Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64

Conflict of Interest regarding User:Bomberswarm2

This has been dropped There appears to be nothing left to discuss here. Please revert if you disagree. It is suggested that the user Bomberswarm2 uses the edit summary more often, preferably on 70% or more of their edits. --Endercase (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bomberswarm2 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

I've noticed that this user has a conflict of interest bias when it comes to editing articles related to American politics. This user has added information to articles about presidential elections that could be seen as non-NPOV, slanting towards Republican and against Democrat. A quick trip to the user's page shows that it solely consists of userboxes expressing support for Donald J. Trump, as well as a userbox opposing Washington D.C. statehood. This user has also nominated the WP:AUC for deletion, stating 'if there is no response in 5 minutes then this WikiProject will be deleted'. The numerous edits to articles relating to presidential elections, as well as Bernie Sanders, lead me to believe this user has a conflict of interest bias, editing articles to appear in favor of Republican politicians, AKA a bias. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Good. Not relevant to anything since all my edits are NPOV Bomberswarm2 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not relevant to this noticeboard. Please see the instructions above. This board is for discussing POV edits, not the political leanings of any particular editor. I can't find the diff you are referring to a nomination of deletion, please provide it. InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
insertcleverphrasehere - 1 - any other diffs required cam be supplied. As for the relevance, I went to WP:COIN and under 'are you in the right place?' it states that discussions relating to editors with possible biases should be brought here. I should probably use different wording, so I'll change that now. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a pretty stupid edit, I'll agree. While totally inappropriate, it doesn't appear to be 'POV' to me. InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
It is POV if UNSC Luke 1021 can provide specific examples of POV edits "editing articles to appear in favor of Republican politicians". The use of Bomberswarm2's personal political view "flair" as an example of bias in this is also POV and inappropriate. Evidence is really the only thing that isn't POV. Endercase (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: - I have an example here (where he also had somewhat of a personal attack but I ignored that, here, here, here (where he adds false information to make Trump look better), here, (where he removes obviously relevant information that portrays Trump in a bad light and here just to name a few. Between this and the excess of Trump userboxes on his page it is obvious there is a bias or possible conflict of interest here. If you need me to explain any or find more I'd be happy to. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomberswarm2/Archive. He basically admits to sockpuppetry to 'avoid political persecution', which was an issue on his other account. I think if your political views are such a big part of your editing that you need to sockpuppet to avoid persecution then you probably have a bias or you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Also, see this diff, where he writes about hypothetical scenarios in which the Democrats will definitely lose the popular vote if California were to vote Republican. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The only reason I didn't open this case at the COI board was because some instructions told me to come here for biases. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
It is my POV that those were pretty minor edits in low-traffic articles. Mentioning his "flair" is really off-topic, and demonstrates a bias on your own part. In general, Wikipedia has a left leaning swing: Breitbart is banned as a source while CNN is not. I feel like that should be fixed. I really feel like if they are trying to sway public opinion and POV with those edits they are doing a really poor job. Haven't they done something really out there? The account was punished for its sockpuppetry and it even owned up to it punishing it again is kinda overkill. I'd really like to hear from Bomberswarm2 as well. I feel like this sort of thing is causing the chilling effect in Wikipedia. To be honest the username Bomberswarm2 in and of itself suggests Sockpuppet but it could also mean that the user has Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) which would explain their non-interaction and odd behavior. I'm not sure what to do here. I don't really see the problem. I mean WP:Broke right? Like, who really cares? Should we moderate modern politics the same way we moderate history or news? Why shouldn't people edit things like that? Let each thread moderate itself. The edits all get saved and logged anyway. It's not like they can actually delete anything anyways. I really wish we could save all user interactions, a constant save if you will, but only on talk pages, it would add billions in value. The history is saved and openly visible. WP:Broke is pretty clear. I just don't care about this. Why do anything in these cases? I mean if I'm any kinda editor I'm a WP:Broke editor. I really feel like that should be one of the pillars. I don't like that if Bomberswarm2 is sometimes removing referenced information and the NPV should be enacted there with a few discussions on each page and it looks like it was. History will be recorded as is the point of any good encyclopedia. We will not tolerate a dark age, and we shall not be burned down. Anyway, what does Bomberswarm2 have to say about it? Endercase (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
tldr. Keri (t · c) 01:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess, we shouldn't do anything. Thanks for pointing that out Keri. Endercase (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: - Not to take away from the other parts of your explanation, but isn't it somewhat offensive to say that Bomberswarm2 has ASD? I mean we've all been on the Internet and know how it's used in many situations to mean a derogatory term to represent something that is stupid, foolish or 'retarded' (which I am not trying to use in a bad sense), as it is commonly used on the the Internet. I'm not sure about BS2 but I spend a fair share of time on Reddit and such sites and if somebody said I could have autism I'd be kind of offended.
I'm not trying to draw attention away from the original issue or your argument because I am somewhat in the wrong; I thought it was very good and had some points I never realized. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say the user had it, I'm not a doctor, although for all you really know I could be. I just said that the user might have it, I know I sure have it. Sorry if I offend anyone. Although, I feel like calling a "disorder" a derogatory term is actually kinda offensive. Anyway, if the user in question would like to say anything we would all be able to see it. Endercase (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not saying it's a derogatory term in itself; I'm just saying that in my experience, on my time on the Internet, I have seen many instances of terms like 'autistic' being used in a derogatory sense, and many other people have as well. Through this, I just wanted to point out that although you meant this statement with good faith, it could be seen as derogatory based on one's previous experiences on the Internet, especially places like 4chan and Reddit. If Bomberswarm2 cares to say anything, they can. They've been mostly silent in this discussion and some feedback would be nice. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I dilberatly made another account to avoid political persicution of ultra-liberal Wikipiedia, and now I'm being politically persecuted here for no reason in the improper forum. And of course I receive nothing more than a typical Democrat attack calling me mentally retarted, an attack with no substance because they are losing the argument. I can garuntee if my profile was filled with pro-Hillary information you wouldn't have posted this. Another attack on free speech by the alt-left. P.S all my edits are NPOV. Even if some aren't, it is not even close to the amount of NPOV pro-Hillary edits on pages about the election.
Adittionally as noted in the first reply this shouldn't exist anywhere, and serves as nothing but slander so the entire thing should be deleted.

