Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute:

This is a page for discussing NPOV disputes and use of the NPOV tag in general.

Article-specific NPOV discussions should take place on the article's Talk page only. In other words, please don't post claims of neutrality violation, questions about whether an article is neutral, or ask about how to deal with a specific NPOV dispute here.

Talk page guidelines: Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil. enekffofiffijokeoeqnwhewgeqywcgewqtw

Misc

The Ethnic European stocks dominated our planet Earth. However, the numerically superior Ethnic European varieties are ASHAMED to called themselves Ethnic Europeans. Further the numeric Ethnic European varieties have Pink or Red pixels predominant in the naked ape bodies but they are envious of the White Races of Asia. They also commonly called themselves Causasians who are actually Asians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.99.131 (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am disputing the neutrality of this article because: 1.It makes subtle suggestions through the use of language. (see 2. and 3.)

2.It's implications contraiywdict fact. (Thomas Jefferson's writings will show clearly that his ideas and what he fought for in this country are not represented well in either of the two major political parties of this country, though they both make claims, in one way or another, that their philosophies are concurrent with Jefferson's.)

3. It contradicts itself. While it first states that "The party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson in the early 1790s" which can be interpreted as neutral, in the same sentence, it then blatantly claims as fact that the Democratic Party "is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, political parties in the world." Whether the Democratic Party can trace its roots to Thomas Jefferson's party is disputable and noted in the article itself: "The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792, although some scholars date the party's beginnings to the late 1820s, when Democratic-Republicans Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren built a new party along with ex-Federalists." Furthermore, this is the first statement made under the heading: Beginnings, Jacksonian Democracy, and Manifest Destiny: 1792-1854, an historical section of the article. Indeed, it is the first attempt to trace the roots of the Democratic Party, of any kind, actually done in the article, at all.

4.) The article, in the very least, makes one wonder how much, if any, historical investigation actually went into the writing of this thing. ~ The Wolfstar

Some people may be shocked at the fact that there are many versions of history. Because history is not, I repeat is NOT, a Positive science as Physics. Events are not repeatable and everyone telling a story of history has his/her story to tell right from the beginning and that's HOW history is written. With mountains of evidence of the Holocaust, it is simply not possible to claim that it didn't happen. However, the Armenian version of WW1 history has more holes than Swiss cheese and has vastly differing claims even from Armenian historians. Armenians were deported due to their treason against the Ottoman Empire and a number of them died en route due to armed attacks, lack of food and/or sanitation -- this is true. But these conditions were also true for Turkish civilians, many of which died in the hands of Armenian armed bandits. This is WAR and people from boths sides DIE. It is only unfair to report people dying on side and totally erasing out the victims from the other side.

There was never the intent of an Armenian genocide from any government officer of the Ottoman Empire. On the contrary, 600 officers (many of whom later turned out to be innocent) had been taken to court and sentenced to death on the grounds that they failed to perform their duties and caused the deaths of these people. I don't think there's anyone who can find a single SS officer executed by the Nazi for causing the death of a Jewish person. And the Jewish people, many of whom fought for Germany in WW1, never ever betrayed their homeland. So, this begs the question: "Where is the similarity?". Simply put, there is NONE.

Another note here is that the Jewish people who were deported from Spain found their home in the Ottoman Empire as they were specially invited by the Sultan when nobody wanted them. Their grand grand children still live in the Turkish Republic without any discrimination.

St. Catherine of Alexandria did exist. the article is biased. --- I'm shocked at the fact that this article is disputed! How can anyone argue against history? How come the holocaust article is not disputed? How come people can feel sympathy to the Jews but not the Chinese? Fact is a fact people and there is no use arguing about it. It doesn't matter if the death toll is 30,000 or 100,000. It is still a horrible atrocity. The death toll for Jews in concentration camps varies too, but I don't see anyone arguing about it. Today, anyone who says nice things about Nazis is considered either a neo-Nazi or KKK, but whoever denies the Nanking Massacre can actually get away with it! Where is justice? I dare anyone say that the Americans never dropped the two atomic bombs in Japan. Since when did the Japanese government become such cowards? What is done is done, admit it. Where is the samurai code that they valued? I'm pretty sure denial is not part their code of honor. How would their ancestors see them now? Shame on anyone who denies history!

I changed nothing uncontroversial. Haha. ........................................................................ No, I mean, I changed nothing uncontroversial to nothing controversial which I think is what is meant, but if that just proves that I didn't get my head round the subject properly, then I'm sorry. If nothing uncontroversial is really what was meant then maybe a reword avoiding the near-double negative might be a good thing?? Nevilley 18:16 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)

People may be wondering why I've added NPOV dispute headers to a bunch of articles. These are basically taken from wikipedia:pages needing attention - I've provided varying levels of peer review in doing this.

