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.

I believe that the present NPOV policy fallaciously attempts to cover too many different aspects of journalistic integrity. First and foremost, understanding POV is pretty simple. POV means that an article's potential meaning to a variety of audiences is compromised because of the author's assumptions about the audience. The most common POV error is the assumption that the reader holds the same set of assumptions about the world as the author. Elsewhere on this page there is a classic example of the Northern vs Southern hemispheric POV on seasons and climate... referring to December as "the winter months" is definitely POV. There's no insidious intent or ulterior motives there... just a ripe opportunity for misunderstanding arising from the limitations of one's habitual experience. It's simple enough, yet Wikipedia seems to insist that POV also covers all types of bias as well. Bias and POV are related problems, but they are not (or shouldn't be) interchangeable terms.

Also, an article that is completely NPOV by Wikipedia standards can still end up being ridiculously biased because it contains information that is factual and NPOV but overwhelmingly in support of a particular agenda or skewed toward a particular interest due to lack of participation from alternative viewpoints. I call this PPOV, or "partial point of view", which is a form of bias arising from the abuse of Wikipedia NPOV policy as it stands today.

I believe this sort of ambiguity fuels a lot of edit wars and causes people unintentionally to provoke one another. It also prevents people from easily getting to the heart of what really causes disputes. The NPOV policy should be reduced to what truly is POV, and editorial bias should be controlled by a separate policy. We should not be afraid to call bias what it is. The Hokkaido Crow 19:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to have more detailed guidlines about the mechanics of writing NPOV.

For example 1. Any statement advocating that the reader take an action or make a particular choice couldn't be NPOV 2. Statement which attribute a motivation to a person without supporting evidence are suspect. 3. Blanket statements extoling the superiority of a particular style of anything (cars, sports, etc) over another style is very suspect - regardless of the support which might be mustered for the statement.

Several of these concrete suggestions would be nice at the start. The large controversy could be described later.

Hans Solbrig 31 July 2005

Where would it be appropriate to add a blurb about quotation marks being used as a form of bias? As quotation marks aren't words, we can't put it into "words to avoid". A good example of (somewhat hilarious) quoatation-bias is this: America "invaded" Iraq. We can see how the quotes give a certain bias. It would be better, of course, to simply say: America invaded Iraq. Other examples are: Abortion is the "killing" of a fetus; (or the creationist favorite) the "theory" of evolution; Michael Moore claimed* that America itself was in possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Where could a note about this be added?

• see also the entry into "words to avoid" about "claim".

ChadThomson 1 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

Scan the main article for "scare quotes" for why quotation marks can be "abused" in certain circumstances. 72.15.90.142 20:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed that articles that are critical of the US are almost always kept. Articles critical of anti-American attitudes are as a rule deleted as "POV".

Examples: Arab dictatorships - deleted Ameriphobia - deleted Islamophilia - deleted Islamophobia - kept 911 conspiracy theories - kept

So it seems that anything too critical of anti-American terorrism or bigotry is immediately deleted, because it is "POV", while POV articles whose very titles imply a position (Islamophobia, History of US Imperialism, etc) are rigorously defended. Even editing such articles brings a swarm of RVs.

The funny part is that arguments made for deleting one article are the dismissed out of hand in the case of keeping another. The most important matter seems to be whether the admin agrees with the article or not politically, ie. fringe Leftwing.

17 June 2005 Dragonlance

Whew, you took the words right out of my mouth! I rarely hear someone talk that way; mostly it's bashing Americans! Scorpionman 02:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of discussion and disagreement regarding the use of prefixed-styles originating with the new Pope Benedict XVI article which currently begins with the formal style of address, "His Holiness." The question was broadened because it was claimed by Jguk to be an established style policy to begin biographical entries with formal styles, and discussion was moved/continued on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) page. Prolonged discussion resulted in no apparent consensus, and a survey was proposed and discussed for another week before being submitted. The current survey is posted at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles with discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles.

The survey is still ongoing, and not scheduled to be closed until after May 14. However, there does not seem as yet to be any consensus forming, rather, there seem to be divided camps which will probably block ultimate consensus for any outcome. By no means is this absolutely certain, and I would not foreclose the survey and discussion prematurely, but I thought you might want to take a look and in particular to provide any suggestions or guidance on what sort of policy would conform with Wikipedia's NPOV requirement. Whig 07:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

"According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". "

How is this different from religious dogma? It seems to me NPOV is taken to absurd extremes by some self-important administrators too enamored of their little barnstar award trinkets. Not to mention it is overly sanitizing the pedia to where even a sense of humor becomes verboten, hence the need for the new admin award category: the award of the NPOV Nazi

Well, you do have to give some creedence to this argument. Whenever anything is taken to be an absolute, it opens the door for a person to manipulate that to their own ends. Let me give you an example: the Salem Witch Trials. All someone had to do was describe someone as a witch, and then they could freely assualt that person with no consequences. Well, isn't it possible (indeed, likely) that someone might take this sacred cow, NPOV, and accuse someone else of being not NOPV simply for the ability to attack them or their ideas free of consequences? Surely, there must be safeguards to protect those who are the unortunate victims of this sort of manipulation. May I ask what provisions you have thought of to prvent NPOV from becoming a tool for witch-hunters? Dave

More to the point, the truth does not have a neutral POV. Some things are objective true, yet some POVs are opposed. So in effect, Jimbo Wales places his own personal dogma above the truth. 69.247.26.21 00:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In the challenge "How is this different from religious dogma?" the apparently missing concept is that of an axiom. It is axiomatic at Wikipedia that logic is universally applicable, for example, that the playing field is as level as dispassionate though fallible observers can make it, and that rhetorical devices like misapplying culturally-freighted labels are not tolerable. -- Wetman 18:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Put me down as "don't care". (Although isn't it very possible that BCE/CE are less widely understood than BC/AD?) Nickptar 22:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if you don't care, you don't care. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess you could say I don't care much, especially as I doubt that BCE/CE will confuse many people. But it's a possibility to be considered. Nickptar 23:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

...which is a "problem" easily remedied by [[BCE]] and [[CE]]. 08:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that what Slrubenstein is proposing is a new policy totally unrelated to anything in the neutral point of view policy of this article. Gene Nygaard 12:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"B.C." and "A.D." should always be written, for they have been used for many centuries, represent the world's most popular religion, and are more familiar to most people than ridiculous phrases like "Before Common Era" and "Common Era," which were invented only recently by atheists. Anglius

I'm not sure how to put this more bluntly, so I'll use the wise words of Wikiacc: "Slavery should always be used, for it has been in existence for many centuries, represents the interests of much of the world until only 200 years ago, and is cheaper and better than rediculous things like 'paid labor', which was invented only recently by stupid people." (In case you didn't notice, he was being sarcastic.) AngryParsley 22:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a Buddhist, and I use CE and BCE regularly. And even if I were an atheist, would my beliefs/nonbeliefs be any less valid just because? And why is something considered good just because it's old, anyway? Feudalism's pretty old. Maybe you'd like to restore feudalistic governments in place of their democratic successors. Better yet, the concepts of the Dark Ages, now those are much older than the modern, non-christian ideas. Let's start burning people at the stake again. Or, better still, Roman ideas predate the Middle Ages. Should I feed you to a lion? Oh, wait, wait..... Sumerian ideas, now we're cooking! Time to sacrafice you to the gods. Come on, hop up on the altar. What? You don't like that old time religion? Well, maybe CE and BCE aren't so bad then. Even if they were thought of recently by those awful atheists. By the by, isn't degrading someone on the basis of their atheism awfully not NPOV of you? Dave 02:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The use of "BCE" removes the word "Christ" from the acronym, but reinforces the root POV even more than the original. Think about it... instead of just saying that a year began before Christ, BCE implies that the current era began at Christ's birth. And when will it presumably end, when Christ returns? Talk about your POV problems... Don't get me wrong, "AD" (anno domini, or "year of our lord") is also problematic, but I think BCE/CE just makes it worse and then draws attention to it. 72.15.90.142 19:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I am more concerned with our use of Thursday, January, and August. By using those terms, we are clearly impling that Wikipedia endorses the POV of Thor, Janus, and Caesar. -- Aquillion 21:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I was looking through the wikipedia and came across a NPOV issue in the Digital Rights Management article. The title itself expresses a certain POV, which is that the technology is used to protect a copyright owner's rights, when in fact it may have consequences far beyond that. Many people feel the same way and have coined the term "Digital Restrictions Management", which is less POV, but still advoctates a certain view. However, digital rights management is the commonly accepted term for this technology. Should the title be changed to simply DRM, with a seperate disambiguation page? There is a slight precedent here that may apply, with Democratic People's Republic of Korea redirecting to North Korea, even though the former is an offical term (and is misleading and POV). The latter is more accepted in common usage though. What does everyone think?

"Official names" are not Wikipedia policy for titles of articles. Most common English name is, or something along those lines. Gene Nygaard 02:47, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

An important policy discussion has started concerning ways in which our content-related polices, such as NPOV, No original research and Verifiability could be better enforced. I've made a proposal to give the Arbitration Committee the ability to consult Wikipedia users who are knowledgeable in subject-areas that apply to cases before them. Such consultation is needed due to the fact that the ArbCom does not by itself have the requisite knowledge to easily tell what is NPOV, original research, or a fringe idea in every field. Please read my proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC#Alternate solution #9 by mav. Content subcommittee and comment. Thank you! -- mav 02:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some articles use terms like "God", "white people", "luck", "Jewishness", "fairies", "nobility" that people have invented to support various religious/superstitious or political programs. If I don't believe any of this stuff do I have a POV? Should I insert "so-called" or "alleged" in front of these terms? 24.64.166.191 06:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would depend on the context. We certainly shouldn't have an article asserting that God did something or other. It would be OK, though, to say, "According to Cardinal Finkelstein's theory, God did this...." Some of the other terms may have been invented for a particular purpose but as of 2005 they have objective meanings. It's NPOV to say that dukes and earls and such are part of the nobility even if you don't think any of them are actually noble. JamesMLane 06:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could say that "some people believe" that humans can have a quality called "nobility" which is inherited by patrilineal descent and that people who have this hypothetical quality are called "nobles". But I don't see that "nobility" has an "objective meaning" - it is just a religious/political belief. There is no scientific basis for classifying people into "nobles" and "commoners".

Some articles say that named individuals or specific groups of people are "white", "non-white", "noble", "commoner", "Jewish" or "non-Jewish".

These terms have "objective meaning" only as general descriptive terms, which do not enable us to say that an individual is X or non-X. Labeling an individual by one of these terms requires a precise definition of "white", "noble" or "Jewish" which is a matter of belief and has no "objective meaning".

My problem is that the writers of these articles can justify their use of these terms as having "objective meaning" as general descriptive terms but then use them with their own non-objective religious/political meanings to assert that every person is either X or non-X. Once we have accepted this POV use of words, it is difficult to argue against statements like "someplace is the historic/ancestral homeland of X" or "Y mistreated X".

There is no such thing as X or Y. There are only individual people who may or may not believe they belong to X or Y, depending on what indoctrination, social pressures or propaganda they are subject to. Propaganda is transmitted through the media, schools and reference works such as encyclopedias. 24.64.166.191 08:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not sarcasm on my part, but a constant theme in "NPOV" usage. A recent edit at Folkloristics is an example of this commonplace usage: under the Edit summary "(NPOV famous scholars - I've never heard of them!)" the editor removed "famous" from the list of linguistics scholars. Few of Wikipedia's genuinely neutral editors currently use the expression "NPOV" -- Wetman 19:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can generally second that perception. Tom Haws 00:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

agreed. alternatively: Nerd Point of View

" It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe ..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name."

Some weasels have squirmed around this by saying "it is often claimed" as in :

"Although the Arabs were not under any legal obligation to accept the plan (as General Assembly resolutions are not binding), it is often claimed that their main motivation in doing so was the total rejection of the idea of a Jewish state." History of Israel. 24.64.166.191 06:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that is another way of saying the same thing, and suffers from the same problem: lack of verifiability and specificity. Who claims? You, your friend, or someone important? - Taxman ^Talk 22:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a weasel phrase, should be avoided, and deleted or replaced with a specific and verifiable truth. Adraeus 04:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The "passive of non-attribution" is a good concept to keep in mind when vetting these "are said to have..." statements. -- Wetman 06:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've met a few people who suffered from psychological disorders that caused them to believe that they were a historical personage. One told me that she was Princess Diana. Should we re-write the entry for Princess Diana to reflect that one person believes that Lady Di is not only not dead, but alive and well and living at a homeless shelter in Tacoma, Washington? Dave

It seems to me the concept of POV and NPOV on Wikipedia is very similar to subjectivity and objectivity respectively. Is there a significant difference? If not, why create acronyms for a concept that is already described? Spaully 18:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's possible to be objective and POV, by only reporting one side of the story. It's also probably possible to be subjective and NPOV (although that would still be inappropriate for an encyclopedia). Nickptar 20:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is for when its hard to tell what is objective and what is not. When it something is obviously objective, NPOV is irrelevant. Bensaccount 22:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity and subjectivity simply provide basis for reasoning. Objectivity, being casual and neutral concerning definitional and terminological usage, is more likely rational whereas subjectivity, being deeply affected by emotion, is more likely irrational. Telling one side of a story is biased (a.k.a. "POV"). Telling two sides of a story remains biased; however, simply telling the story an objective manner without regard for "sides" is NPOV. A story told in a subjective manner can never be unbiased. Adraeus 04:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity and NPOV are distinct. Objectivity is an unattainable ideal, while NPOV is the state of being in agreement. See m:NPOV is an ideal Banno 21:50, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity is a hopelessly naive concept. Ayn Rand herself, this past century's most ardent adorer of objectivity, was so subjective in her attempts to destroy her lover/fellow teacher of objectivity that she discredited herself and her entire platform. And so it is with everyone because objectivity assumes you must completely divorce yourself from your own interpretation of the data you recieve via your senses and the only way to do that is not to interpret the data at all. In which case the only part of Wikipedia that wouldn't be deleted would be the lists of things. And even then, there would be disputes..... it is objective to say that the Strait of Juan de Fuca is entirely in Canada or the United States? Would it be objective to describe Snake Island as being Romanian or Ukranian? Even more controversial, how are you to be able to describe objectively, with no lenses or interpretations based on personal predjudices whatever, in what country does the city of Jerusalem reside? You can't dodge controversy. Even if you wrote an article about something as mundane as say, a teacup, someone would find a way to make a storm in that teacup and declare your perspective to be subjective in nature. We can try our best, but you'll always fall short of that goal, just as all objects fall short of Plato's ideal forms. NPOV must not be defined as objectivity if it is to remain an absolute.... simply because there is no absolute obejctivity. Dave 02:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Objective is an ideal. NPOV is an ideal. Both should be strived for.-- 202.147.125.46 22:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There are places in the Wikipedia namespace where advice and guidelines are offered (as distinct from policy), and while a majority of Wikipedians may support this advice, there may be examples where a significant minority disagree (I have in mind inclusionist/ deletionist type dichotomies). In such cases, should the NPOV policy be read as to force the inclusion of strong minority positions (e.g. ~20% support) into pages that discuss Wikipedian behavior (e.g. offer voting guides). Dragons flight 20:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with discussing minority viewpoints on non policy pages, as long as they are so noted. I also don't see the NPOV policy as forcing that to happen I guess. The NPOV policy is for articles. - Taxman ^Talk 22:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

i found some questionable pov elements from an article on John Milius and added a check pov template and removed the questionable elements. there has not been any response on the talk page nor any further revisions. do i take down the check pov template? how long do i have to wait? - Seasee 22:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you see no other parts of the article whose POV bothers you, then take it off. You added it and fixed it, so no problem. If someone else see's a POV problem they can add it if needed. Sometimes don't worry so much about protocol, just improve articles and be on your merry way. Leave a description of what you did on the talk page, including any text you removed so perhpahs it could be improved by someone else and added as useful material. Just speeking in general. - Taxman ^Talk 22:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

On the Neutral Point of View page itself, you use an I Drew This strip to illustrate a point. The strip in question as much as states that the American media is a mouthpiece for the GOP, and implies that the GOP criminally slanders John Kerry. If a reader were to go back or forward, the other strips would be anything but neutral on the subject of American politics; indeed, the artist would probably be insulted if anyone said he made an attempt to be neutral. Because it is a policy article, I hesitate to remove the link, but I don't think it belongs there.

This has been gone over before. I think the cartoon should stay because it's a good illustration of what's wrong with "equal validity", and you can ignore the politics if they bother you. Nowhere is it implied that Wikipedia endorses liberalism. Nickptar 22:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm finding some growing racism in wikipedia. Mostly about Demographics of certain countries

Can you cite specific examples? Guettarda 6 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

Am I the only reader who has observed an accelerating abandonment of the principle of neutral point of view in Wikipedia, especially in articles dealing with pop stars, current or recent movies, etc? A lot of stuff comes across as fan pages, written with laudable enthusiasm for the celebrities in question, but "neutral" ? hardly.

Can you cite specific examples? -- Essjay · Talk 14:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I retract the phrase "a lot of stuff" -heck, I retract the whole thing -- because try as hard as I might, I can't (with quick searches anyway) come up with any new, cogent examples of what I'm complaining about. The article that inspired my rant was the one on Rob Zombie. I still contend that, in regard to celebrities and pop culture figures, there's a fannish tone more than the "just the facts, ma'am" style that historical subjects, for example, seem to maintain. But obviously, like every other article, these fan initiated pages just need judicious editing.

It's probably just a case of nobody being interested in the articles other than the fans. Remember, Wikipedia only insures NPOV if there is a diverse pool of editors. If you see articles that are NPOV, edit them to make them more NPOV, or list them at one of the various cleaning projects. Perhaps you could start a WikiProject (of course, it would be good to register first!) -- Essjay · Talk

Every article seems to find its appropriate tone and vocabulary. Celine Dion's biography doesn't share much vocabulary with Hildegard of Bingen's, just to take two gals in the tune biz. -- Wetman 06:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a minor addition which I don't think needs to be discussed first. People should be careful about using terms such as "might" versus "may". May expresses what is possible, is factual, or could be factual. 'I may have turned off the stove, but I can't recall doing it.' 'Might' suggests something that is uncertain, hypothetical, or contrary to fact. 'I might have won the marathon if I had entered.' So, taking the most cynical view, "may" is about what's possible and "might" about what's uncertain. From American Heritage dictionary:

might: "Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may"

People can slip in POV by using "might" where "may" is more correct (such as saying that something 'might' be possible when in actuality it 'may' be possible), and this can occur with other terms as well. If there are any linguistically-inclined folks out there who want to add this into the policy, I would suggest doing so now, at least on this page, and probably also in the proper Manual of Style section. -- brian0918 ™ 22:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is another possible source for POV: wikilinks being added to titles that have the same name (or a similar name) as the article to which they link, but which aren't necessarily related. Let's say the article is about a school that teaches fringe views, but the courses all have the usual names, such as "Biology", "Chemistry", "Physics", etc. At face value, the names look fine, but when you investigate what they're actually teaching, what textbooks they're reading, it turns out these courses either teach contrary to Biology/Chemistry/Physics, or teach their own fringe brand of the subject. By wikilinking the course titles to the articles on Biology, Chemistry, Physics, we are effectively converting these courses into the legitimate titles. I'm sure there are other examples on all sides and in all aspects, but this was the easiest example for me to cite. -- brian0918 ™ 15:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I just tried to edit out the following bit of bias that suffers from the fallacy of argument from popularity of a point of view argumentum ad populum, aka the consensus theory of truth, and the obscurantists here immediately started a revert battle! Go figure. What's active here seems to be a big bias towards the consensus theory of truth, an absurd notion, as explained in the article on it.

quote:

I've removed this quote - it's on the main page, go look at it there. - brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 03:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Now that clearly suffers from the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, and bias towards the consensus theory of truth. Whaever happened to the idea of writing without bias here in Wikipedia? This admin page is certainly not setting a good example. -- 67.182.157.6 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hi there Mx. 67.182.157.6,
  