Bomberswarm2 (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Things on Wikipedia can't actually be deleted as far as I know. It will be archived though when someone does that. I wouldn't go so far as to call it slander. We are all equal peers, right? Anyway, this should blow over soon. I'm not sure how UNSC Luke 1021 feels about dropping the charges but from what I've seen we shouldn't do anything. just try not to attack their free speech too. Endercase (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: - I'd be ok with closing the case. The argument you brought was convincing and the points you made were good and fine. I guess I went a little bit overboard but it isn't really a big deal in the long run because there isn't really any lasting damage. I just ask of @Bomberswarm2: to be a little bit more... decisive with the words you use. I know that you are upset about this but this is not inherently about politics but rather about NPOV. If you had a user page full of Hillary-Kaine userboxes and edited in a way that I saw as a leftist bias, I would still bring this to NPOVN. I don't care what political party you are so long as it doesn't interfere with your Wikipedia editing. I thought that you could possibly have been writing in a POV/biased way, so I brought it here to evaluate with fellow editors in a civilized discussion. Please note that I did not call you mentally retarded, and actually argued againt the use of the term 'autistic' because I don't want to offend anybody. This is not a personal attack on you in any way or form, and I only brought up certain things because I had to in this situation in order to generate a discussion. Hopefully you go your own way and continue to edit to minimize bias towards any political group. (P.S., I'm not a Hillary supporter; I'm actually an independent who supports the ideas of Bernie Sanders. I hate Clinton just a tiny bit less than I hate Trump.) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I’m glad you thought I was helpful. I don’t think anyone meant to convey that they thought you were a lesser peer Bomberswarm2. Thank you for making sure that all POV are shown here while attempting to maintain NPOV. Try to not “remove” referenced information without talking about it. Thank you talk for following protocol and bringing this here instead of raging. It sounds like both of you really appreciate NPOV even if you both have very different political views. I hope you both can work together in the future to insure honest information is continued to be shared by Wikipedia. Remember, all peers are equal and if someone posts something they probably believe what they are saying. Ask them what their reasons are before removing non-inflammatory or possibly correct information (because it gets saved anyway). Leave a Citation needed tag and open up a discussion. Remember, Wikipedia doesn’t have rules we have traditions and policies based on consensus. If you disagree with something be WP:Bold but not WP:Reckless also If it ain't broke, don't fix it but also if it is problem try to fix it. Endercase (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@UNSC Luke 1021: So I've been looking at this a bit more. There may be some COI issues but COI is very difficult to prove. As such my suggestion is that Bomberswarm2 really needs to start using more descriptive edit summaries. Sometimes they will change the percentages in locations [without providing a source] (could be they are right) or will [add politically charged words] to non-political articles. Yet, they also seem to have a vast depth of political knowledge and some more esoteric entertainment details. They [can] [be seen] [as removing bias] more often than adding it, as well as [vandalism]. Although, [some of their edits] [are a bit out there] (even if cited) these are generally corrected in short order. My main request would be that they start using more descriptive edit summaries more regularly. Endercase (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: - Yeah, I saw a comment they made on the WP:TRUMP project saying that he doesn't care what the rules say and he will actively endorse Trump and Pence for 2020 or some other nonsense. I didn't want to bring it up because I came upon it by chance and didn't want to look like I was stalking or NPAing. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@UNSC Luke 1021: None of my diffs work? (head-desk). I think the main solution is the use of the edit summary, for now anyway. I saw that too, but at the same time I'd rather have an honest editor than one that is lying to everyone. Endercase (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany

A disagreement has arisen as to the use of the phrase "the Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany". I consider it a neutral descriptor, no different to saying Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom". The other editor, however, disagrees.

