Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 153: Line 153:


:The account in question, {{noping|Robert Sacomeno}}, has only made three edits, all that one post on [[Talk:Project 2025]]. It was indeed an inappropriate addition and telling them on their talk page that it violates NPOV is the right thing to do. If they violate NPOV again, appropriate remedies can be applied. This didn't need to be brought here to this noticeboard, though. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:The account in question, {{noping|Robert Sacomeno}}, has only made three edits, all that one post on [[Talk:Project 2025]]. It was indeed an inappropriate addition and telling them on their talk page that it violates NPOV is the right thing to do. If they violate NPOV again, appropriate remedies can be applied. This didn't need to be brought here to this noticeboard, though. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::K, thanks. I don't usually bother with this side of Wikipedia. I'm a casual editor and reader. [[Special:Contributions/76.178.169.118|76.178.169.118]] ([[User talk:76.178.169.118|talk]]) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:24, 8 April 2024

    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    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:
    Start a new discussion

    2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka refer

    Granted Good Article status at some point but this should be reviewed as there is significant unsourced text and non-neutral wording. Nirva20 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nirva20, you might need to be a little more specific about the issue. It's not immediately obvious what unsourced text and non-neutral wording you're talking about, and I don't see any comments from you at Talk:2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka explaining your concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I will repost. Nirva20 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still nothing. Fair to say you made it up because you didn't like the content? Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I don't make things up. But I no longer am going to waste my time on something that should have been resolved by now. I already forgot about this. If I objected to Good Article status based on unsourced text and non-neutral wording then that is the case. If those defects are not "immediately obvious" then someone else should take a look. I am neither Indian nor Christian and have no personal interest. Nirva20 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent some time looking into this and I think you're right, actually, the article clearly no longer merits good article status. However, in the future, I suggest being concrete about your criticisms, rather than being wishy washy and vague. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ugaas Raage (notified of this neutral point of view noticeboard discussion)

    User:Ugaas Raage adds, then reverts other editors' work to restore his or her unsourced and/or borderline deificationist text re Somalian military leaders ([1], [2]). Nirva20 (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    He or she refuses to engage with other editors or to even use edit summaries. His or her most recent deificationist revert is here. Nirva20 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More deification here. Nirva20 (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ugaas Raage has been notified of this discussion. I doubt he or she will participate. But, ummm, is anyone else aware of it? Nirva20 (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I also see it. I provided an edit to note that Siad Barre was born in Shilavo, Hararghe, Ethiopian Empire not Shilavo, Dervish State with an edit summary to explain that during the time of his birth (1909) Shilavo was under the Ethiopian Empire, and that in its short history the Dervish State never even reached Shilavo (even at its territorial peak), but he keeps undoing the edit without providing any edit summary to counter mine. This person is a highly biased editor that is defacing many articles and undermining Wikipedia's neutrality. Wikieditor969 (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So why isn't @Ugaas Raage being sanctioned, @MrOllie, @JPxG, etc? Nirva20 (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For future reference, I believe WP:ANI is a better place to report his kind of obvious disruptive editing (or perhaps WP:AN for slightly less noxious behavior). I have opened a thread on your behalf at WP:ANI § Repeated disruptive editing by User:Ugaas Raage. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Nirva20 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Human rights in Egypt

    This article has a cleanup tag because it is "unbalanced towards certain viewpoints." Does the article include descriptions of human rights violations in Egypt that are biased, misleading or inaccurate? Jarble (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Remember that you can remove such tags if you think they are no longer relevant. If another editors reverts the removal ask them to discuss their concerns on the articles talk page. The article has had extensive changes since the tag was added in March 2020, and the exact details of the issue were never expressed by the editor who added the tag. So I don't see any reason it couldn't be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tammy Murphy

    The Tammy Murphy page and the 2024 United States Election in New Jersey page seems not to be neutral, with the majority of text criticizing her for often unrelated allegations under many sections. Some people have brought up concerns in the talk pages, and I wanted to get an outside perspective. Wikieditor2490 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Quotes based on primary sources on Boy Scouts of America

    Per WP:PQ, pull quotes shouldn't be in article and also, even without the pull quote formatting, this kind of quotation emphasizes the organization's position unduly as it is chosen from primary sources by Wikipedia editors rather than citing something emphasized in independent reliable sources. The issue being discussed is this edit Graywalls (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Graywalls is ignoring the discussion started on this page, Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Meeting_of_the_minds, and moving it here. Over the last few days, Graywalls has been all over BSA related articles:

