Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute

This is a page for discussing NPOV disputes and use of the NPOV tag in general.

Article-specific NPOV discussions should take place on the article's Talk page only. In other words, please don't post claims of neutrality violation, questions about whether an article is neutral, or ask about how to deal with a specific NPOV dispute here.
 * Please sign your comments using four tildes (~) . To add a comment, click "Edit this page" above. To start a new section (a new discussion topic), place it at the bottom of the page and add this first: ==A Descriptive Header== . You can click the "+" tab at the top of the page to do that automatically.

Talk page guidelines: Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.
 * If you're new to Wikipedia, please see the Help overview page and the frequently asked questions page.

Cryptic NPOV Disputes
Recently I've come across a couple of pages which link to NPOV dispute, but which don't have any discussion of what the disputed points are; the most recent one is Six-Day War. An anonymous user simple added the NPOV dispute statement without editing the article in any other way or leaving any note on the talk page. How are we supposed to NPOV a page if the party who disagrees doesn't give any indication as to what the problem is? I think that there should be a note on NPOV dispute which tells people who add a link to that page that they need to also add a note concerning the article's NPOV problems on the talk page if it's not already obvious from the talk page (I guess I can add that). Second, what can be done about the article itself? If no one explains the article's NPOV problems (I added a note on the talk page), can we just delete the note about the NPOV dispute? -- AdamRaizen 02:16, 2003 Aug 10 (UTC)


 * IMHO that's really not what NPOV dispute labels are for. They indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents is disputed and volatile. I don't think you should even bother challenging it and waiting for a response -- if the person who added the warning didn't explain why, after a reasonable amount of time, just remove it. You should probably check the talk page history to make sure it hasn't been maliciously blanked. -- Tim Starling


 * You might also want to skim-read the page to see if there's anything obviously biased that should be fixed. Martin 10:11, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am requesting an independent review of the following article Millosh Gjergj Nikolla. I wrote the original version, and I believe that someone is slanting it towards a Serb nationalistic POV. I am Albanian and therefore my views may not be objective enough. I don't want to keep reverting the article and/or go into an edit war. If this is the wrong place to post this, then let me know the correct place. Thanks Dori 13:25, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The same person may also be doing this to the following article History of Albania Dori 13:33, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How is a page de-NPOV'd?
moved from the Village pump

I did some work on a page that I would hope is more neutral than it was, but it is still on the NPOV list: fluoride. Since I know one can't simply delete the NPOV disclaimer at the top by rule, and I don't know of a page that says 'Check this page because work was done on it', how is said designation retired from a page that (I hope) doesn't need it anymore? Thanks... Skybunny 01:38, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any official policy, so I imagine everyone has their own opinion. My personal policy is that you don't delete the other side's warning. Say if the article was too anti-fluoride so the pro-fluoride people put a warning on. Then if you changed the tone so that it was more pro-fluoride, under my policy you'd be allowed, as a member of the pro-fluoride camp, to delete the warning. Then if the anti-fluoride camp felt you made the article too pro-fluoride, they could put their own NPOV warning, which you wouldn't be allowed to delete. If one camp disappears, and are thus unavailable to remove their own warning, it would lapse after a while. -- Tim Starling 01:50, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * If you genuinely feel it is NPOV then I would say remove the notice but mention it on the talk page. That way if anyone is interested they can re-add it if they don't agree. Angela (who can't write anything in the edit summary box and is too tired to make a proper bug report). Angela 02:10, Sep 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * Will do. I removed the notice before Marshman saw the page, but I'll point this out in talk. Thanks! Skybunny 02:19, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Looks to my like it is approaching the "poster child" of accomodation. I did not see any NPOV or POV warnings?  Both sides have opportunities to submit data from valid studies and the article nicely dances around coming to a single conclusion, as it should.  Skybunny and other should continue to watch these page to root out truely POV (opinion) stuff. - Marshman 02:13, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Removing NPOV dispute notices
I believe that the current version of the 12th Street Riot article, which is currently linked to the NPOV dispute page seems okay.

How do I go about suggesting that an article currently under NPOV dispute be removed from that list/have the notices removed? I've noted my opinion on the article's talk page with a summary to that effect, so it's in recent changes, and, obviously, here.