I've deliberately not provided any peer review to the many articles originally created by "24", except to check whether it's been substantially revised since being listed. The people who originally created the list (user:The Anome and user:Maveric149) no doubt had their reasons. Martin

Could someone that knows something about quantum mechanics or such take a look at the contributions of User:Stupidmoron? I don't know anything about this subject, but the first change this user made had the comment "some vandalism." As far as I can tell, the information is on valid subjects, but I can't tell if the information is valid. MB 14:00 20 May 2003 (UTC)

This page uses a reverse list. This avoids the problems suffered by wikipedia:pages needing attention, where people add a page, don't sign it, don't date it, don't give a reason, and then bugger off. I've removed the forward links - if they're still NPOV disputed (which I have no way of easily telling) then add an NPOV dispute header. It's not rocket science. Martin 00:53 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Cryptic NPOV Disputes

Recently I've come across a couple of pages which link to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, but which don't have any discussion of what the disputed points are; the most recent one is Six-Day War. An anonymous user simple added the NPOV dispute statement without editing the article in any other way or leaving any note on the talk page. How are we supposed to NPOV a page if the party who disagrees doesn't give any indication as to what the problem is? I think that there should be a note on Wikipedia:NPOV dispute which tells people who add a link to that page that they need to also add a note concerning the article's NPOV problems on the talk page if it's not already obvious from the talk page (I guess I can add that). Second, what can be done about the article itself? If no one explains the article's NPOV problems (I added a note on the talk page), can we just delete the note about the NPOV dispute? -- AdamRaizen 02:16, 2003 Aug 10 (UTC)

I am requesting an independent review of the following article Millosh Gjergj Nikolla. I wrote the original version, and I believe that someone is slanting it towards a Serb nationalistic POV. I am Albanian and therefore my views may not be objective enough. I don't want to keep reverting the article and/or go into an edit war. If this is the wrong place to post this, then let me know the correct place. Thanks Dori 13:25, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The same person may also be doing this to the following article History of Albania Dori 13:33, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

YOU SUCK AND WILL DIE!!! Could someone look at the Hizballah article .... 68.120.204.56 just reverted it ... and I had a edit war with 68.120.205.56 [till it was shut down (protected) ... something I won't do again ... i just did alot of work on it (mainly consolidation) ... and I thought I was being pretty fair in my edits (i even tried to incoprporate the new items the anon was giving) ... I'll let you ppl decide]. The anon user is taking out pertient information on the subject. reddi 04:38, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) PS. Please reveiw the history file on the Hizballah history to see the comments of the anon user ...

How is a page de-NPOV'd?

I did some work on a page that I would hope is more neutral than it was, but it is still on the NPOV list: fluoride. Since I know one can't simply delete the NPOV disclaimer at the top by rule, and I don't know of a page that says 'Check this page because work was done on it', how is said designation retired from a page that (I hope) doesn't need it anymore? Thanks... Skybunny 01:38, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I wish you can write English correct. Are you OK? What is "This artical appears to very inaccurate"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfaircnn (talk • contribs) 09:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is not a reliable source for information

This artical appears to very inaccurate. I have never understood the term "white" to include Middle Easterners. I am "forty five" years of age, and never once have I heard the term "white" applyed to middle eastern men. To claim they are white, and then post this nonsense in an online encyclopedia is absolutley absured. (evidentally, anybody is free to say what they like here?)

Who is writing these articles; please don't tell me that "Marshman or Skybunny" is telling me what to think?

Ending a neutrality dispute

Newbie question, but what's the best way to go about determining whether there is enough consensus to end a neutrality dispute?

I'm thinking in particular of Argument from Ignorance, where the dispute was over the examples used. I think that I've put things into a state which deals with the objections raised in the talk page.

Should I be posting directly to the user talk pages of everyone involved, or is it sufficient just to leave a comment on the talk page for the article and remove the NPOV marker if nobody has objected after a few days? Or is there some kind of defined process for this that I've missed?

Regarding the question of referring to a person of Middle Eastern descent as Caucasian (a.k.a. 'white'), I suggest you chek the U.S. Census bureau. EEOC regulation clearly state that peoples of Middle Eastern and North African descent are considered Caucasian.

Removing NPOV dispute notices

I believe that the current version of the 12th Street Riot article, which is currently linked to the NPOV dispute page seems okay.

How do I go about suggesting that an article currently under NPOV dispute be removed from that list/have the notices removed? I've noted my opinion on the article's talk page with a summary to that effect, so it's in recent changes, and, obviously, here.

Is there a different mechanism for asking people to take a look and comment/vote on removing articles from the NPOV dispute list that I haven't found yet? If there isn't, should there be? I'm thinking of something similar to the brilliant prose candidates page. Thalia/Karen 03:56, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Dori. Any thoughts on whether it would be useful to have a page listing candidates for removal from NPOV dispute status? If there were such a thing, would you (or anyone else who's reading this) use it? I'm willing to put one together; I just don't want to do it if no one else thinks it would be worthwhile. Thalia/Karen 21:18, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

When you believe the neutrality of an article is no longer disputed, remove the dispute notice. See also wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute, IIRC. Martin 23:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Martin, thanks for the link; it was helpful. What you said certainly makes sense. But I wasn't involved in the dispute, so I wasn't sure. I know when I think something's neutral, but not when others do. I thought perhaps a single page listing similar articles might provide a) a consensus-building route out of NPOV disputes/editing wars and b) an easy way to speed cleanup of pages that were worked on after disputes, and then forgotten about. There's enough to do without chasing after pages that really don't still need attention. Still, as I said, I doubt I'll put one together if no one else thinks it'd be useful. Thalia/Karen 20:32, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I think the page has become to "meta". A user who clicks on the "dispute" link in "The neutrality of this article is disputed." is not shown an explanation of NPOV and such, but an explanation (and now discussion!) about how to add a similar message to other articles. This kind of meta stuff should be put elsewhere - at least at the bottom of the article. I'll wait a couple of days for comments, and then rework the article. GayCom 02:18, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

NPOV vs. facts

When is it an NPOV dispute, and when is it really just someone doesn't know their facts?

