Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Shortcuts WP:NPOVN WP:NPOV/N WP:RFN Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. List of 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 Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)#Historical fiction as to whether a quote in the article needs to have attribution. It currently says "The Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction," but previously it said "According to Michael Coogan, the Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction." Which one is best, per WP:YESPOV? StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the labeling of anything which is regarded as "truth" by any religious group or religion as "historical fiction" is a matter of opinion and should be cited and sourced as such. Else we could have someone saying "The Quran is fictitious" or the like - and I suspect one can easily see where we would end up. On matters of religion, conservative wording is far superior to "I told them it is fiction" posturing. Collect (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree here. That's a false equivalency, and I suspect that this might possibly be due to a lack of familiarity with the term as it is used in the context of historical criticism, and/or the text. Among scholars, the Book of Daniel is widely viewed as a work of historical fiction. As in thd literary genre, not that the story itself is a wholly fictional one. This isn't a value judgement; various parts of the work show a lack of familiarity with the subject matter (Akkadian culture), and the vocabulary betrays a later period of authorship than is traditionally claimed (due to the use of Persian and Greek loan words, as their introduction into Hebrew proper can be dated to the post Exilic period at the earliest). Various authors and theologians, often with a point of view that the entirety of the work now known as the Bible is not only infallible, but historically inerrant (to even the degree that the textual attribution of supposed authorship is necessarily true) have attempted to explain this in a variety of ways. However, the majority of these viewpoints are not the mainstream consensus, and some of them fall beyond the pale of what would be considered WP:FRINGE.

Among the aforementioned theories that are generally considered more credible, and which some scholars readily concede, is that there is a legendary nucleus to the story, but that it was written later, or--- that there was later scribal interpolation of a core historical text written by a historical Daniel (the latter having much less currency than the former). The point being: historical fiction is a genre, and doesn't mean that there isn't an actual historical account behind the text. However, as per WP:RNPOV, we don't present viewpoints espousing infallibility, inerrancy, etcera with equal weight to those of academics in fields outside of theology; doing so would be WP:UNDUE.

One can certainly qualify the statement as an attribution to Coogan, but sources can likely be readily found stating that his viewpoint is the majority estimation among scholars. Saying that stating a work like Ester is historical fiction can lead the Qu'ran being called in Wikipedia's voice a work of historical fiction... That's reaching. Just thought I'd clarify what it means specifically within the field of Biblical criticism, and why it is regarded as an example of such a work, Collect, et al. Hopefully that helps? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iterating: Clearly the labeling of anything which is regarded as "truth" by any religious group or religion as "historical fiction" is a matter of opinion and should be cited and sourced as such. That you find it needful to engage in a long discourse which basically says: Wikipedia can label any religion as a hoax if a "reliable source" calls it one. This is a general consideration, and one which most people hold. We can attribute opinions as opinion, sourced and cited as such, but when we start using Wikipedia's voice to make such pronouncements in any way, we shall have quite lost our course. Collect (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Given the recent goings on concerning some major online publications not paying their contributers, (huffpo, mary sue are two named), does it warrant reevaluating their uses as reliable sources for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.42.168 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this Q fit better at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ? Jeh (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post does have unpaid guest contributors so I think it should be a case by case basis and not exclude the whole publication, despite it's painfully obvious slant.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure as to whether the sourcing on this article is up to standard. As far as I can see, there only seems to be one reference on the article that meets reliable source criteria- the Globe and Mail article- and said source certainly does not describe the concept of charging meat producers more to kill beasts without stunning them beforehand as an 'antisemitic canard'. The vast majority of other references are to clearly biased advocate groups, self-published books, or sources that do not mention the 'kosher tax' as such (c.f. Blee 2009).