Is there a different mechanism for asking people to take a look and comment/vote on removing articles from the NPOV dispute list that I haven't found yet? If there isn't, should there be? I'm thinking of something similar to the brilliant prose candidates page. Thalia/Karen 03:56, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a policy. I would make sure that you really believe the article is in NPOV. Then, what you can do is: first leave a note in the talk page saying that you believe the NPOV notice is no longer needed, wait a while and then remove it. If someone believes otherwise they will come and put it back in. Dori | Talk 18:08, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Dori. Any thoughts on whether it would be useful to have a page listing candidates for removal from NPOV dispute status? If there were such a thing, would you (or anyone else who's reading this) use it? I'm willing to put one together; I just don't want to do it if no one else thinks it would be worthwhile. Thalia/Karen 21:18, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * Karen, I don't know if it would be useful to have such a page. I am more likely to put an NPOV notice than to remove one. Perhaps you could just list such topics at List of controversial issues. Dori | Talk 23:15, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

When you believe the neutrality of an article is no longer disputed, remove the dispute notice. See also wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute, IIRC. Martin 23:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Martin, thanks for the link; it was helpful. What you said certainly makes sense. But I wasn't involved in the dispute, so I wasn't sure. I know when I think something's neutral, but not when others do. I thought perhaps a single page listing similar articles might provide a) a consensus-building route out of NPOV disputes/editing wars and b) an easy way to speed cleanup of pages that were worked on after disputes, and then forgotten about. There's enough to do without chasing after pages that really don't still need attention. Still, as I said, I doubt I'll put one together if no one else thinks it'd be useful. Thalia/Karen 20:32, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I think the page has become to "meta". A user who clicks on the "dispute" link in "The neutrality of this article is disputed." is not shown an explanation of NPOV and such, but an explanation (and now discussion!) about how to add a similar message to other articles. This kind of meta stuff should be put elsewhere - at least at the bottom of the article. I'll wait a couple of days for comments, and then rework the article. GayCom 02:18, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I like starting these kinda articles with "Hi! You've probably come here from an article suffering from a NPOV dispute, that is..." Martin 18:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

NPOV vs. facts
When is it an NPOV dispute, and when is it really just someone doesn't know their facts?

For example, there was recently a debate on the Talk:Astronomy page over the source of the craters on the Moon. Mainstream scientists (astronomers) agree they're caused by impacts of meteors, however there are other theories put forth by minority groups. (One of these conflicting theories involves some form of plasma or electrical discharge.) These groups are considered fringe and non-scientific and WRONG by the scientists and science educators. The holders of the alternate beliefs consider the mainstream scientists and educators to be propagating unproven myths that are WRONG. cattalioyyujky

On the Astronomy page this dispute was solved by removing all references to the source of the craters, satisfying the alternate belief holder, at which point the argument died out. Was this the proper way of handling the debate? If not, what would have been more appropriate? --zandperl 04:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO the best answer is citations, and thus also Verifiability. IMO NPOV is found when all verifiable POV's are expressed. I don't think its helpful to make unverified generalizations like "most housewives prefer borax" or "most scientists disblieve in weird blasts of plasma creating craters on the moon" when we don't have the applicable surveys to back such statements up. On the other hand, when there are two citations presented, and one is from "XYZ well known scientific journal", and the other is from "ABC random wacko alternative web page" I do think its acceptable to point of the credentials of the former, as well as those of the latter ;). And of course original research is not allowed. In summary, citations and Verifiability are the way to go, and since Wiki is not paper, we have plenty of room for every verifiable POV/interpretation of the data. I would personally love to see a fair accounting of every verifiable fringe interpretation availabe in every article (maybe there would even be enough info to justify its own section?), whats most important is the ability for the reader to learn more, to have access to as much NPOV information as possible. NPOV does not mean a lack of diversity of thought. Sam Spade 07:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] The beginning of the article on Paraphilia has been rewritten by Sam Space to provide a strongly POV assessment of the whole topic. I see that the neutrality of the article has been disputed by adding a header message to that effect, but it is not listed on the page of disputed articles and I can see no way to edit that page. P0M 03:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Specific examples would be helpful, which is to say, too many generalities in many articals ie I had scarsely a clue what plasma astromomy was about until someone mentioned that plasma might make craters on the moon. Plasma making craters is not a mainstream opinion, nor is the harm done by floride in our drinking water mainstream. Wickipedia should identify that which is not mainstream, but remember much of what is now mainstream was called puedoscience a few decades ago, so we should be slow to debunk or delete that which is not mainstream. Neil

Template:NPOV listing and "walking away"
I'm more than a bit puzzled by the behaviour, to tag an article with Template:NPOV and then "walk away", don't work on NPOVing the article. Or even more strange, claiming "X is perfectly untrue" in the discussion, but don't removing "X" from the article, even when no objections are seen. Should I remove "X" then, even if I know zilch about the question? --Pjacobi 11:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Positivism
It reminds me of the positivism battles in ealier days. There is nothing such as neutral. Neutral here means according to a governing opinion. It is very sad that this takes place and we see criticism wiped out of the Wikipedia. That is really sad, the romantic period is over. Wikipedia besomes conservative.

