User talk:Ed Poor/POV pushing

Welcome to the discussion

Old discussion

The article doesn't really define the term POV pushing, but just makes strong statements that it is not permitted. -- 216.234.56.130 20:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should be merged into NPOV dispute, or even into Neutral Point of View. 138.88.19.65 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge. Also.. this article gives a great example of POV pushing at the end there.. "A major failing of Wikipedia all along has been the haphazard or lackadaisical enforcement".. talk about your POV statements.. --DjSamwise 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Wikipedia articles should be as free of blatant POV as possible, sometimes a bit of less conspicuous or unintentioned POV is difficult to avoid. A recent example was the case of a musical act being referred to as "highly successful". This description was criticised for being POV. Well one person's take on "highly successful" may differ from someone else's, but if a singer or band has had a string of major hits including several No.1s, at home and abroad, has numerous gold and platinum discs, and maybe a few Grammys or BRIT awards, then to describe that person/band as "highly successful" is not POV: it is stating a clear fact. Or is "highly successful" reserved solely for Elvis or the Beatles? To continue this theme, if I was writing an article about my favourite band, I feel that a. it would be very difficult to avoid a little bit of POV creeping in here and there, and b. such a small amount should be tolerated. I feel that an article such as that should be written by someone who genuinely likes the subject matter, enjoyed writing the article, maybe did it as a labour of love, and that a better article will result if such feelings are allowed to come through in its finished content. Wouldn't you prefer an article that reads as though it was written by a person and not a robot? Statements such as this is a fantastic band or this is a brilliant track should be avoided as they are undoubtedly POV, but if the general tone of the article clearly reflects a heart-felt liking or enthusiasm for its subject, this is something that should not be challenged. Any comments?

I think the key is blatant and intentionate POV. Normally the author has an ideological/personal agenda and ignores consensus making policies. Normally the disruption is reiterative and even systematic. Sometimes pushing the guidelines and policies to the limit, toying with them, ignoring WP:NPOV but using WP:Etiquette to denounce those who denounce them as rude or of "attacks ad hominem".

For an example, check White people and its talk page.

This systematic POV-pushing should be considered as complex vandalism but it isn't, at least not clearly.

I think the essay should grow, evolve into a guideline and influence policies such as WP:Vandalism, WP:NPOV and WP:Etiquette--Sugaar 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

axiomatic analysis

The bonus here is that once a set of axioms have been analyzed, cognitive tools to notice similar bad patterns just increased, and, the gig is up for the POV pushers entire line of reasoning.

Prometheuspan 03:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Steps

What do I do with a POV pusher? I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I've come across a user (Embarkedaxis) who has deleted information in a couple articles, and in others has replaced references to "Indian culture" with "Pakistani culture," rearranged things so Pakistan comes first, deleted links he doesn't like or finds religious issues with. I know that Indian and Pakistani culture are closely related, but this seems quite overboard. How can I find someone who knows the issues and has the clout to deal with this? --Eliyak 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found an admin through the India Portal, who I informed about the problem, but I would think there should be some sort of system in place, no? This guy had a history of edits, some of which were very subtle, and yet still POV pushing. Should they all be removed, or only some? Is there a wikiproject that deals with this problem? --Eliyak 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution.

You can of course start by reverting and discussing in the talk page.

A Hall of Infamy

Could a gallery of the most infamous POV pushers be set up and linked from this page? I would suggest that the requirement to be listed in such a gallery be that a user has been banned many times for POV pushing and reference User:Jason Gastrich as a first example. --64.232.164.63 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your favorite might not be chosen for immortality. But the entire Wikipedia namespace would benefit from more illustration with whole-page exhibits in contrast to description and that less-than-illustration which is effected by using "for example" or "ie" in prose. --P64 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing, official policy?

This needs to be developed into an enforcible policy, with blocks on users that try to circumvent Wikipedia's policy through various actions. If there was consequences for POV pushing, wikipedia would be a far less troublesome place. Nodekeeper 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but the only way that it's decided who is POV pushing is through the WP:ARBCOM. — Dunc|☺ 22:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the essay and think that, with some more elaboration should become at least a guideline. --Sugaar 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer definition needed

I think a clearer definition of POV pushing with clearer examples is needed for the uninitiated because people may not realize what is kosher and what isn't. I don't know enough about what everyone thinks to be much more of a use here.--Pravknight 02:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the White people article. While most editors are trying to reach a consensus and build a good article a couple of them are mostly ignoring the discussion and the consensus/supermajority in favor of their POVs, editing at will, often under the pretense of "minor edit", "fixed link", etc.