The pretty bloody obvious subtle point that you are missing here is that the quote you've placed above makes no mention of objective truth. It is about the number of people who hold a viewpoint. I suggest that you re-read the WP:NPOV article, while remembering that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to refine truth. As it explicitly states, "regardless of whether it's true or not" has no relevence to unclusion. A 16th century wikipedia would not have contained the wild "theories" by Nicolaus Copernicus. And this is as it should be.
;brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 01:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Your comment seems to have nothing to do with the issue raised, that the section quoted is biased towards ONE POINT OF VIEW, the consensus theory of truth, an absurd notion that suffers from the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. If you don't understand the issue raised, then why don't you ask questions about what is baffling you?(unsigned comment by User:67.182.157.6. - brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 03:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Dear Mx. 67.182.157.6,
  

With regards to you application of a POV tag, how do you propose to resolve this issue? If I understand your arguments, a consensus decision will only be more "argumentum ad populum". Please state, as clearly as possible and without hystronics like "obscurantists", how you'd like to proceed. Suggested word limit: 500.
brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 03:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Mx. 67.182.157.6,
  

You may first note I've corrected your edit which left two versions of this discussion. Thank you for providing the reference to "last at the top". I've left you (later) comments next to the paragraph they referred to.
It is really not necessary to repeat the phrases "consensus theory of truth" or "argumentum ad populum" anymore. Let me be clear: I understand the argument you are proposing. I am suggesting that it does not apply, as the section quoted makes no claims regard truth/untruth.
brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 03:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed text that was duplicated from above: Please state how you'd like to proceed. brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 04:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How about in accord with policy, a little principled negotiation? -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 03:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What purpose would such negotiation serve? Jimbo Wales established the NPOV policy, and as the head of the Wikimedia project, none of us have the authority to change the intent of the policies he has established. We can alter how they are presented and discussed, but you seem to want to do more than just change the language. You seem to want a different mechanism for how article space is allocated to different points of view. No one save Jimbo can alter that. Do I misunderstand your intentions? Dragons flight 04:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view it doesn't make sense for a community like this, allegedly open, to have a policy that entails either a dictatorship by Wales, or entails logical fallacy argumentum ad numerum, like the concensus theory of truth, if that is what you insist the policy is here. You can't be serious. -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 04:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"without hystronics like obscurantists"??? Some of my best friends are obscuantists. It's just another POINT OF VIEW, deserving equal treatement here, like all the others, right? (I just wouldn't want my sister to mary one, would you?) -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 04:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Your attacks based upon presumed philosophical bent now have have racial undertones. Please see Bigot watch as to how your comment is likely to be interpreted. brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 04:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I am leaving now for an early start on the week end. One of he joys of being a person of means. 8^) Shall we continue this (hopefully) principled negotiation next week maybe?

The two are not the fully the same (whether in psychology, and especially colloquially). It is irrational to attempt to dialogue with someone who wants to kill you, though it may very well be reasonable.

Predicated on this, I was going to modify the following sentence "We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.", until I noticed it was a direct quote. If the creator would so modify it, I would appreciate it. Being a non-reasonable person who is otherwise profoundly rational, I found it somewhat offensive (as well as psychologically a flawed interpretation of rationality). -- 24.22.227.53 21:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but unfortunatly these two terms suffer from synonymity (having the same, or nearly the same, meaning). See [1] -- 172.195.187.33 12:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Dictionary editors tend to be blind to differences between rationality and reasonability, given they tend to be both. The two are not synonymous in colloquial or psychological usage. Self-serving egosim can and is considered to be rational (survival of the fittest justification). It is however not reasonable. I'm sicing the term. -- 24.22.227.53 02:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I notice that someone had added an NPOV tag to one section and it had been deleted. Is there realy a problem with tagging a section of this article as an NPOV dipute if it genuinely is disputed?-- Heathcliff 03:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I just restored it.

The dispute is over that part of the section, "What is the neutral point of view?" that begins, "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view."

That statement, apart from bordering on the logical fallacy of appeal to the popularity of a point of view, is not in accord with the wikipedia policy that tyrany of the majority is to be outlawed, and principled negotiation with liberty and justice for all is to be practiced throughout Wikipedia:

" Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." -- wikipedia:negotiation

"The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a " separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." -- wikipedia:NPOV

-- 172.195.187.33 12:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well you disagree with the section, but you are in the minority. Also given that it is a long standing and well supported part of the policy, you bear the burden of proof that it is improper, should be removed, and what should replace it. So therefore deleting the section on your personal opinion is improper, and I have restored it, with a section dispute tag. I think that is a reasonable alternative, even though it still gives too much weight to your dispute, since you are the only one that disagrees with the section so far. Now to the dispute, the section is important precisely because there is no obvjective truthfull point of view. The best we can do is present known facts and the viewpoints that experts in a field hold. The above policy does not say that one is correct, but does hold that the viewpoint held by the mot experts is the one that should have the most coverage. Without that section crackpot theories would dominate the Wiki and grossly misrepresent human knowledge. That is what we are after, presenting what is known, and the current understanding of subjects, not some objective truth. - Taxman ^Talk 14:08, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV tag because it has no meaning when applied to a policy statement. POV, which wiki defines as "bias," only makes sense when applied to articles that are trying to describe the facts about something or other. But a statement of policy does not attempt to say what is true or false, it only says "this is how we are going to proceed, right or wrong." A statement of policy is, in effect if not literally, a set of imperative mood statements ("Shut the door.") not declarative statements ("The door is closed"). Imperative mood statements are not true or false. Hence, there is no sense in which they can be biased. I realize that literally speaking the article has declarative sentences in it, but this is for reasons of style and readability and because it seeks to explain the policies as well as state them. Nevertheless, the fact that it has a policy tag at the top means that it is really just a disguised set of directives. E.g., the sentence "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view." is really saying "Do not give minority views as much attention as majority views."

"Do not give minority views as much attention as majority views" is indication of a bias (even if it is an unconscious bias) towards tyranny of the majority, rather than the actual Wikipedia policy, consensus decision making incorporating principled negotiation:

" Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." -- wikipedia:negotiation

The George W. Bush article contains this controversial statment:

He has denied the allegation (Hatfield 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974.

On the other hand the Hillary Clinton article contains only Hillary's version of her relationship with Bill Clinton, and nothing critical (much less derogatory) of her statements despite the publication of several critical biographies of her.

In her book Living History, Clinton explains that love is the reason she stays with President Clinton. "[N]o one understands me better and no one can make me laugh the way Bill does. Even after all these years, he is still the most interesting, energizing and fully alive person I have ever met. Bill and I started a conversation in the spring of 1971, and more than thirty years later we're still talking." To supporters, her loyalty and perseverance in a sometimes difficult marriage has been viewed as a sign of her personal commitment, strength, and resolve.

I'm only using these only as examples to help define the question rather than posing it as merely abstract. What are the consistently applied principles when it comes to including in an article an item written in a critical biography? patsw 20:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me break it down a little more:

Ann Coulter said Bill Clinton was a very good rapist

It's not my POV, but Ann Coulter's. Why shouldn't/couldn't this edited into the Bill Clinton page? patsw 16:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is redirected here. Is it really good to have this kind of redirects from the main namespace to a Wikipedia policy page? I suppose it should be possible to write an article about Neutral point to view from a non-Wikipedia perspective, and anyway I strongly believe a reader should not accidently be transferred from the articla name space to the Wikipedia namespace. / Habj 22:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV says "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view". There is a reall interesting edit war going on in teh [Creation Science] that revolves around whether the dictionary definition of "science" can be used as "fact". If it can, then "Creation Science" can be factually presented as "pseudoscience". This is basically a "definition point of view" because some editors wish to present the topic from the point of view of the standard dictionary definition.

The alternative is that the definition for science depends on the point of view, and therefore Creation Science views itself to meet the definition of "science", and mainstream science views Creation Science as pseudoscientific nonsense.

Could someone who knows NPOV please explain whether a dictionary definition can be used as fact or must be presented as a POV? Perhaps the NPOV article could contain a new subsection titled "Defintion Point of View" and explain the correct answer.

For reference

I fully appreciate what you're doing with this, FeulWagon, but somehow I suspect that even Definition Point of View wouldn't settle the issue with some of our erstwhile editors. Besides, philosophers have a bugger of a time settling on definitions. That's why I think the NPOV policy is as good as it gets.

Main Entry: sci·ence   
Function: noun
3 a : accumulated and accepted knowledge that has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws : knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth : comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge; especially : knowledge obtained and tested through use of the scientific method b : such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
synonym see KNOWLEDGE

"science." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (9 Aug. 2005).

-- Parker Whittle 07:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Subjective language" is a myth. There is no more such a thing as a "subjective word" than there is an "objective word," an "auspicious word," a "cynical word," or a "dangerous word." You need guidelines, but the editors here should try to remember, especially when it comes to questions that ask for this sort of policy, that to weaken a pronouncement is not necessarily to make it neutral; and, of course, to strengthen a pronouncement is not to make it biased. Someone objected to my "unequivocal" in Shamil Basayev (about the Russians' opinion of him). Are we really so wooden-minded that we have to read "uneqivocal" literally?

I don't like this tendency to weaken that dominates political topics on Wikipedia. I understand that it's a natural trend, that it's equillibrium given the current rules; but it shouldn't be. -- VKokielov 05:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Eras#What.27s_the_real_problem_here on the long-running AD/BC vs. CE/BCE debate.

It's important because the NPOV policy doesn't seem to cover the issue of language use. I don't mean content but rather form. For example, this policy does not mention or cover Gender-neutral language, which is an issue that should not only be covered as content (what is the issue, what are the positions) but also as form (how does Wikipedia apply gender neutrality).

Because of this gap we now have a new and controversial debate about Anno Domini vs. Common Era. It's easy enough to cover this as content. The articles handle the POV issues of each one in a NPOV way. The problem is that wikipedia seems to lack a policy on language pattern usage in POV situations. This is form, not content. Does wikipedia use AD or CE? And why? This should be covered in the NPOV policy.

Some relevant questions:

• How well adopted/known does a new language pattern have to be before it can be adopted
• Does wikipedia take an active role in promoting NPOV language patterns?
• Can we list / categorize the language patterns that we currently use (like gender neutrality)

Sbwoodside 05:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

... -- VKokielov 19:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a hornet's nest that we don't need to stir up, although it would be useful to state as a general principle that we should, wherever possible, choose to use terms that have widespread general usage throughout the world. Choosing to use a term solely because it is by a long way the internationally accepted standard amongst the general public is an objective test and a sensible criterion to have. Where there is more than one term in widespread usage, I suppose we'll find some articles using it and some not - but I'd hope the emphasis is always on what usage will be understood/welcomed by a wide international audience, rather than by a narrow group (eg a particular field of academics, or by only one national audience), jguk 20:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is essentially undiscoverable, so far as anyone knows, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value."