This page most definitely should not be deleted at this time. If and when valid questions about fraud and/or other election irregularities have been satisfactorily answered by recounts etc. which should happen within a month or two, regardless, perhaps the page can be reduced down to a couple paragraphs. If it is deleted before then, however, simple because Bush voters are uncomfortable with discussing the fact that the election may have been stolen, tough! The American people demand due process in legal proceedings. Let due process run its course and let facts cap the controversies, not partisan contributors who are trying to silence legitimate opposition questions by invoking NPOV.

Brenton G. Hayden Possible NPOV Dispute
This article seems to violate the NPOV. It is very one-sided and reads like something of an advertisement. It also refers to the subject's alma maters as Harvard and MIT, when in reality he merely attended business seminars there and was never in a degree program.

Messianic Jews
The presentation offered by Wikipedia on this religion is heavily biased in favor of a clandestine organization that falsely disguises itself as a movement of Judaism where it is not, but rather is covert evangelical Christians seeking to seduce our young and vulnerable Jews away from their true faith of Judaism with lies, manipulations, and misrepresentations.

POV Pushing
The section currently reads:


 * The term 'POV-pushing' is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions.

This appears to be wrong. There are plenty of examples of editors pushing a POV through repeated talk page comments combined with ignoring replies. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree that is POV pushing, although it might violate other policies. Every person has their own biases, and people will recommend what think they is the best representation of a subject based on those biases. As long as they seek consensus for doing so, there is no problem. The problem comes after they know that consensus is against them for policy reasons and they add it to the article anyway. That is POV pushing. What you are describing could be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is also disruptive editing but not POV pushing. -Obsidi (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note that Obsidi has a COI: he was accused of POV pushing on a talk page and claimed that it couldn't be POV pushing because it wasn't an edit to an article. -Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is false. I was not accused of POV Pushing in the cited edits, nor do I have a COI. MjolnirPants accused David Tornheim of POV pushing, for which I pointed at this policy to note that such statements by David Tornheim are not, under this guidance document, considered POV pushing. You are free to try to change policy if you wish (I think you are wrong do to so in this case), but all I did was correctly stated what is currently in this guidance document (whether you like that or not). As to COI, per WP:COI: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. I have no such external relationships that mean I have a conflict of interest over this topic. -Obsidi (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that POV pushing applies to non-article space, as the inappropriate behavior with the goal of creating POV-violating content, and can occur possibly anywhere, certainly on a talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds to me more like WP:Advocacy. If your saying the editor has a goal of advocating for a non-NPOV article. -Obsidi (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is that "This is an explanatory supplement to WP:Neutral point of view", and "generally does not apply to talk page discussions" is is not found anywhere on that page. Based upon this, I have WP:BOLDLY removing the claim. Explanatory supplements should explain existing policies and guidelines, not modify them or create new ones. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I support removal of that text since POV pushing happens every day on talk pages, see WP:CPUSH for example. The text has been here for a long time but it is wrong. This page, despite its grand supplement description, is a largely ignored essay so the fact that the text was unquestioned is not a surprise. The text was added in September 2009 by a (gasp) now-indeffed user. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am reverting the changes that Guy Macon made. I thought about going right to an RfC, but I wish to explain why, specifically, I think changing this page in this way is makes for worse policy. If people insist on this change anyway, I will open a RfC. First, why this page is more important than a mere essay. People can ignore essays. POV Pushing is often used to ban or block people. This page is linked to by the policy NPOV for further information people want on NPOV policy, making this a key piece in new users trying to understand WP policy on NPOV. Therefore it is important that we get this page right.


 * Before I get to the change itself, some relevant background information. We have a lot of policies and guidelines here at WP. Sometimes the policies apply on article pages, sometimes talk pages, sometimes user pages. It is important for new users to understand exactly what policies apply in any given page. WP has three WP:Core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, and WP:No original research. As it says at WP:Core content policies These policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. The key word here, is the last one used, “articles” not pages. None of these three core content policies are applicable to talk pages or user pages. You don’t have to cite your talk page comments or user pages. Nor do you have to make sure to explain multiple points of view in your talk page comments or user pages. And WP:no original research obviously doesn’t apply to talk pages or user pages either. The content policies that do apply to user pages and talk pages are WP:BLP and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Both of these policies explicitly say what content is appropriate (or not) on talk pages or user pages. (This is obvious in addition to the WP:CONDUCT policies that are applicable on all pages).


 * My first problem with making this change we are hiding a prohibition on talk page activities for users in a supplement to NPOV when the NPOV rule itself is a content rule that doesn’t apply to talk pages. For a new user, this will be quite confusing and they may easily miss this requirement when using talk pages (not realizing that this sub-part of NPOV applies to talk page activities even though NPOV more generally does not).


