Wikipedia:Neutrality Project/Stale

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Stale

 – No comment added for over a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is closed or opened._Jame§^ugrono 10:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Y Opened. _Jame§^ugrono 10:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way of speeding the case a bit? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be an active dispute here, and there's no tag. Why don't we simply close this request? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Stale

 – No comments for six months. Will be archived in one week if there are no objections. Uncle Ed (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to get any real idea of what a freight forwarder does, as the language in the article tends to be "all-encompassing" or buzzword-laden. Attempted some cleanup, and marked article as POV, but POV tag was removed. 70.251.147.224 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing, deletion of opposing viewpoints and general attempts at censorship by his followers, especially Siru108. Please help me to keep it neutral!! Introspective Perspective (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it really warrants it but within in the section on Criticism of Israel, the working is disputed. Could someone who is neutral check it for NPOV.安東尼 TALK ^圣诞快乐 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia article on Creationist Kent Hovind contains enough negative editorial bias that it should not be considered balanced content for a legitimate Wikipedia article. While I do not have any personal or legal involvement, my opinion is that Hovind would have more than enough grounds to pursue a libel action naming Wikipedia, for this article, as currently posted. As a journalist, I believe the Hovind article appears to be what is commonly known as a "hit piece", i.e., a work specifically written for the purpose of creating negative publicity, diminishment of reputation, stature, influence, or even civil right of an individual, individuals, group or organization. Secondly, and more critical is the concern that the primary provider(s) of content for this article have used the facilities and rules of Wikipedia to prevent editing of this article. The primary content providers for this article have a record of practicing aggressive, predatory removal, repeat censoring and filing of false claims against contributors, apparently to prevent access from the Wikipedia community at large. This has happened to the point that this article is no longer accessible to Wikipedia editorial oversight, or the Wikipedia community; it has effectively become the property of the party(ies)currently maintaining it. A disclaimer should be added to this article as it now exists, stating that the article should not be considered credible or factual, but an expression of cultural and political opinion. Regards, H.T. Schmerdtz. I do not have an account.

A fellow editor and I have not been able to agree on the nuetrality of a particular phrase in the first paragraph. User:Unschool made this edit , and I pointed out that the phrase greatest internal crisis may violate WP:ASF. I suggested changing it to Bloodiest war in U.S. history, based still on WP:ASF. As of yet, we have come to no agrrement on anything. Can anyone look at it and give an impartial independent assessment of the sentence, since it does sit in the lead paragraph.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no other place to address this strange new stub. Essentially, it is just oddly written, with what appears to be a fringe POV, but I'm still not sure, and it does not meet any CSD categories. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is currently the subject of strong claims about NPOV violations from two editors: myself and User:Jobxavier. Claims of "Missionary Propaganda" are heard from one side while I object to much of the language and edits used to "remedy" the problem. An outside opinion on recent edits would be helpful, as would be any observations on the overall NPOV status of the article. Gabrielthursday (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised here about the neutrality of a proposed Infobox to be added to this article. I believe I have made the box NPOV in its presentation and content, but one user refuses to accept the infobox, stating it will be divisive and cause revert wars. I am open to suggestions on how to improve the infobox, and would like more participants in the discussion. Please come offer an opinion there so we can settle this issue. We just need more than two people discussing it in order to reach any sort of valid consensus. I appreciate your time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A POV tag was added in May with discussion on the talk page about how the article was very biased towards Christianity, with more material criticising the criticisers than actual criticism. An editor has recently added even more apologetics to the article, tilting the bias even further and then removed the POV tag. I tried to put it back, but the editor decided that the May discussion was "stale" so the tag had to go. I have washed my hands of the mess of an article; if anyone wishes to fix it, they have my best. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article appears to be POV pushing. It does not cite very much and doesn't give any sort of counter-point or balance. Instead, it shows nothing but materials that support the POV that southerners are prone to be more violent. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Citations added and some effort made to balance, although positive aspects of the concept and citiations to critical individuals would be welcome. Ohwilleke (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

POV is extremely negative, using loaded words, making unsubstantiated claims and factual errors.

The author has gone out of her way to find every negative thing she can about the school, using descriptions of past practice to prejudice readers as to the character of the present school. Attempts to correct the page (I'm not a wiki expert) have been consistently reversed within a day. I have added an extensive discussion of the problem on the talk page, and while some of the factual corrections have made, many have not. Example: Reported death of Ted Milligan, snowshoeing at the Manitoba School is cited as evidence that this school's program is extreme. Milligan did not die. (close, however...) Events at another school 30 years ago are misleading in an article about this school now. The article makes claims about controversy, but is not explicit on the nature of the controversy, nor on the sides of the controversy. In addition, the author has ignored facts that are inconvenient. E.g: She states that charges were brought against Paul Nordahl, but neglects to add that the charges were dropped for lack of evidence.

Disclaimer and statement of conflict of interest: I am a staff member of this school. Sgbotsford (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Badly needs neutral POV. 76.5.159.167 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

Although the author cites some references, the article does not appear to be presenting a balanced argument and could easily be construed by many as inflammatory. This is a request for a review of the neutrality of this article. The article was created today and has only been edited by one user.

I'm no expert on the Wikipedia policy for NPOV, so if I'm out of line, please close this issue and let me know. -- Andrew Mill (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It does have the flavour of a promotion of the concept. It is also excessively long. I'll add a note to that effect to the talk page. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page on the suitability of WP:TERRORIST. You are invited to participate, as we seem to have reached an impasse. RayAYang (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)