This is a perfect example of agnosticism, not a neutral point of view. There are a great many people who think that they have proved the issue one way or another. How about just say that whether God exists is greatly debated and a point of great contention, etc.?

~ Nauraran 02:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, if this concerns an article somewhere on Wikipedia, then you should start this conversation on the article's talk page. This page is for general policy concerning NPOV. Thanks, Func( t, c, @,  ) 02:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ctrl-F? It is indeed in this article.

~ Nauraran 03:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Blah!!! :) My humble apoligies, I'm very sorry. (And I thought I had read this whole thing....) Func( t, c, @,  ) 04:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. If anything, it gave me a chance to learn some more format functions. :)

Anyway, I find this blatant POV rather amusing in the NPOV article. Any objections to changing it?

~ Nauraran 04:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally disagree with you, on a number of well established philosophical grounds, to wit: those who believe that they have proven God's existence don't have a very good conception of proof. (Note: and this need not be an agnosticist view point, ie: I believe that my mother and father love me, but I know that I don't have what constitutes rigourous proof to prove it.) Nevertheless, I would be willing to consider a change to the text, if only to remove a controversial example on a policy page that may be more trouble than its worth. Func( t, c, @,  ) 17:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Undiscoverable" seems some sort of a logical error.

but looking closer to the quoted section: it reads "[...] essentially undiscoverable, so far as anyone knows, [...]" the additional qualification "so far as anyone knows" makes it acceptable in my view. In that case I'd have to ask: "Is there anyone who knows the existence of God is not essentially undiscoverable? Let him come forward!" And if nobody comes forward, the sentence can stay. I didn't see Nauranan make that statement, nor Func, etc..., so technically there's no "neutrality dispute" (note that generally religions, depending on "faith about", and not on "scientifically proven assertion about" the existence of God, would see no harm in the sentence either).

The sentence could be changed in something like "[...] as far as known surrounded with mystery, [...]", so that also the less theologically experienced wouldn't stumble over it. Essentially the whole sentence does not want to say anything about the existence or non-existence of God, it wants to point the attention to how difficult topics are handled in wikipedia (with some degree of success!)

Whether the tag was added in "good faith" was not clear to me. The edit summary read "This allowed? It's funny, anyway..." which I'd accept only as "good faith" for a newbie (i.e. less than a few days or weeks at max). Nauranan is around for at least 3,5 months. So, in my eyes enough reason to delete, like I did. -- Francis Schonken 18:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Still another proposal to formulate it:

"Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is generally considered to be out of reach, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value."

Would that be a workable solution? -- Francis Schonken 18:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to get too far off topic, but with regard to good faith, he started a polite conversation on the talk page, then added a tag, and then continued a polite conversation on the talk page. Of course, if the tag was simply added with no follow up disscussion, that's a different matter. Func( t, c, @,  ) 19:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

As I explained, I had my questions regarding Nauranan's edit summary. So I hope this gets back on topic soon, otherwise the NPOV-dispute template can be removed as far as I'm concerned. -- Francis Schonken 19:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this devolved into a discussion of my "good faith" in putting that tag on the article; I was simply ignorant of a more specific tag. I have been a member for a few months, but I've edited wikipedia so little I'm still something of a noob. :) Anyway, back to the subject at hand.

It is true that the statement is attempting to avoid claiming either the existence or the nonexistence of God, but that does not stop it from advocating agnosticism. We're not talking agnostic theism or atheism here. Agnosticism at its simplest is the belief that (to quote wikipedia) the truth concerning God's existence is "unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and therefore irrelevant...."

We could get into a philosophical discussion concerning epistemology, proof, and universal negatives, but I think this can be settled much more simply. The history of philosophy is full of people and movements which claim to prove the question of God's existence one way or another, from Parmenides to Descartes to Plantinga. Simply to ignore them for not having "a very good conception of 'proof'" is, I think, to pick a side in a millenia-old debate with significant numbers of followers on the various sides.

I'm not sure how the "out of reach" substitution helps greatly. I'm thinking something more along the lines of the following: "Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as this subject for millienia has been and today continues to be vigorously debated, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value."

~ Nauraran 01:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree that one cannot say that God is "undiscoverable". That is not neutral. Read Alvin Plantinga or William James on religious experience and religious epistemology. Who are you (and by "you" I mean anyone--I am not taking a tone) to say that I haven't discovered God (via my own personal experience) just because you haven't? Further, I don't think anyone can say that it comes down to "opinion or value" and remain neutral. You are essentially affirming the agnostic principle that God is unknowable or undetectable--which is incompatible with some theistic views that God is knowable personally. (Again, how do you know that I, the subjective individual, am not certain of my own personal experience?) I propose just changing it to say "Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But this subject for millienia has been and today continues to be vigorously debated." Either that, or just remove the entire part about God.

User:gilbertggoose 22:38, 18 August 2005 (CST)

Other possibility:

"Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is essentially ungraspable, at least in a conventional monotheistic approach, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value."

Or this one:

"Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the knowledge of that fact is, as yet, either eluding, either rejected by many others, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value."

I like this last one best, not seeing any problem with it - unless it is bad English, but then a native English speaker could rephrase it, I suppose? -- Francis Schonken 13:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain. I think it is getting closer but still missing the mark. How about something more like:

"Whether God exists or not is a question of fact. But as the knowledge of the facts is disputed both ways, whether God exists or not will usually be couched in terms of opinion, value, probability, or personal experience."

-- User:gilbertggoose 14:47, 19 August 2005 (CST)

Well, no, no pain. I've been reading the section "A simple formulation" from the NPOV page a few times. The least that can be said is that the title of that section doesn't match the content of the second half of the second paragraph of that section: the "God" topic is treated with lots of added complexity, no way near a "simple formulation".

I try to work on it as a whole, so I copied the whole section to here in order not to lose context out of sight (I also changed "Socrates" to "Plato", because "Socrates" might be a questionable example taking account of the Socratic problem):

Draft for a new version of the "A simple formulation" section

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. That God exists... this might seem a troublesome one. Not with the definitions given above: That God exists... is a piece of information about which there is some dispute. This corresponds with how talking about God (or, alternatively, the non-existence of God) is experienced by most people: it's hard to talk about God or Atheism without mixing in opinion, or at least talk about value(s).

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe ..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name.

In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.

But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

...I also cut out some parts that are treated separately in the "religion" section lower on the NPOV page.

Feel free to work on the text above! -- Francis Schonken 22:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That looks perfect to me! Bravo!

-- User:gilbertggoose 19:26, 19 August 2005 (CST)

Looks great to me. I might work the phrasing slightly for aesthetic issues, but otherwise it's fine. Thanks!

~ Nauraran 05:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No further comments, so I move the section to the project page. -- Francis Schonken 20:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine now. Anyway, my involvement came about not because I had a problem with the page as it orginally was, but because I noticed the "it's funny" edit summary, and felt that the tag, if there at all, should only be in that section. Thanks for your work on it. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat belated objection: this section is incoherent. It asserts that the only difference between fact and value (for the purposes of this article) is the presence or absence of serious dispute. This is of course unsettling, but the problem has been around a while and it's not specific to this recent revision. But, we now have exacerbated this. We've used this definition specifically to make the "God exists" a matter of opinion and sidestep the whole agnosticism POV problem, but we haven't made "stealing is wrong" a matter of fact (being a moral judgement held by the overwhelming majority worldwide). Worse, we've said "...without mixing in opinion, or at least talking about value", which is now horribly circular. Fool 16:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. When I wrote that, I had a few alternatives in mind, but as I try to write them out, either they fall flat or else they alter text that's been in the article for quite some time. I hate to be one to criticize without offering constructive suggestions, but I'm really stuck. Fool 17:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I think basically the attempt to define "fact" has to go. My proposal follows:

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. Certainly, there are bound to be borderline cases where a fact is disputed but we're not sure if we should take the dispute seriously, or where the distinction between fact and value will itself necessarily be in dispute. Nevertheless, there are many propositions that clearly express undisputed facts, and others that clearly express values or opinions. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. On the other hand, that stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," (... etc ...)

... there you go. I think this destroys the incoherencies while strengthening the main point of the section. Fool 14:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll move this onto the project page then? Fool 19:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this part of the policy need to be edited in one way or another. The problem as it is stated right now is that it gives benefit to anyone who just ads a chunk of text, regardless of its quality before some who writes from scratch. A lot of old encyclopedias and other pieces of old work have become public domain and therefore become a cheap source of information for Wikipedia. The problem is that they often are of quite low quality. This has been done, and is being done, quite systematically and is a threat to the quality of Wikipedia.

The amount of work needed to edit such a text in such a way that it becomes a NPOV-article of good quality might often exceed the amount of work needed to write a NPOV-article of good quality from scratch. It would, in my opinion, be wise to add to the policy something about this, i.e. the policy should state that it is only OK to remove NPOV-material if the work needed to correct it exceeds the amount of work needed to create the same material from scratch. Gunnar Larsson 14:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gunnar,

the piece of the NPOV policy text you are referring to reads:

Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.

As a matter of fact, I think it perfectly written. It tries to avoid taking stance in the (old) Deletionism - Inclusionism (and other variants) controversy. You can always join one of the "associations" defending one of these stances at meta, there's even a new of such associations forming at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency (well, that is, if it survives the deletion poll).

There's no way to make a general declaration that either "home made" or "imported from public domain" text is always the better choice. "Written from scratch" is often very cumbersome. Age-old "public domain" texts are sometimes plain solid knowledge. How would you define "quality" (which seems very important in the argument you're building) otherwise than that someone has written it before, even better if it is in a source that stood the test of time... See also wikipedia:no original research: writing "from scratch" may often prove a bit sharp to that edge... (note that I subscribe all the objections you make to such old texts too, I only try to point out that it is not as if bending it too much to the other direction is anything near to a solution).