 * My second problem is that the activity that I think you are trying to target is already covered by other policies. In the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy (which explicitly covers talk pages), there is a whole section titled “Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion” that it says This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy… of any kind commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. The word Advocacy is wikilinked to WP:Advocacy, where it explains Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Can you explain the activity that you are trying to target that is not covered by such a definition? As far as I can tell, this is already covered by the appropriate supplement (it’s the WP:NOT supplement rather than the WP:NPOV supplement). -Obsidi (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You might want to carefully read WP:1AM before posting that RfC.
 * Also, please respond to the following objection to your preferred version:
 * This page is clearly marked with "This is an explanatory supplement to WP:Neutral point of view".
 * The "generally does not apply to talk page discussions" language is not found anywhere on WP:NPOV.
 * Explanatory supplements should explain existing policies and guidelines, not modify them or create new ones.
 * Do you disagree with any of the above three points? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So, Johnuniq has reverted to push back in these changes. Are you really claiming that per WP:STATUSQUO: During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles). Note that this process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place. That consensus has been established and discussion is not taking place? It's called WP:BRD for a reason not BRR. I would also remind you to read WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, which helps explain consensus. Specifically, Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule.. Additionally, this is a supplement to a policy page, what makes good policy or not is the core of what is required for the content as to such pages (although I do agree with Guy Macon that such pages shouldn't be modifying existing policy or creating new policy). I have half a mind to revert back or start the RfC and revert back, but I will wait for your response.


 * Now as to Guy's questions. (1) Yes, this is clearly an explanatory supplement of WP:NPOV. (2) The wording you point to is a reasonable explanation (the point of this page) of the first line of WP:NPOV All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)... Talk pages are not encyclopedic content, and as such, WP:NPOV does not apply to talk pages including this part of WP:NPOV policy. (3) Yes, I agree, explanatory supplements should be explaining policy and guidelines not creating new ones. That is my problem with this change, it creates a new talk page requirement that did not exist before. -Obsidi (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be best to not edit war against three editors, and planning such an edit war ("half a mind to revert back or start the RfC and revert back") is definitely not a good idea. Are you aware that "supplement" is a fancy word for "essay", aka "a page unseen and ignored by most editors"? Nothing this supplement might say would have any influence whatsoever on the WP:NPOV policy. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say edit war, I said revert. Guy Macon's edit was in WP:BOLD, which is fine, but your edit was nothing more than attempting to claim a consensus that did not exist based on vote counting, and force that into the article. Not good. But if your going to be so difficult, then I think its time to move on to an RfC. -Obsidi (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, regarding this, I have to agree that "POV-pushing" usually refers to articles than to talk pages. We see this fact all the time at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: POV Pushing On Talk Pages
Concerning this 9 year old sentence:
 * The term 'POV-pushing' is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions.