For example, there was recently a debate on the Talk:Astronomy page over the source of the craters on the Moon. Mainstream scientists (astronomers) agree they're caused by impacts of meteors, however there are other theories put forth by minority groups. (One of these conflicting theories involves some form of plasma or electrical discharge.) These groups are considered fringe and non-scientific and WRONG by the scientists and science educators. The holders of the alternate beliefs consider the mainstream scientists and educators to be propagating unproven myths that are WRONG. cattalioyyujky

On the Astronomy page this dispute was solved by removing all references to the source of the craters, satisfying the alternate belief holder, at which point the argument died out. Was this the proper way of handling the debate? If not, what would have been more appropriate? --zandperl 04:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] The beginning of the article on Paraphilia has been rewritten by Sam Space to provide a strongly POV assessment of the whole topic. I see that the neutrality of the article has been disputed by adding a header message to that effect, but it is not listed on the page of disputed articles and I can see no way to edit that page. P0M 03:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Specific examples would be helpful, which is to say, too many generalities in many articals ie I had scarsely a clue what plasma astromomy was about until someone mentioned that plasma might make craters on the moon. Plasma making craters is not a mainstream opinion, nor is the harm done by floride in our drinking water mainstream. Wickipedia should identify that which is not mainstream, but remember much of what is now mainstream was called puedoscience a few decades ago, so we should be slow to debunk or delete that which is not mainstream. Neil

Does this notice apply to project pages?

This project is not visible to the public, therefore there is nothing to protect the public from.

I am also of the opinion, that if you are not a participant you do not have the authority to edit a project page. I think the placement of this notice is being used by a bunch of editors to harass both me and the project. -- John Gohde 16:18, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

New Boilerplate

The new boilerplate should be implemented!!!! 210.50.105.53 05:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have been accused of bending NPOV, and it has been suggested here that it be discussed here. Thoughts? Sam [Spade] 18:27, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Template:NPOV listing and "walking away"

I'm more than a bit puzzled by the behaviour, to tag an article with Template:NPOV and then "walk away", don't work on NPOVing the article. Or even more strange, claiming "X is perfectly untrue" in the discussion, but don't removing "X" from the article, even when no objections are seen. Should I remove "X" then, even if I know zilch about the question? --Pjacobi 11:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Positivism

It reminds me of the positivism battles in ealier days. There is nothing such as neutral. Neutral here means according to a governing opinion. It is very sad that this takes place and we see criticism wiped out of the Wikipedia. That is really sad, the romantic period is over. Wikipedia besomes conservative.

This page most definitely should not be deleted at this time. If and when valid questions about fraud and/or other election irregularities have been satisfactorily answered by recounts etc. which should happen within a month or two, regardless, perhaps the page can be reduced down to a couple paragraphs. If it is deleted before then, however, simple because Bush voters are uncomfortable with discussing the fact that the election may have been stolen, tough! The American people demand due process in legal proceedings. Let due process run its course and let facts cap the controversies, not partisan contributors who are trying to silence legitimate opposition questions by invoking NPOV.

How can I dispute the neutrality of an article?

I am asking this as I found some articles that are at least very biased! (Greetings by Hektor)

Troll Kingdom -- NPOV vs. Attention

Could someone please lend some insight on what to do with the Troll Kingdom article. The page, especially the "Users" section seems to be heavily biased. A line describing other forum admin goes, "T'Bonz - Current administrator of TrekBBS and the butt of many jokes at Troll Kingdom. She's proven too often that she cannot be trusted, and has been known to perform her duties while intoxicated." Add to that the rest of it appears to be mainly a vanity entry for various users.

I tagged the article as NPOV but now I'm wondering if it should be handled as one in need of "attention." Comments appreciated. IKato 22:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nanjing massacre has never been an established historical fact, but a rejected illusion amoung many scholars. Many disgusting picutres the Chinese show are already proven to be fake or not related to nanking, and abusolutely lack of authenticity.

Basic question. How can you kill 300,000 people in a city of 200,000 that increased to 250,000 right after the killing suposed to take place?

I wonder since when Chinese government earned such trustworthiness. We are all supposed to know that the chinese goverment has been infamous for lying for last half of century. We should not make an exception of this one also.

In Japan, for many decades we have been intensely discussing and studying this issue more than any other country including China herself where there is freedom of speech or freedom of press, and have made quite a stock pile of data on Nanking. I think the Japanese really are obsessive Nanking maniacs. People most obsessed with Nanking are Japanese, I can tell you. Afterall it all turned out that there was'nt any Nanjing massacre they claim to exist. There was no witness of the masscre by a third party. There was no picuture that can prove the massacre (although picture is not necessary proveing masscre, it proves that they had to do this kind of things for some reasons). There is no logical explanation that can clear up population contradiction.

I am not denying the Nanjing massacre. I am saying that they are just failing to prove Nanjing massacre.

We don't have any responsibility to prove Nanjing massacre not happened. People can't prove things that did'n happen, because there is no informaition about things did't happen. That is not our responsibility. Resopnsibilities are for people who are claim that it happened. Then our argument starts.

Can This Article Be Any More Biased Against The United States?

Judging by the grammar and style used, it sounds as though this article, or parts of it have been written by an anti-American British subject. This stuff is getting old.

Can This Article Be Any More Biased Against the undoubted role as an Ally of the Soviet Union during World War 2?

The bias against the immense sacrifice made by the Soviet peoples during world war 2 is so amazing it is unbelievable.

Can This Article Be Any More Biased Against the deceny of King Michael and constitutional monarchy in general?

This article really has it in for King Michael. I am amazed he hasn't sued the organisation but probably does nothing to treat it with the justifiable contempt it deserves. What is your problem with constitutional monarchy and accurate reporting?

