Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:53, 5 June 2008

• WP:POVN
• WP:NPOV/N
• WP:NPOVN

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Misplaced Pages neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neutrality and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise. Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation. Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Edward Jones Investments

The listing has been hijacked by someone inside the company. First they eliminated any controversial history from the company, now a week later they are back writing up a press release. Don't want to get into an edit war with insider, but hoping someone here knows how to control this behaviour.

StopLoss

The last section of the Stop Loss article about topics in the media is biased. It needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.100.9 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 Mar 2008

2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence

Someone has used the "Political background" section to post his own views about the Serbia/Kosovo conflict. It is blatantly not NPOV and must be removed - but I'm not well-researched enough on the topic to know what to replace it with. This abuse has not been noted on the Talk page.

The offending section begins with: "Lets not forget the real reason why Kosovo is now independent" and ends with: "As evidenced by the recognition of Kosovo by top world powers such as the US, UK, France, Germany and Canada, its not hard to see why this region deserved its full independence and recognition." It includes various typographical errors in addition to the non-NPOV content. The section was authored by user:SmartPolitics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.10.216 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 Mar 2008

Race and intelligence article neutrality

There was a Request for Comment (RfC) done on the "Race and intelligence" article in March on the question of whether the article was sufficiently neutral; the consensus was that the article was not neutral as shown here: . Some changes to the article have been made since the RfC. I would now like to ask for comments on the question: Does the article now meet WP:NPOV and if not, what specifically should be done to the article for it to meet WP:NPOV? The RfC comments were not always clear on specific actions that should be taken. I am primarily interested in comments from those not involved in editing the article; however, if you are an editor of the article, please identify yourself as such. --Jagz (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Today you used the word "asshole" to describe another editor and administrator on the talk page of Race and intelligence, the only page you edit at the moment. Have you thought of editing other WP articles? Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Mathsci is an occasional editor of the article. He is also French also lives in France. --Jagz (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz, please do not insert comments ("He is also French") into your previous postings out of sequence. It is quite unhelpful to readers of this page. If I were French, your comment could be taken as either (a) irrelevant or (b) a racist slur. I happen in fact to be British but am resident in France (I posted from Trinity College, Cambridge earlier this year). I also have my Leaping Wolf from Baden-Powell's cub scout association, probably from before you were even a glimmer in your parents' eyes. His grandson was once a colleague of mine. Kindly refactor your uncivil comment. Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz's only other significant contribution to WP has been to an article on the exclusion of homosexuals from the boy scouts. To be fair, he has edited a few other pages. For example he recently posted arcana from Pompeii here , wrongly captioned as Priapus (it is in fact a fusion of Mercury and Priapus, the Roman god of plenty). I have also edited articles on mathematics, architecture, European history, French towns, Racine's plays and most recently Bach cantatas. Mathsci (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, what does Mathsci being French (if he is) have to do with anything????--Ramdrake (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz is just a low-order troll, we would all do best just to ignore him. WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is himself, need I say more. --Jagz (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kindly post no more snipes at other editors here. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What is "mainstream?"

There is a claim going on at WP:fringe which people might want to look in on. Essentially, as I explain in my last post there, people are using the REDFLAG section, and also the FAQ on Pseudoscience to say that when you are dealing with articles which are about exceptional claims, the mainstream scientific view is the viewpoint of Misplaced Pages, and always carries the greatest WEIGHT in articles. Where the scientific POV cannot be determined through non-partisan sources, it may be derived from logical inference from standard textbooks on the general subject of the article (this is usually thought to be Original Research).

I think this is a good enough view, and if taken literally it is what the FAQ at NPOV says - and the FAQ holds the status of policy. However, if this is what is intended, then the rest of WP policy needs to make it clearer. There are a lot of people who think that the scientific POV is usually notable, but not necessarily dominant in terms of WEIGHT and the POV the article is written from. The FAQ seems to contradict this view, by equating "mainstream" with "mainstream science," saying Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view. This means that non-scientific views are always held in WP to be the minority per WEIGHT. If it were clear that articles on fringe subjects are written from the POV of mainstream science, then things would be much easier. But the FAQ is probably the only place we say that.

See also discussion here.

