points. I feel the same way as Peter (except for the sleep:)).Nina Odell 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, a summary of points:

  • It's important that we don't create a backlog, or WNP might end like the cluttered categories. So we'd better try to act on every request, to resolve at least a part of the issues.
  • What can always be done, if uncertain about where the POV problems are, is to create a section on the article's talk page and ask everyone to point POV problems they see.
  • When not sure about what to do, let's ask here, because it's what this talk page is for. If factual knowledge is needed, it's a good idea to address the article's relevant Wikiproject.

Nothing really revolutionary, some things might be obvious, it's more like just a reminder about them. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps giving a set time frame to each "problem child" article would be best. If, say, at the end of a month there isn't something concrete happening with POV (mediation, or outright working together) and the article isn't improving, we remove the tag and move on (we can always come back at a later date).
  • We can also limit our articles to, say, ten.
  • I would consider Decline of Buddhism in India to be a success. Those folks are in mediation, and working together cooperatively:). Nina Odell 14:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Do not decline[edit]

I think this is a fair point to make, because some editors come to us looking for dispute resolution, which we are not. Although it is fair to simply add a {{Declined}} tag and move on, it would do Wikipedia better if we referred the editor to another forum, such as the actual dispute resolution processes, including AN/I, WQA, AIV, and RFC, which are processes for dispute resolution, as well as generating consensus.

For these purposes, I have borrowed the template used on WQA and suited it to our needs {{NWNP}} will serve our purposes, simply add a comment under it or within the template {{NWNP|here}}.

I will continue to serve as a clerk here, archiving old requests as is necessary. If everyone could simply sign their comments, this will allow me to archive requests older than a week. If a request has an Opening or Doing tag on it too long, I'll contact the associated reviewer to confirm interest. I'll also be knocking back any new requests that are clearly subject to Dispute Resolution processes, as well as those which are clearly not our territory, including editors asking for Dispute Resolution.

I hope that this helps things run more smoothly around here. Jame§ugrono 07:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Long row to hoe[edit]

Hi, I'm Ed Poor (aka Uncle Ed), and I used to be a big wheel around here when NPOV still meant something. I was one of the first 200 people to sign up; was the first elected bureaucrat; etc.

But when Wikipedia became a top 100 web site, a lot of things changed. The idea that NPOV is paramount and should not be subordinate to consensus came under attack. I mounted a defense and lost. I was labeled a "tendentious editor" and put on indefinite probation a year ago.

Yet I am a founding member (and still in good standing, though inactive) of the Mediation Committee. I started the Harmonious Editing Club, which is ironic considering Fred Bauder called me a tendentious editor.

My question is whether it's possible for Wikipedia to fulfull its stated goal of refusing to take a side on controversial issues.

I've noted a clear trend to take the liberal side over the conservative side in dozens of major cases. And I'm wondering whether anyone who is liberal would like to join with me (a conservative) in removing the liberal bias found in Wikipedia.

Even if anyone agrees to do this, it will be a long row to hoe, because in nearly every case people who are biased either (1) don't even realize that they are biased ("I'm just stating facts!") or (2) know they are bias but are dead set on denying this for partisan advantage.

In the case of holocaust denial, Wikipedia has so many Westerners and Jews (I'm both :-) that the deniers are hopelessly outnumbered, and there's a pretty good article on their brand of historical revisionism. But in other areas, it's not so easy:

  • Communism, totalitarianism, and genocide - the Wikipedia conensensus promotes the biased view that Communism is not totalitarian and has not murdered 200 million civilians.
  • Physical science - nearly every biology and psychology article exalts the materialistic POV that natural forces and laws can account for everything of importance in these areas of study. In particular, evolution adopts the philosophy of science - promoted by liberals - that science should only examine physical causes; this leads to a very negative one-sided view of intelligent design.
  • Global warming and other environmental issues are overwhelmed by liberal POV, with the possible exception of the DDT ban article.
  • Law articles and a lot of U.S. politics leans toward the liberal side, e.g., the Patriot Act is mainly about how it is a civil liberties violation.

Is there anyone here other than me, who feels that regardless of the proportions of adherents (amoung any given group of "experts") the articles should cover both sides thoroughly? I don't think it's undue weight to give a comprehensive summary of a "skeptical" point of view of a legal or scientific topic, even if 99.9% of the experts are in agreement.

I think it helps our readers to know why opponents disagree. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrap the WikiProject Neutrality page?[edit]

Is the Project still really active. How many disputes has it been involved in in recent weeks? If none or few, this project page should be scrapped. It is a waste of time for genuine Editors to list disputes that will not be handled. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It will be a sad day for Wikipedia if this project is formally disbanded. Neutrality is hard to achieve, when we what we seek is not a standard of Wikipedia:Truth but Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's too easy for a Wikipedia:tag team to promote their POV and exclude even any mention of opposing ideas.
But even if these page is archived (or deleted!), I believe it is destined to rise again from the ashes, like a phoenix. We need trustworthy and useful information to live well in this world. If we can't do it, some other project will; but I'm still counting on us.
(signed) User #188 18:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Please read Wikipedia:POV pushing, before it, too, is deleted.

Getting things moving again[edit]

Hey there, everyone! I hope today finds you well and in good spirits and health. Some of you may remember me from ... well, way back when, now, as the founder of the WNP, which I can see is now called WikiProject Neutrality! I see that some of you have been quite busy working on some articles here, but things have still gotten backlogged, and looking at one of the sections above, it looks like people are starting to wonder if this project is active!

