Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.138.11.147 (talk) at 12:24, 24 October 2011 (→‎Procter & Gamble). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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


    Political positions of...

    I think all of our Political positions of... articles violate NPOV because "neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints," while these articles encourage editing from one viewpoint. Similarly, WP:RS says we should include "all majority and significant minority views". What all these articles should be are Reception of... articles, such as this one on an organization. Reception articles would lead to a neutral article with encyclopedic value that encourages contribution. A comparison between an October 2010 and a current version of Political positions of Barack Obama is not inspiring. Consider, in contrast, how many words have been published in reliable sources analyzing his positions/performance. And the scant discussion at Talk:Political positions of Newt Gingrich was dominated by Gingrich's own communications director. These articles are all unencyclopedic soapboxes. Jesanj (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand your point, but I am afraid there is no systemic solution for it. "Politics of" and "Reception of" articles can be WP:COATRACKs or they can be legit WP:SUMMARY articles - this needs to evaluated on a case-by-case basis - we should be vigilant of coat-racking, but also understand that not all forking is bad, or that because some articles are forked it means all articles should be forked, as you seem to suggest. As to the Newt Gingrich COI issues, a quick look tells me the comm director for Gingrich is DOING-IT-RIGHT - and while we should be careful in the edits, his edits are indeed helpful and real improvements. NPOV never implies a "equal time" for all POVs, it implies a need to cover all views. For example, in the case of the edit regarding health care, correcting the reported position of Gingrich on the issue was a necessary edit, as indeed the article said something the source didn't say, however it could be tempered by commentary on this position that is sourced and verifiable saying this was not the case. Just because one has a COI it doesn't mean one cannot do good edits, it just means that the edits will never be in other direction of NPOV, it is up to other editors to provide the appropriate policy-based editing responses. I care very little for Gingrich, but we have a responsibility to make an NPOV encyclopedia, and that includes providing a fair view on his politics as he understands them, tempered by a due-weight response both in the form of criticism of these positions and support for them. --Cerejota (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But my point is that these articles do not allow tempering "by a due-weight response both in the form of criticism of these positions and support for them" because they encourage editing from only one viewpoint—that of the subject. Jesanj (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, but I think you are wrong in this appreciation. They encourage editing on the topic, period. And there is nothing not neutral about the title "Politics of Candidate X". If someone argues there should be no criticism because criticism is outside of the topic, laugh at them, and then tell them to read WP:UNDUE. Its really like that, there is no way anyone can argue, sucessfully to keep criticism away under any rule in wikipedia. Even areas with "Reception of" or "Criticism of" generally do so as per WP:SUMMARY for article size reasons, not as coat racks. And the worse coat-racking usually gets resolved via AfD. My point is that unless you provide a specific incident to attend to, there is no systemic solution, because we already have the tools to deal with this bias. We just have to use them - and that in the only specific example you provided (gingrich), there seems to be no bias drifting that cannot be addressed - rules are no substitute for WP:BRD.--Cerejota (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Jesanj has a point: for instance the Political positions of Barack Obama article has a sub on Energy policy of the Obama administration which has a section Energy_Policy_of_the_Obama_Administration#Reactions_and_Analysis_of_Energy_Security which does not include much in the way of alternate opinions. I would think that on such a very notable topic, Wikipedia would have more to offer. Article naming is an important way to focus the content of an article. Content may be rejected or included purely because of the title. But what's lacking here is suggestions on what else we might call such an article which would allow or encourage more discussion of the debate-matrix surrounding Obama's political positions. Be——Critical__Talk 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cerejota: When you said "I know", did you conceed that the titles do not "encourage multiple viewpoints"? I think there is a big article title-NPOV improvement with "Politics of..." instead of "Political positions of..." articles. Reliable sources can publish many perspectives on the politics of a candidate, but much less so on what the political positions of a cadidate are. I know you said criticism of political positions can be and should be included in those articles, and I would agree with that argument, but by that standard can you point to one neutral article here? If not, then I'd just reiterate my main point that these articles suffer from POV titles which encourage editors to find one viewpoint. Even if a news story contained a political position that was completely ignored by the outside world, it would be suitable for inclusion in one of these articles. I don't believe that is the kind of editing a neutral article name encourages. (I still think a Reception of... article would be the most encyclopedic. They could cover things like speaking style [this article criticizes Obama's communication], or mannerisms, etc., other things voters care about.) Jesanj (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article title "Reception of the political positions of X" could be split off of "Reception of X" articles if necessary. Jesanj (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If no source (newspaper, organization, think-tank, academic, opinion piece, etc.) mentions a political position taken by a politician by demonstrating a reception to it, then I think that position is very likely unencyclopedic. Jesanj (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In other words, because of the non-neutral titles (is this disputed?) I think all Political positions of... articles should be moved to Reception of... articles and tagged with the following template:

