Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

This article has a cleanup tag because it is "unbalanced towards certain viewpoints." Does the article include descriptions of human rights violations in Egypt that are biased, misleading or inaccurate? Jarble (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that you can remove such tags if you think they are no longer relevant. If another editors reverts the removal ask them to discuss their concerns on the articles talk page. The article has had extensive changes since the tag was added in March 2020, and the exact details of the issue were never expressed by the editor who added the tag. So I don't see any reason it couldn't be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested and Zakawer: Does this article still have a bias against post-Morsi authorities that needs to be corrected? Jarble (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do wholeheartedly think so. Zakawer (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Joyce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More watchers requested at this BLP. Discussion about how much weight to give criminal history. VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy theory article has, in my assessment, a severe NPOV issue. The article states repeatedly, in wikivoice, that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible.

Unfortunately, that's no fact.

Oxford English Dictionary (cited in the article) defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event".

Several sources already used in the article -- yet not in the lead section -- make the similar claim that while the word has take on a derogatory connotation, and most famous conspiracy theories are implausible, this is not true about all conspiracy theories per se, and that to suggest so is to commit the fallacy of composition.

As such, I believe the article should be more neutrally worded so as to not completely redefine the meaning of conspiracy theory with a few cherry picked sources.

Of course there are real

The connotation of the term is absolutely negative in English. But Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so the subject of the article needn't exactly overlap with the dictionary definition of the term in any case. The article states repeatedly, in wikivoice, that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible. Not that I see. Quotes, please? VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable."

A connotation is an opinion, and therefore should not completely take control of the article without being qualified as an opinion. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's fine for the article to mostly focus on untrue conspiracy theories. I don't think, however, we should let this popular notion of conspiracy theory = false force us to act is if conspiracy theories are false per se, when any dictionary would beg to differ -- to say so is to make an unfactual claim. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't support what you said: ...that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are dubious or implausible. One of the purposes of the lead sentence of the article is to define the article's scope, which that sentence seems to do quite well. VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the lead sentence not define conspiracy theories as having more probable other explanations? Would you be amenable to this edit:

First two sentences currently read

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence.

My proposed change

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence, and that other explanations are more probable. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, seems like a solution in search of a problem. But in any case you should be proposing this on the article talk page not here. VQuakr (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians. So, no, plausible conspiracies are not conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are unlikely or implausible by definition. Geogene (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue this is POV pushing. This is cited to a singular journal article, whereas several other journal articles come to the opposite conclusion. There is no reason undue weight has to be put on this on article. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources [1], [2], [3] disagree, for example. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed at

MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

This was the topic of an extended conversation which reached no productive conclusion, and perhaps we should not try to rehash here. But you are also wrong; several of these sources do mention that conspiracy theories can be true. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're the one that brought up the OED again.

MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

A discussion is taking place at Talk:International Churches of Christ#Primary Sources for the “Beliefs” Section about whether third-party sources are required for the section International Churches of Christ#Beliefs, which is currently based almost entirely on sources associated with the subject. Input from editors without a COI would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a severe NPOV violation on an article talk page. [4] I removed it from the talk page and posted on the user's talk page. I'm posting here to bring attention to it. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The account in question, Robert Sacomeno, has only made three edits, all that one post on Talk:Project 2025. It was indeed an inappropriate addition and telling them on their talk page that it violates NPOV is the right thing to do. If they violate NPOV again, appropriate remedies can be applied. This didn't need to be brought here to this noticeboard, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K, thanks. I don't usually bother with this side of Wikipedia. I'm a casual editor and reader. I was just surprised to see that level of POV from a username (I see IPs do it all the time). 76.178.169.118 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I warned them earlier. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Death toll about what the number of fatalities included in the infobox refer to. My interpretation is that it refers to the number of people alleged to have died from the genocide. Others have interpreted it, I believe, as meaning casualties in the broader conflict, including both those that are alleged to be victims and those that are not alleged to be victims.

There are sources to support the latter, but there are not sources to support the former. If my interpretation is correct, I am concerned that presenting it this way introduces

Additional input would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far it looks like someone put a citation needed note on a cited, and likely conservative, figure. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's cited, but not to sources that say this is the number of victims - it's to sources that say this is the number dead in the broader war, and that sources say includes both civilians and militants. BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no, stop that. Those CN tags are not supporting neutrality. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EmailSanta.com

I was the one who accepted the AfC article a few years back. (The original writer of the article was the owner of the website.) However, I'm not sure if it's considered promotional. What do you think? Is it neutral enough? Additionally, is it notable enough to remain on its own, or should I merge it into the article about Santa Claus? Félix An (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing too many concerns specifically on promotion. It is concerning that the draft author twice reverted edits that mentioned that the website generates automatic responses (which in my opinion would improve the article). But that was back in 2020 and presumably there are no problems adding it back today.

As for notability, the article probably is notable enough to stay as its own article. While there are some questionable sources (such as the last sentence of the article, which cites a teacher's blog, or the article called "Mail for Santa will be opened", which turns up zero results on Google besides this Wikipedia article), there are multiple sources in the article that cover the website in depth. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator of experienced editor do a full NPOV check over Visegrád 24? The article was TNTed back in March 2024 after the subject of the article, Visegrád 24, posted to have editors fix and change the article. This got brought up at AN, leading to a perm EC protection under two different C-TOPICS. Well, Visegrád 24 posted again on Twitter today to have editors fix the article, which was supposedly written by "disgruntled far left journos". I was unaware of the March 2022 postings until I was already editing the article (due to catching recent editors via my watchlist), but I saw this tweet and I'm now technically involved. Honestly, an administrator check over the article and its content may not be a bad thing, since it had dozens of COI editors, a T-blocked editor, a subsequent RSN involvement (see the talk page), and the subject of the article has posted three times in the last month to have the article "fixed" of misinformation.

-Sorry for the mini-rant: TL;DR: Article needs administrator or experienced editor checked due to C-TOPICS +

Bookku (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter link points to NPOV policy.

I and other editors have queried these edits on UrielAcosta's talk page, but UrielAcosta disagreed and soon after, s/he deleted the talk page entries, and continued to make these mass edits.

My mild objection, as a non-Muslim, is that "prophet" (lowercase 'p') is descriptive and informative, and is in accordance with MOS, so when the word "prophet" has been removed, I've instead re-added it as "

I'd appreciate the input of other editors here, please. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pertinent discussions held on this subject with UrielAcosta] arehere and here. I addressed the rationale "because he's not Wikipedia's prophet" by observing Pablo Escobar is not Wikipedia's drug lord, but it wouldn't be wrong to write of somebody, "It was on his trip to Panama that he became acquainted with drug lord Pablo Escobar.". Their bizarre response: ... you are 100% incorrect: Pablo Escobar IS Wikipedia's drug lord, because "drug lord" has a specific definition in English and Escobar qualifies under that definition. I mean, huh? (Have you ever heard Escobar described as "Wikipedia's drug lord"?) Then I pointed out that
  WP:ANI or somewhere, so I thank User:Esowteric for raising it here. Largoplazo (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" Some1 (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I've instead re-added it as "Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity). Did UrielAcosta revert these edits (by removing "Islamic prophet")? If they did, then that would be against what
  MOS:PBUH recommends. Some1 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  No, they changed "prophet Muhammed" to "Muhammed", but left alone my later changes to "Islamic prophet Muhammed". However, they did this to the first (or only) mention of the name Muhammed in the two articles that were on my watchlist that were affected. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The only reason I bring this up is that these are mass edits, so a whole lot of people may either not notice the changes or choose to change the entries to "the prophet Muhammad", when they could either be left alone or the passionate editor could make the changes themselves and avoid work for others. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t agree with the removal of “prophet” for the first usage of Muhammad in an article because the MOS clearly allows for the usage in that case. That being said, I don’t think it’s necessary to go back and add it to articles where it was removed. I don’t agree that “Muhammad” (with the wikilink) would cause confusion to the reader. Mokadoshi (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, but how many Wikipedia articles would simply name Rishi Sunak because users could easily click on the link to find out who he is or what he is, when it is far simpler and more informative to refer to them in the first instance as (say) British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think specifying “British Prime Minister” is necessary every time. In some cases it is helpful, like the usage of “Senator Obama” verses “President Obama” can clarify the period of his career when an event occurred. I don’t think it’s an appropriate comparison to this case. Probably a better comparison would be “author

  J.K. Rowling” and the former seems to be rare. Mokadoshi (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I've been asked to give my two pennies worth on this matter as I was made aware of Uriel Costa's editing on Bust of Abd al-Rahman III, Cadrete, a page I had created. I did not know, but I was barely surprised, that Uriel Costa then went on to make the same edit on a variety of other pages. This is my view on the matter:
  The page I saw related to a Muslim monarch. Monarchs are known by their given name. Removing "prophet" before Muhammad could be confusing as many monarchs, including in Islamic Spain where I was writing about, were also called Muhammad.
  I just put "prophet" as a disambiguator. I think it's quite clear in the context we were not talking about a prophet of the Mormons. Uriel Costa removed this completely, he did not even negotiate by saying "Islamic prophet".
  You could say that the majority of the world does not see Muhammad as a prophet, nor has any human been peer-reviewed to be a prophet. But at the same time, we have the page at Guru Nanak when the majority of the world has probably not even heard of him, and no independent study has proven that he had more spiritual wisdom than anyone else in the world. The term Pope comes from "father" and the majority of the world does not see him that way, but we still title the page Pope Francis.
  My previous edit was not endorsing Islam, a religion I do not follow, and instead of making it more specific, getting rid of "prophet" completely made it less specific. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Pope" clearly means that he has a particular role in the Catholic church. Similarly for other examples given. Simply "prophet" is an assertion in the voice of Wikipedia which a majority of people would disagree with. "Islamic prophet" implicitly says that Islam considers him to have that status/role/capability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem we are having here is that in those cases when it is necessary or even simply better to clarify (this often depends on context and background knowledge of subject matter), UrielAcosta is still systematically removing it based on a literal reading of
  Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary. In cases where ambiguity or confusion exists, the "prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" may be used as a variation on "Muhammad".

  Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Re "overly literal reading"—except for the part about continuing to ignore except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary even when it's pointed out to them point-blank. The reason Muhammad gets his own provision in the first place is because of a matter very specific to him: the practice of some people of writing "PBUH" after every use of his name, and referring to him as "the Prophet Muhammad" or even just "the Prophet" on every. There's nothing about the provision that suggests that Muhammad is less deserving than anyone else in history of being introduced in a text in the way that people are very commonly introduced, by the use of context. If anyone's being non-neutral, it's UrielAcosta, for deeming Muhammad not to deserve to be identified in such a manner. Largoplazo (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that they are deliberately ignoring the part of the MOS that they don't seem to agree with. Their

  he's not Wikipedia's prophet breaks the very policy that they are citing as an excuse to expunge the word from every article. M.Bitton (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• The changes en masse by UrielAcosta are unhelpful at best as they needlessly create a lot of work for others. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag of 'neutrality is disputed' has been there since 2015 due to a conflict back then. I was removing it per "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." which is listed as a reasonable reason to remove the tag at When to remove. I have created a section at talk page to see if the position is still disputed. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing the noticeboard. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]