I have been making a concerted effort to try to remove partisan bias from the content of questions and answers on Politics.SE, to ensure they are written in a more Neutral Point of View (NPoV). Since we have about 800 questions (63 of which are mine), and about 1200 answers (73 of which are mine), the highest percentage that I could personally be responsible for, and a more accurate estimate if you only counted downvoted Q/A, in (parenthesis) is:

  • ALL: 63/797=~8% of the questions. (Only Downvoted: 30/797=3.8%)

  • ALL: 73/1195=~6% of the answers. (Only Downvoted: 18/1195=1.5%)

Some users have found that this percentage to have a significant effect on Politics.SE, as small as it is. I have have been making slow work of it, but I need your help to identify troubling Q&A that need revisions. If you find any, please note the following:

Precisely what is partisan in the Q/A.

How you would reword the Q/A in a more NPoV.

Note: If you find issues with Q/A that I am not responsible for, please feel free to list them here. You don't have to exclusively focus on my content if you prefer.

  • Tried to give this a less generic title, but I can't say I really like the current one. Thoughts?
    – yannis
    Commented Nov 3, 2013 at 14:17
  • @YannisRizos, I guess it depends upon what purpose we want this post to serve? I was trying to throw down a challenge, with hopes that it would motivate some who have expressed this line of action to fix the site. Do you think the previous/current title is better suited for that purpose? (Perhaps I am naive in what Q/A are appropriate for [meta], and this isn't the right place for this)
    – user1873
    Commented Nov 3, 2013 at 14:35
  • How about this: "Politics.SE needs your help to remove partisan bias from posts"? I'd like to have at least one, preferably two, of the more important keywords of the question in the title (in this case "partisan" and "bias").
    – yannis
    Commented Nov 3, 2013 at 14:45
  • @YannisRizos, I think I made an improvement. This "must be formated" in a Q/A style makes it difficult. For example, in your suggestion, the '?' might give the impression that Politics.SE doesn't "need your help" (the title is a statement, so a '.' would be appropriate. Others have had similar issues, so I can see the frustration.
    – user1873
    Commented Nov 3, 2013 at 15:27
  • 1
    Politics is closely related to the (military)history of one's nation.And we know that history is taught differently everywhere.So it is hard for a person to be politically unbiased.Take me for example, I can try my best not to post anything insulting, but you can't change my biasness towards India in any Indo-Pak issue, because it's there in my blood, that's how I am grown up.This must be the same for virtually any person in the world, Maybe excluding swiss people.The only solution for such a site is heavy moderation(again by swiss people, maybe) Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 4:54

2 Answers 2


I suggest one guideline, which is used on History.SE, is questions formulated on the premise "When did you stop beating your wife?" should be disallowed.

To even ask this, I must have a wife and be beating her.

For example, the question "Is the reputation of Russia hurt by lying" is the same formulation.

I think the principle extents to most partisan formulated questions. If I try to ask "why do the Republicans hate poor people" or "why do Democrats always try to get poor people to vote" it will start a fight about the premise of the question itself.

I think opinion is very appropriate to politics.SE, but its a good idea to make sure a premise is not offensive and highly disputable.


NPoV Request

This question, What is the ratio of people who have lost their health insurance versus gaining insurance on the Obamacare exchanges? could support the following changes:

  • Obama said people would be able to keep their plans: this seems unnecessary. If you are interested in the number of people who lose their previous health coverage plans, what a politican claimed about it is irrelevant.

  • Tense changes: While not necessarily partisan, you keep switching tense in the title/body. It is unclear if you are asking for future predictions, or the number of people who have already lost their health insurance.

  • Lost health insurance: This 'lost' term seems loaded. I don't think it is the right term to apply to people who change their coverage from their previous plan to a newer plan that complies with the ACA. Perhaps you should use the term 'upgrade'?

  • The ACA was also supposed to cut premiums by $2,500: This is unrelated to your question about numbers of people who will upgrade to a new ACA compliant plan, whether or not cost savings materialized doesn't belong in the question.

  • technical difficulties on the website: while the difficulties of the launch are amusing, they don't seem related to the number of people upgrading plans. Speaking of which, the ratio of upgrading/gaining exchange insurance seems like an arbitrary statistic. Perhaps ask how many people enrolled in the exchanges in a separate question.

  • This is an example of how I figure it can be done. I look forward to helping clean up the site. Whose with me?
    – user1873
    Commented Nov 2, 2013 at 10:49
  • The modifications you made to that question are a huge improvement over the version that you asked originally. Commented Nov 23, 2013 at 20:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .