| Revision as of 14:54, 29 January 2016 editSageRad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,374 edits →Strange selection of types while omitting others← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:58, 24 December 2024 edit undoZanahary (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,882 edits →Odd: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply | ||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| Line 7: | Line 5: | ||
| |algo = old(12d) | |algo = old(12d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Civil POV pushing/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Civil POV pushing/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Essays|importance=mid}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|auto=yes}} | {{archives|auto=yes}} | ||
| == |
== "Marginal nationalist" == | ||
| I think the all-purpose accusation of "civil pov pushing" is awesome. What possible defense could the accused have? If he gets angry about it, you can use ], and if he stays calm, he proves your point. It's almost a perfect Catch-22. --] (]) 13:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not why the original draftees of this essay wrote it. The bottom line was that POV pushers that add nothing but nonsense to arguments and content learned to remain civil so their POV pushing wasn't as obvious.--] 13:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't doubt that original intention. I also don't doubt the existance of "POV pushers that add nothing but nonsense to arguments and content learned to remain civil so their POV pushing wasn't as obvious". But the point remains that it can be misused as an all-purpose accusation. I haven't exactly searched for examples or proof that it has been misused in this way, my point is more in the nature of a general observation. I'm a bit fan of Catch-22 rhetorics, and this rule seems to fit, even if that wasn't the original intention :-). --] (]) 10:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is there ]? ] (]) 11:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can see where this is headed: ] --] (]) 11:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sources== | |||
| First of all, this page is my hero. Second, I would like to provide more specific information on favorite CPOV techniques for using/abusing sources. That is what truly drives me insane. My preference would be to create a subsection called "Sources." Under "Sources" I would include these two items from "Neutrality": | |||
| What's that supposed to mean? ] (]) 23:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ''They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.'' | |||
| ⚫ | :Agree, fixed. ] (]) 05:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ''They argue that some sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.'' | |||
| ⚫ | == Odd == | ||
| I would add: | |||
| I find this essay odd. It seems like a way to gaslight and railroad well-meaning editors you don't agree with. ] (]) 20:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| They insist attempts be made to find reliable sources for a dubious claim before removing it from the article. This amounts to requiring other editors try to prove a negative. | |||
| :{{Ping|Pyrrho the Skeptic}} pinging since it's been over a year--I find this essay awfully cynical. And ] is probably a superior one in collaborative terms (''"we don't care if you're neutral. We care about the article being neutral, but not about you."'') Quite the difference in tone between the two. | |||
| When pressed for reliable sources they employ the following tactics in lieu of honoring the request: | |||
| :Perhaps it could be clearly said that the difference lies in behaviour and commitment to ]s, given that good faith (in my opinion) is paramount to the project. The two essays are an interesting read for me. I would posit that editing in a single area may lack ]; it's one of the weakest components of this essay. ] (]) 06:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| * Using a reliable source to verify a claim outside its author's area of expertise. For example an intro to an electrician's handbook is used to verify a statement of historical fact. | |||
| :I agree. If you lose your temper at someone civilly arguing on Misplaced Pages, that is your fault. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Responding to requests for evidence with Google search results instead of specific citations. "Here you go! Look at all this evidence!" | |||
| * Citing high reliable sources which in fact contradict their claim, or cherry-picking high reliable sources. | |||
| * Citing non-English language sources | |||
| * Citing highly obscure books with no Google books preview | |||
| ⚫ | == Rewrite? == | ||
| All of this can be done endlessly, for months, until all the good faith editors quit or snap.--] (]) 21:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : "non-English language sources" ]: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed." | |||
| : "sources for a dubious claim before removing" ]: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Also, ]: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" ] (]) 02:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Paradoctor. Oh I know. I wasn't trying to argue that non-English language sources be excluded or that a tactic isn't covered by ] or some other policy. This is just a profile of how POV pushers commonly use sources. Do you think it would be better to say "Citing non-English language sources when the preponderance of reliable English sources contradict a claim"? | |||