The discussion has not resulted in reaching consensus. It can be found here:

I would appreciate some input on this matter. I've notified the other editor here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it, though "Luftwaffe during World War II" (the current wording), is just as good. InsertCleverPhraseHere 00:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I've welcomed the editor in question (as a fresh set of eyes) to elaborate more than their "personal opinion" edit summary comments to explain more in depth on the talk page. Although, I must agree with Insertcleverphrasehere in their assessment; and can see where adding "Nazi Germany" may seem excessive. I mean, was there really a Luftwaffe of Canada? Maineartists (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Maineartists: Please see another discussion above: there was apparently a "Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr" as well. :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Pardon my ignorance. We learn something every day! Maineartists (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
In keeping with WP:ARTCON, we should either always use "Luftwaffe" for the air force of 1935-1945 Germany or have to distinguish between them with "Luftwaffe of {X}". To be fully compliant, would need to be consistent rules for the 1935-1945 Nazi era organization, for the 1956-1991 FRG era organization, the 1956-1990 GDR era organization, and (finally) the 1991-current reunified FRG era organization. This would also be ludicrously involved and require a huge number of edits to implement. It is much simpler, and in compliance with WP:EN and WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME, to simply use "Luftwaffe" (without qualification) only for the pre-1945 organization and "{East}/{West} German Air Force" for all the post-1956 organizations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a mouthful, and reads like something you'd see in a high school paper. It also suggests that the reader is sure there was another type of Luftwaffe in the 1930s and 40s.
I welcome the sane comments from @Eggishorn:. Dapi89 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
"[t]he Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany", although correct, does seem to me to be verbose. "Luftwaffe during World War II" would also be correct, IF one is talking about it during the war years; as is noted the Luftwaffe officially started in 1935. So it can depend on the context. For most cases just stating "the Luftwaffe" should be sufficient after the timeframe has been established (context) for the years 1935-1945. Kierzek (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for their comments. This makes sense. Although I was surprised to hear comments about a mouthful from an editor who insisted that "the Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr" was correct and proper terminology for the German Air Force (diff). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I was in favour of only Bundesluftwaffe and objected to it's removal. No need for dishonesty. Dapi89 (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
We ought to choose, if we have a choice, the least emotionally loaded and most precise and informative term available. Of the terms proposed, I favor "Luftwaffe (1935-1945)". That's as unemotional, informative and precise as we're likely to get. I don't think anyone inside or outside Germany is likely to forget that under the rule of Adolf Hitler, the Luftwaffe was largely an instrument of the Nazi Party, to the extent their aircraft bore the Nazi swastika as a large symbol painted on them. I just distrust appeals to emotion in reference material like encyclopedias, which this is. loupgarous (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Duprees

I could use some eyes on this article. Allegedly the name rights for the original group have been acquired by a "successor" band, and various editors with a probable COI have tried to add as much information as possible about the more recent band. Initially I removed all edits as promotional and unsourced, but have now rephrased and kept a short section with an independent source about the modern-day group (both incarnations share some common history, although most main members of the original group are dead). See also Talk:The Duprees for a summary of the concerns. I do hope the rephrased shorter version is an improvement, but would appreciate any additional advice about how to handle such a situation. GermanJoe (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Violation of fair and balanced policy

Please restore my sourced revision on the Second Sight article that seeks to balance out a blatantly unbalanced article. It is not a question of the validity of Second Sight. It is merely a question of balancing out the responses to one researcher's opinion of it. An entry this biased serves neither the skeptical or the credulous. And it most definitely violates Wikipedia's non-negotiable policy to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Compare selected revisions (cur | prev) 23:39, 16 March 2017‎ Guy Macon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,201 bytes) (-927)‎ . . (Removed edit by banned editor Jamenta) (undo)

The Jamenta thing is a complete canard as has been discussed on the Administrator's Page. I will be logging on with my actual name so I can I can effectively challenge this concerted attempt to preserve a biased portrait of Myers.17:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC) (talk)

That article is a hot mess and I'm having a hard time seeing why it even exists. The only source that even attempts to differentiate it from other fringe topics like ESP is a wikisource link to a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article from which it borrows sentences almost verbatim. The other couple sources that sort of imply it's a significant topic unto itself are equally bad. The whole article should be nuked. If there an any actually good sources that discuss Second Sight as a notable topic they belong in a history section of the appropriate paranormal subject article. Oh, and Jamenta, if you're going to talk about other editors it's a courtesy to at least ping them. I'll ping Guy Macon for you. Capeo (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not Jamenta. I did ping Mr. Macon, or at least thought I did. I agree that the article is a mess. It would be fine to nuke it. But as long as it lives, can you please weigh in on whether you feel the pileup of Myers detractors serves Wikipedia's NPOV when there are more than one renowned supporters? (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

