Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arrow icon.svg Click here to post a question to the Neutral point of view noticeboard

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

Conspiracy theory definition[edit]

moved to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Conspiracy_theory_definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talkcontribs) 06:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, that discussion was moved then eventually archived to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Conspiracy theory definition. - Location (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015[edit]

The Three-Fifths Compromise article contains incorrect and highly POV lines in the opening paragraph, from a poor source, that's contradicted in the rest of the article. I made NPOV edits sourced from a Pulitzer Prize winner, but they were reverted. The talk page is covered with complaints about POV, and edits attempting to correct or clarify keep getting reverted. Example - "slave-owners" didn't get 30% more seats in Congress - southern states did (these things are different). The 30% figure was not even in the citation given, nor was the baseline number clear (it was the Congress of the Confederation under the Articles of the Confederation - in the citation I gave). Southern states 'dominating the government' is highly controversial, especially since they continuously had a minority of seats in Congress (and decreased yearly). All of this is in the source given, and on other Wikipedia pages. Original citation is an obscure professor from Northeastern Illiois University.

I honestly gave up on Wikipedia a decade ago (reading and editing) because of POV and edits like this. So, it's up to you guys. (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If discussion is stalled on the article's talk page try dispute resolution or post on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (not this talk page). --NeilN talk to me 01:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: The NPOV noticeboard is semi-protected, that's why that IP was posting here. (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. That has been lifted. --NeilN talk to me 21:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for assistance with NPOV editing[edit]

I posted a request for help with NPOV editing at Talk:Russ_Baker#NPOV_Help_Needed. An investigative reporter (the subject) inherently raises contentious issues and crosses conscious or unconscious biases. I am standing aside from incipient edit-warring. Bn (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the archive bot still working on the Noticeboard?[edit]

Hi, just wondering if the bot is still working on auto-archiving "old" notices? For example,

All dates and calculations are based on the premise of being September 22nd and are hopefully correct at the time of writing, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC); strikethrough archived sections, 06:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Guess, the coding was weird. Changed both noticeboard and talk page to allow bot to archive at least one thread instead of requiring three old threads. Sorry, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The RfC post for murder implying accused of being murderer, is still hanging around. Does anyone know why it isn't being archived? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)