Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:20, 4 August 2010

Started

Seems like a good idea, to close out these for all our core areas and policies. And it seems to come up so often... Lawrence § t/e 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Will active steps be taken when blatant POV problems are identified or just comments will be made at this NB. How will this NB help fix NPOV issues. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting we develop a protocol, with escalating warnings and diffs as we have at 3RR to try to make this easier for admins to deal with.--Filll (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines would help too. Especially when dealing with FRINGE. Like some sort of documentation of what the mainstream and FRINGE views are and in what proportion roughly. And some sort of documentation for what proportion they occupy in the article.--Filll (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR would not help in my case. There is a group of editors who are violating NPOV on a certain article. This NB will only be effective when people comment here and are also willing to edit the discussed article. I understand it will be difficult to enforce NPOV. I am not sure how this will be done. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well help us develop a simple easy to implement protocol so that admins can quickly see what the problem is. --Filll (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen admins help with NPOV issues. I already tried that. Often, admins ignore POV problems. They claim Misplaced Pages works by consensus. We have contradictory policies. Consensus vs NPOV. These two policies are against each other. Consensus can easily lead to POV problems. We don't have admins blocking editors who make POV edits. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the problem to which you refer, and I think this noticeboard could help with it. A similar issue exists with WP:BLP. WP:BLPN provides a place frequented by people who take BLP seriously, and the consensus on issues reported to BLPN tends to reinforce BLP. A similar thing could happen here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SI. BLP did not use to be taken so seriously. But now it is. And there are a clear set of rules and guidelines and protocols etc that are used. And a standard procedure. So we need to get something like that here. And then pursue it and encourage its adoption. And this noticeboard can help.--Filll (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this even needed?

With all due respect, the powers that be have expressed strongly the opinion that WP:NPOV is obsolete, or at least should be drastically altered. So I wonder about the purpose of this noticeboard.--Filll (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about, obsolete? It and BLP are supposed to be as close to immutable and ironclad law as we have. Lawrence § t/e 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am afraid maybe you have been living on another planet for the last few months. Arbcomm and others have suggested strongly that NPOV is not really of any interest and WP:CIVIL is the only thing that is important on WP.--Filll (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I know all about some of the recent nonsense, hence the creation of this last noticeboard to finish our collection. Arbcom has no authority to override Foundation principals (and any Arbiter who even suggests that in regards to NPOV should be dumped posthaste at the next election for extreme lack of clue or common sense); not even Jimmy Wales has any authority to do that. This noticeboard will be the perfect venue to expose any abuse of NPOV, problems with application of it, or gaming of it. Lawrence § t/e 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The community is free to develop and enforce whatever rules we like. While ArbCom really only punishes sockpuppetting and incivility, the community is free to correct any other problems we see fit. WilyD 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I think that is a nice story, but does not comport with reality. This is a dictatorship, and if we do not like it, we can leave. And the current mood of the ruling class is that NPOV should go.--Filll (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I will believe it when I see it. I do not think that the efforts to try to enforce an outdated obsolete policy will be successful in the face of immense political power. Clearly the powers that be have decided this is a bad policy and does not belong on WP. Do you not realize that this is a dictatorship and experienced editors are only filthy "dogs" and basically unwanted here?--Filll (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mayhap it is, mayhap it ain't. Mayhap it won't be for long. Lawrence § t/e 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We will see, won't we? I am not optimistic.--Filll (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

While I've been generally opposed to this recent growth in noticeboards, I'm wondering why Fringe Theories can't be merged into this and RS. I mean basically Fringe Theories articles lack an NPOV or they hav bad sources. MBisanz 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be the target, if some merge where to occur, being the proverbial Parent Law from which all others descend. Lawrence § t/e 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Dlabtot (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They should probably all be deleted as unnecessary and unwanted. And replaced with a WP:CIVIL noticeboard since that is the only thing that is important. Maybe with noticeboards for sarcasm and humor to block those who engage in either of those.--Filll (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a thing already exists. WilyD 17:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

um.. the current mood of the ruling class is that NPOV should go -- what utter and complete nonsense. Dlabtot (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm is really a dying art form, i'n'it? •Jim62sch• 13:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the clumsy and overbearing use of sarcasm excuse a fundamentally flawed underlying point? No. Dlabtot (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Test example?

