Wikipedia:NPOV dispute/Archive November 2008

Pages needing review[change source]

Creationism has been rewritten in a way that blatantly attacks and ridicules those who believe in it, giving only one POV but refusing to allow their own POV in response to even be heard. This is completely unacceptable and about as un-neutral as it gets. If it were neutral, it would give information that all relevant parties are happy with in a compromise, not be used for propaganda pushing and lies. There have been edit wars, reverts, and now the article is protected to prevent new users from changing it. 70.105.30.46 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy Holly is completely un-neutral. It contains sentences like "That's what made it so painful that day". EstherWieringa 22:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
President Bush this article is unashamedly pro-bush.68.4.61.113 06:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Communism - The introductory paragraph in particular seems to be slightly anti-communism.

This page looks like someone explaining to a child why communism is bad. I suggest it gets a bit more attention. Willie the Walrein 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Jesus Code - It's not very encyclopedic and it's not very neutral. 160.114.126.82 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)~~ Deleted. Freshstart 03:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft - I've just added this entry as it seems to have alot of negitive views on the company. Needs rewriting to provide a more balanced view. -Nidonocu 04:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
EsperantoOnly a few lines, but already enough to make it look like common anti-esperanto propaganda.

Zamenhof wanted esperanto to be the international language. He wanted everybody in the world to learn it

Yeah, he was only interested in promoting himself, and if you don't learn his little thingy, Zamenhof will hurt you, beware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.165.201.82 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this quote is POV. There was a comment about how easy Esperanto was to learn that I considered POV and removed, but now the article seems fine. CanadaGirl 01:14, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's provably easy to learn; since when is that POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.22.238 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism Pretty rampantly pro-capitalism, needs to be rewritten to a more NPOV. Of course, it's a rather difficult subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsymmetry (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution - Like it is written by evolutioninst jihadists. I tried to put a section at the very bottom of the article on websites that are providing arguments against evolution, and got deleted right away. Note that I didn't even change the article, only provided two external links at the very very very bottom of the page. The article is poluted with wording attacking other POV rather than sticking to the facts. It is clearly not a neutral article as one would expect from wikipedia. I even tried to discuss this with the user, but no response what-so-ever. How can the article be NPOV when you're not even allowed to put external links to websites who are against the POV?? all the links there are pro-evolution only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.44.124.9 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is because Evolution is a Fact, not an individual POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.53.19 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is NOT a proven fact. Stop lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockinblox (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What my friend is trying to say, I think, is that, while evolution is widely accepted in the scientific community, it has never been proved, despite attempts to do so. That is why it is still called "the theory of evolution." To be truly NPOV, an article must reflect differing opinions on the topic, whether or not those opinions are accepted by the scientific community. That is why an article on the Earth should include a mention of the Flat Earth Society with their ideas, despite the fact that the roundness of the earth is accepted by virtually everyone. The Flat Earth Society is in fact only notable for its opinion and its claims of a worldwide conspiracy to cover the truth, but it should still be mentioned in the article on the Earth. --Cromwellt|talk 09:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upanishad This article is totally biased against hinduism. Upanishads have influenced and impressed philosophers like Schopenhauer, Voltaire, Scheilling, Max Muller and a lot many other people. Many of them have said overwhelming things about Upanishads. Max Muller and Schopenhauer studied Upanishads intensively. Schopenhauer's idea of "will" is as per his own opinion is derived from these Upanishads. Perhaps no other religious text has contributed more to philosophy than Upanishads, still all you see is count of Upanishads and total lack of information about their importance and influence, or at best misleading information on what their influence is.12.7.175.2 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates The last section is quite badly written and doesn't have a neutral point of view. Jordanhatch - talk 09:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nature This sentence "Many people enjoy looking at natural things or walking in natural places, but people also have to think about how they want to use nature" as well as others in the article, seems decidedly POV to me. My first thought was that well over half the people in the world wouldn't even be able to relate to such "the good life" thoughts. There's some discussion on the Talk page. More is needed to find the right approach. Hordaland 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]