Constantine Confusion

I've edited Constantine I emperor to clarify my tale. On the talk page I went into it in depth. These were the thoughts of the Christian writers during Constantine the Great's reign. I cannot control the surviving writings and thoughts of ancient people.User:Kazuba 11 Jun 05

Policy for removing dispute tags

I think a policy or semi-policy or guideline (something) needs to be decided upon for removal of NPOV tags and other dispute tags. On AIDS conspiracy theories recently over the summer there's be a been a dispute about the title and, subsequently, a dispute over the tag on the article.

NPOV summary with tag

It seems that for certain situations, merely having an NPOV tag is insufficient. There are times when it is key to understand not merely that there IS a dispute, but the nature of the dispute. This is particularly crucial when the dispute is to the manner of presentation of the information, not just the information itself. Can I get consensus on a policy that allows a brief summary of the dispute to go with the tag at the top of the disputed page? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

POV-section

Is there any reason why the {{POV-section}} template isn't shown on this page? After all, it links to this page as well. --Ciaran H 18:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Special relativity (postulates).

The laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference in which the laws of mechanics hold good (non-accelerating frames).

Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body; here the velocity of light c is defined as the two-way velocity, determined with a single clock.

First postulate: Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet... Examples of this sort, together with... [snip caveats] ...will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity" The original author seems to have confused the subject and predicate.

Second postulate: There is no "here the velocity of light..." to add. The author has confused Einstein's definition of time with the second "postulate".

Definition of "time" we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.

Naming Conventions and POV

What is the policy regarding POV titles... What is more important NPOV or common names. If there is a historical event with a name used by one of the participants in the conflict, isn't that considered POV? If there are alternate titles, which are already used in other encyclopedias and are NPOV, but perhaps not the most common, wouldn't it make sense to use that one instead? - Spaceriqui 21:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Overuse of template

Has anyone else noticed this template being used when inappropriate? I am speaking specifically of people who place the template on articles because their proposed edits (usually highly POV, as in Abortion; or completely unsupported by any references, as in Bigfoot) are unable to gain consensus or support. I have seen this on a number of articles which I have on my watchlist precisely because they are vandal magnets and troll magnets, and it may be that my perception is skewed, but it looks like this template is being used to violate WP:Point more often. Would it be in order to add some kind of section on when not to place the template on the NPOV dispute page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Correcting typo in POV-check template

I tried for the first time to add this template to a page (Philip Owen), and the text exemplar in this article (POV check) didn't work. I found that 'POV-check' does, so I've changed it in this article.--Anchoress 07:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeking help on editing an article to be truly NPOV

I created Game Over (film) and the article was recently tagged as not having a Neutral Point of view. After reading the article again, I agree; so I'd like to get help so I can make the article truly NPOV. But I don't know who to ask, or where to look for help. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks! Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 19:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Something went awry

Since last tme I'we seen this page, the text became hopelessly vague. The majur focus has been lost: only POV previously published in reputable source is valid for raising doubts in NPOV. A random user cannot just come and say "this is bullshit" and slap a "NPOV" tag: we will have all trolls swarmed here. Meanwile the current policy is full of such vague wording as "only that someone ...", "other people would want to disagree", etc. I am not good at English language. Other people more capable in legalese please review the text to close doors for frivolous NPOV trolling. mikka (t) 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mandatory NPOV tag explanation

I suggest that policy require anyone placing an NPOV dispute tag to, upon request, state the objection specifically enough that it can be intelligently discussed.

See this mind-numbing discussion between about 10 established editors and an anon for a current example. I have encountered this same sort of obstinance before, and the current phrasing of the guideline leaves a very tiny bit of ambiguity (enough for a troll to cling to).

In short, if you're not willing to explain the bias, you cannot insist on keeping the NPOV dispute tag. Trivially, if you won't even explain the objection, then it's not a dispute -- everyone might actually agree with you. Derex 00:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is important that the context of the discussion referred to by Derex above be made clear. I did not insert the NPOV tag without indicating a reason for my concern. The discussion originated with my complaint that the NPOV tag previously in place had been removed without due diligence to ensure that the article was NPOV. The lack of NPOV was obvious from a quick look at the first part of the article or the last part of its discussion page, but no one was willing to do that. When I eventually did try to insert the NPOV tag, it was repeatedly removed, even though I had indicated at least one specific area of immediate concern and was trying to work constructively to address it. I was then subjected to a 24-hour block as a sanction for violating 3RR, based on a complaint that misrepresented these facts. 71.212.31.95 18:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many articles with NPOV tag

It seems lately that every second article I read, especially articles on major political or religious subjects has been slapped with a POV tag. Why is this? I think NPOV is too limiting in some cases, Adolf Hitler, say. NPOV suggests that we should say nothing specifically negative about him, but how can you not when he did what he did? Ditto Stalin, Saddam Hussein and so forth.

The POV tag should only be used in cases of extreme bias for or against the subject (eg claiming someone as 'the greatest footballer of all time' without any qualifiers), and the majority of articles with the POV tag on are nowhere near this. To me it seems that people just slap the POV tag on whatever their political or religious leaning when they find someone's added anything that might be even remotely construed as 'negative', even if that 'negative' addition is general consensus and used in paper encyclopedias. At the rate things are going, every article will have an NPOV tag by 2010, even if twenty billion more articles have been written by then and Wikipedia is downloaded into a chip in our brains. --Stevefarrell 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to add language to deter edit-wars over the NPOV tag

I recently was involved in a dispute on a page where some editors were edit-warring over whether or not to put the NPOV dispute tag on the page. There was a block of users who felt the page violated NPOV and a block who felt the article complied with NPOV. That war is now over, but I've since bumped into other people who've also experienced edit-wars over the NPOV dispute tag.

It seems to me that these edit wars come from a misunderstanding about what the NPOV tag means-- i.e. some editors think NPOV dispute tag means the article DOES violate NPOV, when in reality, it just means there's a dispute. It also seems to me that if two groups of users are edit-warring over the NPOV dispute tag-- that is probably good evidence that the tag SHOULD be on the page. In other words, we should clarify what the tag means, and sort of "raise the burden of proof" for someone wishing to take the tag down-- such that merely believing the page IS NPOV is not a good enough justification for taking the tag down.

Just a suggestion-- it just seems to me we should add something to help stop people feeling the need to edit war over the NPOV tag, so long as we don't upset any important balances in doing so. --Alecmconroy 16:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Should I tag?

I'm new to Wiki and have recently been involved in an edit war between myself and someone else who's opinion on the matter are very strong. It has to do with the politics of calling the United States an alleged "war crimnial". the article is a list of historical war crimes and I understand the need to include alleged crimes in many sections (such as where a certain Nazi general was seen performning the crime and neer prosected) but we're talking about the difference between a government who wanted to take over and rule another country (Nazi's) vs a country who wanted to remove the possibillity of an attack and then leave. Currently we are using a GreenPeace citation and several failed court cases to demonstrate that the US commited a crime but my whole thing is that are the accusations of an activist group and court denials verifibillity enough for a wiki article? The dispute went back and forth with little resolution. I'm not happy with the POV of the article as it stands and tomorrow I expect it to go back even farther into POVland. It should be noted that there is allready an article set up for the discussion of the topic outside of the list thread. My question though.. should I tag the section? --DjSamwise 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

How can neutrality be achieved

(Comment posted on main page. moved here by Alecmconroy 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

Prosed merging in of Wikipedia:POV pushing

I think most of its text should be merged into a section here and Wikipedia:POV pushing reduced to a definition and see also this page. --64.232.164.63 00:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Group of POV pushers

What if a group of POV pushers insists 'their version' is the Wikipedia:Consensus version and refuse to allow any changes to the article, however minor, without consent of their group?

What if they even revert the placement of a {{POV-section}} tag? --Uncle Ed 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are groups of Wikipedians ('cliques'?) that disagree with (or wilfully disregard) tag policy on articles related to the Theory of Evolution and the Global warming theory:

Their strategy is to insist that their point of view is the undisputed truth. One tactic is to remove any evidence that published sources outside of Wikipedia have an alternate point of view. Any attempt to incorporate an alternate idea or view is met with instant reversion, typically with an edit comment like 'rv POV'. This clearly violates NPOV policy:

Perhaps a survey or RFA is in order, to address the anti-NPOV actions of these cliques. --Uncle Ed 13:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute tags, when to use and delete

Two years ago, someone observed here, "I have been accused of bending NPOV, and it has been suggested here that it be discussed here." It wasn't discussed here, fortunately. This would not be the place.

Still there is too much happening in this discussion. More than two years ago, someone else observed above, Hi. I think the page has become to "meta". A user who clicks on the "dispute" link in "The neutrality of this article is disputed." is not shown an explanation of NPOV and such, but an explanation (and now discussion!) about how to add a similar message to other articles. This kind of meta stuff should be put elsewhere - at least at the bottom of the article. I'll wait a couple of days for comments, and then rework the article. GayCom 02:18, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I'm sure that improved the article. The discussion is still a mess. Shouldn't the discussion be "meta": about NPOV tags and (how to resolve) difficult matters concerning when/where to put them and delete tham? Much of it is but there is too much junk. --P64 21:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I already said this before but I shall say it again. I am disputing the neutrality of the part of the article if Americans Knew which is under the title Israel advocates make false claims for if Americans knew site.-Dendoi Decmeber 9, 2006 12:37 AM

I support the article because the article is correct and fair. The article is a evidence of freedom. anti-cnn is a evidence of freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfaircnn (talk • contribs) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was this info removed???

It is often necessary to examine a topic from more than one perspective. This is especially so with controversial topics — such as politics, morality, and religion. But many people come to Wikipedia unaware of NPOV or simply do not wish to abide by it, and hence they routinely and deliberately engage in POV pushing.

The reason they do this is probably that they believe that a neutral presentation of the views they advocate will look bad in comparison to opposing views. And the best way to win an argument is to prevent the other side from getting any time to make its argument. Failing that, the goal may just be to make the other side look bad (ad hominem) or to distort that side's views.

Two types of POV pushing

Please don't delete useful information or instructions. If you think this is incorrect, please say so and say why. I've been here for 5 1/2 years and I think I know the rules by now. By the way, I am the original author of Wikipedia:POV pushing, in which I recommend against the practice. --Uncle Ed 13:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo and I have always been clear about this, I don't see any "potential" here.

Who's saying that a minority view shouldn't "be presented in proportion to their acceptance by the mainstream"? Who at Wikipedia has ever said that undue weight should be given to a minority view?

Let's put this in perspective, starting with an easy example. Suppose the US electorate are split over whether Gore or Bush is the best presidential candidate. During the campaign, should US newspapers give 90% of their coverage to the view that Bush is the better candidate? This would be inappropriate in any paper which claimed to be objective, because it would be giving undue weight (90% coverage) to a view which has only 50% credence.

