Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#rfc 5EED886

My concern is those large groups with high reputation that bully other users editing in good faith when they have genuine issues with the larger groups edits that they want to fix Nicholasjosey (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:Generally, we should assume good faith. That said, follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy. —Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:If they're sourced to primary sources and it's overwhelmingly flattering, those contents should generally be abated. If it's sourced to WP:QS, that too should be considered for pruning. Promotional and public relations editing which cause the articles to take on a presentation favorable to the subject (such as gleaming with awards, accolades and accomplishments) is a common issue. Graywalls (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:Been there. There are pages I simply don't bother to edit because a group of editors with a strong POV will immediately revert anything that disagrees with their perspective, will source-lawyer everything no matter how well-sourced, and will threaten to go to admin with a civility complaint over any perceived slight. And this behavior is generally tolerated on Wikipedia, which really sucks, but that's the reality of this place. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::One could appeal to a wider audience to see override a potential WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Barring that, one needs to consider whether they are in the minority. Such is the nature of crowd-sourced editing.—Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Should input from a company/notable person's communication agents, or public relations firm have any weight into consensus building or should they be considered more along "non-voting commentator"? Also, how much input should PR firms be allowed to exert onto due/undue aspects of what to be covered in an article? Graywalls (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:Non-voting commentator. I think the long-standing convention is good that someone with a commercial interest should neither be nastily accused of necessary bias nor naively be allowed to determine editorial decision outcomes on something controversial.

:So if the PR person raises issues that are objectively reflective of a WP:RS (or that some article does not fairly summarize the sources) then those issues should be welcomed and taken seriously by editors, regardless of affiliation. This creates a "virtuous circle". (Also, editors can adjust the article to note that there is some controversy without giving some fringe idea oxygen by spelling it out.)

:Transparency is key here, but a weak spot: a PR representative may not out themselves as such. So I think, for controversial subjects (those not involving situations where there could be retribution, e.g. a Chinese editor discussing Tienamin Square) anonymous or new pseudonymous editors should be weighed less strongly than known and established editors. It would be good if Wikipedia showed the names of people in talk pages had some icon or character to indicate e.g. if they are under a year old and with fewer than 10 substantive edits and without a human name, or whatever.

:Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:: {{re|Rick Jelliffe}}, I am talking about situations where article subject retained public relations firms making requests, opinionate about WP:DUE, WP:TMI and such about how they/their client don't feel it should be included. Sometimes, it's clear cut, but some of the stuff is something subject to editorial discretion. After recognizing their request, any positions they try to advance should be treated as a mere request, but their position should be considered non-voting (in consensus building process)? Please see the discussion at Talk:American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers as an example. This is an article that was heavily altered by the article subject company directly causing the article to be severely curated into organization's preferred version. Some years later, ASCAP retained a PR firm and they're making various requests. Graywalls (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Since consensus is fundamentally not a voting process, everyone's a non-voting contributor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it is the difference between "there are five of us editors here who need to come to consensus, and one of us (me) thinks X: do include me in figuring out the consensus" and "there are four of you editors who need come to consensus in issue X that I am raising: don't include me when dowsing for the consensus." Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::To the extent that consensus is meant to be formed according to strength of argument, rather than head-counting, then it doesn't matter. If four editors say "Yes, let's keep ____ in the article", and User:RampantPaidCOI says "Let's remove ____ because ____ is not true, and here are the sources to prove it [https://www.example.com]", then who cares how many people are on which side? It's the sources that should win. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed that there is a lot of bias on talk pages. Because talk pages should only be used for discussing improvement of Wikipedia articles, I don't think users should be allowed to post their own opinions on talk pages. This does not mean that users shouldn't be able to make biased suggestions for articles, (meaning suggestions that reflect certain opinions for the improvement articles, not suggestions for biased content) It just means users should not be able to unnecessarily post opinions on talk pages. Quinnly9 (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:If the discussion is not about improving the article I think you're looking for WP:NOTFORUM. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::I think they're contemplating an area in between, where editors discuss the topic more "off the cuff" without directly citing sources or specific elements of the article. Frankly, there's the plain pragmatic reason OR is allowed on talk pages: discussion is important for motivating editors to make changes, but sources simply always trump: it is hard to imagine discussion alone affecting the NPOV of an article once sources are adequately surveyed.