I've added a gentle example. I'm not making a POINT, just starting with a subject that should be easier to help than the real edit-warry articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments about my example can come here. The whole point about NPOV is that it applies to all editors. Saying "I wanted to insert critical information, and was reverted here, here and here" isnt just evidence of other editors anti-critical POV, but -possibly- of the reporting editors POV pushing agenda. Homeopathy is an excellent example. The only positive thing I could say about it is that small amounts of clean water isn't dangerous, but everything else I could say about it would have to be negative. Some people suggest this is use of reliable sources and not giving undue weight, others would mention writing for the enemy and pov-pushing.
• Also, this board is going to be flooded -as ani is now- with familiar suspects, extending arguments from the talk page across the project. A neutrally presented report allows people to read an article and see if, in their first reading, it's neutral or if the article spends too long talking about a minor incident in someone's life, or misrepresents a scientific point. I guess after that initial reading people will dive into the specific diffs anyway. ut, you know, good luck and everything. Dan Beale-Cocks 08:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

I would like to see a push for more examples of what NPOV means. For example, "in proportion to their prominence" might mean that if 40% of veterinarians believe X and 60% believe Y, that our article be split roughly 40/60 in terms of content. I would like to see the word FRINGE defined with examples a bit more. Is it something 10% or less believe? 20% ? 10% of experts or 10% of consumers or the public? What kind of experts? Academics? In which field? The public in which country? We need examples because we are getting snowed by POV pushers that we cannot fight against since they have learned to game the system.--Filll (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Such examples are totally unnecessary. The policy is actually pretty clear as it is. Dlabtot (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll: Your assumptions of bad faith are not helpful. Can you add to the discussion without ABF? You like to equate NPOV with percentages. It certainly provides a framework within which articles can be developed but it falls short of capturing the spirit of NPOV. Consider the policy states, Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Anthon01 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, I have asked you several times. I am asking you yet again. Please write a document describing your interpretation of NPOV since clearly you believe everyone else (particularly those of SPOV) and those with 20,000 or 50,000 more edits than you, has the interpretation of NPOV incorrect. If you start, I will be glad to give you a list of specific questions I want to have you answer in detail to get you started. Dlabtot, you are also invited to do the same, either in collaboration with Anthon01 or independently. Since I have it wrong, tell me what is correct. And let's discuss it. Perhaps it should be scrapped or rewritten. Let's find out.--Filll (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear: I think WP:NPOV is just fine as it is and does not need any reinterpretation by me. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Dlabtot (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the policy is clear. But when I state my interpretation of the policy, I am told over and over, 100s of times, that I am incorrect, that I am uncivil, that I am a threat to WP, that I am bad, that I should leave, etc. I am threatened and haranged and harassed, etc. So obviously, I and the other SPOV editors must have it wrong. So, tell us in what way we have it wrong.--Filll (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, just provide a diff of anything I've ever said and I'll explain exactly what I meant. Dlabtot (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the matter? Can't find any diffs that substantiate the false charges you've laid against me? Dlabtot (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What false charges against you? I am not going to go back and look at every edit you ever made to see if I can find anything I do not understand. I am talking in generalities here. After all, I have hardly interacted with you. If I come across anything in the future, I will take it from there. Ok?--Filll (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, in response to my comment that I thought the NPOV policy was clear, you said you been accused of being "uncivil, that I am a threat to WP, that I am bad, that I should leave, etc. I am threatened and haranged and harassed, etc. " Clearly I have never done any of those things to you. All I said was that the NPOV policy is clear and doesn't need changing. Dlabtot (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Should this board exist?

If this board is just going to be another front in the endless homeopathy wars, I'm going to MfD it. I see no reason why this toxic discussion should infect yet another page.

Aside from the homeopathy problem I'm skeptical that this noticeboard will be useful. What will it do that RfCs can't? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is prominent here at the moment, but there are lots of other places where NPOV is contentious. Creationism and intelligent design and evolution. Articles about ghosts. What the bleep do we know?. ESP. Cold fusion. Pseudoscience of all kinds. Alternative medicine of all kinds. Conspiracy theories of all kinds.

Believe me, if you think that the homeopathy articles are the only place where NPOV is an issue, you have not been paying attention. Perhaps NPOV should be done away with completely; I think there are plenty of forces in that direction at the moment and I think the momentum to do away with NPOV is building; in that case, this noticeboard is not of much value.

However, if it is decided that NPOV should stay, then a place to quickly address the issues would be highly valuable. The way we deal with NPOV now is atrocious. To ask someone to take 50 hours to prepare an RfC for NPOV when there are literally thousands upon thousands of NPOV disputes is just over the top. Should I have to file an RfC every time I am dealing with vandalism or 3RR or WP:CIVIL as well? How many 3RR cases would be brought if the person bringing them would have to spend 50 hours to bring one?

So...--Filll (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting an article RfC isn't hard--take a look at the current listings for science and technology article RfCs. All you need is a capsule description, the discussion takes place on the article's talk page. I just don't think RfCs are worthwhile--they rarely get outside input. And, I notice that the discussion about homeopathy on this board isn't getting any outside input either. This leads me to think that this board will not be worthwhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that I think there are plenty of NPOV problems on Misplaced Pages--I just don't see that this board is useful in addressing them. Right now it looks like an echo chamber for a long-running dispute that has little chance of being solved until some editors have major changes of attitude (or, they're blocked). --Akhilleus (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Dlabtot (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well but the way things are going, it will not be the homeopathy advocates that are asked to change attitude, or the homeopathy advocates that will be blocked. It will be the proponents of including mainstream views, or academic views, or scientific views in articles. That is more likely.

I will note that this board is still very new. No one knows about it. And we have not developed procedures for dealing with NPOV. If that is going to happen, we should. If on the other hand, NPOV is going to disappear, then I agree completely that this board is stupid.--Filll (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dozens of editors have already spent months discussing / edit-warring over minute details, so I'm unsure how this board will help. There'll be accusations of canvassing or forum shopping. It might help to get a few more editor eyes on some articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be considered an informal step, like WP:WQA, and problems that have already gone to RfC or beyond would be considered beyond this noticeboard's purview. Dlabtot (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This board should not exist. NPOV discussions belong on the project pages of the specific article. This will just make resolving such disputes into a more bureaucratic, less reasonable process. Bensaccount (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...or get more eyes on out of sight problems so that tiny minorities of editors can't lord over obscure topics with their own POV. Lawrence § t/e 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A much more harmless alternative. Bensaccount (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In my experience and observation, the RfC process is not effective in bringing helpful attention to a problem, and the process of starting an RfC is daunting. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard is a much more effective mechanism for bringing the community's attention to an issue, and (unlike WP:RFC) it does not require that the initiator follow detailed instructions and enter information into complex templates. Based on my experience, I think a noticeboard is a good idea, but I wonder whether it makes sense to continue adding narrow-focus noticeboards... --Orlady (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

2 weeks in, for NPOVN

Seems to be working ok, so far. A bit slow to start, but what isn't? Lawrence § t/e 15:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been useful to get some extra eyes on articles. It's interesting to see people who don't know much about an article's subject balancing the article against sources and references. I'm not sure I like the "provide diffs and we'll pronounce" method used on this board - a "have a look at this article and see if you think it's NPOV or not" might be handy for many articles. But yes, I agree it's working well so far. Dan Beale-Cocks 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel it has been useful, primarily due to Lawrence's williness to assist so readily. In response to the above, in my case the method he advocates was used, and did work well. Xymmax (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I check in when I can, and the longer the board is around, the more people will see it and check it, getting faster. Eventually. Lawrence § t/e 06:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this noticeboard is a disaster. The premise is that it is for concerns about articles, but so far its main use is for complaints about editors. There are other, more appropriate forums for those complaints. --Una Smith (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking again, it's not quite that bad. Just send the user conduct complaints away sooner. --Una Smith (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving problems