    Jesanj (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And I see that there is a way to request multiple page moves, but I'm asking for neutrality/(appropriateness) of article titles at this point. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In contrast to Political position articles, I think the article title of Political thought and legacy of Khomeini is neutral and encyclopedic. Jesanj (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Political positions of..." is a fine title. It's just that some editors working on those articles (and subsections of biographies) forget that all Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. I agree that positions which haven't been mentioned in secondary sources should receive little or no attention. But adding "Reception of..." to the titles would just make them longer without changing their intended focus.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was suggesting renaming them to Reception of John McCain, instead of Political positions of John McCain, for example. If the rewritten sections on political positions grow to justify splitting as one article (perhaps doubful), I still think Reception of the political positions of John McCain, though wordy, would change the focus. The focus would then be on what others said, instead of what McCain said. Jesanj (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem with "Political positions of politician X"... it's a valid topic area. I would agree that such articles should include a section on "Criticism of X's positions". Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It absolutely is a valid topic area, but I'm arguing the title is not netural because it does not encourage multiple viewpoints. I challenge anyone here to find a Political positions of... article that is neutral by the standards we have all agreed on. A "Reception of John McCain" article would necessarily cover the topic by instead encouraging multiple viewpoints and encyclopedic writing. Jesanj (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really a very different focus. "Reception of..." indicates that it is entirely about how people perceive the subject, including personal issues, campaign style, etc. "Political positions of..." is clearly about just the policy statements and actions taken by the subject, reported through the filter of secondary sources (like any article).   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking that that goal is unencyclopedic. I don't understand why an encyclopedia would attempt to collect "just the policy statements and actions taken by the subject" in one article. That doesn't encourage editing from multiple viewpoints. Jesanj (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't. That's the inherent problem with such articles. However, as noted elsewhere, WP:CONSENSUS currently states that these articles may exist on Wikipedia, despite the clear non-neutrality and soapboxing permitted by same. As it stands right now, the ONLY way to move such articles back to a more neutral stance is to ensure that EVERY major or significant politician has such a page, and that each such page be written with extremely close attention to WP:NPOV. The biggest pitfall any editor can run into when creating or working on these articles is the incredibly tempting urge to move away from simply stating what the verifiable sources state and move into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory. This gains even more emphasis when one looks at how polarized American politics have become over the past decade. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that POV-"consensus" can change. We could move them all to "Politics of..." instead, as mentioned below. Would you support that? Jesanj (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Politics of...

    As political position articles tend to suffer from a dominance of one viewpoint (the subject in the title), how about we, in order to "encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing", discuss the neutrality of renaming them to the more general "Politics of..." When named this way, authors will no longer have the incentive to incorporate only what the politician says (one viewpoint). Instead, authors will have the incentive to add new viewpoints, such as analysis on the why and the how of the politics of a politician. Jesanj (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To my ear, "Politics of..." sounds like it would be mostly concerned with political deal making. That might be an appropriate topic in and of itself, though the sources may tend to be even more partisan than those talking about mere political positions. What about "Politics and political positions of..."? That covers the widest scope, though perhaps it'd be too broad.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of politics in the general sense. Analysis of their communication style would be fair game in my opinion, as a politician's communication style is one part of their politics. And political positions would fit in too, as would a reception section, if needed or desired. I think the long name would be too wordy. Jesanj (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At first glance, I did not perceive a serious problem with the wording, but after reading through this discussion, I understand how it could present issues. However, I am not sure how I feel about goals such as "analysis of their communication style". I may be taking the word "analysis" too literally, but that seems to saunter rather close to NPOV. Although there are problems with the wording of "political position" articles as is, I don't think anybody is arguing it's not an encyclopedia topic, and it at least has a clearly defined scope. Kansan (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have noted elsewhere, I find the political articles on Wikipedia to be all too frequently affected by "political silly season" editing, where those favouring a politician seek to show the person in the best light, and those opposing - the worst light. Reaching an actual balance is nigh impossible, and I think it ill-serves the readers to see any such articles - there are plenty of other places to see campaigning, and Wikipedia ought not be used as "campaign literature" at all. Unless and until Wikipedia installs a true mechanism to control such pages, I fear I dilike them in the first place, and likely would support a special committee (not just "the closest admin") to rule on all disputes therein, with actual teeth in their mandate (and mandibles). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kansan, I am arguing it is unencyclopedic, due to its non-neutral (and overly narrow scope) title. Jesanj (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm in favor of encouraging multiple opinions and if the sole word politics is able to do that, fine. Otherwise, Will Beback's Politics and political positions of ... is another possibility. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have worked on a "Politics" section here: John_Lewis_(U.S._politician)#Politics. It is how I think all "Political positions" articles should be instead. I'm considering renaming all these articles. Jesanj (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't unilaterally change many article titles based only on the editing of one article section. In the case of this article, "Politics" apparently does not include "Activism", "Political career", or "House of Representatives". I think that's a questionable choice. OTOH, it does include the subject's presence at a presidential inauguration. That sounds more like an honor than "politics". I'm not complaining about how this article looks, and I'm sure that Jesanj's work is an improvement.[1] But I do not think this is a good template for the thousands of political biographies.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Further: much of this material is basic biographic info. The "Politics" heading could be removed and the rest of the sub-headings would be fine without further changes.   Will Beback  talk  03:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some changes to John_Lewis_(U.S._politician), thanks; but my main point is that the content there is the type of content that should be at the "Political positions of..." articles. For example, Before being elected to Atlanta City Council in 1981, Lewis faced "years of criticism as a holier-than-thou publicity seeker who challenged city leaders on ethical matters".[14] That's the kind of content that would be included at a "Politics of..." article but excluded now. We need to encourage editing from multiple viewpoints. Is calling a RfC on this appropriate? Jesanj (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest fixing a couple of other articles, especially an actual "Political positions of..." article, before trying to roll it out across the board. When the time comes, an RfC should be held in a very well-publicized fashion.   Will Beback  talk  04:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Perpetrator

    Is the term "perpetrator" in Maxim restaurant suicide bombing for the person who committed a suicide bombing WP:NPOV, as in this edit [2]? The term "perpetrator" usually applies to someone who committed a crime. I think it could be replaced with the more neutral term "bomber". What should I do to avoid an edit war? --Nbauman (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If this were within the prose, it would probably be best avoided, but I think the word "perpetrator" is okay within the infobox, as it clearly indicates the intended information and communicates that it is a non-military bombing. There appears to be plenty of precedent for the term elsewhere on Wikipedia; for instance, see the infobox on September 11 attacks. Kansan (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A perpetrator is someone who commits a crime. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Perpetrator http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perpetrator This is inherently WP:NPOV. It's like WP:TERRORIST; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
    You seem to be saying that WP:NPOV is acceptable in the infobox. Is that right?
    September 11 attacks is not a precedent for other articles. [[3]] --Nbauman (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I frankly do not see what on that FAQ page corresponds to this particular situation. Kansan (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In what way is it POV to refer to a suicide bomber with a term that implies commission of a crime? Bongomatic 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Priority for the concept of the constant speed of light

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A discussion has occurred on the talk page of the speed of light article, about who has priority for the idea that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the source or inertial frame of reference. We have a reliable source showing that Lorentz was the first to deduce this and show its relevance to relativity: "Lorentz was justified in asserting that: . . . the chief difference [is] that Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced ..."[4]. In fact the only significant difference between Lorentz' 1904 paper, "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light", and Einstein's 1905 paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", is that Einstein formally discarded the concept of the ether. Whether or not the ether is exists is irrelevant to whether or not the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the source or inertial frame of reference, as Poincare published in 1889: "It matters little whether the ether really exists: that is the affair of the metaphysicians. ..., whereas, no doubt, some day the ether will be thrown aside as useless."[5] Thus, Einstein's paper is not notable for making a significant step forward regarding the subject of this article, which is the speed of light.

    Another editor and I have attempted to demonstrate this point on the talk page. The discussion has devolved to editors refusing to engage in discussion, and simply editing what they want to see into the article without sufficiently demonstrating its validity. It would be helpful if some outside eyes could review the situation and at least restart discussion. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You might actually want to read footnote 30, of the source you quote. This states quite clearly, that although Lorentz could have deduced that the speed of light is independent of the frame of maotion from his 1904 paper, he didn't do so until 1909. End of discussion.TR 11:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact it was Maxwell that first deduced that the speed of light was constant, as the lead states: "In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore traveled at the constant speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism." The lead then goes on to state:"In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that "the speed of light with respect to an inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source",[4] and explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the special theory of relativity and showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism." The constant speed of light (which by definition is independent of inertial reference frame) was taken as a postulate by Lorentz and used to derive his theory of relativity in 1904, ie. "showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism", as can be seen by his use of the constant throughout the paper[6], in 1904. This sentence is demonstrably misleading. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the worst part of that quote is crediting Einstein with "showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism." This claim is also repeated later in the article. Einstein did not do that at all in his famous 1905 article. Poincare did. Poincare used c for clock synchronization in 1900, said that c was an upper bound for all velocities in mechanics in 1904, and said that gravity waves propagate at a speed of c in 1905. I inserted a sentence about Poincare, [7] but it was removed. Roger (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that much can be said against Stachel's quotation, resulting in the well referenced phrase": "In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that "The speed of light with respect to an inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source."" Hundreds of references can be found for this to demonstrate the validity of the particular statement in the article. I also don't see what this has to do with wp:NPOV. On the contrary, from your edits, it looks you (and Schlafly and some 'passerby' anon) are pushing some kind of minority view on the matter. DVdm (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the Stachel quote is correct, and is better than the previous text that misstated the postulate. However I also think that it is very misleading to imply that the constant speed of light was something new in 1905. My textbooks all say that the crucial experiment was in 1887, following theory by Maxwell. I am not pushing a minority view. While those books sometimes criticize the views of Lorentz and Poincare, they all agree that Lorentz and Poincare were explaining the 1887 experiment and constant speed of light before Einstein. Roger (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • User who opened this thread blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing to see here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Biography of Hans Eysenck.

    Hans Eysenck was a controversial German/British psychologist.

    • The most recent modification is biography has added material which appears to me to be a) POV, containing phrases such as 'recipients of Pioneer Fund grants reads partly like a "Who's Who" of scientific and political racism', and b) irrelevant, since such comments belong (if anywhere) in the article on the Pioneer Fund and not Eysenck's biography.

    • I have attempted to revert this edit, but my revert has been overridden.

    • To avoid an edit war, I therefore request adjudication by an independent referee.

    Thank you. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Paul, There seems to be a rational discussion on the issue that has just begun on the talk page. Let's give the discussion some time to work itself out. If a problem persists than I would suggest you post the content dispute at WP:BLPN and get input from the community. Thanks for you participation in this collaborative process we call WP. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Political Bias towards the British National Party on Wikipedia

    British National Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    As a member of the British National Party I've long been disgusted by the amount of bias and blatantly anti-BNP garbage that is on the Wikipedia article page for the BNP.

    After reviewing the page, not only did I uncover broken links to out dated documents, but also loads of Tabloid sensationalist and distorted stories and allegations from primarily left-wing media and staunchly anti-BNP websites. Many of these stories have been carefully positioned and presented on the page with selective wording to present a negative image of the BNP. Several of the RS used to backup claims of the BNP being "fascist" are from authors with a Jewish/left-wing/communist political background, which hardly makes them impartial or reliable.

    Quotes by ex-BNP officers or by Nick Griffin the party Chairman, are often quoted in the wrong context or selectively muted, or twisted to appear to be something they were never intended to be. Old issues are presented as current news. Negative stereo-type words and blanket terms like "racist", "nazi", "fascist" frequently occur over the article in an obvious attempt to smear the party and influence readers.

    The whole page has a strong anti-BNP feel to it and an extremely negative bias about it. There is no mention of any the wrong-doings to the BNP or the good work the party does at the local or national level.

    Attempts by myself and a couple of other individuals to just raise and address some of these issues and try to get the page factually correct and accurate, have been met with strong opposition from those moderating the page who clearly have an anti-BNP agenda which is apparent from messages exchanged on Talk. Even the broken link I removed to the out-dated (and now illegal) constitution was put back, even after I explained to the editor why it should be removed for accuracy and legal reasons. A compromise of linking to both the old and new constitutions was ignored.

    I offered a small section called Violence against the BNP which covered in brief detail some serious assaults on BNP personnel and members. This was intended to offer some balance against the "Association with Violence" section. My section was backed up with reliable RS's, however it was swiftly removed. At least 5 other small additions or changes I made were removed without explanation.

    When I questioned why they are using such biased RS's which are clearly anti-BNP (Guardian Newspaper, Searchlight etc) they said because they are RS. When I asked the purpose of the article, whether it was to provide information about the BNP as a political party and explain its history, policies etc (like other parties on Wikipedia) or whether it was to serve as an anti-BNP page to deter people from the BNP, the answer I got was..

    "The purpose of the page is to explain how the BNP is seen in reliable sources such as Searchlight and The Guardian. It may be that those sources have an agenda, but you must take it up with them. I suggest you contact the Press Complaints Council, get the sources to publish retractions, and then we can correct the article."

    One other editor who has made significant contributions to the article to make it more balanced and unbiased has been removed today as an editor.

    It's sad that, Wikipedia which presents itself as an impartial and useful source of information, has fallen under the control of mind-benders and truth-deniers who seek to use it to use Wikipedia to promote their own political agenda by brainwashing and denying people the freedom to make their own informed opinion on things with accurate and unbiased information.

    I would welcome any assistance, feedback or comments. I appreciate the BNP is not popular due to its negative image, but surely we have a duty as a community to stay true to the Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality which seems even more important in areas of politics. It is after all one of the most basic of all human rights that people have a right to share information on political parties and support whatever political party they choose. At the moment a few editors on Wikipedia are denying those rights.

    Truthprovails (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And why should we pay a moment's attention to somebody who believes in the existence of a "Jewish... political background"? You've hung yourself by your own rope, mate; read WP:BOOMERANG. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on the anti-semitism, we ought to take neutrality seriously, and not just in facts, but in presentation. Neutrality is owed to everyone, not even, but most of all to those who blur the line of common sense or sanity. A cursory reading of the "Policies" section shows that there are critical and unacceptable transgressions of the neutrality policy. In general, the purpose of this section is unambiguously to disparage the British National Party and frame it as a fascist or neo-Nazi organization. causa sui (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Without looking at the contents of that section, it is alternatively possible that, if it does give the impression that the BNP is a fascist or neo-Nazi organisation, that might be entirely in keeping with our policies, which say we should depict the organisation as reliable secondary sources depict them. I'm not saying they are necessarily decisive, but these sources are normally considered good-quality RS: [8], [9], [10], [11] [12]. When considering an issue to do with far-right politics, is it really a good idea to lend support to the ideas of a user "without commenting" on their anti-Semitism? --FormerIP (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer the last question first, it is a good idea to take neutrality seriously, whether the person reporting a failure to adhere to the neutrality policy expressed anti-semitic attitudes in their complaint or not. To the other question, in principle, yes that is a strong possibility -- but the article in its current form does not take that tack. The sources in general appear to be reliable, but that does not excuse the slanted presentation that obviously and deliberately leads the reader to a favored conclusion. causa sui (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was an answer to a different question, which I didn't ask. I think that a plea beginning "As a member of the British National Party..." and then complaining about "Jewish/left-wing/communist" bias rather tells against itself. The "policies" section of the article is quite detailed, but I can't specifically see where it might be slanted. Its not a matter of dispute that the subject of the article is a racial nationalist political party, so I think it is natural for this to figure fairly prominently. A discussion for the talkpage, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be better to sometimes seek a different and wider forum; I've noticed that on fringe topics such as the BNP that there is a tendency to use RSes in a way to say why an ideology is wrong while giving it a veneer of "we didn't say that, they did". The whole "political tendency" section, for example, gives way quite quickly to a list of political figures denigrating the party and name-dropping scholars instead of documenting its move from overt to covert racism. At the same time, there isn't that much discussion of the party's immigration policies by secondary reliable sources; a lot of the "Policies" section seems to be regurgitating their manifesto. In that respect, a careful rewrite of the entire section would be in order. And is it really notable that Griffin was alleged to be in a homosexual relationship? If this was about a normal politician, that shit wouldn't fly. Sceptre (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Truthprovails, you misunderstand the policy of neutrality, which is "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It does not mean that we should correct inaccuracies in reliable sources or provide parity to pro-BNP sources. If you disagree with the policy, then you are free to press to change it. TFD (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need changes in the NPOV policy to be concerned about this. A severe defect of the common understanding of neutrality is that we become obsessed with facts and do not map bias in structure, presentation, and framing - bias which that article is rife with. And if you think far-right groups like that ought to be recognized as lunatic fringe (as I do), you ought to want the most impeccably neutral and unbiased article possible, so that they can hang themselves with their own ropes. We don't have that today. causa sui (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case it would be good to ensure consistency across political party articles. I would suggest to WikiProject Political Parties that it consider drawing up article structure guidelines. I saw that National Front (France) is a Good Article, perhaps it would be useful to consult it for ideas about what to include and not to include. That's not to say that I find anything really bad in the BNP article as it stands or that I think we should respond to the OP's agenda. It's just that there is always room for discussion about improvement. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the issues is wikilayering, the fact that it must be a fact RS have said it attitude. Thus we have apage that refelcts what self confessed opponets (the sources not edds) have said about the BNP. Whilst at the saem time sayiong the BNP are biased about what they beleive (thus are not RS for thier own views). As such (I think) that page fails as an encyclopdic entry, but also as a piece of anti-BNP propoganda (becaseu it will be seen to be baised, thus unreliabel).Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not support your political ideas, but if the article is biased, something should be done about is. To take the cautious approach: Can you make a draft in your own user space? That is probably the easiest way a) to make clear where the hotspots are located, and b) to start a discussion without the risk of an editwar in the encyclopedia itself. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Haqqani network

    Can someone please help me neutralize the intro of Haqqani network, which is an insurgent group based in Waziristan tribal region of Pakistan fighting along side the Taliban and al-Qaida militants against NATO-Afghan forces, but an editor who appears to be Pakistani is claiming that the group originates in Afghanistan. His version makes no sense because if this group was in Afghanistan, there are 300,000 NATO-Afghan troops and they certainly would have elminitated it in a few weeks.--Jorge Koli (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, given that the Haqqani network was started to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan back in the 1980s, I find the idea that it might have originated in that country quite plausible. This does not mean it stayed in Afghanistan once the Soviets left. It easily could have moved its operations to other places (such as Pakistan) in the decades between that conflict and the current one. But the real question you should be asking is what do reliable sources say? Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're talking about the 1980s multi-national Mujahideen fighters, they were assembled and trained inside Pakistan by Pakistan's military with fundings from USA (go to "6:29" of this CNN video), the same way they are being trained today in Pakistan. They crossed the Durand Line border into Afghanistan and fought with Soviet and Afghan forces, the same way they are doing with NATO-Afghan forces today. All the reliable sources say that the Haqqani network is operating from Pakistan and the US is using drone attacks in Pakistan to kill its members. Just because its leader is originally from Afghanistan it doesn't mean all of the insurgents are Afghans.--Jorge Koli (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion: it looks like this potential neutrality issue has not yet been discussed at the article's Talk page. Perhaps the discussion should happen there first (and also, notify the various WP project that are inolved, so editors from those projects can provide input). If the Talk page discussion does not reach consensus, then bring it back to this POV noticeboard. There may be several editors interested in the article who are not aware of this noticeboard thread. --Noleander (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That maybe a good idea. I wanted to attract experts on the subject so I came here because a POV-warrior keeps removing the dispute tags from the article [13] and when that happens readers will not know about the dispute.--Jorge Koli (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Master Cleanse

    This article about a fad diet has a long history of NPOV violations by "it worked for me/a TV star I admire" editors; lately, a new cause-warrior s.p.a. account keeps trying to restore a spammy version in its defense, removing actual scientific criticisms. Could somebody have a look at it? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Death panel

    The article Death panel, which previously had some WP:NPOV problems but could have been fixed with a little work, seems recently to have evolved into an article dedicated to refuting the claims of Sarah Palin and others regarding health-care rationing. Kelly hi! 00:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How so? Jesanj (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think before getting into specifics I'll let the editors here glance over it and make their own conclusions. But the lede of the article does a good job of capturing the tone. Kelly hi! 00:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. FWIW, a couple editors gave it a thumbs up in a recent and archived peer review in which I asked for it to be looked over for neutrality concerns. In my opinion, the lead correctly captures the tone of reliable sources. After all, the NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. Jesanj (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It does look like some POV has grown on that article. I sympathise with the POV, as it happens, but that's not the point. A lot of the material looks well-researched, but the topic probably doesn't need such a detailed article and the tone of the whole thing needs turning down a couple of notches. noting the peer review, Jesanj, but I would say that the reviewer displays a bit of blind-spot. I say this whilst appreciating that you have put a lot of work in. --FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think Evil empire or Two Americas would serve as models for this type of article on a polemical political term - analysis of the claim probably belongs in the ObamaCare article. Kelly hi! 00:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubtful. The death panel myth is a verifiably false political rumor.[14][15] I don't think we have a model. Also, the end-of-life consultations were dropped before the ACA passed. It is mentioned at H.R. 3200, however, where the phrase had its origins. Jesanj (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that you refer to it a "myth" reveals a little bit of POV. And there were plenty of people who disagreed with the premise of the other political terms, but those viewpoints are dealt with in Cold War and social stratification, not in the articles on the terms. Kelly hi! 01:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I did create the redirect.[16] Are you suggesting the article doesn't meet WP:NEO? Jesanj (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jesanj already linked the FAQ, but I think there's a more relevant head here: "equal validity". NPOV does not entail pretending that death panels are real. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the OP needs to detail the specific POV problems they see in the article, preferably on the talk page of the article. I had a read and I see no particular problems. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article could do with some copyediting to make the tone less severe. For example, in the "Prelude" section, every other word seems to be "false" or "falsely". It's just not necessary to labour the point so much. Then in the next section, we have an op-ed from the St. Petersburg Times presented in Wikipedia's voice. However correct you might think the opinion is, it needs attributing. I'd go on, but it's quite a long article and there are problems like that through much of it. --FormerIP (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that could do with some copyediting. It is much better to not mix things up so one statement should be that someone claimed something and the next point out that it is rubbish rather than pushing the assessment of the claim into the first statement. That is the sort of thing I think can be dealt with by directly editing or if there is a number by listing the various points on the talk page first. But the OP simply asserts there's a systematic problem without showing any specific example of it at work. If they think there is a systematic problem they need to say what it is in a much more specific way by detailing cases. Do they really expect people to suddenly open their eyes to some new wisdom if in effect they are simply told there is a problem and they are the cause with their blinkered attitude? That is simply unconstructive polemic. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FormerIP, good catch with the bad citing on my part; the St. Petersburg Times reference was a reprint of PolitFact post and I've now cited it their website. And an experienced copy-editor is planning on coming over soon.[17] I've notified them of this discussion and your concern with the Prelude section. How about this though, for discussion and potential progress' sake: can you identify an example of one unnecessary use of the word false in that section? Jesanj (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive sysop

    Resolved

    A sysop is trying to bully user in order to get an edge in edit dispute. He refuses to take the issue to the talk page. He keeps deleting the whole section, removes references, and issues warnings for vandalism in what is a content dispute. Where should he be reported. Since this is a POV issue, I am writing here, but there must be some way to deal with abusive sysops? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangleetodd (talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wangleetodd, why don't you create an article about your event including reaction? Just don't include your own assertions without reliable sources and don't claim that the event is relevant to general subjects like Chinese culture or Taoism or God or Hu Jintao, etc. Wknight94 talk 11:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Allegations of sysop abuse can be reported at WP:AN/I, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. As it happens, Wangleetodd (talk · contribs) is now blocked 24 hours by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for edit warring. causa sui (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Should the Occupy Wall Street article mention that the "American Nazi Party" has publicly announced support for OWS?

    There is/are one or more editors arguing for inclusion of material indicating that this group, the ANP, supports OWS. The discussion can be found here.

    My feeling is that this would be an NPOV violation, and that it bears a troubling resemblance to guilt by association, although it's not clear that BLP policy is actually relevant here. It also strikes me that the sourcing for this association is very tenuous, and that some of the sourcing that comes from mainstream outlets actually reflects attempts by opinionated pundits to conduct a little tar-and-feather attack of their own by slapping a "Supported by the Nazis!" label on OWS.

    I feel confident that at least one WP policy strongly counsels us against including material of this sort, but I'm feeling a bit out of my depth, in that I can't immediately articulate a bulletproof reason for excluding this. Thoughts, please? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Giving WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe group is absurd. Dualus (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer: no. Long answer: fuck no. The American Nazi Party is such a small organisation that mentioning it, especially without mentioning other supporters, is a massive violation of UNDUE. It'd be like putting the fact that David Duke is a Tea Party supporter, or that Osama bin Laden was a supporter of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (and annihilation, but that's beside the point). There's an unwritten rule that guilt by association isn't allowed as it is a violation of NPOV (as, indeed, it cannot be written neutrally), and there are synthesis issues too (ANP support OWS, ANP is bad, therefore...) Sceptre (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Dualus and Sceptre. It's the equivalent of using the old "Hitler was a vegetarian" canard in a discussion about vegetarianism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, interestingly, we do talk about Hitler and Stalin in Criticism of atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but that's suitably rebutted by Dawkins' moustache comparison. Sceptre (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally and completely agree that the American Nazi Party should not be mentioned in the Occupy Wall Street article... however, it might be (and please note that I say "might", not "is") appropriate to mention their support of the OWS movement in our article on the American Nazi Party. Due Weight is a contextual thing... ANP support of OWS is not important in the context of discussing the OWS, but ANP support for OWS could well be important in the context of discussing the ANP. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think the primary concern is whether or not the OWS movement's endorsement by Nazis has been covered by reliable sources. If reliable sources have covered it, then it should be included. Kelly hi! 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see Tea Party movement#Racial issues. As Wikipedia seems to lay racism at the heart of the Tea Party movement, it's probably appropriate to point out the endorsement of OWS by actual racists. Kelly hi! 06:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Radically different issue, Kelly. In that case, the claims (well supported, by lots of references) are that core members of key tea party groups, as well as broad trends among members, are racist or have racist overtones. That is radically different than the idea that a group that has no actual affiliation with core OWS members (if such a thing can be said to exist) happened to give support to OWS. Sceptre has put it best, in my opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to establish a point of fact, did the American Nazis endorse the Tea Party movement, or only the Occupy Wall Street movement? Kelly hi! 06:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The ANP didn't endorse the Tea Party, but appears that the KKK, or at the very least, David Duke, did. But comparing the two articles is apples and oranges: the Tea Party article contains a lot of discussion of the idea among black conservatives, and so can be written neutrally, while putting ANP support in this article can only be done so in a non-neutral way. Sceptre (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using your reasoning, the KKK endorsed the Democrat Party by way of Robert Byrd. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If it has been reported on in reliable sources and if other groups support are being mentioned then so should this. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is actually a pretty easy thing to solve. Wikipedia does not censor facts Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not [18], but also does not allow for WP:UNDUE weight of any information above it's true notability. The information cannot be kept out simply because it "may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so". It should be allowed in the proper context with reliable sources and with the proper amount of weight in relationship to the overall facts being presented.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Short answer: it depends on the situation
    1. The Nazi party posts a blog on their website saying they endorse it. Do not include information since they are small and irrelevant
    2. It is widely reported that the Nazi party supports them. Do include the info as well as critics who have claimed that people are pointing out that info in an attempt to smear the campaign with guilt by association(as I assume many are arguing).
    So if sources are talking about and debating this then yes, you should include the info, without too much weight, and while providing any comments from the OWS or anybody else responding to it.AerobicFox (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are no unwritten rules for Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines are not hard fast rules themselves and very few Bright-line rules exist at Wiki. Consensus should only be formed by the what we have before us, written down and laid out for our consideration. All else is irrelevant.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two answers above (by Dualus and Sceptre) said all that needs to be said about this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly not, for the reasons laid out by Dualus and Sceptre. This is a particularly clear-cut example of guilt by association at its slimiest. It cannot be denied that an occasional antisemite has snuck an antisemitic sign into OWS demonstrations; but that's all part of WP:UNDUE. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The American Nazi Party has views on all sorts of current events - the bailout, the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, etc. The Last Angry Man and other editors who want the American Nazi view explained in articles must explain why the American Nazi viewpoint is significant. American Nazi views I think are insignificant, but if TLAM thinks we should take note of them then he should explain why American Nazi views are important. Otherwise, they belong in their own article. TFD (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not recall saying that the ANP views should be mentioned in the article in question, I do recall saying that if it has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources then it warrants a mention in the article. If celebrity's and other organizations are being mentioned as supporting OWS then why exclude the ANP, regardless of how distasteful they are. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We cover what the mainstream media reports widely. Has the Nazi parties views received coverage concerning the War and Iraq, Libya, and other events? Why would the Nazi parties views not be covered in Wikipedia if they are reported on by a wide variety of sources, because they're incorrect? WP:WEIGHT was agreed upon by a consensus of Wikipedia, whereas "an unwritten rule that guilt by association isn't allowed" was never agreed upon by anyone. I have not followed this story, but if it gains traction then it should be presented. You can try arguing WP:NOTNEWS, which would be far more in line with policy then NPOV, but as this is an emerging news story deletions based off that would be better in a week or so to see if coverage has died down or continued.AerobicFox (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I got curious and looked on google news, 30 hits for "Occupy Wall Street" "american nazi party" seems to have gotten enough coverage to give it a line in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One may google "American Nazi" and any subject and find that American Nazis have opinions on many current events. You may believe that American Nazi views are of such importance that they should be added to Wikipedia articles about current events, but I disagree. Can you please provide sources that they have any significance. Other fascist groups, such as the British National Party and the English Defence League probably have also commented, and probably many other fascist groups. How many fascist groups' opinions should we explain? TFD (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you deliberately misconstruing what I have written? Were have I said that any fascist groups opinions ought be in the article? I have said if it has been reported on (which it has been) then that fact ought be mentioned. If minor celebs who get 7 mentions in the news are in the article then a group which has 30 hits warrants a line.The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "American nazi" wall street = 35 results
    "American nazi" libya = 3 results
    "American nazi" Afghanistan = 2 results
    "American nazi" Iraq = 2 results
    Although Google results are a bad indicator of notability, there is a clear discrepancy between the coverage of their views on other current events compared with their views on the wall street protest. While their views on those events have received no coverage, it is clear that their views on this have received attention. I have already seen multiple conservative and Tea part leaders condemn this as well the Anti-defamation league.AerobicFox (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)7[reply]
    Mentions of ANP endorsement of OWS seem to be limited to right-wing blogs; (and yes, I am counting Fox Nation there) blogs by default are not RS, and editorial opinion is only RS for statements about opinions. Sceptre (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I think there is a danger in the people on Capitol Hill starting to embrace this movement, especially now that we know that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party are also starting to align themselves with this Occupy movement," Senator Allen West, from huffingtonpost
    • "The Occupy Wall Street movement is getting support from some out-of-the-mainstream groups. The American Nazi party is urging followers to get involved..." Bret Bair:Special reporting Fox news
    • "On the Monday edition of Fox News' flagship "straight news" program Special Report, anchor Bret Baier also treated this endorsement as if it were significant:" Response by Media Matters The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them
    • "Fifteen percent of American people believe Jews control Wall Street,” said Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. “It reflects itself in some of the people in the protest."metro
    Looking into it though the Nazi's often seem to be lumped into the support to the protestor's being given from the communist and socialist parties as well, and Anti-Semiticism is more commonly brought up than Nazism. Even so, the Anti-Defamation League, a Republican senator, a Fox news(not editorial) anchor, in addition to the usual conservative pundits have weighed in, and responses have been made to them; worrying about prejudicial impact on the reader is not our pejorative, informing them of things reported is.AerobicFox (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously not. Very little coverage in proportion to the weight of the subject as a whole, no obvious relevance, and some clear guilt by association. It's probably not worth covering in the articles about the American Nazi Party either, but if it is significant thing for them that would be a more obvious place for the info. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, Googling "Anti-semitism wall street" yields a lot more results and appears more significant than the Nazi's support:
    The Occupy Wall Street protests, now in their second month, have increasingly been criticized by a variety of groups, most of them politically conservative, for flashes of anti-Semitism.
    But much as the Tea Party movement initially grappled with accusations of racism, Occupy Wall Street has been consistently confronted with accusations of anti-Semitism.
    New York Times:Cries of Anti-Semitism, but Not at Zuccotti Park
    Olbermann responded to statements made by those he described as "right-wing pontificators" like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. He took particular issue with the general use of the term "antisemitism," a label he believed was imposed on the Occupy Wall Street protesters by members of the conservative media.
    "The right-wing seems to have woken up to some of the power of Occupy Wall Street," Olbermann said. He quoted Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin's latest article in which she criticized the media for ignoring what she called Occupy Wall Street's "antisemitic elements."
    Huffington Post, Keith Olbermann Rips Rush Limbaugh Over Occupy Wall Street (VIDEO)
    "Jews have been run out of 109 countries throughout history, and we need to run them out of this one," she told Fox11 Tuesday.
    McAllister's comments prompted Amanda Susskind, the Anti-Defamation League's Los Angeles regional director, to call on those "more directly affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy LA movements" to "denounce any expressions of anti-Semitism during the protests.
    Los Angelos Waves Occupy L.A. denounces participant's anti-Semitic comments
    If one was trying to tack the label of antisemitism onto the Occupy Wall Street movement, (which apparently, everyone is) one needs to look no further than David Brooks‘ October 10th op-ed for The New York Times, entitled “The Milquetoast Radicals.”
    New York Observer, Much Ado About ‘Adbusters’ Relationship to the Jews
    In addition to above sources there is enough commentary on this from a variety of people to warrant inclusion into the article.AerobicFox (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This matter has been resolved as the following ten editors have explained above why the proposed text is undue: Dualus, Sceptre, Dominus Vobisdu, Blueboar, Piotrus, Qwyrxian, Johnuniq, Orange Mike, TFD, Wikidemon. Naturally there are media reports with excited commentary on every blip-of-the-day, and it is no surprise that links mentioning Nazis and OWS can be found—see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "ten editors have explained above why the proposed text is undue"
      • I seem to be missing this "proposed text". To answer your response, consensus is not decided by numbers, but by arguments, and I have currently addressed above editor's arguments that only conservative blogs have reported by finding both conservative and liberal news sources, organizations, and pundits that have commented on this. Also, applying NOTNEWS to an article which is a breaking news story is difficult enough to do and easy enough to argue against, please respond to the above sources on Antisemitism.AerobicFox (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus is not a vote. It's what everyone can live with. If it's undue weight, OK. If it's added, it should be in the proper context with reliable sources and not be undue weight to the overall content of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose I can "live with" a line or two. Not including any mention despite the NYT equivocating it to racist charges against the Tea party, the ADL speaking out on multiple occasions, and various pundits will stand out more as a blind spot in Wikipedias coverage of the article more so then will a brief mention stand out as undue weight.AerobicFox (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    College dating

    Whatever the reason, the College dating entry represents, in contrast to "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" on the topic, only one view, one that neither claims nor cites evidence to suggest that it is representative. One editor says that being "just incomplete and poorly developed" should be an exemption from the basic requirement of the NPOV policy quoted above, and has removed a maintenance template, directing me here. So I am soliciting views on both the specific article, and on the general topic of whether an article that is so incomplete that it gives a skewed view of its subject is in conformity with the NPOV policy.

    Thank you, Bongomatic 03:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thee is a reason we do not slap POV templates on all stubs, and other poorly developed articles. Look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Even a C-class article states, by definition, that it is not comprehensive. Yet, we don't tag all C and below class articles with POV templates for a reason, the reason being that not being comprehensive is not the same thing as not being neutral. In even simpler words: small is not necessarily evil, just... small :) POV applies to articles that are biased towards some points of view, not to articles that are simply not comprehensive, because they are not developed. The article may deserve tagging with some Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup indicating a need for expansion, but not with the generic POV template. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Some forms of incompleteness lead to POV problems, some don't. The incompleteness in this article does. It's not a question of missing certain pertinent but non-essential facts. Rather, it's a case of a very narrow subset of the topic being presented as being representative of the topic or relevant to the topic on a standalone basis. I have created dozens of stubs, none of which (as far as I'm aware) has ever been tagged for POV violation because of its brevity, so the "small ≠ evil" concept is well familiar to me. But it's simply inapplicable here. Bongomatic 13:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are just repeating yourself. Let's wait for input from others. Oh, a disclaimer on our POVs: I am instructor of the students writing this article, and Bongomatic is an editor who tried to get the article deleted, and even after the debate was closed keeps commenting on talk that the article should be deleted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    POV tag removal on Occupy Wall Street

    I have been accused of edit warring and warned twice because I want to include information about calls to amend the Constitution to the Occupy Wall Street article. I have spent several hours over the past five days carefully sourcing and condensing the material, but three other editors insist on deleting it without any specific objections that I have not fully addressed, apart from vague claims of undue weight. I believe I am being WP:TAGTEAMed by people who simply want to discredit the movement (they also want to remove the most recent polling from the intro even though they had no objections to it when it was not as favorable.) Right now I just want to add a {{POV}} tag to notify everyone that there is a dispute. I have done so but it was quickly reverted with the edit summary, "consensus is not a dispute." I just replaced it, and it was deleted again.

    Relevant discussion sections are:

    Thank you. Dualus (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    And this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Lawrence_Lessig_part_of_the_Occupy_movement.3F. This is a very long and covoluted debate, can you proved the material you wish to include and the sources so we can judge if the accusations against you of Synthasis are valid?Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Call_for_a_constitutional_convention_in_Occupy_Wall_Street.3F). It seems worthy of note that at least one reason there are so many different discussions on this topic is that the above editor disengages from the discussion and head off to start a new one whenever the current one doesn't seem to be leading in a direction he likes. (Granted, noticeboard discussions are always new discussions; I'm mainly referring to the seven different section at the article talk page.)
    For the record, I don't especially care whether the tag is removed, although I would point out that after several days of debate, no other editor has agreed with the edits Dualus wants to make. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its really poor that the tag has been removed before the discussions have finished. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is begining(?) to look a lot like forum shoping.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to also be one more noticeboard thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_restore_POV_tag_to_Occupy_Wall_Street_and_help_me_with_dispute_resolution.3F. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's definitely some WP:FORUMSHOPPING going on here; I see the same arguments, from the same user, at the article Discussion page, here, and at WP:ANI. Two of the three need to be closed, and the OP given a {{trout}} for conduct unbecoming a contributive editor. 'Nuff said. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And at RSN, it would be a poty tp leave all this effort unrecognised.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't condone the Forum shopping... it does seem that there is quite a bit of POV warring on the other side as well. I can see how people on both sides are getting frustrated and turning to the policy/guideline notice boards for help. That said, since the article has been raised at ANI, we can leave it to them to sort out. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Dualus has opened all of these notice board pleas. The other editors who have achieved the consensus Dualus just can't deal with have not filed any notices, expect for the two 3RRs I have filed - both of which are about edit warring and not content. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)
    Dualus was told to discuss this here on WP:ANI. It therefore isn't forum-shopping. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have closed the first two sections - the first is closed as reliable sources need presenting and the second is closed as there is a consensus against adding polling information. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not explain why this has been raised in 2 otehr notice boards.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issues raised at the original research noticeboard are subtly different so its worth assuming good faith - and at ANI he was told to discuss it here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Eraser has neither edited the content of the OWS article or been involved in the formation of consensus. All disputes content disputes have been resolved, though Dualus persisted in ignoring, as an admin noted in a warning to that editor,"please read WP:CON and WP:EW - you are ignoring the one and engaging in the other. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which makes me uninvolved and more neutral. Please see WP:OWN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Get this straight, there are no unresolved POV issues requiring a tag. We have reached consensus on them all in a timely fashion. Trying to get in the mustard when you can't even ketchup, as it were. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to note the irony of saying that all POV issues have been resolved on Occupy Wallsteet when there is an unresolved discussion concerning Occupy Wallstreet here in the NPOV board just two spots above this one. Anyone feel like commenting up there in a timely fashion?AerobicFox (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ever hear of edit warring against consensus? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm for whatever the consensus decides. My own point of view is that Dualus decided to use this in the middle of a discussion as further disruption to simply poke at people with a new stick.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ditto, just as I do not believe a POV tag should be added but am rather using this opportunity to poke a stick at people to respond up above to a day old comment.AerobicFox (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh...a new accusation! Didn't see THAT one coming! Now everyone is trying to discredit the movement! This NPOV/N made by Dualus could be Wikipedia:Libel by now accusing editors of actions for a specific reason without cuase or proof. He is quickly stepping over a line. I urge him to take more caution because I am losing patience with these accusations.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Procter & Gamble

    A new "Environmental record" section has been repeatedly added (diff) stating that "PETA and Uncaged have called for a boycott of P&G products". I am concerned that the edit is WP:UNDUE as there is no indication that a reliable secondary source has written any extensive account of the issue. The proposed text appears to violate WP:NOTADVOCACY. This is a minor matter but one that is not going to go away soon, and opinions or page watchers would be welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The Environmental record section doesn't fall under WP:NOTADVOCACY since it is only reporting on published facts from major and relevant organizations. It uses notable sources already used on wikipedia and it pertains to orginizations that have millions of members and thus is not WP:UNDUE. This pages bias has already been questioned and its obvious why.

    Black Power

    I think that characterising this as simply racialist is pov, but I'm being reverted by an editor with the comments first that "Cleaned up some of the whitewashing of history" and when I reverted that as changing cited text, saying "word choice in the sourced text is not NPOV" - maybe this is for RSN, I'm not sure, but it's being called NPOV by the editor changing the text. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I undid the latest as lacking sources. I can see the idea behind the edit, but it needs something more than an appeal to authority for support. Particularly as the term "black power" has been widely used in a variety of contexts, it is rather sweeping to say they are "racist ideologies". Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=457136302"