Template talk:POVwarning

This template was floated at the Administrators' noticeboard. The idea is to have a warning/information template for POV insertions much like &#123;&#123;test&#125;&#125; and &#123;&#123;3RR&#125;&#125;.

Please do not insert this template as ; this will make changes to it appear retroactively, which is confusing, and makes it a potential target for trolls. Use instead. Whether you sign this message is up to you, but I suggest you do, in the spirit of assuming good faith and giving clueless newbies a real person to talk to over this potentially scary issue. Finally, if you don't like this template or don't think it conveys what you mean well enough, then don't use it. This is not a standardized message everyone must use; it's only a way to save keystrokes for some people. JRM · Talk 11:24, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Alright, the exact wording of this is tricky. Originally, for example, it said that if you kept inserting POV, you could get blocked for vandalizing. This shouldn't be; vandalism explicitly excludes POV pushing as a reason for vandalism, and that's not just because it's trying to be nice&mdash;if we start blocking people for inserting POV, we may violate NPOV ourselves by implicitly asserting that the current version of the article is "neutral", even if it may not be. This is dangerous.

The difference between POV insertion and vandalism isn't black and white, of course. "George W. Bush is a poopyhead" is arguably vandalism, not POV. "George W. Bush is an imperialist mass murderer" is trickier, but I'd wager a lot of people would not object to simply calling this bad faith and filing it under vandalism, because nobody would add a statement like this to the current article with the intent of improving it. "George W. Bush has harmed the economy of the United States more than any other president before him", finally, is clearly not vandalism, even if you don't agree.

The present version may go a little overboard by informing about the 3RR also, even when there's not necessarily a 3RR violation in progress. That said, it is a logical followup to "your edits may be removed by others", since the natural reflex would be to reinsert them. The 3RR is also the only rule under which POV pushers can be blocked (or should be blocked) so it might be a good idea to state it up front, rather than wait for the inevitable. It's OK to scare them a bit if it'll get them to discuss the edits. JRM · Talk 11:58, 2005 May 5 (UTC)


 * This comment was copied from the administrators' noticeboard.

I'm extremely nervous of this template, as it may well just become a weapon to throw in POV wars. Why is the 3RR stuff included? There is no necessary causual link between newbies/anons inserting POV materials and their getting involved in revert wars, or if there is, I have yet to see the data. And there is certainly no clear policy on banning newbies/anons for POV pushing, or at least nothing I can find in the policy. A personalised message, suited to the exact circumstances, would serve much better, IMHO. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I suggested the template because I have come across several POV anon editors whos entire history is POV edits, that sometimes lead to edit wars. I think its useful to have a template to inform them about NPOV so they can understand why their edits are being reverted. As it stands JRMs version is a clear explanation of policy, and not too scary. It is a useful tool for sensible admins because it is more accurate than test2 or test3 which seem to get slapped on most talk pages for POV edits and/or vandalism, and I think is better than the 3RR template since it explains NPOV.--nixie 13:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that for the most part, I agree with Filiocht's comments. I probably wouldn't use this template myself and go for the personalized message instead, but then again, I haven't been involved in many neutrality disputes. I've taken great care to have the template reflect that one does not get blocked for POV pushing, but for repeatedly POV pushing the same thing without discussion&mdash;if you do this despite being warned, you're ignoring the 3RR, even if you're not using nice edit summaries with "revert" in them somewhere. Blocking newbies is, of course, a bad thing to do. This template shouldn't be used as casually as &#123;&#123;test&#125;&#125;, it shouldn't be the first line of defense, and there may be something to say for tossing out the 3RR part and saving it for another template (you can always use &#123;&#123;3RR&#125;&#125; for when push really does come to shove). JRM · Talk 14:08, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Please don't add this template to the plethora of impersonal ways in which we can interact with other editors (anon or otherwise). In my experience, many people with a strong POV are defensive about it and will respond better to conversation than canned comment.--Theo (Talk) 17:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Theo. The main problem here is that the template treats all POV pushers as if they were the same, and, as a result, it is more likely to inflame than calm the situation. Each POV war needs to be dealt with in its own context and on its own (de)merits, and personal communication, as opposed to templated spam, is far more likely to be effective. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:02, May 6, 2005 (UTC)