This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise. Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation. Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Hizb ut-Tahrir

This page has been hijacked by a group of propagandists for the organization. Given that in the real world HT has been frequently accused of terrorist activities and banned in a number of countries, the current activity on this page runs the risk of causing wikipedia to be used as propaganda for terrorism.

I've attempted to clean it up and de-POV it a bit. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mark Kimmitt

This page badly needs new eyes on it. It has devolved into a simple "undo" war between two different descriptions of an event, both of which are factually true. The question is over the proper characterization of what happened. The two versions are below. I wrote the first one, and another author (whom I suspect to be a sock puppet for the subject) repeatedly deleted it, finally replacing it with the second version (which I believe to be a sanitized version). Both of us agree that both versions are factually true, but clearly the two versions portray the results of the investigation in a different light. We have been unable to resolve the issue through discussion. Would someone please be willing to read the two page summary of the report cited on the page (you have to skip through some letters first on the .pdf file) and help us to resolve the dispute? I'd be so grateful. The two versions are below:

Version 1

Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee.[9] [10] [11] Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations.[9] [10]

The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders" and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style."[7] "[W]itnesses described him as a demanding, confrontalional manager, occasionally displaying anger that demeaned subordinates and caused them to minimize their interaction with him. Some witnesses further indicated that BG Kimmitt resorted to threats of job loss or career harm as a 'motivational' tactic and made demeaning comments when criticizing individual work products." [7] "[T]estimony indicated that morale In BG Kimmitt's organization was negatively affected by BG Kimmitt's leadership style, combined with the heavy workload and long hours. Finally, we found that BG Kimmitt's leadership style discouraged subordinates from free and open communication with him.... While some witnesses, to include his supervisors and several detractors, viewed BG Kimmitt as 'effective,' we also found credible witnesses who told us that they obtained other employment to escape the unpleasant work environment." [7]

At Kimmitt's request, the IG also "obtained testimonial evidence that tended to mitigate the adverse impact of BG Kimmitt's leadership lapses. In that regard several witnesses, primarily BG Kimmitt's superiors, emphasized that BG Kimmitt brings superb qualifications and intellect to his position; that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office; and that he operates in a stressful, demanding environment, which could trigger confrontation."[7]

The Department of Defense Inspector General's office, in a separate letter to the committee, also disclosed "a substantiated allegation that Mr. Kimmitt . . . failed to properly safeguard information, in violation of Army regulations," but it did not elaborate.[9] [7] The exact nature of this violation has not been disclosed.

Version 2

Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee. Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations. The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with applicable standards", that "several witnesses...emphasized...that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office", and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style." The IG reported at the conclusion of the second investigation that the allegation was not substantiated and warranted no further investigation, and that the complaint provided no details that would convey creditability to the allegations.[7]

Edward Jones Investments

The listing has been hijacked by someone inside the company. First they eliminated any controversial history from the company, now a week later they are back writing up a press release. Don't want to get into an edit war with insider, but hoping someone here knows how to control this behaviour.

StopLoss

The last section of the Stop Loss article about topics in the media is biased. It needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.100.9 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 Mar 2008

2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence

Someone has used the "Political background" section to post his own views about the Serbia/Kosovo conflict. It is blatantly not NPOV and must be removed - but I'm not well-researched enough on the topic to know what to replace it with. This abuse has not been noted on the Talk page.

The offending section begins with: "Lets not forget the real reason why Kosovo is now independent" and ends with: "As evidenced by the recognition of Kosovo by top world powers such as the US, UK, France, Germany and Canada, its not hard to see why this region deserved its full independence and recognition." It includes various typographical errors in addition to the non-NPOV content. The section was authored by user:SmartPolitics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.10.216 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 Mar 2008

Anniston Eastern Bypass

The brief article on the Anniston Eastern Bypass in northeastern Alabama seems to be presented from a particular point of view, condemming alleged "land-grabs" and demonizing the local newspaper.

Not a big issue, neccesarilly, just one I found today.