Hi. This board doesn't seem to be working, because you have 6 archives, but only two contain anything. Also, items are archived without any replies, and the noticeboard is still backlogged! Please try to resolve this issue, as not enough people are participating. Thanks. ~AH1 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: 13 archives, all seem to be in good order. Just no link from the main page, which I've fixed by restoring the Archive-box (also noted below in reply to Blue Ras..). PrBeacon (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Point? (resumed)

I only just looked here yesterday, & found you'd already been discussing an issue I raised @ Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#Procedure. I approve of the objective, but let's be blunt. These noticeboards are just RfC under another name, with a different classification & simpler procedure to place. Is there any reason to suppose that all the people who ignore RfC will suddenly flock to respond to these notices?

To be blunt again, neither the authorities nor the community are currently prepared to enforce NPOV. It's a dead letter. It's like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; nearly everyone pays lip service to it, quite a lot of people observe it voluntarily, but it's not enforced.

Can anything be done about this? Who decides these things anyway? It's a matter of policy which policies are actually enforced by the authorities, & the policies are supposed to be decided by "consensus". Does that simply mean the people who hang around policy pages? Has anyone tried RfC on changing this policy? Those seem to be notified to everyone, if not too prominently. How about a bot to send a message to everyone, like the welcome messages? Have such things been tried?

Or perhaps the best thing we could do is give up & leave the propagandists to discredit WP &/or force it to change. Maybe the future lies with Wikinfo, which simply forks & hatlinks POV disputes. They don't bother about distinctions like OR, RS, FT, notability &c. Such a simple policy might stand a chance of being actually enforceable. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guideline on Advocacy

I have created Misplaced Pages:Advocacy as a tool for informing editors about a particular type of WP:NPOV violation. Edits and comments are welcome. Jehochman 13:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Scope and definitions

As I read it, the notion of POV contained within this policy (per the "Reasoning behind neutrality" section) is tied to the existence of competing opinions on a subject in reliable sources. For example, our article on Cat needs to note that the domestic cat is considered both a popular pet and an environmental menace (and it does).

But is this policy intended to apply on a "meta" level as well and require that the scope of an article must cover all possible definitions of a term? For example, a broader definition of "cat" includes not only the domestic cats that our article covers, but a wide variety of wild cats including extinct varieties like the Sabre-tooth tiger. As I see it, this is a pragmatic issue of scoping an article, and is not a POV issue. What do others think?

(This issue has come up at glider, and I wanted to check my understanding here before wading in any deeper! :) ) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The policy as written should apply to more than just single articles, within reason. WP:POVFORK is a very specific case where NPOV applies to multiple articles. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your reply. Could you please expand a little? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concerns, so I gave an example where NPOV definitely applies to more than one article, in the hope that you could use it to clarify your concerns further by either agreeing or explaining why you don't agree. Is POVFORK and example of what you're talking about? --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages's naming conventions, the most common name should be used if possible. The objective is that the subject matter displayed after searching on a word should be what a typical user might expect. Thus a user might type in 'London' or 'Jerusalem' and should not be surprised to see an article on the cities concerned. (There would also be a disambiguation link at the head of the page.) There should be no question of neutrality here; these cities are the primary meanings of the words. There will be other occasions, such as plane, where the word could refer to an aircraft, a tool, a mathematical surface, skimming along water, or a tree. Entering the word 'plane' should present the user with a disambiguation page because there is no way of guessing what a typical user might be looking for. Complications can arise on the occasions where the name is both the popular name for an object and the name for an academic class of related objects, as in 'cat'. However the pretext of neutrality should not be used to suppress articles that use the primary meaning of a word as its title, such as 'cat' or 'London, even if there are other secondary or technical meanings. The next question is what constitutes a material controversy. If just one person thinks that 'cat' should just be a disambiguation page, is there a material controversy? As soon as one person disagrees, should we comply with Wolfkeeper's request to apply NPOV always and so move articles such as cat to cat (domestic)? Note that the debate is not about 'cat' but 'glider' but cats are a good analogy. JMcC (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC) & JMcC (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Backlog

Board seems quite quiet, quite a backlog Sticky Parkin 02:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy to Violate NPOV through Edit War and Information Suppression

Here is an organized and concerted conspiracy to violate NPOV by removing any use of the word "cold" to descibe the mantle even though the verifiable and reliable peer-reviewed science uses the word "cold" over and over again to describe the mantle. Also see Expanding Earth where a deliberate organized attempt is being made to suppress any information that might portray the hypothesis in NPOV. Wikkidd (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: This editor has been indefinitely blocked for aggressively promoting a fringe theory, and so has an apparent sockpuppet, User:Sophergeo. Rd232 12:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the basic difference between this board and the neutrality project?

