Wikipedia talk:POV pushing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The article doesn't really define the term POV pushing, but just makes strong statements that it is not permitted. -- 216.234.56.130 20:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this article should be merged into NPOV dispute, or even into Neutral Point of View. 138.88.19.65 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the merge. Also.. this article gives a great example of POV pushing at the end there.. "A major failing of Wikipedia all along has been the haphazard or lackadaisical enforcement".. talk about your POV statements.. --DjSamwise 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- While I agree that Wikipedia articles should be as free of blatant POV as possible, sometimes a bit of less conspicuous or unintentioned POV is difficult to avoid. A recent example was the case of a musical act being referred to as "highly successful". This description was criticised for being POV. Well one person's take on "highly successful" may differ from someone else's, but if a singer or band has had a string of major hits including several No.1s, at home and abroad, has numerous gold and platinum discs, and maybe a few Grammys or BRIT awards, then to describe that person/band as "highly successful" is not POV: it is stating a clear fact. Or is "highly successful" reserved solely for Elvis or the Beatles? To continue this theme, if I was writing an article about my favourite band, I feel that a. it would be very difficult to avoid a little bit of POV creeping in here and there, and b. such a small amount should be tolerated. I feel that an article such as that should be written by someone who genuinely likes the subject matter, enjoyed writing the article, maybe did it as a labour of love, and that a better article will result if such feelings are allowed to come through in its finished content. Wouldn't you prefer an article that reads as though it was written by a person and not a robot? Statements such as this is a fantastic band or this is a brilliant track should be avoided as they are undoubtedly POV, but if the general tone of the article clearly reflects a heart-felt liking or enthusiasm for its subject, this is something that should not be challenged. Any comments?
- I think the key is blatant and intentionate POV. Normally the author has an ideological/personal agenda and ignores consensus making policies. Normally the disruption is reiterative and even systematic. Sometimes pushing the guidelines and policies to the limit, toying with them, ignoring WP:NPOV but using WP:Etiquette to denounce those who denounce them as rude or of "attacks ad hominem".
- For an example, check White people and its talk page.
- This systematic POV-pushing should be considered as complex vandalism but it isn't, at least not clearly.
- I think the essay should grow, evolve into a guideline and influence policies such as WP:Vandalism, WP:NPOV and WP:Etiquette--Sugaar 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] axiomatic analysis
The bonus here is that once a set of axioms have been analyzed, cognitive tools to notice similar bad patterns just increased, and, the gig is up for the POV pushers entire line of reasoning.
Prometheuspan 03:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Taking Steps
What do I do with a POV pusher? I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I've come across a user (Embarkedaxis) who has deleted information in a couple articles, and in others has replaced references to "Indian culture" with "Pakistani culture," rearranged things so Pakistan comes first, deleted links he doesn't like or finds religious issues with. I know that Indian and Pakistani culture are closely related, but this seems quite overboard. How can I find someone who knows the issues and has the clout to deal with this? --Eliyak 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I found an admin through the India Portal, who I informed about the problem, but I would think there should be some sort of system in place, no? This guy had a history of edits, some of which were very subtle, and yet still POV pushing. Should they all be removed, or only some? Is there a wikiproject that deals with this problem? --Eliyak 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Dispute Resolution.
- You can of course start by reverting and discussing in the talk page.
- Read also: WP:BOLD --Sugaar 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Hall of Infamy
Could a gallery of the most infamous POV pushers be set up and linked from this page? I would suggest that the requirement to be listed in such a gallery be that a user has been banned many times for POV pushing and reference User:Jason Gastrich as a first example. --64.232.164.63 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your favorite might not be chosen for immortality. But the entire Wikipedia namespace would benefit from more illustration with whole-page exhibits in contrast to description and that less-than-illustration which is effected by using "for example" or "ie" in prose. --P64 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV pushing, official policy?
This needs to be developed into an enforcible policy, with blocks on users that try to circumvent Wikipedia's policy through various actions. If there was consequences for POV pushing, wikipedia would be a far less troublesome place. Nodekeeper 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah but the only way that it's decided who is POV pushing is through the WP:ARBCOM. — Dunc|☺ 22:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I like the essay and think that, with some more elaboration should become at least a guideline. --Sugaar 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clearer definition needed
I think a clearer definition of POV pushing with clearer examples is needed for the uninitiated because people may not realize what is kosher and what isn't. I don't know enough about what everyone thinks to be much more of a use here.--Pravknight 02:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- A good example is the White people article. While most editors are trying to reach a consensus and build a good article a couple of them are mostly ignoring the discussion and the consensus/supermajority in favor of their POVs, editing at will, often under the pretense of "minor edit", "fixed link", etc.
- Then they protest because I say they have are ideologically motivated and have no good faith.
- Take a look (check history and discussion page). --Sugaar 17:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
