Wikipedia:Neutrality Project/Stale

This is an archive page

Please leave requests for NPOV checks on the main page. Stale 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.

The lead of the article refers to Rákosi as "Stalinist dictator". While I personally agree that Rákosi was in fact a Stalinist and the nature of his rule could characterize him as a "dictator", it also strikes me that this statement is blatantly POV. I changed it to "premier of Hungary", but it was immediately reverted, after which I added the "NPOV" tag. I'd really like some other opinions from those involved with this project whether this characterization is proper under WP:NPOV. If it is, I personally have no problem with the characterization, since I have no particular affection for dead East European Stalinist leaders. Iamcuriousblue 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main debate in this article is over the Contemporary Kurdish Christians section. There was some discussion of this in July and while the section has improved some I personally think it is still POV, and since it is the same editors debating the issue I believe bringing in a third party to help come to some consensus would be good. ' ChrisLamb 03:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be under heavy dispute with constant edits (Quaker24 in paticular) between Unitarians and Trinitarians debating over this article where Unitarians seem to be mentioning their viewpoint on the matter and Trinitarians are removing or heavily editing the content saying that its biased against the Trinity. I'd appreciate it if a neutral editor could stop by and resolve this dispute by making sure that both viewpoints get a clean, fair, and neutral mention in the article. If this keeps up I'd suppose that the article may even need locking.

I will say that I'm a unitarian myself and I contributed to this article a long time ago and tried to make sure that both viewpoints were neutral and presented as fact, or however you want to phrase it, but now the whole thing seems to have gone to hell (no pun intended).

I might even edit the article again and put each viewpoint under its own heading such as Unitarian Viewpoint and Trinitarian Viewpoint, or just under a heading called Controversy like all the other articles, etc...

So if someone could check that out, thanks! 204.116.124.19 14:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an author of the article seems to have used it simply to put fowards their own litrary preferences as undisputed fact, and even asserts that authors who differ must therefore be writing just for the money. 210.50.228.5 09:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Criticism of Galbraith's Work section, the article defends Galbraith from Friedman's criticism by asserting the distinction between what people, in truth, "want" and artificially created "wants". Asserting that this distinction is meaningless is at the heart of Friedman's objection -- Friedman certainly didn't miss this key point of Galbraith. In this manner the article betrays a Galbraith-friendly POV.

This article, regarding the Autism Research Institute (ARI), is clearly written from a pro-ARI POV. The first section of the article, which describes the ARI and its goals, seems fairly neutral, but the rest of the article is biased toward the stated goals of the ARI. The section titled "Shedding light on autism," in particular, is nothing more than a quote from the current director of the ARI where he's saying good things about a former director, and provides no particular information.

A better article would include neutral information about the history of the ARI, its past and current objectives, and similar things. Its probably a worthwhile page; I wouldn't delete it, but it needs work. Andi1235 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a GA tag and numerous citations this article displays systemic bias towards the articles subject. Problems include wide generalized responses to Freemason critics, lengthy rationalizations and nerfing or removal of any critical material. Almost all the sources cited are from a Freemason POV.

The article, which includes much well thought out material suffers from this bias. Currrently it lengthy and long winded, hard to read, and missing information found in many other sources.