We already have Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Neutrality - what is or should be the relationship? dougweller (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Looks duplicative and semi-dead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an effort going on to rescucitate it. dougweller (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The question still hasn't been answered :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The boards seem to be two different ideas for solving the same problem. WikiProject Neutrality had four edits in the past week, and this one more than twenty. These neutrality boards have the same problem as WP:COIN: a shortage of 'patrollers'. That is, people who have the patience to look at the problems that are submitted and try to give advice on them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This board is for users who have specific questions in a single instance of something they can concisely state. The neutrality project is for applying NPOV philosophy to an entire article, and would be the place to go to discuss rectifying pov creep that has permeated an entire article or set of articles.

In other words, fast practical answers to easy questions come from here, and discussion of the nature of NPOV goes there. Blue Rasberry 15:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this noticeboard work?

I sometimes work at the reliable sources noticeboard, and it seems like we're pretty good at saying "reliable" or "not reliable", and based on the arguments rarely spilling over into the noticeboard, it seems like the opinions garnered there are generally followed. Here, it seems like each section points big differences of opinion, and it doesn't seem like a small statement here is going to actually make these people back down. Is there a better way of using this that I'm not seeing? Should questions be taken somewhere else? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's probably a couple reasons for this. First, determining whether a source is a WP:RS is often a fairly straightforward matter. WP:NPOV requires intimate knowledge of what the dispute is about, including how much WP:WEIGHT a particular viewpoint should get. Second, and probably more important, POV-pushers are far more dedicated about making sure their POV gets as much coverage as possible.

Is there a better way? Yes, there's a proposal to create ArbComs to handle sub-issues like these. You can find it here: Can we more effectively manage content disputes?. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this noticeboard work?. No.

Very good idea in practice, severely lacking in practicality. Even if you gather some third opinions here people can still debate the third opinions. It's basically useless. (read those Falun Gong-related things above, you'd get a good idea.) Colipon+(Talk) 03:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this noticeboard work?. Sometimes - and very well - but with the less topical and less eternal disputes, a less-entrenched and reasonably objective third party, willing to spend some time and do a bit of research, can often find the 'middle line' that has eluded the POV-warriors on both sides. However, I suspect topics like Falun Gong et al are never going to get anywhere from here. --Jaymax (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages bias actively being practised?

I point you to the Cybersquatting discussion page. As you can see, there was an uproar when Misplaced Pages decided that Domaining (the 100% legal, as per many news sources, and multi-million dollar industry) was equal to "Cybersquatting" (the 100% illegal and wrong practise) and put in a re-direct as such.

After a lot of proof was shown, a Domaining page was set-up. However now, the same biased Misplaced Pages admin who caused the wrongful re-direct is now pushing to delete the Domaining page, probably to re-direct it back to the cybersquatting page. How is this in-keeping with Misplaced Pages's policies?

Please look at all the reputable links and proof given to support the fact that "Domaining" is a reputable and legal practise.--82.15.29.29 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Tristan Perry

Van Jones

Why has Misplaced Pages locked down the Van Jones article in a state where it is heavily biased in his favor, papering over all the new information that has come to light about his views and life? It reads like a propaganda piece relative to the truth, written by his staff. Even the discussion page was locked down! The same thing happened when there was controversy about John Edwards having a child, and Misplaced Pages editors locked down the page and would not allow any comments about his having a child out of wedlock despite reports in reputable newspapers and on Fox News. It was like "He is a liberal Democrat and we are going to protect him." Meanwhile, the pages on Bush, Cheney, Palin etc. would publish any rumor, no matter the validity.

