The Wikipedia Neutrality Project
Dedicated to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia through Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy

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.

Steps to list a New Request[edit]

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 Project/Stale.

Territorial evolution of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This article (and several related articles) discuss the claiming of land, and "organizing" of territorial claims, but at no point is there any mention of who this land is claimed from, nor is there any mention of treaties with the Native Americans that established claims, nor is there any mention of settlers simply taking land and creating a territory. In essence, it treats any land as completely vacant, completely ignoring anyone who might already be living there.

Malati Dasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

The main problem is in the section "Governing Body Commissioner". ISKCON's founder A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada openly appreciated, encouraged, and supported his female disciples in their diverse roles within ISKCON – females led kirtans, gave public classes and public lectures, managed temples, served as priests (...) however, the growth in number and influence of sannyasis (male lifelong celibates) in ISKCON's spiritual and managerial affairs led to greater male domination of the organization, and the consequent segregation, disempowerment, and denigration of women. Such statements are highly controversial among ISKCON devotees and obviously do not represent what all leaders in ISKCON think about it. Liberal leaders think Prabhupada acted as reported in this article while traditional leaders think that he acted in a completely opposite way ( that is, they think Prabhupada refused to encourage women to lead kirtans, give public classes, become GBCs and managers,etc. ). I have added a "Controversy" section right below this one. The article is clearly biased towards the views of liberal devotees within ISKCON, such as Malati Dasi herself. Whoever wrote this "Governing Body Comissioner" section was trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for his/her political agenda. Iamrcr (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Straight pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This article has a very biased view, which can be especially seen in the whole "Straight pride as an appeal to ridicule" section. It uses the same arguments mentioned in "White pride", which is already listed as controversial.

Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

I feel this article has a deeply-rooted problem with neutrality; a view also shared by contributors to the article's talk page who have identified a pattern of aggressive moderation to the article to maintain its current bias. I feel that the following comment by Tumadoireacht is an excellent indicator of the wider problem: "This article is patrolled very vigorously at present to maintain a particular view on circumcision and debate here is largely a cosmetic futile exercise which will be of interest primarily to historians."

I do not want to change the article to present an opposite view; rather I would like to see the article presenting a truly fair and balanced approach about the academic debate its subject causes.

Since I am a new editor, I do not want to outrightly edit the article myself but would really like to have this investigated for NPOV issues or even more serious issues with bias.

-- Hawkeye499 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

The article called "China" formerly was an article of Chinese civilization and linked both the PRC and the ROC in the introduction. The article on the PRC has now been moved to the article "China", which in my opinion is biased towards the PRC. Gimelthedog (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PRC is hugely considered the legitimate state of mainland China; see: File:Two_Chinas.svg --Usien6 ^{msg • his} 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Occidental Petroleum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

As I discussed on this article’s talk page, I feel there have been some recent revisions, primarily to the History and Corporate social responsibility sections, that raise NPOV concerns, specifically WP:WEIGHT. Many of these revisions have also been made to a related article on Ray Irani, bringing up concerns surrounding WP:LIVING. After discussing my proposed revisions on the talk page with Wikipedia administrator, John, he and I both implemented revisions to the History and Corporate social responsibility sections that were then taken down by Cowboy128 (talk), who had added the material originally and made the revisions to the Ray Irani article.

This user also went on to discuss my actions as it pertains to conflict of interest on the article’s talk page, claiming that I have not been complying with Wikipedia’s policies and should cease all conversations related to that article. While I believe this user acts in good faith, I have always discussed proposed edits on the talk page before implementing them in order to avoid concerns about WP:COI and have made sure to inform others of my conflict of interest upfront, as recommended by WP:COI.

In the desire to keep the discussion civil, I thought it best to reach out to this WikiProject for any feedback on my thoughts about the NPOV concerns as well as advice on how best to address the concerns voiced by Cowboy128. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zaza people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

Zaza people article contains subjective POV and ethnocentric content.

User:Wikisupporting added an ethnocentric point of view, which contains POV materials, using reference which does not correspond to the content #[1]. And more seriously, apart from adding POV material, the user is erasing other academically referenced sources about different theories. Another serious matter is that this user not only ignores but most importantly prevents other users editions, by erasing other objective, impartial and politically neutral academic theories about this article and engaging in edit wars, with other registered users on this. Unfortunately this user is abusing and violating Wikipedia policies, and his/her edition was restored before the Zaza people article became fully protected. Importantly that this article be able to be edited and monitored by users who are knowledgeable on this topic and non-political and neutral.

