Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Islamization

An IP has twice inserted a bunch of "incident reports" from websites like Jihad Watch, plus dumping a short and non-NPOV "history of Islamic extremism" into the "See Also" section. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of what he said is factual, if poorly-spun, but I agree. It seems like any article concerning islam needs sanctions; if it's not people like that IP blackwashing them, it's the other side whitewashing everything.74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sadly (POV), making factual lists is not POV. However, their sources might need looked at. Maybe respond by making lists of other groups' crimes? Honestly, the only real response is to make sure that the facts are in context and verified. BTW Islam is normally capitalized. Endercase (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Also major edits should only be made by signed in users. You could get them for that probably.Endercase (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest regarding User:Bomberswarm2

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)

Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr

Background: Several pages on Wikipedia that cover WWII German personnel use the German language version of the German Air Force as Luftwaffe.

Sample:

• In 1956, Reinert joined the newly established [[West Germany|West German]] ''[[German Air Force|Luftwaffe]]'' of the ''[[Bundeswehr]]'', resulting in "West German Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr". (In Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert.)

A disagreement on this has arisen at Talk:Erich_Hartmann#.22Luftwaffe.22_of_the_Bundeswehr, but the Talk page discussion did not result in reaching consensus. The diff in question is this, including "In the Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr" as a section heading. The same edit also shows the German language term for Inspekteur der Luftwaffe, while the en.wiki article is Inspector of the Air Force.

Since Luftwaffe, when used in English-language literature, is strongly associated of the air force of Nazi Germany, this usage strikes me as POV. Alternatively, it presupposes the knowledge of German not commonly found among general readers. In any case, such piping/use is unneeded as the en.wiki articles use English-language terms. Compare book search for luftwaffe bundeswehr and "German air force" bundeswehr.

I would appreciate un-involved editors weighing in on this discussion. Courtesy ping to editor Dapi89.

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The phrasing "The Luftwaffe of the Bundewehr" is a needless and clunky circumlocution that only serves to squeeze in the German-language term while simultaneously making an unsuccessful attempt to distinguish and de-stigmatize it from its historical predecessor. There is even less reason to have the string of links in the quote listed. This is the English Wikipedia. English is the preferred language, unless using the foreign terms is better at communicating. The malapropisms adopted to attempt preserving this one foreign term manifestly show that using it is not better communication. The quote from the Reinert article should be simplified to: In 1956, Reinert joined the newly established [[German Air Force]]. Users that are interested enough will click on the link and find the full justification of the FRG for using that term. The German term, no matter how "official" or "factual" is not controlling here per WP:COMMONNAME. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

But Bundesluftwaffe is not clunky, or needless. And it is the actual name of the modern German air arm. POV? Nah. Dapi89 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

See above. The "actual name" in German has no bearing on how the English Wikipedia should label things. That's not chauvinism, it's practicality. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The argument he gives is that is non neutral point-of-view. I'm saying that's BS. Dapi89 (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, so what? If User:K.e.coffman thinks it's not in policy for one reason, there's nothing that means I have to agree for the exact same reason. I'm saying that their opinion is right but I'm basing it in other policy. Namely, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. There are exceptions to those conventions, but there need to be good reasons for those exceptions. "That's how the Germans do it" is not a good reason: If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.. Also, basic good communication favors not using this version. To argue that a six-syllable compound foreign language word that requires three wikilinks to explain is not clunky suggests a very different appreciation for "clunkiness". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, WP clearly states that English should be used in this case. I suggest using the German as a subtitle. Endercase (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And you think that using google books is a good way to judge common usage? Dapi89 (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I just think we should use English for English Wiki titles. Endercase (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Criminal use of Smith & Wesson MP15

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15#Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use. Issues of due weight have been raised in discussion. In particular, some members of a Wikiproject claim a project-level due weight policy which supercedes our project's neutrality pillar. Participation from experienced editors familiar with our neutrality policy are sought. Thank you in advance. 34.207.97.139 (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

• That's not a neutral request. You already started guiding answers with your position that the project is at odds with the policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There does seem to be a problem with the "guideline" at WP:GUN#Criminal use being used to override WP:WEIGHT in a number of articles. Some editors have removed all mention of the use of commercial weapons in notable crimes regardless of the quantity or quality of sources, simply because of that project's guidance. My understanding is that no project can create special rules that contradict site-wide policies and guidelines. Felsic2 (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Can sources be banned?