The bias in Misplaced Pages is too blatant. Something needs to be done as when one searches for information, Misplaced Pages is often the first source, but it is providing a very biased source. At least open the discussion page so that new information coming to light can be placed so the reader can realize that they are being progagandized in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.24.158 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and one of the problems that I see is that it's using blogs and opinion pieces for statements of fact. At best, blogs and opinion pieces can only be used for statements of opinion and they must be attributed in line. However, given that this is a biography of a living person, my understanding is that we can't use them at all in claims about third-parties. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A request for consistent application of NPOV and BLP

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#A_request_for_consistent_application_of_NPOV_and_BLP. THF (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Dili

User J. Patrick Fischer (talk) is removing systematically the symbols of the city of Dili alleging they are not used anymore. The problem is that he doesn´t quote any relevant source to remove the symbols and prove they are not used anymore, despite there´s a law supporting them. I gave the data, he is disputing it, just for personal taste. Domaleixo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check my work for problems

Hey, I just moved most of the page content into a header and did some other cleanup. I used the format at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as a template, because I thought that page was better organized than this one. Could someone else verify that everything is in order? Also, comments? Thanks, Blue Rasberry 15:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is where I put the content: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Header Thanks, Blue Rasberry 15:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The archive box was missing so I went ahead and restored it. PrBeacon (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry for stranding 14 pages of content! Thanks! Blue Rasberry 00:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Cohan

Vested interests are editing this page abusively by attempting to restrict it's content to that which is strictly positive. It reeks of astroturfing (which is a type of fraud). -Nuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

New Suggested Rules for Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

I think that before someone makes a comment on this board they should have to state each time if they are involved or uninvolved. My experience has been that a group of editors enter the noticeboards and make misleading comments about the issue.

Users have entered the debate without saying if they had been previously involved. Thus, third party neutral editors were likely to mistake previously involved editors as uninvolved editors.

• Involved users should write IN: before each post
• Uninvolved users should have to write UV:

In my experience, friends of users have showed up here, and elsewhere and provided opinions without detailing their involvement or that they are friends of one or more of the involved parties. Many of their comments were misleading also. They thus dillute the discussion down in a way that is confusing to third party users who can't determine who is who and don't want to take the time to investigate in detail.

This will allow uninvolved users each time someone comments to clearly see which users are more likely to spin things. Those users are the involved users. By writing just two letters before each comment, it will also enable uninvolved users to see if the issue still needs the attention of one or more uninvolved users.

By just writing IN: or UV: before posting things will quickly become more simple, this could apply not just here but on many of the other boards too (neutral point of view, Reliable Sources, ect.).

Also, some editors may try to fake uninvolvent by writing UV: , in this case when it is obvious that another user is faking uninvolvement another user could cross out their uv with UV:. If the uninvolvement of a user is disputed other editors could than add the letter d to what that user says.For example, UVD: or maybe UV?:

There should also be consequences for obvious faking of uninvolvement such as a topic ban for frequent violators or temporary account blocks for those who do it on purpose.

New users might at first make some mistakes but would quickly learn if someone told them after their first few comments. This rule could also possibly apply to some of the other boards where third party assistance in needed.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also raised at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Subheadings of Involved/Uninvolved Dougweller (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a few suggestions at the top of the page now, such as providing a link to the article diffs of contentious edits. I do not believe that many people read this because frequently the requested data is not included in postings. I do not support a punishment system of any kind, and anyway I do not feel like anyone abuses this board. user:Preciseaccuracy, what makes you think there is a problem in need of a solution? You have only been posting here for about 3 days. Do you know of some trouble on another board? Blue Rasberry 13:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this board. The "Art Student Scam" section. A group of users formerly involved showup and dilute the discussion with comments that reliable sources are touting urban myths and that the guardian is gossip. They also make misleading comments about an articlesfordeletion page. I had to make sure to state that a third party user thoroughly go through the sources so that they wouldn't be misled by the comments of the other users. I also had to make sure to explain that users commenting had been previously involved less a third party user mistake them for uninvolved users. This same sort of thing has occurred elsewhere on other boards too.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)