This is already under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unable to edit because of misidentification with a blocked user. I advise responding there and ignoring this WP:FORUMSHOP attempt. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: We don't have a "fair and balanced" policy. Quite the opposite, actually, especially when dealing with fringe topics. So far as Wikipedia is concerned, parapsychology is bunkum, its supporters are not reliable sources, and we need not give them unwarranted validity to create an artificial balance. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Here, here. As seen on the AN/I thread, the evidence is strong that this IP is Jamenta, and, in any case, the IP has admitted to creating sock accounts. This discussion should be closed as both untenable (per Ian.thomson's comment above) and as probable block evasion from the IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for your candor. Your conclusion that Wikipedia promotes a non-NPOV only (NNPOV?) for historical figures associated with parapsychology will likely prove useful on the AN/I thread underway now, or a new thread in the near future. (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no dog (or even dog tick) in this fight, but I really dislike seeing blatant mischaracterizations of good-faith efforts to assist. You made up your own internal version of NPOV and when you were called on it twisted that into something no-one has said. There is nothing above that says that NPOV does not apply to parapsychology. In point of fact, @Ian.thomson: points out how NPOV is specifically intended to avoid false balance. This is not Fox News. There is no "fair and balanced" policy to violate. By the way, if the "Jamenta thing" was a "complete canard" as you say, why haven't you logged on with your actual name as you said you would? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If you consider parapsychology "bunkum" and its supporters "not reliable sources" it is difficult to understand how you can maintain an NPOV toward historical figures who kept an open mind about it. I have no interest in initiating any articles related to parapsychology. I am only interested in keeping the record accurate and balanced on a period of history I have spent my life writing and publishing about. I will be signing on with a named user account to avoid any further misidentification with a public computer. I will use an anonymous name at first, until I feel confident that the higher level Administrators can handle the worst excesses directed toward contributors deemed by some Editors to be supporting "bunkum." The Jamenta nonsense is just nonsense to me as long as I remain anonymous, and as long as it is no longer allowed as a rationale or excuse to block my contributions. But it becomes libel if it persists with my real identity. And I am definitely not looking to engage that. If, however, any high-up good faith Administrator, like at least one who has emerged on the ANI forum, requests to know my actual identity, I will be happy to reveal it to them. (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Short version - you dont understand NPOV. Slightly longer version - Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources have to say on a subject in a neutral manner. This means we neutrally present what the accepted reliable sources say without bias. This does not mean all articles have to be 'neutral' and represent all sides, nor even be absent of bias. Especially in the fringe area where the majority of supporters of 'fringe lunacy subject X' will be complete rubbish and unreliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I will need a longer version still to make sense of what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps a specific example might clarify. If a book, such as Myers' "Phantasms of the Living," is presented as being universally scorned by a variety of "scholars," of varying degrees of obscurity and relevant authority, is it not a proper understanding and application of NPOV to add a positive response by a well-regarded authority? In or out? Which option, as the previous Editor might ask, would more resemble the tactics of Fox News? (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone thinks the Earth is flat, we do not present both sides of the "flat vs round" debate as if there were two equally respectable positions. The consensus among reliable sources is that the Earth is roughly a sphere, and of the sources that contend the Earth is flat, they are either wholly unreliable or entirely outdated. Therefore we do not create a false sense of balance, but present the facts, as facts, as they are contained in reliable sources. This may hardly be "fair" to flat-Earthers, but we're not here to be fair; we're here to write an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 18:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Timothy. I agree that there are not 2 equally respectable positions when it comes to the question of is the earth flat or round. But since there is also not a single respected authority—professor, scientist, Nobel Laureate, etc. —who holds that position, your comparison breaks down precisely at the point of contention. (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Alkaline diet and "false belief"

There is an extended debate going on at Talk:Alkaline diet#Lead sentence about the usage of the term "false belief" to describe the topic. While it has degraded somewhat into incivility, the arguments on either side boil down to:

  • The term "false belief" is a valid paraphrase of reliable source that describes the diet as "more fiction than fact" and because facts are inherently neutral, describing the subject as a "false belief" is neutral and not a value judgment.
  • Saying "X is a false belief", regardless of the subject, violates WP:LABEL by asserting a value judgment in Wikipedia's narrative voice, the term isn't a valid paraphrasing of sources, and there are better ways to phrase the lead paragraph in a show, don't tell manner that doesn't resort to labeling.

While there is a slight majority of supporters of using the term "false belief", WP:NPOV states quite clearly that the policy is not subject to or overridden by consensus. There just isn't a consensus on whether the policy is being followed. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

'false belief' seems like an NPOV vio to me. Using 'belief' alone is perfectly accurate and more easily satisfies NPOV. I mean, the next sentence says "Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the benefits of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals." How are we not making it clear to the reader that the claim isn't credible? InsertCleverPhraseHere 00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Nor is consensus determined by a simple majority. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to add to the list of arguments put forth against using "false belief" at Talk:Alkaline diet#Lead sentence that false is imprecise, having multiple meanings that can cloud the issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The post at RSN was to ask about the reliability of several sources used in the lede (not the same thing as brought up here, as it isn't related to the question of POV issues with 'false'), and one of the posts at FT/N was a notification about said RSN discussion. This post does seem a bit forumshopy though; if Anachronist wanted input from people from this board he should have simply put a note here informing them of the topic at FT/N or on the talk page and directed input there. It isn't clear from the above post weather Anachronist wanted a discussion here, or just to direct discussion to the talk page, and for future reference this should be made much more clear. Suggest close as well. InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
My point was to direct parties interested in the NPOV policy to the Talk:Alkaline diet page. That's hardly forum shopping. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Stolen Generations

I am inviting opinions on a NPOV issue in the Stolen Generations article. [1]

The section titled “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” has been edited to remove ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view. It retains some minor non-historical arguments/information but all arguments, information or explanations from one side of the historical debate have been repeatedly edited out.

It appears from the page history that over a fairly long period of time, numerous editors have attempted to introduce or reintroduce some of it into the article. Every time some of the omitted material has been added or returned it has been removed based on claims that removing one side of the debate ‘improves’ the NPOV, makes it ‘balanced’ or that leaving any of the opposing historical arguments in the article would give those arguments ‘undue weight’.

