Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Neutrality Project | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
|
Dedicated to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia through Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy |
|||||||||
|
[edit] Introduction
This WikiProject aims for promotion of the neutral point of view (NPOV) guidelines as set out in WP:NPOV, removing bias from articles and helping to resolve POV-related disputes.
[edit] Scope and Focus
The goal of this WikiProject is to help to better establish Wikipedia as a legitimate encyclopedic source by removing bias from Wikipedia. Its focus will be on pages which contain visible bias towards some political or racial group, as this is the most flagrant form of NPOV violations on Wikipedia, however it endeavours to ensure that all articles are sufficiently neutral.
| Neutrality Review Requests |
[edit] New RequestsTo request attention for a page from the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, please post under this heading with a subheading and explanation of the nature of the request. [edit] Steps to list a New Request1 Check the article talk page of the article you think has a NPOV problem. If there is already active discussion of the issue, the problem may resolve itself; if the discussion is stalemated, following the recommendations on dispute resolution may be more appropriate than listing the article here.
===={{article|<<articlenamehere>>}}====
''Put a brief description of the POVconflict or POV problem here.''' ~~~~
3 Be sure to look back at this page for follow-up replies. Project members may request additional information on the issue to better understand the problem you have identified.
Can't find your request here? It may have been Opened, Declined, or declared Stale. Opened requests can be found further down the page. Declined requests are also further down the page but are archived periodically. Stale requests are archived at Wikipedia:Neutrality Project/Stale. [edit]Badly needs neutral POV. 76.5.159.167 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC) [edit]The approach for the whole article is neatly summarised in its first sentance: Housing Segregation is the practice of denying African American or other minority groups equal access to housing through the process of misinformation, denial of realty and financing services, and racial steering. [edit]The article appears to have been created solely to criticize StartLogic and IPower web hosting services. The "criticism" section is the bulk of the article; positive comments are marginalized in terms of both quantity and quality. The subject does appear to be notable enough to be kept, but it's too one-sided. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [edit]I think there are a lot of issues with all pages on bands, particularly as the primary editors are fans. I think this article is slightly biased towards Tenacious D, which means it neglects to show more criticism. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC) [edit]Currently the article seems to focus heavily on the controvery surronding the trade rather than the trade itself. Granted that the practice IS controversial, but it needs expanding to explain what live export is, as well as presenting the farmer and exporter's viewpoint..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC) [edit]The sections on "ASP versus SaaS" and "Drivers for SaaS adoption" are written suspiciously like a sales presentation for the concept of SaaS. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit]I find, this article only serves to glorify the East German sporting system, failing to mention all together the issues associated with doping in East Germany (see:Doping (sport)), the fact that Dynamos mother organisation was the Stasi, the East German secret police, responsible for severe politacal repression in this former country and the fact that its leader, Erich Mielke, was a convicted criminal. To me, it seems, the sole purpose of the article is to worship and glorify without any critical approach. I tagged the article as a POV and left a note stating pretty much the same as above on the talk page but found myself called a vandal and that I'm discriminating by the main editor of the article. Also, the tag was removed by him without any further discussion through other partys. I have replaced the tag but don't think it will be there long. Maybe one of you guys can have a look at it and let me know whos wrong, him or me. Either way, I'm happy to accept the decision by a neutral third party and if I'm wrong I will stay away from the article. Thanks for the effort,EA210269 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] {{article: Salim Ahmed Hamdan: Supreme Court Opinion>>}}The page for Salim Ahmed Hamdan detailing the Supreme Court Opinion states that, "The Supreme Court incorrectly applied the Geneva Convention as the ruling authority" and "The court incorrectly ruled that the commissions violated both." This is obviously the opinion of the writer. The writer of the article is injecting her opinion of the ruling into the article, usurping that of the Supreme Court. It would be fair to say the ruling was debated, but for her to ultimately decide the soundness of a Supreme Court decision and then describe that same Supreme Court opinion with adjectives like 'incorrect' that reveal her personal opinion of the decision is EXTREMELY biased. In addition, the writer starts the paragraph off by claiming that the June 29th decision