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 21 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, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70


My name is Kristin Hodgson and I work at Meetup. Recently the Meetup page has gone through some unusual changes. For example, for a time the page said Meetup’s #resist political groups were contrary to Meetup’s mission, citing only Meetup’s own mission statement (diff). The page has also made editorialized statements like “In late 2016 Meetup put the future of the company on the line . . .” (diff)

The last paragraph of the History section in the current version of the page says stuff like “after years of declining usage” (citing an archived Alexa chart showing 3 months of decline) and “lacking the cash needed to update systems to current standards” (citing a bunch of sources that do not support the text).

I know I am not allowed to boldly edit criticisms about the company, so I was hoping this post might attract one or two disinterested watchlisters/participants. Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Kristin hodgson at meetup, thank you for posting. I think I have addressed your two concerns about the current version, so if you could take a look again that would be great. Alex Shih (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Alex Shih:. I was more concerned about the ongoing issue than a specific piece of article-text. However, I did take another look after your changes. A few comments:
  • I don’t think the Alexa citation supports the article-text that Meetup was sold “in response to” declining usage
  • I was also surprised to see a non-secondary source (Alexa) used in the body of the article like that. Unlike other social media companies, Meetup’s goal is to get people offline. We actually prefer to see less internet traffic and more in-person meetups.
  • The See Also section seems like a list of plugs for competitors. Is this normal?
  • I only see one citation that supports the 10% layoff reference. The article says the 10% layoff was alleged by anonymous former employees and that Meetup said no such layoff took place. This article is an outlier in having such a negative tone about the acquisition.
Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see the 2010 posting on Meetup's talk page, here. Apparently there is a years-long history of POV-controlling by Meetup Corporate, including having been flagged as an advertisement/promotion. Chromedomemalone (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Quartz (publication)

This article could use some eyes and edits, it has a promotional tone. "user-friendly for tablet and mobile users", "It helps journalists create" etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The article lacks a neutral point of view for many of its sections. It seems to take too much from its references without paraphrasing it into a neutral statement. It has too many quotes "The environment" is a beat, but "climate change" is a phenomenon. "Energy" is a beat,..." that makes it seem like I'm reading from an article that introduces some new startup. I agree with the statements that it is being too promotional as most of its references are from biased news sources and lacks neutrality. It should be resolved by rewriting the content and design sections into neutral paragraphs and searching for other sources. Shujins (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality issues in Bangladesh article.

Some users are repeatedly reverting constructive and sourced edits to the top section of Bangladesh article pushing a POV of denial of the significance of other Bengali-Assamese people other than Bengalis in Bangladesh such as Sylhetis, Chittagonian people and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manipulateus (talkcontribs) 16:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Both involved users broke 3RR and were warned. One continued, was taken to 3RR, and is now blocked for socking. Meters (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

article Jovan Jelovac

In the current state, the article Jovan Jelovac is not neutral. The article seems to be praising the subject (a living person). I believe the creator, and the only contributor of the article is acting in good faith. I tried to work on the tone of the article, but I couldnt do anything. Help with editing, or suggestions are requested. Kindly ping while replying. Thanks a lot, —usernamekiran(talk) 18:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice

An RfC has been opened on whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre. 20:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we state that these theories and references are false in Wikipedia's voice?

Knights Templar (Freemasonry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where this edit by Besillica (talk · contribs) changed "Below are accounts of some of these theories and references" to "Below are accounts of some of these false theories and references" with the edit summary "Perhaps wikipedia has a voice however masonic authoritatives and otherwise disclaim those theories. I thought would be to clarify unless fiction writing s are fact?". Doug Weller talk 18:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