Don't know whether this answers your question, but I tried. -- Francis Schonken 16:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

My point wasn't that "home made" is better than "imported from public domain", rather that there is a bias in the current policy towards "imported from public domain". My point was that we should use the least cumbersome method possible to acheive our goals, no matter what has been done before. If it means NPOV-ing a text full of POV, fine. If it means starting from scratch, fine. Gunnar Larsson 17:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

rather that there is a bias in the current policy towards "imported from public domain" - no, I don't see your point: neither "imported from public domain", neither "from scratch" are mentioned, nor implied, in the quoted NPOV policy text. There's no general policy to "throw away" (or alternatively: "keep") text because it comes from one source or another.

Neither is anything implied that would hinder using the least cumbersome method: "rewriting" is not excluded as an editing method. Throwing away without doing an attempt to provide anything better is discouraged by the guideline. That's the whole point. You doing the throwing away, and expecting that someone else would do the rewriting is discouraged. Someone else throwing away, expecting that you or I would rewrite is also discouraged. I throwing away, and rewriting (without loss of useful information) is encouraged by the guideline. You throwing away and rewriting (without loss of usefull information) is likewise encouraged. Where's the problem? Whether one "edits" by copy-pasting word-by-word or by writing on a piece of paper and then give your text to a secretary to have it typed in a text-editor before pasting it to wikipedia, or whatever other method of editing is not discussed here. That's something everybody knows best for himself, how he/she works best. Neither should wikipedia policies comment on what kind of method in that sense is best used (maybe "style" guidelines could, but I think it would be perceived rather senseless there too). Note that it is absolutely not true there would be any implied or explicit instruction regarding the "method" of editing in the NPOV guideline.

So no, I'm sorry, I can't see the bias you allege to be in the policy text. With the changes you propose, I only see bias creeping in (in this case bias towards the deletionist camp). So if you can't say which words exactly are biasing the text in whatever direction (since neither "imported from public domain", neither "from scratch" are mentioned), I don't see your point. -- Francis Schonken 18:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess it is "In many cases, yes" that is far to diffuse and to easily interpreted as in all cases, though the general problem is that it simply is to fuzzy. I will give an example to clarify what I mean, and why I wrote about it at all.

Some weeks ago the Swedish Wikipeda had Sweden-Norway as collaboration of the week. That state of the article, as of the beginning of the week, was that it consisted of a copy of an article from an old encyclopedia written in beginning of the 20th century. It had a clear pro-Swedish perspective (an opinion shared of all but one of the editors). Instead of editing the article some users choose to simply delete the old text and start from scratch, using more modern sources. As it was collaboration of the week it was not a major problem that information was lost, as there was a lot of people editing the article and creating a new one. Perhaps it didn't have every single piece of information that the old one had, but all the information that mattered was there.

In my opinion this was a good way to create a better article. To check every single sentence of the old text for POV and accuracy would have been very tidious.

As far as I understand your last message you would agree that this was an acceptable way to do it as information was not only removed but also added. However, the editing of the article lead to an edit war with frequent reverts, refering to Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete as a reason to keep the old text.

It would therefore do the current text good to add a phrase such as: A biased text should only be deleted if it takes more effort to remove the bias than to create an unbiased text without using the existing text as source Gunnar Larsson 19:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, now I see your point even less. You cite very exceptional circumstances ("Collaboration of the week" combined with a "biased" start text combined with one person not thinking it a biased text). No I don't think "collaboration of the week" justifies emptying a page, and only rebuilding a small part of a better version in a single edit. Working on the talk page (as advised in the quote from the NPOV page above) would've been the better option anyhow. Working on the talk page would have meant the old text staying where it was till the draft of the new text was ready. If Swedish wikipedia wants to organise it another way, OK for me, but don't come complaining here there was a supposed problem with this NPOV policy, while this NPOV policy doesn't list exceptional regulations for "collaboration of the week" (which, for example, could include an advise to work on several independent "draft" pages at the same time). Generally it's those "exceptional regulations", not taking account of the general NPOV policy, that are at the base of unnecessary misunderstandings. Who said that every single part of the old text needed to be re-instated? I delete parts of text regularly, sometimes really big chuncks of an article, without any prior discussion, etc... (there's no contradiction at all there with NPOV policy - the NPOV policy never says not to erase an entire text any reasonable wikipedian would erase). Usually I do use the talk page when it's a really big part of the text, but if I'm reasonably sure nobody will contest it I proceed with just giving a few words of explanation in the edit summary.

NPOV policy nowhere says one has to work "sentence by sentence" through an old text. I've created entire articles on talk pages (without even much looking at an old text), other people helping, and only in the end moving the new text to overwrite the the old version in a single move. And yes, sometimes discussions and differences of opinion have to be solved there too! Also I reorganised the structure of some pages entirely in one move, which sometimes without changing much of the actual content gives an entirely different article, etc.

Yes, the NPOV policy is a general principles text, this means (at least) two things:

1. it's not as detailed as a "traffic regulation" law, that says that the red light is always on top and the green light at the bottom. So no, it is not intended to include detailed exceptions for "Collaboration of the week" regulations. It's not saying in detail whether one has to work through a text "sentence by sentence", neither does it impose to re-edit texts in a single move. It does not give such detailed instructions now, and it will probably never (I hope!).
2. General principles, means that the circumstances how these principles are implemented are dependent of context, everybody using his common sense how to put the general principles in practice in the best way. And there are other guidelines and more specific policies, like e.g. the "Three Revert Rule", that contain the detail that's not in the general text.

It also seems someone used the Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete in a wrong way, not taking account of the NPOV tutorial, specifically the " Space and balance" part of that more detailed guideline explaining how to implement the NPOV policy.

PS: I hope the new text of the "Sweden-Norway" article gives a fair account of how Swedish people viewed this topic a century ago, that's NPOV policy too!

Don't know if this helped you, but again, I tried. -- Francis Schonken 21:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear all,

Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.

Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.

We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

Best regards,

Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza

I sterbinski 00:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a guy called Sean Wright who is blatantly using Wikipedia to market his vanity releases. The guy's the worst author in the world, a literary Ed Wood, and his books are printed in limited runs typically about 3,000 copies. He is not famous, in fact he only came to attention from spamming (under pseudonyms) a couple of book forums I use, a tactic he also uses for his own books on Amazon. I've worked with the article but he continues to change it to promote himself and now he is using Wikipedia to create pages for all of his books, his vanity press, authors going through his vanity press.

On reading his article it looks like he's name dropping and the only source for many of the supposed "facts" he spouts off (such as the late Queen Mother owning his artwork) can only be found on his website, the original template for his version of the article.

It reads more like a mixture of recollections and ego massaging. I'm tired of editing this article as it is proving to be a waste of my time. It's certainly not a neutral point of view. Connor Wolf 13:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If person A is employed by organization B or person C, should they be disallowed from editing articles regarding organization B or person C, to prevent bias, sanitized PR entries, or deletion of all criticism?

MSTCrow 02:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Its a VERY difficult subject - for example whenever I go to edit an article about a certain group I'll generally get a lot of rockus from the people who are a member of the said group (accusing me of all kinds of things even though I really don't have an opinion on the matter). OTOH, in my experience it is possible to work with these people and in time they might become good editors even on that subject. Its just extremely difficult and requires a lot of time and effort. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no practical way to ban all those people, and besides multiple examples exist of people trying to whitewash information about themselves or their own organization and failing. The Sollog article is a good example. It was a pain to fight them (or in this case, likely him) off, but he did fail so far. Insisting on reputable references and adherance to NPOV can usually save the day. If you need help, ask, and more reasonable editors can help ensure neutral editing. - Taxman ^Talk 04:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, many people initially think that the way to build an unbiased article is to delete every biased statement in the article. That may seem like a good idea at first glance, but these are the very people who are closest to the facts of the matter. Would you block all earthlings from editing the article on Earth? Also, consider the possibility that some of these people might actually be whistle-blowing critics of the organization they are associated with. Banning individuals because they might mess something up seems analogous to banning forks because they might be used to commit a felony.

I think the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Dealing_with_biased_contributors section covers it. The problem is bias. Let us directly attack the actual problem, rather than attack people who we speculate might possibly be somehow associated with the problem. -- DavidCary 03:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The basic fundemental of Neutral Point Of View is to come to a opinion or understanding that is collective, that fairly represents all parties involved.

The problem with NPOV is that it destroys individuality and objectivism, thus there must be grouping among those who think alike to create majoritys and minoritys to level the fairness of NPOV.

I am simply stating what I think a NPOV should be, the problem is there is no NPOV , it simply cannot exist because no matter how hard you try there will always be bias. Even in a collective there can be no NPOV because everyone's perception is different. NPOV in itself is a philosophy, the whole premise of NPOV is a total contradiction within itself.

Who're you, and why no signature? NPOV is not supposed to represent the "consensus" opinion, and reality was never defined by what the fad of the day happened to be anyways. NPOV, basically, is speaking in the third-person and including divergent opinions, not the opinion that's been floating in the Kool-Aid.

MSTCrow 05:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

MST is more blunt then I would put it but yes this argument comes up like every few days or something. In fact if anything it promotes individuality and objectivism a little TOO much... but then that's what good about it (anything that can verified and credible sources goes basically) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. It was late and I was tired.

MSTCrow 19:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I see on wikipedia in general a pattern of typical mainstream propaganda, the sad part is people come here to get information and get educated. NPOV is just a way of saying majority rules, while me the minority sits back and watches, the problem is there is no way using the NPOV system that all sides can be represented, as NPOV is something that is strived for yet it is impossible and will be the downfall of wikipedia. My intentions are to educate people on variations and the other side of the story, for example to say that the name of God is Yahweh and that Yahweh is the only God who created everything is a NPOV by means of "Popular conception", but the fact is the name of God is Marduk who is the head of a council of Gods which is a fact is considered a POV and violates policy here, is not only misleading, it makes it impossible for for someone to make a properly informed choice. Im not saying that all the articles here are misleading, there are some really well written articles, but a good majority of articles, especially those on religions are seriously misleading because they dont state the facts, they only state the popular NPOV versions and when you try to edit them to say anything that goes against the popular beliefs it is a policy violation. For example the Christianity article will tell you all the basics of the belief, but it fails to state anywere in the article that Christianity borrowed all of it's ideas, concepts and basis from earlier pagan religions which is a fact. Now if I was to go in there and state these facts it would be removed as non consensus and as a POV, so how can wikipedia be reliable as a valid factual source of imformation? Ultimately the downfall of wikipedia is eminent, this is were Wikinfo will dominate because of the sympathetic point of view policy. Khaosinfire 02:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I sort of tripped over this page, but found it rilly hard to read - partly because of too many multiple negatives. I'm new around here, so I don't feel like fixing it; and anyway, if I'd written it orginally, I'd appreciate more the comment and the chance to fix it myself, than the fait accompli.

My sugestion: We do not take sides when we word a paragraph so as to be acceptable to both, or all, parties. Banno 21:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I have already posted this at the Village Pump.

The cherished goal of NPOV for Wikipedia often seems to be getting farther and farther away from realization. One of the most intractible problems is that POV warfare is carried on in a highly organized basis, not only in the editing, but oftentimes in administrative functions as well. It takes the form of what have been described variously as WikiCliques or POV posses, which generally have one or more Designated Administrators, administrators who carefully avoid direct participation in specific conflicts, but will intervene with administrative powers on the side of their respective teammates. An example of such behavior is what I call the Protection Racket, where admins watch the Requests for Protection page in order to protect the versions desired by their buddies, and POV warriors time protection requests so as to intersect periods when their Designated Admins are on patrol.

At present, the remedies are inadequate. Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship seems very unwieldy and is seldom used. So, I am making the following proposal:

I think that there ought to be a higher echelon of administrators, whom I propose be called ombudsmen, who would be held to a far higher standard of propriety and neutrality than present administrators. A member who becomes an ombudsman could lose that status at the slightest hint of partisanship in any dispute where ombudsman powers are invoked. And here are what I propose ombudsman powers should consist of:

1. The authority to discipline admins by imposing temporary bans on their use of admin powers, just as admins may temporarily ban ordinary editors from editing. This authority would be used when admins are found to be using their authority to further the POV-pushing of their allies.

2. The authority to temporarily intervene into POV disputes by setting ground-rules for conflict resolution in specific articles (this idea needs some refining; my intention is to take some of the load off of the mediation and arbitration committees, and speed conflict resolution.) -- HK 21:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we need some sort of explicit policy to deal with apologetics. There are a lot of articles, especially those dealing with the historicity of the Bible, that tend to become filled with apologetics. Now, of course, the traditional understanding of the historicity of various books of the Bible ought to be discussed. But apologetics are very distinctly not the traditional understanding. For instance, the traditional understanding of the Pentatech is that it was largely written by Moses, with the probable exception of the end of Deuteronomy, which describes Moses's death. But the traditional basis for this was simply that it was traditionally ascribed to Moses. Modern scholarship then came along, and came up with numerous arguments as to why the Pentateuch should not be ascribed to Moses. As far as actual mainstream scholarship goes, nobody any longer believes in Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. Many traditional Christians and Jews, however, continue to accept Mosaic authorship. But, given that there are now arguments being made against the traditional understanding, apologetics are needed to reconcile the traditional account. So, arguments that the Pentateuch is all of a piece, and that it seems to have been written by one person, and that various elements of it strongly suggest that it is quite old, perhaps as old as the second millennium BC are essentially apologetics. They are neither a mainstream scholarly position (no mainstream scholars that I am aware of believe the Pentateuch to have been written by a single source in the 2nd millennium BC); nor does it represent the traditional Judeo-Christian viewpoint (which simply accepts that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, without relying on any kind of textual or other arguments to prove it). Both the traditional view and the scholarly view should be represented on wikipedia, and wikipedia should not say that the scholarly view is "correct" and the traditional view is "wrong." It would be a violation of NPOV to do this. But that does not mean that we have to give equal time to apologetics. Apologetics are the equivalent of pseudoscience. Pretending that there is a legitimate dispute among scholars as to whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch is like pretending there is a legitimate dispute among scientists as to whether or not intelligent design provides a better view of the development of life on earth than Darwinian evolution. It is mistaking religion for history. And the works of scholars who are already predetermined to come to a given conclusion (that the Bible is invariably accurate) simply cannot be taken seriously as scholarship. For an example of a discussion of this sort, I'd refer you to Talk:Book of Esther. I'd like to propose that some sort of policy for how to deal with apologetics be put into place. john k 23:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Apologetics is a point of view, and if it is sufficiently notable and not original research, it deserves a place in articles, no matter how much it strains credibility to you and me. However, if an article is tending to become overwhelmed by apologetics, to the neglect of positive information, you can bud-off an article dealing specifically with the issue of controversy. For example, if the radiocarbon dating article were to become overwhelmed by the apologetics of young-Earthers, you could start an article called radiocarbon dating and creationism. I don't think the NPOV policy is any different with regard to apologetics than it is to any other POV. COGDEN 00:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles like Radiocarbon dating, and what not, are not a serious problem with apologetics. Obviously, in general, particularly notable apologetical arguments should be mentioned in articles. And articles on non-Biblical subjects generally do fine, even if apologists do invade them. The problem comes in things like articles on Biblical books and the like, and the big problem is not so much the apologetics themselves. The problem is that, on the one hand, the POV represented by apologetics is given the weight of the traditional view of the Biblical books, which it doesn't deserve because the apologetics themselves are merely after the fact justifications of traditional views, not independent explanations of the traditional views; and, on the other hand, the apologetics are described as equivalent to the scholarly views they are arguing against. Apologetics obviously has a (small) place in articles. But apologetical arguments need to be marked as such. They should not be described as elaborations of the traditional views, or as scholarly views, because they are neither. These conflations give apologetical views a certain claim to equal treatment that it should not otherwise have. john k 01:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

How to deal with them who continousely delete the NPOV tag while the article is being discussed?-- Nixer 20:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Are external links subjected to NPOV? How? Does it mean that we should remove any link that bring wikireaders to a biased page? Does it mean that we should have various links pointing to various POV? This problem needs to be adressed ASAP and included in the next revision of NPOV policy-- equitor 02:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

no answer? It's an important matter.-- equitor 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Links to POV websites are allowed, however a particular selection and placement of a link could violate NPOV. It would fall under the same guidelines for including criticism in an article. Nathan J. Yoder 07:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI: a discussion of many of the issues touched on this page

[ Is the Wikipedia Neutral?] - an (early draft) extension of A Case of Mutual Aid: Wikipedia, Politeness, and Perspective Taking to tease apart what is meant by something being neutral, and is it the right term to describe Wikipedia efforts:

Claims of neutrality and accusations of bias are common themes of contemporary discourse about the media, government, education, and technology. In this essay I extend earlier work on the collaborative culture of Wikipedia (an on-line and free encyclopedia) to specifically focus on the fundamental but often misunderstood notion of neutrality.... This essay is inspired by earlier debates on neutrality of technical standards, literature on bias in technical systems, my present fascination with this Wikipedia norm and a change in my belief that while an important concept, the label of neutrality was an unfortunate coinage in the Wikipedia context. - Reagle 17:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Although i'm relatively new, i'm already enjoying myself by trying to resolve semi-random NPOV disputes from the list. However, one of the things i seem to bump in at every turn, is the fact that NPOV is used to contest any claim found repugnant, regardless of arguments.

Obvisouly, this is a distortion of what NPOV is meant for, and is not a byproduct of NPOV an sich. Still, the fact that NPOV seems to be promoted as the most important of all Wiki policies (as seems to be the case with the recent revert of this article page), to my mind, encourages the relativism of arguments towards opinions.

The Armenian genocide article is already hopelessly lost because every argument has become an opinion and vice versa. Sure, we have to be neutral towards opnions, but we should be clear in assessing arguments. As another weird example, the Kurdish flag's very existence is considered POV (actually, i think i might remove that POV flag shortly).

This diffusing of the line between arguments and opinions is having other strange effects. For one, consensus on differing opinions is much harder to come by, resulting in a strange policy adopted by some (quite a few actually) to balance opnions to gain neutrality. For an (amusing) example check here, and be sure to check the talk page for the reasoning that the For and Against should have an equal amount of arguments (!) to retain NPOV.

Like I said, this is not a direct consequence of NPOV, which in all aspects is a great policy. But regarding NPOV as the most important Wiki-policy (like this recent revert of this very article seems to indicate) implies that opinions, and the neutrality thereon, are more important than arguments, and the validity thereof. I think this severely undermines Wikipedia, if not on the short run, then on the long haul. We are an encyclopedia after all.

Wikipedia being wikipedia, there is probably some discussion on this hidden in some nether-region. If so, i would appreciate a pointer in the right direction. If not, then it might be time to open one. -- The Minister of War

Stating that in an argument all points of view should by definition get equal space is against NPOV policy, see NPOV tutorial#Space and balance. Note that it is very tricky to define "importance" and "being interesting", the two basic concepts used in that paragraph, as tools for achieving NPOV balance. But Wikipedia's NPOV policy hinges on these two more theoretical concepts, and I don't see where they should fail in any of the examples you give.

"Being repugnant" can not be used as an argument in a discussion about POV/NPOV - some guidelines reflect this, for example Wikipedia:naming conventions (people)#Nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens - the example there uses Alfred the Great: Louis the Fat, or whatever other "repugnant" name might have been used as an example too, no difference: Wikipedia represents things the way they are supported by reliable sources, thus trying to avoid moral judgements.

Please sign your questions on talk pages with ~~~~ (or use the "signature" button above the edit window) -- Francis Schonken 09:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I realise that this is covered in NPOV - yet its apparently not clear to many users. The fact of the matter is that the arguments above, while contradicting NPOV, are used as NPOV arguments. One person says "the earth is flat". The other says, "no it isnt!". Person A says "well thats just your opinion, lets compromise". While this clearly isnt the way it should go, it often does. Even relative sane people will have a tough job countering it.

My point is that most of these arguments, while seemingly fitting into NPOV, blatantly violate accuracy. If we would refrain from calling NPOV the "top"-policy, but rather one of the top (i have a slight preference for truth and accuracy as top priority), we could more often demonstrate that points of view (the earth is flat) should not be assessed on their neutrality, but rather on their accuracy.

I realise the problem is a subtle one, i do hope i'm conveying it understandably.-- The Minister of War 10:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The "problem" is subtle, and I can understand the problem well enough. Don't see no subtlety in the proposed solution, neither do I see where it could contribute to a solution of the subtle problem. Don't even see what you propose as alternative solution? Saying that others are wrong because what they say is unimportant is not really an alternative to saying others are wrong because they don't understand NPOV...

