Template talk:POV/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

POV-section with date is broken

I'm reverting to the old revision until this can be fixed. Please thoroughly test new revisions before altering this highly visible template. --⟳ausa کui ^× 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• After investigating a little more it looks like the recent changes to POV and POV-section templates have included changing the syntax of the secondary fields, which has broken this template on many pages where it has already been placed. Please check and fix this. --⟳ausa کui ^× 23:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you've reverted the changes to the {{POV}} template. This issue appears to have been caused by a change to {{POV-section}} made back in April. I've updated the sandbox at {{POV-section}} with a version which fixes this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. I'll report back if there are any problems. --⟳ausa کui ^× 09:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Error

In PayPal the category added by this template is not hidden. The category that should be hidden is NPOV disputes from or disputed Feb 2008. --Melab±1 ☎ 21:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Never mind I realized that it wasn't an error in the template, rather that the template {{hiddencat}} wasn't on the category's page. --Melab±1 ☎ 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

New template related to POV proposed

Please see here for my proposal of a new template, that would be put on articles that need to have their sources globalized - i.e. on articles that rely on a very similar set of sources likely representing one and the same POV.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifying the section of the talk page

The documentation says, "To specify the section of the talk page, use {{POV|talk page section name}}." Doing so, does not give the putative desired result, i.e., a link to the discussion on the talk page.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So why the change 1 week ago

Hello, I notice the wording now says 'Editors are currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article', rather than 'the neutrality of this article is disputed'. The problem is that the current reading suggests 'some of the points of view might be wrong in some way', but the template used to be used to say 'it might not be neutral'; this is quite a difference.

Consider the following lead sentence:

Adolf Hitler was a statesman famous for his vegetarianism. Hitler's animal rights activism was extremely popular in 1930s Germany, and by the early 1940s he had support from much of western Europe. Hitler's kindness to kittens was particularly appealing to King Edward VIII; Edward was popularly rumoured to endorse Hitler's political views. Unfortunately for Edward, the British population was historically unkeen on animal rights, bear baiting and fox hunting being particularly popular throughout English history; Britain reluctantly declared War on Hitler's germany.

The old NPOV template would clearly point out what people thought the problem might be. The new one is far too vagueClinkophonist (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Consensus is that the new version, while not perfect, is better in a variety of cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the phrase 'a variety of cases'. Ie. there are other cases where it isn't better. When there were several different templates to choose from, it was easy to pick the appropriate one, but now there is only this one, which may be slightly better for a variety of cases, but is significantly worse in others. Clinkophonist (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That the new wording is considerably less accusative is a feature IMO, not a bug. And there is still an entire category devoted to templates of this nature, if a better fit is to be found - the issue here was that {{NPOV}} was primarily applied to articles which were not flagrantly biased, and yet was worded as if it usually was. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The only templates there are for factual accuracy issues. This version of this template has effectively been turned into one of them - a paraphrased version of {{Disputed}}. In particular, the key detail it no longer mentions is the word neutrality, which was the whole point of the template; how can you think its reasonable to have {{NPOV}} but never mention neutrality?

All you've got now is oooh, there might be an issue - go and read the talk page; it should be There might be a neutrality issue - read the talk page for further details . Clinkophonist (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And that's how it should be, because it discourages editors from using this template as a badge of shame for any article they disagree with. Again, that's a feature. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree.--Cerejota (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposed wording is problematic primarily because for a large number of articles to which this tag is applied, it is inaccurate. Quite often, there are no issues with the presentation of opinions in the article, the issue is with the presentation of facts, or the lack thereof. I would not object to creating a collection of tags, and switching the tags on each article currently tagged (if somebody wants to undertake that onerous task), but the fact is that {{pov}} is used as a catch-all regardless of whether it's opinions, factual presentation, undue weight, etc., that are being alleged as a violation of WP:NPOV. One should not, when changing a tag, change it so that it no longer reflects the original taggers' intent in a significant fraction of articles. Ray^Talk 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Major template problem

Take a look at this version of an article (for a baseline reference). Then take a look at this diff and the article it creates.

