Template talk:USgovtPOV
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
What is the purpose of this template?
editWhen should this template be used? This is not self-explanatory.
Also, are there templates like this for other countries? My initial thought upon seeing this template is that if it should exist, then it ought to be a generic template which requires the editor to input a country name. This would remove the need make a separate template for all countries, but it would be at the expense of having a way to sort which articles are accused of having which government's POV. I think the tradeoff is worth it for the versatility gained. Blue Rasberry 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ditto, I think it should be a generic template with country name as well, Its a special case of Template:One source and has similarities with Template:NRIS-only, but Its not specific to US govt. POV. It does not explicitly question the Factual accuracy which is fair enough.--Morta zaqa (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh. The reason this template exists for the US is because the US government publishes many more sources that are used here than other governments do. In part this is because they are in English, and in part because so many US intelligence agencies release information on matters. This has nothing to do with bias. Having one for, say, Monaco would be absurd. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry to revive something so old, but wouldn't it make sense to have a more "general" version of this template, where users can plug in whatever country is at issue? AnandaBliss (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Move to new category?
editThis template currently places articles in the category "POV disputes" or a dated subcategory thereof. This is inaccurate, as the template does not indicate that a dispute exists, but merely that extra scrutiny is required to ensure balance. Would it be possible to split this from the POV disputes category, to facilitate addressing actual disputes? -- LWG talk 13:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it does underline a certain point of view (namely that of a nation's government). That doesn't mean it's not neutral or false, it just means that we're relying large on a very unique POV that may or may not be detrimental to the article. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)