Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neutrality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Augustz (talk | contribs) at 07:21, 14 October 2006 (NPOV tag quantity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project.

Please sign your comments using four tilda (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.

Contents
Pages Requiring Attention · Project Discussion · Project Disputes
Please Remember
Pages Currently under Watch

Welcome to the Wikipedia Neutrality Project talk page.
Please remember that talk pages are not discussion boards - please only reply to relevant issues posted here, and only post articles which require the attention of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project.

Announcements

I will be inactive indefinetely and will be unable to manage this project. If Katherine, CP/M, or another interested third part feels interested, please feel free to participate as a leader in my absensce. -- Wizardry Dragon 22:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Yodamace1 10:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages Requiring Attention

This section is designed to coordinate the editing of pages to conform to a neutral tone and point of veiw 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.

Globally Unique Identifier

I'd like to request someone from the Neutrality Project review the discussion on Talk:Globally_Unique_Identifier. Your guidance would be appreciated.

It seems like there is no conflict, and everyone generally agrees on incorrectness. I'd suggest to just be bold and fix it, unless there are objections. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 01:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telepathy

Hi there, can someone do a POV check to this article? At the moment, it looks like an essay stating that telepathy is ludacris, though I might be wrong. -- Selmo (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville

Can someone help me with this, please? Talk:Smallville (TV series)#Character basis

The article claims that Smallville is based on the character Superman. To anyone not familiar with the unusual circumstances surrounding the series, that seems obvious, but it isn't. There is an ongoing lawsuit by the heirs of Jerry Siegel which claims that Smallville is not based on Superman, but on Superboy (who, legally speaking, is a different character even though they are both Clark Kent).

A neutral point of view would mean including both claims in the article and stating neither one as fact. I wanted to change it to "DC Comics claims that Smallville is based on the DC character Superman. However, the heirs of Jerry Siegel claim the show is based on the character Superboy".

One user absolutely refuses to let me do this, claiming variously that there's no legal dispute, that there's no lawsuit about what Smallville is based on (he doesn't seem to think "derivative of" is the same thing as "based on"), that the main character in the series may be based on Superboy but the show isn't, and that the producers of the show cannot be contradicted in their claims about the show.

I tried asking for a third opinion and the third opinion basically agreed with me that the article should neutrally describe the two competing claims. I also tried requests for comment; nobody commented.

I have absolutely no idea what to do at this point, except ask here or request mediation. Ken Arromdee 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A notice was recently left at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view about these articles, specifically Kurdistan and others, seriously violating NPOV policy, and some articles like Kurdish celebration of Newroz being POV forks. I suggest everyone to review these articles, mention here any bias found, and assist bringing them into proper state. --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but don't even think of granting some kind of NPOV exemption. Terryeo 18:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that is a topic that needs no exemptions - the only ones I thing could be treated with less strict NPOV are ones related to fiction, but clearly not racial ones. BTW, do you have any thoughts about what could be done to fix these articles? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe many (if not all) kurd related articles need attention as they lack neutrality. I have been trying to do this practialy alone for about a year now with no to little success.

These are a few brief examples. --Cat out 23:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

Nearly all the articles related to the Global warming theory are biased in favor of 'the view that GW theory is true'. William Connolley (and sometimes others) routinely remove any information which opposes this point of view. --Uncle Ed 13:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is not tagged NPOV, and there is a separate article, Global warming controversy. No controversy section in main article. Civil discussion on Talk page. It's also a Featured Article. Do you want this project to help add GW=false info, or? -- Steve Hart 23:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem is that it lacks a sufficient explanation of controversy, only mentioning there is some and immediately reminding the main theory has scientific support. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is extremely actively edited and its talk page contains frequent debates. If you feel you can jump in a hot issue, this page requires most attention at the moment. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Goodrem

The Wikipedia article on Delta Goodrem reads much like an advertisment - it's pretty obvious it was written by her fans. Not a bad thing, but it needs editing to conform to NPOV guidelines. -- Wizardry Dragon 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Dobbs

An anonymous user has been continually reverting and removing links that are critical of Lou Dobbs in his article. Please keep an eye on this page. -- Wizardry Dragon 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox

This page has seen considerable anti-Microsoft vandalism in recent times to the Xbox page so please keep an eye on this one. -- Wizardry Dragon 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human penis size

