| Revision as of 21:49, 16 July 2016 editScoobydunk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,480 edits →What do you do when a group of editors keeps removing the npov tag on an article?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:07, 15 January 2025 edit undoRosguill (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators144,328 edits Adding {{pp-sock}}Tag: Twinkle | ||
| (116 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{notice|This is the ] for the ]. For questions about whether article content is compliant with the ] policy please go to the ]. For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the ]. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to ''the noticeboard itself''.}} | {{notice|This is the ] for the ]. For questions about whether article content is compliant with the ] policy please go to the ]. For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the ]. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to ''the noticeboard itself''.}} | ||
| <center>] ''''''</ |
<div class="center">] ''''''</div> | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == |
== Endless Discussions == | ||
| One of the discussions at the ] is expanding but is not resolving anything, because the editors are largely restating their statements. (I am not saying which one because you can tell which one it is.) I have some questions. | |||
| moved to ] <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| *1. Is there a procedure for closing such discussions? | |||
| :For future reference, that discussion was moved then eventually archived to ]. - ] (]) 19:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *2. Is there a procedure for restarting such discussions? | |||
| *3. Can the editors be notified that the topic of the article is a ]? | |||
| ] (]) 05:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :# Unfortunately it's for some brave editor to go in and assess the conversation before labeling it "no consensus" and closing it as a mercy. | |||
| == Is the archive bot still working on the Noticeboard? == | |||
| :# New thread is opened. | |||
| :# Considering the dramatis personae involved everyone there probably has the applicable CTOP notices already. But certainly, yes, they can and should be notified if a noticeboard discussion is CTOP. ] (]) 20:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If you are talking about the Journal of Indo-European Studies, some brave soul should probably just move the discussion to the JIES talk page, put a redirect link on this noticeboard to that talk page, and let folks figure it out on the talk page. ] (]) 21:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == The list of archives goes to RSN archives == | |||
| Hi, just wondering if the bot is still working on auto-archiving "old" notices? For example, | |||
| *] was last edited on July 17th (if my math is right, that is about 2 months 15 days ); | |||
| *<s>] was last edited on September 6th (16 days );</s> | |||
| *<s>] was last edited on September 6th (gonna use ] here, *counts fingers and toes*) about 16 days ago;</s> | |||
| *<s>] is 15 days old based on an edit on September 7th;</s> | |||
| *<s>] is 14 days old based on an edit on September 8th (borderline I suppose but should be archived soon based on date).</s> | |||
| For some reason, the archive links on the box at the top of this page, the NPOV notice board, go to archives for the ]. I know there are archives for this page, but it makes it less easy to find them if the links on page lead to a whole different archive. Can anyone fix this? ] (]) 20:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| All dates and calculations are based on the premise of being September 22nd and are <sup>hopefully</sup> correct at the time of writing, ] (]) 00:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC); strikethrough archived sections, 06:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Guess, the coding was weird. Changed both noticeboard and talk page to allow bot to archive at least one thread instead of requiring three old threads. Sorry, ] (]) 03:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The RfC post for murder implying accused of being murderer, is still hanging around. Does anyone know why it isn't being archived? ] (]) 06:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking into this… the “search archives” function works fine (it gives results from NPOVN archives). What seems to be broken is the nav box listing all the archives by number… THOSE are for RSN. ] (]) 12:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Germany, Nazi Germany and the Third Reich on Military articles - Oh my!== | |||
| ::I left a note at VP(technical)… it has now been fixed! ] (]) 13:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Threatened with ban for requesting improvements on a talk page == | |||
| See ] and leave a well-considered !Vote. Cheers, ] in ] of ] 06:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{closed top | |||
| | status = No Action | |||
| | result = Not relevant to this noticeboard ] (]) | |||
| }} | |||
| I posted a few items for improving this article: | |||
| Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) - Misplaced Pages | |||
| I posted on the talk page, and my post was removed. The user threatened to ban me. I believe the article in question has multiple issues. Will someone go please look at the revert and see if the comments were against WP policies? ] (]) 18:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The warning at the top of that page states: "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)" An admin reverted your edit and you reverted the admin. The admin provided a second warning on your talk page with a link to the policy. ] (]) 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == What is the actual point of this noticeboard? == | |||
