Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality

To request attention for a page from the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, please post under this heading with a subheading and explanation of the nature of the request.

1 Check the article talk page of the article you think has a NPOV problem. If there is already active discussion of the issue, the problem may resolve itself; if the discussion is stalemated, following the recommendations on dispute resolution may be more appropriate than listing the article here.

===={{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. Project members may request additional information on the issue to better understand the problem you have identified.

• Note: Requests which have been declined or closed longer than a week will be archived. Stale requests will also be archived.

Can't find your request here? It may have been Opened, Declined, or declared Stale. Opened requests can be found further down the page. Declined requests are also further down the page but are archived periodically. Stale requests are archived at Wikipedia:Neutrality Archive/Stale.

The lead of the article refers to Rákosi as "Stalinist dictator". While I personally agree that Rákosi was in fact a Stalinist and the nature of his rule could characterize him as a "dictator", it also strikes me that this statement is blatantly POV. I changed it to "premier of Hungary", but it was immediately reverted, after which I added the "NPOV" tag. I'd really like some other opinions from those involved with this project whether this characterization is proper under WP:NPOV. If it is, I personally have no problem with the characterization, since I have no particular affection for dead East European Stalinist leaders. Iamcuriousblue 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main debate in this article is over the Contemporary Kurdish Christians section. There was some discussion of this in July and while the section has improved some I personally think it is still POV, and since it is the same editors debating the issue I believe bringing in a third party to help come to some consensus would be good. ' ChrisLamb 03:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There ia a problem with two Wikipedia administrators firstly getting the page protected, then using that protection to make changes not agreed by consensus, and which support their own POV, which is clear from previous archives of the talk pages (especially the long-held wish to remove criticisms of the subject of the page, which has happened without consensus in the last day). They have been offensive to newbies on numerous occasions. They have been inconsistent in their demands as to what is acceptable evidence. There is also a problem with potential provocation of people, by making unsubstantiated claims of 'harassment' of the subject and professing a possible intention to publish on wikipedia. There appears to be an abuse of power to keep an apparent POV as status quo. While it is clear this subject matter is controversial, the two administrators' behaviour has been provocative and perjorative of other contributors, inflaming the situation. The fact that both claim to be 'objective' and neutral' while denying that of others is a difficult aspect of this problem, hence the highlighting of the problem on this page. ' 81.107.133.168 18:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this IP is a sock of Alpinist (talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I am NOT A SOCK of user Alpinist. I have now got myself a proper user name and page. I didn't before because I did not want to join wikipedia as such: mainly because it feels wrong to be 'voluntarily' part of a community that frankly is set up for all sorts of bullying. My concerns are set out VERY briefly on my userpage. This accusing of people of sockpuppetry is exactly the sort of perjorative behaviour that worries me about many on wikipedia. This is a legitimate complaint, about the misrepresenting of certain people, of which I am concerned about. I have read a lot of wikipedia musings on 'neutrality', and what is happening on the Simon Wessely at the hands of certain administrators is certainly not neutral. I have asked for people who are associated with this page to have a look, and the fact that the only response I have had is an accusation of sockpuppetry just gives more evidence to my original misgivings, demoralisingly. Angela Kennedy Angela Kennedy 08:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that Angela Kennedy is NOT a sock puppet for anyone. Angela Kennedy is a UK sociology lecturer and she and her family are known to me, personally. I can vouch for her integrity. Please apologise, MastCell, and withdraw this unwarranted allegation. And before anyone accuses me of being a sock puppet, I am Suzy Chapman - as Admin JFW is able to confirm. I would suggest that you scrutinise Whois? IP results with a little more care. MEagenda 09:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An even more ludicrous situation has arisen now. Because and Admin has blocked the talk pages to new users, it is impossible to rebut his most recent claims. This may give the impression that what he says his correct and indisputable, or agreed to 'by consensus', when this situation is nothing of the sort. At least two of the people who have tackled the admin, 'JFW', recently on the Simon Wessely talk page are newbies'. One is Alpinist (who's been blocked from posting anything) and myself- already called a sock puppet on this page. This makes a mockery of any claims to neutrality in Wikipedia. Surely people can see that? Angela Kennedy Angela Kennedy 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was blocked just before your arrival because of an abusive editor called Alpinist (talk · contribs). Your account has now been autoconfirmed. I wasn't the admin who protected the talkpage. You were only called a sockpuppet because Alpinist has proceeded to use any means at his disposal to cause trouble (including threats of physical violence on my talkpage[1]). I suggest you follow the usual procedure in getting redress. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph concerning the effects 9/11 on consumer privacy attribute them to having created a police state. This statement appears to be a political statement and not relevant to the description of Consumer Privacy.

