Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality

[edit] New Requests

To request attention for a page from the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, please post under this heading with a subheading and explanation of the nature of the request.

[edit] Steps to list a New Request

1 Check the article talk page of the article you think has a NPOV problem. If there is already active discussion of the issue, the problem may resolve itself; if the discussion is stalemated, following the recommendations on dispute resolution may be more appropriate than listing the article here.

===={{article|<<articlenamehere>>}}====

''Put a brief description of the POVconflict or POV problem here.''' ~~~~

3 Be sure to look back at this page for follow-up replies. Project members may request additional information on the issue to better understand the problem you have identified.

• Note: Requests which have been declined or closed longer than a week will be archived. Stale requests will also be archived.

Can't find your request here? It may have been Opened, Declined, or declared Stale. Opened requests can be found further down the page. Declined requests are also further down the page but are archived periodically. Stale requests are archived at Wikipedia:Neutrality Project/Stale.

[edit] Conservatism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

SUMMARY: The entire section on Psychological research is highly questionable and should be removed. Compare/contrast to all other poliitcal philosophies. Also, this section has been augmented repeatedly until it is the longest in the entire article. There has been a two-year long discussion with multiple editors presenting WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE objections, but all attempts by multiple parties to remove bias from the article have been reverted.

Specific NPOV faults are listed in the comment by Crimsonsplat @ 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

FULL COMPLAINT: The section of the article is largely based on material that was not published in peer-review journals. Only Pratto & Sidanius, of all the cited authors, were ever published in the JPSP -- Two articles about "social dominance" over fourteen years ago, and there has been no further peer-reviewed follow-up in that time supporting their research. (Which might indicate these were an abberation?)

The major remaining cite is Altmeyer, for Right Wing Authoritarianism (a loaded phrase itself). His book was published through the University of Manitoba Press. Research indicates the UofM has no special reputatation for psychology, nor a separate college for it (part of their medical college?)

"According to research by noted Psychologist Robert Altemeyer," He's so noted, Psychologist is capitalized.

The remaining cites are all either self-published, in minor journals, or are a grab bag of magazine articles, internet articles, and even a media release. In short, these theories are fringe, not accepted by the mainstream of psychology, and have been given undue weight.

Assertations of the studies are given as factual: "Those that are identified as high RWAs, in addition to having a tendency to be conservative, tend to wish to restrict personal freedoms, are more punitive toward criminals, and tend to hold more orthodox religious views.[48]" (Altmeyer)

"Scores on the RWA scale also correlate highly with measures of ethnocentrism and hostility toward homosexuals. It is important to note that high RWAs tend to show more prejudiced attitudes when their answers on the questionnaires are anonymous." (Altmeyer again)

Additionally, the article contains several examples of weasel words:

"Research has also suggested that conservatives tend to be less flexible in their thinking than liberals." (this is the statement that has a press release for a cite.)

"It is said that conservatives are more likely..."

"According to psychologists, an SDO is an attitude toward intergroup relationships which says that groups are subordinated and of lesser status than others.[54][53]"

NOTE: following the link to Social Dominanc Orientation (SDO) in Wikipedia finds that the supporting article is also highly questionable: "It is a widely applied Social Psychological scale." However, this 'widely applied' scale has exactly THREE cites and one item in the bibliography to support a lengthy discussion of how it applies to Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Conservatism. Two of the 3 cites are the same ones cited in the Conservatism article.

The discussion of the SDO page reads like a manifesto from Daily KOS: "At the same time it's foolish to pretend that we know that MOST GOP members are racist or authoritarian. That's not what the evidence suggests, it suggests that most racist, authoritarian Whites side with the GOP. Then we have the work of thousands of researchers refuted by reference to three papers by the same guy (Jon Jay Ray) who- -I've read the papers- -is a dolt. It's really very tiresome. And of course RWA/SDO sufferers are the premiere Wikipedia vandals. (See Right Wing Authoritarianism "Profound Character Flaws"), so you can be sure they will be climing all over these pages in the future." (unsigned article)

Where is the work of "thousands of researchers" at, if only Altmeyer, Pratto, Sidanius, and a small collection of highly suspect work is the basis for not one, but two articles condeming conservatives as racist homophobic authoritarian

Well, I guess I'm climbing. I am getting rather tired of being accused of "ignoring legitimate studies" when it is becoming more and more evident that a fringe psychology is being used to justify heavily biased articles on Wikipedia.

Full disclosure: I am not making any edits to the objectionable material, not even an NPOV tag, because I am the Secretary of the American Conservative Party, and believe this would be a violation of your COI policy. I ask that you give this complaint the due consideration it deserves. Crimsonsplat (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Declined Requests

An archive of old declined requests is available at Wikipedia:Neutrality Project/Declined.

[edit] Open Requests

This section is designed to coordinate the editing of pages to conform to a neutral tone and point of view as per WP:NPOV guidelines. It is essentially a "to-do" list. Please report any pages in need of Wikipedia Neutrality Project members' attention as a subheading of this section, to the top.