Menikure (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Menikure has never tried to discuss this anywhere I believe that this is inappropriate and belongs at Talk:Zaza people. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rothschild family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

Read the section named Origins. I'm not Jewish but think that section stinks. However I know nothing of the topic and could be wrong.

The Rothschilds completed a process the Jews had been working on for centuries: how to immunize their lawful property from despoiling violence. Henceforth their real wealth was beyond the reach of the mobs, almost beyond the reach of greedy monarchs.

Sounds like conspiracy. Additionally greedy monarchs is non-NPOV. Or maybe the article does have some truth, but the language severely destroys all credibility. A more knowledgeable person should jump in on this contentious topic. Genjix (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bahá'í divisions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This article touches very little on anything having to do with Unitarian Baha'i and the few references which are in the article are very condescending.' Kaeltumakveh (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holy Week in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

SUMMARY: Paragraph 3 contains subjective (and snarky) content

I am unwilling to blatantly edit this article myself, and would like to mark this article for review on the basis of violation of neutrality.

Alvincura (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Acather96 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rock-It-Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This article has been mainly edited by the creater of the sport (Pmhildreth) and therefore suffers from editorial bias. It seems to be largely filled out with claims to the size of the sport, governing bodies, records, history etc. etc. are that are not backed up with evidence. It requires an entire re-draft from a neautral party.

 Done Tagged Acather96 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This article only lists opinions of organizations that support the notion that global warming is caused by mankind. There have been several organizations and prominent individuals that have openly disputed this notion, claiming that mankind is virtually not-responsible for global warming, yet none of these parties are listed in this article.

Conservatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

SUMMARY: The entire section on Psychological research is highly questionable and should be removed. Compare/contrast to all other poliitcal philosophies. Also, this section has been augmented repeatedly until it is the longest in the entire article. There has been a two-year long discussion with multiple editors presenting WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE objections, but all attempts by multiple parties to remove bias from the article have been reverted.

Specific NPOV faults are listed in the comment by Crimsonsplat @ 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

FULL COMPLAINT: The section of the article is largely based on material that was not published in peer-review journals. Only Pratto & Sidanius, of all the cited authors, were ever published in the JPSP -- Two articles about "social dominance" over fourteen years ago, and there has been no further peer-reviewed follow-up in that time supporting their research. (Which might indicate these were an aberration?)

The major remaining cite is Altmeyer, for Right Wing Authoritarianism (a loaded phrase itself). His book was published through the University of Manitoba Press. Research indicates the UofM has no special reputatation for psychology, nor a separate college for it (part of their medical college?)

"According to research by noted Psychologist Robert Altemeyer," He's so noted, Psychologist is capitalized.

The remaining cites are all either self-published, in minor journals, or are a grab bag of magazine articles, internet articles, and even a media release. In short, these theories are fringe, not accepted by the mainstream of psychology, and have been given undue weight.

Assertions of the studies are given as factual: "Those that are identified as high RWAs, in addition to having a tendency to be conservative, tend to wish to restrict personal freedoms, are more punitive toward criminals, and tend to hold more orthodox religious views.[48]" (Altmeyer)

"Scores on the RWA scale also correlate highly with measures of ethnocentrism and hostility toward homosexuals. It is important to note that high RWAs tend to show more prejudiced attitudes when their answers on the questionnaires are anonymous." (Altmeyer again)

Additionally, the article contains several examples of weasel words:

"Research has also suggested that conservatives tend to be less flexible in their thinking than liberals." (this is the statement that has a press release for a cite.)

"It is said that conservatives are more likely..."

"According to psychologists, an SDO is an attitude toward intergroup relationships which says that groups are subordinated and of lesser status than others.[54][53]"

NOTE: following the link to Social Dominanc Orientation (SDO) in Wikipedia finds that the supporting article is also highly questionable: "It is a widely applied Social Psychological scale." However, this 'widely applied' scale has exactly THREE cites and one item in the bibliography to support a lengthy discussion of how it applies to Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Conservatism. Two of the 3 cites are the same ones cited in the Conservatism article.