"After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, privacy took a back-seat to national security in most legislators' minds. Accordingly concerns of consumer privacy in the United States have tended to go unheard as questions of citizen privacy versus the state, and the development of a police state or carceral state, have occupied advocates of strong privacy measures."

Opening Seems to be worth fixing. (Busy at moment, but will return to it tomorrow) --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is more preemptive than anything, but I'd like to get some feedback about a section. There is a World War II film called Valkyrie starring Tom Cruise and being filmed in Germany. Some German parties have protested the involvement of Cruise based on his background as a Scientologist. I have created a section for this coverage at Valkyrie (film)#German response, and I would like some feedback as to whether I have addressed all sides adequately. I imagine that the controversy may heighten by the time the film comes out, so I would like to have a neutral section ready for such incoming traffic. Any comments are welcome! Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems rather balanced so far, although I'd welcome another's insight. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article basically reads like an ad for this book. It could have been copied verbatim from a review; even the quotes section doesn't include quotes from the book, but rather positive reviews and celebrity endorsements. This page needs major work before it can be included in Wikipedia, and I'm not sure it belongs. I'm terribly new at this, however, so I'm not going to say it should be deleted, but more experienced Wiki-editors should be made aware of it. Andi1235 18:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article myself, so I think it's neutral now. Sorry to clog up this page. Andi1235 19:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article, regarding the Autism Research Institute (ARI), is clearly written from a pro-ARI POV. The first section of the article, which describes the ARI and its goals, seems fairly neutral, but the rest of the article is biased toward the stated goals of the ARI. The section titled "Shedding light on autism," in particular, is nothing more than a quote from the current director of the ARI where he's saying good things about a former director, and provides no particular information.

A better article would include neutral information about the history of the ARI, its past and current objectives, and similar things. Its probably a worthwhile page; I wouldn't delete it, but it needs work. Andi1235 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a GA tag and numerous citations this article displays systemic bias towards the articles subject. Problems include wide generalized responses to Freemason critics, lengthy rationalizations and nerfing or removal of any critical material. Almost all the sources cited are from a Freemason POV.

The article, which includes much well thought out material suffers from this bias. Currrently it lengthy and long winded, hard to read, and missing information found in many other sources.

Meekrob 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally no pros or cons about the Freemasons but know that there has been much critic to them. So your request seems fair to me. (Else I'm more an observer in the neutrality project). Geir 20:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some clear problems in this article. In the controversy section for example, there are several mentions of the fact that the owner of the machine "just wants your money". Also, in the 'success rate' section, towards the end of the section, there is a chunk of text beginning: "Finally, these dastardly machines are aimed at the most vulnerable people of all, the children" which is very biased. Orkie2 12:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though most of the wording mentioned above was already cleaned up, there were still a few POV issues - I've rewritten part of the article to make it more neutral. I believe it should be checked by a more experienced editor before it is moved to closed, if that is possible. Thanks! *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 05:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much contention exists regarding a wide variety of historical events, including the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which strongly influence contemporary politics. Israelis, Palestinians, and their supporters contend and strongly dispute nearly every topic in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Therefore, I request that all articles under WikiProject: Arab-Israeli Conflict as well as WikiProject: Palestine and/or any articles mentioning the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict bear some acknowledgement of the disputed nature of the events pertaining to the conflict. I fear that failure to do so may give the wrong impression that this ongoing historical debate does not exist. Thank you. -- Michael Safyan 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article is highly disputed. Additionally many (including myself) believe that the title supports one interpretation of the events over another and should be changed to "Second Intifada" (discussed on the talk page). This page requires major re-editing and hopefully a name change. -- Michael Safyan 05:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles cite a number unverifiable facts and written in very racist overtone and tries to rewrite the history of a country based upon bias information. I have tried to tag the article for POV check and other relevant verifications, however, the author of the article attacked me personally and accused me of being racist for raising question. I am not disputing the article as a whole, however, the so-called "facts" and information in the article are either false or written to support a particular POV. Any help in this would be appericiated. Okkar 10:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues have been clearly raised on the talk page, but two editors, User:SlimVirgin and User:Cberlet are refusing to respond. Instead, they simply revert the NPOV tag. --HonourableSchoolboy 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text that disagrees with the beliefs of some editors (based on the content they add, delete, change and their user pages and in one case their Wikipedia article) are deleted outright constantly or reverted after passing time. The justifications for the edits are 'flimsy'. When the same justifcations for edits are used on text that are in line with their POV the edits are undone. Essentially what results is either an edit war or an article about a controversy that is slanted to one side of the discussion and loaded with weasely words for the other.