| ::Thanks for your input!:-)--] (]) 02:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You're welcome. I took the opportunity to reread the essay, and I think it misses the point. The list of symptoms isn't really helpful, because it describes mistakes made by pretty much everyone, including myself. What distinguishes CPOVPs from others is repetition: They keep raising the issue after it has been adressed properly. But the real problem seems to be the other editors engaging the CPOVPs. In my experience, the CPOVPs' civility makes it easy for others to make the mistake of trying to convince them, long after the points raised have been properly addressed. This doesn't work, people become frustrated, and soon drama enters the stage. I "discovered" a really useful tool a while ago: | |||
| ::: ] "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" "Off-topic posts:" "It is still ''common to simply delete'' gibberish, comments or ''discussion about the article subject'' (as opposed to its treatment in the article)" (my emphases) | |||
| ::: That is, at least in my experience, a criminally underused tool, and it has made my life here quite a bit simpler. If a CPOVP has a problem with that, they can go to ]. {{smiley|;)}} ] (]) 11:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This could be a useful essay on a problem that I think we're still very bad at dealing with as a community, but unfortunately it's tangled up in what I assume is some ancient arbitration-related dispute. The lead should explain what "civil POV pushing" is, but instead it contains a lengthy rant about the Arbitration Committee which is severely outdated (the question of whether ArbCom will intervene in content disputes is settled and enshrined in ]) and, more importantly, profoundly uninteresting to normal people who aren't deeply invested in wikipolitics. Can we try to reorganise and rewrite this into something more accessible to newcomers (or even just people who don't remember decade-old arbitration cases)? Or would it be better to start again under a new title (maybe ])? – ] <small>(])</small> 08:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| :I suspect that ] (this essay) is slightly different from ] although the distinction might not be important for our purposes. Sealioning may be simple trolling with no underlying desire to push a particular editorial line. By contrast, the whole point of CPUSH is to dominate a topic so one or more articles are slanted in a direction favored by the civil pusher. Also, CPUSH can be accidental where a sequence of civil people arrive at a topic such as ] and push the same proposals over a number of years. That can wear down certain personalities who relieve frustration with bad language. The CPUSH problem is that administrators and arbitrators are not supposed to think about the underlying issue, so the good editor who occasionally swears gets sanctioned while the civil pusher triumphs, thus degrading the encyclopedia. ] (]) 10:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a good point. It's also worth bearing in mind that this essay is significant older than the term sealioning (coined in 2014). The latter is catchier, though. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I support the the removal of that section --] (]) 14:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Why does WP:CRUSH point here? == | |||
| I recommend that someone add a nutshell to this page. ] (]) 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Crush what? ] (]) 05:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| :Because the actual short link is C'''''P'''''USH, and people misread it as C'''''R'''''USH, so it's helpful to make the misspelling a quick link as well. ] (]) 06:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Add Example == | |||
| ] was redirecting to ] instead of here. I don't know why, but I fixed it. ] (]) 22:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| @] why did you revert my edit? I understand that one single addition to the list may not be the most impactful content in the world, but I think it is a very salient example, and one that is at least as relevant as many other inhabitants of the list. ] (]) 01:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Strange selection of types while omitting others == | |||
| :What does it illustrate that the other examples don't? We don't need an exhaustive list of on-site conflicts characterized a certain way, and in fact I would really resist trying to collate one. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 01:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The article says: | |||
| {{talkquote|the committee has effectively abdicated the responsibility for ensuring neutrality, verifiability, and other content standards to a few users (mostly, but not entirely admins)}} | |||
| Who are these users and where are you when you need them? I've faced plenty of civil POV pushing in a pro-industry direction, and haven't found much help from users who are supposed to recognize this sort of thing and break up intentional logjams or filibustering lock-downs on articles against all sources and reason. | |||
| {{talkquote|They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like.}} | |||
| I've found civil POV pushing in pro-industry POV pushing moreso than those things listed. Can this be added to the essay? It would seem to reflect the reality that i've seen much better. This essay seems written to add weight to those who run witch hunts against anything they deem to be "fringe" in a McCarthyist sort of way. I'd appreciate it being more balanced and true to reality. ] (]) 17:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Please do not spread a current dispute (]) into essays. Over the years, an enormous amount of CPUSHing has occurred, and it is accurately described in the established essay. ] (]) 01:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am most certainly not doing so. That allegation is 100% incorrect. I am seeking to make the essay more useful and more applicable to areas in which it most certainly does apply. As it stands, it encourages a seriously biased approach to editing for anyone who comes across it. The essay currently embodies an extremely slanted version of who engages in