Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    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.

    Additional notes:
    Start a new discussion

    2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka refer[edit]

    Granted Good Article status at some point but this should be reviewed as there is significant unsourced text and non-neutral wording. Nirva20 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nirva20, you might need to be a little more specific about the issue. It's not immediately obvious what unsourced text and non-neutral wording you're talking about, and I don't see any comments from you at Talk:2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka explaining your concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I will repost. Nirva20 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still nothing. Fair to say you made it up because you didn't like the content? Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I don't make things up. But I no longer am going to waste my time on something that should have been resolved by now. I already forgot about this. If I objected to Good Article status based on unsourced text and non-neutral wording then that is the case. If those defects are not "immediately obvious" then someone else should take a look. I am neither Indian nor Christian and have no personal interest. Nirva20 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent some time looking into this and I think you're right, actually, the article clearly no longer merits good article status. However, in the future, I suggest being concrete about your criticisms, rather than being wishy washy and vague. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Negative Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse[edit]

    See article: Pretty clearly POV article listing terms allegedly used by Israelis to refer to Palestinians, checking two sources at random did not even verify that the terms were used in Israeli discourse ([1] and [2], now removed). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm someone who sympathises completely with the Palestinian people and I think that article is literally just vandalism. Per WP:VAND: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." AusLondonder (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the alleged language is completely out of context and deliberate misrepresentation of sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it meets the definition of vandalism for G3. The sentence you quote refers to removing/changing existing content, not to creating new pages. While the page is a horrible mess and should most likely be redirected to Anti-Palestinianism#Israel if anything, being POV alone doesn't qualify as vandalism for G3 speedy deletion (cf. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not vandalism. A crap article, but not vandalism. Make it a redirect to Anti-Palestinianism#Israel, and if there is anything at all that can legitimately be copied there (which seems unlikely) do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to revert the CSD tag, do think we can get a bit bogged down in exact details of policy (new article vs existing). It's definitely not an attempt at encyclopedic content. AusLondonder (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say it's a form of G10 attack page. Not sure it warrants a redirect - is it likely search term? DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's less about the details of new article vs existing and more about whether the edit removes actually good content when replacing it with NPOV stuff. Which is pretty much the reason why we don't label every NPOV or non-encyclopedic addition as vandalism. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the page at NPP and honestly it's been a long time since I've seen a newly-created page this plainly unconstructive. I honestly don't think it should remain in mainspace for at least a week. AusLondonder (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to wait a week to convert it to a redirect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm going to WP:BLAR it as everyone seems to agree it is completely unconstructive. Anyone can feel free to dig in its history if there are any sources worth merging. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good decision; that wasn't a constructive article. — Czello (music) 09:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was just checking some more of the alleged quotes, purportedly said about Palestinians in general. One of the insults was reported as cannibal, yet the source says the Israeli defence minister was referring to Hamas leaders. Another insult was sourced to "A-Z Quotes". Is this good faith editing? AusLondonder (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, a few of them are clearly about Hamas from the title alone. I won't deny that Israel sometimes blurs the line between Hamas and Palestinians in discourse, but these sources alone are not a basis for a factual article on such a topic. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but many of those issues have been covered at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza and Anti-Palestinianism during the Israel–Hamas war. AusLondonder (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Positive Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse is a red link. What should that be redirected to? Todays puzzle. Setting aside the potential utility of Negative Terms for Palestinians in Israeli discourse as a useful reference for that perfect word for someone's hate speech tweet or whatever, maybe there is potential for an interesting article buried in there somewhere, something based on work that has looked at dehumanizing language of this and other conflicts. The current article looks irredeemable. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely an 'interesting article' in dehumanising language used in conflicts. If Wikipedia doesn't have one, it certainly should - decent academic sources will surely not be hard to find. What we don't need, however, is a ragbag primary-source list of such terms, for each side in each and every conflict. Even ignoring the obvious PoV problems with separating content out like that, they are liable to be grossly repetitive, and utterly uninformative as to the underlying factors that lead to their use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably could make up part of Dehumanization, which doesn't go into specifics of the language used (and is probably better off for it) but also has the issue of the various maintenance and expand tags on it. Reconrabbit 14:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has been blanked and redirected, and is now being recreated from scratch by another editor. The glaring issues noted before do not appear to apply to the version being currently worked on. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This strikes me as something that is more appropriate for our sister project Wiktionary. Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The new version isn't as obviously problematic but while purportedly about dehumanising language in the context of conflict I'm not sure it's heading in that direction and the creating editor is reluctant to take feedback on board. Seems like a lot of synthesis and editorialisation going on to me. AusLondonder (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, it's certainly not as bad, but it's not looking especially great either. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    John Barnett (Boeing employee)[edit]