The discussion of the SDO page reads like a manifesto from Daily KOS: "At the same time it's foolish to pretend that we know that MOST GOP members are racist or authoritarian. That's not what the evidence suggests, it suggests that most racist, authoritarian Whites side with the GOP. Then we have the work of thousands of researchers refuted by reference to three papers by the same guy (Jon Jay Ray) who- -I've read the papers- -is a dolt. It's really very tiresome. And of course RWA/SDO sufferers are the premiere Wikipedia vandals. (See Right Wing Authoritarianism "Profound Character Flaws"), so you can be sure they will be climing all over these pages in the future." (unsigned article)

Where is the work of "thousands of researchers" at, if only Altmeyer, Pratto, Sidanius, and a small collection of highly suspect work is the basis for not one, but two articles condeming conservatives as racist homophobic authoritarian

Well, I guess I'm climbing. I am getting rather tired of being accused of "ignoring legitimate studies" when it is becoming more and more evident that a fringe psychology is being used to justify heavily biased articles on Wikipedia.

Full disclosure: I am not making any edits to the objectionable material, not even an NPOV tag, because I am the Secretary of the American Conservative Party, and believe this would be a violation of your COI policy. I ask that you give this complaint the due consideration it deserves. Crimsonsplat (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muhammad al-Durrah incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

Not sure if this is an appropriate request to post here, but I have an Rfc on a NPOV issue here. Unfortunately, being an Israel-Palestine issue, most editors who have weighed in seem to have existing POVs which makes me question their neutrality. Some fresh input would be most appreciated!

P.S. If this is not an appropriate area for this request, please let me know. I seek to learn!

Thanks NickCT (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham[edit]

I claim neutrality on Rick Perry and the death penalty. I do not claim neutrality on the killing of innocent people or those whose convictions don't stand up to the test of reasonable doubt. I claim that a reasonable, outside observer will conclude that there is doubt about the guilt of Cameron_Todd_Willingham and that the current wording of the Rick Perry page section dealing with CTW doesn't reflect NPOV as worked out on the CTW page. I claim that the CTW page is NPOV and the Rick Perry section is not. User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bdell555 improperly removed the NPOV tag on said section as evidenced on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Perry&action=historysubmit&diff=444791026&oldid=444786454 - as a direct result of the NPOV tag removal, the section spiraled out of control in the edit wars. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham for background. Please help either keep the NPOV tag until the edit wars simmer down, or assemble an authoritative NPOV summary of the CTW page on the Rick Perry page. Cheers. Also, sorry about this section heading. For what it's worth, I'm fairly sure the edit wars will cool down once Rick Perry is either in or out as a GOP presidential candidate, so this would be about a 14-month issue. Pär Larsson (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Veerasamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This neutrality of this article is disputed --[[User talk:R.srinivaas ]] (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kargil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

User Hot Raja has tagged the Kargil War article as POV-disputed and has not participated in discussion ever since (or prior to tagging even). It would be nice if the dispute can be settled as per Wikipedia policies once and for all so that we are spared revert wars in the future. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009 suicide air raid on Colombo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

The user, snowwoldD4, writing this article has included notably bias sources (e.g. daily mirror, Sri Lankan army statements) and includes these sources in a matter of fact voice rather than as opinions while omitting and preventing the addition of opposing opinions. The user also makes disputed unproved and unreasonable claims that the attack was resembling 9/11 when in actuality it is similar to the military attacks by the Japanese kamikaze fighters in WWII. '

The above statement was made by user:Marinecore88 whose edits [[2]] show that he is a SPA with numerous warnings trying to push his own POV violating WP:BLP etc on several occasions.Kerr avon (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both planes were packed with 250kg's of high explosives and were meant to be flown directly into the army headquarters and the ariforce base trying to wipte them both out. Hence the similarity with 9/11, both had planes with high explosive power driven into buildings to try to bring them down.Kerr avon (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Central Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

The article says there is a "firestorm of controversy" about the use of carriage horses. I don't think it's as urgent or powerful as all that. Isn't it just a few people handing out flyers once in a while? Also, we need to clarify whether they are trying to improve conditions for horses (see animal welfare) so they can continue to be used - or whether the intent of the campaign is to ban them altogther, no matter how well treated they are (on the animal rights grounds that human beings should never use animals for entertainment, transportation or food. Uncle Ed (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do need to remember though that sometimes all it takes is a few people handing out flyers and a reporter looking for a big story to turn it into a media circus. Perhaps some looking into news sources from there could be helpful. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Firestorm of controversy" is non-NPOV itself. The term conveys no factual info and should be removed. Genjix (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)} 1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Moonlite yourfss

Stale

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

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[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[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[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[reply]

Having read this article a few years ago because of hearing from this monkey in the news, I think deleting or merging this with another article is a bad idea. It's notable and informative in it's own right. Likely the article will need a clean. Genjix (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Analysis I'm a member of this project, and I agree that the article is one-sided. It presents almost exclusively the viewpoint of experimentation opponents. It uses loaded language: removed instead of "stolen", raid instead of theft (or trespass).