"Annexation" - is this a loaded term?

At the Gibraltar article the following sentence is being argued over:

I see a big problem with the term "annexation". It is being insisted upon by a (proud) Gibraltarian Wikipedian who has been in de facto control of the article for many years now (User:Gibnews). Whilst he does good stuff fending off the idiots who vandalise the article, sometimes he can't see past his political views and can put a political slant on the article, which is what I believe is happening here. Therefore, I would appreciate others' views at Talk:Gibraltar on whether "annexation" is an acceptable term to describe what I would say can be replaced with the 100% neutral "Spanish sovereignty".

Thanks.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This report is way, way premature. Both User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and User:Gibnews have a long history of tendentious arguments on this article. Dragging in others at this stage is utterly ridiculous, particularly in view of the fact that a consensus is not that far away on the talk page. Justin talk 11:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why asking for others' input is a problem. As you reverted my change within seconds and are yet to contribute to the discussion, I'd like to see you do that there rather than sniping here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting a dispute resolution process, when a consensus is not that far away is simply being pointy. Your actions are more designed to escalate the dispute than diffuse it. Justin talk 12:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this noticeboard begins with the following instructions: "Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion." I am using this noticeboard for its intended purpose. You've made your point, now please let me get the opinions of others. Thankyou. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem. Annexsation is used most often in the context of municipal politics. It's just when one political jurisdiction incorporates the territory of a second but the political, administrative structure of the first is retained, as opposed to amalgamation. If I say "In 1912, the city of Toronto annexed the town of North Toronto", this is a factual, neutral statement. But context may be important. What term do most sources use? WilyD 15:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a North American (and intra-territorial) convention. In international politics, the usual meaning of 'annex' is something like 'assert sovereignty over', with an implication that the state taking the action disregards any existing territorial claims. It's often used to describe the political mechanics of a military invasion. In the UK (at least), municipal authorities have no independent power to absorb unincorporated or junior places adjoining. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Neither of the official Government of Gibraltar websites (gibraltar.gov.gi, gibraltar.gov.uk) uses the term "annexation" in the context of the sovereignty issue, according to google: [1] [2]
• Uses of "sovereignty" abound on both sites: [3] [4]
• Searching the Website of the Gibraltar Chronicle, one of the oldest English-language newspapers in the world, I found a total of 107 matches for "sovereignty", and just 3 matches for annexation (two of which are opinion pieces). This would seem to indicate that even in the Gibraltarian press, references to "annexation" are the exception rather than the rule. As per WP:DUE, we should give prominence to mainstream rather than minority terms, especially in the lede. Jayen466 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

== Lebanon

I have a concern about the neutrality of the following section in the entry on Lebanon: In 2006 however, the Israeli army attacked Lebanon with intense airstrikes and artillery fire alongside numerous ground incursions by Israeli forces - the extensive attacks were in response to a single incident of rocket fire in which two Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner by Hezbollah. The month long conflict caused significant civilian loss of life and serious damage to Lebanon's civil infrastructure (including Beirut's airport). The conflict lasted from July 12, 2006 until a cessation of hostilities call, by the UN Security Council, went into effect on August 14, 2006,[9][6] the country's economy is still struggling to recover.

In particular, the assertion that the Israeli attack was in response to a single incident of rocket fire. My understanding and recollection is that there had been repeated, continuous incidents of rocket fire from south Lebanon into Israel, and the Israeli soldiers were not taken prisoner in a rocket attack, but in an armed incursion into Israel by Hezbollah.

You didn't sign or date this, (remember to use four ~s!) but I'll try and answer it. Yes, I think the wording of the entry is inappropriate. In a general article on Lebanon, it is unnecessary to discuss the claimed motivations for the war. It would be best to say something like, "However, Lebanon's economic and tourist recovery was set back severely by the 2006 Lebanon war, a month-long conflict which caused significant..."