Meekrob 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally no pros or cons about the Freemasons but know that there has been much critic to them. So your request seems fair to me. (Else I'm more an observer in the neutrality project). Geir 20:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some clear problems in this article. In the controversy section for example, there are several mentions of the fact that the owner of the machine "just wants your money". Also, in the 'success rate' section, towards the end of the section, there is a chunk of text beginning: "Finally, these dastardly machines are aimed at the most vulnerable people of all, the children" which is very biased. Orkie2 12:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though most of the wording mentioned above was already cleaned up, there were still a few POV issues - I've rewritten part of the article to make it more neutral. I believe it should be checked by a more experienced editor before it is moved to closed, if that is possible. Thanks! *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 05:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much contention exists regarding a wide variety of historical events, including the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which strongly influence contemporary politics. Israelis, Palestinians, and their supporters contend and strongly dispute nearly every topic in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Therefore, I request that all articles under WikiProject: Arab-Israeli Conflict as well as WikiProject: Palestine and/or any articles mentioning the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict bear some acknowledgement of the disputed nature of the events pertaining to the conflict. I fear that failure to do so may give the wrong impression that this ongoing historical debate does not exist. Thank you. -- Michael Safyan 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article is highly disputed. Additionally many (including myself) believe that the title supports one interpretation of the events over another and should be changed to "Second Intifada" (discussed on the talk page). This page requires major re-editing and hopefully a name change. -- Michael Safyan 05:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles cite a number unverifiable facts and written in very racist overtone and tries to rewrite the history of a country based upon bias information. I have tried to tag the article for POV check and other relevant verifications, however, the author of the article attacked me personally and accused me of being racist for raising question. I am not disputing the article as a whole, however, the so-called "facts" and information in the article are either false or written to support a particular POV. Any help in this would be appericiated. Okkar 10:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues have been clearly raised on the talk page, but two editors, User:SlimVirgin and User:Cberlet are refusing to respond. Instead, they simply revert the NPOV tag. --HonourableSchoolboy 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text that disagrees with the beliefs of some editors (based on the content they add, delete, change and their user pages and in one case their Wikipedia article) are deleted outright constantly or reverted after passing time. The justifications for the edits are 'flimsy'. When the same justifcations for edits are used on text that are in line with their POV the edits are undone. Essentially what results is either an edit war or an article about a controversy that is slanted to one side of the discussion and loaded with weasely words for the other.

One (of scores) example is relating to sourcing. For text that aligns with their POV sources are special interest groups, advocacy groups, Congresspersons' position pages, etc (e.g. Mother Jones, ExxonSecrets). For text that is not in line with their POV the sources are removed (and the supported text with it) from news distributors (an AP story from NewsMax) and first hand sources (an organization's website to cite their financial data).

One of the major actors is an Adminstrator and has been [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/William_M._Connolley_and_Cortonin previously on parole] for a lessor extreme of present behavior.

Two of the exact examples are partially documented in the talk pages. Documentation 1 and Documentation 2. If this request is accepted I am able to present more. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC) corrections to formatting -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cocoaguy believes the article contains Peacock/Weasel words and an American POV. But, as the principle contributor the article I believe it conforms to the High Court verdict and the reports of Bangladeshi newspapers (which are the principle source for the article). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Opened. _Jame§^ugrono 10:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way of speeding the case a bit? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There doesn't seem to be an active dispute here, and there's no tag. Why don't we simply close this request? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to get any real idea of what a freight forwarder does, as the language in the article tends to be "all-encompassing" or buzzword-laden. Attempted some cleanup, and marked article as POV, but POV tag was removed. 70.251.147.224 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing, deletion of opposing viewpoints and general attempts at censorship by his followers, especially Siru108. Please help me to keep it neutral!! Introspective Perspective (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it really warrants it but within in the section on Criticism of Israel, the working is disputed. Could someone who is neutral check it for NPOV.安東尼 TALK ^圣诞快乐 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then Wikipedia article on Creationist Kent Hovind contains enough negative editorial bias that it should not be considered balanced content for a legitimate Wikipedia article. While I do not have any personal or legal involvement, my opinion is that Hovind would have more than enough grounds to pursue a libel action naming Wikipedia, for this article, as currently posted. As a journalist, I believe the Hovind article appears to be what is commonly known as a "hit piece", i.e., a work specifically written for the purpose of creating negative publicity, diminishment of reputation, stature, influence, or even civil right of an individual, individuals, group or organization. Secondly, and more critical is the concern that the primary provider(s) of content for this article have used the facilities and rules of Wikipedia to prevent editing of this article. The primary content providers for this article have a record of practicing aggressive, predatory removal, repeat censoring and filing of false claims against contributors, apparently to prevent access from the Wikipedia community at large. This has happened to the point that this article is no longer accessible to Wikipedia editorial oversight, or the Wikipedia community; it has effectively become the property of the party(ies)currently maintaining it. A disclaimer should be added to this article as it now exists, stating that the article should not be considered credible or factual, but an expression of cultural and political opinion. Regards, H.T. Schmerdtz. I do not have an account.