One (of scores) example is relating to sourcing. For text that aligns with their POV sources are special interest groups, advocacy groups, Congresspersons' position pages, etc (e.g. Mother Jones, ExxonSecrets). For text that is not in line with their POV the sources are removed (and the supported text with it) from news distributors (an AP story from NewsMax) and first hand sources (an organization's website to cite their financial data).

One of the major actors is an Adminstrator and has been [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/William_M._Connolley_and_Cortonin previously on parole] for a lessor extreme of present behavior.

Two of the exact examples are partially documented in the talk pages. Documentation 1 and Documentation 2. If this request is accepted I am able to present more. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC) corrections to formatting -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – No comment added for over a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is closed or opened._Jame§^ugrono 10:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be promoting the newspaper instead of giving facts about it. It contains lots of statements which are opinions and speculative instead of facts Anshuk 09:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made substantial edits to this article, and had to remove most of the content. The facts that were present have been retained. The author had also created three additional (nearly identical) articles on the newspaper, which I've tagged for speedy deletion, since they were solely on features of the newspaper and had no additional article-worthy information. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 10:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Closed - Article has been fact tagged, no much more we can do. Still has a slightly advertisement-like read to it, though._Jame§^ugrono 11:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be under heavy dispute with constant edits (Quaker24 in paticular) between Unitarians and Trinitarians debating over this article where Unitarians seem to be mentioning their viewpoint on the matter and Trinitarians are removing or heavily editing the content saying that its biased against the Trinity. I'd appreciate it if a neutral editor could stop by and resolve this dispute by making sure that both viewpoints get a clean, fair, and neutral mention in the article. If this keeps up I'd suppose that the article may even need locking.

I will say that I'm a unitarian myself and I contributed to this article a long time ago and tried to make sure that both viewpoints were neutral and presented as fact, or however you want to phrase it, but now the whole thing seems to have gone to hell (no pun intended).

I might even edit the article again and put each viewpoint under its own heading such as Unitarian Viewpoint and Trinitarian Viewpoint, or just under a heading called Controversy like all the other articles, etc...

So if someone could check that out, thanks! 204.116.124.19 14:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an author of the article seems to have used it simply to put fowards their own litrary preferences as undisputed fact, and even asserts that authors who differ must therefore be writing just for the money. 210.50.228.5 09:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Criticism of Galbraith's Work section, the article defends Galbraith from Friedman's criticism by asserting the distinction between what people, in truth, "want" and artificially created "wants". Asserting that this distinction is meaningless is at the heart of Friedman's objection -- Friedman certainly didn't miss this key point of Galbraith. In this manner the article betrays a Galbraith-friendly POV.

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming

Although the mainstream opinion on global warming is that there is sufficient fossil fuel for scarcity of supply to be a restriction, there are a number of experts who do maintain that fossil fuel scarcity could be the controlling factor restricting global warming.

As I understand the wikipedia policy on NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."

I have tried about half a dozen approaches varying for a small section to a very detailed section as given here: [2] to a short change in the introduction paragraph to make it clear that there are contrary views.

Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The uncertainty in this range results from both the difficulty of predicting the volume of future greenhouse gas emissions and uncertainty about climate sensitivity.

Add: However, some experts use models that predict fossil fuel scarcity will be a controlling factor for global warming and suggest either no rise [3] or a rise of a "couple of degrees" ^[1]

Unfortunately, every attempt has been simply deleted without discusssion.

I have even put a { { POV } } at the top of the article as I thought his was the procedure in the wikipedia policy. My friend who has reappeared not knowing about the 3RR rule kept revert the removal of the { { POV }} and ironically it was him who eventually got blocked.