Then they protest because I say they have are ideologically motivated and have no good faith.

Take a look (check history and discussion page). --Sugaar 17:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irony

Some people might think it ironic that I would want an essay about POV pushing out in the open like this, when I'm on probation for it. The answer is simply that it was all a misunderstanding and that I was trying to add a minority viewpoint to an article or two. That's all. --Uncle Ed 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Findings_of_fact, that's exactly what earned you your arb com probation. Discussion and consensus was that this was to be redirected to Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute: [1] I urge to respect the community's decision. 151.151.73.165 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, if you're really attached to this essay, why don't you just put it up in your userspace? --Minderbinder 12:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a consensus that this essay page be redirected to Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute, please quote the text which indicates that consensus. I could not find it on the page you cited. --Uncle Ed 10:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

151, since Ed is going to insist on reverting any removal of this page, you could always nominate it for deletion at MfD. --Minderbinder 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section on "how to spot" POV-Pushing, tactics used, etc...covering the "Straw Man" attack...

Just one example I have seen of one of the more subtle and pernicious tactics used to drive away "unwelcome" POV's is the Straw Man attack, in which distorted views of the opponents POV are created by the attacker, attributed to the victim, and then presented for ridicule and evidence of alleged "POV Pushing" by the victim. Often, the subsequent attacks of ridicule directed at the Straw-Man "dummy argument" are taken up by other members of a "cabal" of editors.

I have experienced this form of attack in the context of POV pushing several times in my few short months on Wikipedia, and I have been looking for some WP guidelines in how to deal with this, as it is an extremely effective tactic for discrediting and driving away other editors, and once an editor has been successfully mis-characterized, it is very difficult to "undo" the damage. Perhaps this essay would be a good place to expound on the tactic.

Or, if anyone knows where this topic may have been discussed elsewhere, please point me to the article, essay, etc. Thanks in advance.

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, just this same sort of discrediting attack has been used on me at Wikipedia. I'm frankly at a loss here. Is there any remedy, other than amassing support of other (disinterested) contributors to rally to one's defense? ---Uncle Ed (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason I brought this up is that I did see a couple of arguments you made attacked in exactly this way, and I'm glad you were able to recognize it from my description. Thus far, I have reacted to such attacks by calling them on it (with a link to Straw_Man), reacting strongly in protest, and making sure that they know I'm not gonna take the bait, and then redirecting them to what I DID say...but it's SO tedious and SO subtle to detect, especially for other editors who want to "weigh in" -- they get "sucked in" by the Straw Man too and wind up siding with the attacker. Maybe we can compare our experiences here and collaborate on an essay? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's collaborate. Got any ideas for a good title? How about Wikipedia:POV pushing? ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User space?

Why on earth is such a basic essay in user space?

An essay on POV pushing belongs in user space?

That seems like a joke. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When attempting to balance some articles which appeared biased to me, I added some viewpoints which ran counter to that apparent bias. I was tried and convicted of "tendentious editing".

"It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view." [2]

I'm not sure who the joke is on, here. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got the wrong person.

The following accusations refer to the wrong person, for which the accuser has incompletely apologized:

Nonplused, I investigated. Wikipedia logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop's. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wiki-etiquette, also explained why. "Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!" Tabletop said.
I undid Tabletop's undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."
Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.
Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop's undid and protested: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."
Tabletop parried: "we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."
Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I -- no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out. By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda, its source is not self-evident. We don't suspend belief when we read Wikipedia, as we do when we read literature from an organization with an agenda, because Wikipedia benefits from the Internet's cachet of making information free and democratic. This Big Brother enforces its views with a mouse.

The real User:Tabletop mostly spends their time fixing spelling errors and making minor corrections to whatever they spot. The real User:Tabletop has no connection whatsoever with anyone called Kim Dabelstein Petersen. The real User:Tabletop has never heard of Peiser.

Tabletop (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]