Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64

Dagestan massacre[edit]

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)
Right. It feels/sounds possibly biased, but nobody is arguing there and nobody commented on the copy edit. Elinruby (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Emmett Till RFC[edit]

There is an ongoing RFC which may be of interest to the participants of this board. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump–Russia dossier[edit]

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 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)
Pinging this noticeboard again. There is a few editors there with a novel interpretation of our policies (at least in my opinion), and could use some outside input. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Still waiting outside input. As I see it, two editors there believe that Paul Gregory, a contributor, represents a "significant opinion" that is WP:DUE weight to be covered in the article. I pointed out that there is zero coverage in secondary sources. The response is a bit muddled, from "It is a secondary source. Full stop." (for the opinion of Paul Gregory), to "this statement of policy is simply false. WP:SPS refers to publication by third parties and it does not refer to peer review of those published works. Rather, peer review is a basis for evaluating RS's that deal with academic topics for which peer-reviewed analysis actually exists. Don't confuse the two." At the discussion page, I have said that the source is a reliable source for the opinion of Paul Gregory, in that we can be reasonably sure that the person claiming to be Paul Gregory writing the opinion was who it claims to be, and that he was honestly reporting his own opinion, but it does very little to establish due weight, which normally requires secondary sources. One editor there has pointed to his CV, which includes some writings about the security apparatus in the Soviet state. My question is thus: (1) does his CV in itself establish that the opinions expressed in the WP:PUS Forbes contributor column are due weight, and (2) do we normally require secondary sources (apart from the original opinion) to establish due weight? Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Article on "Tiger Forces" relies on references from single bias source and author[edit]

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 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:


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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Closure of discussion on Russian influence on the 2016 U.S. election[edit]

This is a notification that, per a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, I have closed the archived discussion located at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Explanation of Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates. I felt a notification was appropriate as few people watch the archives. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)