Template talk:POV/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:POV. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Linking to talk page sections

The template as it is is a generic note stating that there exists some debate at the article. As such it seems quite vague, as many articles have issues, and many such issues are characterized as deviations from neutrality. I think the template should be updated to allow direct linking to the section on the talk page where the issue of neutrality is being discussed. Otherwise, as per above, the template seems vague. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Try it this way, for example {POV|talk Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#POV_issues|date=xxxxxx} NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Discusion about template documentation

…is ongoing here at Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute#POV-tag documentation not in compliance with actual policy?. The topic regards how the current template guidelines governing removing the tag are misleading (at the very least) and are effectively incorrect by saying that “All editors involved in the article agree to remove it.” It is improper to very specifically enumerate just four circumstances under which it can be removed wherein not one of the four says that a consensus is sufficient to remove the tag. Editors are using the POV tag and are editwarring by insisting that a consensus to remove the tag is not sufficient. They point to the tag documentation and insist that the tag stays so long as they aren’t appeased. Greg L (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. That in my opinion the text of the tag reflects policy and does not need altering. Debresser (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased source tagging

Is there a template for labeling a source as biased (or at least interested)? A search did not reveal one, but perhaps I haven't found the right keywords yet. 18.26.0.5 (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We have Template:Verify credibility, which is a redirect of {{Tl|Unreliable source]]. That comes close. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Section template

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Template:POV-section uses this template, but section templates should use "small=left" parameter. However POV template does not accept a "small=" parameter, so please add that

Please add a

|small={{{small|}}}

to the template.

this request is related to Template talk:POV-section#Section template

76.65.128.132 (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If anybody will edit this template, please first copy the updated version from the sandbox, which implements some of the newer functionalities of {{Ambox}}. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, done. Killiondude (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Bolded text

Seems to me that it would be better to bold the link to the discussion page as it is what is actually most relevant. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

1. This is Wikipedia style on all maintenance templates 2. Why would the talkpage link be more important that the description of the problem? To the contrary, and quite obviously so. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because the description of the specific problem should actually be located on the article's talk page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

1. That doesn't affect the first argument 2. So? It is linked. Why does it have to be bolded? 3. Very often there is no discussion. Debresser (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

1: I have no problem changing all similar templates if necessary. 2: It has to be bolded because, as explained above, it's the most important link and the one that should be evident at first sight. On the other side, I don't see a reason to bold the link to the page in the Wikipedia namespace.(My personal experience: Recently, I wanted to see the argument of someone who added a template and mistakenly clicked to the Wikipedia page as the link was bolded instead of the link to the discussion page) 3: It's not enough to just place a template without a discussion. If someone decides an article is biased, they have to explain what they mean, or their argument is void. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

to 1. But I do. And so does the concept of WP:CONSENSUS. to 2. You noticed that at least I disagree with you? to 3. Please don't use empty rhetorics. In short, unless you can show an overwhelming consensus for your opinions to change the present consensus, I think we have nothing more to say to each other about this subject. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please reduce harshness and quarrelsomeness in your replies? Thanks. Because it's tiring to talk to you otherwise. As for the points, I am fully aware consensus has to be gained before the template changes, this was my proposal to gain consensus to change the placement of bold. Probably, it will be best to post it somewhere else to gain more input. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If bold on "disputed" and "neutrality" and lack of bold on "talk" gets people to actually read WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVD prior to jumping in to a talk page discussion, then I like the status quo, and if you, Eleassar, were frustated by your arrival on those pages instead of the talk page just because the talk link was not bolded, it suggests to me that you might be in too big a hurry to make the best possible contrib to a talk page anyway. So slow down please, and read more carefully. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Making a template deliberately frustrating to users, or not correcting it in spite of this having been pointed out, makes no good contribution to Wikipedia. I've seen this template for numerous times and there is no good reason to just read it again and again only to find the right link. I'd simply like to read at the talk page why the template has been placed, and in this case it's not necessary to read the general Wikipedia pages at all (especially if one is familiar with general principles of writing Wikipedia). It also doesn't mean I want to contribute to the talk page, so your concern is needless in this case. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It has never been frustrating to me, so your concern is needless in this case. And when I screw up because I was in a hurry I do not blame anyone except myself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

POV|section

I suggest that {{POV|section}} be added, equivalent to {{POV-section}}. At present {{POV|section}} refers to article, rather than section.

Pol098 (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See Template:POV#Alternatives. Or is that what you are proposing to change? Debresser (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "When to use" section

For consistency with WP:DRIVEBY, I suggest expanding the sentence in the first paragraph of Template:POV#When to use, to read:

Please immediately explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within the content policies.

(The addition is shown in italics.) Comments? Jakew (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

works for me, and reminds me that the template's ability to link to specific threads instead of the overall talk page seems to be broken. It would be greatly appreciated if this tag had to point to a SPECIFIC thread, as this would eliminate one large category of tagging battles. Removal is warranted where there is no talk page discussion, but when the tag just points to the top of a talk page it is frequently ambiguous whether there are any pending threads related to the tag. I think the proposal is a great one, and would be strengthened by fixing this linking problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See my edit of today. I implemented the above suggestion, but replaced the overly demanding "immediately". Debresser (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

When to remove

There are three occasions when it is recommended to remove this template: when -

No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
Discussion about neutrality issues is dormant.
There is consensus in the discussion that the problems have been resolved.

Number 3 is fine, though numbers 1 & 2 are problematic. That discussion hasn't started or has paused doesn't necessarily mean the POV issue is not present.

Possible wording:

There is consensus on the talkpage that the issue has been resolved (*1)

The tagger has agreed that the issue has been resolved

It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given (*2)

The matter has been referred to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and resolved

The tagging was clearly disruptive (*3)

*1 The tagger should be invited to participate in the discussion (if possible), but does not have to take part or even to agree with the outcome, provided there is a clear consensus
*2 The tagger should be requested to give an explanation (if possible), if there is none forthcoming, or it is unsatisfactory, the tag can be removed
*3 Done by a vandal or subsequently sanctioned user
If a discussion has started but ceased without consensus, then refer the matter to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The mere passage of time does not imply a neutrality issue has gone away - it may mean a resolution hasn't yet been found.