Should this sentence be removed and the text changed to explicitly apply to talk pages, or is the above line a reasonable explanation of the first line of WP:NPOV in that the NPOV policy (and its supplements) only apply to encyclopedic content and not talk pages? -Obsidi (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose removal of the disputed sentence. Removing this sentence that has been the stable consensus for almost a decade will add substantial confusion, such a change is not needed, and would be bad policy if it was enacted. First, this will add confusion because NPOV policy by its own terms only applies to encyclopedia content. This change is intended to create a talk page requirement that does not exist in NPOV policy. It therefore will no longer accurately reflect the policy it is meant to inform of which WP:SUPPLEMENTAL pages are required to do. In addition to that it will add substantial confusion to new users. New users after reading WP:NPOV will expect that the policy only applies to article pages, not talk pages. Such new users may not read the supplements. By having this talk page requirement in a supplement to WP:NPOV, new users may not even realize it exists and edit talk pages without such consideration. Secondly, this change is not needed. The behavior complained about on talk pages can be dealt with as WP:Advocacy: Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Such behavior is recognized as wrong in the policy WP:What Wikipedia is not, at WP:NOTADVOCACY. The WP:NOT policy specifically notes that such advocacy is not allowed on talk pages. Lastly, it would be bad policy (if it was policy) because we all come with our own biases and points of view. We should try to gain consensus for our point of view, as to the best way the article should be written, on the talk pages. By prohibiting the biases and points of view that everyone has, we make less determinate when people are actually violating policy on the talk pages. Additionally those with strongly held points of view will be encouraged to keep editing directly in article space as the POV-pushing requirements will be the exact same as talk pages. And we often have to discuss matters that we may not know if they are neutral or not on talk pages, such presentation on its own seeking to establish consensus on if it is a neutral point of view shouldn't violate policy if consensus determines that it isn't. -Obsidi (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "encyclopedia content" only means articles goes against Core content policies, which says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." You might be able to make a case for NPOV not applying to userspace, but not applying to anything but articles? That one will never fly. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is true that there are other namespaces that involve encyclopedia content other than just article namespace. The big one I can think of is File namespace which includes things like alt-text, which shouldn't violate NPOV, but these are not the common case. Anything included as a part of the encyclopedia part of WP needs to comply with NPOV, I don't believe talk pages count as that. Nor does WP namespace or this Wikipedia_talk namespace. -Obsidi (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support POV pushing is a specific type of advocacy - advocating for a certain POV, and in usual parlance refers to both article editing and talk page editing. It is possible to misrepresent sources and do all the other hallmarks of pov pushing without every editing an article, and since talk page discussion are about article content, a natural consequence of NPOV is that one shouldn't argue on talk pages for non-NPOV content to be included in an article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ipso facto "POV-pushing" happens in article space. Yilloslime (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, for the following reasons:
 * 1) This page is clearly marked with "This is an explanatory supplement to WP:Neutral point of view".
 * 2) The "generally does not apply to talk page discussions" language is not found anywhere on WP:NPOV.
 * 3) Explanatory supplements should explain existing policies and guidelines, not modify them or create new ones.
 * 4) It would be incredibly stupid to purposely allow NPOV violations on an article talk page or noticeboard discussion dedicated to improving an article that requires NPOV.
 * 5) The context of this RfC is that it began as an editor being site topic banned for NPOV violations on an article talk page, Obsidi arguing that NPOV violations are allowed on talk pages (his argument was rejected by pretty much everybody), Obsidi citing this page (he even called it a "policy"), and me correcting the obvious error on this page that had gone unnoticed for years. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish to correct some inaccurate statements here. He was not site banned. The close was Because of long term, disruptive, repetitive bludgeoning of the discussion at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, User:StreetSign is subject to an indefinite topic ban on the subject of Seth Rich, broadly construed (note that this applies to any edits to Murder of Seth Rich, any edits to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, and edits related in any way to Seth Rich on any page in all of Wikipedia. This restriction can be appealed in six months. In addition, StreetSign is warned that similar behavior on any other topics, including but not limited to articles related to murder and/or Presidents, will quickly result in sanctions. WP:BLUDGEON being a different essay on conduct policy. Secondly it began because one of the people voting against sanctions (not me), was accused of POV Pushing with a cite to talk page comments. I cited this supplement for the notion that such comments could not constitute POV pushing. -Obsidi (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why I wrote "site banned" instead of "topic banned". The error was not intentional and I have corrected my comment above. My apologies. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. As a bit of re-defining that was slipped in by an editor shortly before being indeffed - an editor that was gaming multiple behavioral policies to support his sockpuppets accounts and their pov-pushing.
 * I'm surprised to see that some editors think of "pov-pushing" as something other than editor behavior.
 * Also, we need the tie-ins between NOT and POV, as there's no noticeboard for NOT. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see nothing in WP:NPOV that indicates it is applicable to talk pages.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how long the list is, of things we could be doing that are more important and productive than this discussion, but it's a long list.  G M G  talk  16:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Less talky more edity like, and . Problem solved. I'd like to see anyone opposing this show me where editors typically use "POV pushing" to refer to edits in mainspace, and not to behavior in talk space.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, as I cannot check every edit, but then it is down to those proposing a change to validate it. Can you show the situation has changed since this line was written? I can show that users do use it to refer to edits in mainspace [] (well minus the ing"ing"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha! Smartassery will not win you the argument. I never said it's never used that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea.....but WP:PRJSD is clear...administration pages don't need to adhere to this at all.--Moxy (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Adhere to what exactly? I'm just not sure I understand what you mean. -Obsidi (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was not clear... Administration pages do not need to adhere to core content policies. Administration pages are used to determine community consensus..... the community will decide if a point of view is pushing in the wrong direction. Editor's are free to post  their point of view in discussions and advocate for whatever they like.... the community will decide what should be represented in content pages after discussion with all points of view represented be they right or wrong.  Process pages simply are not covered by neutral point of view.... they are however like every other page subject to conduct policies WP:NOTPART policy - WP:PRJSD guideline ...also note Category:Wikipedia project content guidelines.  letting people discuss what they like on talk pages in a respectable manner is how we get to the content we create. .. basic fundamental.--Moxy (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support If it is necessary to say that editors do not have to take a neutral approach on talk pages, it is the WP:NPOV policy that should make that clear. While NPOV refers to article content, this page has advice about handling an NPOV dispute and it is not helpful to encourage a belief among civil POV pushers that they are free to indefinitely bang their favorite drum on a talk page. If someone always finds positive news about Trump and can never acknowledge negativity (or the reverse), that person is not helping the article develop in a neutral fashion regardless of whether their disruption is only occurring on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't limit people's voices on talk pages.....we have behavioral protocols for what you outlined above.  We can't tell people what they can and can't say about fringe or out-of-this-world ideas ...... but we can limit/restrict and outright ban someone if they are disrupting the community-at-large.  We don't ban white supremacist because they're white supremacist we block them  if and when they become  disruptive.  Plus .... implementation of this  would lead to endless edit Wars in the middle of discussions over what is considered neutral point as our editors are  made up of  people of different cultures backgrounds Etc  who will clearly have different points of view.--Moxy (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per Johnuniq. Using the talk page for advocacy is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and should be dealt with accordingly. We should not allow POV pushers to push their radical ideas, even on talk pages, as talk page discussions should be kept constructive and not to promote only a particular viewpoint.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Talk page is for edits and discussion, including putting forward POVs that exist.  When content pages are distorted would be crossing a line, saying silly tosh in TALK is not.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