So on that note, lets get things going again! I'm going to be around a little more now, the wikibreak I took giving me a lot of time to get things sorted in my life and whatnot, and I'm eager to see the project get active a little more. As Ed mentioned above, NPOV is one of the fundamental founding guidelines about Wikipedia! So this project is really one of the cruxes of Wikipedia - or it ought to be.

With that in mind a few things I'd like people to keep in mind:

  • The homepage of the project reflects on the project. Please try to keep the new requests processed.
  • Many editors come here with issues not fully understanding what NPOV means. Please don't bite them! Instead try to understand their frustrations, and if you decline a request, please be sure to kindly explain why.
  • Lets try to avoid editing articles where your own POV may be an issue. There's a very fine line between someone being an expert on someone/something and someone pushing a POV, but it's especially important that WPN editors be seen as fair and impartial.
  • Remember that we're not dispute resolution. While you can certainly try to help mend things between frustrated editors, try to gently prod anyone with genuine conflicts over to the appropriate dispute resolution.
  • Also remember that Wikipedia is the Wiki that anyone can edit. It's not really our place to say 'this person has a POV, they shouldn't be allowed to edit.' Instead, if you have editors who are being genuinely disruptive, please post a notice on the appropriate administrative board.

Cheers, Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 10:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back! I looked at this project a couple of weeks ago and was given the impression that it had become inactive - a situation that seems ridiculous for a project devoted to one of the pillars. I will be joining this project and hope to see it flourishing.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

it is unclear how the scope of this differs from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --dab (𒁳) 19:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The scope of this project[edit]

A casual reading would give the impression that the object of this project is to provide informal mediation on issues of NPOV, which is possibly why an editor has flagged up a merger with the NPOV noticeboard.

I wonder if this project shouldn't expand its scope. There are issues of neutrality that crop up frequently and repeatedly on wikipedia that require some sort of forum for discussion. It seems to me that any project dedicated to "neutrality" could be an ideal place for informal discussion of the application of NPOV policy to contentious issues. Here, we could discuss the specific interpretation of NPOV and possibly put forward proposals for the NPOV and NPOV/FAQ that would help clarify future disputes.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't see the point. The place to discuss the actual policy (if real discussion is required after it has been going strong for eight years) is at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Discussion of individual issues as they come up is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Presentation of what the policy involves to newbies is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. Discussion of that presentation is at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ. We even have a Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. We also have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples. It speaks volumes about the status of this WikiProject that it hasn't even figured out that there is an entire Wikipedia category dedicated to its elected focus. If this WikiProject here is to serve any purpose, it should inventarise and keep track of the numerous pages on npov to avoid unnecessary duplication, and unnecessary parallel debates unaware of each other. What we most definitely do not need is yet another place to chat about npov.

Since your particular mission is spreading "an understanding of neutrality far in excess of that demanded by Wikipedia", you should put your cards on the table at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and see if you can convince anyone to follow your suggestions. If you fail to get what you are looking for, you should ask yourself if Wikipedia is the right place for your project (there are numerous alternatives). --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

:The response above only surprised me in that it took more than half an hour to arrive. I will offer an apology to the members of this project that other editors have brought their problems with me to yet another forum. Dbachmann appears to be one of a number of editors who have utterly failed to understand my position, my ideas and my motives. My suggestion above has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute he alludes to. Quite frankly, I believe that his merger suggestion is entirely down to his problems with me - it seems odd that he suddenly makes it just after I join the project.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I unreservedly withdraw the comments above and reiterate an apology made at dab's talk page. He has not been amongst those editors who have had problems with me and I made the above comment in haste.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no need for a WikiProject Neutrality. It's policy, and it's covered by WP:NPOV, WT:NPOV, its associated noticeboard and the other pages mentioned by Dbachmann above. In addition, in extreme cases there's the administrator's noticeboard for incidents (WP:ANI). Time to redirect and merge this page into Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Kensosis, and also caution FimusTauri about failing to AGF. This board is inactive because of the NPOV noticeboard, which has only been in existence since 28 February 2008. This board should have been marked historical and a link to the NPOV noticeboard added then, I don't know why that was missed. This is now duplication of effort, and defunct as well.
Your presumption that people have "brought their problems with me to yet another forum" and specifically accusing Dbachman, a very longstanding editor of excellent repute (even if I *do* disagree with him at least as often as I agree, it has never been due to his ethics!) tells more about you than about your experience here. You are not being stalked; many people have over 3k pages on their watchlists and usually the same people show at the same kinds of pages - I see Kenosis, just above, everywhere, but I have never been worried that he was stalking me. You will see many of the same "faces" because those with similar interests will watch similar pages. Its that simple. Be aware that failure to AGF often crosses the line into personal attacks - in this instance, you are accusing dab of stalking you to harass and continue a feud, wh9ch I assure you if you knew him better you would know how absurd that is - you do not know him that well, but if you'd AGFd the result would have been the same as if you did. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see above. I have not accused anyone of "stalking"; I do, however, have good reason to believe that my contribs are monitored by one or two editors (if only occasionally) - that is not the same thing.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You have not used the word, but " editors have brought their problems with me to yet another forum" is a description of stalking. However, as you've struck the allegation I see no point in quibbling over the precise meaning of the phrasing. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutrality through accuracy[edit]

Hi. I discovered this project while searching material for this draft essay I've started, WP:Neutrality through accuracy; I wonder, is there any kind of activity here? walk victor falk talk 18:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:British Isles[edit]

Template:British Isles has been protected to allow for discussion of its title. It has been possible to change the title of this template on a page-by-page basis. Titles that have been used on different pages being:

  • British Isles
  • British-Irish Council area
  • Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands
  • British Isles — or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands

A user has raised the question of whether this practice is a violation of NPOV.

A list of alternative solutions (aside form those being reverted between) is invited also. --RA (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)