The claimed causes for a war are always controversial and require the explication of numerous claims and counter-claims from several POVs; with the Lebanon war this is probably even more true. To be truly neutral you would have to say something like, "Israel destroyed much of Lebanon's infrastructure in response to a Hezbollah rocket barrage on Northern Israel which was launched in

response to a series of Israeli incursions and airstrikes which was launched in response to a Hezbollah cross-border raid which was launched in response to Israel's holding of several dozen Lebanese prisoners and occupation of a small strip of territory which Israel claims as part of its national territory and most of the world sees as occupied Syrian territory but due to its historical administration by Lebanon the Lebanese and Syrians see as occupied Lebanese territory, however, Israel claims that this territory is vital to its security interests and was acquired in a defensive war against Syrian shelling of civilians however Syria claims... blah blah blah." And it tends to take over the whole article which is, after all, the top-level article for the entire nation of Lebanon and its entire history. So yeah, I'd cut down on the alleged reasons for the war and just talk about its effects. Those who want details can click the Wikilink and read them. <eleland/talkedits> 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lašva Valley ethnic cleansing

The whole article is just from the point of view of Bosniak victims. It is a matter of fact that in the Bosniak and Croat war there were cca. 100,000 Croats ethnically cleansed in the Lasva Valley but yet it is nowhere mentioned. It just utilizes a limited point of view to further its own agenda. Therefore, it cannot be a neutral point of view.

• Comment

I read the article. The whole article is based purely on WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There are hundred of sources, references from ICTY verdicts, HRW reports, BBC etc. So it is not "point of view of Bosniak victims". This is one of the best war related articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. According to the sources, there is nothing about "100,000 Croats ethnically cleansed in the Lasva Valley" suggested by anon. However the ICTY concluded: Based on the evidence of numerous Croat forces (HVO) attacks at that time, the ICTY Trial Chamber concluded that by April 1993 Croat leadership had a common design or plan conceived and executed to ethnically cleanse Bosniaks from the Lašva Valley. Dario Kordić, as the local political leader, was found to be the planner and instigator of this plan. ICTY-Kordic verdict. Historičar (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of NPOV issues on Satanic Ritual Abuse talk

Resolved. ResearchEditor has been banned from editing SRA. WLU (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Satanic ritual abuse (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It has been asserted that the use of only three skeptical authors being given 48 out of 127 citations (almost 38%) on the page (Frankfurter 11, Victor 24, LaFontaine 13 - as of three days ago) is a violation of the NPOV policy, where it is stated "none of the views should be given undue weight" and at WP:UNDUE it is stated "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The complaint is that these three authors are not nearly that prominent. Another complaint is that there is too much weight given to what one editor calls "an extremely skeptical" position and that reliable sources that are neutral or pro-SRA on the topic are being deleted from the article. The other side states that the skeptical view is the majority view and other views are minority ones. Information on the debate is here. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I have collapsed the discussion below that meandered here from the talk page by editors involved in discussion there. Suffice it to say that several editors in this collapsed discussion express some strong disagreement in how RE has described the situation just above. Anyone who comments here is advised to read this collapsed discussion and to visit the talk page. Outside input from uninvolved editors would be much appreciated.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The section below clearly shows that a large portion of the page should be written about the pro side of the debate. The sources below should not simply be ignored or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResearchEditor (talk • contribs)

The section below is mostly of irrelevant and popular interest; those scholarly publications that exist that are used to support the idea that SRA is an ongoing concern do not "clearly" demonstrate anything; they are problematic, if not outright irrelevant. WLU (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the section below is very relevant. These scholarly publications are the bulk of the research of those working with actual victims of SRA. These were written when the debate was most notable. The few sources that were written in the last 8 years were written by a few extremely biased sources that had no experience with the acutal victims or cases. They are at best a historical footnote and should be treated as such on the SRA page. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

sourcelist header 1

Sources header 1

The most important thing I would like to see is a comment from an uninvolved experienced editor on whether SRA is now considered a fringe topic of only historical interest. The most important information in this regard for me is the three sources which currently state the topic is dead (four if you include de Young, 2004, which I have yet to read cover to cover but have on hand). This can be settled by sources I believe, and there are multiple sources asserting the issue is dead and interest has faded. To date, four have been presented for "fringe, dead", none for "the mainstream is still interested". The sources are explicit:

In the social work profession, a debate commenced which has crystallised into two poles: 'believer' in the existence of satanic abuse of children and 'skeptic'. Presently this part of hte discussion is at an impasse and coverage has subsided. (from Gary Clapton (1993). Satanic Abuse Controversy: Social Workers and the Social Work Press (Essential Issues in the 1990s S). University of North London P, 1. ISBN 1-85377-154-6.)

When this book was originally published, there was a great deal of interest in and concern about ritual abuse, most child welfare professionals believed in its existence, and the federal government funded research into its characteristics and effects (Bybee & Mowbray, 1993; Goodman, Bottoms, Qin & Shaver, 1994; Valliere, Bybee & Mowbray, 1988; Waterman, Kelly, Oliverie & McCord, 1993). But responses to allegations of ritual abuse have undergone a transformation in the last 10 years, so that any case involving ritual elements elicits great skepticism. In fact, it is no longer au courant to believe in the existence of ritual abuse (Chaffin & Stern, 2001; Myers, 1998) (The most damning for me; from Faller, KC (2003). Understanding and assessing child sexual maltreatment. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 29-33. ISBN 0-7619-1996-1.)

Satanism and Ritual Abuse-The Panic Collapses, 1992-1995. While the Satanic Panic can be taken as beginning with the publicity over the McMartin charges, no single comparable event marks its end. A convenient turning point is marked by the child abuse case that got underway in 1994 in the town of Wenatchee, Washington, a case that initially threatened to become a witch-hunt as grotesque as any of the previous decade. Yet it did not, since on this occasion media expectations were utterly different. (from Jenkins, Philip (2004). in James R. Lewis: The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, 221-242. ISBN 0195149866.)

I believe the above sources clearly and unambiguously indicate that the SRA phenomenon is dead and of historical interest only, and the mainstream position is skeptical. Accordingly, it is undue weight, and POV-pushing, to continue to insist that there is any real interest in the matter. It is undue weight and POV-pushing to insert qualifications of skepticism into the lead and throughout the body. The sources provided to assert that the controversy is ongoing are self-published books and low-quality news articles, or journal articles where interest in SRA is peripheral (or discusses ritual abuse, something quite different). Accordingly, skepticism should be portrayed as the norm and the credulous position as the minority. WLU (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, "dead and of historical interest only" overstates the case. There are definitely people who still believe that SRA is genuine. The episode of the 1980s was a flareup of a belief pattern that has existed for hundreds of years and probably will continue to exist, especially among fundamentalist religious groups. Moreover, there is probably some level of belief among the general public: I bet if you polled people on the statement, "There have been documented cases of groups of Satanic cultists who carried out perverse and sacrilegous rituals involving childen", you would get TRUE from at least 10%, and maybe a good bit more. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looie496 makes an interesting point here. I've entered a sort-of related comment on the article talk page at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Followup_to_straw_poll. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Another point it that most of the pro "panic" anti-existence of SRA sources are not from people with any clinical experience nor have they worked with victims of SRA. Most of the pro sources are clearly from people with clinical experience that have worked directly with victims of SRA. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, the source dump is confusing the issue. The best "pro"-SRA source is nothing of the sort. It support the existence of "ritual abuse" more than the consensus would have, but it provides no evidence or support for the existence of "satanic ritual abuse", or of experts who believe that there is such a thing. The popular believe that such exists is not entirely relevant, although, if sourced, it would make a nice contrast to the apparent fact that no experts believe it.

