Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Hookup culture

This substantial new article (created June 16) contains many references and quite a bit of useful material, but it is essentially an essay aiming to convince the reader that "hookups" are a bad thing. The article needs a major pov-cleansing. I would be willing to do some work on it if there are other editors who are willing to get involved, but I don't want to get into a one-on-one dispute with the article creator. (I have also raised the problem on the article's talk page.) Looie496 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfc at Hookup Culture

There is currently two RfC's at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

North American Union

North American Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saruman insists that this conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory, and that the conspiracy theorists who make a fuss about it are not conspiracy theorists; he defiantly posts to my talk page that he's going to keep vandalizing the article to remove the sourced information he doesn't agree with:"stop sending me comments that I do not read. I will keep editing the North American Union article whether you like it or not". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Modelzone

Modelzone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This U.K. retailer has recently gone into bankruptcy. An account named User:Modelzone has been edit-warring to restore the "official version" of the bankruptcy and aftermath; since the account has been blocked as an obvious role account, I think some editor not associated with that block should look at the current version to make sure that the account is NPOV-compliant. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place as never posted here before, but the edits being undone by Modelzone appear to have been lifted directly from the Daily Telegraph here and thus he was removing a Copyvio as well. Given the users name, there would seem a clear conflict of interest though. Current article appears okay at first glance. - Cheers, JCJ of Burwell (Talk) 09:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Iranian news agencies

Hi all,
There is a slight disagreement over at List of Iranian news agencies. I feel that some items should not be added to the list because they're not Iranian and not news agencies, giving the impression that they're just an excuse to link to something controversial. The other editor, of course, disagrees and feels that they're valid additions. Other suggestions would be welcomed. bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Toluca Lake, Los Angeles

Should the following paragraph be kept or deleted from the lede section of the above article?

According to an analysis of the 2000 census data by the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles section of Toluca Lake is an affluent, 71.9% white, domestically stable, older-aged, low-density neighborhood of the city.

The discussion is at Talk:Toluca_Lake,_Los_Angeles#.3D_ARE_YOU_KIDDING_ME.3F_.3D. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 St. Louis Cardinals season

I feel that the article 2013 St. Louis Cardinals season is not written from a NPOV. For example, the sections "Spring Training" and "Regular Season" just contain small milestones and notes about the team, a section that is NOT on the season pages of other MLB franchises. Not only that, but the sections seem rather biased and many praise the achievements of the Cardinals. I feel this section is unnecessary and not neutral. I'd like to hear what others think. Mpejkrm (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gun control RFC

There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This RFC could use additional input. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

There is some disagreement over the section "Evolutionary psychology defense" which was added by User:Memills. The section consists of a list of books that allegedly contain rebuttals to the criticisms described in the section "Evolutionary psychology#Reception". It is not explained how the critics are wrong and which criticisms are misunderstandings. Instead, it is stated that critics misunderstand evolutionary psychology, period. This was discussed on the article talk page: [1][2]. I argued that the section "Evolutionary psychology defense" violates WP:STRUCTURE and WP:NPOV because the subsections of the "Reception" section already include specific rebuttals and adding a final blanket rebuttal creates a biased criticism-specific rebuttal-general rebuttal structure. Two other users, Logic prevails and 121.72.116.250, seemed to agree that the section creates a pro-EP bias.

Btw, the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology has the same problem with excessive "rebuttals": [3][4][5][6][7][8]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thats a lost cause I gave up long ago. I've made the same arguments at length at the talkpage. MEMills owns that article and has turned it into a EP apologia blog. The Criticism article is a POV fork that was split out beccause he wouldn't allow any of it in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The community needs to step up and enforce the NPOV policy. MEMills must learn that he isn't teaching evolutionary psychology to a class of freshmen eager to learn how to "rebut" creationists (i.e., defined as everyone who criticizes evolutionary psychology) and other real or imagined enemies. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I previously opened a request for comments by neutral 3rd parties (see: WP:3). I was hoping that would help to resolve the editing disagreements between myself and Sonicyouth86 (talk). However, rather than first attempt to work it out there, Sonicyouth86 brings it here. Ok.

First, note the tone of Sonicyouth86 -- highly contentious and confrontive. I ask that Sonicyouth please tone down the rhetoric and ad homenims (as I have already requested repeatedly) -- it is not helpful.

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· is not unbiased. He has previously shown a self-admitted, strong antipathy toward the field of evolutionary psychology. There is a larger academic debate between the conflicting theoretical paradigms of cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology in which he is actively involved.