Would appreciate it if someone could have a good look over the article. 121.75.209.143 (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a quick glance at the article, talk pages, and few of the sources. I can look more in depth later... However, off the bat, I see two works published by university presses that definitely qualify as reliable, a Jerusalem Post article (itself an RS), and a few others that probably qualify as reliable, in addition to the Globe and Mail articles. Amounting to approximately 1/3 of the references... That's not counting a few of the other sources that seemed reliable. The articles also appears to be well-written, and the result of five talk pages (four archived and one current) worth of editor discussion. At the moment, I don't see anything that jumps out at me in the article prose as undue. In fact, reading over it, I'd say it's very balanced- in its presentation, at least. Can you point to any specific issues within the text that you feel are biased, or op-ed pieces that are used inappropriately? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GMO conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I started this article because I kept finding sources that identified this topic. Certain editors think the article is not NPOV and have proclaimed this vociferously on the talkpage, but I have had a hard time identifying exactly what their objections are beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT (I am suspicious that many are anti-GMO activists who don't want this page to exist on Wikipedia for reasons having less to do with concerns over neutrality rather than wanting to paint their position in the best possible light).

It would be nice to get someone who is independent of the ongoing controversies related to GMOs on Wikipedia to review the article to see if the tag should still be there. Right now, we have only longtime disputants editing so it may not be possible for us to see where actual problems lie (if any do).

Thanks.

jps (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me the issue is the conspiracy theory, so regardless of the great research you have done, it may fall under WP:FRINGE. Case in point, you are implying that if someone questions the content or sentiment of the content, that they are now in fact validating this theory and are working to oppose you. This may be better addressed on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I understand the entry, just don't think that is what Wikipedia is for.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think what the issue is: Scientist are sceptical by nature. When an organization publish gleaming reports, time-after-time one thinks of Publication bias. No org. can be that perfect. If an org. published every research article they paid for – good or bad- it would give other scientist less concern that they are hiding something – because they could take a broad view of the whole subject. As it is Funnel plot suggest they are only publishing the good. Genetically modified organism may be OK. Yet, the fact is, companies are strongly suggesting that we believe every word they say – and that is not the way that science works. The history of medical science is littered with examples of Radium Ore Revigator and what not, that we may laugh about to day but at the time they where promoted as being scientifically proven but other scientist of the time and the gullible pubic were left in the dark. The Romans loved fruit syrup from water supplied by lead pipes and reduced in lead kettles which made it sweet (Lead(IV) acetate). To-day we can laugh about their naïvety. Yet today, are there no more fools that only go by what the promoter presents before the public in black and white and believes that today we are truly enlightened and immune from the foibles of past ages? P. T. Barnum made a fortune out of these sad people. GE said that reactor like Fukushima would not melt down and they should know, they design it.... and so the list goes on and on. Work in R&D for a few years and you'll soon discover how little experts really know – and can do. The management demands results, so the facts get bent out of all proportions in order that one has a job the following year. So, you have a hard time identifying exactly what their objections are. I think your state of mind will continue unless you can step back a few paces and look at the whole picture. Oh, and go back to Funnel plot and think about that also. Do these companies think we are mushrooms and should be kept in the dark and be feed only their BS? COI I don't think I have ever edited on a GMO or similar article before but I do recognize BS when is see it in their PR. It stinks and a lot more so than bad fish. A science paper by one of these companies should be treat like any other, even if it appears on Google Scholar it not to be taken as gospel unless it has been independently verified. So, is it any wonder that your efforts of pontificating fringe as though it is accepted and verified fact is going to run into problems with other editors that may have a broader picture? Wikipedia requires verifiable facts.--Aspro (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. @LightandDark2000: could be a witness. Kiluminati is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. He refused sources that mentionned Hadi advance. The account appeared in December and he speaks of vandalism. He removes sources such as Masdar speaking advances loyalists and source map with Al Masira , official media Houthi . This is unacceptable. And he accused the others to vandalism. He had been warned here and here. 2016 (UTC) First, I ask Kilumnati cease to qualify those who do not think like him vandals or saboteurs . This is a personal attack and I demand punishment. For its wars of editions of removing information about advanced Yemeni government , just see his latest contributions . Enough 's enough of this pov pusher . And personal attacks , simply view comments for change , there's always a personal attack. Moreover, it is somewhat strong coffee that has come out of nowhere in December 2015 , already knows the community pages of Wikipedia and has the nerve to accuse of vandalism. So he who does not know the definition. Moreover, it is certain that behind the Kiluminati account hides an experienced account , perhaps even banned.@Jytdog: Hello. I demand an immediate sanction against the puppet socket for general behavior on the encyclopedia. For Warring he did with @LightandDark2000:, where it distorts the meaning of Article to deny that to update the map with the advancing troops Hadi . Furthermore, I demand punishment for his personal attacks, defamation that are calling me a vandal, saboteur and fanatical pro Hadi . Regards. Panam2014 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true. User:Kiluminati has been POV-pushing on the Yemeni Map Module for months now. Despite being warned by other users and a number of discussions on the modules's talk page, he refused to cease his disruptive behavior, and is continuing to alter the map in favor of his own pro-Houthi views, using unreliable sources or seriously biased sources to carry out the changes. He also mass reverts any other users who make changes in favor of the opposite side, using reliable sources, and he accuses them of "vandalism" when this happens. And if any user happens to revert any of his unreliable or poorly-sourced edits, he reverts them also also hurls similar accusations of vandalism or disruptive editing. This is unacceptable. User:Kilunimati's edits are seriously shifting the Yemeni map module away from a neutral point of view, and sadly, since December 2015, the map has become the most unreliable map module on Wikipedia, except in the instances where I or another user managed to revert his changes or update the map using reliable sources. This needs to stop; this is damaging Wikipedia's neutrality and accuracy policies. Please attempt to mediate a solution with the user in question. If all else fails, I recommend a topic ban on the user for at least 6 months, to end any further disruption. Also, if things get too out of hand in the short term, then please lock the module for 3 days, to kill off any further disruptions or edit wars from this user, until a solution can be mediated. Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, i'm so sorry for failure to follow WP:NPOVN laws where strongly been emphasized to notify editor who is the subject of a discussion with red color! given that by coincidence i faced to this topic that it show pretenders legitimacy how observe the law!

