| Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
This article has a cleanup tag because it is "unbalanced towards certain viewpoints." Does the article include descriptions of human rights violations in Egypt that are biased, misleading or inaccurate? Jarble ( talk) 18:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Remember that you can remove such tags if you think they are no longer relevant. If another editors reverts the removal ask them to discuss their concerns on the articles talk page. The article has had extensive changes since the tag was added in March 2020, and the exact details of the issue were never expressed by the editor who added the tag. So I don't see any reason it couldn't be removed. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ ActivelyDisinterested and Zakawer: Does this article still have a bias against post-Morsi authorities that needs to be corrected? Jarble ( talk) 22:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The introductory article of Hokkaido is not Neutral Point of View.
"Although there were Japanese settlers who had ruled the southern tip of the island since the 16th century, Hokkaido was considered foreign territory that was inhabited by the indigenous people of the island, known as the Ainu people. The Japanese settlers began their migration to Hokkaido in the 17th century, which often resulted in clashes and revolts between Japanese and Ainu populations. In 1869, following the Meiji Restoration, Ezo, which means "the land of the barbarians" in Japanese, was annexed by Japan under on-going colonial practices, and renamed Hokkaido. After this event, Japanese settlers started to colonize the island, establishing Japan's first modern settler colony. While Japanese settlers colonized the island, the Ainu people were dispossessed of their land, forced to assimilate, and aggressively discriminated against by the Japanese settlers. Many Ainu people were put into forced labor camps and exploited by the Japanese. In the 21st century, the Ainu have been almost totally assimilated into Japanese society; as a result, many Japanese of Ainu descent have no knowledge of their heritage and culture."
It gives too much undue weight on the Ainu. I tried to make it more neutral but someone is keeping to keep it as it was. Kyuzoaoi ( talk) 23:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I shortened it. I think it is fine to include stuff about Ainu but yeah the length and wording of that needed rework. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 19:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I came across the World Festival of Youth (2024) article in the process of updating Conversations about Important Things and I am concerned that the article is almost entirely unbalanced towards the perspective of the Russian government. This is because the article uses Russian sources without critical assessment (unlike in Conversations about Important Things, where topics referring to annexation of Crimea is clarified as such). I think the World Festival of Youth article needs urgent attention, sadly I do not have much capacity to review the World Festival of Youth article. -- Minoa ( talk) 18:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm having a dispute with @ Austin613: at the talk page for the article article on Antioch International Movement of Churches. This is a movement of dozens of churches which started in Waco Texas in the late 1990s.
The specific dispute we're having is about whether to include a section called "spiritual abuse and cult status" in the article. The proposed source is this Buzzfeed News article: [1]. I have said that I think this article is RS for the attributed claim that, according to Buzzfeed News, a few anonymous former members and family members of former members of the Waco church said some negative things about it. But I think this is UNDUE in an article about the movement. I also have a more general concern that this Wikipedia article is highly non-netural. Any comments on that are appreciated as well. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 23:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also refer to our talk discussion: /info/en/?search=Talk:Antioch_International_Movement_of_Churches#Cult_and_Abuse_Section I am of the belief that reliably sourced topics can be introduced and included fairly in the appropriate place with well written explanation. Austin613 ( talk) 03:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Pinging editors who have been on the page in the last few months: @ Wdonghan:@ Gargarlinks:@ Discospinster: Shinealittlelight ( talk) 13:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think of all the issues with the article, the spiritual abuse and cult status is the least egregious to me and should be discussed somewhere on the article. However, I'm not opposed to removing the section and reducing the claims spiritual abuse into mentions elsewhere on the article
Wdonghan (
talk) 15:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks
Wdonghan. Thoughts on how to improve the other aspects of the article are welcome if you'd like to elaborate. As for the "abuse" issue, it sounds like you disagree with my judgment that it is
WP:UNDUE. My argument for claiming it is UNDUE is that it appears in one article at a news site that no longer operates, and is sourced to anonymous former members of one (out of dozens) of churches in the movement. According to policy, minority viewpoints are important, but it should be "easy to name prominent adherents". We can name ZERO prominent adherents of the viewpoint in question, as far as I can tell. If we attribute to Buzzfeed News that helps, but that's still a single (now defunct) outlet, and it is not therefore easy to name prominent adherents.