Another, better, support is handed, for instance, in wikipedia:reliable sources (which I added as a link to the NPOV policy this morning, in the section Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A vital component: good research): selecting on sources, weighing them for reliability as described in that guideline might help in getting "space and balance" issues settled.

And if you realise what is covered by NPOV and what isn't, you should defend that guideline, and speak up, IMHO, so that others are helped to understand (and not the other way around). -- Francis Schonken 18:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Geez thanks for being so friendly and all. Pfff.

Let me keep it simple: the hierarchy doesnt work. A hierarchy is this:

1. Dont kill
2. Dont steal
3. Dont lie

This means dont kill - ever. Dont steal unless it prevents someone from being killed, and dont lie unless it prevents someone from losing property ot from being killed.

In Wiki, we dont want that. We want people to be NPOV AND reliable. Giving NPOV the top spot suggests that unreliability is okay if it helps NPOV. -- The Minister of War 08:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, presently in wikipedia it's like this

1. Wikipedia:Five pillars, a more formal translation of User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles - both include NPOV as a basic principle (but also, openness-through-GFDL, don't-bite-but-show-respect, etc...)
2. Apply other policies in Category:Wikipedia official policy
3. Apply other guidelines in Category:Wikipedia guidelines, Category:Wikipedia style and how-to, and other subcategories of these.

Yes, it is imaginable that a wikipedia contribution is unreferenced: for example, I see no external reference "proving" that Schubert wrote the Death and the Maiden Quartet. That is simply undisputed, period. But it is unimaginable that an article would be "stable" if it were not NPOV: for example, the authorship of some of the pieces in the Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach is uncertain, so that article gives a NPOV account of these authorship issues, contributing to the stability of that article (in this case the authorship discussion also does not rely on external references, which might be a possible improvement of the article, but the article's stability seems not to depend from it: NPOV is more important). You see? -- Francis Schonken 11:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright i'll use your example to show what i mean.

Indeed, you say it yourself. Once something uncertain (step one), an NPOV account of all arguments is necessary (step two). First we state what we know to be facts (and if there is discussion, we present reliable proof), and if we agree to disagree we discuss how to make something NPOV.

In practice this is hardly the case. Discusssions about facts are presented as NPOV, because NPOV is the most promoted of the pillars. Indeed, reliability is clearly (and oddly) marked INSIDE the NPOV pillar. In some cases, the truth is just the truth, and it is verifiable.

For arguments sake: if someone were to claim Schubert didnt write DatMQ, this would in theory need to be corroborated with sources (maybe the guy actually has some proof), and if editors agree his authorship can be disputed, they attempt to an NPOV version. In practice, such disputes skip the step to test the reliability of such claims.

I realise, once again, that this is not a direct consequence of Wiki policy, at least not of the letter of the Law. But a more prominent place for accuracy would certainly help. -- The Minister of War 11:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The point I make is that there isn't always discussion - NPOV needs to be applied always (not "only in case of uncertainty", I never said that), so NPOV has to be applied even if there isn't discussion (if it weren't applied for the cases "without discussion" one would be triggering discussion...). So, no there is nobody, as far as I know, claiming that the DatMQ was not written by Schubert. Still NPOV needs to be applied to that article. The rest is "if": "if" there is a possibility NPOV would be in danger, one of the most encouraged methods is finding "reliable sources", as a method to bring out NPOV. And there are several other methods! To name a few: Wikipedia:consensus, wikipedia:dispute resolution, wikipedia:assume good faith, and..., and... - but always the central issue is to bring out NPOV. As for "reliability" in general as a characteristic of the end result all this editing of wikipedia's databases should lead up to: NPOV is about the most central method chosen to bring out reliability (but "reliability" in general is not a method but a characteristic, so, of course, "reliability in general" is not a "policy" or "guideline", because it can't be defined in terms of method - "working with reliable sources" can be described as a method, don't confuse this "method" with the "characteristic of the end result"). The same with "accuracy". There is, for instance, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) proposing a method to achieve accuracy in a particular field (the naming of articles) - but "accuracy in general" is not a "method", "accuracy" is one of the end result characteristics we hope the application of all those methods will lead up to.

And again, people misinterpreting NPOV, leading to bad end result is not something that lowers the importance of the NPOV policy, on the contrary: what you say is something like "many people run through red light, causing accidents, so let's make a decision that red lights should not be taken too seriously from now on" - what a crooked backward reasoning would that be!

PS: at wikipedia there is no "letter of the Law" (and that's "official policy"), don't get confused over that either. -- Francis Schonken 16:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...you guys seem to be arguing past each other a bit. Minister of War seems to be making an argument about times when ostensible NPOV makes articles ridiculous - both inaccurate and, to be honest, POV. Francis is reasserting the centrality of NPOV as a wikipedia policy. So, to both of you - Minister of War, I don't think that the problem has to do with how central NPOV is to wikipedia policy. It has to do with the fact that there are a lot of persistent cranks on the Internet and it's hard to deal with them. Francis - I do think that Minister of War is describing a real problem, and his descriptions of the problems with "on the one hand, on the other hand" NPOV is a real one. I think that this kind of false-NPOV is perhaps not addressed clearly enough in the policy. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. is the basic statement on this subject. But this doesn't seem to be clear enough to me. It isn't precise, and it implies that the only difference between POVs should be in the space we give to presenting each one. It seems to me that the current exception, if it were followed to the letter, would force us to actually give a lot of space at the evolution article to creationists - after all, creationists form a pretty large percentage of people, so their view is not simply a "small minority" view. Anyway, I think Minister of War has isolated a real problem, although I'm uncertain if his solution would do much. Even changing the "undue weight" section here to make it more specific probably wouldn't help much - the problem is not so much with the policy, as with the fact that there will always be POV-zealots who try to push their POV under the false banner of NPOV. john k 17:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the Creationist v Evolution was one of the very examples i had in mind, but i didnt want to insult anyone. In this case, we have evolution as a theory, and some guys claim "well thats just your theory". What we need to do is say "okay, so prove your alternative", rather than saying, "okay we'll incorporate the ambiguity in the evolution article" (not that that has happened in this instance, but you get the point).

But you're right we are passing each other. One clarification is that i dont have an alternative. To be quite honest, i figured there would be a forum somewhere where i could read what smarter minds than i had to say about it.

I do think however, that the point of false-NPOV (which is the perfect term) should be more prominent. When can you claim your point is a POV which needs to be taken into account, and when can you. My attempt at an answer would be that you need to actively prove your point (which is what i dubbed reliability or accuracy above) before its in. -- The Minister of War 18:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the thing - there are some POVs which are definitely worthy of mention even if they are objectively false. For instance, it seems to be quite clear that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. This is not only accepted by all non-fundamentalist scholars, but also by a pretty large number of religious types. Nevertheless, we should certainly mention that the traditional view is that Moses wrote them, and that this view continues to be held by many conservative Jews and Christians. One can presumably think of other examples. The question is not necessarily whether to include the very-likely-objectively-false POV. It is how to present it I agree that one of the huge problems of these kinds of articles is that most of the article ends up being devoted to summarizing one sides arguments, and then summarizing the other's. This is incredibly irritating, and deeply unprofessional for an encyclopedia. And there are definitely numerous editors who feel that this is the best way to maintain NPOV. john k 18:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

1. I completely agree with John's first comment above on this topic.
2. What we need to do is say "okay, so prove your alternative" - this would directly conflict with WP:NOR (which IMHO is a policy of at least equal stature as wikipedia:verifiability)
3. i figured there would be a forum somewhere where i could read what smarter minds than i had to say about it - Well, there's Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) of course, and m:meta, and this new thing I started a few days ago: wikipedia:coherence (not implying that to be anything near to smarter) - there are still some other places that could be mentioned... (still thought about WP:CENT, and of course also the mailing lists, defended by Jimbo for such issues in his "statement of principles" mentioned above)
4. false-NPOV is an issue, and maybe should get more attention - still I see it more like a thing of space and balance than anything else, not because that's "official policy", but because in the instances when I was confronted with false-NPOV, the most successful resolutions of it (not in terms of "giving up", but in terms of achieving a good article), was when I approached the problem with the space and balance method, more than with any other method. And I've used methods, and some of the other methods have proven to be more necessary in some instances too (e.g. chase a near-to-un-unmaskable-vandal every now and then, and what have you not...).
5. (back to John's second contribution:) It is how to present it I agree that one of the huge problems of these kinds of articles is that most of the article ends up being devoted to summarizing one sides arguments, and then summarizing the other's. Yeah, I know the situation. And then you make an intro paragraph ("lead section"), summarizing the lot of opposing views, and then that summary gets rejected with a false-NOR argument, and the whole cycle starts over again. But, like TMoW, I have no real "novel" tool apart from those already offered in "wikipedia:" namespace (and if I think of something that I can't find there, then I start something new in "wikipedia:" namespace). Just trying to stay on track, unmask false-NPOV and all the other false-... variants when they occur, is what I believe ultimately will get the old sores fixed sooner or later.
6. I agree with John that a "re-shuffle" of relative importance of policies and guidelines, as originally proposed by TMoW, is probably not the best way forward (note that I propose some "precedence-reshuffle" every once and a while myself, but that's a very slow-moving process, best you know that) -- Francis Schonken 21:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thing is, some POVs arent worth including at all. But how to distinguish?

As for NOR, i mean prove your point on the talk page (with ext sources) to see if it worth including. This is what i mean by having a reliable claim before its elevated from "just-another-claim" to another "POV". As John says, there are lots of editors which include any ol' claim to maintain NPOV. And once you decide to include, then by what degree and how? I feel a clarification/specification would clear up a lot.

Okay so we kind of agree. But now what? -- The Minister of War 05:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on how you think NPOV becomes a vehicle for inaccuracy. Take this example: John F. Kennedy assassination. The article reports these facts: (1) that the Warren Commission concluded that three shots were fired, all by Oswald; and (2) that the House Select Committee concluded that four shots were fired by two different gunmen. Now, at least one of those conclusions must be incorrect. Therefore, we've participated in conveying an inaccurate account of the assassination. Is that the kind of thing you mean? I think the answer is that it's no problem to convey inaccurate accounts if they're attributed. There's no inaccuracy in the two numbered points above; we've accurately reported how each of those two bodies assessed the evidence.