I know global warming is a contentious issue, but that is no reason to squash properly sourced alternative views. I would appreciate some help in resolving this dispute. LordsReform 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue for WikiProject:Neutrality - referred elsewhere.

We don't resolve disputes, however, here are some places which you may be looking for:

• WP:RFC
• WP:AN/I
• WP:WQA

These are places to formally and informally resolve disputes. _Jame§^ugrono 06:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon LaRouche

A published critic of LaRouche, Dennis King, has opened a Wikipedia account as Dking (talk · contribs). The dispute is over the extent to which the article may become a vehicle for King's theories, particularly his theory that LaRouche, who professes to be an opponent of fascism, is actually a secret fascist himself. King employs a technique of "decoding" which purports to discover hidden meanings in LaRouche's writings, hidden meanings which contradict the stated opinions of LaRouche. There is also a great deal of guilt by association, of the sort that WP:BLP prohibits. I am asking the neutrality project to intervene in particular because the neutrality dispute centers on possible violations of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --Tsunami Butler 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican general election, 2008

This article is curently received a contribution with a lot of unverified and biased claim. See history. Esurnir 05:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural mandate

This article is infrequently edited by just a handful of editors, and needs a lot more work to be NPOV and independently sourced to be properly encyclopedic. The claims in the article are largely WP:OR statements attached to quotes drawn from directly involved sources. The article has a promotional or advocacy tone as the result of reliance on one-sided, directly involved sources and links named. -Professor marginalia 18:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – No comments for a month. Will be archived in one week unless it is opened or declined. _Jame§^ugrono 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Requests

An archive of old declined requests is available at Wikipedia:Neutrality Project/Declined.

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 Wikipedia Neutrality Project members' attention as a subheading of this section, to the top.

Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cocoaguy believes the article contains Peacock/Weasel words and an American POV. But, as the principle contributor the article I believe it conforms to the High Court verdict and the reports of Bangladeshi newspapers (which are the principle source for the article). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Opened. _Jame§^ugrono 10:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The articles contains very strong phrasing and a lot in incriminatory quotes without any reference citing. I know the organization is worthy of a lot of finger pointing (in fact I wrote much of the original article), but this may be bit too non-neutral. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britches (monkey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an article with what seems to me as a clear extremist POV --- for example, it documents an event disrupting laboratory experiments, but is named after one particularly photo-opportune animal. I noticed this article after it was linked to the Macaque page, which is otherwise largely a list of species of macaques, and I have been involved in discussing (but not editing) it for some time.

The article does have one paragraph documenting opposing view points on the laboratory assault and the condition of the animals, so it is not completely a one-sided work of activism. However, this does not mean it is actually neutral. I have tried adding a check POV tag twice, but both times it was quickly deleted.

I would like advice about not only this article in particular, but the level of activism that is acceptable on Wikipedia in general. Clearly the very choice of what (and whom) we document is political and I don't personally think that should be avoided. At the same time, I want to understand the difference between propaganda and a good article.--Jaibe 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Coming from someone who is rather indifferent to animal rights, I do not see any "clear extremist POV" here. The article documents a particular monkey that was a part of an odd experiment. The wording of the article gives me no indication of whether this was "good" or "bad". The only POV issue I can see is the lack information regarding the researchers and the experiment the monkey was involved in; what was the goals of the experiment? why was the experiment carried out the way it was? That is just a matter of finding sources to flesh out more details. —Mitaphane _?|! 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In my opinion, this article inherently may have undue weight/POV and WP:SOAPBOX issues. The article comes across as promoting a "poster child" of a particular issues group (whether the group is extremist is besides the point here). An article about particular kinds of animal experimentation of this sort (which are common, not odd) - or maybe about a particular controversy - would be more appropriate and more capable of neutrality. Focusing on a "poster child" monkey seems undue unless the monkey gained a substantial amount of third-party celebrity (I don't see any evidence of this). I don't see this article as something within the scope of this project however (which is focussed on fixing unbalanced content with the assumption that the article subject itself is sound). I suggest that the petitioner research the sources used for the article (do they actually mention the specific subject discussed? - sometimes references listed in articles actually don't or do so in a minimal way. If the specific subject is discussed, what is context and use, and do they support a potentially neutral and encyclopedic notable form of this article? Are the sources used one-sided? Are they authoritative?) After this the petitioner should consider if they want to propose a merger or move for the article, or if they wish to nominate the article for deletion on WP:SOAPBOX/notability grounds Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I now see this may be the wrong place to ask this question, but one of my problems with the article is the fact that the references are just activist videos & books on a specialist vegetarian/animal rights press. I am trying to persuade the people who have these books to actually cite the original sources of the government reports they claim these books document. Is that kind of referencing grounds for a merge or deletion?--Jaibe 22:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Illegal immigration to the United States