    John Barnett (Boeing employee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Biography of a recently deceased person. There's been some back-and-forth in the edit history on how much, if any weight, to give conspiracy theories regarding his death. Additional experienced watchers would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An I wrong in thinking this is a BLP1E that should be fixed with an AfD? Springee (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, before his death. Rather like the suicide of David Kelly (weapons expert) (in the UK) you don't have to believe in a conspiracy theory for the death to take this out of BLP1E. Hang fire for the moment to see where this goes. As an aside, I'm doubtful that moving the page to John Barnett (whistleblower) is an NPOV improvement, particularly without the benefit of a RM discussion. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Springee: I did evaluate that when I saw the article. I believe they met WP:SIGCOV prior to their death. @DeCausa: if you disagree with my bold move, by all means feel free to revert and we can have a discussion. VQuakr (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in the topic enough to do that. There's controversy around the subject and it's just my opinion that a bold move (particularly to a value-laden disambig term such as "whistleblower" where there was a perfectly fine disambig already) was not appropriate. A discussion should have been had. Do what you will with that. DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    VQuakr, my feeling is this seems to be just part of the bigger Boeing story. I'm not impressed by the conspiracy theories here and would probably leave that off Wikipedia as a BLP issue for an otherwise not notable person. Would we even have this article otherwise? However, I'm not motivated to the point of actually trying to challenge the article. Springee (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Genetic studies of Jews[edit]

    There has been a lengthy discussion about this article's inclusion of unproven or discredited theories, but the article still has a POV tag. Does the article's bias remain uncorrected? Jarble (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting. I went ahead and removed the tag per Template:POV#When to remove, since it appears the discussion has been dormant for a month and a half. Generalrelative (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential Conflict of Interest and Promotional Activity by User Espandero[edit]

    I am writing to express concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest (COI) and promotional activities undertaken by a user named Espandero. It has come to my attention that Espandero may be engaging in actions that contravene Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and conflict of interest, specifically in the context of deleting new visual contributions to promote their own images. Description of Concern: Espandero has consistently removed new images contributed by other users, including myself, across several articles. While the rationale provided is often related to image quality or relevance, a pattern has emerged where Espandero's own images are favored or promoted in place of those deleted. This behavior raises concerns about a possible conflict of interest and the promotion of personal work over community contributions. Examples and Evidence: [Chillon Castle]: Detail instances where your contributions were removed, and Espandero's images were used instead. Replacing a photo from 2022 with one of 2007. And the list is long.

    I respectfully request that this situation be reviewed by the Wikipedia administration or the appropriate committee. An investigation into the edits and actions of Espandero concerning the potential COI and promotional activity would help ensure that Wikipedia remains a reliable and unbiased source of information. I am fully committed to the principles of Wikipedia and believe in constructive collaboration. I am willing to provide further information or clarification as needed and am open to dialogue to resolve this matter amicably. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your ongoing efforts to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia.

    Sincerely 87.196.80.191 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is clearly no COI problem here, just normal editing. If you think your images should be used, open a discussion on the talk page and discuss that with other editors. There is no reason administration should be involved with this. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with MrOllie. As an aside, I noticed that all the images that have been uploaded by Conceptuel are named "[something] photographed by Robbie Conceptuel". M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the notification I guess... I sincerely suspect this IP address to be the same person as Conceptual given the style in which this message and other messages I've received on WP:FR from this user are written. Also this message mentions edits on the Chillon castle article but I haven't made edits to it on WP:EN. Best regards, Espandero (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ugaas Raage (notified of this neutral point of view noticeboard discussion)[edit]

    User:Ugaas Raage adds, then reverts other editors' work to restore his or her unsourced and/or borderline deificationist text re Somalian military leaders ([3], [4]). Nirva20 (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    He or she refuses to engage with other editors or to even use edit summaries. His or her most recent deificationist revert is here. Nirva20 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More deification here. Nirva20 (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ugaas Raage has been notified of this discussion. I doubt he or she will participate. But, ummm, is anyone else aware of it? Nirva20 (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I also see it. I provided an edit to note that Siad Barre was born in Shilavo, Hararghe, Ethiopian Empire not Shilavo, Dervish State with an edit summary to explain that during the time of his birth (1909) Shilavo was under the Ethiopian Empire, and that in its short history the Dervish State never even reached Shilavo (even at its territorial peak), but he keeps undoing the edit without providing any edit summary to counter mine. This person is a highly biased editor that is defacing many articles and undermining Wikipedia's neutrality. Wikieditor969 (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So why isn't @Ugaas Raage being sanctioned, @MrOllie, @JPxG, etc? Nirva20 (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For future reference, I believe WP:ANI is a better place to report his kind of obvious disruptive editing (or perhaps WP:AN for slightly less noxious behavior). I have opened a thread on your behalf at WP:ANI § Repeated disruptive editing by User:Ugaas Raage. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Nirva20 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Human rights in Egypt[edit]

