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

RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer".

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

SPLC comments removed at Alliance Defending Freedom

See[1]. His argument is that this isn't a reliable source, but we've been over that one time and time again. What I actually see with this editor is an attempt to remove any critical material from the article and make it a brochure for the ADF, just as he has done with Alan Sears, the president of the ADF which he has filled with quotations from Sears showcasing his positions. He'd agreed earlier to cut them down (there's also a potential copyvio issue) but didn't, so I did and he restored them. Doug Weller (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you not notify me me as required? I stumbled upon this by chance. I should have given proper notice so that I can defend myself. Intermittentgardener (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I would further note that I restored the the material sourced to SPLC (with.a POV tag) on my own initiative before I even knew of this complaint in order to foster civility.Intermittentgardener (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the question here isn't reliability but WP:DUE. The SLPC is clearly a reliable source for its own opinions (and in this case the article makes it clear that it's just the SLPC's opinions), but not all opinions belong in an article. So the only question is whether their opinions are worth including. I'd say that they definitely are; the SLPC is probably the most notable organization out there when it comes to discussion of hate groups, so their opinion that a group is a hate group is worth at least a sentence or two. --Aquillion (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A WP:SPS is not reliable for claims made about third parties. Elizium23 (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

First, that rule only applies to "living people" as defined by WP:BLP, which explicitly does not cover groups; the purpose of it is to protect individuals (who are more likely to be harmed), not to protect organizations. Second, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the official SPLC website qualifies as a self-published source; it does not fall under "...personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets." Official websites for major organizations are and have always been considered to be reliable sources for the opinions of those organizations, even when (unlike this case) they are discussing individuals protected by BLP. Otherwise, your objection would amount to saying "we need a secondary source reporting that the SPLC has said this", which doesn't make sense if we agree that the SPLC's opinion is automatically worth including. --Aquillion (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong on every count. WP:SPS is part of WP:V, and by extension is duplicated at WP:BLP. WP:V is not part of WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP does not apply. Their official website is by definition a SELF-PUBLISHED source. They are publishing it THEMSELVES. If you can find a reliable secondary source, that is, a THIRD-PARTY source, with a reputation for fact-checking, and editorial oversight, then you can put it back in, but you simply cannot rely on an "official website" of some org for claims made about third parties. Elizium23 (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether this is really the kind of source that WP:SPS is meant to rule out (which I don't concede), I would argue that SPLC meets the criteria of being "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Their assessment of groups like ADF (and many others) is constantly being cited in the mainstream media. (BTW, your comment directly above comes across as a little overly combative with the caps and all - maybe tone it down just a tick?) Fyddlestix (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• The section of WP:SPS that states "never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people" refers to living people as defined by WP:BLP; an organization is not a living person. Alliance Defending Freedom is not a living person, so a suitably-qualified WP:SPS can be used as a source about it., Suggesting that it would completely forbid people from using an SPS from that qualifies as "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" as a source about a company or group is simply incorrect. Your assertion that WP:SPS applies here is completely wrong and does not reflect either policy or usage in any way, shape, or form. --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You're prooftexting and you didn't read the whole policy. Elizium23 (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The SPLC is routinely quoted in articles about extreme groups, both in academic articles and the media. There are no policy reasons to make an exception here. TFD (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument for anything. There are no policy reasons to support quoting the SPLC's official site for claims about third parties. Elizium23 (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, The SPLC has a well-earned reputation for mischaracterizing mainstream conservative and religious organizations as "hate" groups. Lumping the Alliance Defending Freedom in with the Klan and neo-Nazis violates both the letter and spirit of numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Intermittentgardener (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact, there are even academic studies covering this bias. See Here.Intermittentgardener (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Academic studies? Perhaps not. "Academic Questions is its journal, a counter-counter-cultural quarterly which defends anti-PC traditionalism in the sort of feisty, underdoggish tone more often associated with insurgent causes and opposition parties." "Though written mainly by scholars, it is a missionary journal, not a scholarly one." [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This sure looks like an academic journal to me. Academic Questions.] The organization that publishes it looks scholarly and the article in question is sold through Springer, which specializes in academic articles. BTW this is the link to the article itself.It documents a long history of left-wing bias at SPLC.Intermittentgardener (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

re "Lumping" - please provide the evidence of the statement. I can criticize both pokemon and pornstars, but this does not mean I am "lumping" them together. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This abstract discussion of reliability is pointless, because the issue of reliability, just like of Verifiability must be considered only in the context of specific claims, which correctness may be contested. Now, please explain which part of the following claim by SPLC:

The ADF has a record of sharp anti-gay bigotry. Its president, Alan Sears, co-wrote a rabidly anti-gay 2003 book, sold by the ADF, called The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. The book is filled with anti-gay diatribes and argues that the demise of anti-sodomy laws will lead to overturning “laws against pedophilia, sex between close relatives, polygamy, bestiality and all other distortions and violations of God’s plan.” Also in 2003, the ADF sent out a “prayer alert” that said overturning the laws would “be an affront to our Constitution, to our nation’s heritage and history, and to God’s Word.” It filed an amicus brief defending anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.

is contested. Without a specific contest, the whole stuff is but an exercise in wikilawyering. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

3 weeks later and I'd completely forgotten about this until Intermittengardener correctly castigated me for not telling him about this discussion (unfortunately we diagree as to whether I simply forgot or deliberately didn't tell him. I did know that it had been restored, but thought that this would be a better venue than a quiet talk page. I'm concerned about any suggestion that we can't use comments from the SPLC because it's said to meet WP:SPS - that would prevent us from using anything by any organisation, group, political party, business or perhaps even government. If anyone seriously is still arguing this we need to invite people from Talk:Verifiability. Note also that SPS covers " self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." I can't see how the SPLC falls into this category. Doug Weller (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the “etymology” section of the article on Canada in line with NPOV policy?

Is the “etymology” section of Canada in line with NPOV policy? Has the etymology of the word “Canada” been a subject of debate for years/centuries? If so should we have in the etymology section a brief paragraph with a concise reference to such historical debate? Is the etymology of Canada clearly established today or there are still several theories accepted as plausible? - Please read relevant discussion on Talk:Canada page and comment - J Pratas (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to JPratas repeatedly, the main article on Canada itself is not the place to delve into extended historical debate about whether there have ever been alternative historical theories about the etymology of the name. There is already a separate article, Name of Canada, which already includes the Portuguese "nothing here" explanation which JPratas favours and is already linked via a "more information at another article" template right at the top of the very section JPratas is disputing — and I've been actively expanding the content of that article over the past couple of days, to boot. But the main article on Canada is an overview article which has to touch on everything from history to geography to culture to politics to science to hockey to international diplomacy to demographics, and thus needs to briefly summarize each individual area rather than delving as deeply into each individual area as spinoff subpages do. So it's not the place to write an entire essay about any historical debate about the matter, if such debate doesn't actually still hold any real currency today.

JPratas is also relying on 200-year-old sources to portray the matter as if it were still in any substantive debate in 2015, which is not how this works. Nobody's denying that alternative theories have existed, and nobody's trying to suppress any acknowledgement of them — but there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to portray the matter and appropriate and inappropriate places to get into it. Name of Canada, not the main overview article about the country itself, is the correct place, and the way the content is already handled in that article is the correct and neutral way. What JPratas is trying to do, however, is neither of those things. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I was told of this discussion. Thanks to J Pratas for starting it and informing me of it.

There actually isn't a debate for the etymology. There is one, official version. Cartier records it in his diary. He met some Iroquois who used the word kanata to refer to a specific village or settlement. Cartier later applied to the entire area, and by 1545, European books and maps had labelled the region as Canada. He and his explorers created the maps of the region. They labelled the maps. Those maps returned to Europe.