    Then there's this: attacking the character of a long-time editor. I'm happy to discuss these issues, but I'd like to start this on the talk pages, and not here. Bringing in, @Jergen, Btphelps, and North8000:. --evrik (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what this has to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Quebec (which your link to WP:PQ expands to). Also just about every article about a specific scouting organization includes their variant of the Scout Promise and Scout Law (which were two of the three quotes in the edit in question); should they be removed from all those articles? They are just as germane to those organizations' articles as a flag is to a country or US state's articles. The third quote you want removed is not from the organization; but, it is not as important to the article. BTW shouldn't this be discussed at Talk:Boy Scouts of America#Undue_contents for awhile before coming here? I attempted to steer the discussion onto the specific quotes there, and, you indicated you've taken it here for some reason. Erp (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erp:, I believe it was a typo of MOS:PQ. I discussed it on talk. I find the way those quotes are sourced and emphasized a matter of neutrality or excess prominence to certain contents. Regardless of what article that is on. Graywalls (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is long-standing core material (the objectives and methods of the organization..not a "position") being removed based on the wiki-formatting method. And one of the things being discussed which Graywalls is trying to edit war to remove is a quote from US federal law. And in light of the overview above, Graywalls, you need to stop doing this. On another note, a second discussion here is fine, but it should not be allowed to derail the referred-to broader more methodical discussion which just began. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on external links to far-right comic

    Hello, this noticeboard may be interested in participating in the following RfC, as it pertains to neutral editing: Talk:StoneToss#RfC: Exclusion of StoneToss's website from the article — Czello (music) 10:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hardly. It only pertains to editorial decisions which have little to do with any Wikipedia policies. TarnishedPathtalk 11:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's odd you'd follow me to continue the discussion here, but for the benefit of others – non-neutral editing/motivations has been brought up in the RfC, and not just by me. — Czello (music) 12:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer to my last comment in the RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you to mine. Certain editors have admitted to non-neutral reasons for wanting to exclude the link.
    Please, keep the discussion in one place. — Czello (music) 12:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hokkaido's header

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkaido

    The introductory article of Hokkaido is not Neutral Point of View.

    "Although there were Japanese settlers who had ruled the southern tip of the island since the 16th century, Hokkaido was considered foreign territory that was inhabited by the indigenous people of the island, known as the Ainu people. The Japanese settlers began their migration to Hokkaido in the 17th century, which often resulted in clashes and revolts between Japanese and Ainu populations. In 1869, following the Meiji Restoration, Ezo, which means "the land of the barbarians" in Japanese, was annexed by Japan under on-going colonial practices, and renamed Hokkaido. After this event, Japanese settlers started to colonize the island, establishing Japan's first modern settler colony. While Japanese settlers colonized the island, the Ainu people were dispossessed of their land, forced to assimilate, and aggressively discriminated against by the Japanese settlers. Many Ainu people were put into forced labor camps and exploited by the Japanese. In the 21st century, the Ainu have been almost totally assimilated into Japanese society; as a result, many Japanese of Ainu descent have no knowledge of their heritage and culture."

    It gives too much undue weight on the Ainu. I tried to make it more neutral but someone is keeping to keep it as it was. Kyuzoaoi (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I shortened it. I think it is fine to include stuff about Ainu but yeah the length and wording of that needed rework. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    World Festival of Youth (2024)

    I came across the World Festival of Youth (2024) article in the process of updating Conversations about Important Things and I am concerned that the article is almost entirely unbalanced towards the perspective of the Russian government. This is because the article uses Russian sources without critical assessment (unlike in Conversations about Important Things, where topics referring to annexation of Crimea is clarified as such). I think the World Festival of Youth article needs urgent attention, sadly I do not have much capacity to review the World Festival of Youth article. --Minoa (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Antioch International Movement of Churches

    I'm having a dispute with @Austin613: at the talk page for the article article on Antioch International Movement of Churches. This is a movement of dozens of churches which started in Waco Texas in the late 1990s.