My proposal is that the current wording is problematic, and the suggested wording is a starting point for discussion - the wording does not have to be accepted or rejected as a complete package: are some, all or none of the ideas/sentences acceptable? What else may work? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You were bold in adapting the documentation to your comment after two days and with no comments from other editors. I disagree with one thing you removed, and have restored that part of the documentation. If you feel you are right, please discuss. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I now noticed that there were many obvious statements in your version, so I pruned it. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edits were useful in compressing a lot of the information - I had over worded matters! However, I re-removed the passage of time statement as mere passage of time is not suitable cause. Allowing passage of time allows gaming to take place. At least some form of check should take place: look at the article, or start a discussion - but don't just simply remove a concern that an article violates one of our core policies without some form of due diligence. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your praise. I have to undo your removal of that condition. It has been here for a considerable time, which implies it is consensus. Apart from that, it does make sense. If others were to perceive the issue as a serious POV violation, it stands to reason, that it would have been addressed in the article or on the talkpage. In any case, please do not edit against consensus. If you disagree, discuss it and establish a new consensus first. Debresser (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ Debresser. Such perma-tagging would just increase the culturewar effects of the tag at the expense of the grunt-work of meaningful collaborative editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing if?

The editor placing this template in an article should promptly provide a reason on the article's talk page. In the absence of a reason and if it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, this tag may be removed by any editor.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I see editors adding these tags a lot as a "badge of shame," even though this template warns against doing that. I'd therefore like to strengthen the advice that editors should try to resolve disputes first, and that tagging is a last resort. Also, that their suggestions must be actionable within the policies. So my suggested edit is:

Instead of:

"The editor placing this template in an article should promptly provide a reason on the article's talk page. In the absence of a reason and it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, this tag may be removed by any editor."

Replace with some of the language from WP:NPOV dispute:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with adding the warning that "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged", but am not comfortable with such demands as "should first discuss concerns on the talk page".

The "pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" part is too legal. Complicated and unclear. Wikipedia is not law school. Too much instructions for such a simple thing as a tag. Debresser (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

New NPOV template

Put {{Snowball keep}} on an article in between an AfD tag and cleanup tags to snowball keep without having to edit the AfD subpage. Anna|talk 20:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That won't work: first, WP:SNOW makes no mention of neutrality and only uses the word "dispute" once, and then not in the context intended by {{Snowball keep}}; secondly, the admin who closes the AfD is supposed to primarily consider the arguments put forward at the AfD - putting notices on the page is essentially a fork of the discussion.

Also: why would you want to avoid editing the AfD subpage? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it's easier. Plus, I edited the template. Anna|talk 18:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to delete dormancy as reason for removing POV tag

The instructions for when to remove state:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

...

In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

I'm sorry but POV problems in articles are not alcohol or water. They don't evaporate on their own nor do they magically disappear. They don't depreciate over time like machinery, nor do they grow old and fade away like soldiers. They don't wither like leaves nor do they melt like snow. They don't grow up and turn into productive members of society once they reach a certain age. There's no statue of limitations on POV so that it stops being POV after seven years. There's no ocean which gradually licks the rocky shores of POV and erodes it over eons. If POV is in an article and it is not removed, then that POV stays in there.

Usually discussions go dormant because no consensus can be reached (if consensus has been achieved, then the first point of the list covers that already). That does not mean that POV is gone, once you give it enough time. I'm removing that qualifier from the sentence as it's plainly silly and obviously badly thought out.Volunteer Marek 01:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I remember we put it there, because there was consensus for it. Perhaps see discussions above, before you start trowing words like "silly" and "badly thought out"? Debresser (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I'm interested in good faith editing; I've seen lots of driveby POV tagging, where the tagger has no real intent on sticking around for constructive discussion. When I have cleaned up such tags, I have specifically acted under this proviso. Whether an argument can be made for the applicability of the word "silly" or not, another applicable word is "useful". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, the tags are just handy tools in building the encyclopedia, they are not the final and intrinsic part of any particular subject. Tags need to be followed up by other means of reaching consensus. If not, there would be little motivation for further improvement among the editors. Poeticbent talk 19:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a very long standing arrangement. The tagging is an indication that a dispute is in progress. William Avery (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@William. No, The tagging is an indication that article has problems. At least that's what it should be. Look. If someone starts building a bridge, and puts a sign up that says "Warning: Bridge out!" and then for whatever reason doesn't finish that bridge, you don't remove the sign or people will get hurt. Same thing here. Just stop and think of it from the point of view of "what benefits the reader" not "what makes an article stable" (if the article is crap, who cares) or "what makes Wikipedia look good" (substance over appearances please). The POV tag alerts the readers that the bridge is out - that they should approach the text of the article with caution. This is common sense, and that piece of the template is neither supported by policy, WP:NPOV, which says NOTHING about POV problems evaporating magically on their own, nor does it pass the test of common sense. And both actual policy and common sense trump what some people might have once decided on a template talk page.

@Poeticbent. Sure. Tags DO need to be followed by discussion and attempts to build consensus. But we all know that sometimes this is not possible. If no consensus has been reached and discussion has exhausted itself that does not mean that the POV problem has been solved. Ignoring a problem is not the same as fixing a problem. Anyway, the rest of the guideline, without the "if the discussion has become dormant." covers the fact.

@NewsAndEventsGuy. This isn't about drive-by-tagging. Yeah, that's bad and it irritates me as much as the next guy. But that's already covered by the other parts of the "when to remove". This is about a situation where an article has POV, it has been tagged, the reasons for it have been given and discussed but discussion has lead nowhere and no consensus has been reached. That's not drive by tagging. That's just realizing that in reality things don't always work out magically like we hope they would.

@Debresser. Like I already said, WP:NPOV doesn't say anything about POV in articles magically disappearing on its own over time. Probably because, you know, it actually doesn't. And actual policy trumps whatever silly agreement some people came to here. And there really is no other way to describe this kind of wishful thinking - that POV problems will just fade away if we ignore them long enough - except as idiotic and badly thought out.

Freakin' a. Wikipedia already has way too many mutually contradictory, sophomoric, inane, esoteric, bureaucratic and silly policies and guidelines. Let's not add to that.Volunteer Marek 21:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So it is a badge of shame? William Avery (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If an article deserves it then, yeah. Ok. Suppose you got an article with POV problems. Suppose the discussion has died out and no consensus was reached. The problem is still there. Should we really pretend to the readers that this article doesn't have any problems? If not the POV template, how should we indicate to them to be wary (or do we just assume that Wikipedia readers are savvy enough to know that a lot of our articles are crap?)

Put it another way. If an article is badly written, with horrible prose, in an unencyclopedic language and without sources, and someone adds a Template:Bad summary, or Template:In-universe or Template:Unreferenced (just to pick a few examples) to it, we don't remove these templates until the actual problem is solved - the section is properly summarized, the article is rewritten in encyclopedic language and references are provided. And that's exactly right. Summaries don't write themselves, pronouns and prose don't arrange in just the right way on their own and sources don't hop on a train and voluntarily arrive in articles. If someone adds a ^{[citation needed]} tag to an unsourced piece of text and no one provides a source for a couple of years, we don't remove the tag, we remove the text.

It's exactly the same thing here. Our readers don't care if there is an "ongoing discussion on talk". They care whether our articles are well written, sourced and non-biased. If we have failed, for whatever reason, to deliver that, the least we can do is put up a warning sign.Volunteer Marek 22:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Volunteer Marek, you seem to have overlooked one essential part of the entire process. In my entire wiki career I have seen only one instance (just one) of an editor who first put a POV tag in, and then removed it after the article was improved. It was Piotrus. He was asked by the principal author to consider it. People who tag articles don't come back (ever), even after the article has been doubled and tripled in size, similar to editors who lost an argument in talk. Most taggers abandon the subject hoping that silence (mistaken for research) would result in their POV tag staying in place forever. It is easy to put a POV tag back in place, with a fresh note on the article's talk page. Articles don’t disappear from our watchlists by themselves. ... not even after a couple of years! Poeticbent talk 23:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The proper thing to do in cases where you come back to an article with a POV talk some time after discussion has died down is to politely ask on the talk page if the tag can be removed. I'd go even further and say that you should leave a note/question on whoever tagged the article's talk page. Of course I have no problem with the tag being removed if no one objects. And yes, this can be gamed. However, the basic policy of Wikipedia is that any policy, regardless of how well written and well intentioned, can be gamed by bad faithed editors, including WP:GAME itself. So you get abuse either way. The thing to do is those instances is to bring other eyes to the article and follow DR (yes, yes, I know this doesn't work a lot of times).

The opposite situation can happen too. Two editors disagree. One insists on including some wacky views in the article and won't budge so the other editor puts a POV tag in. Due to intransigence discussion dies out. Several months later, the non-tagger comes back (perhaps with a sock puppet account) and quietly removes the tag. In fact the wording right now actually incentivizes this kind of behavior. Why compromise, seek consensus and come to an agreement when you can just stealthily get your way if you're willing to wait a couple months? Volunteer Marek 17:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of non-neutral tagging, even when there is lots of discussion, what I have seen is usually in the nature of "This is POV" vs "No it is not". The tagger eventually goes away, and there was never any "clear understanding what the neutrality issue is", because there was never consensus that it existed in the first place. Once that discussion goes dormant, the language you don't like is the operative wording for removing the tag. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it shouldn't be there.Volunteer Marek 17:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I can understand arguments to both sides: if there is no active discussion that does not mean the problem is solved, so why remove the tag. On the other hand, if there is no active discussion, then is the tag useful? At the end of the day I agree with the recent removal by Volunteer Marek, per the opinion that a dormant discussion is not a good reason to remove a tag. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is no active discussion, who says "the problem" existed in the first place? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The folks who were part of the discussion that went inactive, obviously.Volunteer Marek 17:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If they didn't agree on that when they were present, how do they agree on it when they are absent? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

??? They don't, which is why the tag needs to stay.Volunteer Marek 20:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems backwards to me. So imagine that some pro-homeopathy editor tags Alternative cancer treatment as POV because it (*gasp*) dares to present the mainstream viewpoint that alternative treatments don't cure cancer.

The editors have a discussion, in which one side says "you nasty science people" and the other side says "you idiot homeopaths". There is "no consensus" that a POV problem exists. Eventually everyone quits wasting their time on the pointless discussion with someone who has an WP:IDHT problem.

Do you think that tag should remain on the article under those circumstances? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems backward to me too.

Note the tag displays the following text

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

The text states "is disputed". It does not say "was disputed in a long-dormant discussion somewhere in the archives of the talk page".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If the dispute was never resolved then the correct phrasing (grammatically and factually) to describe the situation actually is "is disputed". Because, again, POV doesn't evaporate on its own. Notice the wording is NOT "is being disputed", which is what you seem to think it means. That's an error on your part though.Volunteer Marek 20:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And come to think of it, that last part "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" directly contradicts the injunction to remove "if the discussion has become dormant". "Dispute is resolved" =/ "discussion has become dormant", obviously.Volunteer Marek 20:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If the discussions are (truly) dormant, then the dispute is resolved. "The dispute" is not the same thing as "the contents of the article". To give an analogy, if two drunken sports fans get into a fistfight over which team is better, then "the dispute" is over when the fistfight is over, not when the two of them agree on the relative merits of various teams. We always recognize dormancy as the end of disputes at RFC/U, ArbCom, and other dispute-resolution pages. That's what WP:DISENGAGE is about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Volunteer Marek, your ideas don't not work for me. We are all volunteers here, with limited time on hand. If for example, someone tags a piece that includes Nazi war propaganda, the propaganda bit does not get to stay along with the tag forever like some kind of end product of our collaborative effort. The proper thing to do is to go to WP:RS to have the crap removed from mainspace, instead of trying to resurect the case with the original tagger who might no longer be around. Otherwise, it is the Wikipedia alone that suffers most. By the same token, most taggers hardly ever come back. This is what we call dormancy in wiki language. 21:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
— Let me give you a concrete example of what I mean. I used this rationale once following a dispute at the Rape during the liberation of Poland. Someone who did not believe the rapes were real, put a tag on the article even though the list of reliable third-party sources was longer than the article itself. The dispute went dormant, because there was no merit to any prolonged objections. I removed the tag after a while, because the tag was trying to make the article look suspicious for the reader. The tag was not returned. Poeticbent talk 01:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC) (dif)

Oh please. I can come up with scary stories (real and hypothetical) all days as well.

Suppose that an article gets taken over by pro-homeopathy editors who write it to promote their favorite kind of "Alternative cancer treatment". A mainstream science editor comes along and says, hey, this is POV and FRINGE and tries to clean up the article. Lots of discussion ensues but the pro-homeopaths won't budge. Finally, exasperated the mainstream editor says "I won't waste my time on this anymore, but at the very least the article should have a POV tag as a warning to readers", and adds the tag. S/he then leaves and does something more productive with her life. A few months later a pro-homeopathy editor sneaks back in and (perhaps with a sockpuppet or IP account) removes the tag because "discussion is dormant". Now we've got a totally crap article which doesn't even warn readers that it's potentially crap.

Suppose that a Stalinist apologist comes to the article on Rape during the liberation of Poland and rewrites it to suggest that it was a marginal phenomenon and turns it into a glowing paean to the heroism of the Red Army. Other editors objects. Discussion ensues but the apologist won't budge. Exasperated the other editors finally say "whatever, but at least the article should have a POV tag on it", tag it and go on and do something more productive with their lives. A few months later the Stalinist editor sneaks back in (perhaps with a sockpuppet or IP account - User:Jacob Peters anyone?) and removes the tag because "discussion is dormant". Now we've got a totally crap article which doesn't even warn readers that it's potentially crap.

I can also provide concrete actual examples from Wikipedia if you wish.

You guys are thinking in terms of (personal) anecdotes. What you need to think of is in general terms and rules which are most conducive to building an encyclopedia.

It's really a Type I Error (a neutral article gets wrongly tagged with the POV template) and Type II Error (a POV article does NOT get tagged with the POV template) problem - and the associated Loss function. What matters overall is not anecdotes (which may not be representative of the actual situation) but:

1. Which kind of situation is more likely to occur (i.e. your scenarios or mine)

2. What are the costs of each kind of erroneous outcome.

In regard to #1, you guys are basically assuming that POV problems are usually solved within the article itself and the only problem is that people unjustly tag neutral articles with the POV template. I happen to think that a whole buttload of POV problems in a lot of articles never get solved. And those articles should have a POV tag on them, regardless whether there's active discussion on talk page or not. Now, maybe I'm a bit of a pessimist but I've been on Wikipedia for more than 8 years and I'm pretty sure my view is closer to Wikipedia reality. But, even if your view is the more frequent case then #2 suggests that the wording about "dormant discussion" should still be removed from this template's instructions.

Consider what happens with Type I error - a perfectly neutral article gets a POV tag. Well, it might annoy the authors of the article who worked hard on it. But Wikipedia serves (or should serve) the readers not the editors. So what happens from the perspective of a reader who arrives at such an article? If the article is truly neutral best case scenario is that the reader walks away thinking "hmm, that was a good article, I don't know why that tag is there". Worst case scenario is that the reader walks away thinking "hmm, that was a good article but it has that tag on it, maybe I should do some further research". Not a huge deal. The costs associated with wrongly tagging a neutral article are small.

What happens with Type II error - a POV article does NOT get tagged because someone removed the template because "discussion was dormant"? Well, some POV articles are so over top and obnoxious that their non-neutrality is readily observable. While these may be an embarrassment to Wikipedia (especially if they're untagged!) readers will probably realize that they're crap. It's the sophisticated, sneaky POV that is the real problem. Creationists presenting Intelligent Design as science in "scientific language". Homeopaths presenting their alternative treatments as valid using "medical language". Racists and nationalists rewriting history with a lot of code words and phrases ("race realist" rather than simple "racism" comes to mind). Etc. In those cases we do a real, serious, and even potentially harmful disservice to the readers by allowing those POV tags to be removed because "discussion is dormant". I don't want to get hyperbolic but consider the fact that some of these "Alternative Medicine" articles have info in them that could actually cause real physical harm. Would you risk not warning readers about that just because some other neutral article might get tagged unfairly? The costs associated with not tagging non-neutral articles is potentially large.

Look. I'm not against removing POV templates when it seems to be the appropriate course of action (no discussion, no one objects, AND the article actually appears neutral). What I'm arguing against is instructing editors to remove POV tags simply because discussion is "dormant". That's why that wording needs to be removed.

Volunteer Marek 19:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Or to paraphrase a worn saying, I'd rather that dozens of neutral articles should get wrongly tagged than one non-neutral article should escape the tag.Volunteer Marek 19:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't. But I would try to be concise.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're so damn lazy, why are you pretending to write an encyclopedia? Volunteer Marek 13:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of these tags is not to "warn the readers". See the documentation: The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Bang head against wallVolunteer Marek 13:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't feel too irritated. Because in the end – just like with everything else in Wikipedia – NPOV is the matter of time and priorities in the lives of individual editors. Thousands of entries read like editorial nightmares, because no-one cares. Those who do care however, need an option of addressing the practice of drive-by tagging by demanding some kind of follow-up. Poeticbent talk 15:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is completely correct. When an article has serious problems, it should have a tag. The tag notifies readers that problems are alleged (yes, that is one reason we use tags), and encourages editors to look at the article with an eye to removing the problem. Both of those aims are negated by removing the tag on irrelevant grounds. While an argument for the tag must be provided when the tag is originally added, the absence of an ongoing discussion at a later stage is irrelevant to whether the tag is deserved. Most commonly, it just means that the original discussion says it all and nobody has seen fit to repeat themselves. Moreover, the one who wants to query the tag is just as able to reopen the discussion as anyone else. That person should ask on the talk page if anyone is still arguing for the tag, or should give a reason on the talk page why the tag is no longer appropriate. The present wording here is commonly used by POV pushers to remove tags they don't like without any discussion. Zero^talk 00:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I too have to agree with Volunteer Marek. It's one thing to remove stale tags. That's something which I do regularly. It's another thing to edit war over stale tags because they are stale. If someone restores the tags after they've been removed because they are dormant, the appeal that "but they are dormant so they should be removed!" should not carry any weight. aprock (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