So some who live on the Iberian penitential use the term aca nada or cà nada, meaning "nothing here". It's not clear if that term was used before Cartier recorded it. There's no date to the legends around it. There is certainly some record that it has was a term used, but it could be a sailor's legend. There's no indication that they made any maps of the area along the St. Laurence where the name was applied. There's no indication on the existing Spanish and Portuguese maps of the era that they sailed into the St. Laurence at all. They didn't even travel as far north as what is today New York. Even if they had reached the Marritime provinces, it was known as Acadia in the 1500s. See http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/7400/7482/7482.htm and http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/8400/8495/8495.htm Show me where "ca nada" appears on this map: File:1562-Diego Gutiérrez.jpg Clearly, the Iberian explorers did not have contact with the Iroquois--none of their records show them going up the St. Lawrence. And that's really the key. The few sources that even discuss this idea (none of my general Canadian history books do) admit it's a fringe theory or more likely that it's improbable. The correct location for a discussion of this sort of theory is in the article on the etymology of the name of Canada, as Bearcat stated. If we include it in the main article on the subject we suffer from WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.

I do not intend to return to discuss this further. If someone other than the nominator needs my attention, feel free to ping me. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's NPOV. As Canada is an overview article, there is no need to present a tiny minority point of view along side the most significant one. People interested in looking at alternative theories will head to the main article on the subject. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on whether or not the Iran deal article should explicitly state in the lead that the P5+1 have accepted Iranian enrichment of uranium

See talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. My attempts to link to the actual RfC, instead of just the page, are not working. If anyone knows how to fix that, please do. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC about the UNDUE weight of future shows in lists of TV programming

An RfC about whether or not inclusion of not yet broadcast shows is UNDUE weight is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#RfC_-_Should_TV_network_pages_include_future_programming_lists.3F. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC) ^{Fixed the link to an internal as was seemingly intended from original post, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)}

Moral panic

Is it possible to look at this article, particularly the "examples" section? There's been a lot of discussion lately on the talk page about NPOV and sources generally. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that neither the human trafficking or the campus sexual assault sections should be there - if we're listing examples of moral panics then we need to be listing things that are actually moral panics according to the majority of RS. And that's not the case for either human trafficking or campus sexual assault. Listing them as "examples" of moral panics privileges the perspective of people who argue that these are moral panics (ie, issues where much of the concern is imaginary/overblown) over those who define them as legitimate, serious concerns. In reality, those issues are hotly contested and there's no consensus among RS that they're "moral panics" rather than serious/actual crises. So listing those two under the examples seems totally POV to me. We should stick to things that have consistently been identified as moral panics in most (and the most) reliable sources. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Campus sexual assault is also used as a major example in Moral entrepreneur, probably should not be there either for the same reasons.Cyrej (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on critical reception section of Freeze Out (game show)

I believe this section gives an inappropriate negative slant to the article and is not in keeping with NPOV or other articles on game shows and should be removed. The main editor Launchballer disagrees. See Talk & [3]Scowie (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I hate edit conflicts, with a passion. Anyway, when providing the requested comment please consider the extent to which the section was slashed down between what Scowie first blanked and the current state and this DRN closing comment.--Launchballer 19:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ang Lee

Surely this must have been written by a die-hard Ang Lee fan, right? The opening has this sentence:

"Lee's insight into the human heart has allowed his films to transcend cultural and linguistic barriers to speak to audiences all over the world."

The whole article is full of stuff like this. Basically, it's an article about how great Ang Lee is, how hard his life choices have been, how great his movies are, and how he deserves to be idolized. I put up template messages, but other than that I don't even know where to start. Friginator (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Kitchener pages & Ringwould

As its coming up to the centenary of his death. I think it's important to perceiver on having the truth printed in here. I am I guess the the closest eldest living male relative to this person and from my grandmother down is removed from all information here. The actions of the last Earl are not posted in any truth. My previous attempts have been deleted. Sorry I've started a new account. I am sure there are amazing researches that can accurately explain what the present situation is. D. John Saunders (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