I stand by the contributions I have made -- they have been made in the interest of accuracy and fairness, as I believe a review will show. I encourage a review of the interchange between myself and Sonicyouth86. (However, a heads up: it is long, drawn out, and highly repetitious.) Memills (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont need to be unbiased, I just need to follow the NPOV policy. Thats what I do and you don't. If I believed you were willing to do that I wouldn't mind engaging in a constructive dialogue with you, but all evidence points to the contrary, namely that you are only interested in using wikipedia as a platform from which to preach the true gospel of Evolutionary Psychology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... note the tone. What's with the tone...

I could point out that "you wish to preach the true gospel" of Cultural Anthropology & social constructionism. In my experience, you have repeatedly attempted to censor / suppress accurate, notable and properly sourced information about evolutionary psychology (this was bought up several times on the Talk pages). (Oh... the grief you used to give to poor Leadwind who was simply adding information gleaned from textbooks! WP archaeologists of the future will have a historical field-day reviewing that stuff...)

Also, note that I have never hung out on the "opposing paradigm" pages, say Cultural Anthropology or social constructionism pages, and there attempt to suppress accurate information, add only criticism, and accuse those there of NPOV. Could be fun... but not too constructive. Memills (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Memills is to all intents and purposes a WP:SPA editor on the subject of Evolutionary Psychology and Men's Rights Movement, two topics which appear to be linked philosophically and empirically. I have encountered him on the MRM pages, and have been appalled by the totally unapologetic misuse of sources. Having a POV is one thing, and pushing a point of view is bad enough, but falsifying sources to that end is inexcusable. See this for an example. I am strongly considering a request for arbitration about this editor as the misuse of sources strongly reminds me of the the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance in which an editor was sanctioned for chronic misuse of sources to push a particular point of view. I am unfamiliar with the specific academic and sourcing issues regarding evolutionary psychology. User:Maunus and User:Sonicyouth86, it seems like you may have more expertise in this area. Are there similar patterns of edits which falsify the sources in this area? If so I would be glad to work together to present a case to the Arbitration Committee about this editor.Slp1 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The editor PHG worked on his own. By contrast as part of a non-approved educational project, Memills recently got his undergraduate class to create and recreate fork articles related to EP. Most of those articles were deleted. Memills admitted to being the responsible instructor. He had created at least 2 alternative accounts to oversee the project. (See the report at WP:ANI here.) That conflicted with his apparent ownership of the two articles evolutionary psychology and criticism of evolutionary psychology. Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The project was run under the auspices of the Association for Psychological Science's APS Wikipedia Initiative. Everyone, students and myself, were working in good faith to create main articles on what are now subtopics on the Evolutionary Psychology page. It had been noted that that page is too long, and new sub-topic articles should be created to accommodate the content. Unfortunately, my students ran into Mathsci, a colorful editor, who instead of assuming good faith, immediately assumed nefarious motives... Memills (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The project did not have approval. The link to WP:ANI above refers to the discussion on the education noticeboard and also to this warning in February from the administrator Yunshui. On the talk page of that alternative account above the warning are a series of notifications about fork articles. The project was run inappropriately and almost all the articles produced were deleted. Two articles that seems to be undergraduate essays, supposedly written "in the voice of wikipedia" but in fact voicing what must be Memills' point of view, still survive (Evolutionary psychology of language and Evolutionary psychology of parenting). Since apparently Memills was giving advice to his class, the repeated re-creatiion of deleted articles was ultimately his responsibility. Memills has been blocked several times for making personal attacks. He has just been warned by an administrator on his talk page about his use of language. He should be more circumspect in what he writes. Mathsci (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my -- "voicing what must be Memills' point of view"? Incredible. This was an academic assignment designed to create WP articles that conformed to WP policies using appropriate academic references. I think what we are hearing is Mathsci's POV about evolutionary psychology, which as I recall, he has previously characterized as a "pseudo-science." Memills (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this project was also problematic in its execution. I was particularly disturbed by this post saying that he had given up on the student article project idea, only to drop using that account and resurrect it.Slp1 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me suggest that an underlying motive, per the above, of these editors is a strong, very strong, antipathy toward certain topics. This has been demonstrated repeatedly. This antipathy has led to incivility and edit warring with other editors with perspectives that differ from their own. There has also been an unwillingness to compromise and attempt to resolve conflicts in good faith. Slp1 in particular has relied on wikilawyering over discussion and compromise (the basics of AGF). More substantively, her objective here seems to be to suppress /censor information to which she has a strong aversion. This is counter-productive, and it is contrary to the mission of WP.

Again, I stand by my contributions to WP, and, I welcome a review by neutral parties. Memills (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? You still stand by this kind of falsification of sources? That's very worrying indeed.Slp1 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like cherry picking.

Those references should not have been used. Quite frankly, I had not read the entire articles, which I normally do.

I could cherry pick you, too. You routinely delete sources that you have not read. If they do not conform to your POV you apparently seek to find reasons to have that material removed (see below).

