Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
 Sections older than 21 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes:
Click here to start a new discussion
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81

Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study[edit]

I do not think the first sentence of this article is appropriate: "The Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study in Greifswald (in German: Alfried Krupp Wissenschaftskolleg Greifswald) is an institute for advanced study named after Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, the convicted criminal against humanity. ". This article is about the Institute, not about the person for whom it is named. It's true that this person was one whose memory many people might feel was not appropriate to honor in this way. The way to say this in a Wikipedia article is not to editorialize, especially not in the lede sentence, but, if there are discussions or protests that are reported in reliable sources, to include content about them. (And It could also be mentioned in the article about the person--I am certainly not arguing to suppress the information) I changed it, but Hyrdlak changed it back. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda like starting the Porsche article with founded by the Nazi designer of the V-1 flying bomb and Panzer VIII. O3000 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
This kind of neutrality de facto amounts to Holocaust denial. Time and again such an attitude has allowed nazi, Soviet or Rwandan genocidaires to escape responsibility, and become 'respectable citizens,' until a concerned journalist or researcher uncovered their murderous past. If it is normal now to name an institute of advanced learning in one of the most democratic and liberal countries in the world after a middle-ranking genocidaire, soon it may become normal to name such and other institutions after Hitler the great economist, who solved the problem of unemployment in Germany during the 1930s, Stalin the great modernizer, who industrialized the SU by killing millions in Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Thus, I propose to invite to the discussion editors who write on Holocaust and genocide issues.Hyrdlak (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Hyrdlak
You are now edit-warring on the article. And, see Godwin's law. O3000 (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
No I am not. It was a warning against enabling and normalizing Holocaust denial.Hyrdlak (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Hyrdlak
Unfortunately there seems to be a history of POV pushing. Same discussion had been had on Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Foundation last year. To DGG's point, the articles are about the institutions. The the controversial history of the person those institutions are named of is sufficiently covered in the article about the person.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I am afraid the coverage is not sufficient, as it is plain wrong to name a public institution after a genocidaire, at least in a liberal democracy. Hence, such a fact should always be flagged up, unless we want our NPOV stance to facilitate another genocide.Hyrdlak (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Hyrdlak
And to think Andrew Jackson's portrait hangs in the Oval Office. In any case, much of the article is devoted to this and we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Come to think of it, a heading in the article is "Holocaust denial". It's fine to mention his part in the Holocaust. But, I don't see any RS that say anything about denial. O3000 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The editor continues to edit war the article, has again added a section heading "Holocaust connection" when the institute was created 55 years after the Holocaust, and has now resorted to unacceptable edit summaries.[1] O3000 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Picture of Judge Bert Richardson on "Bert Richardson (judge)" wiki-page[edit]

I would like to dispute the addition of a picture added by CharlesShirley on 03:40, 19 November 2019. (See View History). He replaced the official picture from my campaign website electjudgerichardson.com to the wikipedia page "Bert Richardson (judge)" with a picture that is clearly edited/photoshopped to be unflattering. This was done during very contentious election campaigns between myself and my opponent. I have taken the picture down several times only to have CharlesShirley replace it shortly after. I have since replaced the edited photo submitted by CharlesShirley by the official photo from the campaign website. CharlesShirley is clearly not one of my fans (as made apparent in his comments regarding one of my prior judgements on 03:44, 19 November 2019‎ and 17:14, 8 October 2019‎) which is completely fine. Nevertheless, the posting of and the site's use of unflattering photos for candidates running for election/reelection amidst their campaigns renders any such page to be non-neutral. It's also a mean thing to do. It is my understanding that Wikipedia's policy and mission is to remain an unbiased source of information and knowledge. I believe that these kinds of things violates Wikipedia's ideals and purpose.