    This article has a cleanup tag because it is "unbalanced towards certain viewpoints." Does the article include descriptions of human rights violations in Egypt that are biased, misleading or inaccurate? Jarble (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tammy Murphy[edit]

    The Tammy Murphy page and the 2024 United States Election in New Jersey page seems not to be neutral, with the majority of text criticizing her for often unrelated allegations under many sections. Some people have brought up concerns in the talk pages, and I wanted to get an outside perspective. Wikieditor2490 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Quotes based on primary sources on Boy Scouts of America[edit]

    Per WP:PQ, pull quotes shouldn't be in article and also, even without the pull quote formatting, this kind of quotation emphasizes the organization's position unduly as it is chosen from primary sources by Wikipedia editors rather than citing something emphasized in independent reliable sources. The issue being discussed is this edit Graywalls (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Graywalls is ignoring the discussion started on this page, Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Meeting_of_the_minds, and moving it here. Over the last few days, Graywalls has been all over BSA related articles:

    Then there's this: attacking the character of a long-time editor. I'm happy to discuss these issues, but I'd like to start this on the talk pages, and not here. Bringing in, @Jergen, Btphelps, and North8000:. --evrik (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what this has to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Quebec (which your link to WP:PQ expands to). Also just about every article about a specific scouting organization includes their variant of the Scout Promise and Scout Law (which were two of the three quotes in the edit in question); should they be removed from all those articles? They are just as germane to those organizations' articles as a flag is to a country or US state's articles. The third quote you want removed is not from the organization; but, it is not as important to the article. BTW shouldn't this be discussed at Talk:Boy Scouts of America#Undue_contents for awhile before coming here? I attempted to steer the discussion onto the specific quotes there, and, you indicated you've taken it here for some reason. Erp (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erp:, I believe it was a typo of MOS:PQ. I discussed it on talk. I find the way those quotes are sourced and emphasized a matter of neutrality or excess prominence to certain contents. Regardless of what article that is on. Graywalls (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is long-standing core material (the objectives and methods of the organization..not a "position") being removed based on the wiki-formatting method. And one of the things being discussed which Graywalls is trying to edit war to remove is a quote from US federal law. And in light of the overview above, Graywalls, you need to stop doing this. On another note, a second discussion here is fine, but it should not be allowed to derail the referred-to broader more methodical discussion which just began. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on external links to far-right comic[edit]

    Hello, this noticeboard may be interested in participating in the following RfC, as it pertains to neutral editing: Talk:StoneToss#RfC: Exclusion of StoneToss's website from the articleCzello (music) 10:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hardly. It only pertains to editorial decisions which have little to do with any Wikipedia policies. TarnishedPathtalk 11:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's odd you'd follow me to continue the discussion here, but for the benefit of others – non-neutral editing/motivations has been brought up in the RfC, and not just by me. — Czello (music) 12:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer to my last comment in the RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you to mine. Certain editors have admitted to non-neutral reasons for wanting to exclude the link.
    Please, keep the discussion in one place. — Czello (music) 12:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hokkaido's header[edit]

    https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Hokkaido

    The introductory article of Hokkaido is not Neutral Point of View.

    "Although there were Japanese settlers who had ruled the southern tip of the island since the 16th century, Hokkaido was considered foreign territory that was inhabited by the indigenous people of the island, known as the Ainu people. The Japanese settlers began their migration to Hokkaido in the 17th century, which often resulted in clashes and revolts between Japanese and Ainu populations. In 1869, following the Meiji Restoration, Ezo, which means "the land of the barbarians" in Japanese, was annexed by Japan under on-going colonial practices, and renamed Hokkaido. After this event, Japanese settlers started to colonize the island, establishing Japan's first modern settler colony. While Japanese settlers colonized the island, the Ainu people were dispossessed of their land, forced to assimilate, and aggressively discriminated against by the Japanese settlers. Many Ainu people were put into forced labor camps and exploited by the Japanese. In the 21st century, the Ainu have been almost totally assimilated into Japanese society; as a result, many Japanese of Ainu descent have no knowledge of their heritage and culture."

    It gives too much undue weight on the Ainu. I tried to make it more neutral but someone is keeping to keep it as it was. Kyuzoaoi (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I shortened it. I think it is fine to include stuff about Ainu but yeah the length and wording of that needed rework. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]