Shinealittlelight (
talk) 16:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're way too fixated on the victim name part. We already confirmed an established, reliable published source, by an known journalist. Whether or not Buzzfeed News is not operating is completely irrelevant. The story has been verified, checked and balanced by an editor. Wikipedia policy also says you have to take the context into consideration. The name omissions are comparable to a "John Doe" or "Jane Doe." These are individuals who were interviewed, along with a psychologist, to exhibit trauma from attending Antioch Church being victims to cult tactics and spiritual abuse. Obviously names were appropriately omitted for safety reasons.
Austin613 (
talk) 19:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Austin613, at one point you said we should include it even though it is UNDUE. Are you now saying that it is DUE after all? Policy says that if this information is DUE we should be able to provide prominent (e.g., not defunct) adherants of the view that Antioch movement has a reputation for abuse. So far we have zero such sources.
Shinealittlelight (
talk) 19:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia pages are comprised of reliably sourced articles that describe the majority viewpoint. If we are only able to find a certain reliably sourced viewpoint, that's the majority. I'm not sure what you find undue in the page. If you find a different viewpoint, that is reliably sourced, and are able to prove that it's the majority report, include it. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. I'm all for inclusion of all viewpoints so long as they are identified and explained. Austin613 ( talk) 21:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Austin613, at one point you said we should include it even though it is UNDUE. Are you now saying that it is DUE after all? Policy says that if this information is DUE we should be able to provide prominent (e.g., not defunct) adherants of the view that Antioch movement has a reputation for abuse. So far we have zero such sources.
Shinealittlelight (
talk) 19:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're way too fixated on the victim name part. We already confirmed an established, reliable published source, by an known journalist. Whether or not Buzzfeed News is not operating is completely irrelevant. The story has been verified, checked and balanced by an editor. Wikipedia policy also says you have to take the context into consideration. The name omissions are comparable to a "John Doe" or "Jane Doe." These are individuals who were interviewed, along with a psychologist, to exhibit trauma from attending Antioch Church being victims to cult tactics and spiritual abuse. Obviously names were appropriately omitted for safety reasons.
Austin613 (
talk) 19:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks
Wdonghan. Thoughts on how to improve the other aspects of the article are welcome if you'd like to elaborate. As for the "abuse" issue, it sounds like you disagree with my judgment that it is
WP:UNDUE. My argument for claiming it is UNDUE is that it appears in one article at a news site that no longer operates, and is sourced to anonymous former members of one (out of dozens) of churches in the movement. According to policy, minority viewpoints are important, but it should be "easy to name prominent adherents". We can name ZERO prominent adherents of the viewpoint in question, as far as I can tell. If we attribute to Buzzfeed News that helps, but that's still a single (now defunct) outlet, and it is not therefore easy to name prominent adherents.
Shinealittlelight (
talk) 16:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Eric Joyce ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More watchers requested at this BLP. Discussion about how much weight to give criminal history. VQuakr ( talk) 18:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory article has, in my assessment, a severe NPOV issue. The article states repeatedly, in wikivoice, that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible.
Unfortunately, that's no fact.
Oxford English Dictionary (cited in the article) defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event".
Several sources already used in the article -- yet not in the lead section -- make the similar claim that while the word has take on a derogatory connotation, and most famous conspiracy theories are implausible, this is not true about all conspiracy theories per se, and that to suggest so is to commit the fallacy of composition.
As such, I believe the article should be more neutrally worded so as to not completely redefine the meaning of conspiracy theory with a few cherry picked sources.
Of course there are real conspiracies. Are plausible theories about conspiracies really not conspiracy theories? Peter L Griffin ( talk) 20:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The connotation of the term is absolutely negative in English. But Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so the subject of the article needn't exactly overlap with the dictionary definition of the term in any case.
The article states repeatedly, in wikivoice, that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible.
Not that I see. Quotes, please? VQuakr ( talk) 20:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)- The lead sentence: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable."
- A connotation is an opinion, and therefore should not completely take control of the article without being qualified as an opinion. Peter L Griffin ( talk) 21:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Of course it's fine for the article to mostly focus on untrue conspiracy theories. I don't think, however, we should let this popular notion of conspiracy theory = false force us to act is if conspiracy theories are false per se, when any dictionary would beg to differ -- to say so is to make an unfactual claim.
Peter L Griffin (
talk) 21:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't support what you said:
...that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible.
One of the purposes of the lead sentence of the article is to define the article's scope, which that sentence seems to do quite well. VQuakr ( talk) 21:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)- Does the lead sentence not define conspiracy theories as having more probable other explanations? Would you be amenable to this edit:
- First two sentences currently read
- A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence.