Notice how the presence of the NPOV template changes the article from being about its title, to being about NPOV on Wikipedia. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand: there's a difference between {{NPOV}} and {{WP:NPOV}}. The former transcludes this template. The latter transcludes the policy page. It's a simple syntax error on behalf of the editor in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to the previous and longstanding version of this template. Quite frankly, after the discussion about this last year, I am very annoyed that someone chose to revert the template again on the basis of just one new user's opinion and without having the courtesy of informing interested parties like myself about the discussion after I had previously expressed the strongest possible opposition to this change. Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've pinged you on your talk page, but it's probably better here - where was this old discussion? So far as I can see, you haven't made any previous comments on either this page or its two archives. Was there a discussion elsewhere? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Last time I left a message at AN voicing my objections and another admin reverted the changes on the basis that there had been insufficient discussion. The discussion, such as it was, then ended up here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well, although I don't see why comments were left at the VP instead of here. For now, I've prepared a new version of the sandbox which uses the existing wording but uses a more standard layout (which is more legible and makes better use of the template's width). Could you synchronise it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason the discussion was moved to VPP is because this page is considered too out-of-the-way to have a debate about something that potentially affects thousands of articles. One of those little anomalies of the project.

What do you mean "synchronize"? You want me to post your sandbox code to the template? I'm happy to do that, as long as you're sure the new layout is correct. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, just copy and paste the code across. I'm sure that the sandbox code is correct. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Gatoclass, and have asked him to retract. The wording of all tags in wikipedia should be geared towards eventual resolution of the conflict, not its perpetuation by drive by tagging, which is what this tag promotes. That language is a relic of a past in which we had disputes but people behaved, but I am afraid that today with professional meatpuppets, and meta-controversies, such language belongs in the dust bin with {{totally-disputed}}. Unfortunately, since this is protected, it can lead to accusations of pullign wheelies. It is a bad situation. --Cerejota (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where the discussion to delete totallydisputed took place, but it appears to have been deleted for housekeeping rather than policy reasons, since the individual tags re neutrality and factual accuracy are still extant.

Re your comments, I gave my reasons for objection to the proposed changes here. There is clearly no consensus for the proposed change, and I am strongly opposed to it for the reasons stated in the supplied link. Gatoclass (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Misuse

Would anyone mind if we expanded the "badge of shame" instructions to specifically include language about not using it to "warn readers" about (perceived) neutrality failings of an article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage instruction not worded strongly enough?

At present the usage instructions (guidelines?) include the phrase:

"The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page."

To me, this means that the user of this template can start the discussion (and perhaps is strongly advised to do so), but is under no obligation — despite the fact that without the discussion, there's little or no point in using this tag. (For instance, see Billy_Fury#UK_chart_and_film_success.)

I propose that "should" needs to be changed to "must". — 92.40.178.206 (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no "musts" on Wikipedia and I think "should" gets the point across well enough. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Change wording

The text currently says:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

I think we might better communicate the way this template should be used if we change it to something like this:

You are invited to join the discussion about the neutrality of this article on the talk page. Please remove this message when the discussion has ended.

I think this wording will reduce the likelihood of people using this tag as a permanent 'warning to readers' (Category:NPOV disputes from December 2006 should be empty: POV discussions do not run for three years at a time), while perhaps being better encouraging new editors to join the conversation. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few remarks about this proposal:

• Not all editors who post a POV tag open a discussion on the talk page.
• POV issues sometimes run and never end.
• Sometimes the tag is simply forgotten, even though the issue was resolved (if not by discussion then at least factually, when a consensus version remains stable).

I think this means I am not in favor of this new wording. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The editor placing the tag is actually required to start a discussion (if one isn't already underway). Drive-by tagging is unacceptable for this particular template.

If having this template on the page doesn't result in resolution, then it should be removed. This template does not exist to warn the readers that some subjects are controversial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Support the change. It is much nicer to use positive language, and I think it gives the same information. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I support changing the final sentence to "Please remove this message when the discussion has ended." as this more closely reflects the guide to the use of this tag, which says "if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor". Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether it would be possible to change what the template displays based on the date= parameter? For example, if the date is from two years ago, then the last sentence could say "Please remove this message if there has been no recent discussion about this issue on this article's talk page." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is possible, but at present we have no other maintenance templates with such an advanced feature. In addition, the absence of a discussion is not in itself sufficient reason to remove the template. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

One more interwiki

Please can this be added ? hr:Predložak:Neutralnost Thank you.

--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done in this edit, which you could have made yourself, because interwikis go on the unprotected documentation page. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reason

Please, can this be added? Thank you. User:Andres Rojas

text = The '''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]] 
{{#if:{{{of|{{{1|}}}}}}|{{{of|{{{1|}}}}}}|of this {{{what|article}}}}} 
is [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute|disputed]]'''.
<br />{{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}<br />|}}
Please see the discussion on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}#{{{1|}}}|talk page]]. 
Please do not remove this message until the 
[[WP:NPOVD#What is an NPOV dispute?|dispute is resolved.]]

