This is an archive page

Please leave requests for NPOV checks on the main page. Closed requests are archived here. If you want to reopen a request, please do so on the main page. This page is kept purely for archival reasons. Please do not leave comments on this page.

This article seems to be promoting the newspaper instead of giving facts about it. It contains lots of statements which are opinions and speculative instead of facts Anshuk 09:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made substantial edits to this article, and had to remove most of the content. The facts that were present have been retained. The author had also created three additional (nearly identical) articles on the newspaper, which I've tagged for speedy deletion, since they were solely on features of the newspaper and had no additional article-worthy information. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 10:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Closed - Article has been fact tagged, no much more we can do. Still has a slightly advertisement-like read to it, though._Jame§^ugrono 11:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article basically reads like an ad for this book. It could have been copied verbatim from a review; even the quotes section doesn't include quotes from the book, but rather positive reviews and celebrity endorsements. This page needs major work before it can be included in Wikipedia, and I'm not sure it belongs. I'm terribly new at this, however, so I'm not going to say it should be deleted, but more experienced Wiki-editors should be made aware of it. Andi1235 18:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article myself, so I think it's neutral now. Sorry to clog up this page. Andi1235 19:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ClosedIt looks acceptably NPOV to me. _Jame§^ugrono 06:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concern, as expressed on Talk: Mitt Romney, that article reads too much like campaign literature. 3rd party review for neutrality would be helpful. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits, and added a comment regarding development of the issue. I could not find directly biased statements, and see only minor improvements needed to develop and clarify the alternate opinions to his own. Specific issues should be clarified.

D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 05:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed • Article looks good. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the opening sentence of the article on Wise use: "The Wise Use agenda is based in environmental conservationism yet is anti-environmentalist in a political sense." Is an agenda a proper subject for a WP article? Thanks. Steve Dufour 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. I hope I am putting this in the right place.[reply]

It certainly is notable, in my opinion, however that kind of wording is clearly biased and needs work. I'll take a look into improving it when I get a chance. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me • Support Neutrality • RFCU) 20:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected a couple bits, will try to seek for better wording for intro. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed • Article looks good. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article might be too excessively negative, and I need another person to review and pick out loaded language or any other neutrality issues. Hbdragon88 01:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started this case, and done a few copyedits for a more neutral tone. An anonymous user has graciously done a couple of more. Our project is picking up!Nina Odell 15:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed • Article looks good. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some serious POV presented on this article from multiple sides. A serious content dispute has arisen and the NPOV policy needs enforced. May require MedCom/ArbCom intervention. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with technical assistance, such as adding references and copyediting but I've essentially withdrawn from this project at this time. In my opinion, understanding the issues involved are important to getting the article stable, and I don't have time or knowledge to wade through and "do battle", as it were, at the same time. A person with a good baseline knowledge of the issues would help here, or someone with the time to learn. I refer you to one of my early efforts in another matter:[[1]].NinaEliza 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here [[2]].

The article needs to be checked for:-

• Repititions. One particular user is intent on repeating sections by coppying them in the same article.
• Repititions of actions of the people who actually contributed to the decline of Buddhism in India.
• Encyclopedic language.
• Credible links.
• Chronology. Some users are intent of breaking chronology. Especially when it comes to those who pioneered the resurgence of Buddhism in India.

I will provide assistence in due time, right now the vacations and real life are keeping me busy.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some suggestions on the talk page regarding specific wording issues that leave either doubt or instances of dubious statements that require more explanation. I also left some suggestions regarding style, on of which was to frame the article chronologically, as mentioned above. Most issues would be resolved if there was a consensus as to the subject of the article. As a simple reader in this subject area, it is not clear at all what the article's direction is. If it had a coherent point of view, it would be easier to fix the neutrality of it.

D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

A mediation case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India has been opened 12:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC). Current status: Waiting for requestor. — Sebastian 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some massive copy-editing. I hope this helps. I'll look at Freedom Skies specific suggestions tonight. Nina Odell 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first thing that happened after your intervention was an edit war with unexplained deletions such as this. I did not have the impression this contributed to calming down the mood, which is something we would need for a succesful mediation. — Sebastian 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all I can in terms of copy-editing. I'm withdrawing from the article. Nina Odell 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you're withdrawing, and I sincerly hope that my comment didn't contribute to your decision. I was a bit disappointed about the revert war, but I am now convinced that it had nothing to do with you. It just seems that people aren't all aboard the mediation case yet. Is there a chance to get you back? One of the parties specifically asked for a neutral editor, and since you're better at that than me, you might be the ideal person. At any rate, I'd be grateful if you cold look at the issue list we put in the case page yesterday and give us some advice. — Sebastian 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, considering comments I've made in the past to both of the editors, as well as on the talk page, I doubt highly that either one of them consider me neutral. This is the primary reason I'm withdrawing. It certainly has nothing to do with any of your comments, concerns, or questions.

I'm proud of my efforts there, and I think they've done some good towards the article itself, but there is a distinct pattern of disruption that is a road I'd rather not travel down again. Sebastian, I think you'll do an excellent job with the mediation. Let's see how it develops first. Nina Odell 22:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - Interference with ongoing Dispute Resolution has lead me to close this request. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theere has been some seriously emotive edits in the article, which is being edited by a single user. Any attempts to request for neutrality has been resoundedly rebuffed with incivility and accusations of vandalism. The editor, User:Iwazaki will not allow anyone to even tag it, so intervention by more experienced wikipedians is sorely needed. May require MedCom/ArbCom intervention in the future. The issue of neutrality and using wikipedia as a political soapbox has been raised in the talk page of the article Talk:Gonagala massacre.Some input from neutrality-observant editors is sorely needed. Cheerio. Rumpelstiltskin223 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a small note to the user. This is going to need time and care.Nina Odell 15:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the article is a lot better. However, I also feel I've done all I can do here and need to withdraw. I'm also removing the article in question from watchlist. Nina Odell 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Odell has done a great job with the aticle..Complain was made on the 30 th and there has been many changes since then.I am not sure what is disputed here.So please be kind enough to inform us regarding the disputed section of the article. Also, please be noted that, the whole article is well cited and well written thanks to Nina and others.thank you --Iwazaki 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed • Article looks good. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the NPOV tag.Big thank for everyone esp Nina, for helping to make this article a better one.--Iwazaki 06:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed - Request expired without review. Please repost if the problem has persisted. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

Seems stable now, relist if it gets messy again. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least one contributor has stated that the Barack Obama article is biased and may require a (N)POV tag. Expert guidance from experienced Neutrality Project reviewers would be most appreciated. Kindly reply on the article's talk page, if possible. --HailFire 13:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Barack Obama#Is Wikipedia a PR Flak for Senator Obama? and Talk:Barack Obama#Controversies controversy --HailFire 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading the history now. The general consensus for controversy whether information is relevant, though, is towards inclusion, as long as it is verifiable and sourced. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

• The article is fairly well source, although it uses some fairly loaded language in parts. Some careful editing can reduce that. The article itself needs to better define the topic though - right now it just mostly speaks of the experiments that were conducted regarding it. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• It's just one user's issue, not as consensus against it with a PoV problem, therefore I suggest either asking an administrator for assistance with dealing with the user, or taking it to Mediation. Personally I think your stance is very well balanced. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:49, 26 September 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.

• Kurdish celebration of Newroz one decent example. Article implies Kurds celebrate the spring holiday Norouz by rioting. Or as if it is something political.
• Turkish Kurdistan treats a non-existant country (not even defacto) like a country.
• Kurdistan Workers Party demonises the organisation and perhaps kurds.

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

• I will watch these pages and revert any POV changes, for what it's worth. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

• I've tried to clean this article up and it's much better now, I think. Katherine - could you fact check this? You're a lot more knowledgeable on Delta than I am. -- Wizardry Dragon 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Apparently the user has been blocked on one IP and in arbCom stating his case. Hoepfully this means that the user will no longer prove disruptive. -- Wizardry Dragon 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

• This again is a problem with a single user; for such problems I suggest alternative dispute resolution - follow the guidelines in the link. If they are persisting in continually reverting the page, please remind them of the three-revert rule. If they continue to vandalize the page, please report them to an administrator. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's some controversy going on regarding the DAB article, mainly over the criticisms of DAB. Someone put POV check tags on the article, and an anonymous user is going all over the place regarding the tags. I'll need an outside viewpoint to check up on this one PLUS, since I want to try and check it myself, I'll need someone experienced in this stuff to help me. -Daniel Blanchette 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've went through a lot of the text looking for words and sentences that sound like opinion. I've removed some and added citation tags on others. There are a number of claims in the article made that does not cite any specific information to back it up. I think a lot of the document could have its neutrality helped by either finding inline citations for some of the claims, or removing them if they can't be found. For example, how do we know the coverage is excellent in Belgium? There's only one citation in the paragraph and that's regarding serviced offered by specific company. —Mitaphane _talk 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your POV check Mitaphane. If you want to help me do a POV check, please I invite you to come to my talk page. -Daniel Blanchette 22:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• I'll add a good link - there's a dedicated project watching specifically pedophilia-related articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, or WP:PAW. It is not extremely active, but quite well doing. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]