Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Started

Seems like a good idea, to close out these for all our core areas and policies. And it seems to come up so often... Lawrence § t/e 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Will active steps be taken when blatant POV problems are identified or just comments will be made at this NB. How will this NB help fix NPOV issues. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting we develop a protocol, with escalating warnings and diffs as we have at 3RR to try to make this easier for admins to deal with.--Filll (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines would help too. Especially when dealing with FRINGE. Like some sort of documentation of what the mainstream and FRINGE views are and in what proportion roughly. And some sort of documentation for what proportion they occupy in the article.--Filll (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR would not help in my case. There is a group of editors who are violating NPOV on a certain article. This NB will only be effective when people comment here and are also willing to edit the discussed article. I understand it will be difficult to enforce NPOV. I am not sure how this will be done. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well help us develop a simple easy to implement protocol so that admins can quickly see what the problem is. --Filll (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen admins help with NPOV issues. I already tried that. Often, admins ignore POV problems. They claim Wikipedia works by consensus. We have contradictory policies. Consensus vs NPOV. These two policies are against each other. Consensus can easily lead to POV problems. We don't have admins blocking editors who make POV edits. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the problem to which you refer, and I think this noticeboard could help with it. A similar issue exists with WP:BLP. WP:BLPN provides a place frequented by people who take BLP seriously, and the consensus on issues reported to BLPN tends to reinforce BLP. A similar thing could happen here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SI. BLP did not use to be taken so seriously. But now it is. And there are a clear set of rules and guidelines and protocols etc that are used. And a standard procedure. So we need to get something like that here. And then pursue it and encourage its adoption. And this noticeboard can help.--Filll (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this even needed?

With all due respect, the powers that be have expressed strongly the opinion that WP:NPOV is obsolete, or at least should be drastically altered. So I wonder about the purpose of this noticeboard.--Filll (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about, obsolete? It and BLP are supposed to be as close to immutable and ironclad law as we have. Lawrence § t/e 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am afraid maybe you have been living on another planet for the last few months. Arbcomm and others have suggested strongly that NPOV is not really of any interest and WP:CIVIL is the only thing that is important on WP.--Filll (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I know all about some of the recent nonsense, hence the creation of this last noticeboard to finish our collection. Arbcom has no authority to override Foundation principals (and any Arbiter who even suggests that in regards to NPOV should be dumped posthaste at the next election for extreme lack of clue or common sense); not even Jimmy Wales has any authority to do that. This noticeboard will be the perfect venue to expose any abuse of NPOV, problems with application of it, or gaming of it. Lawrence § t/e 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The community is free to develop and enforce whatever rules we like. While ArbCom really only punishes sockpuppetting and incivility, the community is free to correct any other problems we see fit. WilyD 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I think that is a nice story, but does not comport with reality. This is a dictatorship, and if we do not like it, we can leave. And the current mood of the ruling class is that NPOV should go.--Filll (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I will believe it when I see it. I do not think that the efforts to try to enforce an outdated obsolete policy will be successful in the face of immense political power. Clearly the powers that be have decided this is a bad policy and does not belong on WP. Do you not realize that this is a dictatorship and experienced editors are only filthy "dogs" and basically unwanted here?--Filll (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mayhap it is, mayhap it ain't. Mayhap it won't be for long. Lawrence § t/e 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We will see, won't we? I am not optimistic.--Filll (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

While I've been generally opposed to this recent growth in noticeboards, I'm wondering why Fringe Theories can't be merged into this and RS. I mean basically Fringe Theories articles lack an NPOV or they hav bad sources. MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be the target, if some merge where to occur, being the proverbial Parent Law from which all others descend. Lawrence § t/e 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Dlabtot (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They should probably all be deleted as unnecessary and unwanted. And replaced with a WP:CIVIL noticeboard since that is the only thing that is important. Maybe with noticeboards for sarcasm and humor to block those who engage in either of those.--Filll (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a thing already exists. WilyD 17:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

um.. the current mood of the ruling class is that NPOV should go -- what utter and complete nonsense. Dlabtot (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm is really a dying art form, i'n'it? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 13:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the clumsy and overbearing use of sarcasm excuse a fundamentally flawed underlying point? No. Dlabtot (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Test example?

I've added a gentle example. I'm not making a POINT, just starting with a subject that should be easier to help than the real edit-warry articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments about my example can come here. The whole point about NPOV is that it applies to all editors. Saying "I wanted to insert critical information, and was reverted here, here and here" isnt just evidence of other editors anti-critical POV, but -possibly- of the reporting editors POV pushing agenda. Homeopathy is an excellent example. The only positive thing I could say about it is that small amounts of clean water isn't dangerous, but everything else I could say about it would have to be negative. Some people suggest this is use of reliable sources and not giving undue weight, others would mention writing for the enemy and pov-pushing.
• Also, this board is going to be flooded -as ani is now- with familiar suspects, extending arguments from the talk page across the project. A neutrally presented report allows people to read an article and see if, in their first reading, it's neutral or if the article spends too long talking about a minor incident in someone's life, or misrepresents a scientific point. I guess after that initial reading people will dive into the specific diffs anyway. ut, you know, good luck and everything. Dan Beale-Cocks 08:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

I would like to see a push for more examples of what NPOV means. For example, "in proportion to their prominence" might mean that if 40% of veterinarians believe X and 60% believe Y, that our article be split roughly 40/60 in terms of content. I would like to see the word FRINGE defined with examples a bit more. Is it something 10% or less believe? 20% ? 10% of experts or 10% of consumers or the public? What kind of experts? Academics? In which field? The public in which country? We need examples because we are getting snowed by POV pushers that we cannot fight against since they have learned to game the system.--Filll (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Such examples are totally unnecessary. The policy is actually pretty clear as it is. Dlabtot (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll: Your assumptions of bad faith are not helpful. Can you add to the discussion without ABF? You like to equate NPOV with percentages. It certainly provides a framework within which articles can be developed but it falls short of capturing the spirit of NPOV. Consider the policy states, Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Anthon01 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, I have asked you several times. I am asking you yet again. Please write a document describing your interpretation of NPOV since clearly you believe everyone else (particularly those of SPOV) and those with 20,000 or 50,000 more edits than you, has the interpretation of NPOV incorrect. If you start, I will be glad to give you a list of specific questions I want to have you answer in detail to get you started. Dlabtot, you are also invited to do the same, either in collaboration with Anthon01 or independently. Since I have it wrong, tell me what is correct. And let's discuss it. Perhaps it should be scrapped or rewritten. Let's find out.--Filll (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear: I think WP:NPOV is just fine as it is and does not need any reinterpretation by me. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Dlabtot (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the policy is clear. But when I state my interpretation of the policy, I am told over and over, 100s of times, that I am incorrect, that I am uncivil, that I am a threat to WP, that I am bad, that I should leave, etc. I am threatened and haranged and harassed, etc. So obviously, I and the other SPOV editors must have it wrong. So, tell us in what way we have it wrong.--Filll (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, just provide a diff of anything I've ever said and I'll explain exactly what I meant. Dlabtot (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the matter? Can't find any diffs that substantiate the false charges you've laid against me? Dlabtot (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What false charges against you? I am not going to go back and look at every edit you ever made to see if I can find anything I do not understand. I am talking in generalities here. After all, I have hardly interacted with you. If I come across anything in the future, I will take it from there. Ok?--Filll (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, in response to my comment that I thought the NPOV policy was clear, you said you been accused of being "uncivil, that I am a threat to WP, that I am bad, that I should leave, etc. I am threatened and haranged and harassed, etc. " Clearly I have never done any of those things to you. All I said was that the NPOV policy is clear and doesn't need changing. Dlabtot (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Should this board exist?

If this board is just going to be another front in the endless homeopathy wars, I'm going to MfD it. I see no reason why this toxic discussion should infect yet another page.

Aside from the homeopathy problem I'm skeptical that this noticeboard will be useful. What will it do that RfCs can't? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is prominent here at the moment, but there are lots of other places where NPOV is contentious. Creationism and intelligent design and evolution. Articles about ghosts. What the bleep do we know?. ESP. Cold fusion. Pseudoscience of all kinds. Alternative medicine of all kinds. Conspiracy theories of all kinds.

Believe me, if you think that the homeopathy articles are the only place where NPOV is an issue, you have not been paying attention. Perhaps NPOV should be done away with completely; I think there are plenty of forces in that direction at the moment and I think the momentum to do away with NPOV is building; in that case, this noticeboard is not of much value.

However, if it is decided that NPOV should stay, then a place to quickly address the issues would be highly valuable. The way we deal with NPOV now is atrocious. To ask someone to take 50 hours to prepare an RfC for NPOV when there are literally thousands upon thousands of NPOV disputes is just over the top. Should I have to file an RfC every time I am dealing with vandalism or 3RR or WP:CIVIL as well? How many 3RR cases would be brought if the person bringing them would have to spend 50 hours to bring one?

So...--Filll (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting an article RfC isn't hard--take a look at the current listings for science and technology article RfCs. All you need is a capsule description, the discussion takes place on the article's talk page. I just don't think RfCs are worthwhile--they rarely get outside input. And, I notice that the discussion about homeopathy on this board isn't getting any outside input either. This leads me to think that this board will not be worthwhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that I think there are plenty of NPOV problems on Wikipedia--I just don't see that this board is useful in addressing them. Right now it looks like an echo chamber for a long-running dispute that has little chance of being solved until some editors have major changes of attitude (or, they're blocked). --Akhilleus (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Dlabtot (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well but the way things are going, it will not be the homeopathy advocates that are asked to change attitude, or the homeopathy advocates that will be blocked. It will be the proponents of including mainstream views, or academic views, or scientific views in articles. That is more likely.

I will note that this board is still very new. No one knows about it. And we have not developed procedures for dealing with NPOV. If that is going to happen, we should. If on the other hand, NPOV is going to disappear, then I agree completely that this board is stupid.--Filll (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dozens of editors have already spent months discussing / edit-warring over minute details, so I'm unsure how this board will help. There'll be accusations of canvassing or forum shopping. It might help to get a few more editor eyes on some articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be considered an informal step, like WP:WQA, and problems that have already gone to RfC or beyond would be considered beyond this noticeboard's purview. Dlabtot (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This board should not exist. NPOV discussions belong on the project pages of the specific article. This will just make resolving such disputes into a more bureaucratic, less reasonable process. Bensaccount (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...or get more eyes on out of sight problems so that tiny minorities of editors can't lord over obscure topics with their own POV. Lawrence § t/e 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A much more harmless alternative. Bensaccount (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In my experience and observation, the RfC process is not effective in bringing helpful attention to a problem, and the process of starting an RfC is daunting. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is a much more effective mechanism for bringing the community's attention to an issue, and (unlike WP:RFC) it does not require that the initiator follow detailed instructions and enter information into complex templates. Based on my experience, I think a noticeboard is a good idea, but I wonder whether it makes sense to continue adding narrow-focus noticeboards... --Orlady (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

2 weeks in, for NPOVN

Seems to be working ok, so far. A bit slow to start, but what isn't? Lawrence § t/e 15:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been useful to get some extra eyes on articles. It's interesting to see people who don't know much about an article's subject balancing the article against sources and references. I'm not sure I like the "provide diffs and we'll pronounce" method used on this board - a "have a look at this article and see if you think it's NPOV or not" might be handy for many articles. But yes, I agree it's working well so far. Dan Beale-Cocks 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel it has been useful, primarily due to Lawrence's williness to assist so readily. In response to the above, in my case the method he advocates was used, and did work well. Xymmax (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I check in when I can, and the longer the board is around, the more people will see it and check it, getting faster. Eventually. Lawrence § t/e 06:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this noticeboard is a disaster. The premise is that it is for concerns about articles, but so far its main use is for complaints about editors. There are other, more appropriate forums for those complaints. --Una Smith (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking again, it's not quite that bad. Just send the user conduct complaints away sooner. --Una Smith (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving problems

Hi. This board doesn't seem to be working, because you have 6 archives, but only two contain anything. Also, items are archived without any replies, and the noticeboard is still backlogged! Please try to resolve this issue, as not enough people are participating. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: 13 archives, all seem to be in good order. Just no link from the main page, which I've fixed by restoring the Archive-box (also noted below in reply to Blue Ras..). PrBeacon (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Point? (resumed)

I only just looked here yesterday, & found you'd already been discussing an issue I raised @ Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Procedure. I approve of the objective, but let's be blunt. These noticeboards are just RfC under another name, with a different classification & simpler procedure to place. Is there any reason to suppose that all the people who ignore RfC will suddenly flock to respond to these notices?

To be blunt again, neither the authorities nor the community are currently prepared to enforce NPOV. It's a dead letter. It's like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; nearly everyone pays lip service to it, quite a lot of people observe it voluntarily, but it's not enforced.

Can anything be done about this? Who decides these things anyway? It's a matter of policy which policies are actually enforced by the authorities, & the policies are supposed to be decided by "consensus". Does that simply mean the people who hang around policy pages? Has anyone tried RfC on changing this policy? Those seem to be notified to everyone, if not too prominently. How about a bot to send a message to everyone, like the welcome messages? Have such things been tried?

Or perhaps the best thing we could do is give up & leave the propagandists to discredit WP &/or force it to change. Maybe the future lies with Wikinfo, which simply forks & hatlinks POV disputes. They don't bother about distinctions like OR, RS, FT, notability &c. Such a simple policy might stand a chance of being actually enforceable. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guideline on Advocacy

I have created Wikipedia:Advocacy as a tool for informing editors about a particular type of WP:NPOV violation. Edits and comments are welcome. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Scope and definitions

As I read it, the notion of POV contained within this policy (per the "Reasoning behind neutrality" section) is tied to the existence of competing opinions on a subject in reliable sources. For example, our article on Cat needs to note that the domestic cat is considered both a popular pet and an environmental menace (and it does).

But is this policy intended to apply on a "meta" level as well and require that the scope of an article must cover all possible definitions of a term? For example, a broader definition of "cat" includes not only the domestic cats that our article covers, but a wide variety of wild cats including extinct varieties like the Sabre-tooth tiger. As I see it, this is a pragmatic issue of scoping an article, and is not a POV issue. What do others think?

(This issue has come up at glider, and I wanted to check my understanding here before wading in any deeper! :) ) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The policy as written should apply to more than just single articles, within reason. WP:POVFORK is a very specific case where NPOV applies to multiple articles. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your reply. Could you please expand a little? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concerns, so I gave an example where NPOV definitely applies to more than one article, in the hope that you could use it to clarify your concerns further by either agreeing or explaining why you don't agree. Is POVFORK and example of what you're talking about? --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's naming conventions, the most common name should be used if possible. The objective is that the subject matter displayed after searching on a word should be what a typical user might expect. Thus a user might type in 'London' or 'Jerusalem' and should not be surprised to see an article on the cities concerned. (There would also be a disambiguation link at the head of the page.) There should be no question of neutrality here; these cities are the primary meanings of the words. There will be other occasions, such as plane, where the word could refer to an aircraft, a tool, a mathematical surface, skimming along water, or a tree. Entering the word 'plane' should present the user with a disambiguation page because there is no way of guessing what a typical user might be looking for. Complications can arise on the occasions where the name is both the popular name for an object and the name for an academic class of related objects, as in 'cat'. However the pretext of neutrality should not be used to suppress articles that use the primary meaning of a word as its title, such as 'cat' or 'London, even if there are other secondary or technical meanings. The next question is what constitutes a material controversy. If just one person thinks that 'cat' should just be a disambiguation page, is there a material controversy? As soon as one person disagrees, should we comply with Wolfkeeper's request to apply NPOV always and so move articles such as cat to cat (domestic)? Note that the debate is not about 'cat' but 'glider' but cats are a good analogy. JMcC (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC) & JMcC (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Backlog

Board seems quite quiet, quite a backlog Sticky Parkin 02:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy to Violate NPOV through Edit War and Information Suppression

Here is an organized and concerted conspiracy to violate NPOV by removing any use of the word "cold" to descibe the mantle even though the verifiable and reliable peer-reviewed science uses the word "cold" over and over again to describe the mantle. Also see Expanding Earth where a deliberate organized attempt is being made to suppress any information that might portray the hypothesis in NPOV. Wikkidd (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: This editor has been indefinitely blocked for aggressively promoting a fringe theory, and so has an apparent sockpuppet, User:Sophergeo. Rd232 ^talk 12:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the basic difference between this board and the neutrality project?