The reason in question is seldom something short enough to add to the cleanup tag itself, and in any case it is best that all discussion of the problem be had on the talk page: allowing editors who dispute an article's neutrality to give a long description of their grievances in the tag would cause all sorts of problems. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

change message

Hi everyone,

I suggest the wording of the last part of the template be changed from

Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

to

Please do not remove this message until there is consensus that dispute is resolved. It is not vandalism to remove this template.

This may fix the hole that the editors of Southern Poverty Law Center fell into Nov. 20, 2010 to Nov. 30, 2010.

See also:

• Discussions between administrators at AN/EW.
• Comments between a user and administrator at an old version of the user's talk page.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Many, perhaps most, disputes are "resolved" when some of the participants drift away or just stop fighting. In those cases there's no consensus that the dispute has been resolved. If there has to be a positive acknowledgement of a consensus then it'll be hard to remove the tag from any article.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Then add in "or until the dispute has remained dormant for a month" or something like that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This kind of verbiage might belong on the tag's page, along with other instructions, but not in the tag itself which appears on the top of an article. I suggest that "not vandalism" text go there as well. It isn't necessarily vandalism to remove most tags, so it isn't necessary to specify that on the tag itself.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but in my case, had that message been there, that would have made a difference to me. You see, when the tag reads that it should not be removed until the dispute is over, I assumed (and I guess I should never ass-u-me) that the removal of the tag was vandalism, particularly where people edit warred to remove the tag. So, while such a message may not be necessary, particularly for experienced editors, it would not hurt to include it to prevent any misunderstandings and/or to guide the less experienced. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This tag currently appears on over 6,000 pages, and I'd guesss that it's been applied to over 10,000 in the past. I'm not aware of any other editor who's thought that it was OK to edit war over the tag due to the wording.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Will. No one else has ever edit warred due to the phrasing; the one who did so is now clearly aware he was mistaken. The problem is solved. There is absolutely no need to try to add preventative phrasing to head off other non-existent issues. If we add the "month" verbiage, for example, we will assuredly have people edit warring over what constitutes a "month". No. leave it as it is. To do otherwise invites, and does not prevent, problems. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The tag does have a link to the WP:NPOVD page (underneath the word, "disputed").

I suggest that if we want to add instructions, they can go there.

Also, I notice the following sentence on the WP:NPOVD page:

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not.

Alecmconroy added that sentence on June 25, 2006.

I predict he added it because of NPOV dispute in the Opus Dei article: June 9, June 9, June 9, June 9, June 8, June 8, June 7, June 7, June 6, June 6, June 6, June 6, June 6, June 6, June 5.

There were even some additions/removals after Alecmconroy added the sentence: July 26, July 25, June 28, June 28.

--07:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Alecmconroy's comments at Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute#Proposal to add language to deter edit-wars over the NPOV tag.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those but they're all from 2006, more than four years ago. This is what the template looked like back then.[2] It's changed considerably since that time.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have great respect for Alecmconroy. That poor guy was the first or near the first to deal with me in my newbie stages. Now, if I understand what Kevinkor2 has said, I am not the only person to fall into the trap, it has happened plenty before. The clear assumption is it may happen again. Adding a few words to prevent that is totally harmless.