Nonetheless, a neutral analysis of the best sources as seen from each side would be helpful. It would be too much to expect for anyone to wade in and read the tens of thousands of pages in the sources mentioned here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One could also look at the pro-panic side of the argument and say the same thing. It is only theory from primarily sociologists, not those working with victims or cases. It would be good to have a neutral analysis. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What is needed in the article is the clear message: "SRA has been discredited in the mainstream, though interest still lingers from a minority." In fact, there has been no recent research on satanic ritual abuse. I don't have all the sources but I can ask user:WLU to demonstrate the above sentence if you wish. —Cesar Tort 09:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent}Three sources above all explicitly say the interest has waned. Most of the new publications are self-published books, extremely low-impact journals, or newsletters that look like, but are not, peer-reviewed journals. I'm sick of typing the same things out, so I'll be providing diffs - some of the sources that are posted as "SRA is a real thing and a going concern" are in fact not saying this. The Phenomenon of Torture does not support this position in any way I can understand (I don't see how anyone could read the three pages in question and conclude that this is proof that people still take SRA seriously). Noblitt & Perskin's Cult and Ritual Abuse has been criticized for ignoring the critical literature as well as being incoherent, and they couldn't get their next book published by a real publisher(Noblitt & Perskin's Ritual abuse in the 21st century is a vanity-press self-publication [10]; [11]). Pepinsky's Sharing and responding to memories is not about SRA, it's about designing a course during which he invites people who allege SRA and how to deal with them during the course. Far from clearly demonstrating SRA is an ongoing concern, the sources presented as evidence are extremely problematic. I have made these comments several times now, yet ResearchEditor keeps presenting the same sources, without qualification, as if it were conclusive. Meanwhile, the three explicit sources above as well as De Young's 2004 book, The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic (published in 2004 by academic publisher McFarland & Company as well as Frankfurter's Evil Incarnate, published in 2006 by Princeton University Press) that treats the whole thing as a rumour panic. As one would expect from a fringe theory, the pro-fringe publications are either in extremely obscure journals or not ones wikipedia would consider reliable or only tangentially refer to SRA without addressing it substantively. By contrast, the pro-rumour panic side are fewer but published in academic press. I'm getting really tired of typing out the same objections to the same publications again and again because they keep getting posted as if they proved something. I have adjusted to reflect the minority ongoing interest, but because there is minority ongoing interest does not mean the page should represent it as if it re-opens the whole SRA debate. Again, explicit references saying the debate is over, none that counter, and from what I can see, even McLeod & Goddard, a quite recent publication, says that it's over in the mainstream even if they think this is incorrect. WLU (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SRA is like UFOs. There has been a surge of interest in the past. It has been debunked and interest has waned, and it is our job to document it as a historical phenomenon, regardless of any lingering interest groups that may be trying to influence Wikipedia coverage to a different effect. dab (𒁳) 08:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources header 2

Check out the google books link for Child Maltreatment by Perrin & Perrin, p. 321 [12]:

Here is a fifth explicit statement from a relialbe source that says the satanic panic is over, and a second one that says the believers are the minority. I have yet to see anything comparable in explicitness and reliability from the 'believer' side. Given this verifiable statement, is there any reason to give weight to the non-skeptical side? Seriously, five sources, explicit in saying a) it was a panic, and b) the panic is over, two explicitly saying the remaining believers are the minority. This could be written for settling a dispute on this page. Based on what I've seen of the minority position, there's no question of interpretation, quote mining, unreliable sourcing or anything else that I can think of that could possibly indicate that SRA is still taken seriously. Are we done here? I think we're done here. Anyone want to put a resolved tag at the top? WLU (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Without a comparable counterclaim from reliable sources I think we are most certainly done. Since no such source has been provided after weeks of asking for one I think "resolved" is right as well.PelleSmith (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But the issue is not resolved. Not one neutral editor has given an opinion here. The sources I provided above show that a large portion of the field does not believe that SRA is or was a panic. Many of these sources worked with actual SRA victims, unlike those promoting the panic idea. And I will repeat my idea above, "the few sources that were written in the last 8 years were written by a few extremely biased sources that had no experience with the actual victims or cases. They are at best a historical footnote and should be treated as such on the SRA page." ResearchEditor (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)