And, speaking of not reading the source material -- Sonicyouth86 continues to misrepresent Thornhill and Palmer when she has clearly not read the book (despite my repeated suggestions that she do so). Ironically, it is our disagreement about what Thornhill and Palmer actually wrote that led her to open this review -- a book she has yet to read!

A review of Slp1's edits on the MRM-related pages will show consistent POV-pushing -- most often by deleting material to suppress the inclusion of notable, relevant and properly sourced information. You rely on excessive wikilawyering to rationalize these deletions (e.g., claims of OR when it suits your POV -- see, for example, this).

Those who live in glass houses... Memills (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it is, evolutionary psychology has no particular slant towards the rights of particular groups. I am not quite sure whether the Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues has any legitimacy and whether it should be linked to the article EP as happened here.[9] The other WikiProjects linked on Talk:Evolutionary psychology are what would be expected; however, this addition seems very odd. Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree -- EP is an academic discipline; the MRM is a political movement. I did not add the link, and I think it is inappropriate to link the two. Memills (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael Ezra

Prodigalson49 (talk · contribs) is zealously removing this information, sourced to Ugandan newspapers, about Ezra's various brushes with the law. Interestingly, the user has been editing that article -- and only that article -- for the past three years, and refuses to clarify the nature of his relationship to Ezra. Third opinions, please? Jpatokal (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Reebok_insider_trading_case

Reebok_insider_trading_case could use some additional eyes. I closed a recent move request there, which shifted the title from being a biography to being about a criminal case. In the ensuing article cleanup efforts, two of the protagonists from the move request are making various accusations of POV pushing. Would welcome additional eyes on this, as it's not obvious what is the most neutral, correct, and complete set of info to include in the article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no question about the facts of the case, which were covered by hundreds of articles from all the best sources which tell a consistent story, so anybody willing to read the sources should jump in. The basic facts: the insider trading ring traded in 26 stocks illegally, based on 1) merger information, 2) information stolen from prepublication copies of Business Week, and 3) information leaked from a bribed grand juror. Six people pleaded guilty, including the leaders Eugene Plotkin and David Pajcin (DP cooperated with the FBI).

The article has suffered from extensive problems from sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackadvisor/Archive which included removing about 75% of the article followed immediately by an AfD attempt (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Plotkin, especially the talk page) by obvious sockpuppets. This was followed by another attempt to remove information Talk:Reebok_insider_trading_case#Removing_material_again.3F.21 and then by a manipulative attempt to remove info via an OTRS request Talk:Reebok_insider_trading_case#Removed_material_again.3F which was dropped by the OTRS volunteer when he discovered that all the material was cited from top quality sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 09:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Some background regarding Smallbones and this article is in order. Smallbones originally created a biased BLP about Plotkin and consistently rolled back changes by other editors. The article had an issue with sockpuppets in February of 2012, which was promptly resolved. More than six months later, Smallbones began to roll back legitimate changes that tried to to bring the article in line with NPOV and add links. He was referred to ANI. Other editors restored the majority of the legitimate changes. Smallbones then fought the consensus view that the article did not meet BLP1E and should be about the crime rather than one of six individuals involved in that crime. He repeatedly made attacks against editors who disagreed with him and requested a spurious SPI when the vote for a new title went against his preferences. When this did not work, he went back to pushing POV via article edits. If you read the article's talk page, I think Smallbones' agenda is made very clear. He specifically dislikes Plotkin (whether due to COI or just his POV - on the talk page he says that people like Plotkin should be "hoisted by their own petard") and wants to use the article as a springboard to push that view. Factchecker25 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As Obi-Wan Kenobi says, the article needs additional eyes, though frankly I doubt it is ever going to be sorted out as long as the two protagonists above are permitted to carry on with the sort of nonsense we see above. Both seem more concerned with continuing their long-running feud than in actually producing any sort of objective article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said there are no doubts about the facts of the case. Please read any of the multitude of reliable sources and jump right in editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the current revision of the article by Factchecker is perfectly good: [[10]]. The way I read the sources, Pajcin was a rogue Croatian trader who got some help from his friends and family. His aunt and girlfriend let him use their accounts. His Croatian buddies made trades using his info. His high school friend (Smith) gave him grand jury info. His work friend (Plotkin) helped him meet a Merrill banker (Shpigelman) who gave him mergers info and also helped him recruit two warehouse guys (Schuster, Renteria) who gave him Business Week info. In the end, the only info that made any real money was the one Reebok tip from the Merrill guy. Pajcin was arrested and then rolled over on all his buddies and accomplices. Everybody got jail time. The government got the money. As far as insider trading scandals, this is pretty minor. The media coverage was a little all over the place, and it looks like they were mostly reprinting government press releases. The current article cuts to the chase and, to me, looks neutral, accurate, and encyclopedic. Jaytwist (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)