disagree. When conversation, if any, is long dormant the tag no longer complies with the instructions, which say that the tag means neutrality "is disputed". When conversation died with the dinosaurs, at most we can say that the matter was disputed. Aprock seems to argue that simply reverting the reasoned tag removal instantly converts was disputed into is disputed. Not so. Turning "was" into "is" requires new talk page conversation in the present. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I endorse the view of Zero above, and I might add that I've long thought the procedures over addition/removal of this tag are broken and need amendment, and would probably have proposed changes myself long ago had I been able to find the time. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you put it like that, the tag may as well be deleted (or discontinued) as too controversial to begin with. If the article is POV pushing beyond belief, send it to AfD instead to get others to comment on your rationale. If the problems are solvable, use the inline tags to point the attention to actual real problems that require fixing. One big POV tag placed over the entire article (and fought over by POV warriors using loopholes) is just another form of extreme POV. Nothing good comes out of it. Poeticbent talk 17:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My general feeling is that editors should explain their actions. We "strongly discourage" drive-by tagging, and so we should: editors who add tags should explain their reasons and be willing to defend them. However, the present wording encourages drive-by untagging, since it provides an excuse for a tag to be removed without giving any reason that is related to article content or the appropriateness of the tag. Someone seeing a tag with a dormant discussion should at least consider whether the tag belongs in the article, and should state a reason for the deletion if that is the outcome. While a more major revision could be argued for, a small change stating that editors should explain tag deletion as well as tag addition would fix the worst problem. I'll propose exact wording unless someone else does. Zero^talk 02:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make a proposal if you want, but remember also to please allow for an instance where someone in talk claims to be actively involved in research (i.e. making promises), but after half a year nothing comes in ... thus making the "discussion" dormant. Poeticbent talk 04:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have a consensus that "disputes" in which no one has made a comment for years, should continue to be tagged. But I do think that Volunteer Marek made a good point above: we should not "order" the editors to remove it every single time a discussion appears to be dormant. So I've boldly attempted to improve this by saying that you "may" remove it when it is dormant, rather than the previous, unqualified "remove it" language. Perhaps that compromise will move us in the direction of best practices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"may" or "should" does not make a big difference. But the editsummary was incorrect. The editsummary said that we need to allow to remove the tag when the discussion was resolved. "resolved" and "dormant" are different things. If the issue is resolved, then that was already mentioned in reason number one for removal of the tag. Discussion being dormant is not a reason to remove a tag. 21:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I support changing "should" to "may". Good idea. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, in your mind, are all dormant-for-years discussions "resolved"? Can you give me an example of a (hypothetical) dispute, in which nobody has mentioned a single word about it on the talk page for more than a year, but you would not consider the dispute to be "resolved"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there are quite a few articles covered by ArbComm which have tags, and which haven't been edited actively for months or years. aprock (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I support changing "should" to "may". Good idea. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither Volunteer Marek nor I argued that "disputes in which no one has made a comment for years, should continue to be tagged". That was not the issue at all. The issue was whether the mere dormancy of discussion, without even considering the merits of the tag, is sufficient reason for deleting the tag. I don't think anyone should do anything at all in Wikipedia without considering the consequences. All I am asking for here is that editors who remove tags should state a reason that is something to do with article content. A reason might be as simple as "the tag doesn't seem to be appropriate any more" or "the article has been changed a lot since the tag was added"; at least those have something to do with the article. A valid reason could be "the argument seems to have been resolved" (and "resolved" is an entirely different concept from "dormant"). But "nobody discussed this tag for a long time" is not a reason at all. Zero^talk 01:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to broadly agree. It's one thing to remove a tag which appears to be dormant. It's another thing insist that it may be removed because the discussion has become dormant. aprock (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Zero, what is the difference between

A - the status quo - "You may remove the template whenever.... the discussion has become dormant."

and

B - the de facto practical result of your suggestion - "You may remove the template whenever.... the discussion has become dormant as long as your edit summary says you don't think it is appropriate, or you don't see any current dispute, etc"

Seems to me that you are trying to draft legal language requiring intellectual objectivity and integrity. Remember Hunt for Red October, and Jack Ryan? Later in the storyline he became president, and was fond of saying "If you have to write down your ethics rules, you have already lost the battle."

Another point; tagging can be superficially justified. You appear to expect tag removers to do an analysis of intellectual integrity to the same extent we would like taggers to do in the first place, only we know they frequently don't. Removal should be no more difficult. The only real answer here is to trust to the integrity of that part of our ed community that really strives for NPOV. Yet more legalese won't make up any deficit in that department.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So why bother with policies and guidelines at all? Yes, it's true that some users misapply existing policies and procedures to their own ends, but that's not to say we can't make it more difficult for them to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The difference between A and B is that B is better guidance to editors. Nothing to do with trust or integrity. Remember that this is not a policy page, so nothing we write here mandates anything. We ask people who add tags to state their reasons, why should removing tags be different? Zero^talk 12:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A. Surplussage. Under existing text, when I remove tags due to long dormant discussion, I do explain my reason. I say "No current discussion" or "no evidence of current dispute" or something like that. I could easily change the wording to say "Doesn't seem appropriate" and I would be referencing the exact same thought process. So the textual change under B would add "surplussage", i.e., extra text to describe current procedure. The only way to get around that is to add yet more text to define the appropriate use of "not appropriate" in edit summaries.

B. Unequal standard. Tags appear with the barest lip service to discussion, and then discussion goes dormant. When a superficial discussion is started to meet the barest criteria of "is disputed", then, at some subjective point in time after that insincere conversation becomes dormant, it should be equally simple to remove the tag. Seems like you want to prevent tag removal unless people thoroughly audit the article for POV issues first. That is a much higher standard than what it currently takes to get a tag to initially stick for a few days in the first place.

C. Orphaned tags will poliferate.

D. BETTER SOLUTION TO IMPROVE THE PROJECT; Spend serious time really studying the RSs for articles in which you have an interest, and make effective use of the DR process to actually resolve actively-disputed tags, rather than seeking a way to help orphaned tags proliferate and linger. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to A: You may explain your reason, but the present docs don't require you to write a single word regarding why you remove a tag.
Response to B: No, it is the present rules that are unequal. The docs say that people placing tags should justify it but allow removal of tags without giving a reason at all.
Response to C: Articles with serious problems will have their tags removed, reducing their chance of being fixed.
Response to D: This argument counterindicates removal of tags without checking whether that they indicate existing serious problems. Zero^talk 08:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Re A, incorrect. A reason would still be required, at least if one follows WP:FIES

Re B, (you just repeated your A argument)

Re C, any articles with "serious" problems that get nearly zero traffic aren't a good reason for making it easy for dormant tags to linger on articles with traffic; for articles with "serious" problems that do get traffic, if the problems are "serious" a better solution is to trust that the community will produce editors willing to invest the sweat and time to actually engage the RSs and if necessary the DR process to truly resolve those problems in the present; the project is not aided by pinning dormant badges of shame on such articles.

Re D, Your rebuttal on D looks a whole lot like my argument B, at least for tags placed by those unwilling to engage in talk beyond the barest showing of compliance with the discussion rule. And that's precisely why the tag should continue to mean "IS disputed" instead of "WAS disputed but no one apparently cared enough to figure it out back then".

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The primary reason that I support an "unqualified" or "non-verbose" version of the dormancy rule is that it's not something people can really argue over. I find a tag that is many years old. I find that the "discussion" amounted to two sentences posted three years ago by someone who has never edited since. I remove the tag, citing a lack of ongoing effort to resolve the (alleged) dispute.

Anybody can look at that and say, "Yup, no current discussion". Given that reason, almost anybody can easily deduce the 'solution', if he wants to restore the tag: go make one (1) comment on the talk page about the POV issues, and revert the removal with an explanation that he's restarted the discussion.

By contrast, if you have a rule about needing to judge that "it doesn't seem appropriate", then we're back into the area of pure subjective opinion, and there is no clear path to restoring the tag. If you think I'm wrong, do you restore the tag and offer to edit war over it? Do you need to convince me to change my mind? Do you need to convince someone else? Do we need to go through dispute resolution about whether the tag should be placed (rather than whether or how to adjust the POV in the article)?

