This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

To quote the article: "The presence of articles written from an exclusively United States point of view is merely a reflection of the fact that there are many Americans working on the project, which in turn is merely a reflection of the fact that so many Americans are online and working on the English project."

Many articles do reflect the "Americo-centric" attitude of contributors by leaving out the fact that the article is about the US. This is common in US place names. Many of us do know that Illinois is in the United States but, forexample, Naperville, Illinois requires further research to establish the fact that it is in the US. Alan Liefting 22:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't now, since I've added that information! Loganberry 02:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a question -- if Wikipedia is supposedly Americo-centric, why do I notice Commonwealth English ("British English") spellings in the majority of articles I read? Sometimes, I see both used in one article... We need some form of consistency, methinks. Thorns among our leaves 17:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is Americo-centric, nor that the majority of articles are BE. Anyway, inconsistency within articles should be fixed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling for details. Angela . 19:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I notice geography stubs without any national context all over, from Japan to Serbia. When I can, I just fill them in. This is a context problem, akin to leaving out "In Christian mythology..." or whatever contextual disambiguation is called for. -- Wetman 10:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess the lesson is that all Wikipedia editors should be aware of geographical, political religious, social (etc) context. The problem is a norrow worldview I guess. Alan Liefting 09:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I spend some of my editing time putting in a geographical context on articles about the United States. One problem area is lists. Quite often lists of countries are in order of population in OECD countries rather than in alphabelical order! Alan Liefting 09:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had put in a request to have Environmental movement in the United States moved back to Environmentalism since the Environmentalism article is on an international issue rather than a national issue. The request was not actioned. The article had a US slant but this was no reason to move it to a country specific article. As I have stated elsewhere it is a rather geographically blinkered approach to move an article on an international issue to one that is for the United States. I have since cut'n'pasted relevent info from one article to the other. Alan Liefting 09:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I ask you some questions. Does NPOV mean majority decision? For example, in Christianity, many people insist that believing trinity is Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints are called non-Christians or alternates by this definition. I think this is slander to JW and LDS, because both groups insist Christianity groups definately. Then can Wikipedia's NPOV ignore slanders and accept only majority opinions? Please teach me. Rantaro 14:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, NPOV means stating this is the majority opionion, this is the minority opinion (or so and so say this). If it's usually just some crank or conspiracy theory then it may be omitted. Dori | Talk 20:39, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. If your answer is right, I think trinitarians can't say that Christianity is trinity. Rantaro 11:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a "mainstream" to most traditions. It's a useful adjective. -- Wetman 19:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

However. the 'Mainstream' isnt always right. is it? Therfore, in the interests of not excluding information that may potentially be proven correct at some point in the future, minority views have to be included. The worsts offenders for the 'mainstream' bullshit are the pages about extra terrestrial intelligence. Ive given up try to add views to THAT page. Unless you can PROVE there's aliens and UFO's any attempt to add such views gets immediately wiped.

Lincolnshire Poacher 08:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another question about NPOV: You ( Jimmy Wales) on the September 2003 mailing list used the words "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" without quantifying the value of a "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." I think that you ( Jimmy Wales) should quantify it lest it be interpreted with bias. Ross Jacobs 13:38, 10 June 2005 PST

Cited definitions from dictionaries such as the American Heritage Dictionary have been cut repeatedly from several Wikipedia pages. The reason given is that the "dictionary definition is POV." I cite you to the recent history of a disambiguation page and its TalkPage.

I suggest part of the solution to this problem is to insert a new paragraph into the NPOV page to state explicitly, "Dictionary definitions are always NPOV if the contrasting definitions of experts are also quoted and cited." The most appropriate position would be following the "Religion" paragraph of the NPOV page. ;)

"Surely such an explicit paragraph would be redundant!" you may reply. Here is an analogy to explain.