History of Palestine

I would like to make a comment on the above article which I believe is politicised. Namely Palestine or Assyria/Assyrio Palestine was born (according to western curriculum) of the Assyrian invasion of 740 BC and did not exist before that time according to the ancient maps I studied in the west. If this is the case the term Paleo-Canaanites may not be valid. Many other tribes are also mentioned who weren't necessarily in control but who possibly lived in Canaan during that era, but there are reasons to suggest that some were part of an occupancy of an earlier era of Assyrian domination which displaced the Isrealites who were original to the land. If this is the case as it has been suggested, then the term Paleo-Canaanites may be correct. Nevertheless the term Palestine should only be used between the period of the Assyrian orders and the end of world war 2. That is to be legally and politically correct. With regard to the eras of foreign domination listed within the article. I don't believe the Babylonian Empire need be included because it was a colony of the Assyrian Empire and where the Isrealites were forced to inhabit for the first fifty years of the Assyrian domination of 740 BC. How would a city overthrow an empire? I say this because evidence of earlier Assyrian dominance and control is found in Genesis chapter 14:1-20. Also Abram who has recently entered Canaan, is not a stranger to the King of Sodom or the King of Salem (Jerusalem), and his nephew Lot is living in Sodom and very nearly transported by the King of Assyria, although when they first parted ways he intended to inhabit Zoar. Both were cities of the planes around the Dead Sea which were not a part of the land of Canaan. Abram, together with his family, first set off for Canaan from Ur of the Chaldeons (a seat of power in the Assyrian Empire?). Ur, the place of his father's birth, was almost definitely an Assyrian colony so Abram and his tribe are likely to have been indigenous to the land around and about Canaan according to what the bible and other (later) evidence portrays (edicts, maps and displaced peoples who still exist). But no evidence of the tribe of Abram, soon to be Israel, also due to being displaced through war and famine. The latter may have been a tactic of the Assyrian army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.239.92 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Great Moravia

There are at least two 21st-century sources cited in the two articles (Great Moravia and Principality of Nitra) which give a neutral picture of the debate about the location of Great Moravia (I could cite more, but now these two specific sources are under debate). According to Michael McCornick: "Where exactly [Constantine and Methodius] went is subject now to healthy debate. The traditional location of Rastislav's "Great Moravia" grew up, not accidentally, with the multiethnic Habsburg empire and placed it along the Morava river in the territory of present-day Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. A growing numer of scholars argue that it should be situated much further south and east, in the vicinity of Sirmium." (McCornick, Michael (2001). Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, AD 300-900. Cambridge University Press. p. 189. ISBN 0-521-66102-1.) Jiří Macháček writes, that "The core of Great Moravia could not have been situated anywhere else but north of the middle Danube River, in Moravia, the eastern part of what is now the Czech Republic. Such an unambiguous conclusion is not at all meant to diminish the value of studies seeking to locate Great Moraviaelsewhere within the Carpathian Basin. The serious problems of geographical orientation raised by analysis of the written sources (such as the clear orientation of the Frankish military system towards the south-east), which ultimately led Imre Boba and his followers to question the traditional location of Great Moravia, will have to be explained in some other way." Macháček, Jiří (2009). "Disputes over Great Moravia: chiefdom or state? the Morava or the Tisza River?". Early Medieval Europe. 17 (3). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 261–262. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0254.2009.00276.x. Retrieved 2013-08-30. Ditinili says that McCondrick ([4]) " never published any specialized publication about Great Moravia and is focused in other, more general topics", and the pages that McCondrick dedicated to Great Moravia in his book cannot convince Ditinili that McCondrick can be regarded as an expert in the field of Great Moravian studies ([5], [6]). According to Ditinilii, we cannot mention in the articles that he says that there are issues which have not been addressed by scholars who accept the traditional view of the location of Great Moravia ([7]). Ditinilii is convinced that historians who do not accept the traditional views of a northern Great Moravia represent a fringe theory ([8]). The question I would like to raise is the following: Can we present the views of Boba, Bowlus and other historians view of a southern/eastern Great Moravia (also mentioning that their view is not accepted by most historians), or we should delete any references to them in the articles? Borsoka (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)