And please someone archive this page- hard to load. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's set up to auto archive threads older than 21 days, but the name of the archive page was misspelled (miscapitalized, actually). I tried to fix it. Let's see if it runs during the next day. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not dealing with the specific issue, I don';t think a FAQ is the definitive statement of policy, but rather an less-official explanation of it. I base this upon the discussions at various policy talk pages, where the FAQs receive considerably less scrutiny for exactness than the policy itself. DGG (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming Conflict: Talk:China/DiscussRM‎

There is a proposal to move the PRC article to the China. I wanted to know if equating PRC with "China" is a violation of NPOV because it implies the PRC to be the legitimate China. T-1000 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is here: Talk:China/DiscussRM‎ SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

This is the 21st century, right? This is like saying Queen Elizabeth isn't the legitimate monarch and the monarch is really some Jacobite pretender (which has in fact been argued). Doug Weller (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Taser and Taser controversy

I'm concerned with the Taser article and particularly tthat the Taser controversy article has been used to remove information from the Taser article that is important, but critical of the device. My understanding is that generally "criticism" sections within articles are discouraged as are creating spin-off "criticism" articles and that NPOV encourages the integration of information that might be seen as critical into the main article. For instance, over the past few months a section on Taser deaths has been moved from the first article to the second and information on safety and scientific studies conducted on the Taser that have challenged the claims made by the manufacturer. Can editors look at the two articles and consider whether they should be integrated and also, if the Taser article is too long, if a different criteria for splitting the article can be found - one other than controversial vs non-controversial? Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reggie Perrin started a related section at Talk:Taser#Criticism. Flatscan (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the section Talk:Taser#RFC:_Criticism. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ABAP article bias

The "Advantages" part seems to be somewhat bias and not true, e.g. Exception Handling being an advantage over other languages. How come there's no "Disadvantages" chapter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.76.76 (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Jihad Watch

There is a dispute over using the category "anti-Islam sentiment" in Jihad Watch. See Talk:Jihad Watch#Category Anti-Islam sentiment, Talk:Jihad Watch#Reminder and Sources and Talk:Jihad Watch#A few questions. There is an RfC filed (Talk:Jihad Watch#Category discussion), but input in the discussion from some NPOV savvy people would be very helpful. Vassyana (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Can someone please have a look at this article. The article is vague in places, and a lot of what is written is clearly based on rumours and myths with little or no factual basis/support. The "Journey to Dehli" section is particularly poor, with no citations, and based on hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwings99 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

American Family Association

American Family Association: OK, this is a drive-by reporting of an article that has been involved in heavy edit warring. And it is no wonder: the entire article reads like a tract against the organization - half the article is a criticisms section, and the other half still reads like an indicment. Additionally, it is chalk full of sources like this one which have an agenda against the organization. It also includes heavy handed statements like "In response to Hurricane Katrina, the AFA Journal published a controversial article which praised the hurricane's destruction", which, while present in the source, are poorly worded (at best) and not backed up by statements on the opposite side. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a crank organization which makes crank statements, what do you expect? --Dragon695 (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Homeschooling: Child Abuse

We are having a dispute over the question if there is place for a section on child abuse in the homeschooling article. Two entries related to this have been added at the homeschooling talk page 1 2. As we are more or less stuck on being of opinion that the other party is not neutral, I thought it was wise to ask for a third opinion. Species8473 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I especially liked the comment by the Arizona authorities that changing the education setting does not change the propensity or otherwise for violence and abuse of children. I think in fact it is reasonable on the basis of the current evidence that Species8473 whilst presenting a very limited amount of evidence is also not presenting by any means a balanced or neutral view of the situation. Were that the case then we would need to insert similar, and perhaps far lengthier, discussions of child-abuse in articles relating to the Catholic Church, Day care, Schools and school systems, Seventh Day Adventist groups, Scouts, Girl Guides, sporting groups, well, anywhere children come into contact with adults. --Johnday (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So, who invited you to come over here and say this? And is there some reason you specifically like the words of Kim Fields so much? Your point on other articles with child-abuse sections seems invalid, as they simply have separate articles. For example Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Scouting sex abuse cases. Meanwhile I hope other experienced and active[REDACTED] editors are willing to look at this. Species8473 (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fact I invited myself. Perhaps I should ask what makes you an expert on the field? And who is Kim Fields? And more to the point, what has she got to do with the argument. What is even more galling about your infantile display is that the citations you give for Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Scouting sex abuse cases do little more than re-enforce my point. Those are separate articles which deal with issues in a way which doesn't cloud the issue. The main article on the Church: Roman Catholic Church doesn't include a specific sub-heading on abuse, sexual or otherwise by male or female religious or by clergy. That is confined to the separate article which you cited. If you wish to create a separate article on child abuse by home schoolers then please do so. Johnday (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you started it, meanwhile I think the best place is in the article itself. Species8473 (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

Based upon the POV of the content User:Memills (and his associated anon accounts) have been removing criticism from this article, segregating it into a very small subsection, and forking it out into Evolutionary psychology controversy, a violation of NPOV., , , , , , , , A criticism and merge tag have also been added,, suggesting that the information be merged into related sections per the NPOV policy. (See also: Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure) These tags have also been removed by Memills., Reliable sources documenting criticism and controversy (for example, , ) are abundant and should be accurately represented in not only the lead section, but the entire article as necessary. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view