Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute

message: Recently I've come across a couple of pages which link to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, but which don't have any discussion of what the disputed points are; the most recent one is Six-Day War. An anonymous user simple added the NPOV dispute statement without editing the article in any other way or leaving any note on the talk page. How are we supposed to NPOV a page if the party who disagrees doesn't give any indication as to what the problem is? I think that there should be a note on Wikipedia:NPOV dispute which tells people who add a link to that page that they need to also add a note concerning the article's NPOV problems on the talk page if it's not already obvious from the talk page (I guess I can add that). Second, what can be done about the article itself? If no one explains the article's NPOV problems (I added a note on the talk page), can we just delete the note about the NPOV dispute? -- AdamRaizen 02:16, 2003 Aug 10 (UTC)
:IMHO that's really not what NPOV dispute labels are for. They indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents is disputed and volatile. I don't think you should even bother challenging it and waiting for a response -- if the person who added the warning didn't explain why, after a reasonable amount of time, just remove it. You should probably check the talk page history to make sure it hasn't been maliciously blanked. -- Tim Starling
: You might also want to skim-read the page to see if there's anything obviously biased that should be fixed. Martin 10:11, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptic NPOV Disputes 

message: I believe that the current version of the 12th Street Riot article, which is currently linked to the NPOV dispute page seems okay.
How do I go about suggesting that an article currently under NPOV dispute be removed from that list/have the notices removed?  I've noted my opinion on the article's talk page with a summary to that effect, so it's in recent changes, and, obviously, here.  
Is there a different mechanism for asking people to take a look and comment/vote on removing articles from the NPOV dispute list that I haven't found yet?  If there isn't, should there be?  I'm thinking of something similar to the brilliant prose candidates page.  Thalia/Karen 03:56, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
: I don't think there is a policy. I would make sure that you really believe the article is in NPOV. Then, what you can do is: first leave a note in the talk page saying that you believe the NPOV notice is no longer needed, wait a while and then remove it. If someone believes otherwise they will come and put it back in. Dori | Talk 18:08, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, Dori.  Any thoughts on whether it would be useful to have a page listing candidates for removal from NPOV dispute status?  If there were such a thing, would you (or anyone else who's reading this) use it?  I'm willing to put one together; I just don't want to do it if no one else thinks it would be worthwhile.  Thalia/Karen 21:18, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
: Karen, I don't know if it would be useful to have such a page. I am more likely to put an NPOV notice than to remove one. Perhaps you could just list such topics at Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. Dori | Talk 23:15, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
When you believe the neutrality of an article is no longer disputed, remove the dispute notice. See also wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute, IIRC. Martin 23:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I like starting these kinda articles with "Hi! You've probably come here from an article suffering from a NPOV dispute, that is..." Martin 18:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing NPOV dispute notices 

message: When is it an NPOV dispute, and when is it really just someone doesn't know their facts?  
For example, there was recently a debate on the Talk:Astronomy page over the source of the craters on the Moon.  Mainstream scientists (astronomers) agree they're caused by impacts of meteors, however there are other theories put forth by minority groups.  (One of these conflicting theories involves some form of plasma or electrical discharge.)  These groups are considered fringe and non-scientific and WRONG by the scientists and science educators.  The holders of the alternate beliefs consider the mainstream scientists and educators to be propagating unproven myths that are WRONG. cattalioyyujky 
On the Astronomy page this dispute was solved by removing all references to the source of the craters, satisfying the alternate belief holder, at which point the argument died out.  Was this the proper way of handling the debate?  If not, what would have been more appropriate?  --zandperl 04:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO the best answer is citations, and thus also  Verifiability. IMO NPOV is found when all verifiable POV's are expressed. I don't think its helpful to make unverified generalizations like "most housewives prefer borax" or "most scientists disblieve in weird blasts of plasma creating craters on the moon" when we don't have the applicable surveys to back such statements up. On the other hand, when there are two citations presented, and one is from "XYZ well known scientific journal", and the other is from "ABC random wacko alternative web page" I do think its acceptable to point of the credentials of the former, as well as those of the latter ;). And of course original research is not allowed. In summary, citations and Verifiability are the way to go, and since Wiki is not paper, we have plenty of room for every verifiable POV/interpretation of the data. I would personally love to see a fair accounting of every verifiable fringe interpretation availabe in every article (maybe there would even be enough info to justify its own section?), whats most important is the ability for the reader to learn more, to have access to as much NPOV information as possible. NPOV does not mean a lack of diversity of thought. Sam Spade 07:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV vs. facts

message: I'm more than a bit puzzled by the behaviour, to tag an article with  Template:NPOV and then "walk away", don't work on NPOVing the article. Or even more strange, claiming "X is perfectly untrue" in the discussion, but don't removing "X" from the article, even when no objections are seen. Should I remove "X" then, even if I know zilch about the question? --Pjacobi 11:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:NPOV listing and "walking away" 

message: Obsidi has been indefinitely blocked. See User talk:Obsidi#Blocked and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MjolnirPants. I am posting this notice so that other editors won't wonder why they are getting no response from Obsidi to questions they ask. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Great example of how the behavioral system works  here.....not done correctly all the time....but good call here.--Moxy (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsidi indefinitely blocked 

message: I removed this:  as a moralizing and sanctimonious claim about what is and is not civil which has not been the subject of arbcom rulings or other adjudications of civility on this site as far as I can tell. It also does not outline what practices happen in actuality and so really shouldn't have been here. I also see this wording was inserted by someone who was eventually blocked for POV-pushing. jps (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moralizing that is not in-line with how Wikipedia operates 

message: Today, I observed that  removed an explanation from the article Supayalat, citing a copyright violation. Upon reviewing the content, I found it to be closely paraphrased. I then rewrote the entire content and utilized tools like Earwig to check for copyright violations, resulting in zero likely violations. While Wikipedia permits rewriting and paraphrasing, Diannaa again removed my content, alleging close paraphrasing. I find it challenging to accept these actions, perceiving them as an abuse of administrative power and bullying.
Prior to this incident, I had disagreements with Diannaa. However, I never anticipated the use of admin privileges for personal vendettas. I believe my version complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and does not violate any rules. If my version were indeed in violation, I would rectify it. I vehemently deny any wrongdoing and assert that my contributions align with Wikipedia's standards.
Wikipedia allows rewriting and paraphrasing, provided it does not closely mimic the original source. I am open to constructive criticism and understand the importance of avoiding copyright violations. If concerns exist about the closeness of my rephrasing, I am willing to address them.
I seek a fair review of my version to determine if any rule violations exist. I am committed to upholding Wikipedia's integrity and abiding by its policies. I request justice in this matter and urge a careful examination. Additionally, I believe that Diannaa's actions may warrant a reconsideration of their admin status, as there have been instances of perceived bullying towards multiple editors, creating a disruptive environment. 80.216.151.223 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diannaa over limit