Of course the long-standing rule should not be implemented mindlessly or by a bot, just like the placement of these tags should not be done mindlessly or by a bot. But I think the community benefits from having a non-judgmental and objective reason for removing old tags that are associated with zero effort to improve the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The strikeout was me complaining about an edit, and as a result the ed self reverted. Thanks, D. I notice that a user has removed the "dormant" provision 3 times in about a week, in what looks a lot like a slo-mo edit war, despite ongoing substantive arguments against this change. Dormancy has been a reason for tag removal since the end of 2010. In my view, there should be clear consensus to alter this 2.5 year old template instruction. First, I'm unclear if there is a majority one way or the other. We should really do an RFC and !vote for this change to test this. As for the current state of affairs, the slo mo edit war appears to be driven by the common error of equating a majority (if it even exists) as the measure of consensus (Compare this edit summary to this one. Except here consensus is not measured by !votes, but by strength of reasoning. I think the dormant text should be restored to the last stable version,.....

I think an RFC/poll should be taken to get strong comments from the broad community before making any changes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC) UPDATED NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. And please, no changes without a direct poll to follow. Poeticbent talk 00:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

To the two editors above. Wikipedia is about consensus, not polling. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

How exactly do you assess the outcome of a prolonged discussion if there's no clear consensus among editors ... which there isn't? By using smoke and mirrors? Of course, people who remove stale POV tag first read the article in question ... because POV is a form of assessment also. Poeticbent talk 15:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Debesser, whatever. Maybe I misspoke with the technical wording. I just posted a notice to the pump to try to call more attention to the thread. We seem to agree that there should be meaningful discussion. Exactly why dormant tags should go away, and let a page watcher who cares step up to the discussion plate or hold their tongue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am having a problem with some of the reasons given above for opposing removal of the "dormancy" provision, those who oppose it are arguing that it will make no effective difference to untagging, if that is the case why bother opposing removal? Removing it will at least require those doing so to give a reason why the tag is no longer valid, which means they will have to address the reasons given for adding the tag in the first place, why shouldn't they have to do so? Gatoclass (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Gatoclass erroneously said, "those who oppose it are arguing that it will make no effective difference to untagging". This is not an accurate representation of my views.

In addition, the dormancy provision does not excuse an ed from giving a reason. For these dormant tags, frequently there is no obvious talk page thread at which to say "Removing due to no discussion". But even in these cases we are still supposed to follow WP:FIES, and that is why I say "No current discussion" in the edit summary. Page watchers who care can then revert and start talking to prove me wrong. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Gatoclass With the present documentation, dormancy is in itself a sufficient reason to remove the tag. I think there are many cases where the POV issue may be serious and not resolved, and untagging just because there is no active discussion would be incorrect. After all, the POV is there, whether or not there is any discussion. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

On zero-traffic pages, this isn't much of an issue. On high-traffic pages, if your premise is correct (serious POV issues) then there are page watchers. More to the point there are page watchers who have been sitting idly by allowing serious POV issues to linger, without meaningful discussion. What better way to give 'em a cold fish slap in the face than to remove the stale, orphaned, dormant tag. If these problems are serious, and its a page that matters, this puts the page watchers on notice they've been... what was that word I was called up above? "so damn lazy" I think it was. In my view, if there is an un-attended and un-addressed long lasting serious POV problem with no discussion, the existece or removal of the POV tag is small potatoes, because our house is burning down all around us. That's the reason I feel so strongly that dormancy must remain as a reason for removing tags. It forces partisans to engage meaningfully with consensus, not just accepting a POV tag status quo on every controversial article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You might be right in a more ideal world. But on Wikipedia as it is, issues are often not addressed for a long, long time. Note: Did you ever notice the lists of long-lingering fixes made by some editors? I once made a fix to an article which is among the 100 most important articles on Wikipedia, fixing names that were changed by a vandal 4 (!) years ago. So I think my argument holds. If an issue is not resolved, or not re-assessed as not really an issue, the tag should not be removed. Dormancy is standard on Wikipedia. See all the maintenance categories dating from 2009, 2010, etc. Debresser (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, I don't think your analysis is correct. If a page has had a serious problem for a long time, the correct ways to draw attention to the problem are to restart the discussion on the talk page, list the page on a suitable noticeboard, leave messages on the talk pages of editors with the skills to fix the problem, and so on. Removing the tag will have the opposite effect. Editors who are not watching very closely will think the problem has been fixed, and editors who come along later will not realise the problem exists at all. Zero^talk 12:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll again agree with Zero's reasoning here. Some editors are capable of sustaining intense scrutiny and editing behavior for months or years at a time. Other editors vary their editing with the season or as life dictates. Other editors come and go, sometimes too busy to deal with the bureaucracy, other times finding other ways to express themselves. Our tagging policy should not be tilted so that disputes are resolved in a "last man standing" manner. That is a recipe increasing the POV problems, not decreasing them. If you see an old tag, you should review the article for the issues. If you see the issues you should update the date on the tag. If you don't see the issues you should remove it. Dormancy should never be a reason for removal, but it should be a reason to review the article. If a dormant tagged is removed, but then restored by another editor, there should never be a discussion about how the tag removal is still justified because the tag was dormant. aprock (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have posted a notice about this discussion at the V Pump. I haven't learned how to RFC it, but will try to figure that out later unless you beat me to it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see is that a discussion can become dormant, without resolving the POV problems that caused the discussion (and the tag) in the first place. With this in mind, I propose the following ...

BEFORE you remove a "dormant" POV tag - first make an attempt to revive the discussion by going to the talk page and starting a new thread... you could say something like: "I see that this article/section has been tagged as POV for (X amount of time). Are there still POV concerns about the article/section?... if so what are they?" Then wait a few days. If no one responds... then you can assume that the issue is dormant (and not just the discussion about it) and remove the tag if you wish to do so. If someone does respond, work with them to resolve the POV issues... so the tag becomes no longer relevant and can be removed. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As I noted just above, this amounts to a "last man standing" policy, where POV pushing editors can just outlast neutral editors to impose their personal points of view. If you come across a tagged article, and the article still has the issues noted in the tag, you are free to reopen the discussion on the talk page. However, removing the tags when you see issues that should be tagged is inappropriate. aprock (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That assumes that you know enough about the subject to be able to tell whether something is neutral or not. It's easy enough in some cases. It's very difficult in others. I've seen people assert POV problems, and when you pinned them down, their excuse was basically "Well, the article is about a small corporation, and it only said sort of neutral or nice things about them. Haven't all businesses done something bad? Why is there no criticism section? I found a blog posting from a dissatisfied customer, so I'm sure this one has problems." Or it's about a person, and someone with a blog doesn't like the person, or it's about a book, and someone with a blog doesn't like the book, or it's about an idea, and someone with a blog doesn't like the idea. Or even someone without a blog, but who figured out how to get a Wikipedia account doesn't like it, and they have provided zero sources and zero justification beyond "Everybody hates teh subject, but Wikipedia just whitewashes it and will never tell the whole truth".

