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)

Let me suggest that an underlying motive, per the above, of these editors is a strong, very strong, antipathy toward certain topics. This has demonstrated repeatedly. This antipathy leads 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, plays a pretty good game of wikilawyering. But, more substantively, her objective here seems to be to suppress /censor information with which she strongly disagrees. 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)

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)