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.

---

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is currently claiming that sources can be banned in all use cases requiring special exemption appeals for any specific use. My understanding of policy is that this isn't "by the book" as outlined in my posts there. Please join in the discussion there. Should it prove necessary (24-48hrs?) we should move the entire discussion here. Endercase (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Following the dispute resolution guide the discussion should be moved here at this time. I want to make sure that my POV is not the only one represented here. Endercase (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, it is hard to believe that no-one else has posted here still. I guess I get to make the choice all on my own *teasing*.

I think that an absolute ban on linking to a site should be applied only to a very narrow set of potentially harmful cases: malware, shock sites, persistent perpetrators of spammy links. That a publicly available list should be made of those "sources" that includes or links to open discussion to allow for NPOV, transparency, and to prevent abuse. Otherwise, the context has to be considered before making a determination on reliability and should be addressed on the talk page of that particular article or escalated with "due notification". A reliability determination in context can and generally should include an evaluation of the longstanding history of the source. In cases where a better source is available to supply or "verify" specific information that source should be used in place of or in conjunction with the less reliable source. Endercase (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• So far you have forumshopped this crap at RSN, jimbo's talk page and now here. Why dont you take a hint. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:30, 6 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.

Should Template:Misinformation be illustrated with a headline saying Donald Trump won the popular vote?

Template:Misinformation has an image with headlines (in small text) from websites sympathetic to Donald Trump to illustrate the concept of Fake News. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Official Russian position on U.S. Election Interference

There is an RfC discussion ongoing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that would benefit from wider input. The question is, should Russia's denial of interference be mentioned, or excluded from the lead? The RfC can be found here. Regards, Darouet (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Size of swastika in the Nazism infobox

Located here:

• RFC: Size of swastika in the Nazism infobox

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Icarus Project

• Icarus Project
• User:Icarus Historians

This SPA (with a blockable name, but I'm not going to be the one to do it) is making edits that seem to me to clearly violate NPOV. Can I get more eyes on it? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Changing an exact quote to push a political point of view

The article for the not for profit organization Foundation for Economic Education has an exact quote of, "is a non-political, non-profit, tax-exempt educational foundation," which is a common statement made by not for profit organizations for legal and taxation purposes. An editor decided that the organization is “anti-government” and so removed the quotes (which creates plagiarism) and repeatedly changes non-political to the insult neoliberal. First did this as an IP editor, then created the account User:Blahblah fee specifically to make the same edit. IP blocking will not matter and blocking an account made a few seconds ago will not matter. So the only option is to allow the editor to make any change they like ignoring all language rules? Abel (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You may want to familiarize yourself with the policy on protecting pages from vandalism. These page protection levels can prevent editing on pages by certain classes of editors, no matter what IP address they use. There is a level of page protection created to work in pretty much exactly this type of case, it's called semi-protection. Neither editors using IP addresses nor editors using new accounts can edit a page subject to semi-protection. In order to ask for a page to have these protection levels added to a page, you need to go to the Requests for Page Protection page and follow the instructions. Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Just filed it at raise protection thanks to your directions. Thank you for pointing me to the correct place for such problems. Abel (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome. Good call on your part, too, I might add. The swiftness of the semi-protection being added backs up your point. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:English dialects by continent

XSAMPA and I are having a debate about whether or not the Transatlantic accent should be instated into the aforementioned template. Currently, we only have his and my opinion. And I would like to have a third. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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:

• Talk:Heinrich_Sturm#Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany

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)

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Second_sight&action=history 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)71.167.134.66 (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)

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)

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)