This article is very heavily biased towards the pro-illegal alien perspective. I am trying to document all examples in the talk page, but have limited free time which I can give to do so. What the article (and related articles as well) really needs is more people who can provide NPOV.-Psychohistorian 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software as a service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The largest current deployment of SaaS is by Wachovia, using a SuccessFactors solution with 85,000 users, and the company anticipates an additional 25,000 users over the next two years.[6]

Using the example of SuccessFactors as a SAAS provider to Wachovia provides the vendor commercial advertising, as it links to their press releases on their site. This does not follow the Wikipedia:neutral point of view guidelines and should be removed. Wikipedia is not a link farm for service providers. PRlady 17:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Requests

When requests have been addressed, they are archived at Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project/closed. This is almost always without prejudice - you can usually open a request if bias is reintroduced to the page.

To join the Wikiproject, add your name to the list:

• Egfrank (talk · contribs · logs)
• FT2 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Jamessugrono (talk · contribs · logs) - More information here.
• Pinkadelica (talk · contribs · logs)
• Watchdog07 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs · logs)
• Ed Poor (talk · contribs · logs)
• Cocoaguy (talk · contribs · logs)

Inactive members will be listed here in chronological order, latest to oldest. If this list reaches 20, the last five people will be notified then removed from here.

You may also add yourself to the inactive members list - do this if you are not going to contribute for a while. Simply add {{User3|<your username here>}} to a bulleted point (using *) at the bottom of the list.

{{User wikipedia-neutrality}}

This user is a participant in WikiProject Neutrality.

A few templates to aid in maintaing Wikipedia's integrity:

• Template:POV, {{POV}} - To mark general NPOV disputes.
• User:Wizardry Dragon/Templates/Project NPOVWarning (experimental) - Use when you want other WNP members to join discussion and improvement of the article. Please remember to add a note on our talk page and include your rationale for disputing the article.
• Template:POV-check, or {{POV-check}} serves to request a neutrality review. We shouldn't use this template, but rather check the articles carrying it and either report neutrality issues here or remove the template.
• See the list of dispute-related templates for more specific situations.

First, be sure you are well versed in the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines. Then there are a few things you can do:

• Check pages in Category:Articles which may be biased, which contains articles nominated for POV check, where it is unsure whether they are neutral. Help to resolve issues or remove {{POV check}} template if there are no significant NPOV violations.
• Category:NPOV disputes is a broader list of articles with {{POV}} template, generally with ongoing discussions. Sometimes another opinion can help resolve the problem, and sometimes correction will help. If there is no dispute, the template should be removed, according to its guidelines.
• Keep an eye on the new pages list to ensure that new articles are presented in a objective matter. Please also remember - don't bite the newbies.
• Watch pages where you note particular problems (vandalism, edit wars, etc.) to ensure they follow NPOV guidelines.

Do not list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion in relation to NPOV guidelines. Add appropriate cleanup templates or NPOV warnings instead. An article that is blatantly POV should usually be the subject of cleanup, not deletion. If it is spam, then please give the community a chance to construct a good article for it, or at least post the page to the WNP talk page to bring the page to the attention of editors here to gain some consensus and feedback as to what should be done about the page.

When opening new requests, please keep a few things in mind:

• Please use indicators. Yes, some people find them obnoxious, but it makes the intent of your posting clear.
• Please do not open new requests when there is ongoing Dispute Resolution on the article. We don't want to step on toes here, and that's a big way we can do so.
• Talk first, act after. Requests posted here are often hot topics were the consensus is not clear. Discussion can help you feel out where the problems are.

• Wikipedia NPOV Guidelines
• Wikipedia Recent Changes Patrol
• Public WikiProject Proposition for the Wikipedia Neutrality Project