| :I believe the user was ], the edit was , the problem is ] -- perhaps it's not a policy and perhaps you made an edit request but yes ScottishFinnishRadish can ban people for talk page comments, I've seen it happen. What I don't see is the relevance to WP:NPOVN, so I won't object is someone collapses this thread. ] (]) 18:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{closed bottom}} | |||
| == Donald Trump article infringes on NPOV policy. == | |||
| It seems like in actual practice this noticeboard is just a venue for foamed-over article talk page disputes. It doesn't particularly attract intervention by neutral parties, because most of the editors watching this board are the ones already engaged in other disputes here. The participants in the original dispute merely restate their arguments on the noticeboard, no one says anything else, and the matters are eventually archived without closure. Any blatant NPOV edits are more likely to be addressed by administrator intervention, so this noticeboard ends up hosting the more inconclusive disagreements in the hopes that someone else will comment, like a less effective version of ] or ]. Couldn't we just do without this page and trust to those more reliable avenues? ] (]) 23:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|This is not the appropriate venue. This page is to discuss meta-issues with NPOVN, not simply another venue for the contents of the board. ] (]) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| On this whole article, I see one point of view. That Trump was a bad president and did pretty much nothing good during his presidency. On the whole article, not only is the way in which it was written not from a neutral point of view, it doesn't align with the policy "Articles must fairly represent all significant points of view that have been published by reliable sources." as is required in the NPOV policy (Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view) I can quote some points of view that have not been fairly listed along with the negative ones in the article. "The economy grew at a rate of 4.2 percent, the fastest pace in nearly four years" — The Wall Street Journal. "The tax cuts have brought economic growth, higher wages, and more investment into our economy" — The Washington Post. "The First Step Act is a step forward for criminal justice reform that is long overdue" — The New York Times. | |||
| Sources: | |||
| == What do you do when a group of editors keeps removing the npov tag on an article? == | |||
| Employment Situation Summary." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dec. 2019, www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm. | |||
| Piel, Matthew. "How the Tax Cuts Are Boosting the Economy." The Washington Post, 15 Jan. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/tax-cuts-economic-growth. | |||
| What do you do when a group of editors goes so far as to coordinate to suppress an NPOV tag on an article while the NPOV discussion is still ongoing, violating the instructions of the tag?] (]) 20:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Smith, John. "Trump Signs Landmark Criminal Justice Reform Bill." The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/trump-first-step-act. ] (]) 22:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As this user has been told, our articles reflect the consensus of ], not a few cherrypicked quotes. ]. – ] (]) 02:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Whatever you do, don't edit war to get the tag put in. Just continue with dispute resolution until the matter is resolved. You can also fix and source the part of the article where you think there are violations of NPOV.] (]) 21:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Muboshgu}}, I wanted to clarify here because it is important that our articles don't "reflect the consensus of ]". In many fields, such as political ones, a consensus will not exist: ] applies. ] (]) 12:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Is it worth escalating to an admin to deal with? Don't wanna ], but a quick view of user talk page and contribution history indicates this account seems ] ] (]) 02:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Can I just say it would help if a person putting in a number of citations actually checks that they are uisable? On a quick try I wasn't able to get to any of the sources in what the OP said. It is up to a poster to make what they say easy to read - not up to all the readers to struggle to make sense of what is being said. ] (]) 18:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I very much agree, the NPOV policy is being interpreted selectively when it comes to certain political persuasions. There is a small-yet-active handful of editors/admins who seem to patrol particular topics and end up ] other editors who question neutrality. You don't have to dig very far to find examples. ] (]) 20:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
Latest revision as of 01:07, 15 January 2025
 | This is the talk page for the Neutral point of view noticeboard. For questions about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy please go to the noticeboard. For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the noticeboard itself. |
Click here to post a question to the Neutral point of view noticeboard
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.
Endless Discussions
One of the discussions at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard is expanding but is not resolving anything, because the editors are largely restating their statements. (I am not saying which one because you can tell which one it is.) I have some questions.