Apparently for an article on a controversial issue to have a NPOV, only one side of the debate may be represented in it?? I’m not the most experienced editor but that doesn’t seem right. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have left messages on the involved editors' talk pages notifying them of this. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I just don't think that a view which dosen't represent historiographical consensus should be given a platform similar to (or even in excess of) to the position that does. El_C 03:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Ditto. The position being postulated for overemphasis is, in fact, a-historical and does not reflect the mainstream view. A blow-by-blow account of a single historian's refutation POV is WP:UNDUE and contravenes WP:BALASP. The historian in question is already well represented in the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I would ask objective editors to review the article and judge for yourselves just how much representation of the alternate POV remains in the article after a sustained campaign to remove it. There are a very limited number of historians who have published work covering the Stolen Generations issue, it is a 'niche' historical issue which is perhaps why there are so few involved editors on Wikipedia thus allowing a small number to take control of the article and push the POV that they prefer. There is quite a lot of published work out there from two historians that I am aware of, at least one anthropologist who has addressed the issue directly and many more who have written on the Aboriginal cultural issues involved (such as the cultural practice of infanticide of 'unwanted' children), journalists, missionaries and persons involved in the administration of Aboriginal child welfare. This paints a very different picture to what is being portrayed as the 'mainstream view'. There is a small group of editors currently controlling the article who want none of this in the article. This is still a disputed issue and there should be sufficient representation of the nature of the dispute, the evidence and arguments, in a Wikipedia article if it is going to present a NPOV. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:8C54:1E4D:7B89:BC10 (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
You are mistaking neutrality for WP:GEVAL. There is nothing 'niche' about subject: it is thoroughly documented in scholarly texts, documentaries, etc. It is, in fact, why the apology speech was delivered by Rudd. The Howard government, for example, encouraged and nurtured the academics who pushed the 'Stolen Generation did not exist' line. Serious scholarship has dropped that line. My greater concern now is the tone of your response, particularly comments such as "...many more who have written on the Aboriginal cultural issues involved (such as the cultural practice of infanticide of 'unwanted' children), journalists, missionaries and persons involved in the administration of Aboriginal child welfare..." You what? Where? It seems that you're conflating issues in order to push your own original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And you are misrepresenting the changes that I, and, from the page history, others before me, have proposed to the article. I can't see any indication of any editor requesting equal representation of a minority position WP:GEVAL, simply that there be some inclusion in the text of what that minority position is. It is deceptive for you to pretend that I have been asking for equal representation of a minority position. But you and the other editors have acted to remove any mention of what that position is, even the smallest inclusion, a couple of sentences explaining what the argument is about. My point with respect to the wealth of documentary evidence about Aboriginal cultural practices was to address your deceptive claim that the "position being postulated for overemphasis is, in fact, a-historical". Far from being 'a-historical', the historians and anthropologists and others writing about this issue have been able to cite actual historical evidence for their position. It is not something that they have just made up, the evidence is there to support it. Nor is it original research on my part, it is in the secondary sources. As for the apology speech delivered by Rudd, politicians say all sorts of things if they think it will gather them some political support. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:1057:5416:92AE:50D2 (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why the neutral point of view noticeboard exists

She's wearing a shirt! El_C 04:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Large Criticism section in BLP of Steve Silberman

An editor is creating a large criticism section in the BLP Steve Silberman that is now by far the largest part of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Also reported at

Jewish Diaspora

(other users notified)

There is an ongoing discussion here, relating to how to describe the expert opinion on the reasons behind the diaspora, in detail, whether the diaspora is a result of forced expulsion. This is a recent revert, where the longstanding/stable version ("The widespread popular belief (...) is not accepted by historians") has been replaced with text attributing the view the diaspora is non-exilic merely to "some scholars". The operative sources are as follows:

  • "in the popular imagination of Jewish history, in contrast to the accounts of historians or official agencies, there is a widespread notion that the Jews from Judea were expelled in antiquity after the destruction of the temple and the "Great Rebellion" (70 and 135 CE, respectively). Even more misleading, there is the widespread, popular belief that this expulsion created the diaspora." ('No Return, No Refuge (Howard Adelman, Elazar Barkan, p. 159))
  • "Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions."(Israel Bartal, dean of humanities at the Hebrew University)
  • "Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine in one fell swoop in A.D. 70." (New York Times)
  • ""the dispersal of the Jews, even in ancient times, was connected with an array of factors, none of them clearly exilic" (Israel Yuval, in The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History (Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, Oxford University Press 2009 p.17-18))
  • "Focus on the consequences of the Temple's destruction, however, overlooks a fact of immense significance: the diaspora had a long history prior to Rome's crushing of Jerusalem. (...) Compulsory dislocation, however, cannot have accounted for more than a fraction of the diaspora", Erich S. Gruen, "Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans", pages 2-3)

The options would be e.g. to describe, after the current version, that:

  • The widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina that led to the creation of the Diaspora is not accepted by historians, OR:
  • However, some scholars argue against the idea that the diaspora is entirely the result of a sudden mass expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina, OR:
  • (list the scholars cited) argue that the widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Judea/Syria Palaestina that led to the creation of the Diaspora is not accepted by historians.

