Wikipedia:NPOV dispute - Factbites
 Where results make sense
About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   PR   |   Contact us  

Topic: Wikipedia:NPOV dispute

    Note: these results are not from the primary (high quality) database.

In the News (Sun 18 Aug 19)

 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Simple English Wikipedia
NPOV means that people should write the things that almost everyone agrees about, and make them the main point of the article.
Only once these things are done should the different opinions on Marco and the war, and his skill as a king, be added - it must be clear that these are in dispute, and all sides treated fairly.
Marco's country fought a war from 1670 to 1675, etc. Since almost everyone agrees that these things are true, they are "neutral point of view" and okay as the main point of the article. /wiki/Neutral_Point_Of_View

The first one, NPOV and meme evolution was an attempt to demonstrate how knowledge is distributed in wikipedia projects by proposing some so-called "real measurements".
NPOV was considered as positive feedback, because it stops politically incorrect information from being suppressed, mentioning a separate point of view.
But the article on egoism is also being disputed, as well as the one on Intel Ireland (see the discussion pages for more details). /2005_08_01_coniecto_archive.html

 Wikipedia has negative slant on Terri Schiavo :: Action Items :: BlogsforTerri
In fact it is a claim which is disputed and only a court decision decided whether she was PVS (regardless of the truth).
NPOV is the only treaty that makes this kind of discussion workable.
This is poor writing to call her PVS unless they clarify that the courts ruled her while doctors disputed it. /archives/2005/04/wikipedia_has_n.php

 Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute - Simple English Wikipedia
If you come across a page with an accuracy dispute, the best way to solve the problem is to peer review the content, and check whether it's inaccurate.
Don't remove accuracy disputes simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it.
It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic. /wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute

The NPOV policy seeks to achieve the "fair" representation of all sides of the dispute such that all can feel well represented.
Yet, the NPOV policy is quite the opposite and instead recognizes the multitude of viewpoints and provides an epistemic stance in which they all can be recognized as instances of human knowledge – right or wrong.
In particular, I argue that the “neutral point of view policy” policy is not a source of conflict, as it is often perceived to be, but a resolution shaping norm. /joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html   (3696 words)

 Heretics' almanac: Plugging Wikipedia
There are mechanisms to point out abusive entries and edits, and there is something known as an NPOV dispute, NPOV standing for "neutral point of view."
The aspirations of an encylopedia are to provide a comprehensive introduction of a subject, and sometimes (probably usually) there are disagreements about fundamental aspects of the subject.
This is as good a place to understand the nature of the conflict as any you're likely to find. /hereticsalmanac/2004/10/plugging_wikipe.html   (3696 words)

 Talk:Derry - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase
I do not suggest that official names be used always (as is the case with, for example, the article Calcutta), but here, where there is a dispute over the name, official status should lend some weight to one title.
There are plenty of links to County Derry (, and maybe others to [[County LondonderryCounty Derry]]; no doubt whoever wrote those articles thought it would be clearer to do that.
This is where NPOV runs up against the brick wall of ethnic suspicion, I'm afraid. /Talk:Derry.html   (2706 words)

The first one, NPOV and meme evolution was an attempt to demonstrate how knowledge is distributed in wikipedia projects by proposing some so-called "real measurements".
I browsed the list myself, and I was a bit surprised to discover an article on Adrian Paunescu, a Romanian poet turned into politician (a controversial character, but the dispute is about including or not in the article a phrase about his wife who provoqued a car accident!).
But many people back home doubt about the reliability of the content and avoid using it, and every time I tried to encourage people to become wikipedians, their answer was either they don't feel they have the competence to do it, or they prefer to contribute information to the site of someone they already know. /2005_08_01_coniecto_archive.html#112490339028148884   (4286 words)

 Talk:Cyprus dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In this case, we would have two extreme POV articles heavily violating wikipedia's NPOV policy.
Dont try and turn this into the RoC explanation of the Cyprus dispute, this article is a political overview of the situation, if you want to talk about murders and death rates put it inCivilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict.
Perhaps there should be two pages: Cyprus Dispute (Turkish Cypriot view) and Cyprus Dispute (Greek Cypriot view). /wiki/Talk:Cyprus_dispute   (1749 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)

  About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   Press   |   Contact us  
Copyright © 2005-2007 Usage implies agreement with terms.