- My proposed change
- A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence, and that other explanations are more probable. Peter L Griffin ( talk) 23:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't support what you said:
- The article says,
A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians
. So, no, plausible conspiracies are not conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are unlikely or implausible by definition. Geogene ( talk) 20:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)- I would argue this is POV pushing. This is cited to a singular journal article, whereas several other journal articles come to the opposite conclusion. There is no reason undue weight has to be put on this on article. Peter L Griffin ( talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- These sources
[2],
[3],
[4] disagree, for example.
Peter L Griffin (
talk) 21:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- As has been discussed at
Talk:Conspiracy theory, sources which are silent on an issue cannot be construed to disagree with the sources that do specifically comment on it.
MrOllie (
talk) 21:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- This was the topic of an extended conversation which reached no productive conclusion, and perhaps we should not try to rehash here. But you are also wrong; several of these sources do mention that conspiracy theories can be true. Peter L Griffin ( talk) 21:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- As has been discussed at
Talk:Conspiracy theory, sources which are silent on an issue cannot be construed to disagree with the sources that do specifically comment on it.
MrOllie (
talk) 21:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Talk:International Churches of Christ#Primary Sources for the “Beliefs” Section about whether third-party sources are required for the section International Churches of Christ#Beliefs, which is currently based almost entirely on sources associated with the subject. Input from editors without a COI would be welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I found a severe NPOV violation on an article talk page. [5] I removed it from the talk page and posted on the user's talk page. I'm posting here to bring attention to it. 76.178.169.118 ( talk) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- The account in question,
Robert Sacomeno, has only made three edits, all that one post on
Talk:Project 2025. It was indeed an inappropriate addition and telling them on their talk page that it violates NPOV is the right thing to do. If they violate NPOV again, appropriate remedies can be applied. This didn't need to be brought here to this noticeboard, though. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 21:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- K, thanks. I don't usually bother with this side of Wikipedia. I'm a casual editor and reader. I was just surprised to see that level of POV from a username (I see IPs do it all the time).
76.178.169.118 (
talk) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I warned them earlier. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- K, thanks. I don't usually bother with this side of Wikipedia. I'm a casual editor and reader. I was just surprised to see that level of POV from a username (I see IPs do it all the time).
76.178.169.118 (
talk) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Interpretation of the number of fatalities in Template:Infobox civilian attack
There is a dispute at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Death toll about what the number of fatalities included in the infobox refer to. My interpretation is that it refers to the number of people alleged to have died from the genocide. Others have interpreted it, I believe, as meaning casualties in the broader conflict, including both those that are alleged to be victims and those that are not alleged to be victims.
There are sources to support the latter, but there are not sources to support the former. If my interpretation is correct, I am concerned that presenting it this way introduces WP:NPOV issues, as well as WP:V issues.
Additional input would be appreciated. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- So far it looks like someone put a citation needed note on a cited, and likely conservative, figure.
Simonm223 (
talk) 12:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's cited, but not to sources that say this is the number of victims - it's to sources that say this is the number dead in the broader war, and that sources say includes both civilians and militants. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I was the one who accepted the AfC article a few years back. (The original writer of the article was the owner of the website.) However, I'm not sure if it's considered promotional. What do you think? Is it neutral enough? Additionally, is it notable enough to remain on its own, or should I merge it into the article about Santa Claus? Félix An ( talk) 03:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Can an administrator of experienced editor do a full NPOV check over Visegrád 24? The article was TNTed back in March 2024 after the subject of the article, Visegrád 24, posted to have editors fix and change the article. This got brought up at AN, leading to a perm EC protection under two different C-TOPICS. Well, Visegrád 24 posted again on Twitter today to have editors fix the article, which was supposedly written by "disgruntled far left journos". I was unaware of the March 2022 postings until I was already editing the article (due to catching recent editors via my watchlist), but I saw this tweet and I'm now technically involved. Honestly, an administrator check over the article and its content may not be a bad thing, since it had dozens of COI editors, a T-blocked editor, a subsequent RSN involvement (see the talk page), and the subject of the article has posted three times in the last month to have the article "fixed" of misinformation.
-Sorry for the mini-rant: TL;DR: Article needs administrator or experienced editor checked due to C-TOPICS + WP:TNT + COI from dozens of editors in the last month. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)