Personally, my choice is the first one, since the sources present the non-exilic diaspora as a consensus view among historians, which are the reliable sources in the matter. "Some scholars" would incorrectly assign this opinion to a group that sounds much smaller than what the sources say. And attribution with names, the third option, seems unnecessary since the sources do not present the fact that historians dismiss the "myth of exile" as a contested matter, they simply state historians don't buy this myth. The guideline seems to advise against this kind of attribution as well. In other words, there are two issues going on, 1) historians dispute the "popular notion" of an exilic diaspora, and 2) it is not disputed that historians are of this view. --Dailycare (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that show academic support for the opinion that at least one of the main reasons, if not the main, for the Diaspora was the Bar Kokhba revolt. I have shown part of them on the talkpage. In addition, the article itself is clear that such is the widespread opinion. For both these reasons, any statement claiming that the revolt was not the reason for the Diaspora should be attributed inline to its source per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statement. All of this I explained clearly on the talkpage, and I invite editors to continue the discussion there, to make it easy to oversee the whole discussion in one central location. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Since we are at WP:NPOV, perhaps somebody would like to rename that talkpage section to something more neutral...? Debresser (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

WP: NPOV problem in the current title-Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China and requested move

In this page I have WP: Conflict of interest, so I need to ask other readers to help determine the WP:NPOV problem. I think there are three questions now.

  1. Is the current title commonly used?
  2. If the title does not use the Chinese point of view is not neutral?
  3. Does the requested title be unusually and not neutral?--Tr56tr (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems that these questions are already being hashed out in the linked discussion, and I don't see a compelling reason to change venues. But short answers: The current name ("incorporation of Tibet...") is not commonly used by sources outside this encyclopedia, and a neutral title is not necessarily one that reflects or aligns with the Chinese government point of view (or, for that matter, the Tibetan government-in-exile's).TheBlueCanoe 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tr56tr and TheBlueCanoe: it looks like a lot more discussion has occurred on the talk page of the article than will happen here. I think JFG's summary of that discussion and closure was probably accurate. But then again I tend to agree that "incorporation" is the most neutral term, compared to "invasion, annexation, liberation..." Darouet (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Improper use of the "Unreferenced Section Tag" or not for Discography sections

Is it required for a page of a singer to have the 'unreferenced section tag' in Discography section on the artist's page if there are no references in that specific area, but sources (including secondary) in other parts of the page? For example, why should the page "Joi Cardwell#Discography" be tagged with the 'unreferenced section tag', but "Beyonce#Discography" isn't? I, personally, felt like the user who added it, is guilty of tag bombing the first page because he did not give a good reason for doing so. And I inquired to him about it with the same opening question and did not receive an answer. I'm requesting a neutral answer here. Horizonlove (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • My advice... Just add a citation. It takes a lot less time (and is less frustrating) than arguing about whether a source is needed or not. Blueboar (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discographies and other *ography sections should have citations to show the connection between the artist/actor and work. While many of these links may be blue-links to notable works, not all will be, and so we would prefer to have each entry referenced. Some cases, like for books, the authorship can be shown simply by adding the ISBN number, and may be true for albums as well, but other roles like film and television do need this type of sources, and should avoid user-made databases like IMDB for that referencing. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Blueboar:, @Masem: Is there a physical example that I can go by or look out for this exact case? Horizonlove (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
These sections come up a lot in the In The News part of the front page, so a recent example there include Carrie Fisher (note its not complete but its on the right path). --MASEM (t) 16:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Blueboar:, @Masem: In the case of Joi Cardwell#Discography, can the unreference tag be removed from that section without adding a source in that specific area? I feel like it's redundant to have the unreferenced tag there when the article already talks about the studio albums she released and has secondary sources to back those claims. I also think it falls into the category of over tagging. Horizonlove (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump "Attacked" US intelligence agencies

In the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections lead, we currently write that "President-elect Donald Trump... attacked the intelligence agencies in a transition team statement," citing Bloomberg News [2].

The source reads, "President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team dismissed claims of foreign interference in this year’s elections as the CIA reportedly concluded that Russia had intervened to help the Republican candidate and shared its findings with lawmakers in a private briefing."

The source later includes a subheading, "Trump dismissive," and also uses the verb "scoffs." The word "attack" doesn't appear anywhere in the source to describe Trump's response.

There has been a debate on the talk page over whether the word "attacked" or "dismissed" is better suited, and input would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Putin goal to "attack" Clinton

Also in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, we write "U.S. officials said that under Putin's direction, the goals evolved from criticizing American democracy to attacking Clinton..."

The Reuters source reads, ""This began merely as an effort to show that American democracy is no more credible than Putin's version is," one of the officials said. "It gradually evolved from that to publicizing (Hillary) Clinton's shortcomings and ignoring the products of hacking Republican institutions, which the Russians also did," the official said." [3]

This is just one U.S. official, stating that according to U.S. intelligence, Russian hacking goals evolved to include publicizing Clinton's shortcomings. I think there's no reason to use language more inflammatory than in the source provided and don't believe our summary is accurate. Input appreciated here as well -Darouet (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Corey Stewart (politician)

In current version of the article, one-third of the lead is devoted to the Wikipedia editing of the subject, a Republican candidate for governor. Mentioning in the article itself is one thing, but isn't this a bit much? Coretheapple (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Free banking

According to our article, extensively sourced to libertarian think tanks and right-wing economists for whom 2007-08 presumably never happened, "Free banking refers to a monetary arrangement in which banks are subject to no special regulations beyond those applicable to most enterprises, and in which they also are free to issue their own paper currency (banknotes)."