• The traffic cop stopped the man in the red convertible who had just run the red light. "You are supposed to stop dead still at red lights!" "EVEN ON SUNDAY???" the man in the red convertible asked with genuine surprise in his eyes. The cop laughed this time. But it happened repeatedly. Every driver she stopped that day asked with genuine indignation, "EVEN ON SUNDAY???" So the cop went to the city council and said,
  • "You need a law that says 'You have to stop at red lights EVEN ON SUNDAY.' It does not matter that the law says 'Always stop at a red light.' And because there is such a wide-spread impression that Sunday is an exception, I suggest that you should organize a wide-open forum to discuss and vote on the question: Does the law require you to stop at the red light EVEN ON SUNDAY?"

Accordingly, I suggest that the fix to this NPOV problem requires two elements

1. Running a formal Wikipedia opinion survey on the underlying question and
2. Inserting a new paragraph in the NPOV page that states explicitly that citing dictionary definitions together with opposing definitions of experts is always NPOV.

Any thoughts or suggestions? --- Rednblu | Talk 21:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Neutrality" is a stance and the choice of "neutrality" is NOT neutral! Trying to be "unbiased" is itself a bias.

Orthodoxy is often assumed to be neutral because people take it for granted and fail to realize orthodoxy and the conventional view is not neutral, because people fail to notice the subjectivity of conventions.

It's impossible to be truly neutral, so we might as well drop the pretense of neutrality. How hypocritical and manipulative and misleading it is to enforce a nonneutral point of view upon others all the while insisting and proclaiming that it is neutral.

I'll try to make myself more clear: There are MANY nonneutral articles on Wikipedia which are NOT noticed as being nonneutral because most readers share the same biases as the contributors. On top of that, because the bias is so pervasive, people can say honestly that the article is truly NPOV when it's not. How authoritarian it is to tell the readers what we think is neutral when we ourselves aren't neutral instead of letting the reader think for him/herself.

"Sticking to the facts" assumes "facts" are "objective" but most of what counts as "facts" are highly processed information by subjective individuals within a nonneutral intellectual framework and not "raw uninterpreted data". --- User:128.175.112.225

---

<<"Sticking to the facts" assumes "facts" are "objective" but most of what counts as "facts" are highly processed information by subjective individuals within a nonneutral intellectual framework>>

You may be right. But who could disagree with the following statement? "The Oxford English Dictionary said what it said." That is, quoting and citing to dictionary definitions would always be NPOV if accompanied by the opposing definitions of experts! :) --- Rednblu | Talk 22:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me point out an implicit assumption. You're assuming, like most people, that the OED is objective and neutral. We're trying to intimidate people into accepting a "fact" based upon an appeal to authority. It's the same thing with "experts". It's yet another appeal to "authority". It's like people who try to mislead while still telling the "truth" by only making "truthful" statements but who keep presenting them in such a way as to be delibrately misleading. Are they telling the truth or are they lying?

Another thing -- most people are highly selective in their choice of "facts" and out of the huge range of "facts" out there will pick those which supports their thesis while neglecting those which don't. --- User:128.175.112.225

---

<<We're trying to intimidate people into accepting a "fact" based upon . . . >>

Not at all. Quoting the OED definition merely states the OED POV that should be reported with the other cited expert POVs to make an overall NPOV report. :) --- Rednblu | Talk 00:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

This is the main problem with NPOV. Not the policy itself, but the fact that people expect it to mean what it looks like it means. The truth of the matter is that what Wikipedia calls "Neutral point of view" is not really a "point of view", especially not the neutral one. It's the absence of bias, the lack of preference for a point of view. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean taking a majority stance, or supporting the middle road, or presenting every imaginable counterargument, but it's easy for people to be misled into thinking it does.

132.170.42.25

Cited definitions from dictionaries such as the American Heritage Dictionary have been cut repeatedly from several Wikipedia pages. The reason given is that the "dictionary definition is POV." I cite you to the recent history of a disambiguation page and its TalkPage.