For POV Push accusation with regards to leaving in irrelevent section in noticeboard (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view where place to article content is compliant with the NPOV) should be snapback to Yemen Civil War talk page where editors must be told sources that based on doing edit. but the two not provide anything for their edit and always are be elusive from responding, here is visible. basically, there are not completely impartial resources for validation and accuracy of claims! and the two rely on sources that the majority of them are founder of war and the rest of its supporters. of course we all know they cant be neutral so what's the solution? answer is using all of them as jointly it's means admit one side to domination the other side and vice versa. it's the only operational way-out at the moment. except this method just lead to more chaos and i taked it for reduce disputes (User contributions).

Now the this two trying with working together and trick handling asperse and defame me and going to introduce me as POV Pusher in public opinios but weak works not benefit. it seems to me can be work out this difficult problem side by side not against. I hope intellection overtake from ignorance, hope.... K!lluminati (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Killuminati is indeed a pov pusher and I have demonstrated. So I will not dwell on it further. Furthermore, he claims that Al Masirah is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh. that's the weakest coffee complaining about defamation when we used to accuse others of vandalism and sabotage. Moreover, Kiluminati appropriates the module by its leader of the discussion by denying the arguments that are not going in his direction. To have searched the talk page I demand punishment under Wikipedia: Harassment and its disorganization of the encyclopedia I also demand a punishment for WP:POINT. Panam2014 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why Al Masirah not be credible? let us not forget famous mainstream news media due to lack of journalist on yemen working their own news quoted al-masirah's reports (even al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya). what's wrong with using GPC website? not clear? for what reason the using salih, ansarullah and houthis resources are forbidden but using al-Jazeera, al-arabiya & al-Akhbariyah and all of arabic coalition sources that are starters of war on yemen is obligatory? that's comical analogy! it's clear they misrepresent truth and nutrify misinformation as flipped to audiences, and by this manner put community minds in aberration and brainwash public opinions easy peasy lemon squeezy!!! now at here the two sophistries prevent from being display battlefields realities. in previous some time the two reverted anything they deem to wrong. all of them be there here [1]. with this action, the map instead of be indicative of reality is propagator of errors!