And, you know, unless you just happen to be familiar with the literature for this particular subject, then you won't actually know whether this article is truly neutral, and a quick web search is not really adequate to really know in most cases.

So what should you do? Involve half a dozen editors in an RFC so that you can show "a consensus" that the tag is probably not warranted? Spend a couple of hours researching the company?

Or maybe admit that while it's possible that there is truly a POV problem, there is nothing obviously POVish to you, and the fact is that nobody's substantiated it on the talk page, and nobody's even cared enough to say anything about it for months or years—and maybe if we don't care enough to say anything about it, then maybe we don't care enough to maintain a possibly wrong and unjustifiable tag on the article, either.

IMO the advantage to saying "I'm taking this off because nobody's talked about this for two years" is that anyone can easily fix that dormancy problem by actually talking about their concerns (if, in fact, anyone still has any). If instead I say "I'm taking this off because this article does not have a POV problem", then I am issuing a judgment about the article and about the validity of the tag. The practical result is that tags that are probably wrong will erroneously remain on articles that do not have POV problems.

As it says, this tag is not a warning to the readers, and it is not meant to be a permanent resident on articles. If the tag isn't doing its job—which is to attract editors' attention to the dispute—then it is pointless and might as well be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I think it's worth pointing out that the "dormancy" provision appears to be unique to this template, so the question is, why should this template, alone, be easier to remove than other templates? Given the amount of edit warring that goes on over this template, in my opinion it should if anything have a higher bar for removal - much higher in fact, a point I will return to in a moment.

Secondly, I think the "badge of shame" provision should be removed. Certainly the template should never be used as a badge of shame, but it most certainly should be used to alert readers to the fact that the content of the article may not be neutral. There are some extremely biased articles on this project, it is a scientifically established fact that first impressions of an issue are very difficult to correct later, and wikipedia surely has many impressionable young people looking for basic, reliable information on politically charged issues - why on earth would we not want to warn our readership if an article is not up to scratch?

Finally, while this discussion is currently confined to the dormancy provision, as I said above, I think there needs to be a much higher bar for removal of this template, at least for topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions. I have found in practice that involved editors will typically remove a POV template the moment they have established the smallest possible local consensus - which again is usually not difficult to achieve given the political factions at work in DS-related topic areas. This means one has to continually re-add the template if the issues have not been resolved, which in turn leads to accusations of "edit warring", even minor episodes of which can attract substantial sanctions at WP:AE.

In practice then, it is hardly possible to keep a template in place on an article regardless of the article's condition in certain topic areas. This is not a good thing not only because readers can be misled, but because the addition of a POV template often proves a pretty useful way of getting otherwise reluctant editors to engage constructively with their opponents in an effort to get the template removed. In short, while removal of the "dormancy" tag would be a small step forward, I would like to see a much higher bar for removal of the template in DS-related topic areas. One possibility might be a requirement that an uninvolved admin agree there is no legitimate dispute which might justify the retention of the template. Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The "badge of shame" idea and the "dormancy" idea are really the same idea, so I don't think it helps much to invoke one of them to justify the other. They should be considered together. Personally I believe that a proper function of tags, though not the only function, is to warn readers that article content is disputed. Tags have been used for that purpose since they were first invented. Regarding WhatamIdoing's comments, I think that someone who can't tell if there is a neutrality problem has no business either adding or subtracting neutrality tags. There is no need that every editor be able to solve every problem. Regarding Gatoglass' comments, I'm not sure that's a proper role for an administrator, though I agree the bar for removal should be higher than it is now. I think that the same dispute resolution processes that work (or don't work) now for content disputes should be used for tag disputes. Zero^talk 10:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the admin thing wasn't a formal proposal, it was just meant as an example of another approach, and yes, I would have to give more thought to an idea like that. But I am inclined to agree that the same processes should probably be utilized for tag as for content disputes, though those processes also need tightening. Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

So here's reality This tag is added by people who don't know te subject, don't know the policy, and don't have an interest in fixing the problem. This tag is added by drive-by editors. It is added when it's not appropriate, e.g., when what's needed is basic copyediting to remove marketing buzzwords. I have encountered disputes in which an editor agrees on the talk page that the article reflects the published reliable sources, but not the editor's personal opinion. And I have actually seen an inexperienced editor say that's okay: as long as there's a POV tag on the article to warn the readers that not everyone agrees with the reliable sources, then the article can stay the way it is.

Now under the old rules, if this POV pusher just goes away, I can remove this admittedly inappropriate tag from the article without bothering anyone else and without publicly dismissing the editor's personal beliefs. Under your "higher bar" proposal, what would I have to do to get rid of a completely inappropriate tag? Hold an RFC, in the hope that several new editors will show up (unlikely—when's the last time you responded to RFCs on minor articles that you didn't care about?) and actually read the sources (extremely unlikely)?

It's basically not possible to have an edit war under the dormancy clause. If it's restored with any comment, then the discussion is obviously not dormant any longer. If you're encountering edit warring allegedly due to "dormant" discussions, you ought to be able to solve that problem by providing your opponent with a link to a dictionary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You ask how to get rid of a completely inappropriate tag. Easy, you write a sentence or two on the talk page explaining why you think it is inappropriate, then you delete it. Zero^talk 16:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Drive-by tagging is a problem, because it doesn't do much to resolve the issue. But if the tag was added correctly, then at least the drive-by tagging served the purpose of pointing out the problem. If the tag is added incorrectly, then obviously it should be removed. That is not the issue here. In short, I see no reason to remove a dormant tag. And the additional argument that other tags don't have such a provision is also a strong one.