went against legal precedence, historical tradition, etc. These are discussions best left to courthouses and coffee houses, to be debated by politicians, the American public and Supreme Court Justices who can argue whether legal precedence and historical tradition support the ruling or not. This should not be up to the writer of a Wikipedia article to make that call and then portray the event through her disapproving lens. Lastly, if the writer is going to argue that the decision, amongst other things, went against the 5th Amendment's Due Process limitations as applied to military operations in emergency or wartime, then she is arguing that a state of emergency or wartime exists that permits Due Process considerations to be bypassed. And if a state of emergency or wartime exists that allows individuals to be seized without acknowledgement of their due process rights, then the individuals seized under the pretense are PRISONERS OF THAT WAR that justified their non-customary seizure. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't argue that a state of emergency or wartime exists for the purposes of the President bypassing Due Process rights but for the purposes of protecting the prisoner's rights, they are not prisoners of war and are therefore not afforded protection under the Geneva Convention. Please, leave your opinions for discussions with your friends. If you are that confident in your opinion, you should feel comfortable with reporting on the event without interjecting any adjectives that show your personal bias, allowing readers to come to their own conclusions as to whether the Supreme Court decision was just or correct or not. [edit]Hi. I'm having a neutrality dispute here and it's developing into a revert war I'm trying to avoid. These are the two versions of the section that I'm dealing with: The last paragraph of "Version 1", to me, sounds like an attempt by a Juventus fan to rant about how Inter Milan caused their team all the injustices that happened to their club, since it delves greatly about how Inter did a lot of shady dealings during the Calciopoli scandal even though most of what is covered in that paragraph only tangentially applies to Juventus (since Calciopoli punished more than just Juve) and is better served at the actual Calciopoli article. It is also poorly sourced- quite a few of those points come from a reader contribution to Goal.com, including points about how la Gazzetta dello Sport is heavily financed by Inter and Inter fans, which should be in more reputable news outlets (since they have the resources to quantify such a statement and a reader, most likely, does not). I've looked on Google for reliable references and got nothing, and I keep asking those who push for Version 1 to provide better, more reliable evidence for those points but I also get nothing. Also, Version 1 ignores completely an even bigger event that is covered in the Calciopoli article- Juventus' pursuit of the matter in civil courts- that nearly cost the Italian national team a place at Euro 2008 and thus *should* be notable enough to cover in the article, as well as new allegations such as Milan wanting the 2004-05 title and the fact that Juventus officials sounded off on other clubs as well, like Messina F.C., who also benefited from the Calciopoli verdicts. I don't personally like my version of the section- "Version 2"- but I have tried to get more of the "complete" picture which could then be used as a basis for better editing, but we're going to get nowhere if we keep having this section acting as a soapbox. Please help. -RomeW (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) [edit]The specific issue is the proportional balance of weight between two points of view. In the USA, one point of view is that ' government has no legal power to restrict firearms' and another point of view is that ' government has legal power to reasonably regulate firearms '. I hold, based on reliable sourcing, that even the 'pro-gun rights' political wing argues for reasonable regulation, and certainly the 'gun-control' wing favors regulation. This adds up to a predominate POV that reasonable regulation is allowed. Presently we are tussling over whether these two POV's deserve equal weight, or proportional weight. I still hope we can work this out, though we are real close to getting stuck in an edit war, therefore I would welcome some third party objective input to help use determine the fair POV proportionality. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit]An interesting POV/NPOV Problem here. When I arrived on the page there appeared to be two views: 1. The article MUST explicitly say that waterboarding is torture. 2. The article MUST NOT connect waterboarding with torture. I looked around and came to the sense of a third view: 3. The idea that waterboarding is torture is disputed. There are a variety of NPOV problems here. Many people advocating either 1 or 2 appear to have a political agenda. But the NPOV Issue I would like to request some insight on is this:
I have found neutral, reliable and verifiable sources that describe the issue as "debated". The view that waterboarding is not torture is a minority position (according to polls) held by about 29% of the population vs about 65% who believe it is torture (approx. 1:2 ratio). I have also found objective, reliable sources that provide the names of notable supporters of the minority position, so it meets the criteria set by Jimbo Wales: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Consequently, I believe the issue over waterboarding is "Seriously Disputed" as described by NPOV Policy. People who disagree with me claim that because the disputing faction is a minority, the dispute is not serious. Instead, it is a WP:FRINGE opinion and accepting their dispute would violate WP:WEIGHT. I feel that a 1:2 ratio with notable adherents gives the minority position sufficient traction that we must conclude the issue is "Seriously Disputed". As a sort of footnote, I add that I consider the recognition that it is disputed to be a neutral compromising position between the two views that Waterboarding is Torture and that Waterboarding is not Torture. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Could you please cite where you got that poll from? Counting the references and sources on the talk page I come up with a ratio of 8:1 of "waterboarding is torture" to the opinions of "waterboarding isn't/may not be torture", "it's irrelevant" and "it's uncertain" combined. Quoting Stephan Schultz from the talk page: "The extremely few dissenting voices barely qualify even as a fringe. Claiming anything else is simply politically motivated dissembling. That we have to have this discussion reflects bad on "western civilization" (ref. Gandhi)--Stephan Schulz 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)" - Nothing more to say. Endymi0n (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC) [edit]Under the Legal Action heading contains POV as to the meaning of various decisions rather than summarizing what was or was not decided by them. For example "the fact that the amended complaint was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds speaks volumes for the compact's validity " Dtwarren (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) So was the interpretation of a 1993 letter that the casino was unauthorized. You didn't complain then. And from my analysis of the page, it's more a summation of facts rather than a point of view. POV suggests opinion not wholly supported by fact, such as the casino not being authorized under the compact when clearly the DOI said it took NO position but that the compact allows gambling on Indian land. That's POV. But the fact that the pleading was dismissed on smj grounds is an affirmation, not POV, that the compact is valid. If not, then answer why the court dismissed the pleading. The article then summarizes differing arguments from both sides of the table. Seems pretty neutral. [[User:Neutralman1024|Neutralman1024] ([User talk:Neutralman1024|talk]) 08:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC) [edit]This is a very important element of Roman Catholicism that is one of the first points of difference between Christian denominations that are called upon when studying the Christian religion. However this article takes a strong condescending and superior tone against other Christian denominations that don't share its belief. Like the Saddam Hussein comment earlier, it would be a disservice to let an article like this sway people's opinions. I think that if it could be tagged or similar to warn people against its heavy slant until it is fixed it'd give people a bit more scope in their attitude towards it. I recognise that virtually every article should have a tag like this because nothing is going to be wholly neutral. I just think that this is far too one way for it to be looked over, and I think it is a topic of research and discussion that can very easily be misinterpreted by either side of the playing field. [edit]This article is about an event of alleged police brutality. The two officers were white, and the arrested man was black. As you can imagine, there are disputes. Note this change, highlighting the two sides' positions. I have attempted to fix the article to help it adhere to NPOV, but I'm not sure it's right yet. Can someone else look it over? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC) [edit]Biased towards Hussein. The Talk page for this article demonstrates some of the issues at hand. This article omits the atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians during Hussein's rule, actively makes Iraq look like the victims in the Iran Iraq war in which they were the aggressors, and tries to make Kuwait appear responsible for being invaded. I also suspect that the information regarding the infrastructure, in particular the electricity grid, is false. I will be attending to these problems as soon as I can. For now, there needs to be some kind of official flag at the top of the article that mentions that the neutrality is disputed, so that people don't form their opinions based on this article. ' 58.160.66.242 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a quote from WP:WEIGHT: "You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources." - As for me, I can't see bias yet, but maybe you prove me wrong. Endymi0n (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) [edit]The paragraph concerning the effects 9/11 on consumer privacy attribute them to having created a police state. This statement appears to be a political statement and not relevant to the description of Consumer Privacy. "After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, privacy took a back-seat to national security in most legislators' minds. Accordingly concerns of consumer privacy in the United States have tended to go unheard as questions of citizen privacy versus the state, and the development of a police state or carceral state, have occupied advocates of strong privacy measures."
[edit]This is more preemptive than anything, but I'd like to get some feedback about a section. There is a World War II film called Valkyrie starring Tom Cruise and being filmed in Germany. Some German parties have protested the involvement of Cruise based on his background as a Scientologist. I have created a section for this coverage at Valkyrie (film)#German response, and I would like some feedback as to whether I have addressed all sides adequately. I imagine that the controversy may heighten by the time the film comes out, so I would like to have a neutral section ready for such incoming traffic. Any comments are welcome! Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Has a good set of viewpoints and comes across overall as neutral. As the film premeir draws closer I will have another look Phillipmorantking (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] Global WarmingAlthough the mainstream opinion on global warming is that there is sufficient fossil fuel for scarcity of supply to be a restriction, there are a number of experts who do maintain that fossil fuel scarcity could be the controlling factor restricting global warming. As I understand the wikipedia policy on NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." I have tried about half a dozen approaches varying for a small section to a very detailed section as given here: [1] to a short change in the introduction paragraph to make it clear that there are contrary views.
Add: However, some experts use models that predict fossil fuel scarcity will be a controlling factor for global warming and suggest either no rise [2] or a rise of a "couple of degrees" [1] Unfortunately, every attempt has been simply deleted without discusssion. I have even put a { { POV } } at the top of the article as I thought his was the procedure in the wikipedia policy. My friend who has reappeared not knowing about the 3RR rule kept revert the removal of the { { POV }} and ironically it was him who eventually got blocked. I know global warming is a contentious issue, but that is no reason to squash properly sourced alternative views. I would appreciate some help in resolving this dispute. LordsReform 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC) We don't resolve disputes, however, here are some places which you may be looking for:These are places to formally and informally resolve disputes. Jame§ugrono 06:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] Lyndon LaRoucheA published critic of LaRouche, Dennis King, has opened a Wikipedia account as Dking (talk · contribs). The dispute is over the extent to which the article may become a vehicle for King's theories, particularly his theory that LaRouche, who professes to be an opponent of fascism, is actually a secret fascist himself. King employs a technique of "decoding" which purports to discover hidden meanings in LaRouche's writings, hidden meanings which contradict the stated opinions of LaRouche. There is also a great deal of guilt by association, of the sort that WP:BLP prohibits. I am asking the neutrality project to intervene in particular because the neutrality dispute centers on possible violations of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --Tsunami Butler 00:39, 31 January 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] Template:History of video consoles (seventh generation)I think this article is biased towards nintendo, especially in the milestone section. Not one bad thing is said about wii games, despite obvious flaws, but almost every non wii game is criticized, no matter how petty the reason. PandaSaver (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)PandaSaverPandaSaver [edit] Puerto Rican general election, 2008This article is curently received a contribution with a lot of unverified and biased claim. See history. Esurnir 05:02, 9 January 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] Cultural mandateThis article is infrequently edited by just a handful of editors, and needs a lot more work to be NPOV and independently sourced to be properly encyclopedic. The claims in the article are largely WP:OR statements attached to quotes drawn from directly involved sources. The article has a promotional or advocacy tone as the result of reliance on one-sided, directly involved sources and links named. -Professor marginalia 18:32, 10 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] Template:Lloyds TSBThis seems to contain a lot of PR for Lloyds TSB beyond simple history and description, amounting almost to a publicity page. 81.240.60.195 (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] Declined RequestsAn archive of old declined requests is available at Wikipedia:Neutrality Project/Declined. [edit]I stumbled in here looking for some info, and the article to me reads like a press release. The "Reception" category seems especially one sided, and any negative comments seem to be written of as "Well, yeah this wasn't too good but...." followed by a paragraph of praise. Not to mention it seems a bit excessive to list 40 or so critics Top 10 ratings. I'm going to try and take a look at this section, and include some criticisms from articles that have been sourced in this talk chain, but it's since seemed to go stale. But I want to make sure I'm not off base with what I'm going to be doing. Not to mention to try and rewrite that section could get quite hairy. -- TRTX T / C 19:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit]Does not present both sides of her case - leans heavily towards the "guilty" verdict. 