A fellow editor and I have not been able to agree on the nuetrality of a particular phrase in the first paragraph. User:Unschool made this edit [1], and I pointed out that the phrase greatest internal crisis may violate WP:ASF. I suggested changing it to Bloodiest war in U.S. history, based still on WP:ASF. As of yet, we have come to no agrrement on anything. Can anyone look at it and give an impartial independent assessment of the sentence, since it does sit in the lead paragraph.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no other place to address this strange new stub. Essentially, it is just oddly written, with what appears to be a fringe POV, but I'm still not sure, and it does not meet any CSD categories. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of strong claims about NPOV violations from two editors: myself and User:Jobxavier. Claims of "Missionary Propaganda" are heard from one side while I object to much of the language and edits used to "remedy" the problem. An outside opinion on recent edits would be helpful, as would be any observations on the overall NPOV status of the article. Gabrielthursday (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns have been raised here about the neutrality of a proposed Infobox to be added to this article. I believe I have made the box NPOV in its presentation and content, but one user refuses to accept the infobox, stating it will be divisive and cause revert wars. I am open to suggestions on how to improve the infobox, and would like more participants in the discussion. Please come offer an opinion there so we can settle this issue. We just need more than two people discussing it in order to reach any sort of valid consensus. I appreciate your time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A POV tag was added in May with discussion on the talk page about how the article was very biased towards Christianity, with more material criticising the criticisers than actual criticism. An editor has recently added even more apologetics to the article, tilting the bias even further and then removed the POV tag. I tried to put it back, but the editor decided that the May discussion was "stale" so the tag had to go. I have washed my hands of the mess of an article; if anyone wishes to fix it, they have my best. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be POV pushing. It does not cite very much and doesn't give any sort of counter-point or balance. Instead, it shows nothing but materials that support the POV that southerners are prone to be more violent. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Citations added and some effort made to balance, although positive aspects of the concept and citiations to critical individuals would be welcome. Ohwilleke (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV is extremely negative, using loaded words, making unsubstantiated claims and factual errors.

The author has gone out of her way to find every negative thing she can about the school, using descriptions of past practice to prejudice readers as to the character of the present school. Attempts to correct the page (I'm not a wiki expert) have been consistently reversed within a day. I have added an extensive discussion of the problem on the talk page, and while some of the factual corrections have made, many have not. Example: Reported death of Ted Milligan, snowshoeing at the Manitoba School is cited as evidence that this school's program is extreme. Milligan did not die. (close, however...) Events at another school 30 years ago are misleading in an article about this school now. The article makes claims about controversy, but is not explicit on the nature of the controversy, nor on the sides of the controversy. In addition, the author has ignored facts that are inconvenient. E.g: She states that charges were brought against Paul Nordahl, but neglects to add that the charges were dropped for lack of evidence.

Disclaimer and statement of conflict of interest: I am a staff member of this school. Sgbotsford (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badly needs neutral POV. 76.5.159.167 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The approach for the whole article is neatly summarised in its first sentance: Housing Segregation is the practice of denying African American or other minority groups equal access to housing through the process of misinformation, denial of realty and financing services, and racial steering.

Although the author cites some references, the article does not appear to be presenting a balanced argument and could easily be construed by many as inflammatory. This is a request for a review of the neutrality of this article. The article was created today and has only been edited by one user.

I'm no expert on the Wikipedia policy for NPOV, so if I'm out of line, please close this issue and let me know. -- Andrew Mill (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to have been created solely to criticize StartLogic and IPower web hosting services. The "criticism" section is the bulk of the article; positive comments are marginalized in terms of both quantity and quality. The subject does appear to be notable enough to be kept, but it's too one-sided. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a lot of issues with all pages on bands, particularly as the primary editors are fans. I think this article is slightly biased towards Tenacious D, which means it neglects to show more criticism. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article seems to focus heavily on the controvery surronding the trade rather than the trade itself. Granted that the practice IS controversial, but it needs expanding to explain what live export is, as well as presenting the farmer and exporter's viewpoint..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sections on "ASP versus SaaS" and "Drivers for SaaS adoption" are written suspiciously like a sales presentation for the concept of SaaS. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does have the flavour of a promotion of the concept. It is also excessively long. I'll add a note to that effect to the talk page. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page on the suitability of WP:TERRORIST. You are invited to participate, as we seem to have reached an impasse. RayAYang (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find, this article only serves to glorify the East German sporting system, failing to mention all together the issues associated with doping in East Germany (see:Doping (sport)), the fact that Dynamos mother organisation was the Stasi, the East German secret police, responsible for severe politacal repression in this former country and the fact that its leader, Erich Mielke, was a convicted criminal. To me, it seems, the sole purpose of the article is to worship and glorify without any critical approach. I tagged the article as a POV and left a note stating pretty much the same as above on the talk page but found myself called a vandal and that I'm discriminating by the main editor of the article. Also, the tag was removed by him without any further discussion through other partys. I have replaced the tag but don't think it will be there long. Maybe one of you guys can have a look at it and let me know whos wrong, him or me. Either way, I'm happy to accept the decision by a neutral third party and if I'm wrong I will stay away from the article. Thanks for the effort,EA210269 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I put it on the wrong end!EA210269 (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created a new article of the name Controversies surrounding the Sport Club Dynamo, linked to the article in the hope of this setteling the ongoing dispute. If so, I consider the matter finished on my behalf.EA210269 (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page for Salim Ahmed Hamdan detailing the Supreme Court Opinion states that, "The Supreme Court incorrectly applied the Geneva Convention as the ruling authority" and "The court incorrectly ruled that the commissions violated both." This is obviously the opinion of the writer. The writer of the article is injecting her opinion of the ruling into the article, usurping that of the Supreme Court. It would be fair to say the ruling was debated, but for her to ultimately decide the soundness of a Supreme Court decision and then describe that same Supreme Court opinion with adjectives like 'incorrect' that reveal her personal opinion of the decision is EXTREMELY biased.

In addition, the writer starts the paragraph off by claiming that the June 29th decision went against legal precedence, historical tradition, etc. These are discussions best left to courthouses and coffee houses, to be debated by politicians, the American public and Supreme Court Justices who can argue whether legal precedence and historical tradition support the ruling or not. This should not be up to the writer of a Wikipedia article to make that call and then portray the event through her disapproving lens.

Lastly, if the writer is going to argue that the decision, amongst other things, went against the 5th Amendment's Due Process limitations as applied to military operations in emergency or wartime, then she is arguing that a state of emergency or wartime exists that permits Due Process considerations to be bypassed. And if a state of emergency or wartime exists that allows individuals to be seized without acknowledgement of their due process rights, then the individuals seized under the pretense are PRISONERS OF THAT WAR that justified their non-customary seizure. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't argue that a state of emergency or wartime exists for the purposes of the President bypassing Due Process rights but for the purposes of protecting the prisoner's rights, they are not prisoners of war and are therefore not afforded protection under the Geneva Convention.

Please, leave your opinions for discussions with your friends. If you are that confident in your opinion, you should feel comfortable with reporting on the event without interjecting any adjectives that show your personal bias, allowing readers to come to their own conclusions as to whether the Supreme Court decision was just or correct or not.

Hi. I'm having a neutrality dispute here and it's developing into a revert war I'm trying to avoid.

These are the two versions of the section that I'm dealing with:

Version 1

Version 2

The last paragraph of "Version 1", to me, sounds like an attempt by a Juventus fan to rant about how Inter Milan caused their team all the injustices that happened to their club, since it delves greatly about how Inter did a lot of shady dealings during the Calciopoli scandal even though most of what is covered in that paragraph only tangentially applies to Juventus (since Calciopoli punished more than just Juve) and is better served at the actual Calciopoli article. It is also poorly sourced- quite a few of those points come from a reader contribution to Goal.com, including points about how la Gazzetta dello Sport is heavily financed by Inter and Inter fans, which should be in more reputable news outlets (since they have the resources to quantify such a statement and a reader, most likely, does not). I've looked on Google for reliable references and got nothing, and I keep asking those who push for Version 1 to provide better, more reliable evidence for those points but I also get nothing. Also, Version 1 ignores completely an even bigger event that is covered in the Calciopoli article- Juventus' pursuit of the matter in civil courts- that nearly cost the Italian national team a place at Euro 2008 and thus *should* be notable enough to cover in the article, as well as new allegations such as Milan wanting the 2004-05 title and the fact that Juventus officials sounded off on other clubs as well, like Messina F.C., who also benefited from the Calciopoli verdicts.