I suggest part of the solution to this problem is to insert a new paragraph into the NPOV page to state explicitly, "Dictionary definitions are always NPOV if the contrasting definitions of experts are also quoted and cited." The most appropriate position would be following the "Religion" paragraph of the NPOV page. ;)

Any suggestions? --- Rednblu | Talk 08:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if we could assume that dictionary definitions from a real dictionary are always NPOV -- there may be some bad dictionaries out there, and dictionaries don't always reflect actual usage of a word. Personally, I don't think citing dictionaries ever adds anything to an encyclopedia, and imagine it might be a bad practice to get into. -- Improv 14:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Further note -- older dictionaries were often not even remotely POV -- I've looked at some older ones from the early 1900s, and they're hilariously POV. Even newer ones, for reason of historical conservativism or lack of agreement with us about what NPOV is about, are often not POV. I therefore don't think being part of a dictionary necessarily contributes at all to NPOV, and therefore think your proposal, while well-intentioned, is based on bad premises. -- Improv 17:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • But wouldn't those older dictionaries validate for sure that those old hilarious POVs actually were part of history? :) --- Rednblu | Talk 17:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • It might be notable that some people thought that, but wouldn't necessarily be notable as to what other points of view were common at the time. We might expect, say, French dictionaries during colonial times to be very much for reporting the French government POV, and we might intuit a nationalist POV to oppose them, but that wouldn't necessarily tell us about the differing tribal POVs, the Communist POV, the early liberal POVs, the ... Basically I'm saying is that it can't be a very good rule of thumb. I don't see the utility in quoting dictionaries at all on Wikipedia. -- Improv 20:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree totally--no utility in quoting dictionaries. However, if a POV is expressed in a dictionary, then that POV is per se and necessarily a valid POV to document on Wikipedia, is it not? There would be no rational justification for cutting one dictionary definition among others from a Wikipedia page simply because of the POV in the dictionary definition that was cut, would you agree? --- Rednblu | Talk 21:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• A dictionary definition is an opinion, though often an expert opinion. So it should be fine to quote it as long as you attribute it and as long as it's relevant to the article. In an article about a word you might quote the OED to show what scholars believe about the etymology or use of that word. But in a dispute about ownership of a word (e.g. "Is America a democracy or a republic?" "Is atheism a religion?" "Is communism the same as totalitarianism?") quoting the dictionary doesn't help. Both sides of the dispute know that the word has more than one meaning. Gdr 15:56, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
  • Those examples are helpful. I am folding your comment and everybody's else comments into the following "Digesting the suggestions" section. --- Rednblu | Talk 21:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Digesting the suggestions: I plan to edit this section as we go along :)

Thanks for helping me clarify the "algebra" of NPOV. For example, I changed the heading on this section to clarify the idea here. After thinking about your comments, I find the following.

1. Likely the final page should not cite dictionaries. That is, artful editing generally would make the page flow better than just quoting dictionary definitions.
2. Many times a particular dictionary definition may not provide encyclopedic interest. In that case, editors would agree readily that the particular POV in that dictionary definition was non-interesting.
3. Dictionary definitions will not resolve which POV is right--merely validate that the POVs in the dictionary definitions are appropriate POVs to detail in Wikipedia somewhere. For example, dictionary definitions will not resolve whether "America is a republic or a democracy"--merely validate at most that there are two opposing POVs that are both appropriate POVs to detail in Wikipedia somewhere.
   • Older dictionaries illustrate the point. Older dictionaries serve to validate that the hilariously old-fashioned ideas in them were actual POVs back in time. And hence, those POVs in older dictionaries serve to validate those old-fashioned ideas as appropriate for detailing in Wikipedia pages as part of the history of ideas. But neither the older or the newer dictionaries can settle which POV is right.
4. However, in constructing pages, including associated disambiguation pages, for a controversial area, dictionary definitions always would serve one important function, namely validating that the POVs in the dictionary would NPOV qualify for representation in some page. This would apply in any situation where there was disagreement among editors whether the POV in the dictionary definition was to be allowed "print space" on the page. (Typos are readily identified by the publisher.)
5. Hypothesis. Hence, NPOV could always be achieved by detailing the POVs in the dictionary definitions together with detailing the opposing POVs of experts.