POV railroading within Misplaced Pages. I have seen the very worst cases of "polite POV pushing" from those pushing in the direction of an "establishment" agenda direction, which often means in line with industry vested interests. This is a serious problem here and this essay could help rather than make it worse. ] (]) 13:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree with {{u|Johnuniq}}. This is a good essay and we don't want it watered-down to favour fringe positions. ] (]) 14:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The use of "fringe" leads to a McCarthyism in Misplaced Pages. It's a word that is used to denigrate anything ''you'' don't agree with, pretty much, and i've seen how you've edited in many contexts, Alexbrn. ] (]) 14:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| is a very serious case of "Polite POV Pushing" in the direction of making something that has some basis in science with a number of reliable sources to support it, remain portrayed in Wikivoice as a "crank"/"fringe"/"woo" thing. There is a filibustering against me, generally halfway polite, sometimes not so much, but this is an example of the methodology outlined by this essay used in a way that contradicts the generalizations of this essay about who uses it and toward what end. ] (]) 14:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :You were wrong there; don't try and import your campaign(s) here. ] (]) 14:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was not wrong there, and here i am using that as an ''example'' of polite POV pushing being in the opposite direction than that which is implied by this slanted essay. ] (]) 14:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:58, 24 December 2024
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
"Marginal nationalist"
What's that supposed to mean? Mercster (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, fixed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Odd
I find this essay odd. It seems like a way to gaslight and railroad well-meaning editors you don't agree with. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Pyrrho the Skeptic: pinging since it's been over a year--I find this essay awfully cynical. And WP:POVEDITOR is probably a superior one in collaborative terms ("we don't care if you're neutral. We care about the article being neutral, but not about you.") Quite the difference in tone between the two.
- Perhaps it could be clearly said that the difference lies in behaviour and commitment to WP:PAGs, given that good faith (in my opinion) is paramount to the project. The two essays are an interesting read for me. I would posit that editing in a single area may lack specificity; it's one of the weakest components of this essay. SmolBrane (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. If you lose your temper at someone civilly arguing on Misplaced Pages, that is your fault. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Rewrite?
This could be a useful essay on a problem that I think we're still very bad at dealing with as a community, but unfortunately it's tangled up in what I assume is some ancient arbitration-related dispute. The lead should explain what "civil POV pushing" is, but instead it contains a lengthy rant about the Arbitration Committee which is severely outdated (the question of whether ArbCom will intervene in content disputes is settled and enshrined in WP:ARBPOL) and, more importantly, profoundly uninteresting to normal people who aren't deeply invested in wikipolitics. Can we try to reorganise and rewrite this into something more accessible to newcomers (or even just people who don't remember decade-old arbitration cases)? Or would it be better to start again under a new title (maybe Misplaced Pages:Sealioning)? – Joe (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect that WP:CPUSH (this essay) is slightly different from sealioning although the distinction might not be important for our purposes. Sealioning may be simple trolling with no underlying desire to push a particular editorial line. By contrast, the whole point of CPUSH is to dominate a topic so one or more articles are slanted in a direction favored by the civil pusher. Also, CPUSH can be accidental where a sequence of civil people arrive at a topic such as intelligent design and push the same proposals over a number of years. That can wear down certain personalities who relieve frustration with bad language. The CPUSH problem is that administrators and arbitrators are not supposed to think about the underlying issue, so the good editor who occasionally swears gets sanctioned while the civil pusher triumphs, thus degrading the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good point. It's also worth bearing in mind that this essay is significant older than the term sealioning (coined in 2014). The latter is catchier, though. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I support the the removal of that section --151.188.137.191 (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Why does WP:CRUSH point here?
Crush what? 2A00:23C5:FE18:2700:DCFE:4CE3:F766:7661 (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Because the actual short link is CPUSH, and people misread it as CRUSH, so it's helpful to make the misspelling a quick link as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Add Example
@Remsense why did you revert my edit? I understand that one single addition to the list may not be the most impactful content in the world, but I think it is a very salient example, and one that is at least as relevant as many other inhabitants of the list. Affinepplan (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- What does it illustrate that the other examples don't? We don't need an exhaustive list of on-site conflicts characterized a certain way, and in fact I would really resist trying to collate one. Remsense ‥ 论 01:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)