Mr. Orwell on line 2...

In the real world, free banking means checking accounts without transaction charges. What the article describes is unregulated banking, which is generally well understood to be (a) hypothetical and (b) a terrible idea.

I think we need to move this article. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Guy, I sort of get where you're coming from, but is it true that "Free Banking" is really a commonly used and technical term to describe free checking account arrangements?
I wonder if this issue could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction by moving the article to Free Banking (economic theory) ? -Darouet (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yitzchak Ginsburgh

This article has recently gained the attention of a new editor who seems to be quite a devotee of this rabbi. Yitzchak Ginsburgh#Teachings shows what we've now got, including the line "He shows astonishing proficiency in Chassidic literature in all its fields and succeeds in elevating mundane concepts to astounding levels, capturing his listeners for hours on end". I've tried to rein this in, but the other editor is persistent and I don't want to edit-war. I'd be grateful if someone else could review this article and adjust (if necessary) for NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have made some edits to this article lately, to reign in this new editor. However, I had no problem arguing with this editor, and although there is obviously never a problem with an extra pair of eyes, I see nothing going on that warrants this cry for help. There is a talkpage: take it there. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you content with "astonishing proficiency..., elevating mundane concepts to astounding levels"?? You've left this in place. I think it's totally inappropriate, so here we are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Debresser and Nomoskedasticity: what's the problem with deleting this kind of peacock language? Even assuming it's true (I have no idea and don't care), the language is so overblown that a discerning reader will be put off and think the article is an advertisement. Toning down the language therefore seems to be in everyone's interest (especially that of Ginsburgh and Wikipedia). -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I made a few changes to the "teachings" section. Let me know if they seem problematic somehow. I wasn't sure if the material at the end of the section on his annual festival appearance should remain, be deleted, be altered, or what exactly - still sort of comes across like an advert. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No problem, go right ahead (I see you did). I disagree with Nomoskedasticity's low opinion of the editor's receptiveness, or Nomoskedasticity's apparent opinion that a few edits and talkpage discussions on the article talkpage won't be enough to deal with the issue and outside help is needed. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I did make a few edits and started a talk-page discussion; the other editor simply reverted, more than once. (And again you did nothing about the sentences I indicated.) Thank you to Darouet for making a start on dealing with this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Great. @Debresser and Nomoskedasticity: hopefully you both are able to work things out throughout the rest of the article. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom

General notice. This is admittedly WP:BITING the newcomer but IAR and NPOV applies. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Center for Immigration Studies

Which version do you guys prefer: my version or this version? The latter says in the lead:

Several reports published by the CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum; media such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org and NBC News; several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations; and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