Over the last couple days, the human penis size article has had constant NPoV disputes about racial issues. I supported scrapping the disputed studies all together as they rely on self-reporting and thus aren't very scientifically sound, but this doesn't seem to have wide support. Ace of Sevens 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, let the battle go on. Eventually mankind will develop enough biology to modify genes and it won't be a racial issue. Heh. Terryeo 18:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charun

User:Glengordon01 is repeatedly calling my edits to the page (which were there before he came to it) "vandalism". He insists that the writings of a scholar named Beeks are the only ones that matter, even though he posted a link to the complete text of his source, which has not one mention of Charun. See the discussion page, where he has resulted to personal attacks for me citing sources that say something different from what he says. He also has been making these changes to the French and Spaniosh sites. His claims seem to constitute original research, and he feels he has the right to exclude all other information and claim that it is vandalism.Scottandrewhutchins 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Lake Academy

It's pretty much documented there. --Yodamace1 10:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kyra Phillips

Controversy section needs help smoothing and eliminating. Electrawn 03:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[1]] I'd like to request an outside viewpoint. Thanks, Gabrielthursday 08:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child Pornography page and related pages

Page's related to child pornography and paedophilia consistently display subtle forms of bias in favour of child pornography and paedophilia. The reasons I have brought the matter to this page and not just tried to solve the matter's locally are as follows:

1- The forms of bias are subtle, often consisting in undue weight, word choice, overall tone etc.
2- The issues are extremely controversial.
3- The problem is extremely widespread.
4- There are clear ethical reasons why pages should not be biased in favour of child pornography and paedophilia.
Signed Timothy Scriven.

  • Even though they are loaded topics, Wikipedia must remain neutral as per WP:NPOV. We can't endorse either side by the policy (although I myself am quite polar in my personal stance against it). I do indeed see bias in favour of it, somewhat disturbingly, but I don't have time to go through the pages with a fine toothed come to get out this kind of subtle bias. If someone else wants to, please, be bold! - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Discussion

This section is to discuss the goals, scope, and other topics directly related to the Wikipedia Neutrality project. If you have a dispute with the Wikipedia Neutrality project's practices, please post in the appropriate section below. If you wish to contest a NPOV warning or watch placed on an article, please state your case in the appropriate article subheading above.


I'm not sure I understand your purpose exactly. Isn't the whole of Wikipedia a sort of "Neutrality Project"? Isn't it the purpose of every editor to remove bias from Wikipedia? I'm a bit confused as to what you plan to do that is different from a decentralized base of editors. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing up the question. Yes, surely, neutrality is policy, and every editor should follow it. However, in reality many editors just can't follow it, having their own point of view and believing it to be true. The editor with other POV might never come (or have time for disputes), and, even if he does, it may yield no results. A third party, with no prejudices on the subject, is the most effective way to resolve such problems.
So, the Neurtality Project would be a team to look at articles from aside, help editors to find the neutral grounds, and, if need arises, focus on an article. And, of course, to encourage and help other editors to maintain NPOV. --CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:30 and WP:RFC. I'm not sure what makes fives editors more capable of being neutral than others. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know about 3O and RfC. However, there's some difference - they simply give opinions about a certain issue, which can reaffirm one of the editors, which isn't always enough in case of POV problems. WNP, besides just reviewing, works in style similar to other Wikiprojects - focusing on a specific issue, discussing it on article's talk page, and taking part in correction. It's a way to draw some attention to the neutrality of the article, and not only get comments.
About someone being more or less neutral - I in no way assume that. We're equal to other editors and don't enforce anything. However, in case of any specific issue an outside view is usually helpful, be it RfC, MedCab or WNP. We are not going to replace them, just have less focus on personalities and more on the article, and offer more collaboration when it's needed. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose... but I'm still a bit skeptical. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review of our means

It seems that the wikiproject became inactive, since the original creator disappeared, and I'll work to revive it, In my opinion, it lacks defined goals and procedures. I have some views on how this project can function, which would require some changes in means, while the goals stay the same. It might be a good idea for our rules, if we accept it. I write it mostly in present tense, to make it easier to understand, and easier to correct, because these rules are going to give an impression of WNP for everyone. In fact this is a restart, but the ideas are the same.