It appears to me that the above states a falsifiable hypothesis on all dictionary definitions. That is, one counter-example that would falsify the above hypothesis would be from the following:

• Find a word W in a dictionary D such that the D definitions for W together with opposing expert opinions would NOT make a NPOV page.

An example in support of the above hypothesis would be the word work for which the dictionary definitions state the following two POVs together with others.

1. POV 1. Work is the transfer of energy from one physical system to another, especially the transfer of energy to a body by the application of a force that moves the body in the direction of the force. (There would be several alternative statements of this POV.)
2. POV 2. Work is one's place of employment.

According to the hypothesis, an NPOV report on the concept of work could always be achieved by constructing a set of pages, together with appropriate disambiguation pages, of the POVs in the dictionary definitions of work surrounded by the POVs of the experts on work that differ from the POVs in the dictionary definitions of work.

• In particular, NPOV would require that the non-scientific POV 2 on work would not get cut from a disambiguation page on work. --- Rednblu | Talk 17:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Reputable dictionaries are exactly as citable as any other reputable sources, no more, no less. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • I would have thought so a priori--before encountering a real situation.  :( But then, when in an actual situation of having an exact quote from the American Heritage Dictionary cut by an editor as at this link, when I thought about it, there seems to be a lack of general understanding--including my own--about how citable a dictionary really should be. For example, I would have reverted the cut and argued much more strongly if the cited quotation had been from Darwin's Origin of Species--because I could say "Darwin said that." But who knows who wrote the dictionary definition? Thanks for helping me think this through--because I think a section in the NPOV documentation is required. --- Rednblu | Talk 20:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • To put it briefly: dictionary definitions are not special, nor is any particular source. Any text exhibiting a point of view is POV, without exception, although you could certainly contend whether a piece of text is POV or not. I can't help but see this whole argument as a way of drawing attention to and justifying a single tiny edit. I'd seriously consider just moving on. Deco 21:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the advice. :)) --- Rednblu | Talk 22:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have just been struck by a thought: - sometimes the nature of an article makes it a subjective issue, based on points of view. The fact that these points of view exist, in my view is factual in itself. Now POV goes against WikiPolicy, I know, but the exclusion of POV can mean the omission of facts, leading to an incomprehensive or incorrect dataset. Take World War II: neutral POV in its basic form would not make any destinction between who was right and wrong - after all Hitler was convinced he was right. Same with the current situation in Iraq - everyone thinks they are right there - so who is to say? Unless the POVs are noted (and noted as such) then the reader will end up with, if you like, a "neutral bias".

How about having articles which are subject to POV having sub-articles which clearly state that they are POV? I know this opens up the way for cranks, nutters and fanatics (and vandals), but it could be said that the fact that such idiosyncrasies exist is in itself fact, and should be included. Suffice to say POV sub-articles should be clearly labeled to indicate that they are POV.

I am still formulating the agruments for and against on this though, however please let me know what you think. -- JohnArmagh 05:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's something to be said for publishing opinions alongside neutral discussion. Newspapers do it with editorials, and sometimes such opinions do give us some insight (or at least are entertaining.) Wikipedia already acts like a newspaper in some respects by publishing articles on current events.

The main arguments I can think of against it is that it distracts from the main purpose, and the wiki process may not work as well for editorials. There's also the potential for upsetting our readers, editors, and donators quite a bit. Perhaps a better approach is external links to opinion pages. Derrick Coetzee 05:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is completely legitimate to cite what differing published authors say about the topic. For a pretty decent example, see Left-right_politics#Meaning_of_the_terms (although it could be improved by having citations for all of the views mentioned, rather than merely most of them). What is not acceptable is when Wikipedians state opinions in the narrative voice of the article as if they are matters of fact. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:45, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

JohnArmagh, I have a problem understanding your point. History is manmade. Man is constantly subjective in his choosing of "objective facts". History is told by the survivors/winners. Someone would consider these thoughts facts, as I do, but they are nothing else than my POV. The only thing I could do in order to enforce them as "objective truths" to a common public (or as a Wiki article), is to give a comprehensive and extensive base of reasons to why this _should be chosen_ as fact above other suggested facts. What we need however, moving away from the philosophical discussion to the practical one, is as balanced POVs as possible, which includes discussion and constant re-editing. Edit-wars is the consequence of non-cooperation. NPOV is more an ideal than a principle in Wikipedia, the principle should be cooperation.