We already have Wikipedia:WikiProject_Neutrality - what is or should be the relationship? dougweller (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Looks duplicative and semi-dead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an effort going on to rescucitate it. dougweller (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The question still hasn't been answered :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The boards seem to be two different ideas for solving the same problem. WikiProject Neutrality had four edits in the past week, and this one more than twenty. These neutrality boards have the same problem as WP:COIN: a shortage of 'patrollers'. That is, people who have the patience to look at the problems that are submitted and try to give advice on them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This board is for users who have specific questions in a single instance of something they can concisely state. The neutrality project is for applying NPOV philosophy to an entire article, and would be the place to go to discuss rectifying pov creep that has permeated an entire article or set of articles.

In other words, fast practical answers to easy questions come from here, and discussion of the nature of NPOV goes there. Blue Rasberry 15:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this noticeboard work?

I sometimes work at the reliable sources noticeboard, and it seems like we're pretty good at saying "reliable" or "not reliable", and based on the arguments rarely spilling over into the noticeboard, it seems like the opinions garnered there are generally followed. Here, it seems like each section points big differences of opinion, and it doesn't seem like a small statement here is going to actually make these people back down. Is there a better way of using this that I'm not seeing? Should questions be taken somewhere else? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's probably a couple reasons for this. First, determining whether a source is a WP:RS is often a fairly straightforward matter. WP:NPOV requires intimate knowledge of what the dispute is about, including how much WP:WEIGHT a particular viewpoint should get. Second, and probably more important, POV-pushers are far more dedicated about making sure their POV gets as much coverage as possible.

Is there a better way? Yes, there's a proposal to create ArbComs to handle sub-issues like these. You can find it here: Can we more effectively manage content disputes?. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this noticeboard work?. No.

Very good idea in practice, severely lacking in practicality. Even if you gather some third opinions here people can still debate the third opinions. It's basically useless. (read those Falun Gong-related things above, you'd get a good idea.) Colipon+(Talk) 03:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this noticeboard work?. Sometimes - and very well - but with the less topical and less eternal disputes, a less-entrenched and reasonably objective third party, willing to spend some time and do a bit of research, can often find the 'middle line' that has eluded the POV-warriors on both sides. However, I suspect topics like Falun Gong et al are never going to get anywhere from here. --Jaymax (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias actively being practised?

I point you to the Cybersquatting discussion page. As you can see, there was an uproar when Wikipedia decided that Domaining (the 100% legal, as per many news sources, and multi-million dollar industry) was equal to "Cybersquatting" (the 100% illegal and wrong practise) and put in a re-direct as such.

After a lot of proof was shown, a Domaining page was set-up. However now, the same biased Wikipedia admin who caused the wrongful re-direct is now pushing to delete the Domaining page, probably to re-direct it back to the cybersquatting page. How is this in-keeping with Wikipedia's policies?

Please look at all the reputable links and proof given to support the fact that "Domaining" is a reputable and legal practise.--82.15.29.29 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Tristan Perry

Van Jones

Why has Wikipedia locked down the Van Jones article in a state where it is heavily biased in his favor, papering over all the new information that has come to light about his views and life? It reads like a propaganda piece relative to the truth, written by his staff. Even the discussion page was locked down! The same thing happened when there was controversy about John Edwards having a child, and Wikipedia editors locked down the page and would not allow any comments about his having a child out of wedlock despite reports in reputable newspapers and on Fox News. It was like "He is a liberal Democrat and we are going to protect him." Meanwhile, the pages on Bush, Cheney, Palin etc. would publish any rumor, no matter the validity.

The bias in Wikipedia is too blatant. Something needs to be done as when one searches for information, Wikipedia is often the first source, but it is providing a very biased source. At least open the discussion page so that new information coming to light can be placed so the reader can realize that they are being progagandized in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.24.158 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and one of the problems that I see is that it's using blogs and opinion pieces for statements of fact. At best, blogs and opinion pieces can only be used for statements of opinion and they must be attributed in line. However, given that this is a biography of a living person, my understanding is that we can't use them at all in claims about third-parties. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A request for consistent application of NPOV and BLP

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#A_request_for_consistent_application_of_NPOV_and_BLP. THF (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Dili

User J. Patrick Fischer (talk) is removing systematically the symbols of the city of Dili alleging they are not used anymore. The problem is that he doesn´t quote any relevant source to remove the symbols and prove they are not used anymore, despite there´s a law supporting them. I gave the data, he is disputing it, just for personal taste. Domaleixo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Cohan

Vested interests are editing this page abusively by attempting to restrict it's content to that which is strictly positive. It reeks of astroturfing (which is a type of fraud). -Nuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

-- 27 April 2010 [1] [2] (adding timestamp for archive) -PrBeacon (talk)

Please check my work for problems

Hey, I just moved most of the page content into a header and did some other cleanup. I used the format at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as a template, because I thought that page was better organized than this one. Could someone else verify that everything is in order? Also, comments? Thanks, Blue Rasberry 15:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is where I put the content: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Header Thanks, Blue Rasberry 15:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The archive box was missing so I went ahead and restored it. PrBeacon (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry for stranding 14 pages of content! Thanks! Blue Rasberry 00:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

New Suggested Rules for Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

I think that before someone makes a comment on this board they should have to state each time if they are involved or uninvolved. My experience has been that a group of editors enter the noticeboards and make misleading comments about the issue.

Users have entered the debate without saying if they had been previously involved. Thus, third party neutral editors were likely to mistake previously involved editors as uninvolved editors.

• Involved users should write IN: before each post
• Uninvolved users should have to write UV:

In my experience, friends of users have showed up here, and elsewhere and provided opinions without detailing their involvement or that they are friends of one or more of the involved parties. Many of their comments were misleading also. They thus dillute the discussion down in a way that is confusing to third party users who can't determine who is who and don't want to take the time to investigate in detail.

This will allow uninvolved users each time someone comments to clearly see which users are more likely to spin things. Those users are the involved users. By writing just two letters before each comment, it will also enable uninvolved users to see if the issue still needs the attention of one or more uninvolved users.

By just writing IN: or UV: before posting things will quickly become more simple, this could apply not just here but on many of the other boards too (neutral point of view, Reliable Sources, ect.).

Also, some editors may try to fake uninvolvent by writing UV: , in this case when it is obvious that another user is faking uninvolvement another user could cross out their uv with UV:. If the uninvolvement of a user is disputed other editors could than add the letter d to what that user says.For example, UVD: or maybe UV?:

There should also be consequences for obvious faking of uninvolvement such as a topic ban for frequent violators or temporary account blocks for those who do it on purpose.

New users might at first make some mistakes but would quickly learn if someone told them after their first few comments. This rule could also possibly apply to some of the other boards where third party assistance in needed.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also raised at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Subheadings of Involved/Uninvolved Dougweller (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a few suggestions at the top of the page now, such as providing a link to the article diffs of contentious edits. I do not believe that many people read this because frequently the requested data is not included in postings. I do not support a punishment system of any kind, and anyway I do not feel like anyone abuses this board. user:Preciseaccuracy, what makes you think there is a problem in need of a solution? You have only been posting here for about 3 days. Do you know of some trouble on another board? Blue Rasberry 13:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this board. The "Art Student Scam" section. A group of users formerly involved showup and dilute the discussion with comments that reliable sources are touting urban myths and that the guardian is gossip. They also make misleading comments about an articlesfordeletion page. I had to make sure to state that a third party user thoroughly go through the sources so that they wouldn't be misled by the comments of the other users. I also had to make sure to explain that users commenting had been previously involved less a third party user mistake them for uninvolved users. This same sort of thing has occurred elsewhere on other boards too.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I come to this board almost every day and so do many other people. For many problems involved users come to this board and try to start a riot by engaging in all sorts of odd behavior. I do not think I have ever had a problem separating those people who know NPOV from those people who want to repeat things they have already said more forcefully and to a new audience. See WP:ICANTHEARYOU; identifying these characteristics gets to be a habit after a while.

As for your request about having tags on posts, I feel that you have a different idea of the purpose of this board than me. I feel that a post on this board is more of an advertisement than an exposition. If a post seems interesting, then people will follow it to the board where the problem is, read the article, read the talk page, then get involved. It is rarely possible to consider this board alone, so sneaky editors get discovered quickly.

While it might be nice if people who dilute discussion would identify themselves as being involved and having a bias, I feel that the kind of people who are out to cause trouble are not the kind who admit to biases. What do you think?

Also, this board could use more attention. If you feel that things could be better here, put it on your watchlist and start getting involved in discussions. Blue Rasberry 20:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been almost four days and a third party hasn't commented on the post on I made. It is likely that given the number of comments already made, third parties may have thought that third party intervention has already occurred. Sorry, if you are offended by a practical suggeston for both here as well as other noticeboards. Users writing IN: or UV: before their posts.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, if the rules state that users should write in or uv they will have to admit their previous involvement. If they are found to be lying about their involvement that would be grounds for getting an account temporarily blockedPreciseaccuracy (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally support the rule. I just do not support enforcement against people who either do not declare their previous involvement or fixed consequences for lying about previous involvement. Also, I do not know how you could sell the idea to people who post on this page for reasons previously stated. I put the unresolved template on your post to try to get involved feedback. Uninvolved editors usually do not want to get involved until the conversation stops, though, and involved editors have been posting during the past four days. Blue Rasberry 23:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Commented out collapsible panel tags

I have commented out the use of the tags {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} on this page. The reason is that a bot copies content from this page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming, indenting every line of text. It also indents the collapsible panel tags, breaking the bottom tag and causing the entire rest of every page the text is included in to be inside the collapsible panel, even if it comes after the collapse bottom tag. JIP | Talk 08:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

UAF

this section refectored from wt:NPOV. --Ludwigs2 17:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Link to the RSN discusion [[3]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been advised that I bring this here. A dispute has arisen over the issue of the left wing nature of Unite Against Fascism. It hinges on the issue of weight. These sources [4][5]][ [[6] all say that the UAF is left wing (there are other contested sources that say it too, and a few local news papers I have left out). The debate is here Talk:Unite_Against_Fascism#Left_Wing. Outside input would be useful. The essentially dispute is whether or not there is sufficient weight to put the fact they are left wing in the lead (based on articles such as English Defence League, where they are labeled far right). Or if it should just say that they have been called left wing by some sources. The basic argument is that if we can call group A naughty (even though they deny it) should we not call group B Saucey (because they don’t deny it) based upon what outside RS call the group.This applies to the wider question of labeling. It seems that its often used to make a point (and very rarly sseems to represent what the group or prson that is the subject of the artciel thinks). I feel that guidlines need to be made clearer in this matters and we need some kind of consenssu as to what we can and cannot say is a fact in leads and infoboxes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved with this, personally - Collect's right-wing POV-pushing gives me a headache, and this issue doesn't strike me as sufficiently problematic to deal with that. Plus, left-wing means something different in the UK political milieu than in the American context, which makes it a bi hard for me to judge the sense of the phrase. If the term 'left-wing' really bothers you here, then change the phrasing to 'described as left-wing' and insist on attribution. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

when in doubt, call someone a name? As I am not especially "right wing" I find this name-calling a tad amusing at best. Collect (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

hadn't meant it as name-calling so much as pointing out the headache-inducing aspect. you may be from whatever wing you perceive yourself as being from, if any; it's not a pain in the wing your style of interaction is giving me. --Ludwigs2 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My issue is not with just this page but the wider issue of labelling in general. Its the lack of consistency I find disturbing, by the way there was a threat of ANI over this issue so someone thinks its important). At the end of the day my concern is the apparent lack of consistency with labelling in general which this (and the far right UK pages) brings up. Whose opinion matters in matters of labelling (and it should not matter what the label is, or what it means to whom) the person or group being labels) or outside opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This item has already been raised at the reliable sources notice board. With the exception of Slater those editors who got involved came to the conclusion that there was only one reliable source which labeled the UAF as Left Wing and that peripheral. Given that the UAF has referenced support from the leader of the UK's main right wing party it failed on WP:WEIGHT. The EDL in contrast is referenced as "far right' in every British broadsheet newspaper. It is also worth noting that many right wing organisations (the leader of the BNP is one) seek to label multi-party groups as "left wing" as a way of trying to reduce the impact of their support (in the case of the UAF from left to right). The original insertion of the label by the way resulted from edit warring , no consensus has been established. We could do with some more eyes on this as we now have behavioral issues that are preventing any progress on resolving the content issue. --Snowded ^TALK 19:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I count at least three edss who say one or more of the sources are RS (and with one exception, which does not appear to have been commented on) all of the soures I linked to here have been called RS by at least one other edd (except teh one that has not been commented on). The general drift being this was less about RS (as there were sources that say they are left wing) but rather an issue of undue. Hence its raising here (as susgested by a number of edds).Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest other editors read the existing comments on the RS notice board, I think that makes things clear. --Snowded ^TALK 19:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've started a more general thread on labeling over at wt:NPOV. I'm pretty sure the issue has come up before, though, so I don't have a lot of belief it's going to get resolved this time. but we'll see. --Ludwigs2 19:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What seems at least in part to be driving the POV editing going on is dismay at editors in a different discussion labelling the English Defence League (and the John Birch Society) as right-wing. There are countless high quality RSs for these labels, which is exactly the situation where we do not employ self-description alone. But in the case of UAF, such sourcing is extremely sparse. (One passing reference in a Times article). It is also contradicted by other very good RS. Slatersteven's "sources" include the Daily Star, a stand-up comic in a local paper, and a website that carries BNP propaganda. I agree with Snowded that there are some serious behavioural issues here. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple mentions (not just one) and so far no one has provided a source denying it. I have offered a solution to Snowded but he has refused to try it out.Cptnono (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono: just as a point of reason, you cannot place a condition that the group needs to explicitly deny the label. We're not playing the old Eisenhower game here (he famously said that the way to win an election is to call your opponent a pig-f@cker and force him to deny it), and it's logically impossible to prove a negative anyway. we need to base this on whether the sourcing is good enough to use the term on its own merits, not whether there's sufficient rebuttal to throw it into question.--Ludwigs2 05:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I have not read everything here. However, I have been invited on my Talk page to comment, or so I believe. That said, my contribution is this. One argument against using "left-wing" is "Yes, the Times is RS, but it's only a passing comment." Only a passing comment. Think about that. Instead of looking at it as "only a passing comment", look at it as a given, that the group is "left-wing", so only a passing comment was needed to say so. In other words, it is possible that since it's a given generally that "left-wing" applies, "only a passing comment" is all that's needed for the purposes of the Times writer to make his point at that time. All that said, I know nothing of the parties or issues involved. So I'm giving you all an unbiased view that perhaps "only a passing comment" was given because "only a passing comment" is needed since it's a given that "left-wing" is an accurate description. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Note - Invited by one of the leading protagonists based on past support and with an interesting history. The second diff here shows that the statement "I know nothing of the parties or issues involved" is false.--Snowded ^TALK 08:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The "passing comment" is made in more than a half-dozen sources given -- not just The Times. Though all the others get deleted as being biassed, I suppose (claims the Daily Mail is so right wing that it does not count as RS, according to some). Collect (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But there's also the fact that there's other contradicting sources. At the end of the day, this is an organisation which has support from across the political spectrum but mainly from the left. That's the stark-staringly obvious truth of the matter which I don't think anyone would deny. Why not have the article reflect the stark-staringly obvious truth, rather than just focussing on the cites that support your POV? The fact that the majority of support from the organisation comes from the means that it has been characterised as left-wing in less analytical examples of journalistic coverage. This is not surprising, but it should also not lead us to ignore and fail to reflect the range of sources available. --FormerIP (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a repeated insistence that there are loads of unchallenged sources. This is just wrong. Let's look at these sources again, on yet another page.

• Of the 48 articles in the Times that mention UAF, precisely one refers to the UAF as left-wing. 18 times it's referred to as "anti-fascist", four times as "anti-racist". So for the Times coverage, the label left-wing is really not very prominent. Please note that the POV editors keep repeating the falsehood that those opposing their moves are trying to argue that the Times is not an RS newspaper. We're not. We just don't think one mention in one article once without analysis overcomes weight issues in lede descriptors.
• They have one article from the Daily Mail (out of 42 that cover UAF). The Mail is well-known for skewing its stories against immigration and non-white Britons. I've raised other examples on other pages covering this (falsifying stats/making stories up), but here's more on how they are: for example, this is a cartoon depicting marriage between white people and immigrants as between a man and an animal, and they've had to apologise in the recent past for covering attempts to recruit overseas doctors in the NHS with a cartoon of an African witch doctor straddling a woman (caption:"Answer the doctor, Mrs Wilberforce, have you drunk your warm cockerel's blood this morning?"). This story is a cracker: a Daily Mail reporter put out an email as part of research, which read "I am urgently looking for anonymous horror stories of people who have employed Eastern European staff, only for them to steal from them, disappear, or have lied about their resident status. We can pay you £100 for taking part, and I promise it will be anonymous, just a quick phone call. Could you email me asap? Many thanks, Diana". They also despise the the head of the UAF, Ken Livingstone, and refer to him in news stories as "Red Ken". We can't treat the Mail as RS on this topic. Collect repeats the falsehood that the objection is about the Daily Mail being right-wing, even though he's been told that's not the issue. It's that the Mail's views infect its news reporting beyond what is acceptable for RS, which requires confidence that they check their facts for accuracy. The Times is also a right wing newspaper, but it does not routinely let its views impinge upon the objectivity of its reporting.
• The Daily Express has also been cited - it's like the Daily Mail's bad-tempered granny. See here as one classic example of borderline insane reporting. For those of you unfamiliar with the UK, the red tops (tabloids, yellow press) do actually just make stuff up. Here's a little collage of Daily Express and Daily Star headlines I found to give you an idea. These are not RS on this matter. Quite how any editor can put forward the Daily Star (more nipples than facts) which they also have here, as a source and keep a straight face I have no idea.
• Another source cited is a regional entertainment circuit comedian and compere writing a humorous column in a local newspaper. Seriously. This is what you get when you scrape the barrel of a google news search.
• And another is pakistan.tv, with the specifically cited page containing praise for the brave cameramen at BNP.tv. For some reason the POV editors seem to think that the name "pakistan.tv" means people objecting to their edits will accept this as an RS. They don't seem to grasp that we're not defending the UAF, we're defending the encyclopedia's standards of sourcing.
• Weirdest of all is their source that describes the UAF as a grouping of left-wing and anti-racist groups. That's actually not a source for a label at all. Some of the constituent bodies of the UAF, an umbrella organisation, are left-wing. No one's disputing that. It doesn't make the whole organisation left-wing. Several senior conservatives including the Prime Minister (for Heaven's sake!) as signatories to UAF, as well as an Ulster Unionist suggest that it's more than left-wing.

So yes, there's one article in one RS source that make a brief mention of the UAF as left-wing, without any analysis explaining why the label is applied. And then articles in the BBC and the Guardian which describe UAF in a manner that contradicts the label. And there's the small matter of the leader of the Conservative party and curent Prime Minister, as well as other senior Conservative politicians, being signatories to UAF. Some people may be wondering - what's the big deal? It's that BNP sources and other anti-immigrant and far-right organisations seek to characterise all activist opposition to them as "left-wing". Wikipedia shouldn't be part of that particular political game. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment UAF was set up to oppose "far right" organizations in the UK, including the British National Party (BNP) and the English Defence League (EDL) and includes support from across the political spectrum, including the current Conservative prime minister. The BNP developed from the British Union of Fascists and its leaders have been involved in celebrations of Hitler's birthday and holocaust denial, and have maintained links with David Duke, the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The EDL has attracted soccer hooligans, and is seen as a threat by the police in the U.K., and has attacked foreigners. Google-mining has been able to find scattered references to the UAF as left-wing, although the overwhelming majority of sources do not call them that. I do not see what we should label a group "left-wing" because it opposes fascism. Ironically, User:Collect, who insists on this label, argues that fascism is left-wing, which would make UAF "anti-left-wing". TFD (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • • COMMENT I have never argued that fascism is "left wing" - I did argue on the appropriate talk pages that RS sources have used the term "left, right and centre" which was based on actual sources, and not what I know and falsely claiming that I hold a position which I do not hold is not helpful on any WP discussion whatever. Nor do I suggest that any "anti-fascist" group is therefore "left wing." What I do suggest, however, is that were more than a dozen RS sources use a term about an organization, that the claim, properly ascribed to those sources, properly belongs in WP. I make and have made no personal judgements whatever on any organization or person's position in the "political spectrum" although I have pointed out that the use of a "political spectrum" may be problematic, especially when subjected to such adjectives as "extreme", "radical" or "far", where different sources use decidedly different adjectives. I would also point out that the UAF was started by the Socialist Workers Party, which, as I understand, is generally considered in reliable sources to be "left wing." Lastly, no one has provided any sources which contradict the general positioning by the dozen sources found saying the term "left wing" is a reasonable and maderate term relating to the UAF. TFD, please redact your false claim regarding my position. Although you have never done so in the past, this is a good place to start. Collect (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your statement that the UAF was started by the SWP is misleading - the SWP was only one of the groups that started the UAF. That is the same logic as saying that the UN was started by the USSR and is therefore a Communist organization. In any case, it is synthesis. TFD (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The socialst web page avers that the SWP was the starter. Far be it from me to deny their own claims without a contradicting reliable source. Collect (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The website does not say that and in any case is not a reliable source for the UAF. TFD (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect, given that recently he's been telling editors off because they don't have as many edits as him, really should know better about sourcing. The SWP statements are not RS. They're a primary source. Furthermore, he knows full well that there is sourcing contradicting this. Bere's the BBC: Unite Against Fascism, a new group supported by trade unions and MPs from all parties, including Tory leader David Cameron, and veteran left wing campaigner Tony Benn. He's been shown this source before. There's also a Guardian piece criticising the SWP for making claims about UAF, which, as the article says, "its greatest strength should be its non-partisan nature". The article states Unite Against Fascism is a group which was founded with the aim of uniting "the broadest possible spectrum of society" against far right politics. The list of UAF supporters illustrates its success in that goal. Outside editors should note that he's been shown this source before too.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Three points: (1) Its noteworthy that when I attempted a compromise edit which would have followed FormerIP of making the glaring selfevident evident it was immediately reversed (2) there is a prior history of IP vandalism campaign on the article and in parallel on the EDL one. That campaign (which mirrors one in real life by extreme right wing parties) seeks to portray the EDL as a moderate pressure group (against all the evidence) and cast the all party supported UAF as left wing extremists. This latest attempt is another to suborn Wikipedia to that perspective. (3) the current insertion of "left wing" was immediately opposed and the supporting editors edit warred without consensus or even a majority of engaged editors. It is very noticible that those editors supporting the left wing insertion have at no stage even attempted to deal with the support give to the UAF by prominent right wing politiicians, those arguments are ignored and we just the manta of "I have a reference so it stands"; POV insertion and argument without engagement. The edit war showed a complete failure to abide by WP:BRD and there have also been attacks on the right of people to edit and other behavioural issues. --Snowded ^TALK 08:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect, could you list these dozen sources? All I can see is the Times plus a lot of unusable stuff. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is going on at the same time on RSN. I would prefer to see the quality of the sources raised one by one on RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect, could you please list these dozen reliable sources?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, you're just prolonging the inevitable in asking him to list the sources. He doesn't even need to find a dozen sources in order to let the ruling stand. He needs either one really mainstream paper or a couple of other tabloids. On the grounds that being described "left-wing" isn't by default derogatory, I see no objection to the tagging of it thus when it's really beyond doubt that the mechanics of the group are all left. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy that logic, Alexandre8. An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect information, so it's not a merely question of whether the term is derogatory. If there's no real evidence that anyone outside of a couple of tabloids calls the group left-wing, then why are we calling it left-wing? I mean, if we found a couple of tabloids that called UAF 'cautious' or 'informed', would that be justification for saying "The UAF is a cautious, informed group..."? The point of sourcing is to ensure that an idea has some reasonable prominence in the real world. reducing sourcing to 'someone said it therefore it must be true' is a bad move. --Ludwigs2 19:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Times is not a tabloid. Also the Telegraph has carried pieces which have called the group left wing. The Spectator has called them troskiyte (about as left wing as you can get). New ppolitics (a left wing political commentry magazine has also carried an Op-edd peice by Peter Tatchel calling the UAF left wing. Its not a view repoerted by 'just a couple of tabloids', or even one broadsheet.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The point here, again (and note that I don't really care about the result - this is purely on principle) is that we should be trying to give the correct impression. If the UAF is largely considered a left-wing group we should report that. if the UAF is largely considered a moderate group, we should not report that they are left-wing as a fact, regardless of of whether they have been called such. The sourcing problem here is determining whether the use of the label 'left-wing' is a common understanding (in sources) of the nature of the group, or whether it's a casual reference made occasionally (in sources) to distinguish them from right-wing groups. The sources I've seen here feel far more like casual references than any systematic belief that the UAF is overtly leftist - my own sense is that 'left-wing' should probably be used with attribution here, if it's used as a label in the lead at all. --Ludwigs2 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We do not have a source calling them moderate and we do not have a rebuttal of "left wing" from the group or commentators. Someone said that there was over at the talk page but they have not provided it after being asked four times. This is not a contentious label. It s simply a characteristic of the group if the sources are to be believed.Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're point is: why would we need a source that says they are 'not' left wing? we don't attribute normality: for instance, I'm sure we do not have a source that says the Prime Minister of England is of normal intelligence, and I'm sure I could find sources that call him dumb, but we should not refer to him as "the dumb Prime Minister" simply because we don't have sources that say he's normal. Moderate is what we assume groups are if they are neither left nor right; we don't need a source that says they are moderate to prevent ourselves from calling them leftists. that's just a silly idea. --Ludwigs2 23:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that multiple RS have called them left-wing. Zero RS (even primary) have disputed this. There is no dispute except from editors here. If they are not left wing (or even if they believe they are not left wing) then there should be RS contradicting the multiple RS that says they are.Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't really use the Spectator as a source, as it's staunchly on the right, just like we wouldn't use left-wing publications to source descriptions of the right (I believe in a strong arms-length approach when it comes to terms like this, as there is a long history of hyperbole. Statements of unequivocal fact, however, are fine). That said', the New Statesman op-ed does need consideration, as it is a left-wing publication. If we can find more centrist or left-wing publications (i.e. broadsheets, the Mirror, NS) to source this, then it would be fair to use the term in the article, as it's as much as we'd need for articles about the BNP or the EDL. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There are far more sources say they are made up of members across the political spectrum, including Conservatives. We have to go with them unless you can find a source that the claim is untrue. TFD (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually - the sources say David Cameron was a member - not that the group has any significant number of right wing members at all. The British Conservative party is substantially centrist in outlook, by the way. And since the founding organization is the Socialist Workers Party, I would surmise that claims that the UAF has any substantial right wing base would require strong RS sourcing. Collect (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially since 1994, Labour has had several free-marketeers in their rank (most notably, Mandelson), but it doesn't stop them from being regarded as centre-left. Likewise, compare with the recent student protests, which had a lot of Tory students against the tuition fee rise, but were still seen as left-wing. The fact that some Tories are in the movement doesn't disprove any assertion that the movement is left-wing. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember that this is about the label in the first sentence. We wouldn't describe the protests in the first sentence "a left-wing protest against increases in tuition fees", although the article might comment on the dominance of leftwing groups within the demonstration. Nor would we, for example, state in the first sentence that the Countryside Alliance was a "right-wing" or a "politically conservative" organisation, even though there's a good amount of RS from back during the fox hunting debates which alleged strong links between the Conservative Party and the CA. This dispute is purely about the first sentence.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point. At the same time, though, for consistency, we should substitute "far-right" in the EDL lead sentence for something more specific such as "anti-Islamic" or even "Islamophobic". Specificity should always win out against these broad labels, some of which have been dead as actual descriptors since the forties. I was going to write a longer post, but it was kind of off-topic; I'll post it on your talk, VK. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are the sources, repeated from above, that cptnono tendentiously insists do not exist, that show it is not simply left-wing. The BBC: Unite Against Fascism, a new group supported by trade unions and MPs from all parties, including Tory leader David Cameron, and veteran left wing campaigner Tony Benn. The Guardian: Unite Against Fascism is a group which was founded with the aim of uniting "the broadest possible spectrum of society" against far right politics. The list of UAF supporters illustrates its success in that goal. . Collect's description of the Conservative party as centrist is OR as well as simply wrong. He'll be arguing that Thatcher was a socialist next.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting sort of ad hom argument there. [7] presents a strong case for considering the UK "Conservative Party" as centrist. [8] specifically refers to Cameron repositioning the Conservatives as "more centrist." The Times in [9] refers to "the more centrist Cameron." So yes - there are real and significant reliable sources referring to Cameron as a centrist and to the Conservative Party as centrist. I trust The Times is RS for this. Collect (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are raising that, Collect. However, it strikes be that you are giving a very good illustration of why it is absurd to try to characterise a political organisation on the basis of individual sources whilst ignoring others. I dare you to go over to Conservative Party (UK), edit the word "centrist" into the first sentence of the lead with an edit summary "This is contained in an RS" and report back on what happens next. --FormerIP (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also none of the sources provided heere says that UAF deny they are left wing. One even says that SWP is trying to take over UAF and that one of its two perminant staffers is inidead far left and intends to make the UAF far left. It was published a few years ago (2006) so we do not know from this sources if they have succeded or not. But the sources we have produced say they are leftist and have mostly been published ppost this source. Is the Gaurdians comment is free section RS by the way? if so we have this from the Gaurdians cooment is free http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/18/race-raceandreligion which states that "the part of the left that runs Unite Against Fascism ", so whilsst there are sources that says it enjoys wide suport they also say its run by the left. As its also been a tactic to point out errors in sources the BBC source says UAF is a new gruop, odd as its been around since 2003, 6 years before the publication of this articel. Aslo it only says they support it not are members. Its OR nto say that these sources denies the UAF are left wing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you just tacitly admit to using tactics here, Steven, as opposed to just following your NPOV nose? Surely I must be misreading?

The idea that we need to be looking for the UAF issuing a denial that it is left-wing is a red-herring. The claim has been made in a small number of sources and, whilst it may not be accurate, it is not exactly an outrageous libel, so I don't see why we would be expecting the UAF to care very much. Your explanations as to why you personally think the UAF is left-wing are also beside the point.

To answer your question, yes Comment is Free is an RS. To correct your apparent misunderstanding, this is one of a number of sources which give alternative views as the the political character of the UAF, as you can see from above posts.

The really ought not to be a tough one. We have various sources which say various things about the UAF and which give, overall, a nuanced picture of its political identity. It is that which Wikipedia should reflect, not a particular view supported by some editors and drawn from one particular RS. --FormerIP (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's actually a deeper problem here, as reflected in Collect's post a few paragraphs above. Wikipedia is decidedly not the place to redefine what centrist means. I do understand that there has been an ongoing battle in both the US and the UK to portray a conservative perspective as middle-of-the-road and villeinize anything leftist as extremely leftist. Wikipedia needs to reflect that if it actually happens, but wikipedia should not be part of the process by which it happens. labeling the UAF as left-wing is simply part of the effort to use wikipedia to shift political norms; the reference should be removed (or at least attributed). --Ludwigs2 16:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

We have multtiple broadsheet RS calling them left wing (the criteria we were set). Perhpas the lead should read "The UAF are an anti-fscist left wing pressure group that enjoys cross spectrum suppot fro all UK political parties". This is what we can draw from RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's more or less what it currently reads, Steven. The issue is the undue prominence given to the "left-wing" tag. Whether and in what context this is appropriate is a matter of POV, which makes it inappropriate for stating as fact in the first sentence of the lead. --FormerIP (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It represents what RS say, that they are left wing but enjoy support from across the political spectrum.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Slater, I may have missed something in the discussion above would would you list the "multiple broadsheet RS" references. --Snowded ^TALK 06:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting, or shall I assume the claim is withdrawn? --Snowded ^TALK 10:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

NO, bit I was not able to go on,line untill now. The Times, Tne Telegraph, The Guardian. That I think makes multiple RS.

Express. [10] POLICE arrested 67 people after clashes at a protest march between left-wing demonstrators and the English Defence League. The leader of Unite Against Fascism was among those arrested during the rally yesterday. Two people were taken to hospital with minor head injuries. Derby Evening Telegraph. [11] The Telegraph. [12] The Times [13] International Business Times [14] Belfast Telegraph [15] Northern Echo [16] Daily Mail [17] And so on. Collect (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your telegraph source does not call them left wing. Neither does the Wales on line source. The express sources is harder, it does say that left wing activists were arrested and that the leader of the UAF was amongst them. But it does not say they are left wing as such.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Anmother times sources [[The times [[18]] “but with the left-wing group Unite Against Fascism” and one sdaying tey are a SWP front [[19]] “It is rarely stated but widely known that bodies such as Unite Against Fascism and the Stop the War campaign are Socialist Workers Party front organisations”. So thast (at least) three mentions in the times that they are either left wing or a front for a left wing group.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The last reference you give is ... a letter to the editor! Not worth our consideration at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Slater, you made the claim above that there were multiple broadsheet RS that supported the left wing label. The Times one says "left-wing coalition group Leeds United Against Fascism." Leeds of course is not the UK. The Times Higher Ed is (as been pointed out) a letter to the editor. I repeat my question - where are the sources that support your statement? If you don't have them then please withdraw the statement. --Snowded ^TALK 21:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes sources have labeled them left wing (you have seen them) and discussed them being involved with left-wing groups. Do we have a source that disputes this yet? A couple people have mentioned support across the political spectrum. That does not contradict left-wing but I have not seen those sources. Can you link them again or point to which of the several discussions they were brought up in to make sure I am not misinterpreting your comments? Cptnono (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You raised that question on the RS notice board Cptnono and several editors responded to you. I have seen sources that label them as left wing, but so far only one of them has been in a broadsheet newspaper, and none have been in journal articles or books. The strong claim is made above that "We have multtiple broadsheet RS calling them left wing". I am asking for those multiple sources to be listed or the claim withdrawn. --Snowded ^TALK 21:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) cptnono: we do not label any group with a label just because there isn't someone who disputes it. I mean, should we start labeling actors as effeminate or butch because no sources exist which bother to dispute such labels? The burden of proof is on the 'include it' side, which must show 'clear and reasonable evidence' that the group is commonly considered left-wing. In the absence of such 'clear and reasonable evidence', the label gets removed. --Ludwigs2 21:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. We do not had contentuious labels. Left-wing is not disputed or derogatory so it isn't contentious.Cptnono (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That is simply wrong, cptnono. In one of the best RS we have (best because it actually discusses the group, rather than present a single sentence on it), it is clear that the intention behind UAF is the aim of uniting "the broadest possible spectrum of society" against far right politics.. If the UAF becomes basically a left-wing organisation, it would have failed in doing that, which is precisely what the RS argues. So the label of left-wing would be controversial (and there isn't enough RS to support ignoring that); such issues are appropriate in critical reaction to the UAF, as per normal practice in Wikipedia. As for the use of the frankly notorious Daily Express, it publishes such "fact-based" (ahem) front pages as this, and has even had some of its journalists in open revolt over being pressurised to write stories attacking gypsies; anyone who thinks it is a good objective source on immigration-related issues needs to have a really hard think about the meaning of WP:RS. I've already listed the various issues with the Mail. Collect's list of sources, most of which fail to prove the point he wants to prove (but do have the words "left wing" in the text somehwere), demonstrate clearly what's going on: try all kinds of permutations of "left-wing" and "UAF" in a google search, and present the (frankly meagre) pickings that result as representative of all coverage of the UAF. This is a classic way of introducing bias. He could at least read the links before posting them.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

cptnono: asserting that this is not a contentious label after this prolonged argument about it in this very thread is disingenuous to the point of being insulting. kindly don't pull that kind of crap on me, thanks. --Ludwigs2 07:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that some of this is noise to avoid the direct question on broadsheet sources. --Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What kind of crap? Left-wing does not mean "bad" and so far the only dispute has been from editors here. If anything, the group embraces the left and is heralded in return. I don't see the problem except for one being manufactured on Wikipedia. And how many times do you need to be presented with sources, Snowded? You accuse others of IDIDNTHEARTHAT but you have been provided sources several times. You know what the sources are.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I know of one broadsheet source Cptnono, the passing reference in the Times and that is the only one presented so far. I see a claim above that there are multiple ones without any diffs. Its reasonable to ask for the evidence. Please don't list Tabloid and Web based sources, or letters to the editor but provide material to back up the claim. Otherwise on the left-wing issue you are being disingenuous, no one challenges the fact that there is left-wing participation in the UAF, the point is that there is also right-wing and non-party support. No one is saying the label is good or bad the contention is over whether it is properly included per the sources and WP:WEIGHT--Snowded ^TALK 07:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

cptnono appears to be claiming that "the broadest possible spectrum of society" is only left-wing. It's an interesting view on politics, but not one held by mainstream analysts. He really should think about getting published in a good RS first before bringing it here. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A political variation on anyone less violent than Genghis Khan is a pacifist? EIther way the unsupported claims and continued obfuscation mean that this is increasingly an issue of editorial behaviour rather than content. --Snowded ^TALK 07:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there is no requirement for it to be a broad sheet. Nothing in the guideline requires that. Second of all, you have seen the sources. You have also presented one of them. And others you have discounted or said that others discounted when the main argument against was really weight and not that they were not RS. Unfortunately for that argument, weight applies if there is an opposing viewpoint. There is no other viewpoint. They are called left wing and associated with he left and this is never disputed anywhere but these talk pages. Third, VsevolodKrolikov and others on the oppose side have misinterpreted people's comments, made ad hominem arguments, and gone the route of using red herrings. It happened again since I never said anything like that. Why do you guys continue to do that? Is that the only argument left? Knock it off. Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Noise Cptnono. A claim has been made that there are multiple broadsheet sources, there is one passing reference in the record. The claim should either be substantiated or withdrawn.--Snowded ^TALK 07:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It has already been substantiated to the point that the argument changed to it being a weight issue instead of an RS issue. Apologies for not being clear about your "broad sheet" requirement which has no basis on our standards here. Cptnono (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement above that there are multiple broadsheet sources has not been substantiated Cptnono. --Snowded ^TALK 08:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's about weighting, and just about all outside input on this has stated that there is not enough RS, particularly when other RS contradicts it. From the UAF letter linked to in the Guardian "Our view is that the anti-fascist movement and its leadership must encompass all of those threatened by the fascists – the trade unions, Asian and minority ethnic communities, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh and other faith communities, lesbian and gay organisations, disabled people, the anti-racist movement and, indeed, all democrats. " Apparently, cptnono thinks that all democrats, Jews, Muslims and gay people are left-wing. Again, an interesting theory.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

@VK That does not say that they are not left. They think the movement should encompass everyone but not that the UAF is not left. I have not read that whole source but will do it right now. Do you recall over a day ago when I said I would consider changing my position if even a timestamp to a contradicting source could be supplied? I'll google it with the info provided but that snippet does not contradict it.

Follow-up: The link at the UAF site is dead. Your snippet did not dispute "left-wing" but if you have an archived version available or can email me a copy I would still be glad to adjust my position if they actually dispute that they are left wing.Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

@S Then I will retract that bradsheet part and still say RS has been provided. "Tabloid" format is used by nearly all local newspapers in the UK so attempting to say something like the Bolton Daily News (who reported that a sympathetic MP referred to the protesters as "left) is not RS is not accurate. Online stories from reputable publishers are also acceptable even if it is not printed on a broadsheet. And you again misrepresented the previous RS discussion as I have already explained to you.Cptnono (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with the use of the term Broadsheet Cptnono, while historically it referred to the paper format on which material was printed it now means a limited number of national newspapers that have high journalistic standards on evidence. It includes the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent. The BBC online news reports are also included. The Mail, Sun etc and local newspapers are not. Local newspapers are generally not taken as a RS for a national issue, but are for reporting local events. Your Bolton Daiy News example by the way does not say the UAF is leftwing, it reports one MP as saying some of its supporters are. That is not under dispute. The RS issue of broadsheet and tabloid has been discussed many time in UK related articles and its pretty obvious Slater understands the importance given the unsubstantiated claim he makes above. --Snowded ^TALK 08:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I just showed that I did. Do you dispute that RS can be in a tabloid format (especially in the UK)? Or that the BBC is a reputable source that provides stories online? And the Bolton Daily News is just one more drop in the bucket that is full of RS referring to them as left-wing or even simply associated with the left wing, or even reporting comments by others (yes sometimes there opponents) that say they are left-wing? We are going in circles here. Your interpretation of RS is exceptionally tighter than required and this is actually humorous since something like Searchlight has been acceptable as a source when it is complimentary. So provide a source saying that they dispute that they are left wing and we have something to talk about. Until then the weight argument is pointless and continuing to dispute sources acceptable on every other article on Wikipedia is just silliness.Cptnono (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So cptnono agrees that the UAF's goal is to encompass not just the left. All we need now is an RS saying that it has had success in that goal. Hey Presto: Unite Against Fascism is a group which was founded with the aim of uniting "the broadest possible spectrum of society" against far right politics. The list of UAF supporters illustrates its success in that goal. Attentive readers may be feeling a sense of deja vu. It's been presented to cptnono before. Note that he's returning now to the "but it doesn't precisely exactly use the words "not left-wing" line of argument. To do this, he has to argue that neither "the broadest possible spectrum of society" nor "non-partisan" nor "with support from all parties, including Tory leader David Cameron" mean both left and right in mainstream politics. (I really feel there might be a PhD thesis in this idea of his, if he's willing to commit himself.) For weight, which he accepts is the argument, we need the preponderance of good RS to state that they are left-wing without contrary RS reports. We don't have that. References to Searchlight are a non-sequitur. No one has cited Searchlight as an RS on this label issue.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

[[20]] Says it a tick box for being far left. I have already provided reference from the Times[[21]]. I have also provided a source from the guardian, but as you seem to have missed it I shall repeat it [[22]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Both your first and your third references are op-ed rather than news. The Ed West Telegraph piece is obviously jokey in nature. If one indication that Jeremy Corbyn is "left wing" is that he supports UAF, in the same sentence another indication is that he "sports a lefty beard". This from someone whose own by-line photo shows him sporting presumably a "righty beard". You surely can't seriously be suggesting we can use this? The Guardian piece is different. It is actually about UAF. I would like to see further discussion about whether and how this piece could be used in the UAF article. There is a sustained argument in it about failure to take up antisemitism. Simply using it to reference "left-wing" wouldn't be appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I bleive that I first rasied the question of the use of the Gauridans comment is free Op-Edd peices as RS, and onloy used it after it was claimed to be RS, and indead is highly praised as an excelent sources in this discusion by otehrs. Personaly I am doubdfull if an Op-edd peice should be used, but would eqauly apply that to both sides of the argument. Nor am I susgesting we iuse these in the artcicle. my point is to demonstrtate that there is not just one source thats the Times, its be said in many sources, some Broadsheet (and as good as the counter sources, my point about using the saem tactics), some tabloid some magazine. That its a view published in left and right sources. I agree that we perhaps need to use more of the critisism of the UAF in the articel, both accusations that it ignores anti-Semitism and also has shared platforms with homophobes. Searchlight saying its (probably) nothing more then a SWP recruitment drive [[23]]. By the way should we have more about the Searchlight UAF tiff? The accusatio that they are an SWP front and the fact that (according to Searchlight) are acting as (effectuily) capeign staff for Respect?Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Slater, are you talking about the first sentence or about content in general? It looks like the latter to me. There is actually not an argument about including references to criticism of the SWP's activities within UAF - everyone agrees that there are reliable sources for that, and that a paragraph on the issue would be appropriate. However, here we are talking only about the first sentence. You admit that there are good RS that counter the statement that the UAF is definitively leftwing, and you also admit that the volume and quality of RS supporting the inclusion is hardly overwhelming ("three" by your own count). That is all that needs to be shown for the label not to include it. There are far higher standards of sourcing required for controversial labels than there is for main in-text attributable content. This is the difference between the UAF article and the EDL article. I can probably produce over 50 RS very quickly, including quite a few in-depth analyses, calling the EDL far-right, with few if any dissenting. Here we are talking about single sentence mentions in one or two articles, and RS of good standing contradicting the idea that the left-wing label is clear. Discussions of how the SWP may be undermining the stated purpose of UAF are ongoing, and are not substantial enough for us to label the group, although the article absolutely should include them in some form. Can you not see that the sources you provide are not enough to determine the whole tenor of the article?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Slater, I have been happy as have others to include referenced material to claims of SWP infiltration and the Searchlight split. For the sake of peace I am also happy for reference to the fact that they have been in some cases described as left wing. However to op ed pieces do not constitute a RS to label them as left wing. Also I have not seen any formal withdrawal of support by the various right wing politicians involved. All of that said we only have one (and that passing) broadsheet reference that would support the left wing label and nothing from any analysis. --Snowded ^TALK 07:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Now open on this issue here --Snowded ^TALK 05:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggest slight change to text at top of notice board: WikiProject Neutrality is defunct

Hi all, The WP:WikiProject Neutrality page says that it is defunct. Hence I suggest we remove it from the following sentence in the header to this Noticeboard: "See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address."

I'd do it myself but thought I should check with more experienced people. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki-link

Hello! Im active at the swedish project with the issues of NPOV. I wonder if you would like to interwiki link your NPOV project (which that may be) page? It would be nice if you posted your interwiki link on my talk page aswell so i can add it to our project page.

Our interwiki link: sv:Wikipedia:Projekt neutralitet.

Regards, Danieldnm (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Someone reported on the help desk yesterday that archiving of the board was broken. Investigating, I found that MiszaBot II had last archived the board on 23 October last year, and that users had been doing so manually ever since: it appears the archiving configuration was changed at some point after the last auto-archive.

I reset the archiving configuration with this edit, and the bot successfully archived the board last night, but I don't know whether the archiving configuration I applied reflects consensus about how this board should be archived. So this is just to tip you off to my edit, and to encourage anyone who knows why the config was changed in the first place to check whether the current settings are optimal. Thanks! Gonzonoir (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Likewise, I've added archive code & standard header info (copied from other pages) to this talkpage. I also encourage anyone more experienced with archiving Project pages to please feel free to change accordingly. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth petition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Information about the A&E for 911 Truth petition, 1000+ engineers and architects calling for a new investigation, was repeatedly deleted from the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. The issue was posted here, but now the discussion appears to be gone and I can't find it in the NPOV Noticeboard archives either. When I do a search, I'm directed back to the current page, and the discussion no longer appears to be there. Where did it go? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at the history page of the noticeboard. this edit explains exactly where it went to.--Terrillja _talk 14:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So no resolution, and back to either edit-warring or allowing continued censorship? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That is how a conspiracy works.Cptnono (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. Not including a truth that theorists consider extremely notable keeps conspiracy theories alive. If the petition was suspect then fair enough but the mainstream media do not dispute that it is signed by engineers and architects or that it is unique compared to any other petition signed by any Tom, Dick or Harry that happens to pass by. Wayne (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about Ghostofnemo's threat to resume edit-warring above.[24] He's been tenditiously pushing this for months now. At some point, I think a block may be required. Should we file an RfE or notify the admins? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That difference does not indicate that Ghostofnemo is threatening to edit war. It is clear he is talking about editors edit warring to keep the edit out. As the edit does not promote conspiracy theories, is an arguement regarding notability and is an edit unable to gain consensus for keep or delete, it is hardly tendentious. You can make the same claim for those trying to keep it out. Wayne (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(to WLRoss) Actually, the mainstream media do not comment on the assertion that it is signed by engineers and architects or that it is "unique". "Do not dispute that" is a bit weak. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream media have reported the petition despite not reporting on others and that they do not dispute it's claims regarding signatories is significant unless they are not fact checking. Wayne (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This issue is CLEARLY UNRESOLVED. The question is, what to do about it? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Clearly everyone else thinks it has been. Time to move on.--Terrillja _talk 13:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'll read the discussion above carefully, and the archived discussion from this Noticeboard, you'll see that it is clearly unresolved. This is a discussion page. You can't unilaterally forbid discussion of this topic on the discussion page of a Noticeboard where this topic was posted until it was archived without resolution! Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't forbid discussion of a topic. I said that the talkpage is not an appropriate place to continue discussion of the merits of a subject. That is why we have a noticeboard.--Terrillja _talk 13:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

But as I pointed out above, the discussion was archived without a resolution. Do we unarchive the discussion or start a new one? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you want a formal check here now on whether there is a consensus whether there should be a big spiel about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in the main article 9/11 conspiracy theory rather than just one sentence about them and a main pointer for such groups in 9/11 Truth movement where there is a whole section about them? Dmcq (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo: You've repeatedly called for this change and you've repeatedly failed to gain consensus. The issue is resolved. It's your job to convince the other editors why this change in necessary and you've failed. If you continue to be disruptive, you risk being banned from this topic-space or blocked altogether. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've warned the editor about the 9/11 discretionary sanctions.[25] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the "big spiel": "More than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation." The line was supported by four references. If you'll simple look over the archived discussions, here and on the 9/11 conspiracy theories discussion page, you'll see that the editors are clearly split on this issue. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose putting more into 9/11 conspiracy theories. It has its own article and it has a whole section at 9/11 Truth movement which is the appropriate covering article. Dmcq (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Support inclusion, because the petition does exist, it is notable (due the the qualifications of the signatories), it has been mentioned by reliable sources (but oddly, not by most of the mainstream press) and to omit it is not NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Doesn't support any conspiracy theory. Is reliably sourced, relevant, short and is NPOV.Wayne (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Support The length of the proposed addition combined with the not insignificant coverage it has received and the relevance to the article seems to answer claims of WP:UNDUE. un☯mi 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_19#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories_-_deletion_of_referenced.2C_neutral_material is the discussion referred to above that did not give a definite conclusion. Dmcq (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately a number of discussions, spanning back at least 1 year have managed to avoid a definite conclusion, see for example this discussion / strawpoll / RfC, which is possibly the discussion that saw the broadest input from the wider community. un☯mi 16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - claims of WP:UNDUE are specious in my view. The information is very well sourced and highly relevant. Opposers are guilty in my opinion of a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In addition, I object strongly to attempts to intimidate Ghostofnemo with uncalled for threats on his talk page to block him from editing. This is dirty pool as I see it, and shows a hostile intent and a WP:BATTLE mentality. Ghost has been more civil than his few detractors, in my view, and now this. Jusdafax 07:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The threat to block is in response to his threat to include the "information" in spite of a consensus that it doesn't belong. Whether the consensus is in keeping with policy (I believe it is, but Ghostofnemo argues it isn't) does not excuse a threat to editwar.

Oppose. One accurate sentence, which would state that the 1000+ signatures are claimed to be those of architects and engineers, might be appropriate, but not notable. The statement that they are those of architects and engineers has been disproved by a reliable source, so the required balancing explanation would be WP:UNDUE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Despite claims otherwise here, the importance of signing the petition is certainly disputed.[26] I agree it needs plenty of space in the appropriate article since it caused some stir but giving it any prominence in the main article may not be needed and the explanation required to clarify it would give it even more prominence. I was leaning towards supporting putting it in the main article but struggle to justify actually lending any amount of credibility to it. I would agree that an RfC is a good route but also have a hard time entertaining an editor who has been rocking the boat despite being warned of the arbitration case ages ago. Do we have an essay based on the squeaky wheel? And although notability is for article creation, it has come up. IMO, no, it is not that big of a deal. 1000 really isn't even that many when you consider how many engineers and architects there are in this US and that some of them might be in completely unrelated backgrounds even if it is based architecture in some form.Cptnono (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment This poll is invalid. It was already rejected on the project page. Holding a second vote because you didn't like the outcome of the first is...well, I'm lost for words. Also, this is the talk page for the noticeboard. Is anyone here actually talking about the noticeboard? No. This is the wrong venue to be discussing this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The poll above was not MY idea. Also, Arthur Rubin says a reliable source has disproved that the signers are architects and engineers. Care to share that source with us? Finally, no consensus has ever been reached on this issue, one way or the other. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You said the previous discussion had not come to a conclusion. It had as far as a normal discussion goes because people had stopped being interested. The only meaning that can be ascribed as far as I can see to what you are saying is you wanted a definite conclusion about whether what you want to do is okay or not which means you want a result yes or no. How else do you expect such a result? Do you want people to just discuss on and on after they have totally lost interest until some such time as you say you are satisfied even though there is no definite conclusion? What exactly were you wanting if you did not want a poll? Could you please not go on about there being no conclusion here here instead of discussing at the article talk page if you do not want a conclusion. Dmcq (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, what project page is referred to above? It is certainly possible to challenge a matter has been decided at the talk page by going to a policy noticeboard. And for instance if something was decided at the village pump then editors at a talk page would be in a very poor position to try and challenge that. Is there some sort of project page where the matter was discussed which covers conspiracy theories? Dmcq (talk)

Ghostofnemo: The status quo is the default. So, no concensus for the change means that the change doesn't get implemented. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq: If you're referring to my comments, I was referring to the project page of this NPOV Noticeboard (as opposed to the talk page). The discussion has been archived here. If by 'project' you mean WikiProject, I believe that the closest one would be project WP:WikiProject Rational Skepticism but this project is pretty much dead. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This list might be incomplete, but here are some of the discussions. Note that when Ghostofnemo twice failed to get his changes implemented at the article, he set out to change our policy on WP:OR and then WP:Disruptive editing where he also failed.

• 9/11 conspiracy theories 10 March 2010
• 9/11 conspiracy theories 2 December 2010
• Original Research June 16th, 2010
• Fringe theories noticeboard 7 December 2010
• Disruptive editing 2 January 2011
• Neutral point of view noticeboard 1 January 2011

So, not counting this discussion, that's 6 different discussions: 4 direct discussions about the issue and 2 indirect discussions where Ghostofnum tried to change the rules to make his changes easier to implement. If this isn't disruptive and forum shopping, what is? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For GoN, it's just business as usual. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several editors who want this in the article and several who keep deleting it. Instead of edit-warring, I've been trying to work through the system. I'm sorry, but deleting relevant, NPOV, reliably-sourced content is not acceptable. Removal is only the status quo because I refuse to edit war with you. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Other editors have suggested another Rfc. Shall we have another one on the article discussion page? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well since GhostofNemo raised this here so soon after the fringe theories noticeboard and the article itself and insists this is a continuation I agree that discussing anything to do with this is over the top for a few months more. Perhaps he can raise it again in June and opinions might have changed by then, doing it now is just being annoying and hardening opinions. Dmcq (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking over past discussions, support for keeping the edit generally outnumbers opposition although not by enough to be considered a consensus. Policy suggests a compromise be offered when there is no clear consensus and those supporting the edit have done so but it seems those opposing repeatedly refuse to offer a compromise let alone accept one. Ghostofnemo is pretty much the only editor consistently abiding by WP policies and it is to his credit that he has remained polite despite some of the feedback from POV editors that he has had to put up with. I find it amusing that the main objection to the edit has changed over time from "it's not a conspiracy theory so not relevant" to "it's conspiracy pushing" which to me looks more like "shopping" than anything Ghostofnemo has done. It is also interesting that the edit was in the article for three months, albeit frequently edited to reword it, before an editor removed it with the comment How did this get in? Doesn't "no consensus" default to keep when an old edit is deleted? Wayne (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You make it sound like a case of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing which is a definite problem in Wikipedia. He should wait between tries rather than keep raising it again and again in different forums in short succession. Dmcq (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I keep raising the issue because, as you can see in this discussion, even though the majority opinion seems to favor inclusion, the minority manages to sidetrack the issue and keep the info out of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's widespread opposition to the this but a small minority of editors keep pushing it. In any case, Wikipedia is not a vote. Content is decided on the strength of the arguments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait some months between tries, 'Keep raising' is disruptive, it annoys people and makes them even more entrenched in their opposition to you and so is counter-productive to what you are trying to do. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a topic I generally ignore, but GoN has been splashing around so much I will weigh in. And I say: WP:FRINGE. GoN claims "majority opinion seems to favor inclusion", but a quick look suggests (as Dmcq says) only a small minority ("several", as GoN says) of vociferous editors pushing for inclusion. The general view, though pushed less vociferously, is against inclusion. And the persistent attempt to push the issue is getting tiresome. Ghostofnemo, please note: your arguments have not been persuasive at the outset, mere repetition does not improve them. Your persistence in pushing them in itself suggests a non-neutral POV. And before you start disputing this with me, consider that argument for the sake of argument is unpersuasive. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'll look at the poll above and at previous polls in the article's discussion page archive, you'll see that the majority favor inclusion, and a minority oppose and delete the material when it is added, despite the fact that it is relevant, NPOV and well-sourced, which according to WP:NPOV means it should not be deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I should just abide by the adage that free advice is worthless. :( Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The poll above had four editors in support, two opposed, and one commenting that the poll is invalid. (And at this point you can add me to the opposed category.) This is hardly a compelling result, especially as an earlier poll was support four and oppose five. But what strikes me most in going back at looking at the previous discussions across several forums is the repetitive attempts by GhostofNemo to include this material. He repeatedly claims that the matter is unresolved; I would say that he has not been convincing. At this point the issue has become less about the material and more about the behavior. This is getting to be tiresome, tendentious, smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and even forum shopping. That an editor persists despite being unconvincing to a substantial number of other editors suggests partisanship, and a strong POV. At this point I expect GoN to jump in and start disputing me. Which will demonstrate my point. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree with your needlessly pointy and smug bash, J. Johnson. What I see here is a small group trying to censor well-referenced information, self-importantly closing polls that don't go their way, and issuing threats and bluster to get what they want. Obviously 9-11 is a hot-button topic for many editors, but it sure seems to me that the people who keep pointing the POV finger at GhostofNemo may well have POV issues of their own. My problem is that I don't follow this issue closely enough, but I am disturbed by the treatment GhostofNemo is getting for raising what I see as a valid point regarding adding a few lines about the A&E Petition in the article about 9-11 conspiracy theories. By the way, Ghost has never once contacted me in any way regarding this issue despite my requests, which indicates he has most likely never contacted others to act as meatpuppets on his behalf. Frankly, that impresses me just as much as I am disturbed by the tone and tactics used against him here, on his talk page, and elsewhere. I'd like to see some editors from the wider community with no previous involvement on the topic render an unbiased judgement on this issue. And not in this backwater of Wikipedia, but in a spot where plenty of new eyes can decide for themselves what is really going on here. Where that should be held should be the topic of discussion, not editor bashing. Jusdafax 01:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's down to just one line, not several: "More than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation." From my perspective, this is a clear NPOV issue - to omit this clearly relevant, neutrally worded information from the article, from my perspective, is censorship. And what has the deleting parties upset is not any incivility on my part, but that I am daring to resist their attempts to keep this out of the article. It's almost as if there is a cabal of article-minders keeping neutral, factual information out of articles that could be potentially embarrassing to the U.S. and its allied governments. I couldn't mention that Peter Bethune was hooded by the Japanese. I couldn't mention that the sexual assault allegations against Julian Assange center around condom use, and I had a huge fight getting information into the JFK assassination conspiracy theory article that some researchers are more concerned with holes in the story than with a particular (often nutty) theory. It just seems like a huge coincidence that these are the hot button issues that provoke sudden concerns over notability, POV bias, too much detail, my conduct as an editor, etc., etc., etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with some of what you mention, Ghost, the arguments to keep (as you note) one sentence out of an article on conspiracy theories seem strained at best, and may well be driven by ideology at worst. And the methods used, as you note and I have observed elsewhere, appear designed to intimidate and promote a 'chilling effect', as well as manufacture consensus and stifle honest !voting and debate, as we see above. Additionally, a recent look at the edit histories of some of your detractors has been of interest. Those who point the POV finger at you had better have some pretty clean hands themselves, and I think a case can be made to the contrary, which brings up the real possibility of a WP:BOOMERANG. The more I study this, the more I am of the opinion that your situation merits further examination by uninvolved parties. Jusdafax 10:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jusdafax beat Ghostofnemo to the punch, but to the same end. You both disagree with me, but neither of you seem to understand, nor address, what I claim is the issue (behavior). Your responses — name calling, absolute certainty that you are right and everyone else out to get you, scattershot accusations, bringing up irrelevant issues (is Julian Assange an architect?? JFK??!), misidentifying the issues (who said anything about meatpuppets?), accusations of bad faith (censorship, cabal) — are hardly useful in resolving anything. Indeed, this behavior shows a lack of the WP:CIVILITY necessary to resolve any issue.

By the way, in regard of "situation merits further examination by uninvolved parties", allow me to point out: I came to this issue as an uninvolved party, with no particular position or POV on the subject. Upon examination of this issue I came to the assessment described above, for which I am now lambasted. I predict this will be your response to everyone that doesn't support you. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please review WP:BAIT, thanks. Jusdafax 08:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So you're admitting to baiting Jusdafax? Because that seems to apply more to you than to J. Johnson. Soxwon (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As I am sure you know, my comment refers to him. And now to you, sir. Jusdafax 02:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why is this thread continuing here? None of the discussion relates to improving the NPOV noticeboard. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Jusdafax 07:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  I, too, agree that this venue is not, strictly speaking, the most appropriate venue for this discussion (as it has developed). On such ground it would have been appropriate to shut this off at the start; but here we are.

 The most recent comments seem vague and confused (possibly Soxwon meant to insert a comma??), and perhaps — in the spirit of WP:BAIT no less! — are best ignored.

  I will offer, as a summing up of the discussion here, two points: 1) GhostofNemo's arguments in various places for inclusion of this material have been not been fully persuasive. That should be obviously evident to everyone: there are "several" editors who are not convinced. Everyone please note: this is not to say that he is wrong (or right), only an observation of a fact, that his arguments have not been persuasive. And 2) the real problem here is not the actual correctness of the specific points, but the manner (behavior) in how the argument for inclusion has been pursued. For these two reasons, and in light of prior history, I doubt that referral of this discussion to the article's talk page will lead to resolution. If anyone has a better suggestion, let's hear it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not my personal crusade - there are several editors, perhaps a majority, arguing that this line should be included in the article, and who are also upset that it has been repeatedly deleted based on very weak arguments. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested by another editor that we have another WP:Request for comment with as broad a participation as possible. Since I've been repeatedly accused of "forum shopping" (for seeking solutions other than edit warring) I'll leave the actual execution of this to someone else. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As others have suggested, waiting a bit before bringing it up would also be more likely to elicit a positive response. Bring things up over and over in a repetitive manner is one of the things that comes across as forum shopping.--Terrillja _talk 06:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Let it rest a while. Also, mere passage of time is not a corrective. Before starting this all over again, to the same result, contact me. If I have time I might be able to help you present the issue in a more satisfactory manner. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Resolved" alternatives?

Perhaps this is only a matter of my needing further instruction on the nature of "resolved". It seems to me that some of the issues that are raised here are not properly "resolved", but are effectively dead (e.g., no further response from the initiator), and ought to be closed. Is it appropriate to apply {{resolved}} in such cases? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. It'd make navigating the myriad entries so much easier. Nightw 06:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What to do about disputes that involve multiple policies?

Can editors of this board please join the following discussion here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes during NPOV discussion

A Notice Board discussion here is ongoing on an aspect of the lead of this article. Should that lead be changed in a way that impacts the sentence discussed [27] while the discussion is ongoing on the lead or should changes be discussed and made once the NB discussion has concluded. I reverted once but will not revet again and edit war with James (Jmh649) who seems to be attached to the added content. A point on preferred procedure/process I guess. Thanks for input. James was notified on his user page and on the article talk page that I would like to ask for advice. [28][29].This seems a more appropriate forum than ANI to discuss NPOV processes.(olive (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

Moribundity of this page

is being discussed at WT:NPOV ("Is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard dead?"). No statement has been made about funeral services. One suggestion for trumping the apparent flatlining is that "regulars" (if any) may find ways to quickly close due to finding a proper forum for POVs to be hashed out, a la WP:DRN. JJB 16:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed

There is an RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that could use some input, if anyone is so inclined. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia

Can someone keep an eye on Euthanasia, please? The discussion on Talk:Euthanasia is going nowhere. I have the feeling (but am not sure) that 3 editors are bluntly ignoring the facts and the present consensus to force in a POV-text. Some more eyes/opinions are needed to avoid the now looming editwar. The Banner _talk 17:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Victor Vancier

I found myself in a dispute with user "Fairness and Truth" about the article Victor Vancier. He thinks the standing article is grossly inaccurate and unfair, I think his edits are grossly POV and partly irrelevant. So, it seems a good idea to let more people look at the article, but there is no response from the Wikiproject Biography or Jewish history. The Banner _talk 18:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Response

The article is libelous, completely inaccurate and blatantly biased:

1. Victor Vancier is not the name that Chaim Ben Pesach uses or is known by. To call Ben Pesach by this name is like having the article on Barack Obama refer to him as Barry Soetoro, which was his childhood name. Or referring to Mohammed Ali by his English name Cassius Clay. Or referring to Malcolm X by his earlier name Malcolm Little, or Louis Farrakhan by his original name Louis Wolcott. Wikipedia recognizes in all of these cases that public figures should be referred to by the names they are best known by. To refuse to apply this same rule to Ben Pesach demonstrates a biased double standard. It can be noted within the article that Victor Vancier is Ben Pesach's English name, but the article itself should be under the headline "Chaim Ben Pesach".
2. The article maliciously libels Ben Pesach, calling him a "virgin", claiming that he is not really Jewish and claiming that his mother is not Jewish. When I attempted to correct these flagrant libels, they were restored and I was told that I would not be allowed to correct them.
3. The article libelously asserts that Ben Pesach formed the Jewish Task Force (JTF)"since Irv Rubin started to dissociate the JDL from Vancier because his terrorist activities had harmed their reputation". In reality, Irv Rubin committed suicide while in prison awaiting trial on charges of seeking to bomb the office of a Congressman - so to claim that Rubin was trying to change JDL's "terrorist" reputation is absurd since it was Rubin himself who gave the JDL that reputation. Ben Pesach was convicted of damaging Soviet diplomatic property to demand freedom for 2 million Russian Jews, but no one was ever injured in any of these incidents. But Rubin sought to literally blow up a Congressman. When I sought to remove this libelous twisting of the facts, the libel was restored and I was told that I would not be allowed to correct it.
4. The article takes a handful of quotes out of context to distort their meaning and create an impression that Ben Pesach is insane. Many court cases have held that this tactic of selective quoting out of context can also constitute libelous defamation. A review of the thousands of videos that Ben Pesach and his followers have uploaded to YouTube and other sites reveals that these quotes do not accurately reflect what Ben Pesach and JTF espouse.
5. The article libelously claims that Ben Pesach is barred from entering Israel because of his "terrorist" activities. In reality, Ben Pesach is barred because of his Kahanist views. No proof is offered that Ben Pesach is barred because of "terrorist acts", as the article libelously contends.
6. The article libelously contends that Ben Pesach was involved in organizations "which has been outlawed in Israel and[7] were proclaimed illegal terrorist organizations in 1994 and the groups subsequently officially disbanded". As you can see from this last quote, the article is also poorly written and grammatically incorrect. In reality, Ben Pesach was never a member of the two organizations that were outlawed in 1994 and no one in Israel has ever claimed that he was. So this again is flagrantly libelous.
7. The article deliberately omits the most important and relevant information on Ben Pesach: that he heads a movement with two forums that have thousands of members. There are over 5000 members on his English forum and 3500 members on his Hebrew forum. His Hebrew forum is comprised almost entirely of young Israeli Jews who reside in Israel, proving that Ben Pesach's organization is perfectly legal and fully functioning in the Jewish state.
8. The article deliberately omits the other most important fact about Ben Pesach: he has uploaded thousands of videos in both Hebrew and English with millions of views. The Israeli media has reported that many Israeli Jews watch Ben Pesach's videos. I attempted to introduce proof of this in the article that I wrote, but that was removed.
9. User:The Banner proved his bias when he restored the original article with the comment: "Your denial of terrorism has nothing to do with truth or fairness." In other words, The Banner wants the article to reflect his opinion rather than objectively reflecting the facts.
10. The new article that I wrote is completely accurate and truthful. It objectively presents Ben Pesach and his movement. After years of allowing the most vicious libel against Ben Pesach, the least that Wikipedia should do is restore the original article and not allow anti-Semites to again introduce libelous defamations.

Fairness and Truth (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead of a detailed response on each of your points I'll just note the general misunderstanding here: Wikipedia aims to as accurate articles as possible. But truth and accuracy in itself isn't enough, because even if you know it is true, it's not enough that you just claim that it is. You need to prove that it is. And that means that in practice, what wins is not fairness and truth, but reliable sources. Please read the Wikipedia policies in more detail, and ask if there is something that is unclear. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The article that I wrote absolutely does prove all of its main points. For example, I point out that Ben Pesach has thousands of members on his English and Hebrew forums - then I provide links to those forums so that everyone can see with their own eyes that this is true. I also point out that Ben Pesach has millions of views on his videos in Hebrew and English - then I provide a link to the Flix site where his videos have over 1.4 million views on just one of his numerous accounts. In addition, I provide a link to an article in a prominent Israeli Hebrew newspaper which states that "many Israelis" view Ben Pesach's videos and are "addicted" to them, including Israeli Parliament members and Israel's leading television producers who search "every morning" for Ben Pesach's videos even though they disagree with his philosophy. Now in contrast to my article, the current biased article makes assertions that are simply false and defamatory with no proof whatsoever - calling Ben Pesach a "virgin", claiming that he and his mother are not Jewish, claiming that Ben Pesach was a member of "terrorist" groups that were outlawed in Israel (when, in fact, Ben Pesach heads an organization of Israeli Jews in Israel with thousands of members). By any objective standard, the article I wrote is factual and sufficiently documented, while the current unfair article is the opposite. Fairness and Truth (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The virgin and mother bit appeared to be vandalism; I removed them. As for links to forums and video views, please see WP:RS. a13ean (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing those two items. Unfortunately, many other false unproven assertions remain in the article including the claim that Ben Pesach was barred from Israel for "terrorist acts"; was a member of "terrorist" organizations which were outlawed in Israel; and formed JTF because of something having to do with Irv Rubin and JDL's reputation. No credible proof is offered for any of these claims because they are utterly false and without merit. Fairness and Truth (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Page "Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford" and Talk Page to it

In the article Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford at least two editors, Tom Reedy and Paul B, continually express their POVs, thus distorting the historical image of the person to whom the article is dedicated. They have openly disclosed their bias and even enmity to Edward de Vere on the Talk page to this article. On this Talk page, there were also massive personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery".

In my view, Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the outcome of the solution to the William Shakespeare authorship question. And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy on 9 October 2012 on this same Talk page to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, which probably everybody would call blasphemy. This expression was used by Tom Reedy in connection with Jesus Christ. The use of only this one expression, in my view, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree (at least provisionally) that the expression "Jesus fucking Christ!" fits the definition of blasphemy, and could indeed disqualify an editor in a project whose aims include protecting imaginary people's dignity. It's not clear to me that Wikipedia is such a project. —Tamfang (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide specific edits from the article. On the talk page, you made a number of comments, such as "the line of his ancestry was really very impressive", which is just stirring the argument. TFD (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, no further comments here (this page is to discuss the noticeboard—issues such as the wording of the notice at the top). The above message has been posted at NPOVN (where I have replied), and at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of command shells

I read the page Comparison of command shells a couple of days ago and found the second and third columns to the right in the "General Characteristics" table suspicious: their titles seem to me slightly different compared to other columns in that table, and they are all red except for "Microsoft PowerShell" row, where they're both green, which suggests they might have been placed intentionally to make PowreShell look better. I wrote it on the talk page and was answered by a user named Useerup, who, according to his editing history, is very obviously pro-Microsoft biased. Since I don't consider myself neutral in the world of software wars, and because I don't know the mentioned technologies intimately enough to state my claims with complete confidence, I would like to bring this point to the attention of others who may provide more neutral/informed opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.213.188 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service

There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:

Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user [email protected] for alleged possession of child pornography.

There is a question as to whether the above violates our neutral point of view policy. Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat riots

The NPOV discussion is not yet resolved. In fact, none of the editors who had pushed their own POV ever came for NPOV discussion, except one. Please bring it back to Noticeboard page! - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody wants that discussion to reboot?? - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

POV template to warn the readers

People who deal with these disputes might be interested in a discussion about whether it's okay to use {{pov}} as a warning to readers. See Template talk:POV#Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User violating WP:NPOV

User 31.48.69.109 repeatedly violates WP:NPOV when editing this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_crisis, he violated it at least two times, here;https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2014_Crimean_crisis_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=598825084 and here;https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Crimean_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=598832034 208.97.212.65 (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014

Has Narconon achieved NPOV, and if not then what sections still need improvement? RFC discussion: Talk:Narconon#NPOV?

78.86.131.23 (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

inappropriate use of this template, simply linking to the talk page as you have done would've sufficed. Cannolis (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

Please check the article on "2013-14 protests in Turkey". Another user named Elmasmelih and I are unable to agree on the content to be included in the lede. I believe the protests article lede, which paints a picture of a popular revolt against an authoritarian government, should include a byline that notes that the government actually won 2014 municipal elections (held after the major protests) with an even bigger majority than it had achieved 5 years ago. Elmasmelih seems to want to keep the article's tone more like a cheerleader for the protesters. Laughingbuddha1 (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This template is for requesting changes to the page associated with this talk page. See WP:DR on how to resolve content disputes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

I believe the 2013-2014 Turkey protests (Gezi Park Protests) article lede, which paints a picture of a popular revolt against an authoritarian government, should include a byline that notes that the government actually won 2014 municipal elections (held after the major protests, assessed as free and fair by international observers) with an even bigger share of the popular vote than it had achieved 5 years ago. User Elmasmelih wants to keep the article's tone very anti-Erdogan, which is not NPOV or even the majority POV in Turkey. Laughingbuddha1 (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This template is for requesting changes to the page associated with this talk page. See WP:DR on how to resolve content disputes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2014

The following page about MAcedonia is completely biased, manipulated and promotes hate speech: http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0

Please, have someone review and clean it up.

Thank you. 81.61.164.199 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. I have no idea what mk.wikipedia is, but I do know that it is not en.wikipedia. The proper place for you to make your request is probably on https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80:%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0_%28%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%29 — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014

== Menemen ==

Good day. If you want you can have a look at Menemen. Massacre on Turks happened in this town under Greek occupation in 1919. Greek sources speak of mutual excesses but a western commission who traveled to the area disagrees. They found it one sided. User:Alexikoua disagrees and is doing revisionism on this page. [[30] Adds part about atrocities against Greeks. Then changes the main article link of Menemen massacre into "mutual excesses" in disregard that multiple Western sources named it "one sided". 2. edit [31] Is adding massacres committed on Greeks by Turks while removing or rewording events the other way, rewords sources. Accuses others who disagree with it. I had user reported here [32] with no result.

Dunderstrar (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: You need to try to discuss this on the article talk page and follow the other dispute resolution steps. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014

Hi, This is regarding the page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Binau"

I received a tag for neutrality but there is nothing on my TALK page so I'm unsure how to speak to whomever tagged the article so that I can learn how to fix that, as well as the two other tags.

I hope this is the correct place to post the question. Thank you in advance for the help on this.

Carrie.ockelford (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done:, Hello Carrie.ockelford - You may always find the username(s) of contributor(s) to a Wikipedia page visiting history of the page by clicking History link next to edit. In present case, User:Reddogsix is the Wikipedia editor who added those tags to the article Susan Binau. You may reach him/her on his/her talk page clicking User talk:Reddogsix but you are advised to discuss issues related to an article on article's talk page. Click Talk:Susan Binau and leave him a message there. If he/she does not reply within a reasonable time, you may simply remove the tag by editing the article. Hope, it does help. Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2014

hallo again good people of Wikipedia, am writing about Kate Bush being on the famous vegetarian page as there is strong evidence she is no longer a vegetarian,she is serving V.I.P.guests meat at her forthcoming shows in London and a book by Graeme Thompson also refers to Kate Bush no longer being vegetarian. Thankyou for your time whoever you are reading this. Cheers, Graham Deller [email protected] P.S-Wikipedia is brilliant.

101.170.170.154 (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Looks like you have the wrong location for your request. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2014 - personal attack

This edit in the Malaysian Airways Flight MH 17 section:

This is a "oh nos! They won't let me push my POV in peace kind of complaint". The current article is about as balanced as you can get, unless you think that WP:FRINGE defines the nature of an encyclopedia. The editor in question just has a bit of a problem with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (as exemplified by a recent block for 3RR and talk page abuse).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Note... I have removed the name of the editor in question (so it is no longer a personal attack)... As for the question of Fringe POV pushing... Issues with a specific editor and 3rr are best dealt with at WP:ANI (the administrators notice board for ongoing incidents). Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

But the Project Page itself still contains the personal attack. --87.117.204.133 (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2014

Please delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality_in_the_Arab_world because the whole article s based on one person's one-sided and overgeneralized opinions on homosexuality in the Middle East. Since it doesn't take in any actual sources that match the false statements that were written and the only writer make a page on what they feel it should be deleted.

64.121.83.151 (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The page has had 55 editors and quotes several reliable sources - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason - Arjayay (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2014

I would like to create an NPOV request without creating an account; User talk with editor providing "marketing." 173.68.144.130 (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

what request? you should just create an account, will be much simpler Cannolis (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

humsafar page. plot is constantly being deleted. possible or valid to place a lock on it?

49.213.33.62 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cannolis (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2014

Marsilio71 (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC) The Wikipedia page "Solipsism" is written by a Solipsist hence it is contentious and should not be taken for actual knowledge or fact as it can in no way be verified due to it's very nature. Hence, it may well mislead some readers and lead to misconception/misinterpretation unless this fact is revealed or made known.

Cheers

Nicholas Fowler

 Not done Please discuss issues with the Solipsism article on Talk:Solipsism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of the wikipedia article Saffron Terror

The wikipedia article on Saffron terror is facing vandalism by people with hurt religious sentiments. This article is named under deletion for no reason at all. This sentimental bias is affecting the already existing neutrality of the wikipedia article. No such vandalism is observed in case of the article Islamic terrorism, there are many muslim countries and 1 billion muslims all over the world inspite of that the article on Islamic terrorism is unscathed by such vandalism, then why is it only Indian editors in particluar are perpetrating such vandalism on the article on Saffron terror, clearly, the Indian editors are biased and hurt about the article and its content.

This article is worth saving for the same reason as to why the article on Islamic terrorism should be worth saving. If the article on Saffron terror is deleted, then I request the article on Islamic terrorism to be deleted as well, because deletion of the article Saffron terror would make the whole English wikipedia article non-neutral and biased. These people tried playing the same game on the Hindi Wikipedia article on भगवा आतंकवाद (Saffron terror) but they failed there because the writer of the article cited the existence of such an article on the english wikipedia. Now by deleting the English Wikipedia article on Saffron terror, they can delete the similar article on the Hindi Wikipeidia.

Thinkmaths (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Copied [33] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: What bullshit is this? There is not even 1 editor (except perhaps you) common in this discussion and whatever discussion you want to point to in the other language Wikipedia. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

COI at OpenDNA

I'm new here and am honestly not sure this is the right procedure, but anyways:

The article on OpenDNS is about OpenDNS Inc., which runs an open DNS server and once had the "clever" idea to hijack customer's traffic to google.com and inserting their own ads. This controversy has been documented on their page, in a much more neutral language than I could muster, including various references. The case is fairly well documented. A few weeks ago, a user self-identifying as "Social Media Coordinator at OpenDNS, Inc" has rewritten much of the page, silently dropping all traces of these events. The edit was reverted; then re-reverted with a comment that the content has been moved into a new section. This is plainly untrue; the new section contains only generic references to advertising and has dropped all negative information.

I find this particularly disturbing as OpenDNS tries to relaunch themselves as a security company, where past security-relevant actions such as page hjacking would be rather relevant information.

List of edits:

 5 December 2014‎, 19:54: Kdraps (Removed reception section, and added the information to the "discontinued ads" section, as most of the information was about the ads in the service.)
 5 December 2014, 19:55: Anirudh Emani (Reverted edits by Kdraps)
 5 December 2014, 20:05: Kdraps (Undid revision 636795972 by Anirudh Emani (talk) The contents of the reception section have been added to a more relevant subheading, the discontinued ads section.)

Note that 'contents of the reception section have been added [...] to the "discontinued ads" section' is false: All information about the domain hijacking is gone. 85.181.82.116 (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of the wider community. This really belongs at WP:COIN. I posted notice of this over there Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015

65.175.243.206 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, not to post items on the Noticeboard.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Given the nature of this page, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015

Can a neutral point of view be achieved when only bug fixes are allowed at Android version history? 80.103.73.101 (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  10:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the page is protected and I can not create it. Could anyone help me by creating it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.73.101 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Trent Richardson (NFL Player) Neutrality Issues

After reading through the page for NFL running back Trent Richardson, I was certainly surprised by the overwhelming positive tone that seemed to permeate throughout that embellished upon certain truths a bit too much - as to overemphasize areas/achievements worthy of praise and gloss-over/out-right fail to even give mention to some of the more disappointing moments of this person's "slice-of-life." Particularly, within the descriptions for each individual season there are mentions of season-specific accolades with accompanying anecdotes that may supplement or bring illustrious qualities to those performances/achievements, and the main reservation I hold with this page was with the description of the 2014 NFL season.

Here it is claimed that (paraphrasing) "Ahmad Bradshaw became injured and allowed Richardson to become the feature back." However, this hardly leaves the reader with an accurate account of the notable happenings/particular need-to-knows for this player within this particular season. A more factual approach would be to include an account that details the ultimate disappointment Richardson had proven to be for the Colts who had acquired him via trade from the Cleveland Browns for a FIRST ROUND DRAFT PICK. Considering the faith the organization put behind Richardson with the sizable investment they had relinquished in order acquire him, it would be nothing short of unmemorable for this player to produce anything less than league average numbers. Moreover, Trent Richardson was far from memorable for the 2014 NFL season - leaving many scratching their heads with the unexpected downfall of Richardson over the past two NFL seasons with no particular cause to label with attribution because nothing seems to be a sufficient explanation.

With his team currently deep into the post-season - very-much so with a good chance for contending for a championship - Richardson has been a healthy-scratch for both of the Colts' last two playoff games (including their upcoming conference championship game). Their team is standing among the best of the best within the league and the franchise can do nothing other than implicitly confirm Richardson to be nothing more than dead weight with no role whatsoever for him to fill and add value to the team's roster in any meaningful or competitive way.

If it is to become accurate and factual, the article for Richardson is in need of much improvement in order to, both, demonstrate neutrality and provide sufficient coverage of the pertinent details, because (while my prose on the subject is far from unbiased) the article did not seem to give the slightest mention of the above sentiments despite the objective facts/supporting details and despite the fact that many reputable-figures around the NFL have echoed these same sentiments.

It is a view left unmentioned from the article and I would like to request that a willing and able individual take on this task. And, also, on a more stylistic-note, outside of the exclusion of relevant-details, it is worth noting a large portion of the article appears to be overly positive and could use some repairs in the neutrality department. In other words, an overwhelming sense of the author's opinion of this player should not be so easily discerned. Rather, I should be able to read the article and have no indication either way.... Just some thoughts.

TW

76.185.239.143 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

António de Oliveira Salazar

I'm trying to post on the noticeboard, but it's protected for some reason? So how are IPs supposed to report things? Dumb move, but anyway…
An editor, Jbenjos (talk · contribs), has explicitly stated that he is going to edit the António de Oliveira Salazar article, the Prime Minister of Portugal, to portray him in a bad light. Choice quotes (from talkpage and edit summaries) include:

• "this guy was literarly a dictator" (so adds line stating "Salazar was a dictator" rather than previous "Salazar was Prime Minister" (neutral), which I reverted)
• "We need more politicial opponents of Salazar in this article, setting the tone of the article." (so adds quote from a prominent political opponent of Salazar, calling him "a historian", which ludicrously claims Salazar destroyed Portugal's economy)

And, worst of all:

• "I'd like to see this article read a little more like Adolf Hitler or Stalin"
• also, comparing the subject of the article to the North Korean dictators, so clear where his POV lies

58.7.138.46 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: there is a strong likelihood that Jbenjos is using two sockpuppets, 128.65.232.111 (talk · contribs) and McDonald of Kindness (talk · contribs), both of which have been created within the past week and magically found their way to the Salazar article. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

CUs trying to run checks on me are likely not to get a saying that I am a sock of the said editor. I do not think that the IP bothered to look at my contributions. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKSV is showing that "The neutrality of this article is disputed". However, the article is factual from start to finish, so the neutrality dispute should be removed.

The claim is that "The introduction sounds like a sales pitch. The history section, again, refers to the company's growth, their pricing plans, and increase in trading volumes, presented as a marketing pitch."

However, the tone of the article is not one of a sales pitch but of a factual one. The first source clearly establishes that RKSV is a discount broker that is going against the traditional brokerage model through its pricing. Therefore, highlighting the fact that the pricing of RKSV's plans is much lower than other brokers is a fact that is backed up by the source.

The history section talks about the growth of RKSV, which is factual in nature. It is a start-up firm and it would be odd to not mention the growth of the firm. All figures are factual and backed by sources, not opinions. RaghuKumar RKSV (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done I reviewed the article and agree that it is not a sales pitch. I didn't see any significant WP:NPOV issues so I removed the tag.- MrX 11:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015

I am new here and I would like to have a discussion about Wikipedia neutrality policy. I have seen that Wikipedia is not neutral in many of it's articles. I've seen many duscussions on other pages and websites about this as well and I would like to know why the Wikipedia community pretends it has a neutral stance when in reality they have a very narrow and poltitically motivated stance in most political articles. Where is it possible to have such a dicussion? Thanks. McCouchsky (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have disabled your edit request as you want to start a general discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, in reality people advocating for a particular political stance are generally going to be unhappy with articles that don't reflect or, if it is fringe, mention that stance. Article talk pages can be used to point out specific neutrality problems with an article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the issue is that YOU, the editor, are making changes that are politically motivated by steering edits towards your own political biases. Wikipedia is now a tabloid that reflects the political biases of senior editors as opposed to neutrality, although wiki claims to have neutrality in order to blind those that may be new to its inherent corruptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCouchsky (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Why the "Fringe Theories" designation

Nehalem Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Francis Drake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

137.118.193.47 (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)If wiki is going to be the judge and jury of Fringe theories of Francis Drake's landing site of Nova Albion then ALL theories must be labeled so. Scholars and professional historians alike have tried a number of times to determine where Drake landed but have failed to do so. The fact that Michael Von der Porten of the Francis Drake Navigators Guild has written the Nova Albion wiki article violates the NPOV of wiki. The fact that the wiki editor Horst59 is California school teacher removed the most accredited new research for the past 40 years from wiki, exhibits a violation of the NPOV of wiki. The fact that self-published material should be excluded as “reliable” and placed into the Fringe theory category is another point of the violation of wiki’s NPOV when my 248 page 8 ½ x 11” self-published “Francis Drake in Nehalem Bay 1579, Setting the Historical Record Straight” (2008/2011) is considered Fringe when Lawrence W. Powers, Ph.D., Dept of Natural Sciences, Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, Oregon wrote the Preface to my book. Dr. Tom Bensky, Professor of Physics, California Polytechnic State University checked/corrected my latitude determination of my 84 page book “Treasure Rocks of Neahkahnie Mountain” (2012) which is the 16th century type survey verified by Costaggini, Phillip A. and Schultz A.S.C.E, Robert J., Survey of Artifacts at Neahkahnie Mountain Oregon, Oregon State thesis, 1976-81. Both of my books are available on Amazon and Barnes and Nobel. The Drake Navigators Guild is all self-published. They have never had an unbiased publication published any of their Fringe theories. None of the Drake Navigators Guild self-published books are available on Amazon or B&N. I have my own website without advertising dedicated to the education of Francis Drake in Nehalem Bay. The Drake Navigators Guild does not have a dedicated site and it is a sub-page on a home page of a “wine guy” with other listings about snoopy, hikes and other various personal pages. The wine guy is Michael Von der Porten. His father, Edward Von der Porten is listed on the website last dated 2012 as President of the Drake Navigators Guild.

The California Historical Resources Commission denied the Drake Navigators Guild a Drakes Bay designation 3 times in 1973, 1977 and 1979 (all documented in my 530 page manuscript “The Drake Question; How California Stole Oregon’s History”. The 2011 – November National Park Service meeting on designating Drakes Bay a National Landmark was to benefit the Spanish Ministry of Culture and does not mention Francis Drake at all (also documented in my “The Drake Question). The press release and the wiki Francis Drake page (written by the Guild) says the designation by the National Parks System confirms Drake landed at Drakes Bay. The word-for-word nomination of the National Park System Advisory Board Landmarks Committee Meeting Agenda on Tuesday, November 8: Landmarks Committee Meeting, The Finn Forum, 2nd Floor, Ray Group International, 900 15th Street, N.W. DOES NOT MENTION FRANCIS DRAKE. The minutes from that meeting are: “Drakes Bay Historic and Archeological District, Marin County, CA Mr. Edward Von der Porten presented the nomination. Mr. Bruce Terrell, Ms. Nora Matus (on behalf of Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey), and Mr. Guillermo Corral (on behalf of the Spanish Ministry of Culture) spoke in support of the nomination. Mr. James Goeld was present in support of the nomination. Dr. Allan emphasized the importance of this nomination and thanked those who prepared it for their hard work. Professor Hoyos asked about plans for protecting and interpreting the site. Mr. Von der Porten stated that Drakes Bay is within the Point Reyes National Seashore. The site is not threatened. Some interpretative material is available, but the historical element of the site has not yet been interpreted much. Mr. Loether said that the American Latino Heritage Initiative will direct more focus to the site. Dr. Allan asked about the potential for renewed collaboration between NOAA and NPS. Mr. Von der Porten stated that such a collaboration is being discussed. Mr. Goeld added that a Memorandum of Understanding exists between the Spanish Ministry of Culture and NOAA for a cooperative Program intended to study and preserve Spanish shipwrecks in U.S. waters (such as the San Agustin) and U.S. ships in Spanish waters. Dr. Stevens asked whether the San Agustin is in divable waters, and whether photo documentation is possible. Mr. Von der Porten said that it is, but the ship is located in sand and in a breeding area for great white sharks. There has not been an attempt to go into the sand to find the hull. However, there are targets such as magnetometers under the sand. Research is ongoing on the question of why the ship was wrecked. Dr. Allan added that there was a past attempt to dive below the sand, but it did not succeed in finding anything related to the wreck. Dr. Allan moved to recommend the nomination using the standard motion: “I move that the Landmarks Committee recommend to the National Park System Advisory Board the approval of the Drakes Bay Historic and Archeological District, Marin County, CA, with the criteria and exceptions (if any) as noted in the nomination, and that the Advisory Board recommend to the Secretary of the Interior the designation of the property as a National Historic Landmark.” Dr. Seale seconded the motion. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the nomination.” No mention of Francis Drake from historians who know better.

In the past 4-5 years I had posted less the 1700 words on wiki pages surrounding Nehalem Bay and Francis Drake and just learned in the last few days my posts have been removed and all mention of the Nehalem Bay landing site is placed in the Fringe Theories. My limited number of comments exhibited a commitment of NPOV neutrality. Can that be said for the Drake Navigators Guild who has written the entire Nova Albion page and decided who and what sites were placed on the Fringe List when the Drake scholar community does not recognize any specific California bay? History is not determined by the number of votes one gets, it’s by the facts and I have the facts.

I would like to have my comments previously posted reinstated to the Francis Drake and Nova Albion pages. Thank you. 137.118.193.47 (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Issues with the GamerGate page

The GamerGate page [34] is suffering, as I see it, from a conflict of interest involving its sources. The movement itself can be directly witnessed in its place of origin (Twitter), yet the editors of the article only adopt as "reliable sources" articles by the very media that is being accused of corruption and lack of ethics by the GamerGate movement itself (a movement that claims to be about ethics in gaming journalism). In other words, the "reliable sources" are directly involved in the conflict, and that can't be considered acceptable. They have crafted a narrative of misogyny and harassment as a means to divert the attention from the accusations of corruption, but a quick search can reveal that most of the harassment comes from the opposing side: [35][36] (the second link contains a collection of twitter posts involving the harassment of GamerGate supporters. The twitter posts themselves can be considered a primary source). Furthermore, the current editors are shutting down any attempts at restoring the neutrality of the article.

When the media is involved in the conflict, the standards for reliable sourcing must account for this fact. Wikipedia Policy clearly states that primary sources can be used on certain occasions [37] This is such an occasion, as the original twitter posts containing the hashtag are direct evidence of what the GamerGate movement is about, and they mostly contradict what the alleged reliable sources are stating. Teraus (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015

Can someone please check out Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). It's really hard for some to accept the truth, especially when they've been exposed. Why do these people feel they are above reproach? NPOV Ninja (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Should we name the student accused of rape in the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015

I request the following page be reviewed:

2001 insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia

The article above is not neutral, it vilifies a specific ethnic group, and it is nationalistic propaganda which intends to fuel hatred and conflict between ethnic groups.

Moreover it also luck the minimum of logic and realism.

Please take in consideration my request as soon as possible. Pupi7x7 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015

robt krejtve aerikanve jav qifsha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.62.86 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed style noticeboard

There is talk at the village pump about creating a noticeboard similar to this one for style issues. Right now, people tend to bring their style questions to WT:MoS and other talk pages: [38] [39]. They do not much disrupt business there, but there is some concern that people may not know where to go to get a clear answer about Wikipedia's policies regarding punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues. Proponents of the measure say that a noticeboard would be easier for people to find. Opponents of the measure argue that such a style board might facilitate forum shopping and drama. Contributions from users who have experience with Wikipedia's noticeboards would be very welcome. The proposal itself is at the Village Pump. A mockup of the style noticeboard is here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is now a related proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Unprotection request

@Berean Hunter:, you protected this page in January 2014, can it be unprotected now? There are lots of IP editors (including me) who wish to post here, but we can't and instead must post on the talk page, where no one seems to respond. 115.166.47.100 (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Done
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015

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. 99.12.66.134 (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. 115.166.47.100 (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

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)

Conspiracy theory definition

moved to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Conspiracy_theory_definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 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)

Is the archive bot still working on the Noticeboard?

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

• RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer"? was last edited on July 17th (if my math is right, that is about 2 months 15 days according to this calculator);
• Is the “etymology” section of the article on Canada in line with NPOV policy? was last edited on September 6th (16 days according to this calculator);
• Point of View Issue was last edited on September 6th (gonna use finger math here, *counts fingers and toes*) about 16 days ago;
• National Air Traffic Controllers Association is 15 days old based on an edit on September 7th;
• RfC on Palestine is 14 days old based on an edit on September 8th (borderline I suppose but should be archived soon based on date).

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)

Germany, Nazi Germany and the Third Reich on Military articles - Oh my!

See this RfC on which name to use in the infoboxes of military unit's active only during the Third Reich/Nazi Germany and leave a well-considered !Vote. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you do when a group of editors keeps removing the npov tag on an article?

What do you do when a group of editors goes so far as to coordinate to suppress an NPOV tag on an article while the NPOV discussion is still ongoing, violating the instructions of the tag?TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• See Talk:Assault rifle where TeeTylerToe has been pushing all kinds of fringe ideas, without getting support from any other editor...--RAF910 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't edit war to get the tag put in. Just continue with dispute resolution until the matter is resolved. You can also fix and source the part of the article where you think there are violations of NPOV.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Getting back to the original question: Most of the time it means that you should accept that you are wrong, and should retire with grace. See WP:1AM (which has nothing to do with late-night hours). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality in a talk page section heading at Global Warming

In this thread, I'm asking for input on an admittedly small matter, but it is representative of a regular occurrence in the climate pages so it would help to get some outside input. I'm turning here because in this case the other ed has rebuffed my efforts at dialogue.

Several weeks ago at Talk:Global_Warming an editor created a new section heading they called

"Should This Be Renamed "Global Static Temperature"? or "Slight Warming?"

This heading is not neutral because it lends credence to common and oft-debunked assertions (e.g., "Global warming stopped in (whenever)" and ignores the positive acceleration of Earth's energy budget. Per WP:TALKNEW, "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." In my view, the heading violates this standard. Observations that the heading skirts this standard because it is phrased as a question should only matter to wikilawyers.

And so I revised the heading per TALKNEW so that it read simply

"Renaming"

Today DMCQ restored the original non-neutral heading. His reasons were in the edit summary " it was there for ages and doesn't cause much problem".

On his talk page, I asked "Please explain why a neutrality problem in a section heading suddenly becomes permissible with the mere passage of time, and more to the point, why the non neutral heading gains such desirability that you'd restore it after another ed finally brings the heading into TPG compliance?"

DMCQ replied,

"The section heading had been there for a while and I certainly don't find it objectionable. Don't waste my time with this stupid nonsense. Raise aq complaint somewhere or an RfC or some other silly business if you wish but just go away till you find it really is objectionable rather than that you are putting in an uninformative heading covering up what people have discussed so it can't be found. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)"

Discussion First, DMCQ is being self-contradictory. He sees this as "stupid nonsense" even though he thought it so important he reverted my renaming. Second, he has no good reason other than an apparent belief that a neutrality violation is cured by time alone. There is a history of a prickly relationship between us, so that may explain his approach when I attempted to engage at his talk page. Can others please opine? Non-neutral talk page headings appear in the climate pages on a regular basis, so something like this will probably come up again.

Thanks for input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• The heading is neutral. Its a specific question to rename to a specific (albeit incorrect) wording. 'We should rename this <blah> because I think <woo>' would be a non-neutral heading. The answer to both of course, is 'no'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Would be ok to have a section heading

• "Should we rename Gun Control to Lack of Gun Control?",
• "Should we rename Rape to Asking for it?"

Compared to RS's, these are absurdities that reflect the political views of some people, and they are asked as questions rather than statements. Does that make them "neutral" within the spirit of WP:TALKNEW? If not, how is the global warming example different? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The question its17 July elf is posed neutrally, that the alternatives in the heading reflect a non-neutral POV is not the same thing. Assuming the editor is editing from good faith and actually has citations/references to back up a controversial name change. (Neither of which is likely for your two examples anyway. Either way, its a silly waste of time argument to have. The obviously not going to pass request doesnt need people arguing over what it is titled, it needs someone to clearly lay out why it should not be. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

We disagree, but thanks for your views. Anyone else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps retitling as "Should This Be Renamed "Just a flesh wound"?" might be more apposite. . . dave souza, talk 16:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Dave... the cultural reference was lost on me. If you want me to get a message, please clarify, else nevermind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As the linked article notes, the black night responds to his arms both being cut off with "it's only a flesh wound". Similarly, three edits by PeacePeace on 17 July have resulted in almost a month of one editor, not Dmcq, insisting that it's only a little warming. Tempting to add under the hat that 2m of sea-level rise is hardly anything in proportion to past changes, though potentially embarrassing for those living in Florida. But must resist. . . dave souza, talk 17:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I was too lazy to read enough about the black knight... plus you've taught me a new vocab word: "apposite". Now I get it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note: NPOV applies to article content... the content of talk page threads (which would include headers) are not required to be neutral, since these are not article content. Blueboar (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

NECROTHREAD ARISE! (and this is why we close and archive stale discussions) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If a discussion is stale, I find that popping it in the microwave for thirty seconds leaves it with that fresh, just baked smell ... oh ... Bread not Thread. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the actual point of this noticeboard?

It seems like in actual practice this noticeboard is just a venue for foamed-over article talk page disputes. It doesn't particularly attract intervention by neutral parties, because most of the editors watching this board are the ones already engaged in other disputes here. The participants in the original dispute merely restate their arguments on the noticeboard, no one says anything else, and the matters are eventually archived without closure. Any blatant NPOV edits are more likely to be addressed by administrator intervention, so this noticeboard ends up hosting the more inconclusive disagreements in the hopes that someone else will comment, like a less effective version of 3O or RfC. Couldn't we just do without this page and trust to those more reliable avenues? Ibadibam (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps that there has been no response to this posting after more than a year is a good argument for its validity. I have also experienced the frustration of posting to this and other noticeboards only to have the discussion archived with no significant result. There are over 7,000 articles in the category NPOV disputes. This may be deemed insignificant given that there are almost 5.5 million content pages in English, but it never seems so to the participants in a dispute. In addition to the number, encountering a POV tag that has not been addressed for years is not encouraging to those that would like to have an article progress.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe it is just that other edds do not agree there is a problem that needs addressing? SZee below, just because you think there is a POV issue does not mean anyone else does. The problem becomes one one edd (or a minority of edds) insist that their POV is the neutral one and refuse to accept anything else (to be fair not always, but that seems to me the most common cause of POV tags and discussions not be given "fair treatment").Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Also... a NPOV issue raised here may relate to a specific article. Thus the issue is best discussed at that specific article's talk page, and not here. This noticeboard alerts editors to the fact that a potential problem exists, but the actual resolution of the problem occurs elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the posting here should be a "notice"/link to the talk page rather than a duplication/rehash of the discussion.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Archived discussion lost?

A while back, I commented on a discussion on this project page titled "Battle of the_Teutoburg Forest"; it is still visible in a link via an old version of this project page. The discussion was "archived", but though the archive bot removed it from project page, it does not now show up in the the archive. Am I missing something? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Σ, owner of Lowercase sigmabot III, which performed the archiving. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this the right place for my Question?

I 've added some months ago a well-cited text concerning the number of fatalities of EOKA. My edit was reverted because of "NPOV" concerns by 2 other editors. I have been to 3O, dispute resolution, issued a RfC (all other editors who contributed were in favour of inclusion). But it seems that the RfC won't close, not because of participation, as the last participant was a month ago or so. Should I ask for the opinions of the editors of this noticeboard or not? I feel it will snowball easily because it is a straightforward case. Cinadon36 08:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

RfCs automatically close after 30 days. However I cannot answer your questions without your providing any details. Please provide links to the article, the RfC, and your talk page discussion. You should also post on the talk page that you have taken it to this noticeboard if you have not already done so. TFD (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Using the NPOV policy as a tool of exclusion

The regular editors here might be interested in this research on how experienced editors use policies as "weapon" to exclude viewpoints and discourage participation by other editors ("incivility" in its original sense, meaning behavior that doesn't build up the community/civil society). The NPOV policy was named as the policy "by far" most likely to be (mis)used this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9vvwV5KfW4 WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Personally I dislike citing WP:NPOV alone as the reason to dispute an edit because it's often too vague - it doesn't specify why the edit is non-neutral. Virtually every NPOV issue is either going to be about the sourcing, WP:DUE, WP:TONE, or one of the other subsections on that article; it's better to focus on those because they give the other person a more specific idea of what they have to address in order to resolve things. Whereas WP:NPOV is so sweeping that it's often not clear where to start responding, and often carries an implicit subtext of "I find this edit so objectionable that I don't think there's any sourcing that could support it in any form." (Sometimes that is true and no such sourcing exists, but "find better sources for this if you can?" is more constructive because it makes clear to them why it can't be added.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, the problem with NPOV as a policy is that its interpretation and application is dependent on one's POV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

True, LOL. Though I wouldn't say it's necessarily a matter of experienced vs inexperienced editors. Some of the weirdest, misrepresented "NPOV" arguments I've seen have come from less experienced users (unless they were socks, which is very possible). But it's happened at all levels of experience, really. I've seen quite a few circular, endless debates on here where a user simply refuses to accept a WP:RS source as reliable, and usuable to source NPOV text, because it sources a fact about someone or something that they wish wasn't included in the article. Or they insist on misinterpreting the WP:NPOV policy to mean a source is only usable if the source itself is completely neutral. The policies cover all of this, but it doesn't stop the circular arguments when a user is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Even linking to the policies makes no difference when it gets to that point. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What?! Are you saying that an article can actually comply with NPOV if it doesn't align exactly with my own personal beliefs?! Heresy. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the point about fairness in relation to the technical issue of socks. Editors who are not here for the encyclopedia but only care about promotion or whitewashing about a particular topic are unlikely to ever consider themselves fairly treated, even if they must ultimately be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. While I'm sure that NPOV is often misrepresented, one can't avoid its mention or to correct one's misinterpretation of it whenever necessary. Since it's a core policy and very important, statistics must reflect systemic technical bias. —PaleoNeonate – 01:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Every encyclopedia needs a rule for decideing what details are included and what emphasis is used. Hundreds of books for example have been written about Napoleon and it is possible to write a book about him that runs into thousands of pages. But Wikipedia articles are only a fraction of that size and editorial judgemnt is requried to determine what should be included or excluded. There's nothing in the article for example about Napoleon's penis, although it has been covered in the Washington Post,[40], the Independent and Channel 4,[41], NPR,[42] the Huffington Post,[43] the New York Times[44] and other fine sources. It's of particular interest because of rumors that Trump has small hands. But the reason it's not included in his article is that it has not received sufficient coverage in articles about him to put into his article. Are the sources reliable? Absolutely! Now we could change the policy, but something would always be excluded. TFD (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Could the Tell Abyad discussion be reactivated?

Could we reactivate the Tell Abyad discussion? I have not noticed that there is 21 day rule and have prepared a summery of the dispute for the RfC in my sandboxΣ.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the Removal of Wall of Text

@Power~enwiki You are right that other editor's comments shouldn't be removed, but in this particular case half of the text removed was an off-topic wall of text, and the other half a discussion that in the end didn't lead anywhere, so it was dropped. The essential comments were kept. The reason why I wish to remove that wall of text is that it only makes it more confusing for users to understand what is actually going on, and the presence of the huge wall of text will likely discourage anyone from joining the conversation. So far, we have no votes on the matter and the ressult is inconclusive. With the huge wall of text, it's likely it's going to stay that way. I asked this question [[45]] on the WP:TEAHOUSE and got no response. If you have a suggestion of an alternative way of doing this please tell me. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

How important is religion in sports?

Is "first Muslim" in a sporting event a thing? I don't see that for other religions. Even Template:Infobox person removed the religion parameter from it. Please discuss at Talk:Khabib Nurmagomedov#First Muslim to win UFC title. Share your views.--2409:4073:2003:DE2E:A18B:FF00:1A4D:9E8 (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)