Specifically, I suggest the following types of action:

  • Review. Any editor can post a request, creating an appropriate section, and the article will be reviewed by one or more of our members, making suggestions on what should be changed, or just changing that in simple cases.
  • Watch. Articles with frequently appearing significant bias can be added on a collective watchlist, which is checked by our members time to time.
  • Assessment. We will discuss and suggest whether a POV template should be placed or removed on a specific article. This is what's really needed, since there's no procedure for this, and many editors hesitate to make such changes alone.
  • Dispute resolution. We will provide quick suggestions for resolution of NPOV disputes in cases where there is no personal conflict, but just contradicting views on a subject. In case different kind of help is required, we'll recommend the appropriate group and help to make the request.
  • Correction. When we find an article with significant POV issues, we'll repair it, neutralizing biased statements, replacing speculations with reliable information, checking for adequate representation of different views, and ensuring article no longer has a general bias.

Well, all of this is for now a proposal: something might be added, removed or changed. If you have suggestions, please comment.


For more difficult decision making, I suggest the base method is policies-based discussion and consensus. It means that we don't just vote, but state reasons for the suggestions and discuss issues. Members can summarize debates when enough discussion is done and suggest either the commonly accepted or a compromise decision. In case of no controversy, the common decision is accepted without further discussion. If consensus can't be reached, we can address other groups.

This might seem somewhat formalized, but WNP goals suppose we have a reliable and quick way of making decisions.


Now, about what we are not. In a nutshell, we are not a replacement for something already existing; specifically,

  • WNP is not exactly requests for comments, or RfC page. We won't deal with personalities, but only with actions. We won't just comment, but take action to maintain neutrality of pages. That's the main difference - WNP is aimed for more active help.
  • WNP is not mediation. Sometimes our role will intersect with Mediation Cabal, and we'll forward inter-user problems to MedCab, and assist in neutrality-related cases. We might have common members and work together on some cases, but via WNP we both find and implement solutions.
  • Finally, we are not fanatics. Neutrality is important as it improves the quality of articles, but we should never discard other factors. Our final goal is not to make a few articles absolutely neutral, but rather to ensure all Wikipedia is sufficiently neutral. We follow the idea rather than the letter, and address articles where NPOV is violated with significant effect on the article.

Concerning the last, an article can leave positive or negative impression of a subject, but this impression should be caused by the subject itself, not the editors. Negative bias requires more attention than positive, and we won't block improvement of an article if it makes it slightly less neutral, but will rather correct it, and will address editors if the bias seems intentional.

This all is yet a proposal. Plese make suggestions, post objections, and discuss the principle and details.

CP/M 21:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's see what you can do. :) I've got a medcab case which seems to be rather a mess, and would like some outside opinions on it. Reply on my logged-in talkpage if you would. The case is 2006-06-13 Conservatism, and all sides of the mediation (including the mediator) would be happy to see the case resolved. Good luck? (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help as much as I can, and take full part in the mediation. I might be more direct when addressing the sides, but I feel it would be better. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where I'm rather inactive in the project itself, I can probably pitch in a bit more on the assessment processes. - Wizardry Dragon 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're back! I already thought you've left. Could you comment on my suggestions? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around, I just haven't had much time and as thus hsave been focussing more on simply editing pages myself than working on the WNP to coordinate editing. As I said on my talk page in reply to your message, I appreciate your initiative in working on the WNP, and thusfar it looks pretty good. Keep it up! - Wizardry Dragon 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Disputes

If you have any disputes with the Wikipedia Neutrality Project's practices, please post them as a comment under this subheading.

Ethnic groups

People involved in this project may also want to be aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. As you might imagine, ethnicity is an area where neutrality issues often arise. - Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. It's definetely a good related link for the WNP. - Wizardry Dragon 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity / Use of NPOV Tags

I've reviewed a number of articles that have NPOV tags, where the NPOV is very slight, or simply one or perhaps too people objecting to the "concept" of an article or in other cases to what appear to be relatively minor stylastic differences. In other cases the precise rational for the application of the NPOV is unclear or the individual applying it is not longer actively discussing it on the talk page.

What I have also noticed is the NPOV tags are easy to add, but seem to take a lot of effort to remove (ie, no one wants to go ahead and actually remove them). This is understandable because perfect NPOV is hard to achieve, and consenus about it even harder. What is a bit irritating is to stumble across an article with an NPOV tag, review it, and discover the tag was applied for something minor. Just something to perhaps reflect on as efforts are made on which articles to tag.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neutrality&oldid=81363629"