Wikipedia:Neutrality Project/Stale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is an archive page |
 Stale requests are archived here. If you want to reopen a request, please do so on the main page. This page is kept purely for archival reasons. Please do not leave comments on this page. |
[edit]
The lead of the article refers to Rákosi as "Stalinist dictator". While I personally agree that Rákosi was in fact a Stalinist and the nature of his rule could characterize him as a "dictator", it also strikes me that this statement is blatantly POV. I changed it to "premier of Hungary", but it was immediately reverted, after which I added the "NPOV" tag. I'd really like some other opinions from those involved with this project whether this characterization is proper under WP:NPOV. If it is, I personally have no problem with the characterization, since I have no particular affection for dead East European Stalinist leaders. Iamcuriousblue 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit]
The main debate in this article is over the Contemporary Kurdish Christians section. There was some discussion of this in July and while the section has improved some I personally think it is still POV, and since it is the same editors debating the issue I believe bringing in a third party to help come to some consensus would be good. ' ChrisLamb 03:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit]
There ia a problem with two Wikipedia administrators firstly getting the page protected, then using that protection to make changes not agreed by consensus, and which support their own POV, which is clear from previous archives of the talk pages (especially the long-held wish to remove criticisms of the subject of the page, which has happened without consensus in the last day). They have been offensive to newbies on numerous occasions. They have been inconsistent in their demands as to what is acceptable evidence. There is also a problem with potential provocation of people, by making unsubstantiated claims of 'harassment' of the subject and professing a possible intention to publish on wikipedia. There appears to be an abuse of power to keep an apparent POV as status quo. While it is clear this subject matter is controversial, the two administrators' behaviour has been provocative and perjorative of other contributors, inflaming the situation. The fact that both claim to be 'objective' and neutral' while denying that of others is a difficult aspect of this problem, hence the highlighting of the problem on this page. ' 81.107.133.168 18:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that this IP is a sock of Alpinist (talk · contribs). MastCell Talk 17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No I am NOT A SOCK of user Alpinist. I have now got myself a proper user name and page. I didn't before because I did not want to join wikipedia as such: mainly because it feels wrong to be 'voluntarily' part of a community that frankly is set up for all sorts of bullying. My concerns are set out VERY briefly on my userpage. This accusing of people of sockpuppetry is exactly the sort of perjorative behaviour that worries me about many on wikipedia. This is a legitimate complaint, about the misrepresenting of certain people, of which I am concerned about. I have read a lot of wikipedia musings on 'neutrality', and what is happening on the Simon Wessely at the hands of certain administrators is certainly not neutral. I have asked for people who are associated with this page to have a look, and the fact that the only response I have had is an accusation of sockpuppetry just gives more evidence to my original misgivings, demoralisingly. Angela Kennedy Angela Kennedy 08:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I can confirm that Angela Kennedy is NOT a sock puppet for anyone. Angela Kennedy is a UK sociology lecturer and she and her family are known to me, personally. I can vouch for her integrity. Please apologise, MastCell, and withdraw this unwarranted allegation. And before anyone accuses me of being a sock puppet, I am Suzy Chapman - as Admin JFW is able to confirm. I would suggest that you scrutinise Whois? IP results with a little more care. MEagenda 09:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
An even more ludicrous situation has arisen now. Because and Admin has blocked the talk pages to new users, it is impossible to rebut his most recent claims. This may give the impression that what he says his correct and indisputable, or agreed to 'by consensus', when this situation is nothing of the sort. At least two of the people who have tackled the admin, 'JFW', recently on the Simon Wessely talk page are newbies'. One is Alpinist (who's been blocked from posting anything) and myself- already called a sock puppet on this page. This makes a mockery of any claims to neutrality in Wikipedia. Surely people can see that? Angela Kennedy Angela Kennedy 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- The talk page was blocked just before your arrival because of an abusive editor called Alpinist (talk · contribs). Your account has now been autoconfirmed. I wasn't the admin who protected the talkpage. You were only called a sockpuppet because Alpinist has proceeded to use any means at his disposal to cause trouble (including threats of physical violence on my talkpage[1]). I suggest you follow the usual procedure in getting redress. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] John 1:1
This article seems to be under heavy dispute with constant edits (Quaker24 in paticular) between Unitarians and Trinitarians debating over this article where Unitarians seem to be mentioning their viewpoint on the matter and Trinitarians are removing or heavily editing the content saying that its biased against the Trinity. I'd appreciate it if a neutral editor could stop by and resolve this dispute by making sure that both viewpoints get a clean, fair, and neutral mention in the article. If this keeps up I'd suppose that the article may even need locking.
I will say that I'm a unitarian myself and I contributed to this article a long time ago and tried to make sure that both viewpoints were neutral and presented as fact, or however you want to phrase it, but now the whole thing seems to have gone to hell (no pun intended).
I might even edit the article again and put each viewpoint under its own heading such as Unitarian Viewpoint and Trinitarian Viewpoint, or just under a heading called Controversy like all the other articles, etc...