Blah, blah, blah (lots of words). My point stands: which articles are NOT subject to POV (except those not yet created)? - Sigg3.net 09:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In addition, your classic choosing of Hitler as an example should only prove the age of this debate..

I merely point out that History is written by the Winners.

Lincolnshire Poacher 23:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The word "regime", which appears in edits from time to time, has unfavorable connotations. Although it can be used neutrally, it usually strikes me as conveying disapproval of a particular government. I'm inclined to remove it almost all the time (except, of course, in direct quotations). Is this an overreaction? JamesMLane 23:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's an over-reaction. Regime comes from the word "king" and is only appropriate for monarchies. In my opinion, this is why it is used, branding a government of a country a "regime" is to suggest that the President of that country has the powers of a king over his people, which is often untrue and/or POV. Regardless of that oversimplified line of reasoning, I agree "regime" has negative connotations. "Government" is neutral. — Ben 23:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's a term used in the process of propaganda, to imply the presence of dictatorial control and to avoid implications of sovereignty that come from a more neutral term like "government". (See the first two example phrases [1]) Prominent usage of propaganda does belong documented on Wikipedia labelled as such, and this is best done in the form of quotations. But Wikipedia itself should avoid using propaganda within the body of articles, as this is contrary to NPOV. — Cortonin | Talk 23:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also think that "administration" is also inappropriate most of the time--unless one is referencing the political players involved and not the government. For example, the "Bush administration" did not pass the PATRIOT act, the US government as a bureaucratic body did. — Ben 23:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Administration" is an accepted term used to refer to the executive branch of the U.S. government. The example you cite is inappropriate not because of anything to do with NPOV but because it's simply factually incorrect. — Christiaan 15:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Forbid enough vocabulary, and the unattractive facts can't be presented at all. That's the idea behind Newspeak too. Authoritarian cultural backgrounds come through vividly in this instinct for censorship. And we all suffer. -- Wetman 19:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your last statement is hardly any more correct. A few hundred individual people, acting in the name of the government of the US, under the titular leadership of Bush, acted to pass the PATRIOT act. To say that an organization takes an action is only a convenient shorthand to say that the members of the organization took some action in the organization's name.

regime is used in the language of diplomacy. It is only in recent years its we've seen common usage in journalism. See Charles Jones "regime" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Also has the correct use of the term "change of regime", not the Americanism popularized by journalists "regime change". Nobs 20:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Comparing this with newspeak is hardly fair, I think. It's not like you're talking about suppressing the use of the word at large, and anyhow, there are some ideas that the Wikipedia, by design, doesn't express — that is, that theories, people, nations, etc., are "right" or "wrong". Isn't that the point, more or less, of NPOV? These days the word "regime" has a strong negative connotation — applied to a government, it means that government is "wrong". Thus, IMO, the word shouldn't be used in the Wikipedia. —anonymous(kalthare.dyndns.org) 0:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Regime has been used in the language of diplomacy for centuries. It has gained a popular journalistic used in the recent years, mostly coming out of State Department briefings. To attach some sort of "derisive" meaning to it, however, is short cited. Simple example, during World War II the Comité National Français (or Free French) was a regime that had full diplomatic recognition from Great Britain but not from the United States; converserly the so-called Vichy regime had full diplomatic recognition from the United States, but not from Great Britain. (We recently had a good discussion on the Allies:Talk page, another example is Polish government in exile, which was the recognized government of Poland but derisively called the Sikorski regime by the Soviet Union. Suffice it to say, all governments are indeed regimes; whereas, not all regimes are recognized governments (Palestinian Autrhority PA to use a modern example). Nobs 00:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Your examples support my point. Vichy was called "regime" by people who despised it as a Nazi puppet state, whether or not they extended diplomatic recognition to it, and you yourself point out that "Sikorski regime" was used derisively by its opponents.

