New Requests
To request attention for a page from the Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project, please post under this heading with a subheading and explanation of the nature of the request.
Steps to list a New Request
1 Check the article talk page of the article you think has a NPOV problem.' If there is active discussion about fixing a NPOV problem, the Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project may use it's discresion and turn down the request, so be aware of that.
2 Create a new request as a subheading under this category. Be sure to use the following format:
=={{article|<<articlenamehere>>}}==
''Put a brief description of the POVconflict or POV problem here.''' ~~~~
3 Be sure to look back at this page for follow-up replies. If the coordinator is uncertain about certain aspects of the request, they may request additional information. Be prepared to provide it. If information is not provided within a reasonable grace period, the request will be closed.
4 If the request is deemed to require NPOV attention, a coordinator will move it to the open requests section. This is when open project collaboration on the article will begin, and if you do not wish to participate further in the article you need not check back after the article report is opened.
Note to Project members
 Note to Project members • Please do not respond to new requests, instead wait for them to be approved or rejected by the coordinators, Wizardry Dragon (talk · contribs) or CP/M (talk · contribs).
Open Requests
This section is designed to coordinate the editing of pages to conform to a neutral tone and point of view as per WP:NPOV guidelines. It is essentially a "to-do" list. Please report any pages in need of Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project members' attention as a subheading of this section, to the top.
I feel that this article might be too excessively negative, and I need another person to review and pick out loaded language or any other neutrality issues. Hbdragon88 01:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've started this case, and done a few copyedits for a more neutral tone. An anonymous user has graciously done a couple of more. Our project is picking up!Nina Odell 15:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Theere has been some seriously emotive edits in the article, which is being edited by a single user. Any attempts to request for neutrality has been resoundedly rebuffed with incivility and accusations of vandalism. The editor, User:Iwazaki will not allow anyone to even tag it, so intervention by more experienced wikipedians is sorely needed. May require MedCom/ArbCom intervention in the future. The issue of neutrality and using wikipedia as a political soapbox has been raised in the talk page of the article Talk:Gonagala massacre.Some input from neutrality-observant editors is sorely needed. Cheerio. Rumpelstiltskin223 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've written a small note to the user. This is going to need time and care.Nina Odell 15:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I feel the article is a lot better. However, I also feel I've done all I can do here and need to withdraw. I'm also removing the article in question from watchlist. Nina Odell 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nina Odell has done a great job with the aticle..Complain was made on the 30 th and there has been many changes since then.I am not sure what is disputed here.So please be kind enough to inform us regarding the disputed section of the article. Also, please be noted that, the whole article is well cited and well written thanks to Nina and others.thank you --Iwazaki 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
There has been some serious POV presented on this article from multiple sides. A serious content dispute has arisen and the NPOV policy needs enforced. May require MedCom/ArbCom intervention. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I can help with technical assistance, such as adding references and copyediting but I've essentially withdrawn from this project at this time. In my opinion, understanding the issues involved are important to getting the article stable, and I don't have time or knowledge to wade through and "do battle", as it were, at the same time. A person with a good baseline knowledge of the issues would help here, or someone with the time to learn. I refer you to one of my early efforts in another matter:].NinaEliza 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- And here ].
- The article needs to be checked for:-
- Repititions. One particular user is intent on repeating sections by coppying them in the same article.
- Repititions of actions of the people who actually contributed to the decline of Buddhism in India.
- Encyclopedic language.
- Credible links.
- Chronology. Some users are intent of breaking chronology. Especially when it comes to those who pioneered the resurgence of Buddhism in India.
- I will provide assistence in due time, right now the vacations and real life are keeping me busy.
- Freedom skies| talk 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I made some suggestions on the talk page regarding specific wording issues that leave either doubt or instances of dubious statements that require more explanation. I also left some suggestions regarding style, on of which was to frame the article chronologically, as mentioned above. Most issues would be resolved if there was a consensus as to the subject of the article. As a simple reader in this subject area, it is not clear at all what the article's direction is. If it had a coherent point of view, it would be easier to fix the neutrality of it.
- D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note
- A mediation case Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India has been opened 12:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC). Current status: Waiting for requestor. — Sebastian 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did some massive copy-editing. I hope this helps. I'll look at Freedom Skies specific suggestions tonight. Nina Odell 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the first thing that happened after your intervention was an edit war with unexplained deletions such as this. I did not have the impression this contributed to calming down the mood, which is something we would need for a succesful mediation. — Sebastian 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've done all I can in terms of copy-editing. I'm withdrawing from the article. Nina Odell 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that you're withdrawing, and I sincerly hope that my comment didn't contribute to your decision. I was a bit disappointed about the revert war, but I am now convinced that it had nothing to do with you. It just seems that people aren't all aboard the mediation case yet. Is there a chance to get you back? One of the parties specifically asked for a neutral editor, and since you're better at that than me, you might be the ideal person. At any rate, I'd be grateful if you cold look at the issue list we put in the case page yesterday and give us some advice. — Sebastian 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, considering comments I've made in the past to both of the editors, as well as on the talk page, I doubt highly that either one of them consider me neutral. This is the primary reason I'm withdrawing. It certainly has nothing to do with any of your comments, concerns, or questions.
- I'm proud of my efforts there, and I think they've done some good towards the article itself, but there is a distinct pattern of disruption that is a road I'd rather not travel down again. Sebastian, I think you'll do an excellent job with the mediation. Let's see how it develops first. Nina Odell 22:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Concern, as expressed on Talk: Mitt Romney, that article reads too much like campaign literature. 3rd party review for neutrality would be helpful. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I made some edits, and added a comment regarding development of the issue. I could not find directly biased statements, and see only minor improvements needed to develop and clarify the alternate opinions to his own. Specific issues should be clarified.
- D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 05:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the opening sentence of the article on Wise use: "The Wise Use agenda is based in environmental conservationism yet is anti-environmentalist in a political sense." Is an agenda a proper subject for a WP article? Thanks. Steve Dufour 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. I hope I am putting this in the right place.
- It certainly is notable, in my opinion, however that kind of wording is clearly biased and needs work. I'll take a look into improving it when I get a chance. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me • Support Neutrality • RFCU) 20:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Corrected a couple bits, will try to seek for better wording for intro. CP/M |Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project| 10:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This page has seen considerable anti-Microsoft vandalism in recent times to the Xbox page so please keep an eye on this one. -- Wizardry Dragon 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty much documented there. --Yodamace1 10:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Superfluous "Pseudoscientific"?
Hi, an interesting dispute arose (I raised the issue) surrounding the use of "pseudoscientific" as a modifier for "intelligent design" on the PZ Myers page. The discussion is here I'd like to request an outside viewpoint. Thanks, Gabrielthursday 08:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose a wording change from "As well as criticizing the pseudoscientific claims of intelligent design proponents and others" to perhaps "As well as offering criticisms of Intelligent Design, notably asserting that its claims are psuedoscientific." It would focus the article on Meyer's views and not inadvertently offer a biased or dysphemismtic qualifier. If Meyers criticisms include the concept of pseudoscientific then it would be appropriate to note that.
- D. M. Arney, M.A. 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed Requests
When requests have been addressed, they are archived at Misplaced Pages:Neutrality_Project/closed. This is almost always without prejudice - you can usually open a request if bias is reintroduced to the page.
|
