Wikipedia talk:POV check

Misplaced discussion?
The discussion in this section appears to contain at least some discussion about a page other then the one linked to this talk page. --DragonHawk 02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This starts out saying, "an article which you feel needs to be edited for neutrality", then goes on to say, "articles which you have edited to be neutral". Which is it? – flamuraiTM 03:20, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is not neutral because whether the saint exsited or not is an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.128.186 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't know who the "saint" referred to is, but this article is useful. --wayland 22:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * great article,very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.188.159 (talk • contribs)

"may be removed by anyone"?
"In order to ensure the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification, it may be removed by anyone if they feel that the issue has been resolved." What about situations where a single editor has done a large rewrite and when someone nominates the effectively new version to be checked for neutrality, the same editor who did the large rewrite removes the template? Obviously, if the editor produced a non-NPOV article in the first place, their removal of the template doesn't give much indication that NPOV has now been satisfied. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, add the neutrality dispute template and procedure; that's what they are there for. --DragonHawk 04:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Information is not correct
This page says, "Pages that include any of POV-check, POV-check-section, or the deprecated bias templates are automatically listed under ." But that's not true. The category doesn't exist, POV-check doesn't categorize tagged articles there, and POV-check-section doesn't categorize its articles at all. Whoever's interested in maintaining this system for tagging POV problems (i.e., someone watching this page, for example) should correct these problems. - dcljr (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)