——————————-


 * Comment. Is there some conflation of "POV pushing" with "advocacy"? They may or may not be the same thing. So what's the difference? First we must recognize that it's entirely possible to have a POV which is reality-based and in line with RS and scientific facts. "Pushing" such a POV is not forbidden, but actually acceptable and required. We are a reality-based project, and such POV are welcome, as long as they are supported by RS. In fact, I suspect that whenever "POV pushing" is used as a criticism, it refers to "advocacy".


 * "Advocacy", OTOH, is the pushing of fringe POV that are not reality-based and not backed by RS. Its goal is to create NPOV-violating content. We don't welcome advocacy anywhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not trying to give you a hard time -- I am genuinely curious. How did you determine that "POV pushing" may be good or may be bad and that "advocacy" is always bad? Let me try something:


 * Is there some conflation of "advocacy" with "POV pushing"? They may or may not be the same thing. So what's the difference? First we must recognize that it's entirely possible to advocate something which is reality-based and in line with RS and scientific facts. "advocating" something like that is not forbidden, but actually acceptable and required. We are a reality-based project, and such advocacy is welcome, as long as it is are supported by RS. In fact, I suspect that whenever "advocacy" is used as a criticism, it refers to "POV pushing".


 * See? When I reverse the two phrases the argument still hold up.


 * Again, I am not trying to argue a position here. I really am puzzled as to how you can be so sure that your definitions for these two very similar phrases is the right one. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hah! I read comment, and immediately thought "You know, you could swap out those two and make the same exact argument," before I started to read  response.
 * So with that part of my intended response already taken, allow me to respond to this:
 * In fact, I suspect that whenever "POV pushing" is used as a criticism, it refers to "advocacy". I agree wholeheartedly. The two terms are essentially synonymous. After all, what is POV pushing if not advocacy for a particular agenda? And what is WP:advocacy, if not the pushing of a particular Point Of View? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes, in the real world you're all right. "They may or may not be the same thing." The two terms are generally synonymous, but here at Wikipedia we forbid WP:ADVOCACY, which is defined negatively: "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view ." (My underlining.) WP:POVPUSH even redirects to WP:ADVOCACY.
 * It is never wrong to "push" points of view which are in harmony with "Wikipedia's goals", reality, and RS. Only fringe editors call that POV pushing, and they do it all the time, all while pushing fringe POV based on unreliable sources. They are engaged in "advocacy". That's a big red flag. I guess I've just noticed, and resisted, the describing of POV pushing by reality based editors as something bad. It's not. They are defending the integrity of Wikipedia and its goals. When such editors are dragged by fringe editors to the drama boards, participants there need to recognize that their dubious accusations of "POV pushing" should be rejected. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:POVPUSH even redirects to WP:ADVOCACY. That was me, as a response to this. See my !vote, above and the diffs therein. I did it because, as I said, the vast majority of the time people refer negatively to "POV pushing", they're referring to the phenomenon described at WP:ADVOCACY.
 * It is never wrong to "push" points of view which are in harmony with "Wikipedia's goals", reality, and RS... I completely agree with this entire paragraph. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just revert the change.....pls seek consensus before changing a long standing shortcut and blanking it's documentation. Never a good idea to change something of this nature in the middle  of a dispute. I suggest all read over the links  at WP:Core content policies to see  how the concept evolved to deal with content  pages and how  behavioral protocols where made  to deal with administration pages.--Moxy (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you actually look at the state of this discussion before wrongly assuming that there's no consensus for what I did? For fuck's sake... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is zero discussion about changing a shortcut that has been used with a specific page in mind thousands of times and reflects the target page wishes of untold number of editors. If they all wanted to link to the advocacy page they would have used that shortcut.--Moxy (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * that has been used with a specific page in mind thousands of time LOLOL You need to poke around on that page a bit more. This is the second time you've failed to look before you open your mouth. It needs a couple hundred more entries to even hit a thousand and even "a thousand times" isn't saying much, considering how old it is. To put that into perspective, I stopped counting links to WP:NPOV when I hit 100,000. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's just leave the redirect alone (this includes not discussing it) and discuss the change I made to this explanatory supplement, OK? We can deal with the redirect dispute later. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree.....personaly don't mind the change because our policies and guidelines cover this with its founding principles intact. Was asked to comment because I was involved in a similar debate on our parent policy page covering this year's ago.--Moxy (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Whatever this document says, is irrelevant. I have never read this page before, nor cited it. I do cite Civil POV pushing (which discusses talk page abuse, a lot) and I do cite WP:ADVOCACY. But to the extent that anybody is using that line to argue that WP:BLUDGEONing is somehow just fine, yes remove it. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Want to know something interesting? That bit was added by a confirmed sockpuppet whose socks were used to engage in POV pushing at multiple articles' talk pages. LOL I think the notion that we should keep this is fucking hilarious, and I agree with your comment here entirely. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * omg. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * It is true that a blocked editor added this specific line. But this wasn't the original basis for POV pushing applying only in article space. The original idea of a concept called POV Pushing was developed by User:Ed_Poor as far back as 2005, although it developed a lot more after that as an essay (see User:Ed Poor/POV pushing for the userfied version of the original essay on POV pushing). It got added to this page about a year before that essay was removed. But from the very beginning POV Pushing was considered to apply only in article space (go back and read the essay on POV Pushing). As Ed Poor describes himself I was one of the first 200 people to contribute regularly to Wikipedia, and I've served as a Mediator, an Admin, and a Bureaucrat. This isn't about some random blocked guy who added this specific sentence, but it has a basis in WP conduct far longer than that. -Obsidi (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Meaning can change. In this case, I'd guess the behavior was more important to focus on and discuss. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, regardless of what it meant before, the meaning can change. Although, if that occurs, we should think about if this is the right location for that term. I just don't want people to be misinformed as to the basis of this sentence and think it was just "slipped in" without people noticing and never really agree to. As to the behavior, why do you think WP:Advocacy wouldn't apply to prohibit the bad behavior you are trying to stop? -Obsidi (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like WP:Advocacy might be brought up more where a COI is suspected, and "POV pushing" is a way to avoid assuming or implying a COI or personal details about editors? Just my impression. Where could we look for editors being careful with their language? ArbCom maybe? --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * MjolnirPants has now changed the redirect of WP:POVPUSH to Advocacy (It seems like some people here are arguing that isn't correct, that there is a difference between advocacy and POV pushing). This is fine if there is consensus that is really what POV Pushing means, but if so we should remove all text in that section on this page, or move that text to WP:Advocacy. (And there are clearly editors on this page who believe that POV Pushing only refers to mainspace edits, I would refer to Yilloslime's comment above that Ipso facto "POV-pushing" happens in article space.) -Obsidi (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * /, I'd like to frame what you are proposing as an alternative so people can !vote on that and we can get consensus on that alternative. But my question is, what are you proposing occur for the text on this page? After the redirect is changed should the section on POV Pushing on this page be removed or are you proposing that we move the text that is here over to WP:Advocacy? -Obsidi (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, who gives a crap? Why are we having a full-blown legalese RfC over the wording of an essay. For goodness sake, withdraw this, save us all the trouble, and go work on an article.  G M G  talk  17:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't care, then feel free to ignore this RfC. There are a lot of people that do care (as evidenced by the people added this, and then after I reverted to discuss it, reverted to push it back in). This is meant to inform new users of what NPOV policy is. Policy is important, as is this page in making sure that new users are not misinformed as to what that policy requires. -Obsidi (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with GMG. Get out of wikispace for once in your life, Obsidi, and go edit a fucking article. I know you just hate to do that, but it's kind of expected. As for the content on this page: remove the edit by a blocked sockmaster that was obviously a parting shot and has only stood this long because hardly anyone watches or edits or reads this page, because we're all too busy building a fucking encyclopedia to worry about this tripe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How about, I edit where I want to edit and you edit where you want to edit, ok? And I never said I hate to edit articles. I edit articles where I see problems or things that need to get added. Do you want me to put that as an that as an alternative proposal? -Obsidi (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(Following my own advice above to find some use in ArbCom...) Can others look through Arbitration/Index/Principles and Arbitration/Index/Boilerplates to see what they think of the use "pov push" and it's variants there? I'm seeing too much wording around behavior to back an article-space-only interpretation. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at it. I found TONS of accusations of POV Pushing and evidence presented of POV pushing by parties, but very few times that ArbCom has mentioned POV pushing. Of the times it is mentioned, you often see things like "A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia." (But what exactly does that last part mean? edits to WP as in articles, or including talk page edits?). "Users who edit in a point of view or obsessive way may be banned partially or completely." (But again what exactly does this mean by edits?), This is close, but says of "Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts." But this says POV advocacy rather than POV Pushing. The times they do specificly mention POV Pushing as to an editor for instance this one, the edits referred to are to an article. I'm not aware of any case where ArbCom has sanctioned an editor for POV pushing in talk. -Obsidi (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking.
 * I think it used to be a description of editing in article space, but even then it was strongly associated with advocacy (eg your example and this one).
 * I think Civil POV pushing changed that by describing the associated behaviors, much of which happen on the article talk pages.
 * A solution might be to replace the disputed paragraph completely with something that summarizes Civil POV pushing. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the discussion so far, I have identified something else that may need to be looked at.
 * Advocacy Starts with "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view." No mention of the possibility that someone might advocate following Wikipedia's goals and core content policies. As currently written, this second sort of advocacy cannot even exist.
 * NPOV dispute says "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article..." (emphasis in original). Now the focus is on being aggressive, with the implication being that if it isn't aggressive, it isn't POV pushing. Normally we see aggressive presentation of a particular point of view on a talk page. I am not even sure what "aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article" means. Edit warring? Aggressive edit comments?
 * Civil POV pushing says "the committee has difficulty dealing with "civil" POV pushers—editors who repeatedly disregard or manipulate Wikipedia's content policies but are superficially civil, or not-quite-uncivil-enough to merit sanctions" Sound a lot like the definition in WP:Advocacy, doesn't it? The definition in WP:POV pushing, not so much.
 * I suggest that we come up with a set of definitions that [A] is consistent, and [B] covers both civil and aggressive, as well as covering [C] both against our goals and core content policies and supporting our goals and core content policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I like this approach.....we definitely need consistency. We should define the terms and how they are used here on Wikipedia. As seen above there is a lot of confusion with people saying what they believe over referencing what happens and our protocols. We need to bridge the gap between behavior and advocacy.--Moxy (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Me three. This approach can lead to improved understanding and clarity. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that consistency is needed, and that it should cover both civil and aggressive forms as well as that against WP's goals and core content policies. But if someone has a very strong POV and comes to WP to improve WP consistent with verifiability/NPOV/NOR, I don't see that as a problem. For instance adding their strongly held POV to an article that is currently only expressing other POVs (assuming that their view isn't fringe and they don't add too much weight to the view). To answer your question on what "aggressive" POV pushing has been considered in the past, it is editing an article after people have objected on NPOV grounds to making that change and consensus has not yet resolved the dispute. Usually this is a long-term behavior. It isn't necessary edit warring (although often it is). Now we might change what POV pushing means to some modern definition, but that is what it has meant in the past (in my opinion). -Obsidi (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also people should remember that Civil POV pushing is only an essay, and from my searching I couldn't find one time that ArbCom used to the phrase "civil POV ". And the essay in question says Arbcom "has effectively abdicated the responsibility for ensuring neutrality, verifiability, and other content standards" to other users, thats quite a strong statement that I suspect ArbCom wouldn't agree with. -Obsidi (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with this approach. Also to try to keep the meanings of terms aligned with general usage in the English language, and not to develop special meanings only valid on Wikipedia which may be misunderstood by people who have not studied the policies and guidelines. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with this, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi indefinitely blocked
Obsidi has been indefinitely blocked. See User talk:Obsidi and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I am posting this notice so that other editors won't wonder why they are getting no response from Obsidi to questions they ask. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Great example of how the behavioral system works here.....not done correctly all the time....but good call here.--Moxy (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Moralizing that is not in-line with how Wikipedia operates
I removed this: as a moralizing and sanctimonious claim about what is and is not civil which has not been the subject of arbcom rulings or other adjudications of civility on this site as far as I can tell. It also does not outline what practices happen in actuality and so really shouldn't have been here. I also see this wording was inserted by someone who was eventually blocked for POV-pushing. jps (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa over limit
Today, I observed that removed an explanation from the article Supayalat, citing a copyright violation. Upon reviewing the content, I found it to be closely paraphrased. I then rewrote the entire content and utilized tools like Earwig to check for copyright violations, resulting in zero likely violations. While Wikipedia permits rewriting and paraphrasing, Diannaa again removed my content, alleging close paraphrasing. I find it challenging to accept these actions, perceiving them as an abuse of administrative power and bullying.

Prior to this incident, I had disagreements with Diannaa. However, I never anticipated the use of admin privileges for personal vendettas. I believe my version complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and does not violate any rules. If my version were indeed in violation, I would rectify it. I vehemently deny any wrongdoing and assert that my contributions align with Wikipedia's standards.

Wikipedia allows rewriting and paraphrasing, provided it does not closely mimic the original source. I am open to constructive criticism and understand the importance of avoiding copyright violations. If concerns exist about the closeness of my rephrasing, I am willing to address them.

I seek a fair review of my version to determine if any rule violations exist. I am committed to upholding Wikipedia's integrity and abiding by its policies. I request justice in this matter and urge a careful examination. Additionally, I believe that Diannaa's actions may warrant a reconsideration of their admin status, as there have been instances of perceived bullying towards multiple editors, creating a disruptive environment. 80.216.151.223 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)