Stretches this sealed ring endangers the main objectives of Wikipedia that's surely “public access to correct information”. The this point to be taken seriously otherwise will have troubling consequences. K!lluminati (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This individual has lost all credibility. Sabanew (pro Hadi) or Sabanews (pro Houthis) and Al Masirah (pro Houthi) do not have to be used since these are the officials media of the belligerents. And their information is never taken up by the mainstream media. If they were credible, the information should have been included. I am proud of the confession of this POV pusher. The media like Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya are international sources and their information is taken over by large groups such as NY Times. Put the same level as the propaganda war is the POV pushing. Finally, Al jazeera contradicts Kiluminati but its information is recognized. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please lock the map module for 1 week? I'm sick and fed up with all the POV-pushing and edit warring that I'm still witnessing there. Despite the discussion here and the repeated attempt to discuss with User:Kiluminati, he is still using unreliable or seriously biased sources to reshape the map to his own views. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prada gender discrimination case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned about the way this article addresses matters that may currently be under litigation, particularly insofar as the background section appears to solely present the side of one of the litigants; from a BLP standpoint at least, I think it may need to be edited... but I'm not sure how to address it fairly without simply gutting the article. I've already made a number of changes to some of the sections, but I'm just not sure what more to do here and would like some more eyes to look at this article. ���/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this also. It is a total abuse page and does not adhere to anything about what Wikipedia stands for. I would encourage these editors to use WP:ALTOUT but we all know there is major abuse going on with editors using Wikipedia because of Google's algorithmic favoring. This page should be a subset of the plaintiff's page, which I would even question notability for. If the subject matter was of another issue, the entry would be torn down by Admins in nanosecond.--WatchingContent (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is edit-warring going on in the article "Astra" [[2]]. I seek consensus from those who have studied/interested in hindu mythology,on the neutrality of one of the weapons mentioned-Sudarshana chakra. The personal weapons of the hindu holy trinity-Brahma,Vishnu and Shiva are considered to act,or desist at will of their owners only.1.Please look into the weapons Trishula and Pashupatastra,where the description reads "cannot be stopped by anyone" and "cannot be stopped by anyone other than Lord Shiva" respectively.This is in stark contrast to the description of Sudarshana Chakra,the personal weapon of Lord Vishnu,where it reads "Cannot be stopped by anyone, except Lord Vishnu himself & Lord Shiva".I seriously doubted the authenticity and neutrality of this information.The editor,who added the part "&Lord Shiva" in describing Sudarshana Chakra hasn't provided any source or link to verify it.2.Also,the Wikipedia article "Ambarisha" relates the story how Lord Brahma and lord Shiva "pleaded their inability to save him(durvasa)" from Sudarshana.[[3]] 3.Since authoritative sources on Hindu mythology are hard to come by over the internet,I am forced to provide the following sources on ambarisha-durvasa story,all of which conform to the view that Sudarshana cannot be stopped by anyone other than Lord Vishnu.[[4]] [[5]] [[6]] and so forth.I hope the administrators look into this,deliberate and strive to make this article neutral again. Ankisur2 (talk)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) The editor User talk:Ankisur2 has been WP:FORUMSHOPPING; cf. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Adamstraw99 is making personal attacks,and user space harassment. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The minor edit referred to here does not effect the neutrality of the article; the content added was referenced with obviously unreliable sources. Please close this. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not familiar with WP:FORUMSHOPPING,but I looked up and it says "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards".To be clear,I raised two separate issues.With the administrators noticeboard,I raised the issue of personal attack by Adamstraw99,and didnot discuss the content of the article.With Neutral point of view discussion board,I questioned the content of this article,and refrained from mentioning anything about Adamstraw99,which seemingly Fortuna.. failed to notice.Hope this clears things up.

