Wikipedia talk:Civil POV pushing

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
High	This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by .

"Marginal nationalist"

What's that supposed to mean? Mercster (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, fixed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd

I find this essay odd. It seems like a way to gaslight and railroad well-meaning editors you don't agree with. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrrho the Skeptic: pinging since it's been over a year--I find this essay awfully cynical. And WP:POVEDITOR is probably a superior one in collaborative terms ("we don't care if you're neutral. We care about the article being neutral, but not about you.") Quite the difference in tone between the two.

Perhaps it could be clearly said that the difference lies in behaviour and commitment to WP:PAGs, given that good faith (in my opinion) is paramount to the project. The two essays are an interesting read for me. I would posit that editing in a single area may lack specificity; it's one of the weakest components of this essay. SmolBrane (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite?

This could be a useful essay on a problem that I think we're still very bad at dealing with as a community, but unfortunately it's tangled up in what I assume is some ancient arbitration-related dispute. The lead should explain what "civil POV pushing" is, but instead it contains a lengthy rant about the Arbitration Committee which is severely outdated (the question of whether ArbCom will intervene in content disputes is settled and enshrined in WP:ARBPOL) and, more importantly, profoundly uninteresting to normal people who aren't deeply invested in wikipolitics. Can we try to reorganise and rewrite this into something more accessible to newcomers (or even just people who don't remember decade-old arbitration cases)? Or would it be better to start again under a new title (maybe Wikipedia:Sealioning)? – Joe (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that WP:CPUSH (this essay) is slightly different from sealioning although the distinction might not be important for our purposes. Sealioning may be simple trolling with no underlying desire to push a particular editorial line. By contrast, the whole point of CPUSH is to dominate a topic so one or more articles are slanted in a direction favored by the civil pusher. Also, CPUSH can be accidental where a sequence of civil people arrive at a topic such as intelligent design and push the same proposals over a number of years. That can wear down certain personalities who relieve frustration with bad language. The CPUSH problem is that administrators and arbitrators are not supposed to think about the underlying issue, so the good editor who occasionally swears gets sanctioned while the civil pusher triumphs, thus degrading the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. It's also worth bearing in mind that this essay is significant older than the term sealioning (coined in 2014). The latter is catchier, though. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the the removal of that section --151.188.137.191 (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does WP:CRUSH point here?

Crush what? 2A00:23C5:FE18:2700:DCFE:4CE3:F766:7661 (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the actual short link is CPUSH, and people misread it as CRUSH, so it's helpful to make the misspelling a quick link as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Example

@Remsense why did you revert my edit? I understand that one single addition to the list may not be the most impactful content in the world, but I think it is a very salient example, and one that is at least as relevant as many other inhabitants of the list. Affinepplan (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does it illustrate that the other examples don't? We don't need an exhaustive list of on-site conflicts characterized a certain way, and in fact I would really resist trying to collate one. Remsense ‥ 论 01:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]