::OP needs to more concretely describe the problematic patterns of behavior they're worried about, because right now they seem to be tilting at windmills. Remsense ‥ 论 15:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::One of the issues is where there's good faith disagreement about what the sources represent. Ultimately such assessments are not absolute, there's a definite issue with some editors not accepting that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It's clear to me that explicitly restricting what sources or aspects will be tolerated in discussions surrounding a given topic won't help resolve those issues—I'll actually guarantee that such an atmosphere would further motivate instances of intractability and intransigence, with consensus ultimately becoming less fruitful and harder to achieve. Remsense ‥ 论 19:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with this in spirit. WP:NPOV and other policies are really about articles, and not talk pages. But it couldn't hurt to add a reminder that "in disputes about what to include in an article, avoid discussing your personal opinion, and focus on what reliable sources say." Shooterwalker (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::There's no reason to do that given the shared goal already understood by editors. Really, guidance added explicitly to this end will likely only serve as another potential cudgel when we start getting grouchy at each other. Remsense ‥ 论 18:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

IMO, long story short, has lots of problems and would do more harm than good. What we actually want to exclude is already covered by WP:NOTFORUM. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

An editor made a large revert. Claiming POV. I see none. Conversation with the editor did not work. Posting on the talkpage has not worked - perhaps nobody sees the post, or has a view, or wishes to comment. The edit is here - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Fine&diff=prev&oldid=1283263575]

Thank you. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm unsure what part of your edit you are referring to, as the linked edit seems to have mass reverted many changes including uncontroversial corrections to formatting and citation fields. If you are in a disagreement with another editor then WP:Dispute resolution could be worth reading. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::Right -- the editor mass reverted many changes including many uncontroversial corrections to formatting and citation fields - all under the edit summary charging POV. But nobody is joining the conversation on the talk page, so the revert stands. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:PSTS reads that {{tq|Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. |tq}}. It is not specifically about this article, but Death Valley National Park, like many other articles on national parks, it is extensively sourced to their own website (National Park Services).

It's common knowledge that extensively sourcing about people/company based on their own website is not ok. The NPS has a vested interest in promoting tourism and extensive citation to NPS site, especially with regard to recreation and activities lead to content bias towards what the NPS administration wants it presented. For our purposes, NPS.gov on National Parks articles is just like company dot com source for article on Company. NPS, while passing factual accuracy reliability, extensive citations to it to flesh out the article may violate core value of NPOV by causing the articles to be ingrained wtih the parks administration viewpoint especially when it comes to amenities, trivia, and activities.

Should we treat citations to National Parks Services on National Park articles just as we treat any other citations to the article subject themselves?

Graywalls (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:No, we should not treat nps.gov sources the same as ProfitHungryBusiness.com sources.

:NPOV is not measured by the sources. NPOV is measured by the content. If a statement such as "More than 93% of the park is a designated wilderness area" is neutral, then that statement is neutral regardless of whether there is a link in the little blue clicky number after it that leads to a US federal government website, a local history book, or a scholarly work.

:For NPOV purposes, avoiding citations to non-independent sources is only a means to an end. If you cite ProfitHungryBusiness.com a lot, you're probably not getting the balance right – that is, you're probably going to unintentionally write too little about "More than 93% of the park is a designated wilderness area" and too much "The best value is the Grand Hotel® three-night hotel package with included park entrance fees during the shoulder season". You are unlikely to have this problem when citing nps.gov.

:That said, if you want to improve (according to your view) the citations (which almost nobody ever reads), then you should feel free to do that work yourself. It is unusual for such an edit to draw complaints. The complaints only come when you decide that normal practice isn't good enough for you, and you tag the articles or otherwise demand that other editors do extra work that you aren't willing and able to do yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Citing directly to the location's website to claim "xx % is designated wildnerness area" would be the same from NPOV perspective whether it's a for-profit golf course or a national park. When it comes to visitor guide like contents as seen in Death_Valley_National_Park#Activities, why should institutional/governmental/corporation status be an excuse for liberal self-citation? Some of the most egregious promotional junk on Wikipedia are perpetrated by 501c3s and municipal corporations. Graywalls (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The point of NPOV isn't what's in the citations. The point of NPOV is what's in the sentences and paragraphs. Do you see things in those sentences and paragraphs that you believe would be substantially different if the editor had been reading The Big Book of Death Valley Activities by Alice Author instead of reading the [https://www.nps.gov/deva/planyourvisit/outdooractivities.htm "Outdoor Activities"] webpage by the National Park Service? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Graywalls}}, your concern would be more compelling if you could give an example where a more independent RS was emphasizing different facts than nps.gov when covering a subject. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::If you wouldn't cite some resort . com to write about activites and amenities on that resort, it would be the same for .gov operated matters, because that still fails independent secondary sourcing criteria. What I am saying is that if these things to do and activities are primarily sourced to the park's website itself or travel guide oriented books that compiles activities and amenities, "independent, secondary" criteria are not met so perhaps the inclusion is NOT due to begin with. Graywalls (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Once again: Mind the gap between "currently sourced to" and "able to be sourced to". Whether content is neutral is dependent upon the sources that have been published in the real world, and not the sources that happen to be cited in the article right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Those sources are fine for straightforward factual enclyclopedic information. North8000 (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:See also Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Travel time, proximity to another spot and such from the same editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)