Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:31, 28 March 2015

This is the talk page for the Neutral point of view noticeboard. For questions about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy please go to the noticeboard. For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the noticeboard itself.

Click here to post a question to the Neutral point of view noticeboard

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

Conspiracy theory definition

moved to Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Conspiracy_theory_definition

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can a neutral point of view be achieved when only bug fixes are allowed at Android version history? 80.103.73.101 (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. E _C K _S A E _S  10:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the page is protected and I can not create it. Could anyone help me by creating it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.73.101 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Trent Richardson (NFL Player) Neutrality Issues

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

After reading through the page for NFL running back Trent Richardson, I was certainly surprised by the overwhelming positive tone that seemed to permeate throughout that embellished upon certain truths a bit too much - as to overemphasize areas/achievements worthy of praise and gloss-over/out-right fail to even give mention to some of the more disappointing moments of this person's "slice-of-life." Particularly, within the descriptions for each individual season there are mentions of season-specific accolades with accompanying anecdotes that may supplement or bring illustrious qualities to those performances/achievements, and the main reservation I hold with this page was with the description of the 2014 NFL season.

Here it is claimed that (paraphrasing) "Ahmad Bradshaw became injured and allowed Richardson to become the feature back." However, this hardly leaves the reader with an accurate account of the notable happenings/particular need-to-knows for this player within this particular season. A more factual approach would be to include an account that details the ultimate disappointment Richardson had proven to be for the Colts who had acquired him via trade from the Cleveland Browns for a FIRST ROUND DRAFT PICK. Considering the faith the organization put behind Richardson with the sizable investment they had relinquished in order acquire him, it would be nothing short of unmemorable for this player to produce anything less than league average numbers. Moreover, Trent Richardson was far from memorable for the 2014 NFL season - leaving many scratching their heads with the unexpected downfall of Richardson over the past two NFL seasons with no particular cause to label with attribution because nothing seems to be a sufficient explanation.

With his team currently deep into the post-season - very-much so with a good chance for contending for a championship - Richardson has been a healthy-scratch for both of the Colts' last two playoff games (including their upcoming conference championship game). Their team is standing among the best of the best within the league and the franchise can do nothing other than implicitly confirm Richardson to be nothing more than dead weight with no role whatsoever for him to fill and add value to the team's roster in any meaningful or competitive way.

If it is to become accurate and factual, the article for Richardson is in need of much improvement in order to, both, demonstrate neutrality and provide sufficient coverage of the pertinent details, because (while my prose on the subject is far from unbiased) the article did not seem to give the slightest mention of the above sentiments despite the objective facts/supporting details and despite the fact that many reputable-figures around the NFL have echoed these same sentiments.

It is a view left unmentioned from the article and I would like to request that a willing and able individual take on this task. And, also, on a more stylistic-note, outside of the exclusion of relevant-details, it is worth noting a large portion of the article appears to be overly positive and could use some repairs in the neutrality department. In other words, an overwhelming sense of the author's opinion of this player should not be so easily discerned. Rather, I should be able to read the article and have no indication either way.... Just some thoughts.

TW

76.185.239.143 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. — {{U|Technical 13}} 22:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

António de Oliveira Salazar

I'm trying to post on the noticeboard, but it's protected for some reason? So how are IPs supposed to report things? Dumb move, but anyway…
An editor, Jbenjos (talk · contribs), has explicitly stated that he is going to edit the António de Oliveira Salazar article, the Prime Minister of Portugal, to portray him in a bad light. Choice quotes (from talkpage and edit summaries) include:

• "this guy was literarly a dictator" (so adds line stating "Salazar was a dictator" rather than previous "Salazar was Prime Minister" (neutral), which I reverted)
• "We need more politicial opponents of Salazar in this article, setting the tone of the article." (so adds quote from a prominent political opponent of Salazar, calling him "a historian", which ludicrously claims Salazar destroyed Portugal's economy)

And, worst of all:

• "I'd like to see this article read a little more like Adolf Hitler or Stalin"
• also, comparing the subject of the article to the North Korean dictators, so clear where his POV lies

58.7.138.46 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: there is a strong likelihood that Jbenjos is using two sockpuppets, 128.65.232.111 (talk · contribs) and McDonald of Kindness (talk · contribs), both of which have been created within the past week and magically found their way to the Salazar article. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

CUs trying to run checks on me are likely not to get a saying that I am a sock of the said editor. I do not think that the IP bothered to look at my contributions. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article https://en.wikipedia.org/RKSV is showing that "The neutrality of this article is disputed". However, the article is factual from start to finish, so the neutrality dispute should be removed.

The claim is that "The introduction sounds like a sales pitch. The history section, again, refers to the company's growth, their pricing plans, and increase in trading volumes, presented as a marketing pitch."

However, the tone of the article is not one of a sales pitch but of a factual one. The first source clearly establishes that RKSV is a discount broker that is going against the traditional brokerage model through its pricing. Therefore, highlighting the fact that the pricing of RKSV's plans is much lower than other brokers is a fact that is backed up by the source.

The history section talks about the growth of RKSV, which is factual in nature. It is a start-up firm and it would be odd to not mention the growth of the firm. All figures are factual and backed by sources, not opinions. RaghuKumar RKSV (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done I reviewed the article and agree that it is not a sales pitch. I didn't see any significant WP:NPOV issues so I removed the tag.- MrX 11:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am new here and I would like to have a discussion about Misplaced Pages neutrality policy. I have seen that Misplaced Pages is not neutral in many of it's articles. I've seen many duscussions on other pages and websites about this as well and I would like to know why the Misplaced Pages community pretends it has a neutral stance when in reality they have a very narrow and poltitically motivated stance in most political articles. Where is it possible to have such a dicussion? Thanks. McCouchsky (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have disabled your edit request as you want to start a general discussion. --NeilN 00:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, in reality people advocating for a particular political stance are generally going to be unhappy with articles that don't reflect or, if it is fringe, mention that stance. Article talk pages can be used to point out specific neutrality problems with an article. --NeilN 00:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)