Swinging to the opposite extreme, let's take a well-rounded view <grin> of Flat earth. It has 200 adherents, and there are 6 billion people who disagree. An article on the shape of the earth should not even mention this view, because 200 ÷ 6,000,000,000 is a tiny minority.

It only starts getting hard in the middle. What percent of historians give any credence to the Holocaust vs. Holocaust denial? Hmm, it depends on the country or region of the historian I guess. In the Islamic sphere, ideas like holocaust denial and the authenticity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are given much credence. How much room should views like these get in the English Language Wikipedia, which is largely non-Islamic?

My favorite example is Global warming denial, i.e., the view that the Anthropogenic global warming theory is not well-established enough to be considered "science". What percent of scientists believe this? Or what percent of US voters? Or Wikipedia readers? Or editors?

All I'm saying is that excluding any mention of the idea, as a slum-dunk no-brainer application of undue weight policy, is a tricky area. We need some sort of basis, like maybe polls, to determine how much weight a view carries. --Uncle Ed 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing POV tags when nothing posted to talk page

How long a period is appropriate to wait after a POV tag is added to an article but the tagger never posts anything to the talk page before removing the tag? Vancleef 09:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Gold Seal Campaign

What do you think of this? The administrators of Wikipedia establish a Gold Seal campaign for certain articles. This “Gold Seal” will indicate for a given article it’s factuality and lack of vandalism. Basically it will show..

This will be an important step for Wikipedia. It means students, high school included will be able to cite Wikipedia in their work. As of now many schools do not allow students to this.

As for editing an article, It will still be allowed yet a person can easily revert to the Gold Sealed, verified page on Wikipedia. This will be an amazing step for Wikipedia, though difficult, it will allow readers to know for sure what they are reading is true. It will surely improve Wikipedia’s image in the public sphere. Of course someone will have to organize this, but in then it will be sufficient use of labour. — mattawa

"last resort"

I don't agree that a tag should only be added as a last resort. Some articles have extensive problems that cannot be fixed in a few minutes of an edit. Other articles are controversial, and without a tag, people won't focus on the NPOV problems in the article. Other articles have ownership problems, and an editor can't hope to fix an NPOV problem without hours and hours of effort and dispute resolution; I'm on a page now where a persistent full-time editor has announced that I have an hour to propose a fix to a problem or he'll delete the tag, citing the last resort language. There are hundreds of pages with NPOV problems, and only a few of them are tagged. Casual editors who identify problems but don't have the time to fix them are contributing to Wikipedia when they identify problems for others to fix. I've written an essay on the subject: Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems, which I'd love to hear others' input on, and would like to incorporate into this page. At a minimum, the "last resort" language should be clarified. THF 02:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Identification of problems in articles is an important task in the creation of a reliable encyclopedia. "Tags" are often used to indicate problems. Some people object to tagging instead of fixing, but tags do have their place.

The encyclopedia is way too large for anyone to read the whole thing, and there is a lot of value in tagging particular articles for particular problems. Tagging makes it easier for people who have expertise or interest in a particular area to hone in on things they can work on, it warns readers about rough patches (so they don't think a disputed passage is authoritative), and it encourages more passers-by to pitch in. Sure, it's better if people fix the problems they find, but complex problems can take a long time to untangle, and not everyone has the information immediately at hand to do the job right. An editor who places a tag has no obligation other than to justify the inclusion of the tag on the talk page if the tag is challenged.

Criticisms (as expressed through article tags) and incremental editing are an important part of writing a collaborative encyclopedia, and should be welcomed rather than discouraged. Wikipedia values contributions from everyone, whether or not they have contributed before, and even whether or not they are experts. Even novices and non-experts can help improve presentation without changing the underlying information. It is important to listen to even casual readers who find an article to be biased or confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report these symptoms means that the encyclopedia could probably be doing a better job.

The problem with Wikipedia is that there are too many pages that should be tagged that are untagged. WP:NPOVD requires editors to babysit those pages; for example, even though Therefore above acknowledges NPOV problems on the David Vitter page (and it took repeating policy to him for several hours to get him to acknowledge a problem), he continues to remove the tag, despite the clear command of this page as it currently stands not to do so. The policy should be less hostile to casual editors who don't have the time to babysit pages, but who can draw attention to problems in the encyclopedia for editors with more time. There are literally thousands of pages with POV problems in Wikipedia, and only a small fraction are tagged. THF 12:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased page fanatics. NPOV policy needed

Many pages are dominated by a biased and knowledgeable fanatic so consensus won't happen in NPOV disputes. The bias may be hard to spot and the fanatic repeatedly contests every point until others run out of energy and the bias remains. Moreso if there are vested interests like links or references to the fanatic's own or related website. There should be a firm NPOV defense policy about this type of attack but there isn't. As such wikipedia remains seriously flawed with readers not knowing if any page they are reading is biased or not. Such a policy could recommend the involvement of tough administrators. Alternatively, all pages need to be judged as unbiased and an "approved" seal applied at regular intervals. Quality control is needed. 190.76.28.253 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus needed

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

ResolvedCalling someone a POV pusher is incivil. Commenting on editor (as a POV-pusher) is unacceptable. Comment on the actions (POV-pusing) instead.