WP voice cannot state that, but we can say that such theories/etc. are debunked by sources and attribute or reference those sources. For example, the first item on that list "American Masonic youth organizations, such as the Order of DeMolay for young men, are named after the last Grand Master Templar Jacques de Molay, who was executed in the final suppression of the Templar order in the early 14th century." (which is not sources) should also state what the reality is if that is considered a debunked theory or conclusion. (Which, reading on both de Molay and on the Order of DeMolay, actually doesn't seem "false" or otherwise. That section is really badly presented overall. --Masem (t) 18:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh I agree it's a mess. We still shouldn't state 'false' without independent reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

RM notice at Islamic terrorism

The discussion can be found here:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Biased Point of View on American Airlines

American Airlines page reads like an informational Advertisement and includes no record or history of any negative coverage of or incidents within the company — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


Could some neutral, third-party editors chime in on this article please? A discussion has been started on the talk page, but a consensus can't be reached when no one is continuing to participate and discuss, but only wants to revert with vague edit summaries instead. A couple of users (particularly User:DynaGirl, User: Aboutbo2000, User: Nathan.T.Medina ) are guarding the article to prevent changes to the end dates, as seen from their edit history and reverting any changes that do not match their beliefs. These recent edits: [1], [2], [3] when trying to expand on a reliable, in-depth source shows that they are pushing a non-neutral POV. Someone963852 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

From what I see there is big boundaries that need to be changed. There's no need to write down such specific reasons for a certain research post on this description. I will not completely delete the post but I will make big changes and even post something from the original article as well that keeps it from being very Superior to others. There are also word phrases that I would change to make it non bias as well to how its arranged. Each information should be equal to stay fair with the other information so I will make changes. I will most likely not get to this today for reasons of not wanting to be on the web right now but tomorrow. I will also like to hear from User:DynaGirl, User: Aboutbo2000 since the changes that are made needs to be fixed.--User: Nathan.T.Medina 13 April 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Make sure you discuss on the talk page first and gain a consensus before you make any changes. Someone963852 (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone963852, that result [4] was for you, per Other editors, including editors who come to the article through NPOV noticeboard can edit the article without obtaining talk page consensus first, although it's always good to follow WP:BRD.--DynaGirl (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV for religion in infoboxes

Infoboxes for historical persons often report religion. No problem there, it is often relevant. The issue is the lack of any coherent NPOV approach. For example, in 1054 the Christian church split into two main branches: the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Saying that someone was Catholic or Orthodox after this date is unproblematic. Before this date, claiming any historical person as either Catholic or Orthodox is not possible from an NPOV perspective. While both Catholics and Orthodox claim to be the original church, Wikipedia cannot and should not take a stance in what is a theological issue. Current practice at Wikipedia is confused. To take a few examples of people who lived long before the split into Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the infobox of Charlemagne claims "Roman Catholicism"; Clovis I - "pre-schism Catholicism"; Alfred the Great - "Christianity"; Vladimir the Great - "Chalcedonian Christianity"; Harald Bluetooth - "Chalcedonian Christianity (Pre-Schism)"; Pepin the Short - "Roman Catholicism"; Constantine the Great - "Nicene Christianity"; Justinian I - "Chalcedonian Christianity". The list could be made much longer. In short, we use a large variety of different terms for the same thing, which is confusing. Some are correct ("Christianity", "Chalcedonian Christianity", "Chalcedonian Christianity (Pre-Schism)"). Some are incorrect as per NPOV ("Roman Catholicism", "pre-schism Catholicism"). The POV ones should be replaced, and for all those that are correct, a coherent terminology would be better. My suggestion is the neutral "Chalcedonian Christianity" (already in use in many articles) for anyone adhering to it after the Council of Chalcedon. It is a term that is both correct and NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

And does not really give us an indication of which branch they follow, and implies a uniform system of belief and adherence.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
True, but that's the case regardless. It's not like everyone being Catholic today hold the same personal beliefs, same for Orthodox and every other religion/belief system. As we know virtually nothing of the beliefs of persons living over 1000 years ago (unless they expressed those beliefs in writing; religious figures often did, royalty rarely did) trying to infer what Christian church they would have believed in had that church existed in their time is rather WP:OR. In other words, the proposed change merely introduces a neutral terminology and reduces the current completely random assignment of beliefs to historical figures. Jeppiz (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Well it is easy, we put down either what branch they described it themselves as or what their contemporaries said it was.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure the defining line is 1054 - sure that's when they excommunicated one another - but they were rifts dating back quite a bit, e.g. Quinisext Council. The question is how they are described in the sources - and there were differences between the proto-Catholic church (rome) and the proto-Orthodox church (Constantinople).Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hence why I say how they described themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven, I must admit I'm not quite sure what you mean by "how they described themselves". There are very few people from before 1054 (or before 1000-1030, to take Icewhiz's point about no clear break) who wrote anything. If they did, they almost never wrote about religion. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but would you care to elaborate? (Also, does anyone see a problem in using the neutral and factually correct "Chalcedonian Christianity". If so, please elaborate on the problem). Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Which is why I also (originally) said "what their contemporaries said it was", I find it hard to believe that someone would be notable now who no one had written about at the time (after all if they had not been written about how would we know about them?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
True, contemporaries wrote about all of the persons I mentioned (and many others), but very little about their religion. We know for almost all historical persons who converted from "paganism" (vague) to Christianity when they converted. We know if they held beliefs such as Arianism that were seen as heretical even in their time. But did any contemporary write about Charlemagne's, Clovis's or Alfred the Great's view on filioque or papal supremacy, or immaculation? Not as far as I know, which makes it pointless to even speculate 1000 years later what they might have though of later theological disputes.Jeppiz (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a really good topic for discussion and I thank Jeppiz for opening it. One of the problems we have with going with how they self identified as that terms have become muddled since then. Pretty much all Christians of the pre-Schism world identified as members of the Catholic Church. However since that time, the term Catholic (with a capital 'C') has come to be defined as being in communion with the See of Rome which depending on who one talks to might or might not have been a generally understood criteria back in the day. Also, while 1054 is an oft cited date, the fact is that it was a local schism that only gradually came to divide the Christian East and West over several centuries. Further complicating things is that most of the pre-schism saints are claimed by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Trying to find an acceptable descriptor for all of these figures is going to be an interesting challenge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure what they thought of papal supremacy is relevant, peoples would have referred to their religion, and we would use that lable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Use what the majority of reliable sources discussing the subject use. If there is no consensus amongst the sources, then it's likely too complicated to be simplified in an infobox so omit it unless it's particularly relevant. If it's not mentioned in the sources used then it's not relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
My anecdotal experience has been that modern sources tend to treat pre-schism non-religious figures as though they had lived post schism. Which is to say that purely for convenience they tend to be identified as Catholics if they lived in the Christian West and Orthodox if they lived in the Christian East. It gets more complicated with religious persons, especially saints. If any religion is mentioned at all in the info box I would suggest that it be along the lines of "Pre-Schism Catholic/Orthodox." -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As there are some recurring comments about "saying what contemporaries" said, I will agree with Ad Orientem about the problems with this approach. Terminology changes. To take an obvious example: "British" used to mean only the Celtic people speaking P-Celtic languages (today's Welsh language and Breton language. It was the polar opposite of their main enemies, the Germanic peoples who would become the English. If we say British today, we imply something very different from what a contemporary scribe meant when using the term. Likewise, "Scot" has as times means only those who speak a Gaelic language in Scotland, at times only those who speak a Germanic language, and at times both meanings. The same thing applies to "Catholic" and "Orthodox". Let's remember that "catholic" simple means "universal" and "orthodox" means "correct faith". As a matter of fact, the Orthodox church still refers to itself as "catholic" and the Catholic church considers its beliefs "orthodox". Though it may sound straightforward to say that if a scribe in the year 600 called someone Catholic/Orthodox then we should do the same, it's actually misleading if the scribe meant something radically different. Jeppiz (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
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