Furthermore, words can change in meaning over the years, and their connotations are especially malleable. The fact is that, in contemporary usage, "regime" is almost always used to convey disapproval, generally suggesting a dictatorial nature. Wade through all of Bush's tirades about "the Saddam regime" and find me one instance where he mentions "the Blair regime". Or try inserting the phrase "the Bush regime" into our article on George W. Bush or into one of the articles about the invasion of Iraq, and see how long it lasts. I just did a Yahoo! search for "Bush regime". The top hits are all hostile uses:

• First on the list is a set of " Bush regime playing cards", depicting Bush and his henchmen as being "Wanted!" for a variety of crimes, such as "Looting Social Security trust funds".
• Second is an article in SourceWatch, titled "Bush regime", which begins, "The regime, or cartel, of George W. Bush has been, since inception, characterized by blatant disregard for fact, and willful deception even of themselves."
• The third hit is a different deck of Bush regime playing cards ("George W. Bush seized power with the complicity of the Supreme Court....").
• Then comes http://bushregime.org/ ("Are we on the way to despotism?").

I didn't look at all the hits, but it's obvious that the phrase "Bush regime" is used almost exclusively to express disapproval of Bush.

In general, contemporary popular usage (regardless of what diplomats or legal scholars might say) is that "regime" is a negative term. Why should we use this term, except in reporting others' usage, or in some other context where the POV is eliminated? I've always heard the term "Vichy government", and that seems quite adequate to me. JamesMLane 18:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree in some respects. Frankly, I'm surprised that actual title to the wiki Vichy article is Vichy France, where one would expect an article about a city or geographic region, not an historico-political article. To change the subject somewhat, another diplomatic term that has fallen upon abuse is change of regime (in its Americanization it has become "regime change"). The constitution of the United States is the American regime. The Bush Administration is simply the current administration under the American regime. Hence, to suggest a regime change (or more accurately change of regime) in Washington is not to advocate replacing the Bush Administration; it is in effect, in diplomatic parlance, suggesting the removal or overturning of the United States Constitution. But then again, lets not let facts, history, and reality get in the way of popular misconceptions and journalistic distortions. Thanks. Nobs 19:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

From the current version of the text: "To state outright that "the existence of God is an opinion", "subjective", or "a personal decision", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias), or that God only exists in the human mind (Atheism)."

This seems to me to be saying that if I write in an article: "There is no agreement on whether God exists; it cannot be stated as a fact. A statement as to God's existence or non-existence is an opinion," I am violating the NPOV. If so, what formulation of the statement of the fact of the disagreement among reasonable people on this question would be acceptable? --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 01:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 01:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just cut it down to "There is no agreement on whether God exists." If you want to flesh it out "Some people believe that God is a factual entity because...." etc. - Rushyo

40 WAYS TO GET A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW

1. Write a Wikipedia article. These HAVE to be written from a neutral point of view.
2. Touch a non-erogenous zone on your body. Oh, no, wait, that’s how you get a neutral point of you.
3. Have a cup of tea (or, in the interests of this week’s 40 Ways, you can have coffee, juice, or whatever drinks are on offer, or even none at all.)
4. Say you like all sports, even if you hate a few.
5. Go to the drug dealer. Oh, no, wait, that’s how to get a natural joint of pooh.
6. Run every television show in the world on your station. Different people like different shows.
7. Feed her every way, just in case she prefers one way of being fed over the way you usually feed your kids.
8. Wee in every container available. I do it in bottles.
9. Refer to your excrement under every name available.
10. Watch every episode of Angela Anaconda simultaneously. You’ll need sixty-five televisions, however.
11. Two cents. Oh no wait, that’s zero dollars point oh two.
12. Listen to the song by DB Boulevard. Oh, no, wait, it’s another way from another point of view.
13. Ban said song. It has references to point of view.
14. Vote for everyone in the General Election.
15. Buy Critic and don’t buy it.
16. Stay out of the war.
17. At a rugby game, support both teams, for example when one’s about to score a try.
18. Speak every language under the sun (or clouds or rain or shelter or wherever.)
19. Listen to every song ever made at the same time. It will be quite hard, however.
20. If there are galaxies beyond the edge of the visible universe, say there is more than one universe AND all universes stretch out into infinite.
21. Shit can happen or be, you can serve wine or grape juice with your shit, you can be sure or unsure about shit, it can be your shit or everyone’s shit, you can buy or sell shit, you can create or destroy shit, etc. Shit is neutral.
22. Use every logo and/or mascot in the competition to symbolize the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games.
23. Order everything on the menu in a restaurant.
24. Whistle when you work and whistle when you eat if you can’t decide which one you like better.
25. Buy and don't buy milk.
26. Only touch things with a pH value of 7. Oh, no, wait, those are neutral solutions.
27. Do not use masculine or feminine nouns. Oh, no, wait, the nouns you use instead are neuter.
28. Wear formal and informal clothes everywhere. This week, we want you to have the best of both worlds.
29. Shop at all supermarkets.
30. Tidy and untidy your room.
31. Get and don’t get your way.
32. Wear and don’t wear a top.
33. Eat inside and outside.
34. Be a circumcised male with a foreskin.
35. Wear clean and dirty undies.
36. Defecate in the toilet and the cistern at the same time.
37. Have and don’t have a G-spot.
38. Be male and female, or just get neutered. They neuter dogs.
39. Spell and say you can’t.
40. Read and don’t read this page again.
41. Say that everyone can and can’t count to 40.

I hope you found this list funny. In fact, I hope you actually read it. Or, I hope you read and don't read said list.

I hope that both was and wasn't a coan! --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 11:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering on what is the proper NPOV with articles that are not really pseudoscience, but something along those lines. With pseudoscience, it's easy to say first that this is pseudoscience, and everything that follows is according to those who believe it. But then there are cases such as Travis Walton abduction, where a person claims he's been abducted by aliens. Obviously, the majority of people, here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, would say that the claims are false. However, saying that on the page would actually be POV - likewise, insisting that he was indeed abudcted would be POV.

The solution used on that and several other articles I've seen is extensive use of words such as "claimed", "allegedly", "reported", etc. I suppose it's good from the NPOV side, but I find it annoying sometimes to read an article where every fact is preceded by "allegedly", etc. Would it be NPOV to state at the beggining something like "the following description of the events is according to X", and then describe the events using "normal" language? - User:Solver

Well it may be annoying to have allegedly, but sometimes that is necessary. Otherwise Wikipedia is making statements that are not correct, with one proviso at the beginning of the text that it is one POV. In fact, stating that the majority of people disagree with a minor POV is a fact if it is true. That means it is not POV to state that, especially if it can be cited to a reliable source. - Taxman 17:09, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

But that does make it quite hard to state it all properly. The NPOV article says, "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." Therefore, we can say that the majority of people disagree (and should say, if that's a fact), but we can not say things like "alien abductions are hoaxes", "extra-sensory perception does not exist", etc., because it's not netural and there are many supporters who would disagree. Solver 17:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look at these statements:

1. All statements are improved by a phrase limiting their context.
2. In Wikipedia, all statements are improved by a phrase limiting their context.

Establish the context, then just follow the material unself-consciously. "In Greek mythology" blah blah blah. You don't have to keep saying "Athena allegedly was born from Zeus' forehead." You've established at the outset that you are discussing within the context: "In Christian thought..." "In Marxist economics..." etc. -- Wetman 19:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==The link to Jimbo's quote== The link at the top of WP:NPOV ( [2] as of this writing) doesn't appear to contain any quote from Jimbo, certainly not the phrase "absolute and non-negotiable." Can someone either point out something I've overlooked, or fix the link to point to the correct message? Thanks. - leigh (φθόγγος) 06:01, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) I see it's been fixed. :) - leigh (φθόγγος) 22:08, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)