68.22.193.210 (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Open RequestsThis section is designed to coordinate the editing of pages to conform to a neutral tone and point of view as per WP:NPOV guidelines. It is essentially a "to-do" list. Please report any pages in need of Wikipedia Neutrality Project members' attention as a subheading of this section, to the top. [edit]Cocoaguy believes the article contains Peacock/Weasel words and an American POV. But, as the principle contributor the article I believe it conforms to the High Court verdict and the reports of Bangladeshi newspapers (which are the principle source for the article). Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC) [edit]The articles contains very strong phrasing and a lot in incriminatory quotes without any reference citing. I know the organization is worthy of a lot of finger pointing (in fact I wrote much of the original article), but this may be bit too non-neutral. Aditya(talk • contribs) 1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Moonlite yourfss [edit]This is an article with what seems to me as a clear extremist POV --- for example, it documents an event disrupting laboratory experiments, but is named after one particularly photo-opportune animal. I noticed this article after it was linked to the Macaque page, which is otherwise largely a list of species of macaques, and I have been involved in discussing (but not editing) it for some time. The article does have one paragraph documenting opposing view points on the laboratory assault and the condition of the animals, so it is not completely a one-sided work of activism. However, this does not mean it is actually neutral. I have tried adding a check POV tag twice, but both times it was quickly deleted. I would like advice about not only this article in particular, but the level of activism that is acceptable on Wikipedia in general. Clearly the very choice of what (and whom) we document is political and I don't personally think that should be avoided. At the same time, I want to understand the difference between propaganda and a good article.--Jaibe 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Superfluous "Pseudoscientific"?Hi, an interesting dispute arose (I raised the issue) surrounding the use of "pseudoscientific" as a modifier for "intelligent design" on the PZ Myers page. The discussion is here I'd like to request an outside viewpoint. Thanks, Gabrielthursday 08:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Illegal immigration to the United StatesThis article is very heavily biased towards the pro-illegal alien perspective. I am trying to document all examples in the talk page, but have limited free time which I can give to do so. What the article (and related articles as well) really needs is more people who can provide NPOV.-Psychohistorian 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC) [edit]The largest current deployment of SaaS is by Wachovia, using a SuccessFactors solution with 85,000 users, and the company anticipates an additional 25,000 users over the next two years.[6] Using the example of SuccessFactors as a SAAS provider to Wachovia provides the vendor commercial advertising, as it links to their press releases on their site. This does not follow the Wikipedia:neutral point of view guidelines and should be removed. Wikipedia is not a link farm for service providers. PRlady 17:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] Closed RequestsWhen requests have been addressed, they are archived at Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project/closed. This is almost always without prejudice - you can usually open a request if bias is reintroduced to the page. |
| Project Coordination | ||
[edit] Participants[edit] Review TeamTo join the Wikiproject, add your name to the list:
[edit] Inactive MembersInactive members will be listed here in chronological order, latest to oldest. If this list reaches 20, the last five people will be notified then removed from here. You may also add yourself to the inactive members list - do this if you are not going to contribute for a while. Simply add {{User3|<your username here>}} to a bulleted point (using *) at the bottom of the list. [edit] UserboxIf you want to show your support, add this userbox to your user page:{{User wikipedia-neutrality}}
[edit] Tools[edit] TemplatesA few templates to aid in maintaing Wikipedia's integrity:
[edit] Suggestions for ReviewersFirst, be sure you are well versed in the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines. Second, make sure you can be pretty active. Picking an article a week would be good. We will run activity checks every two or three months. Then there are a few things you can do:
Do not list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion in relation to NPOV guidelines. Add appropriate cleanup templates or NPOV warnings instead. An article that is blatantly POV should usually be the subject of cleanup, not deletion. If it is spam, then please give the community a chance to construct a good article for it, or at least post the page to the WNP talk page to bring the page to the attention of editors here to gain some consensus and feedback as to what should be done about the page. [edit] Regarding New RequestsWhen opening new requests, please keep a few things in mind:
[edit] Related Articles
|
