Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

How would you go about reporting groups of high reputation on Wikipedia if they violate NPOV and hold certain pages of Wikipedia hostage ?

My concern is those large groups with high reputation that bully other users editing in good faith when they have genuine issues with the larger groups edits that they want to fix Nicholasjosey (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Generally, we should assume good faith. That said, follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy. —Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If they're sourced to primary sources and it's overwhelmingly flattering, those contents should generally be abated. If it's sourced to WP:QS, that too should be considered for pruning. Promotional and public relations editing which cause the articles to take on a presentation favorable to the subject (such as gleaming with awards, accolades and accomplishments) is a common issue. Graywalls (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Been there. There are pages I simply don't bother to edit because a group of editors with a strong POV will immediately revert anything that disagrees with their perspective, will source-lawyer everything no matter how well-sourced, and will threaten to go to admin with a civility complaint over any perceived slight. And this behavior is generally tolerated on Wikipedia, which really sucks, but that's the reality of this place. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

One could appeal to a wider audience to see override a potential WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Barring that, one needs to consider whether they are in the minority. Such is the nature of crowd-sourced editing.—Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you know if any of the bots detect collusion networks? Similar to the 2015 Orangemoody case ]] and [Croation Wikipedia]Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

And this behavior is generally tolerated on Wikipedia, which really sucks, but that's the reality of this place. Unfortunately this is true. Some1 (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Extensive sourcing to nps.gov on national parks articles

WP:PSTS reads that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.. It is not specifically about this article, but Death Valley National Park, like many other articles on national parks, it is extensively sourced to their own website (National Park Services).

It's common knowledge that extensively sourcing about people/company based on their own website is not ok. The NPS has a vested interest in promoting tourism and extensive citation to NPS site, especially with regard to recreation and activities lead to content bias towards what the NPS administration wants it presented. For our purposes, NPS.gov on National Parks articles is just like company dot com source for article on Company. NPS, while passing factual accuracy reliability, extensive citations to it to flesh out the article may violate core value of NPOV by causing the articles to be ingrained wtih the parks administration viewpoint especially when it comes to amenities, trivia, and activities.

Should we treat citations to National Parks Services on National Park articles just as we treat any other citations to the article subject themselves?

Graywalls (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

No, we should not treat nps.gov sources the same as ProfitHungryBusiness.com sources.

NPOV is not measured by the sources. NPOV is measured by the content. If a statement such as "More than 93% of the park is a designated wilderness area" is neutral, then that statement is neutral regardless of whether there is a link in the little blue clicky number after it that leads to a US federal government website, a local history book, or a scholarly work.

For NPOV purposes, avoiding citations to non-independent sources is only a means to an end. If you cite ProfitHungryBusiness.com a lot, you're probably not getting the balance right – that is, you're probably going to unintentionally write too little about "More than 93% of the park is a designated wilderness area" and too much "The best value is the Grand Hotel® three-night hotel package with included park entrance fees during the shoulder season". You are unlikely to have this problem when citing nps.gov.

That said, if you want to improve (according to your view) the citations (which almost nobody ever reads), then you should feel free to do that work yourself. It is unusual for such an edit to draw complaints. The complaints only come when you decide that normal practice isn't good enough for you, and you tag the articles or otherwise demand that other editors do extra work that you aren't willing and able to do yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Citing directly to the location's website to claim "xx % is designated wildnerness area" would be the same from NPOV perspective whether it's a for-profit golf course or a national park. When it comes to visitor guide like contents as seen in Death_Valley_National_Park#Activities, why should institutional/governmental/corporation status be an excuse for liberal self-citation? Some of the most egregious promotional junk on Wikipedia are perpetrated by 501c3s and municipal corporations. Graywalls (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The point of NPOV isn't what's in the citations. The point of NPOV is what's in the sentences and paragraphs. Do you see things in those sentences and paragraphs that you believe would be substantially different if the editor had been reading The Big Book of Death Valley Activities by Alice Author instead of reading the "Outdoor Activities" webpage by the National Park Service? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Graywalls, your concern would be more compelling if you could give an example where a more independent RS was emphasizing different facts than nps.gov when covering a subject. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

If you wouldn't cite some resort . com to write about activites and amenities on that resort, it would be the same for .gov operated matters, because that still fails independent secondary sourcing criteria. What I am saying is that if these things to do and activities are primarily sourced to the park's website itself or travel guide oriented books that compiles activities and amenities, "independent, secondary" criteria are not met so perhaps the inclusion is NOT due to begin with. Graywalls (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Once again: Mind the gap between "currently sourced to" and "able to be sourced to". Whether content is neutral is dependent upon the sources that have been published in the real world, and not the sources that happen to be cited in the article right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Those sources are fine for straightforward factual enclyclopedic information. North8000 (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Travel time, proximity to another spot and such from the same editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for feedback on recent edit to the Mohammad A. Arafat article

Request for feedback on recent edit to the Mohammad A. Arafat article

Hello, I recently replaced the following sentence in the article:

"He is wanted by the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh on charges of crimes against humanity and genocide."

with:

"On October 17, 2024, the newly reconstituted International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh, under the interim government headed by Muhammad Yunus, issued an arrest warrant for Arafat in connection with alleged crimes against humanity and genocide during the July–August 2024 unrest. The tribunal has faced criticism from human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, over fair trial concerns."

I made this change to improve neutrality, sourcing, and clarity in line with BLP policy. Could other editors please review this edit and advise if any adjustments are needed? Thanks! DarkTI (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You might get more/better responses if you posted this at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Russian wiki

Hi,

In Russian description of the NPV rule there is missing a clause, namely that about importance of sources:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

My attempt to supplement the rule has not yet been successful. My question: is it possible to describe the importance of the said above clause? Thanks in advance. Basicowes (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

We, uh, aren't the Russian wiki. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 00:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Try [[1]] and the UCoC. A number of other complaints to do with RuWi have ended up there Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

To explain a bit more: the various language Wikipedias are each separate projects… and while the rules tend to be similar, there are significant differences between them. If you think something is missing from a policy at the Russian WP, you will have to discuss it over at the Russian Wikipedia. We here at the English Wikipedia can’t tell them what to do. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The year Anthony left Max Rowley's Media Academy

Anthony Maroon panel operated my first class at Max Rowley's Media Academy in 1985 and graduated very soon after that. He was conspicuous by his absence. The current WIKI states that he left the Academy in 1989. Can somebody change the year he left. Even better, can someone confirm it with Anthony. He is currently commentating on CH 9 for the Women's NRL 2025 season. Statusquo7707 (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the page for discussing improvements to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. You should try discussing this on talk:Anthony Maroon.
However you will need a verifiable source to back up the change, Wikipedia doesn't allow personal recollections. The details have to have been published somewhere so other editors can check and verify the details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)