• Suggestion Identify the POV of the side which currently dominates. Do they oppose the use of all baby monkeys in research, or was this case simply a violation of acceptable standards? Did the thieves believe that animals should have the same rights as human beings?
• Another suggestion Call a spade a spade. If they "removed" property that does not belong to them, then they ar thieves. Unless there is a dispute about this. In which case, we need to identify the sides which dispute the "rescue" vs. "theft" aspect. I daresay the lab called it theft. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another example of loaded language in this article is "At the end of the experiment, the monkeys were to be killed, ..." in a sentence supported by this, which uses the word "sacrificed" instead of "killed". I probably would have thought "sacrificed" too technically jargonish and used "euthanized" with a wikilink to the Euthanasia article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Superfluous "Pseudoscientific"?[edit]

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[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[reply]

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[reply]

This article has been tagged ((NPOV)). The tag has been explained as "Some of the sources you have cited can be interpreted differently from the way you have presented them in this chart. There is a fundamental and inherently biased improper synthesis going on in this article. That and the very title of this article are slanted towards a particular view." Article has also been tagged ((POV-title)). I (the original author of the article) have tried unsuccessfully to work with the editor who tagged this article to address his POV concerns. Previous discussion at Talk:Timeline of Philippine sovereignty#NPOV tag, elsewhere on that talk page, and at Talk:Sovereignty of the Philippines (a predecessor-article which is now a redirect). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 17 January 2011, after the ((NPOV)) tag was removed, the article was tagged ((POV-title)). There was a bit of talk page discussion about this between 17 and 19 January 2011. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Review Team[edit]

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

• Alloranleon (talk · contribs · logs)
• Alvincura (talk · contribs · logs)
• Auawise (talk · contribs · logs)
• B. M. L. Peters (talk · contribs · logs)
• Carbonrodney (talk · contribs · logs)
• Cocoaguy (talk · contribs · logs)
• DanCBJMS (talk · contribs · logs)
• Ed Poor (talk · contribs · logs) aka "Uncle Ed"
• Egfrank (talk · contribs · logs)
• FimusTauri (talk · contribs · logs)
• FT2 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Garycompugeek (talk · contribs · logs)
• Grinder0-0 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Jamessugrono (talk · contribs · logs) - More information here.
• KaySL (talk · contribs · logs)
• Ketsuekigata (talk · contribs · logs)
• LOOKIE MILK! (talk · contribs · logs)
• op47 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Penguin Warchief (talk · contribs · logs)
• Peter M Dodge (talk · contribs · logs)
• Phillipmorantking (talk · contribs · logs)
• Pinkadelica (talk · contribs · logs)
• RyRy (talk · contribs · logs)
• Snowfreak91287 (talk · contribs · logs)
• TableManners (talk · contribs · logs)
• Titodutta (talk · contribs · logs)
• Watchdog07 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs · logs)
• victor falk (talk · contribs · logs)
• Ashley thomas80 (talk · contribs · logs)

Inactive Members[edit]

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.

• Xiutwel (talk · contribs · logs) 03:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userbox[edit]

If you want to show your support, add this userbox to your user page:

Userbox code	Result
((User wikipedia-neutrality))	This user is a participant in WikiProject Neutrality.

Templates[edit]

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.
• See the list of dispute-related templates for more specific situations.

Suggestions for Reviewers[edit]

First, be sure you are well versed in the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines. Second, make sure you can be pretty active. Picking an article a week would be good. We will run activity checks every two or three months. Then there are a few things you can do:

• Check pages in Category:NPOV disputes, 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 an 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.
• Try to check some of the articles in Wikipedia:Neutrality Project/Stale.

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.

Regarding New Requests[edit]

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 where the consensus is not clear. Discussion can help you feel out where the problems are.

Related Articles[edit]

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