[edit] Kargil War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

User Hot Raja has tagged the Kargil War article as POV-disputed and has not participated in discussion ever since (or prior to tagging even). It would be nice if the dispute can be settled as per Wikipedia policies once and for all so that we are spared revert wars in the future. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 suicide air raid on Colombo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The user, snowwoldD4, writing this article has included notably bias sources (eg daily mirror, Sri Lankan army statements) and includes these sources in a matter of fact voice rather than as opinions while omitting and preventing the addition of opposing opinions. The user also makes disputed unproved and unreasonable claims that the attack was resembling 9/11 when in actuality it is similar to the military attacks by the Japanese kamikaze figthers in WWII. '

The above statement was made by user:Marinecore88 whose edits [[1]] show that he is a SPA with numerous warnings trying to push his own POV violating WP:BLP etc on several occasions.Kerr avon (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Both planes were packed with 250kg's of high explosives and were meant to be flown directly into the army headquarters and the ariforce base trying to wipte them both out. Hence the similarity with 9/11, both had planes with high explosive power driven into buildings to try to bring them down.Kerr avon (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Central Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article says there is a "firestorm of controversy" about the use of carriage horses. I don't think it's as urgent or powerful as all that. Isn't it just a few people handing out flyers once in a while? Also, we need to clarify whether they are trying to improve conditions for horses (see animal welfare) so they can continue to be used - or whether the intent of the campaign is to ban them altogther, no matter how well treated they are (on the animal rights grounds that human beings should never use animals for entertainment, transportation or food. Uncle Ed (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We do need to remember though that sometimes all it takes is a few people handing out flyers and a reporter looking for a big story to turn it into a media circus. Perhaps some looking into news sources from there could be helpful. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The articles contains very strong phrasing and a lot in incriminatory quotes without any reference citing. I know the organization is worthy of a lot of finger pointing (in fact I wrote much of the original article), but this may be bit too non-neutral. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Moonlite yourfss

Stale.

[edit] Britches (monkey) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is an article with what seems to me as a clear extremist POV --- for example, it documents an event disrupting laboratory experiments, but is named after one particularly photo-opportune animal. I noticed this article after it was linked to the Macaque page, which is otherwise largely a list of species of macaques, and I have been involved in discussing (but not editing) it for some time.

The article does have one paragraph documenting opposing view points on the laboratory assault and the condition of the animals, so it is not completely a one-sided work of activism. However, this does not mean it is actually neutral. I have tried adding a check POV tag twice, but both times it was quickly deleted.

I would like advice about not only this article in particular, but the level of activism that is acceptable on Wikipedia in general. Clearly the very choice of what (and whom) we document is political and I don't personally think that should be avoided. At the same time, I want to understand the difference between propaganda and a good article.--Jaibe 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Coming from someone who is rather indifferent to animal rights, I do not see any "clear extremist POV" here. The article documents a particular monkey that was a part of an odd experiment. The wording of the article gives me no indication of whether this was "good" or "bad". The only POV issue I can see is the lack information regarding the researchers and the experiment the monkey was involved in; what was the goals of the experiment? why was the experiment carried out the way it was? That is just a matter of finding sources to flesh out more details. —Mitaphane _?|! 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• In my opinion, this article inherently may have undue weight/POV and WP:SOAPBOX issues. The article comes across as promoting a "poster child" of a particular issues group (whether the group is extremist is besides the point here). An article about particular kinds of animal experimentation of this sort (which are common, not odd) - or maybe about a particular controversy - would be more appropriate and more capable of neutrality. Focusing on a "poster child" monkey seems undue unless the monkey gained a substantial amount of third-party celebrity (I don't see any evidence of this). I don't see this article as something within the scope of this project however (which is focussed on fixing unbalanced content with the assumption that the article subject itself is sound). I suggest that the petitioner research the sources used for the article (do they actually mention the specific subject discussed? - sometimes references listed in articles actually don't or do so in a minimal way. If the specific subject is discussed, what is context and use, and do they support a potentially neutral and encyclopedic notable form of this article? Are the sources used one-sided? Are they authoritative?) After this the petitioner should consider if they want to propose a merger or move for the article, or if they wish to nominate the article for deletion on WP:SOAPBOX/notability grounds Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I now see this may be the wrong place to ask this question, but one of my problems with the article is the fact that the references are just activist videos & books on a specialist vegetarian/animal rights press. I am trying to persuade the people who have these books to actually cite the original sources of the government reports they claim these books document. Is that kind of referencing grounds for a merge or deletion?--Jaibe 22:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Analysis I'm a member of this project, and I agree that the article is one-sided. It presents almost exclusively the viewpoint of experimentation opponents. It uses loaded language: removed instead of "stolen", raid instead of theft (or trespass).

• Suggestion Identify the POV of the side which currently dominates. Do they oppose the use of all baby monkeys in research, or was this case simply a violation of acceptable standards? Did the thieves believe that animals should have the same rights as human beings?
• Another suggestion Call a spade a spade. If they "removed" property that does not belong to them, then they ar thieves. Unless there is a dispute about this. In which case, we need to identify the sides which dispute the "rescue" vs. "theft" aspect. I daresay the lab called it theft. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Superfluous "Pseudoscientific"?