Is calling actions "POV-Pushing" considered uncivil? Why? By whom? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, this issue is really about accusing other editors of being "pov-pushers", as you did here. Dreadstar † 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

According to its guidline, an RfC on a policy should be "A policy or guideline RfC is for requesting comment on proposed policies and guidelines or proposed revisions to existing policies and guidelines." This RfC clearly does not follow this criterion. What this really is is an RfC on a user (whichever user is the one who called some action "POV-pushing"). I am automatically skeptical of the good-faith of ScienceApologist who seems to be trying to disgues an RfC against a user as an RfC concerning a proposed policy or policy revision. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's uncivil. I don’t think the place to accuse others of being "paranormal pov-pushers" or its like, is in edit summaries or on talk pages. It should be handled like any other behavioral issue; if someone is pushing a POV, the evidence needs to be brought to a venue like ANI, RfC or ArbCom. Throwing accusations of that nature, especially where there is no evidence of such intent or behavior, shouldn’t be allowed. The editor objecting to this change, ScienceApologist is continually calling other editors names such as this. Dreadstar † 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not an answer to the question. You may not want to "allow" something, but why is it uncivil? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you or anyone else needs to label fellow Wikipedia editors with such derogatory names such as "pseudoscientific pov-pushers", woo-woos, "cranks" or other such names (I've seen those names thrown around by other editors very recently). Exactly who, and by what criteria, were these editors judged to be "paranormal pov-pushers"? And even if they have been so judged, by say ArbCom, then is an edit summary or a talk page discussion the place to be calling them these kinds of names?

Come on, it's clearly offensive, and does nothing but create a hostile, uncomfortable environment. It's a comment on other contributors, so WP:NPA may also apply, so I don't think there's any question about it being uncivil. Dreadstar † 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A summary is a summary. It isn't supposed to be a discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are disruptive editors they sometimes disruptively edit. Either you admit that POV-pushing happens or it doesn't happen. If it does happen, then you are basically saying we shouldn't say it is happening. That's your position. Civility is more than just pretending problems don't exist. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Some editors may disruptively edit, but one's personal belief that is happening does not make it the truth. To determine that, within the community of editors, there are dispute resolution procedures.

Short of that, any unfounded accusation of ongoing policy violation is uncivil because it tags a person as an offender when their offense has not been proven. A comment such as "that edit is not acceptable because it pushing your POV" would not be uncivil, because it's discussing the edit and not the person. But using the term "POV-pusher" accuses a person of repeatedly and intentionally violating WP:NPOV policy. That's inherently uncivil.

Another layer of incivility is added when the insults are used in edit summaries, because they can never be struck-through or withdrawn and they are more visible. Yet another layer of incivility accrues when the terms are applied to groups of people, such as "those pro-Foo POV-pushers", because that implies there is some sort of group effort to push a POV, that adds yet another accusation of policy violations, and it also increases the divisiveness of the insult because it stimulates further conflict and formation of competing groups; it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I concur with Dreadstar's comment above that other divisive labels applied to editors such as woo-woos, cranks, nutjobs, crackpots, and many more, are all uncivil. That kind of behavior does not foster a collaborative spirit, it fosters arguments and escalation of differences. The use of insulting terms like those creates obstacles and more work for everyone. Even the person who uses those terms in their comments will not get the desired result because eventually, they will end up having to discuss their use of those terms rather than making progress editing the articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Some editors may disruptively edit, but one's personal belief that is happening does not make it the truth." Some users are vandals. Is it therefore wrong to call them vandals in our edit summaries? Should WP:SPADE be deleted? Or is this statement being made to protect the so-called "established editors" because they are more likely to make a stink of the name-calling. Maybe we should say that calling someone a vandal is uncivil at WP:VANDALISM? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:SPADE contains terrible advice. Read WP:NOSPADE; it's much more realistic. Some users are vandals. It profits us nothing to call them that, in edit summaries or elsewhere. There is never any advantage gained by calling another contributor any name: POV-pusher, vandal, troll, idiot.... anything. The topic that we're discussing, on any page here, is the encyclopedia, not each other. Calling each other names is distracting, and fosters an atmosphere in which name-calling becomes more and more accepted. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. It's not high on the severity level, but it's derogatory. Civility is talking about edits, not editors. And yes, I'm guilty of it too from time to time. I should add that it's also about frequency. I'm sure most people are uncivil from time to time, but if it's a lot or every time, then it becomes a problem. Like if you call everyone who disagrees with you a POV pusher, then it might be a problem. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sadly. This is name calling. Separate the doer from the deed, and assume the doer is acting in good faith.If there's apparent POV, talk about it. No good is done at anytime by name calling of any kind. Hurt, anger precipitated by speaking with disrespect to other editors, unleashing those emotions in what should be a mature discourse can only lead to a conflict and hostile ridden environment. Whats the point of any behaviour if its not productive to writing the article. When upset we may all be capable of name calling, but it doesn't aid anything in a discussion. If editors are concerned about this name calling its because its insulting at some level and what's the point in that.If we really want an environment thats conducive to editing, we have to understand and care even superficially, about the people we are working with. It shouldn't even be a discussion. We can be truthful and honest about the edits, and respectful when commenting on this. These are not mutually exclusive. Surely we are smart enough to put these together. And yes there have been instances of this in recent editing. Its so fixable, so lets get on with the editing. (olive (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