Respectfully, Bert Richardson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BertRichardson (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest using a third photo... perhaps a live shot. Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This page is possibly going to need temporary protection. The OP clearly has a conflict of interest, and the image they want posted has clear copyright issues.--Jorm (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@BertRichardson:, the page at Bert Richardson (judge) currently has no image as Schazjmd removed it in compliance with the Wikipedia Image Use Policy. The extraordinarily clumsily-manipulated image does, as you state, violate several policies but so does the one from your campaign web site. Specifically, the campaign image violates the use of copyrighted photos section and the policy on copyright violations. Although in generally a copyright holder can do whatever they want with their copyrighted work, Wikipedia's use of free document licenses complicates the issue. You can (or have some-one who works for you) follow the instructions for donating copyrighted materials to allow the use of the campaign image. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Let's be clear that the original image was not "clumsily manipulated"; it's clearly a zoomed-in crop from a different photo. Let's assume good faith.--Jorm (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
If the candidate or their representative wants to release a campaign photo from copyright, they can get in the WP:OTRS queue like everyone else. BD2412 T 19:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

North East Delhi Riots[edit]

The article, while mostly factually correct, has bias in language. It very cleverly hides the violence initiated by Muslim groups as 'mob' action, while it spares no opportunity to blame Hindu groups or BJP by calling them out. It does mention that the CAA was seen by Muslims as Anti-Muslim, and hence the reader is supposed to understand that the sit-outs and attacks on killing of police officers, who tried to break open the various road occupations for days, was done by angry Muslim mobs. The mob violence (actually acts of defense) committed by Hindu groups was in retaliation only when the Muslim mob would go around destroying property and people. It is easy to understand who would lose control first if they are already filled with anger at the CAA passage. However, when one reads the article, one comes out with an impression that 'poor' Muslims were oppressed and Hindu mobs went around burning and killing. My sister lives in that same area, and she told me that the perpetrators were Muslim gangs who came from outside Delhi, including illegal Bangladeshi's, who had nothing to lose, did the arsons and killings and then conveniently ran away. So even if there are CCTV images, these folks would be hard to find. The article missed stating the above fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuPrakash52 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

An RM that raises some obvious NPoV issues[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. I'm skeptical that WP:NPOV policy is being properly employed by some of the respondents there, who seem to be taking the RM (fast on the heels of a WP:DRV-overturned attempt to delete the page entirely) as an opportunity to engage in social activism. As another commenter there said, these antics could (if they gutted or ghettoized WP's article on the subject) effectively cede public mindshare control of this topic to alt-right media – the worst kind of back-fire that could happen about a subject like this. WP has a responsibility to cover the matter and to do it properly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

PJ Media page[edit]

There are significant NPOV issues with the PJ Media page, in particular using SPLC as a source when SPLC is in fact one of the entities on which PJ Media has reported extensively. This is a clear issue of neutral point of view. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say it can be cited... But context matters. The SPLC can certainly be cited as a primary source for attributed statements as to the SPLC’s opinion of PJ Media... however, I would NOT use it as a source for unattributed statements (worded as fact). Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Rfc at Generative Grammar[edit]

I wanted to publicize my request for comment on the generative grammar article. I am concerned that a section entitled "Lack of evidence" is polemical doesn't accurately describe criticisms of this field. I have similar concerns about the lede. I have raised these concerns on the article's talk page, but the editor who added the material hasn't been willing to engage with them substantively.Botterweg14 (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Lost Cause of the Confederacy[edit]

There is a request for comment at Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy#Request for comment regarding the removal of three words from the lead of the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Backlogged category[edit]

This isn't a serious issue, but I wanted to call attention to Category:All articles with a promotional tone. This backlog has 25,000 articles in it, and I need some other editors to help me clear it. Thanks, King of Scorpions 15:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes, and the Middle East Quarterly[edit]

Middle East Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like it was almost entirely written by supporters. But see a recent discussion at RSN[2], a NYT article a few days ago[3], etc as well as articles about its head and founder Daniel Pipes, eg [4]. In fact Pipes article is also a problem with a lead that doesn't mention criticism and text that doesn't mention the SPLC's criticism, only the removal of an article criticising it (I've posted a short note to Talk:Daniel Pipes. No criticism in Middle East Quarterly either. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif [edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif . Does inclusion of the image of a controversial book cover in the Ezra Taft Benson article constitute a NPOV violation? Epachamo (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=946105569"