Hi, an interesting dispute arose (I raised the issue) surrounding the use of "pseudoscientific" as a modifier for "intelligent design" on the PZ Myers page. The discussion is here I'd like to request an outside viewpoint. Thanks, Gabrielthursday 08:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a wording change from "As well as criticizing the pseudoscientific claims of intelligent design proponents and others" to perhaps "As well as offering criticisms of Intelligent Design, notably asserting that its claims are psuedoscientific." It would focus the article on Meyer's views and not inadvertently offer a biased or dysphemismtic qualifier. If Meyers criticisms include the concept of pseudoscientific then it would be appropriate to note that.

D. M. Arney, M.A. 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal immigration to the United States

This article is very heavily biased towards the pro-illegal alien perspective. I am trying to document all examples in the talk page, but have limited free time which I can give to do so. What the article (and related articles as well) really needs is more people who can provide NPOV.-Psychohistorian 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closed Requests

When requests have been addressed, they are archived at Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project/closed. This is almost always without prejudice - you can usually open a request if bias is reintroduced to the page.

[edit] Participants

[edit] Review Team

To join the Wikiproject, add your name to the list:

• Alloranleon (talk • contribs • logs)
• Auawise (talk • contribs • logs)
• Carbonrodney (talk • contribs • logs)
• Cocoaguy (talk • contribs • logs)
• DanCBJMS (talk • contribs • logs)
• Ed Poor (talk • contribs • logs) aka "Uncle Ed"
• Egfrank (talk • contribs • logs)
• FimusTauri (talk • contribs • logs)
• FT2 (talk • contribs • logs)
• Garycompugeek (talk • contribs • logs)
• Grinder0-0 (talk • contribs • logs)
• Jamessugrono (talk • contribs • logs) - More information here.
• Ketsuekigata (talk • contribs • logs)
• LOOKIE MILK! (talk • contribs • logs)
• Peter M Dodge (talk • contribs • logs)
• Phillipmorantking (talk • contribs • logs)
• Pinkadelica (talk • contribs • logs)
• RyRy (talk • contribs • logs)
• Snowfreak91287 (talk • contribs • logs)
• TableManners (talk • contribs • logs)
• Watchdog07 (talk • contribs • logs)
• Wildhartlivie (talk • contribs • logs)

[edit] Inactive Members

Inactive members will be listed here in chronological order, latest to oldest. If this list reaches 20, the last five people will be notified then removed from here.

You may also add yourself to the inactive members list - do this if you are not going to contribute for a while. Simply add {{User3|<your username here>}} to a bulleted point (using *) at the bottom of the list.

• Xiutwel (talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

{{User wikipedia-neutrality}}

This user is a supporter of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project.

[edit] Tools

[edit] Templates

A few templates to aid in maintaing Wikipedia's integrity:

• Template:POV, {{POV}} - To mark general NPOV disputes.
• User:Wizardry Dragon/Templates/Project NPOVWarning (experimental) - Use when you want other WNP members to join discussion and improvement of the article. Please remember to add a note on our talk page and include your rationale for disputing the article.
• Template:POV-check, or {{POV-check}} serves to request a neutrality review. We shouldn't use this template, but rather check the articles carrying it and either report neutrality issues here or remove the template.
• See the list of dispute-related templates for more specific situations.

[edit] Suggestions for Reviewers

First, be sure you are well versed in the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines. Second, make sure you can be pretty active. Picking an article a week would be good. We will run activity checks every two or three months. Then there are a few things you can do:

• Check pages in Category:NPOV disputes, which contains articles nominated for POV check, where it is unsure whether they are neutral. Help to resolve issues or remove {{POV check}} template if there are no significant NPOV violations.
• Category:NPOV disputes is a broader list of articles with {{POV}} template, generally with ongoing discussions. Sometimes another opinion can help resolve the problem, and sometimes correction will help. If there is no dispute, the template should be removed, according to its guidelines.
• Keep an eye on the new pages list to ensure that new articles are presented in a objective matter. Please also remember - don't bite the newbies.
• Watch pages where you note particular problems (vandalism, edit wars, etc.) to ensure they follow NPOV guidelines.
• Try to check some of the articles in Wikipedia:Neutrality Project/Stale.

Do not list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion in relation to NPOV guidelines. Add appropriate cleanup templates or NPOV warnings instead. An article that is blatantly POV should usually be the subject of cleanup, not deletion. If it is spam, then please give the community a chance to construct a good article for it, or at least post the page to the WNP talk page to bring the page to the attention of editors here to gain some consensus and feedback as to what should be done about the page.

[edit] Regarding New Requests

When opening new requests, please keep a few things in mind:

• Please use indicators. Yes, some people find them obnoxious, but it makes the intent of your posting clear.
• Please do not open new requests when there is ongoing Dispute Resolution on the article. We don't want to step on toes here, and that's a big way we can do so.
• Talk first, act after. Requests posted here are often hot topics where the consensus is not clear. Discussion can help you feel out where the problems are.

[edit] Related Articles

• Wikipedia NPOV Guidelines
• Wikipedia Recent Changes Patrol
• Public WikiProject Proposition for the Wikipedia Neutrality Project