[edit] New Requests
To 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 Request
1 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.
2 Create a new request as a subheading under this category. Be sure to use the following format:
===={{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.
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)
[edit] Psychodiagnostic Chirology
POV problem: entire article appears to be a form of advertising or another self-publishing avenue. And there is a biased tone throughout the article (emphasising it's rightness) many weasel words, with a need for plain English for wikipedia purposes. At the very least it needs wikifying. At the author's user page there's just a mile of CV publicity. I hope I am not being too hard on this user, only because I'm not sure if the user page can be used in a self interest way. As I understand it, usually a person's page is towards their potential within the wikipedians community. PS hope it's okay to put this request here? Julia Rossi 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
[edit] Global Warming
Although 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.
Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The uncertainty in this range results from both the difficulty of predicting the volume of future greenhouse gas emissions and uncertainty about climate sensitivity.
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)
A 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)
This article is curently received a contribution with a lot of unverified and biased claim. See history. Esurnir 05:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This 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)
[edit] Declined Requests
An archive of old declined requests is available at Wikipedia:Neutrality Project/Declined.
This article has been the subject of a long-running debate; the editors involved in the dispute over the article's neutrality have been involved in the recent Mediation Committee case, WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus 2, of which I am the mediator. We have came to a compromise that we will entrust this project to clean the article up with regards to WP:NPOV; please consult the case's talk page for details on the most important issues that the editor's wish to be resolved. We have every confidence that this project is the best-suited to bring this article up to the standards that the disputing editors wish to be set, and that WP:NPOV require, for the good of the encyclopedia and its readers.
For the mediation committee,
:Anthonycfc [T • C] 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 Declined • The users in question should come to a mutually agreeable version of the article and simply be bold and fix it. The Wikipedia Neutrality Project does not get involved in articles subject to serious Dispute Resolution. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply; although this is a setback in our progress, I thank you for taking the time to reply, as well as writing out an explanation. Kindest regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- WNP is not a replacement for proper mediation. You should figure out a version of the article tenable to all involved and then go ahead and edit it to that version. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, any of our editors can help on his own in this. But it really takes collaboration with editors to make the article good rather than passing it here, where not everyone knows the subject well. I'll try to help out there, in some regards, but mostly for discussion and suggestions. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Open Requests
This 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.
I feel that this article might be too excessively negative, and I need another person to review and pick out loaded language or any other neutrality issues. Hbdragon88 01:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've started this case, and done a few copyedits for a more neutral tone. An anonymous user has graciously done a couple of more. Our project is picking up!Nina Odell 15:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 Closed • Article looks good. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Concern, as expressed on Talk: Mitt Romney, that article reads too much like campaign literature. 3rd party review for neutrality would be helpful. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I made some edits, and added a comment regarding development of the issue. I could not find directly biased statements, and see only minor improvements needed to develop and clarify the alternate opinions to his own. Specific issues should be clarified.
- D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 05:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Closed • Article looks good. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the opening sentence of the article on Wise use: "The Wise Use agenda is based in environmental conservationism yet is anti-environmentalist in a political sense." Is an agenda a proper subject for a WP article? Thanks. Steve Dufour 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. I hope I am putting this in the right place.
- It certainly is notable, in my opinion, however that kind of wording is clearly biased and needs work. I'll take a look into improving it when I get a chance. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me • Support Neutrality • RFCU) 20:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Corrected a couple bits, will try to seek for better wording for intro. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed • Article looks good. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
- Coming from someone who is rather indifferent to animal rights, I do not see any "clear extremist POV" here. The article documents a particular monkey that was a part of an odd experiment. The wording of the article gives me no indication of whether this was "good" or "bad". The only POV issue I can see is the lack information regarding the researchers and the experiment the monkey was involved in; what was the goals of the experiment? why was the experiment carried out the way it was? That is just a matter of finding sources to flesh out more details. —Mitaphane ?|! 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this article inherently may have undue weight/POV and WP:SOAPBOX issues. The article comes across as promoting a "poster child" of a particular issues group (whether the group is extremist is besides the point here). An article about particular kinds of animal experimentation of this sort (which are common, not odd) - or maybe about a particular controversy - would be more appropriate and more capable of neutrality. Focusing on a "poster child" monkey seems undue unless the monkey gained a substantial amount of third-party celebrity (I don't see any evidence of this). I don't see this article as something within the scope of this project however (which is focussed on fixing unbalanced content with the assumption that the article subject itself is sound). I suggest that the petitioner research the sources used for the article (do they actually mention the specific subject discussed? - sometimes references listed in articles actually don't or do so in a minimal way. If the specific subject is discussed, what is context and use, and do they support a potentially neutral and encyclopedic notable form of this article? Are the sources used one-sided? Are they authoritative?) After this the petitioner should consider if they want to propose a merger or move for the article, or if they wish to nominate the article for deletion on WP:SOAPBOX/notability grounds Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I now see this may be the wrong place to ask this question, but one of my problems with the article is the fact that the references are just activist videos & books on a specialist vegetarian/animal rights press. I am trying to persuade the people who have these books to actually cite the original sources of the government reports they claim these books document. Is that kind of referencing grounds for a merge or deletion?--Jaibe 22:06, 11 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)
- I suppose a wording change from "As well as criticizing the pseudoscientific claims of intelligent design proponents and others" to perhaps "As well as offering criticisms of Intelligent Design, notably asserting that its claims are psuedoscientific." It would focus the article on Meyer's views and not inadvertently offer a biased or dysphemismtic qualifier. If Meyers criticisms include the concept of pseudoscientific then it would be appropriate to note that.
- D. M. Arney, M.A. 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This 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] Closed Requests
When 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.
|