Oh my! Alecmconroy sought essentially the same remedy I have been seeking. Kevinkor2, you are amazing for finding that! That totally vindicates the recent WP:LAME incident and my subsequent block that would not have occurred had Alecmconroy's(/mine too/) idea been incorporated long ago. Not only am I vindicated, but get a load of this: "In other words, we should clarify what the tag means, and sort of 'raise the burden of proof' for someone wishing to take the tag down-- such that merely believing the page IS NPOV is not a good enough justification for taking the tag down." Bingo! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the template has been changed since then. When you say this problem has happened plety of times, are you referring just to that one episode in 2006, or have there been more recent ones?   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know of recent problems, other then mine, and I do not have the research skills of Kevinkor2. That said, Alecmconroy said, back in 2006, "That war is now over, but I've since bumped into other people who've also experienced edit-wars over the NPOV dispute tag." That is the basis for my statement, along with the reasonable assumption that incidents besides what Alecmconroy has reported may have occurred as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and after the comments by Alec the template was changed. Really, all that's required to avoid this problem is a little familiarity with WP:Edit warring. In the only recent example, the editor was pointed to that policy and yet that was insufficient. If folks want to get into a fight they'll do so regardless. I've raised specific objections to the proposal that haven't been addressed.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you acknowledege that the edit war was WP:LAME indicates that it was not serious - all the more reason that we should not change this template just because of it. The remedies for lame edit wars are blocking or page protection.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I never believed it was "lame" until Magog the Ogre finally overturned my being blocked before its expected duration saying is was WP:LAME anyway, then he went on to warn the editors who repeatedly removed the tag. That's where I first learned about that, to the best of my recollection. To me, it was totally serious then and now. That is why I have moved to improve the language somewhere to make things clearer. Just like Alecmconroy. I'm in good company, as far as I'm concerned. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Engaging in a lame edit war is nothing to be proud of. I still don't see any response to several of my concerns about this proposal or a clear justification for the change. Rather than simply quoting an obsolete discussion from four years ago, can you give a compelling reason for why this propsoal is necessary?   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not know it was lame. If I did, I would not have done it. I wanted to comply with the language of the tag and to maximize the people joining in on the conversation. That's the whole purpose of Wikipedia. As to a reason, it's what Kevinkor2 said, "This may fix the hole that the editors of Southern Poverty Law Center fell into." As for compelling, I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it's compelling. To you, or perhaps to any very experienced editor, we know it is not compelling. Look, I don't want to be an annoyance here. I'm just responding to your question as best I can. If no changes are ultimately made, then at least I will have tried my best to improve something that tripped me up so others are not similarly affected. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I only see one editor who thought that removing the tag was an instance of vandalism. Were there others? I don't think we should change the text of a tag that appears on thousands of article just because one editor, who has been here for over four years, chose to edit war over it. The policies are quite clear. There's no exemption in WP:EW for adding or replacing tags, and good faith actions are not vandalism, per WP:VANDAL. The fault is not with the wording of this tag, but with editors who don't follow the clearly written core policies of this project.   Will Beback  talk  02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll back out of this conversation so others can participate as well. I apologize for thinking a tag that says not to remove it should be restored per the tag's text, per Alecmconroy generally speaking, and per common sense to get more voices involved in the dispute. Thinking it was vandalism, I never thought 3RR was involved. But that should not stand in the way of improving policy. "The policies are quite clear". No, they are not. Not to me. Not to Kevinkor2 who opened this subsection. Not to Alecmconroy. Not to the people involved in the other instances Alecmconroy mentioned. We are seeking to make the policies even clearer, almost certainly a harmless change. Kevinkor2, sorry, but you are on your own right now. Good luck. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Per common sense, I would think a four-year veteran of this site would have read the policy he was pointed to, rather than violate WP:EW which I happen to know for a fact you are well aware of, LAEC. This tendentious arguing to add detailed verbiage to protect people from failing to listen to those who point them to policies and who instead engage in disruptive edit warring is pointless. You might as well argue we put the entire content of the policy, as well as the policies for BLOCK, EW, and every other conceivably applicable policy in the template - ensuring that it violates size standards by a factor of (I'm guessing) about a thousandfold, gets rolled up, and is therefore never read at all. Cease this, please. You've wasted enough time with your edit warring, your arguing, and now your campaign to validate your actions post hoc by adding verbiage which you can then point to and say, 'Oh, that's why I edit warred against advice, against policy, against common sense - because that wasn't there to tell me not to'. Be done, already. You erred. Don't do it again. But don't try to make it out that somehow it is someone else's fault for not spoon feeding you diligently enough. And don't "protect" the imaginary editors who might conceivably be as obtuse in the future. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice puppy! ;) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Smile, you made me laugh with that comment. But seriously, this is a slippery slope we don't need to go down, so lets just move on now, ok? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And you made me smile with yours. Sure, let's move on. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Since anything on Wikipedia has to be decided by consensus, that change is superfluous. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I do think LAEC has a point though about removal of tags. I have found this problematic for a long period - on pages relating to the I-P conflict, for example, tags are aggressively removed by factions if they think they have the numbers to establish a "consensus", and this is not the only area that suffers from this problem. There's a case to be made for having more stringent requirements for tag removal. People are not usually so unreasonable as to insist on tags if they don't think there's a good reason for having them. Tags ultimately only warn readers there's a dispute over content in any case, I would think it's more important to err on the side of a possibly gratuitous warning than to have no warning on a potentially problematic article. Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)