I argue that this misrepresents several of the sources, assigns undue weight to others (think tanks that advocate for higher levels of immigration disagree with CIS's reports, and vice versa), and is in any case SYNTH as we would need reliable secondary sources to establish that CIS notably many errors compared to other Washington DC thinktanks or that there is this wide cross-partisan consensus that their work is shoddy. Talk starts here. Pinging Volunteer_Marek. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You can hardly argue undue weight, as it is just listing who has criticised them. Which from doing some quick research, appears to be everyone at one point or another except die-hard anti-immigration outlets. We dont need to compare CIS to other think tanks to say 'they have released reports which have been widely held to be misleading.' Unless we start saying 'CIS are worse than other think tanks'. Which as far as I can see no one has attempted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
PolitiFact and NBC have not "deemed [CIS's reports] misleading and riddled with basic errors". Or take the part about "think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum" - Cato Institute and Alex Nowrasteh in particular have been frequent critics of CIS. But Poltifact actually deemed the only Cato statement they fact checked 'False' - does that go in Cato Institute lead? Or the mention of ICE - Politifact fact checked Rep. Lamar Smith when he cited that CIS report that the ICE spokespersons disputed and rated it 'half true' because Smith "fails to acknowledge detainees had served criminal sentences and all releases weren't discretionary". But the CIS report did not claim that "all releases were discretionary" and Politifact did not deem the CIS report misleading and riddled with basic errors. So is the fact that ICE disputed a CIS report really so important that it should *be in the lead*? NPalgan2 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The lead is a summary of the body of the article. The article has a *substantial* section of criticism of its reports. I would be surprised yes if it was not mentioned in the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
if a thinkthank publishes stuff about contentious public policy debates then people on the other side are going to disagree with them, yeah, and it's undue just to count up all the criticism without evaluating whether it is notable criticism or has been validated by independent secondary sources. E.g., should this be summarised as criticism - Politifact's verdict seems pretty even handed to me: "Politifact, when evaluating Frum and Romney's statements, noted that the estimates produced by the study had methodological issues but that overall "both the report’s authors and its critics have reasonable points", and that "no one has disputed that recent immigrants filled a surprising share (more than half) of the added jobs". Or Sherk at Heritage criticizing Matloff - that's just a random thinktank analyst criticizing Matloff on Heritage's website. As I mentioned on the talkpage, Matloff's H1B research has been published in a peer reviewed journal, but Sherk's hasn't. Or a journalist at Think Progress wrote an article crticizing a CIS report on CO2 emissions. Do we mention in the lead of Center for American Progress that it's been criticized by National Review? NPalgan2 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • CIS is well known among immigraiton scholars as a lobby organization. The diverse critiques of their reports of course needs to be included in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether to include criticism of CIS in the article, it's whether it's reasonable to turn "Morici [non-CIS guy] said that all of the nearly 9 million new jobs created since 2000 went to immigrants. His numbers don’t add up. The [CIS] study he cited linked to numbers that showed that immigrants accounted for about 70 percent of the net job growth. While that study’s headline was that all of the new jobs went to immigrants, that only held true for a certain age range, which Morici misapplied to all workers. Morici is correct that foreign-born workers, both citizens and noncitizens, do disproportionately well in the job market. But the actual numbers fall well short of the 100 percent that he said. "All" is an overstatement."[1] which they rated 'mostly false', it seems on the ground of Morici's errors into NBC and Politifact have deemed CIS reports misleading and riddled with basic errors. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@NPalgan2 and Volunteer Marek: I'd make two quick notes on this topic. First, I think any neutral reader would read the first paragraph and get a sense that CIS has an agenda. I'm not criticizing that fact, but it's worthwhile to note that for some readers, aspects of the information in the second, proposed paragraph could be easily predicted or even inferred from the first. Second, reading through the article, I'd say that the content of the second lead paragraph is well justified, but that the lead is not a fair summary of the whole article. The lead is also very short. Instead of proposing to delete Marek's paragraph, NPalgan2 have you considered adding another middle paragraph that does more to summarize the article as a whole? -Darouet (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Darouet The difference is not just the lead paragraph but the Reports section here: which I edited to give a more balanced 'he said, she said'. What do you think about claims regarding particular organisations like Politifact's view of CIS? I'd be open to a lead paragraph noting criticism of CIS that was better than current version. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@NPalgan2: Generally I'm an inclusionist and I see no problem with including the Politifact view (or others). I also agree with careful attribution of opinion, though it seems like both versions are attempting to attribute opinions/statements properly (if there are instances where that's not happening you should point them out).
My only problem with the "Misleading reports" section is that the section title itself wears its view on its sleeve - e.g. declares where it stands quite stridently for readers. I agree personally with the view that these reports are misleading, but writing "misleading reports" as a section title could violate Raul's Razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." (WP:LAWS). I know we try to avoid "criticism" as a section title but it might be appropriate here. -Darouet (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a "Criticism" section, but could "Controversial reports" work? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: "Controversial reports" would be ideal. -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg

There's been a dispute over how/whether to cover the plagiarism scandal in any detail at Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. Briefly, a scandal surrounding alleged plagiarism in his doctoral thesis led to Guttenberg's resignation as the German Minister of Defense, and his (up until now) withdrawal from elective politics. I'll post at the BLP noticeboard to ask about weight issues, but I just wanted editors here to review the section I wrote, and to give any suggestions on neutral tone.

The section I wrote is here: [4].

Two editors have objected that my proposed text is not neutral. I have attempted to discuss with them here, but their response has essentially been, "try again from scratch." What I'm looking for them to identify concrete problems with the text, and to propose changes, rather than rejecting it in its entirety. Perhaps editors here could give the text a look and weigh in on its neutrality, and what changes could be made. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Is there any specific text or portion of the text that has been criticized, and if so can you let us know what to look for?
Reading through the proposed text, I have one suggestion. The text states at one point, "It also emerged that Guttenberg had requested a report from the Bundestag's research department..." It appears this was found in a report by Der Spiegel, which is the source cited. I would change this to, "According to a report by Der Spiegel, Guttenberg requested..."
Also, the main article for the plagiarism scandal Causa Guttenberg states that (at least) two criminal complaints were launched against Gutenberg for plagiarism, sourced to the FAZ. That should probably appear somewhere in the section on the plagiarism scandal. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Darouet: Thank you for your suggestion. I'm not sure if "According to a report by Der Spiegel" is really appropriate, however. While Der Spiegel broke the story, it has since been confirmed by many journalistic outlets, and the research reports that Guttenberg requested are now part of the public record. Here are a couple of sources confirming the story: [5] [6] [7].
"Is there any specific text or portion of the text that has been criticized, and if so can you let us know what to look for?" There are two overarching criticisms of the text. One criticism is that the text is too long, since a separate article covering the scandal exists (Causa Guttenberg). The other criticism, made by the exact same editors, is that the text does not include a whole number of different minor aspects of the scandal, listed here. I find it hard to reconcile these two criticisms. One asks for the text to be shortened, and the other asks for a dramatic expansion of the text to cover nearly every minor detail of the scandal.
I think it's possible for a summary to be neutral, without mentioning every single aspect of the subject. I've tried to strike a balance between keeping the summary short (4 paragraphs in a much longer article) and mentioning the elements of the plagiarism scandal that received the most coverage. I've asked the two editors who took issue with my text to propose specific changes, but they reject the text in its entirety. If the dispute were simply about one or another detail being covered, I would expect some sort of compromise to be possible. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • ^  Missing or empty |title= (help)
    Retrieved from ""
    This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
    This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA