Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
 | This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. |
| Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
Wind turbine syndrome
Recent edits (example) use source http://www.shorelinebeacon.com/2013/08/26/citizens-call-for-caw-turbine-shutdown for definitive statements on the issue. Some patient explanations are needed. Perhaps the article was too firmly pushing the "psychosomatic disorder" line before the recent edits (I do not know), but its current text is obviously inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your concerns. As to determining whether that source is reliable or not, you will have to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Before posting here, you should have also tried to resolve the dispute. Have a good day!Note: There is no current active discussion surrounding this on the article's talk page. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)- John knows where to go for RS discussion, he's been here nearly as long as me. The question here is not the source, it's around WP:FRINGE pushing by Mwest55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a WP:SPA devoted to pushing the "wind turbine syndrome" agenda. The edits have been reverted. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alright. Sorry for any confusion. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- John knows where to go for RS discussion, he's been here nearly as long as me. The question here is not the source, it's around WP:FRINGE pushing by Mwest55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a WP:SPA devoted to pushing the "wind turbine syndrome" agenda. The edits have been reverted. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Background- who is what according to source and relevant custom and law
I am claiming that sourced content, backed by proven custom should not be removed without any countering source or facts proving otherwise? Let's take a hypothetical example: According to the Jus soli legal principle, applied in Argentine nationality law, any person born in Argentine acquires Argentine citizenship at birth, even though the parents have none whatsoever connection to Argentine. So could I then add the category Category:Argentine people to John Doe's Wikipedia article, if I have a source and the legal principle that state that John Doe is born in Argentine and has thus has gained Argentine citizenship? So what would be the difference if I added the category Category:British Jews to the real and relevant Milo Yiannopoulos Wikipedia article, if: According to the general principle in Judaism and Jewish law, a person is automatically considered Jewish if their mother/grandmother is Jewish, which is the original and current definition of being Jewish. Furthermore from the Jewish perspective it does not matter if Mr. Yiannopoulos has been born into another religion or embraced another religion, as long as his blood affinity is matrilineal, ( Matrilineality in Judaism). Ethnicity and religion are intertwined in Judaism and cannot be directly compared to other monotheistic religions ex. Christianity, which emphasises primarily faith and conversion. Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding Category: Yiannopoulos is Jewish - adequate sources verify this and should not be removed until proven otherwise Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is being dealt with at WP:DRN. There's no need to deal with it here as well. Bradv 21:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- This seems like a case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING to override the consensus to not identify Milo as Jewish. This matter has been posted at WP:DRN (The case there was closed) and WP:ANI. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
This was listed at Pages needing cleanup after translation, which is how I found it. I am not sure how much it's been worked on since but I just did a fairly thorough copy-edit and am confident that it's quite readable. I also removed some editorial language. This, and a reference in an edit summary to "Muslim scum" make me wonder about the article's neutrality not to say accuracy.
I am profoundly ignorant in the background history, sociology and geography of this event and am trying to recruit more editors who may know more to help out. Meanwhile I am taking off the rough translation tag, as it is not true now if it ever was. Elinruby (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just to note for anyone willing to help out on this matter, there is no active dispute on the article's talk page. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
NTSB & Wikipedia's forced alignment, by an inspired "editor"
Mr Wikipedia,
could you please provide someone familiar with COPE's standards,
and science- C-o-I IRB-"conflicts" [as opposed to financial- CoI)
to review the TALK -edits, and "article" deletes
in Wikipedia's
TWA 841 ,
of April 4 1979.
The NTSB's Public Docket should include the background Group Reports,
and all Petitions against the NTSB-AAR-81-8.
But, one "editor" (?) DELETED all- mention and links to the two main Petitions.
Perhaps that one "editor" should tightly control, and LIMIT that
wiki-article to ONLY the Boeing Scenario and NTSB-AAR-81-8.
Perhaps Wikipedia's POLICY should suppress any mention of the Petitions against AAR-81-8.
But that one "editor", who seems to lack work-background in our industry, has now taken-over.
So, OK, let one guy control that "article":
Could you subtly suggest that he allow a top-banner,
caution -- this Wilk "article" only presents the Boeing Scenario ,
as endorsed by the USA's "independent" Safety Board.
IGhhGI (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Would someone care to translate this? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Something to do with the recent reversions here. Labelled as refspam by one editor - probably as one of the parties has a book out. The complaint is basically that the article is biased towards the official side rather than the flight crew's view (who were blamed in the official investigation 'human error' for being the cause of the uncontrolled spin). I just read it through and it seems quite neutral, there is a summary of the official report, the crews response and explanation, and the relevant part of the report where they disregard the crew's version of events. Given the subsequent two failed appeals I dont see what more needs to be said. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Something to do with the recent reversions here. Labelled as refspam by one editor - probably as one of the parties has a book out. The complaint is basically that the article is biased towards the official side rather than the flight crew's view (who were blamed in the official investigation 'human error' for being the cause of the uncontrolled spin). I just read it through and it seems quite neutral, there is a summary of the official report, the crews response and explanation, and the relevant part of the report where they disregard the crew's version of events. Given the subsequent two failed appeals I dont see what more needs to be said. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
= = = =
Responding to 30Jan' comment above:
"... probably as one of the parties has a book ... refspam by one editor ... I just read it ... seems quite neutral ..."
Please excuse me if this response seems to belittle your analysis (just above). I have NOT any any book. There is NO "Spam" in any of the "Talk" (for TWA841) -- for some unexplained motive that one "editor" wants to prevent you (or any reader) from viewing the records (facts). As a test, PLEASE: go to that "talk" page, view the ORIGINAL uncensored "talk". Do you see "spam"???
A suggestion: On that talk page, allow some contributors (qualified men who worked in Flt Test and at TWA), to "link" to actual records from that accident.
There exists some sort deception evident by that one "editor". The "facts" in the case might not be clear to you, unless you can speak-Boeing, worked at Boeing Flight Test, and flew B727 at TWA.
That Wikipedia article has so many errs: PLEASE, to counter that bias simply offer the reader a link to the TWO MAIN Petitions against NTSB-AAR-81-8 (that "editor" DELETED the links on 21Dec2016). For four decades this old case provoked controversy, assumptions became "findings", inference became "facts".
Some intervention is sought -- a balanced presentation. ==> OR, simply show a top-banner "This wiki-article presents ONLY the Boeing Scenario "
IGhhGI (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Pro-Nazi editor: 86.90.43.5
User:86.90.43.5 seems incapable of editing articles without skewing them towards a Nazi POV, or attempting to ameliorate the Nazi regime's responsibilities. All of his edits need to be closely examined for this bias, which the editor is not reluctant to express. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- The editor has been blocked for edit warring, but only for 48 hours. The blocking admin cited WP:GEVAL towards Naziism in the block, so the IP will continue to need eyes on its edits. I believe I have been able to undo the majority of their biased changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Emmett Till RFC
There is an ongoing RFC which may be of interest to the participants of this board.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emmett_Till#Emmett_Till_lead_sentence_RFC ResultingConstant (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump–Russia dossier
I'm not sure the right noticeboard, but figured this was as good as any. A recent article led to a bit of back and forth at Donald Trump-Russia dossier, and I've had a bit of an unusual interaction with the locals there regarding the use and misuse of the Paul Gregory Forbes.com piece. Please opine at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#Forbes / Paul Gregory, if you are so inclined. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- OT - thank you for using the word: "opine" Maineartists (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Article on "Tiger Forces" relies on references from single bias source and author
The wikipedia article on the Tiger_Forces, a special forces unit in the Syrian Arab Army relies only on blog articles from
The article is found here Tiger_Forces
Long passages such as
After successful operations in Latakia and Hama, Colonel Suheil al-Hassan was tasked a special project by the Syrian Armed Forces Central Command in the fall of 2013—to train and lead a Special Forces unit that would work primarily as an offensive unit. Colonel Hassan handpicked many of the soldiers that would later form the Tiger Forces.
are cited to one blog article http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/colonel-suheil-al-hassan-tiger-forces/ that is unverifiable and unsupported.
The author of these articles is Leith Fadel, who has a strong bias in favor of Bahar Al-Assad and the forces supporting him. Al Masdar news is a blog written by Leith Fadel and articles do not provide any type of verification. These articles do not provide verification and cannot be considered either reliable or verifiable. Furthermore, Leith Fadel has a history of making unverifiable claims, some of which have caused harm to other individuals. Evidence of this is found in this article:
Example
Mr. Fadel, whose Facebook profile photograph shows him with the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, tempered his criticism of Mr. Mohsen on Wednesday, saying, “Whether he is a former fighter or not, I cannot confirm — but I am happy his son is safe.” Still, the pro-government journalist’s Facebook post appears to have helped spread the rumor that Mr. Mohsen was either a supporter or a member of Nusra far and wide.