Wikipedia talk:Civil POV pushing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise 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.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

Awesome[edit]

I think the all-purpose accusation of "civil pov pushing" is awesome. What possible defense could the accused have? If he gets angry about it, you can use Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, and if he stays calm, he proves your point. It's almost a perfect Catch-22. --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not why the original draftees of this essay wrote it. The bottom line was that POV pushers that add nothing but nonsense to arguments and content learned to remain civil so their POV pushing wasn't as obvious.--MONGO 13:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't doubt that original intention. I also don't doubt the existance of "POV pushers that add nothing but nonsense to arguments and content learned to remain civil so their POV pushing wasn't as obvious". But the point remains that it can be misused as an all-purpose accusation. I haven't exactly searched for examples or proof that it has been misused in this way, my point is more in the nature of a general observation. I'm a bit fan of Catch-22 rhetorics, and this rule seems to fit, even if that wasn't the original intention :-). --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there anything that cannot be misused? Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I can see where this is headed: Be like water, my friend! --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

First of all, this page is my hero. Second, I would like to provide more specific information on favorite CPOV techniques for using/abusing sources. That is what truly drives me insane. My preference would be to create a subsection called "Sources." Under "Sources" I would include these two items from "Neutrality":

They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.

They argue that some sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.

I would add:

They insist attempts be made to find reliable sources for a dubious claim before removing it from the article. This amounts to requiring other editors try to prove a negative.

When pressed for reliable sources they employ the following tactics in lieu of honoring the request:

  • Using a reliable source to verify a claim outside its author's area of expertise. For example an intro to an electrician's handbook is used to verify a statement of historical fact.
  • Responding to requests for evidence with Google search results instead of specific citations. "Here you go! Look at all this evidence!"
  • Citing high reliable sources which in fact contradict their claim, or cherry-picking high reliable sources.
  • Citing non-English language sources
  • Citing highly obscure books with no Google books preview

All of this can be done endlessly, for months, until all the good faith editors quit or snap.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"non-English language sources" WP:NOENG: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed."
"sources for a dubious claim before removing" WP:V: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Also, WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" Paradoctor (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Paradoctor. Oh I know. I wasn't trying to argue that non-English language sources be excluded or that a tactic isn't covered by WP:BURDEN or some other policy. This is just a profile of how POV pushers commonly use sources. Do you think it would be better to say "Citing non-English language sources when the preponderance of reliable English sources contradict a claim"?
Thanks for your input!:-)--Atlantictire (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I took the opportunity to reread the essay, and I think it misses the point. The list of symptoms isn't really helpful, because it describes mistakes made by pretty much everyone, including myself. What distinguishes CPOVPs from others is repetition: They keep raising the issue after it has been adressed properly. But the real problem seems to be the other editors engaging the CPOVPs. In my experience, the CPOVPs' civility makes it easy for others to make the mistake of trying to convince them, long after the points raised have been properly addressed. This doesn't work, people become frustrated, and soon drama enters the stage. I "discovered" a really useful tool a while ago:
WP:TPO "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" [...] "Off-topic posts:" [...] "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)" (my emphases)
That is, at least in my experience, a criminally underused tool, and it has made my life here quite a bit simpler. If a CPOVP has a problem with that, they can go to hell. Face-wink.svg Paradoctor (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Nutshell[edit]

I recommend that someone add a nutshell to this page. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect[edit]

WP:SEALION was redirecting to WP:CON instead of here. I don't know why, but I fixed it. drseudo (t) 22:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional context may be warranted. TyTyMang (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange selection of types while omitting others[edit]

The article says:

the committee has effectively abdicated the responsibility for ensuring neutrality, verifiability, and other content standards to a few users (mostly, but not entirely admins)

Who are these users and where are you when you need them? I've faced plenty of civil POV pushing in a pro-industry direction, and haven't found much help from users who are supposed to recognize this sort of thing and break up intentional logjams or filibustering lock-downs on articles against all sources and reason.

They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like.

I've found civil POV pushing in pro-industry POV pushing moreso than those things listed. Can this be added to the essay? It would seem to reflect the reality that i've seen much better. This essay seems written to add weight to those who run witch hunts against anything they deem to be "fringe" in a McCarthyist sort of way. I'd appreciate it being more balanced and true to reality. SageRad (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not spread a current dispute (WP:ARBGMO) into essays. Over the years, an enormous amount of CPUSHing has occurred, and it is accurately described in the established essay. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I am most certainly not doing so. That allegation is 100% incorrect. I am seeking to make the essay more useful and more applicable to areas in which it most certainly does apply. As it stands, it encourages a seriously biased approach to editing for anyone who comes across it. The essay currently embodies an extremely slanted version of who engages in POV railroading within Wikipedia. I have seen the very worst cases of "polite POV pushing" from those pushing in the direction of an "establishment" agenda direction, which often means in line with industry vested interests. This is a serious problem here and this essay could help rather than make it worse. SageRad (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Johnuniq. This is a good essay and we don't want it watered-down to favour fringe positions. Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The use of "fringe" leads to a McCarthyism in Wikipedia. It's a word that is used to denigrate anything you don't agree with, pretty much, and i've seen how you've edited in many contexts, Alexbrn. SageRad (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here is a very serious case of "Polite POV Pushing" in the direction of making something that has some basis in science with a number of reliable sources to support it, remain portrayed in Wikivoice as a "crank"/"fringe"/"woo" thing. There is a filibustering against me, generally halfway polite, sometimes not so much, but this is an example of the methodology outlined by this essay used in a way that contradicts the generalizations of this essay about who uses it and toward what end. SageRad (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You were wrong there; don't try and import your campaign(s) here. Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I was not wrong there, and here i am using that as an example of polite POV pushing being in the opposite direction than that which is implied by this slanted essay. SageRad (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)