Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#UAF

One of the discussions at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard is expanding but is not resolving anything, because the editors are largely restating their statements. (I am not saying which one because you can tell which one it is.) I have some questions.

• 1. Is there a procedure for closing such discussions?
• 2. Is there a procedure for restarting such discussions?
• 3. Can the editors be notified that the topic of the article is a contentious topic?

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

:# Unfortunately it's for some brave editor to go in and assess the conversation before labeling it "no consensus" and closing it as a mercy.

:# New thread is opened.

:# Considering the dramatis personae involved everyone there probably has the applicable CTOP notices already. But certainly, yes, they can and should be notified if a noticeboard discussion is CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:If you are talking about the Journal of Indo-European Studies, some brave soul should probably just move the discussion to the JIES talk page, put a redirect link on this noticeboard to that talk page, and let folks figure it out on the talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

For some reason, the archive links on the box at the top of this page, the NPOV notice board, go to archives for the Reliable sources noticeboard. I know there are archives for this page, but it makes it less easy to find them if the links on page lead to a whole different archive. Can anyone fix this? Wuju Daisuki (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:Looking into this… the “search archives” function works fine (it gives results from NPOVN archives). What seems to be broken is the nav box listing all the archives by number… THOSE are for RSN. Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

::I left a note at VP(technical)… it has now been fixed! Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

{{closed top

| status = No Action

| result = Not relevant to this noticeboard O3000, Ret. (talk)

}}

I posted a few items for improving this article:

Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) - Wikipedia

I posted on the talk page, and my post was removed. The user threatened to ban me. I believe the article in question has multiple issues. Will someone go please look at the revert and see if the comments were against WP policies? 134.167.1.1 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

:The warning at the top of that page states: "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)" An admin reverted your edit and you reverted the admin. The admin provided a second warning on your talk page with a link to the policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

:I believe the user was ScottishFinnishRadish, the edit was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_conflict_(2023%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=1249008064 this edit], the problem is WP:ECR -- perhaps it's not a policy and perhaps you made an edit request but yes ScottishFinnishRadish can ban people for talk page comments, I've seen it happen. What I don't see is the relevance to WP:NPOVN, so I won't object is someone collapses this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

{{closed bottom}}

{{archive top|This is not the appropriate venue. This page is to discuss meta-issues with NPOVN, not simply another venue for the contents of the board. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}}

On this whole article, I see one point of view. That Trump was a bad president and did pretty much nothing good during his presidency. On the whole article, not only is the way in which it was written not from a neutral point of view, it doesn't align with the policy "Articles must fairly represent all significant points of view that have been published by reliable sources." as is required in the NPOV policy (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) I can quote some points of view that have not been fairly listed along with the negative ones in the article. "The economy grew at a rate of 4.2 percent, the fastest pace in nearly four years" — The Wall Street Journal. "The tax cuts have brought economic growth, higher wages, and more investment into our economy" — The Washington Post. "The First Step Act is a step forward for criminal justice reform that is long overdue" — The New York Times.

Sources:

Employment Situation Summary." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dec. 2019, www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.

Piel, Matthew. "How the Tax Cuts Are Boosting the Economy." The Washington Post, 15 Jan. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/tax-cuts-economic-growth.

Smith, John. "Trump Signs Landmark Criminal Justice Reform Bill." The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/trump-first-step-act. Charles337 (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:As this user has been told, our articles reflect the consensus of WP:RS, not a few cherrypicked quotes. They aren't hearing that. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::{{u|Muboshgu}}, I wanted to clarify here because it is important that our articles don't "reflect the consensus of WP:RS". In many fields, such as political ones, a consensus will not exist: WP:YESPOV applies. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:Is it worth escalating to an admin to deal with? Don't wanna WP:BITE, but a quick view of user talk page and contribution history indicates this account seems WP:SPA Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:Can I just say it would help if a person putting in a number of citations actually checks that they are uisable? On a quick try I wasn't able to get to any of the sources in what the OP said. It is up to a poster to make what they say easy to read - not up to all the readers to struggle to make sense of what is being said. NadVolum (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:I very much agree, the NPOV policy is being interpreted selectively when it comes to certain political persuasions. There is a small-yet-active handful of editors/admins who seem to patrol particular topics and end up biting other editors who question neutrality. You don't have to dig very far to find examples. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}