I pretty much see a consensus, with one notable opponent, to remove the dormancy clause. If nobody disagrees with me on this, then I think we should finally remove it. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like an uninvolved ed should make this call, especially since you count one opposed where I count at least 3.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As a specific example to show how this dormancy clause can lead to undesirable outcomes I would cite Beit HaShalom, an article about an obviously controversial topic, and one subject to discretionary sanctions. I placed a POV template on this in 2008, explaining clearly on the talk page the reason for it and why I am in not in a position, not knowing the languages in which relevant sources would be written, to fix the issue myself. There was a short discussion on the talk page in which nobody has yet replied to my explanation of why the tag is needed. The template was removed last month citing this clause without anything being done to address the POV issue. Yes, there are far too many "drive by" tags on articles, but this dormancy clause does nothing to distinguish between those and tags that have been placed with a reasoned explanation. This practice seems to be an encouragement to POV-pushers (I'm not including any of the editors of that article in that description) not to reply to talk page postings, because that will eventually lead to dormancy and the removal of this tag that warns our readers that the article may not be neutral. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. I think Beit HaShalom is an excellent example of why removal of a dormant tag should be permitted. I had never heard of this dispute before, though I do follow the Arab Israeli conflict. The article gave me a pretty good feel for what has happened up to 2008. I did not find it biased to any one side. Your questions on the talk page raise interesting issues and the article would be improved if they were addressed, but the lack of that information does not make it POV. In particular, the lack of a mention of a specific Arab position on this settlement would not lead a reader to assume there was none or that they approve. Arab rejection of settlements is pretty much common knowledge and the See also link to Israeli settlement provides plenty of detail. The article does need to be updated to reflect what has happened since, but that is a different matter.--agr (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  - So you think that an article about a settlement that is not in Israel is neutral when it is only supported by Israeli sources? That's simply ridiculous. And, anyway, the point is that nobody has made such a reply to my last comment on the talk page in the years when this tag has been on the article. That doesn't mean that the issue flagged by the tag has magically gone away, so, until it is resolved, the tag should remain. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that these are arguments over whether a particular article deserves a tag, based on the content of the article. That's fine, we will always have such arguments. However, the subject of this debate is whether the mere dormancy of discussion, regardless of the state of the article, should be given in the template docs as sufficient reason for removal. Do either of you believe that? Nobody here is arguing that tags can't be removed by editors who have studied the article and concluded that the tag is undeserved. Zero^talk 00:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should use good judgement in everything they do. In this case I conclude the article has some balance. Here is where the dormancy issue applies: Phil tagged the article in December 2008. If I came upon the article in mid 2009 and reached the same conclusion about its balance, I would not remove the tag. Phil raised some good questions on the talk page and the POV tag might still get a knowledgeable reader to make some of the improvements he requested. Today, after 4-1/2 years, it's another matter and I would remove the tag. It's now clear that no one else is likely to fulfill Phil's request. A POV tag is itself a one-sided, unsourced expression of opinion. The purpose it serves is to goad editors into discussion and action. When that has grown stale after several years, the tag no longer serves a purpose.--agr (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think the tag is no longer trying to "goad editors into discussion and action"? If the justification for the tag is still clearly visible, what has changed? Zero^talk 03:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What has change is the accumulated years of silence, which suggests a consensus that the requested changes are unwarranted or unfeasible. In this particular case the tagger requested sources in local languages. Those were not forthcoming. (Most articles on international topics are arguably biased by reliance on English-language sources.) Note that dormancy is a very low barrier for someone concerned with alleged POV to overcome. One can edit the article to insert a missing view point, tag unsourced statements, link to other articles that cover the controversy, ask for editing help on a project page, request a third opinion, post to a notice board, etc. Indeed the removal of the tag might be a better goad, if anyone still cares. At some point, though, we move on. How long should a POV tag inserted by a single editor persist? Five years? Ten? Fifty?--agr (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but removing a tag is not a goad at all. Only the few editors watching very closely will understand what is happening. Others will assume the problem has been fixed and editors who visit the article later won't know there is a problem. What you are saying is that problems that haven't been solved for a long time should be hidden. Zero^talk 09:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but removing a POV tag does goad some editors into action. Removing tags is often a very useful way of convincing people to re-start the discussion. And in this case, the only action Phil needs take to to overcome the dormancy objection is to post one short comment on the talk page. We don't need a major discussion. There need not be any other participant. We just need some indication that someone, anyone, still believes that there is a problem to be solved here.

Phil did notice, and did understand what happened, so I don't think that we need to worry about your assertions that nobody will notice or understand the removal of the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

One example proves a general case? Also, if nobody leaps up to fix the article, will you put the tag back? Zero^talk 08:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This sub-thread is in response to just one example. And in this entire discussion, I haven't seen other examples given where someone thought removal of a dormant POV tag was problematic. Normally we like to see a number of actual examples, not hypotheticals, when considering changes to guidelines.--agr (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Who is this we you mention? Because we have no problem judging issues on their theoretical considerations alone. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY--agr (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything there saying that Wikipedia should keep a bad rule just the discussion is about the rule itself and doesn't bring too many examples. Note, the discussion is about the practical repercussions of the rule and possible implementations. Sorry, but your comment seems to me off-topic, to say the least. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Weighing in on this issue, I will point out that a tag on an article is by far and away inferior to opening a discussion on the talk page of the article and expressing your specific concerns about the article and how it might be afoul of some particular policy.... particularly for something like a POV bias that seems to be perceived. Starting a talk page discussion on obscure articles can have a protracted conversation that I've seen happen over the course of years (not just months or days) where sometimes situations do get resolved over time. This is something I simply don't see happening when some "drive-by editor" tosses a tag on an article and then doesn't say a thing about the reasons for it on the talk page at all. I certainly have removed some of these kind of tags in the past and don't even hesitate.... especially if some considerable time (aka on the order of months or years) has transpired. Sometimes I'll move the "tag" to the talk page too in terms of noting it was placed on the article without comment.

Reiterating, the point of a tag is to show there is a problem that should be addressed, but it is to me far more important that a real discussion takes place. Even a single sentence response on the talk page is often more than sufficient... and usually talk pages don't get archived on those more obscure articles anyway so it is no loss that nobody responds for a couple years or even a decade (now possible with some Wikipedia articles). Tags really should be about currently active discussions where somebody is either in the process of making changes or at least has the article bookmarked in some fashion to get to the article "soon" and make some changes (however you define "soon").

If we are talking active articles with dozens of editors regularly reviewing the article on their watch lists, hopefully somebody notices a tag being removed. Then again, the issues will likely be resolved in a timely manner or will turn into a talk page battle royale (often involving admins and cooler heads trying to calm things down). I really don't see this particular issue of removing tags from articles because the tag has been on that article for a couple of years (or certainly an extended period of time) with no discussion being a major problem. The problem is the lack of discussion, not too much or an edit war happening. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think nobody here will disagree with you that fixing the problem with the text is the best solution. The problem is that this solution is not always easy or within the skill set of every editor. I think we also all agree that serious tags like NPOV should not be added without a clear explanation, and I have often deleted tags added in a drive-by fashion. Zero^talk 01:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - The template stays until someone fixes the problems. The problem is still there, and made worse by removing it without fixing it. The editor who removes it needs to make a genuine effort to resolve the problems first. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 00:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)