- 1. Is there a procedure for closing such discussions?
- 2. Is there a procedure for restarting such discussions?
- 3. Can the editors be notified that the topic of the article is a contentious topic?
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it's for some brave editor to go in and assess the conversation before labeling it "no consensus" and closing it as a mercy.
- New thread is opened.
- Considering the dramatis personae involved everyone there probably has the applicable CTOP notices already. But certainly, yes, they can and should be notified if a noticeboard discussion is CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are talking about the Journal of Indo-European Studies, some brave soul should probably just move the discussion to the JIES talk page, put a redirect link on this noticeboard to that talk page, and let folks figure it out on the talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
The list of archives goes to RSN archives
For some reason, the archive links on the box at the top of this page, the NPOV notice board, go to archives for the Reliable sources noticeboard. I know there are archives for this page, but it makes it less easy to find them if the links on page lead to a whole different archive. Can anyone fix this? Wuju Daisuki (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looking into this… the “search archives” function works fine (it gives results from NPOVN archives). What seems to be broken is the nav box listing all the archives by number… THOSE are for RSN. Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I left a note at VP(technical)… it has now been fixed! Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Threatened with ban for requesting improvements on a talk page
NO ACTION Not relevant to this noticeboard O3000, Ret. (talk)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I posted a few items for improving this article:
Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) - Misplaced Pages
I posted on the talk page, and my post was removed. The user threatened to ban me. I believe the article in question has multiple issues. Will someone go please look at the revert and see if the comments were against WP policies? 134.167.1.1 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- The warning at the top of that page states: "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)" An admin reverted your edit and you reverted the admin. The admin provided a second warning on your talk page with a link to the policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the user was ScottishFinnishRadish, the edit was this edit, the problem is WP:ECR -- perhaps it's not a policy and perhaps you made an edit request but yes ScottishFinnishRadish can ban people for talk page comments, I've seen it happen. What I don't see is the relevance to WP:NPOVN, so I won't object is someone collapses this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Donald Trump article infringes on NPOV policy.
This is not the appropriate venue. This page is to discuss meta-issues with NPOVN, not simply another venue for the contents of the board. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On this whole article, I see one point of view. That Trump was a bad president and did pretty much nothing good during his presidency. On the whole article, not only is the way in which it was written not from a neutral point of view, it doesn't align with the policy "Articles must fairly represent all significant points of view that have been published by reliable sources." as is required in the NPOV policy (Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view) I can quote some points of view that have not been fairly listed along with the negative ones in the article. "The economy grew at a rate of 4.2 percent, the fastest pace in nearly four years" — The Wall Street Journal. "The tax cuts have brought economic growth, higher wages, and more investment into our economy" — The Washington Post. "The First Step Act is a step forward for criminal justice reform that is long overdue" — The New York Times.
Sources: Employment Situation Summary." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dec. 2019, www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.
Piel, Matthew. "How the Tax Cuts Are Boosting the Economy." The Washington Post, 15 Jan. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/tax-cuts-economic-growth.
Smith, John. "Trump Signs Landmark Criminal Justice Reform Bill." The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/trump-first-step-act. Charles337 (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- As this user has been told, our articles reflect the consensus of WP:RS, not a few cherrypicked quotes. They aren't hearing that. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, I wanted to clarify here because it is important that our articles don't "reflect the consensus of WP:RS". In many fields, such as political ones, a consensus will not exist: WP:YESPOV applies. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is it worth escalating to an admin to deal with? Don't wanna WP:BITE, but a quick view of user talk page and contribution history indicates this account seems WP:SPA Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can I just say it would help if a person putting in a number of citations actually checks that they are uisable? On a quick try I wasn't able to get to any of the sources in what the OP said. It is up to a poster to make what they say easy to read - not up to all the readers to struggle to make sense of what is being said. NadVolum (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I very much agree, the NPOV policy is being interpreted selectively when it comes to certain political persuasions. There is a small-yet-active handful of editors/admins who seem to patrol particular topics and end up biting other editors who question neutrality. You don't have to dig very far to find examples. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)