Drmies If the edit is "minor",and does not affect the neutrality,why not make it accurate and correct as well?Have you checked out the page "Ambarisha"?

This article is very one-sided, not exploring reasons for stops and searches!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely such a veteren edtor as Petebutt knows how to lodge a notice here by now-! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. The neutrality of the lede of section Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation of article Ford Pinto is disputed. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Please see Talk:Entropic force#Fringe theories. (AFAIU, WP:FRINGE is part of WP:NPOV series.) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page on a notable dance genre, Whirling. Part of the motivation was to distinguish it from particular styles of religious-rooted movement traditions, i.e., Sufi spinning. The page was bumped, inexplicably, to list of Islam-related deletion discussions by Everymorning. Since then, a veritable war has developed, with User:Ibadibam and several others arguing for a merge, but on grounds that show extreme systemic bias and Orientalism. There is a strong need for neutrals to intervene in the debate, because the AfD debate has gotten to the point where it is detracting from substantive edits.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I was pinged, I will response to what has been said about me--namely that it was "inexplicable" that I delsorted the AFD for Whirling under Islam. This was a mistake on my part, I didn't read the article closely enough and so thought it was a form of Sufi spinning rather than being very different from it as the article says in the lead. Sorry. Everymorning (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you immmensely to Everymorning. In light of your view now, could you please help by intervening to restore the whirling page. User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker nonetheless merged the articles despite the clear weight of the opinions on the AfD page (including Magoo's and User:Ibadibam's being that more clarity was needed. I asked for a tiny bit of time to clear up the confusion that was on the pages, and was creating several tools to do that (all very time consuming). The merger was pushed forward nonetheless, against the clear weight of the voting results. This is very disappointing and I can't devote additional time to editing wars and comments, when all I wanted to do was work on the pages. I'd respectfully ask for you or anyone else neutral to help us undo the whirling / sufi spinning / tanoura merger, which only made things less clear.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction -- merger was done by User:Sandstein, whom I will contact to try to understand exactly what happened prior to initiating a DRV.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't merge anything. I just closed an AfD, to which you may want to link. I fail to see how any of this relates to NPOV.  Sandstein  19:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the AfD page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whirling. NPOV because the edits that were being made, and the resulting merger shows a very clear Orientalist view on several clearly distinct practices/traditions/customs. There were multiple alerts to this in the original discussion, with zero acknowledgement. End result is a redirect/merger that is incoherent and suffers from non-neutral conceptual slippage.Viapastrengo (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thought the merger/redirect was User:Sandstein's -- oops -- turns out was Magoo's -- was too busy trying to understand User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker and [User:Mr. Magoo]] apparent socks, while defending self from same.Viapastrengo (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD was actually over a lack of sources, so I didn't respond to charges of bias there. But if anything is Orientalist, it's the view that there should be a separate article for this. That a few Americans and Europeans have appropriated a Middle Eastern tradition does not make it separate and original. It would be disingenuous to document it as though it were parallel to and equally notable as a centuries-old practice, and not a recent derivative thereof. I think the new organization of these topics, as represented by the current state of Sufi whirling, does a much better job of putting this in its proper historical and cultural context. Ibadibam (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ibadibam, I thanked you before, sincerely, in the context of the AfD before the merger whirled everything together in one big pile of incomprehensible goo. I'll thank you, again, for now answering User:Sandstein's question of what NPOV's got to do with it.Viapastrengo (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the link to the Deletion review (DRV) discussion for anyone eager to jump in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Whirling