Yes. Name-calling of any kind is uncivil, and "POV-pusher" is just a type of name-calling. It's one that gets a lot of use though, because WP:NPOV is at the center of most disputes, and, there really are many POV-pushers with agendas editing Wikipedia. But for precisely that reason, because actual POV-pushing is a significant problem, it's especially important to avoid the use of that term for inter-personal disagreements or to attempt to gain the upper hand by denigrating one's opponent in a debate. "POV-pushing" refers to an agenda to modify the encyclopedia away from NPOV, for reasons that may be visible or hidden; it can be done by individuals, or by co-ordinated groups. Calling sincere editors "POV-pushers" undermines the ability of all editors to collaborate; it fosters suspicion and is the opposite of assuming good faith. That's why this is an important question. Not all disagreements on POV are POV-pushing; most of the time, they're just different POVs. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes: When applied directly to a user it is a pejorative, accusational, and ad-hom. It casts aspersions on an editor's intent while failing to deal with any of the specifics of the issue. If an editor has a problem with an edit, then they should attempt to explain their concerns in terms of the edit, not of the editor. - perfectblue (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes in this specific case. In other cases it may be a reasonable way to call atention to an editor who is acting in bad-faith to violate NPOV. However, that is clearly not the case here. Dreadstar is acting in good faith, and is concerned with our NOR policy, and is not pushing any particular point of view. User:ScienceApologist is being uncivil and acting in bad faith in two ways: first, by accusing Dreadstar of being a POV pusher, second, byt phrasing this RfC in the abstract when in fact he is simply trying to game the RfC system to further harass Dreadstar. This is disingenuous and an abuse of RfC. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - in the majority of cases when editors are guilty of it at WP, yes-it's uncivil. Name-calling is not civil--and if editors do not understand why insults would be uncivil, teasing out the precise whys and wherefores through Socratic inquisition in an RfC is unlikely to help. Besides being uncivil, the practice is usually jejune, lazy (ad hominem), against policy (WP:AGF), and all too oftentimes, as guileful as labeling the other guy a "commie". There are lots of reminders to this effect seeded throughout WP's policy/guideline pages -Dont's of talk pages, Dont's of attacking users, and a reminder to this effect should stay put here as well. [4] Professor marginalia (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- hurling insults is uncivil. Obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we there yet ? - Since every comment here starts with "yes".... it looks like consensus; anyone in the habit of referring to other editors as "pov-pushers" should modify their approach and avoid name-calling. Does this RFC need to remain active or is it time to remove the template? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV dispute at Great Commission church movement

I am having a problem resolving an NPOV dispute at Great Commission church movement. I am still waiting for the tagging editor to make suggestions to improve the neutrality of the article and am hoping for a solution that does not require escalation. I'd appreciate any effort to oversee the project and participate. Thanks. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this better wording?:160.91.241.63 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)ignorant Wahabism is often cited as a conservative 18th Century reform movement of Sunni Islam founded by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, after whom the movement is named. Wahhabism is often noted as that which formed the creed upon which the kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded and appears to some as the dominant form of Islam found in Saudi Arabia and Qatar as well as some pockets of Somalia, Algeria and Mauritania. It often (by some)referred to as a "sect" or "branch" of Islam, though this is rejected by learned scholars and accepted by others. (Designations are often viewed as pejorative.) The primary doctrine of Wahhabism is viewed by some as Tawhid, or the uniqueness and unity of God. The term "Wahhabi" (Wahhābīya) was first used by opponents of ibn Abdul Wahhab and is considered derogatory and rarely used by the people it is employed to describe, who seem to prefer to be called "unitarians" (Muwahiddun). The terms "Wahhabism" and "Salafism" are often, inappropriately, used interchangeably, but Wahhabism has also been called "a particular orientation within Salafism," an orientation some consider too ultra-conservative. The appeal of Wahhabism to Muslims has been described by some scholars as stemming from: • Arab nationalism, which was attracted by the Wahhabi attack on the Ottoman Empire; reformism, which was attracted to a return to a Muslim state encompassing what is now referred to as the middle east and extending to the Philippines. • Wahhabi control of the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina, which (supposedly) gave Wahhabis great influence on Muslim culture and thinking; • The discovery of Persian Gulf oil fields, which after 1975 allowed Wahhabis to promote their interpretations of Islam using billions from oil export revenue.

Restoring dispute tags

Regarding this edit, I'd like to invite comment. The objection in the edit summary makes sense; I need to phrase it better. The point I was getting at is this: editors who fail to make their point, and basically have a large consensus against their edits, sometimes resort to tagging a page indefinitely as a means of expressing that they disagree with the consensus. I think that's an abuse of the tag, but as written the page suggests that one should never remove an NPOV tag. There comes a time when a dispute has been talked to death and a consensus emerges, and continuing to beat the dead horse beyond that point by reinserting dispute tags is to be discouraged. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at National Democratic Party of Germany

The article for the controversial German nationalist National Democratic Party of Germany contains biased statements. As of May 6, 2008, this article calls opponents of the party as being part of "anti-German groups", claims that the Auschwitz extermination camp was actually a "relocation camp" and claims that it is only "alleged" that Auschwitz killed its prisoners. This is very biased and appears to present Holocaust denial as a proven fact, which it is not.--R-41 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Guideline?

I would like to promote this page from essay to guideline, as it has been a de facto guideline since I started editing in 2004. The reason I'd like to do this is that the NPOV tag is increasingly being added to articles, and left there in the long-term, by people who make no effort to raise specific issues: what they mean by tagging it is that they simply don't like it. Being able to refer to a specific guideline that prohibits that would be helpful. Any thoughts? 10:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be a guideline, at least the part about tags being a last resort and drive-by tagging being strongly discouraged. I think there should be more discussion before this is promoted to guideline - I would strongly oppose it given its current text. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic European

The common Ethnic European called herself a white person. Often the Ethnic European stocks envious of the White People and pretend to be Causasian descendents. Thus they claimed to be Causasians. They cleverly deceited themselves and refused to see that Asians and Caucasians are not the same as these common Ethnic European varieties population swamped our planet Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.99.131 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 2 July 2009

Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute

Contents