So if someone could check that out, thanks! 204.116.124.19 14:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Stale. No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. Jame§ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[edit] literary fiction
an author of the article seems to have used it simply to put fowards their own litrary preferences as undisputed fact, and even asserts that authors who differ must therefore be writing just for the money. 210.50.228.5 09:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Stale. No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. Jame§ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[edit] John Kenneth Galbraith
In the Criticism of Galbraith's Work section, the article defends Galbraith from Friedman's criticism by asserting the distinction between what people, in truth, "want" and artificially created "wants". Asserting that this distinction is meaningless is at the heart of Friedman's objection -- Friedman certainly didn't miss this key point of Galbraith. In this manner the article betrays a Galbraith-friendly POV.
Stale. No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. Jame§ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[edit] Autism Research Institute
This article, regarding the Autism Research Institute (ARI), is clearly written from a pro-ARI POV. The first section of the article, which describes the ARI and its goals, seems fairly neutral, but the rest of the article is biased toward the stated goals of the ARI. The section titled "Shedding light on autism," in particular, is nothing more than a quote from the current director of the ARI where he's saying good things about a former director, and provides no particular information.
A better article would include neutral information about the history of the ARI, its past and current objectives, and similar things. Its probably a worthwhile page; I wouldn't delete it, but it needs work. Andi1235 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Stale. No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. Jame§ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[edit] Freemasons
Despite a GA tag and numerous citations this article displays systemic bias towards the articles subject. Problems include wide generalized responses to Freemason critics, lengthy rationalizations and nerfing or removal of any critical material. Almost all the sources cited are from a Freemason POV.
The article, which includes much well thought out material suffers from this bias. Currrently it lengthy and long winded, hard to read, and missing information found in many other sources.
Meekrob 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have personally no pros or cons about the Freemasons but know that there has been much critic to them. So your request seems fair to me. (Else I'm more an observer in the neutrality project). Geir 20:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Stale. No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. Jame§ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[edit] Claw vending machine
There are some clear problems in this article. In the controversy section for example, there are several mentions of the fact that the owner of the machine "just wants your money". Also, in the 'success rate' section, towards the end of the section, there is a chunk of text beginning: "Finally, these dastardly machines are aimed at the most vulnerable people of all, the children" which is very biased. Orkie2 12:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Though most of the wording mentioned above was already cleaned up, there were still a few POV issues - I've rewritten part of the article to make it more neutral. I believe it should be checked by a more experienced editor before it is moved to closed, if that is possible. Thanks! *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 05:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Stale. No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. Jame§ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[edit] WikiProject: Arab-Israeli Conflict
Much contention exists regarding a wide variety of historical events, including the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which strongly influence contemporary politics. Israelis, Palestinians, and their supporters contend and strongly dispute nearly every topic in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Therefore, I request that all articles under WikiProject: Arab-Israeli Conflict as well as WikiProject: Palestine and/or any articles mentioning the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict bear some acknowledgement of the disputed nature of the events pertaining to the conflict. I fear that failure to do so may give the wrong impression that this ongoing historical debate does not exist. Thank you. -- Michael Safyan 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Stale. No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. Jame§ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[edit] al-Aqsa Intifada
The content of this article is highly disputed. Additionally many (including myself) believe that the title supports one interpretation of the events over another and should be changed to "Second Intifada" (discussed on the talk page). This page requires major re-editing and hopefully a name change. -- Michael Safyan 05:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Stale. No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. Jame§ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[edit] Burmese Indians
Articles cite a number unverifiable facts and written in very racist overtone and tries to rewrite the history of a country based upon bias information. I have tried to tag the article for POV check and other relevant verifications, however, the author of the article attacked me personally and accused me of being racist for raising question. I am not disputing the article as a whole, however, the so-called "facts" and information in the article are either false or written to support a particular POV. Any help in this would be appericiated. Okkar 10:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Stale. No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. Jame§ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[edit] Political views of Lyndon LaRouche
NPOV issues have been clearly raised on the talk page, but two editors, User:SlimVirgin and User:Cberlet are refusing to respond. Instead, they simply revert the NPOV tag. --HonourableSchoolboy 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Stale. No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. Jame§ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[edit] Global warming controversy
Text that disagrees with the beliefs of some editors (based on the content they add, delete, change and their user pages and in one case their Wikipedia article) are deleted outright constantly or reverted after passing time. The justifications for the edits are 'flimsy'. When the same justifcations for edits are used on text that are in line with their POV the edits are undone. Essentially what results is either an edit war or an article about a controversy that is slanted to one side of the discussion and loaded with weasely words for the other.
One (of scores) example is relating to sourcing. For text that aligns with their POV sources are special interest groups, advocacy groups, Congresspersons' position pages, etc (e.g. Mother Jones, ExxonSecrets). For text that is not in line with their POV the sources are removed (and the supported text with it) from news distributors (an AP story from NewsMax) and first hand sources (an organization's website to cite their financial data).
One of the major actors is an Adminstrator and has been [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/William_M._Connolley_and_Cortonin previously on parole] for a lessor extreme of present behavior.
Two of the exact examples are partially documented in the talk pages. Documentation 1 and Documentation 2. If this request is accepted I am able to present more. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC) corrections to formatting -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