I don't personally like my version of the section- "Version 2"- but I have tried to get more of the "complete" picture which could then be used as a basis for better editing, but we're going to get nowhere if we keep having this section acting as a soapbox. Please help. -RomeW (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of February 8, 2008, this dispute is ongoing. -RomeW (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's just reverts. I really need someone to look into this, because it's getting a tad out of hand.-RomeW (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specific issue is the proportional balance of weight between two points of view. In the USA, one point of view is that ' government has no legal power to restrict firearms' and another point of view is that ' government has legal power to reasonably regulate firearms '. I hold, based on reliable sourcing, that even the 'pro-gun rights' political wing argues for reasonable regulation, and certainly the 'gun-control' wing favors regulation. This adds up to a predominate POV that reasonable regulation is allowed. Presently we are tussling over whether these two POV's deserve equal weight, or proportional weight. I still hope we can work this out, though we are real close to getting stuck in an edit war, therefore I would welcome some third party objective input to help use determine the fair POV proportionality. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, one day later, this neutrality problem continues. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting POV/NPOV Problem here.

When I arrived on the page there appeared to be two views:

1. The article MUST explicitly say that waterboarding is torture. 2. The article MUST NOT connect waterboarding with torture.

I looked around and came to the sense of a third view: 3. The idea that waterboarding is torture is disputed.

There are a variety of NPOV problems here. Many people advocating either 1 or 2 appear to have a political agenda. But the NPOV Issue I would like to request some insight on is this:

WP:NPOV, particularly WP:ASF states that a Fact is something that is not seriously disputed. And if it is not a "fact" it is an "opinion" or a position.

WP:WEIGHT says that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." But.."Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."

I have found neutral, reliable and verifiable sources that describe the issue as "debated". The view that waterboarding is not torture is a minority position (according to polls) held by about 29% of the population vs about 65% who believe it is torture (approx. 1:2 ratio). I have also found objective, reliable sources that provide the names of notable supporters of the minority position, so it meets the criteria set by Jimbo Wales: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents".

Consequently, I believe the issue over waterboarding is "Seriously Disputed" as described by NPOV Policy. People who disagree with me claim that because the disputing faction is a minority, the dispute is not serious. Instead, it is a WP:FRINGE opinion and accepting their dispute would violate WP:WEIGHT. I feel that a 1:2 ratio with notable adherents gives the minority position sufficient traction that we must conclude the issue is "Seriously Disputed".

As a sort of footnote, I add that I consider the recognition that it is disputed to be a neutral compromising position between the two views that Waterboarding is Torture and that Waterboarding is not Torture. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite where you got that poll from? Counting the references and sources on the talk page I come up with a ratio of 8:1 of "waterboarding is torture" to the opinions of "waterboarding isn't/may not be torture", "it's irrelevant" and "it's uncertain" combined. Quoting Stephan Schultz from the talk page: "The extremely few dissenting voices barely qualify even as a fringe. Claiming anything else is simply politically motivated dissembling. That we have to have this discussion reflects bad on "western civilization" (ref. Gandhi)--Stephan Schulz 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)" - Nothing more to say. Endymi0n (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Legal Action heading contains POV as to the meaning of various decisions rather than summarizing what was or was not decided by them. For example "the fact that the amended complaint was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds speaks volumes for the compact's validity " Dtwarren (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So was the interpretation of a 1993 letter that the casino was unauthorized. You didn't complain then. And from my analysis of the page, it's more a summation of facts rather than a point of view. POV suggests opinion not wholly supported by fact, such as the casino not being authorized under the compact when clearly the DOI said it took NO position but that the compact allows gambling on Indian land. That's POV. But the fact that the pleading was dismissed on smj grounds is an affirmation, not POV, that the compact is valid. If not, then answer why the court dismissed the pleading. The article then summarizes differing arguments from both sides of the table. Seems pretty neutral. [[User:Neutralman1024|Neutralman1024] ([User talk:Neutralman1024|talk]) 08:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very important element of Roman Catholicism that is one of the first points of difference between Christian denominations that are called upon when studying the Christian religion. However this article takes a strong condescending and superior tone against other Christian denominations that don't share its belief. Like the Saddam Hussein comment earlier, it would be a disservice to let an article like this sway people's opinions. I think that if it could be tagged or similar to warn people against its heavy slant until it is fixed it'd give people a bit more scope in their attitude towards it. I recognise that virtually every article should have a tag like this because nothing is going to be wholly neutral. I just think that this is far too one way for it to be looked over, and I think it is a topic of research and discussion that can very easily be misinterpreted by either side of the playing field.

This article is about an event of alleged police brutality. The two officers were white, and the arrested man was black. As you can imagine, there are disputes. Note this change, highlighting the two sides' positions. I have attempted to fix the article to help it adhere to NPOV, but I'm not sure it's right yet. Can someone else look it over? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)  Done_Jame§^ugrono 05:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph concerning the effects 9/11 on consumer privacy attribute them to having created a police state. This statement appears to be a political statement and not relevant to the description of Consumer Privacy.

"After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, privacy took a back-seat to national security in most legislators' minds. Accordingly concerns of consumer privacy in the United States have tended to go unheard as questions of citizen privacy versus the state, and the development of a police state or carceral state, have occupied advocates of strong privacy measures."

Opening Seems to be worth fixing. (Busy at moment, but will return to it tomorrow) --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is more preemptive than anything, but I'd like to get some feedback about a section. There is a World War II film called Valkyrie starring Tom Cruise and being filmed in Germany. Some German parties have protested the involvement of Cruise based on his background as a Scientologist. I have created a section for this coverage at Valkyrie (film)#German response, and I would like some feedback as to whether I have addressed all sides adequately. I imagine that the controversy may heighten by the time the film comes out, so I would like to have a neutral section ready for such incoming traffic. Any comments are welcome! Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems rather balanced so far, although I'd welcome another's insight. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has a good set of viewpoints and comes across overall as neutral. As the film premeir draws closer I will have another look Phillipmorantking (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the mainstream opinion on global warming is that there is sufficient fossil fuel for scarcity of supply to be a restriction, there are a number of experts who do maintain that fossil fuel scarcity could be the controlling factor restricting global warming.

As I understand the wikipedia policy on NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."

I have tried about half a dozen approaches varying for a small section to a very detailed section as given here: [2] to a short change in the introduction paragraph to make it clear that there are contrary views.

Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The uncertainty in this range results from both the difficulty of predicting the volume of future greenhouse gas emissions and uncertainty about climate sensitivity.

Add: However, some experts use models that predict fossil fuel scarcity will be a controlling factor for global warming and suggest either no rise [3] or a rise of a "couple of degrees" ^[1]

Unfortunately, every attempt has been simply deleted without discusssion.

I have even put a { { POV } } at the top of the article as I thought his was the procedure in the wikipedia policy. My friend who has reappeared not knowing about the 3RR rule kept revert the removal of the { { POV }} and ironically it was him who eventually got blocked.

I know global warming is a contentious issue, but that is no reason to squash properly sourced alternative views. I would appreciate some help in resolving this dispute. LordsReform 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't resolve disputes, however, here are some places which you may be looking for:

• WP:RFC
• WP:AN/I
• WP:WQA

These are places to formally and informally resolve disputes. _Jame§^ugrono 06:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A published critic of LaRouche, Dennis King, has opened a Wikipedia account as Dking (talk · contribs). The dispute is over the extent to which the article may become a vehicle for King's theories, particularly his theory that LaRouche, who professes to be an opponent of fascism, is actually a secret fascist himself. King employs a technique of "decoding" which purports to discover hidden meanings in LaRouche's writings, hidden meanings which contradict the stated opinions of LaRouche. There is also a great deal of guilt by association, of the sort that WP:BLP prohibits. I am asking the neutrality project to intervene in particular because the neutrality dispute centers on possible violations of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --Tsunami Butler 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is biased towards nintendo, especially in the milestone section. Not one bad thing is said about wii games, despite obvious flaws, but almost every non wii game is criticized, no matter how petty the reason. PandaSaver (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)PandaSaverPandaSaver[reply]

This article is curently received a contribution with a lot of unverified and biased claim. See history. Esurnir 05:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is infrequently edited by just a handful of editors, and needs a lot more work to be NPOV and independently sourced to be properly encyclopedic. The claims in the article are largely WP:OR statements attached to quotes drawn from directly involved sources. The article has a promotional or advocacy tone as the result of reliance on one-sided, directly involved sources and links named. -Professor marginalia 18:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to contain a lot of PR for Lloyds TSB beyond simple history and description, amounting almost to a publicity page. 81.240.60.195 (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]