    The specific dispute we're having is about whether to include a section called "spiritual abuse and cult status" in the article. The proposed source is this Buzzfeed News article: [3]. I have said that I think this article is RS for the attributed claim that, according to Buzzfeed News, a few anonymous former members and family members of former members of the Waco church said some negative things about it. But I think this is UNDUE in an article about the movement. I also have a more general concern that this Wikipedia article is highly non-netural. Any comments on that are appreciated as well. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also refer to our talk discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antioch_International_Movement_of_Churches#Cult_and_Abuse_Section I am of the belief that reliably sourced topics can be introduced and included fairly in the appropriate place with well written explanation. Austin613 (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging editors who have been on the page in the last few months: @Wdonghan:@Gargarlinks:@Discospinster: Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think of all the issues with the article, the spiritual abuse and cult status is the least egregious to me and should be discussed somewhere on the article. However, I'm not opposed to removing the section and reducing the claims spiritual abuse into mentions elsewhere on the article Wdonghan (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Wdonghan. Thoughts on how to improve the other aspects of the article are welcome if you'd like to elaborate. As for the "abuse" issue, it sounds like you disagree with my judgment that it is WP:UNDUE. My argument for claiming it is UNDUE is that it appears in one article at a news site that no longer operates, and is sourced to anonymous former members of one (out of dozens) of churches in the movement. According to policy, minority viewpoints are important, but it should be "easy to name prominent adherents". We can name ZERO prominent adherents of the viewpoint in question, as far as I can tell. If we attribute to Buzzfeed News that helps, but that's still a single (now defunct) outlet, and it is not therefore easy to name prominent adherents. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're way too fixated on the victim name part. We already confirmed an established, reliable published source, by an known journalist. Whether or not Buzzfeed News is not operating is completely irrelevant. The story has been verified, checked and balanced by an editor. Wikipedia policy also says you have to take the context into consideration. The name omissions are comparable to a "John Doe" or "Jane Doe." These are individuals who were interviewed, along with a psychologist, to exhibit trauma from attending Antioch Church being victims to cult tactics and spiritual abuse. Obviously names were appropriately omitted for safety reasons. Austin613 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Austin613, at one point you said we should include it even though it is UNDUE. Are you now saying that it is DUE after all? Policy says that if this information is DUE we should be able to provide prominent (e.g., not defunct) adherants of the view that Antioch movement has a reputation for abuse. So far we have zero such sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia pages are comprised of reliably sourced articles that describe the majority viewpoint. If we are only able to find a certain reliably sourced viewpoint, that's the majority. I'm not sure what you find undue in the page. If you find a different viewpoint, that is reliably sourced, and are able to prove that it's the majority report, include it. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. I'm all for inclusion of all viewpoints so long as they are identified and explained. Austin613 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Joyce

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

    More watchers requested at this BLP. Discussion about how much weight to give criminal history. VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Conspiracy theory

    The conspiracy theory article has, in my assessment, a severe NPOV issue. The article states repeatedly, in wikivoice, that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible.

    Unfortunately, that's no fact.

    Oxford English Dictionary (cited in the article) defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event".

    Several sources already used in the article -- yet not in the lead section -- make the similar claim that while the word has take on a derogatory connotation, and most famous conspiracy theories are implausible, this is not true about all conspiracy theories per se, and that to suggest so is to commit the fallacy of composition.

    As such, I believe the article should be more neutrally worded so as to not completely redefine the meaning of conspiracy theory with a few cherry picked sources.

    Of course there are real conspiracies. Are plausible theories about conspiracies really not conspiracy theories? Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The connotation of the term is absolutely negative in English. But Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so the subject of the article needn't exactly overlap with the dictionary definition of the term in any case. The article states repeatedly, in wikivoice, that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible. Not that I see. Quotes, please? VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead sentence: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable."
    A connotation is an opinion, and therefore should not completely take control of the article without being qualified as an opinion. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's fine for the article to mostly focus on untrue conspiracy theories. I don't think, however, we should let this popular notion of conspiracy theory = false force us to act is if conspiracy theories are false per se, when any dictionary would beg to differ -- to say so is to make an unfactual claim. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't support what you said: ...that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible. One of the purposes of the lead sentence of the article is to define the article's scope, which that sentence seems to do quite well. VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the lead sentence not define conspiracy theories as having more probable other explanations? Would you be amenable to this edit:

    First two sentences currently read
    A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence.

    My proposed change
    A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence, and that other explanations are more probable. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, seems like a solution in search of a problem. But in any case you should be proposing this on the article talk page not here. VQuakr (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article says, A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians. So, no, plausible conspiracies are not conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are unlikely or implausible by definition. Geogene (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue this is POV pushing. This is cited to a singular journal article, whereas several other journal articles come to the opposite conclusion. There is no reason undue weight has to be put on this on article. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources [4], [5], [6] disagree, for example. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been discussed at Talk:Conspiracy theory, sources which are silent on an issue cannot be construed to disagree with the sources that do specifically comment on it. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was the topic of an extended conversation which reached no productive conclusion, and perhaps we should not try to rehash here. But you are also wrong; several of these sources do mention that conspiracy theories can be true. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, you're the one that brought up the OED again. MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    International Churches of Christ

    A discussion is taking place at Talk:International Churches of Christ#Primary Sources for the “Beliefs” Section about whether third-party sources are required for the section International Churches of Christ#Beliefs, which is currently based almost entirely on sources associated with the subject. Input from editors without a COI would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Open solicitation for partisan collusion

    I found a severe NPOV violation on an article talk page. [7] I removed it from the talk page and posted on the user's talk page. I'm posting here to bring attention to it. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The account in question, Robert Sacomeno, has only made three edits, all that one post on Talk:Project 2025. It was indeed an inappropriate addition and telling them on their talk page that it violates NPOV is the right thing to do. If they violate NPOV again, appropriate remedies can be applied. This didn't need to be brought here to this noticeboard, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    K, thanks. I don't usually bother with this side of Wikipedia. I'm a casual editor and reader. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1217949778"