As to what's worth including, I'd suggest that all of these are: (1) POVs supported by a nonnegligible number of experts in the relevant field; (2) POVs supported by a significant number of people; and (3) POVs that played an objectively important role. (An example of the last category, one that occurred to me while I was on the subject of assassinations, is found in our article on Charles J. Guiteau, who assassinated Garfield: "He then decided that God had commanded him to kill the President.") In all these cases, of course, the POV should be reported, not adopted. By contrast, if Schubert's authorship of a particular work is disputed only by a handful of crackpots, that POV wouldn't be worth including, unless, for example, one of those crackpots happened to be in a position to deny Schubert some significant honor that everyone else thought he deserved. There can be gray areas where editors of good faith can reasonably disagree about whether a particular POV is notable enough to be worth mentioning.

It's true that applying NPOV does sometimes produce a back-and-forth account of each side's arguments. That's evident in the JFK assassination article, for example. I'm afraid we're stuck with that, though. We're not going to convene a Wikipedia Select Committee to decide which account of the assassination is correct, and then write the article from that POV. JamesMLane 09:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict, this is a reply to TMoW's reply above that of James) No, I'm sad to say, I'd like we agreed but we don't.

First, "some POVs arent worth including at all" can't be said in absolute terms. Besides being a philosophical error, stating that thus is also against NPOV policy. However, trying to get wikipedia:importance from a proposed guideline (which it is for as long as I know that guideline) to an effective guideline might help. As said way up in this point the "space and balance" section of NPOV tutorial depends on that definition of "importance" (and links to that proposed guideline) - so defining wikipedia-importance might help in drawing the line what gets included and what not. But I would never state that in terms of "aren't worth including".

Second, "prove your point on the talk page" gets rejected if that "proving" involves original research. So, no (for example) there are no secondary sources available defining copyleft, in an umbrella view of what Richard Stallman, the Creative Commons and Linus Torvalds say about it, so I couldn't prove on talk:copyleft that my intro to the copyleft article was better than the one that is there now (and pretty much only reflects the Stallman view). So false-NOR can be as much a problem as false-NPOV.

Third, "once you decide to include, then by what degree and how?", well again, the two first paragraphs of the "Space and balance" section of the NPOV tutorial sort that out. But seems like you're not very inclined to see the importance of those two paragraphs.

-- Francis Schonken 09:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my philosophical error FS, its always a joy to bathe in wisdom of others.

James: No that is not in the least my trouble. All your examples are clear-cut points as far as i am concerned. My troubles are often seen on ethnic pages, you see quite a few on pages on Armenia/Turkey Armenian Genocide, Azerbaijan/Armenia Nagorno-Karabakh and anything concerning Yugoslavia ( Greater Serbia, Serbo-Croatian. The Kurdish flag above is also a good, but minor example.

Truths and untruths are mixed with opinions, and perfectly good points are disregarded by saying "thats just your opinion". Editor A says "the earth is flat". B says, "no it isnt! its round!". Person A says "well thats just your opinion, lets compromise".

I dont mind truths and untruths being challenged, but there is hardly any help in distinguishing which arguments you take serisouly and which you dont. I thought some testing of arguments would help. Thats my modest point, no more no less. -- The Minister of War 11:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Apart from comparing me to some sort of bath-tub, thanks for the compliment ;)

But please consider this step one: Wikipedia is not about truth vs. untruth. What is important is maybe fact vs. non-fact, but only if keeping to the non-standard definition of "fact" explained in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation (really that is a stretch for defining what "fact" is, but for wikipedia it is that definition of "fact" that is used and no other).

Well, could go on with next steps, but not until I'm sure you understand this subtle difference between "truth" and "fact" - well, to me its not "subtle", but clear as daylight, but it might come sort of as a shock when first hearing it stated in those terms (it did to me, when that first struck me). -- Francis Schonken 12:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well the compliment worked nicely then.

I have indeed read it, and its exactly what i think is being abused. But i'll keep it at this. I've made my point, and the condencending reaction (well just yours really) is just not worth it. Maybe it will make sense for some other readers. Ciao. -- The Minister of War 08:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it made perfect sense to me, thanks for bringing it up. It seems that improvements in the explanaions are more and more difficult to make. It's similar to what a few days ago happened to me after a similar discussion about a very closely related subject: About the criminal sounding phrase "regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not", my in a discussion *accepted* clarification that "it is not the goal of Wikipedia to report the truth, but instead to report on that which can be verified as being believed to be the truth", was immediately deleted by Slimvirgin - and I have other things to do than to start an edit war. It seems that there is a genuine lack of interest among people here that Wikipedia presents a verified accurate account of matters and that the emphasis is on presenting majority views, without care if it's inaccurate or even downright false. Harald88 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It has been propsoed that Wikipedia:Dealing with fringe science be merged into with WP:NPOV. While my comments, and indeed the whole issue of dealing with fring since, do derive from the NPOV policy 9and to soem extent the verifiability policy, I feel that this is an imporetant special case. I therefore oppsoe the merge. I wrote the text no present in connection with the debate on Jack Sarfatti, but it applies in a wider context. i intend to expand the current text a bit, making it into a useful essay or perhaps a proposed guideline, a fleshign oput of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V as they apply in this specific and often controversial area. This proposed merge is now being discussed at Wikipedia Talk:Dealing with fringe science#Proposed Merge DES ^(talk) 22:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It is not supposed to side with anyone; it is supposed to show both sides of the issue. Well, I have to agree that this is what should happen. But it's not! What do all encyclopedias, newspapers, and textbooks have in common? THEY ALL SHOW EVOLUTIONARY BIAS! Every time I read an article on dinosaurs or the like, it says that they existed "millions of years ago, before man came to be on the earth"! Is that neutral? NO IT'S NOT! Never in this, or any other encyclopedia, have I read, "All creation existed peacefully until the Fall; then animals and people started killing each other, Earth began to decay, the climate began to change, volcanoes and other natural forces ravaged the earth"! All the articles state evolutionary bias! If Wikipedia is suppposed to be neutral, someone better get busy and edit the articles to say "According to evolutionists, the tyrannosaurus rex lived approximate 6.5 billion years ago, millions of years before man"! This is quite dissappointing! Scorpionman 02:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, this is a very valid point. I was actually going to add a new sectoin just to address this regarding the "equal validity" section. It "refutes" the argument by saying that minority views wouldn't get equal representation, but creationism/ID isn't a minority view. You'd basically need to split all articles on dinosaurs and other things referencing evolution into half in order to properly represent it. They might counter by arguing that it's a minority view in the scientific community, but nowhere in the NPOV policy does it say you're allowed to limit to sub-groups. Jimbo say it's about representing "what people believe" not "what [insert name of specific sub-group" believes. Following that logic you could essentially abolish creationism articles completely, since they're such a minority in the scientific community. What if suddenly someone decided that views on Linux were represented in terms of just *nix users instead of all computer users? Or what if suddenly it was decided that views in religion articles were represented only in terms of theologans and not the general population?

And to avoid creating another section, I'll just point out this phrase which is problematic: If there's anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). Since when are views represented sympathetically? Accurately yes, sympatheticaly, no. This refutation pretends to be objective and complete, but utterly refuses to acknowledge the very specious assumptions it makes.

How often is it true that for controversial articles the majority of all sides feel their views are accurately represented? This is rarely the case, which disproves it if anything. What constitutes an accurate and proportional represntation is subjective, considering we don't necessarily know even the approximate proportions of certain views and because there isn't a simple, objective and quantitive metric to gauge proportions. It's not a simple matter of listing an equal number of criticisms for each side, since one criticism can be major and be equal to several minor ones. To not acknowledge subjectivity and inherent bias involved in ANY system that proclaims neutrality is naive, and makes you no better off than someone making an 'objective point of view' article. Nathan J. Yoder 00:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Prefacing every sentence in natural history articles with disclaimers like "evolutionists believe..." is a bad idea, unless creation science or other forms of fringe science has some specific point of view that is relevant to the scientific idea in question.

Although not always true, most of the time, creationist doctrines are entirely irrelevant to specific science articles. For example, the minute details of the Cretaceous era are completely irrelevant to creationist theology. According to creationists, there was no Cretaceous era, so they have nothing to say about what happened on earth then, other than to say "nothing happened". Anything a creationist has to say about the Cretaceous era is probably really an argument against evolution itself, and it belongs in the Evolution articles.

Likewise, to take a more extreme example, every sentence in the longitude article should not be prefaced by a disclaimer like "non-flat-earthers believe...", because any argument Flat Earthers have against longitude has nothing to do with the details of longitude per se, other to say longitude doesn't exist, which is a more appropriate argument for the Flat Earth or geocentrism pages.

Of course, we shouldn't state that scientific facts like evolution, a round earth, or even gravitation, are Absolute Truth. But in most scientific articles, it's obvious that the article is describing scientific conclusions, rather than Absolute Truth. And we can (and probably should) make that assumption more explicit by prefacing the article with something like, "According to natural science, the Cretaceous era was a period of earth's history that ended 65 million years ago...etc...." COGDEN 02:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a fringe science, it's a pseudo-science, a major distinction being that it has a lot of support (which is one criterion for NPOV policy) and that "fringe" does not necessarily equate to bad/wrong, just obscure. It is true that creationists may not have a lot to say about many articles, but you'd still be require to prefix "evolutionists/natural scientists believe..." just like you would with a religious article documenting religious beliefs and include necessary wikilinks. Now, doing this is undoubtedly silly, but that's not really the point, which is that NPOV policy requires you to do it, which is an inrinsic flaw. You don't actually need to do it with flat earth articles since practically no one belives flat earth theory, the only reason it even has an article is because of the past history, not because of current belief. I should note that articles like Earth DO state that earth is spherical as a matter of _fact_, but it's not a violation as I said because teh flat earth belief as long since died off. Nathan J. Yoder 05:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, mathematicians would say that a sphere is locally flat. Depends on your POV, I guess. MPS 14:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Locally, not globally, which is the issue. Nathan J. Yoder 07:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The stuff with evolution is not the only point that is upsetting; the article on Jesus seems to be somewhat biased to the side of the believers in a "mythological Jesus". I can say that I disagree with them heavily, but I won't put it on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, Wikipedia puts a lot of the mythology garbage on its articles. Doesn't sound exactly "neutral" to me. Scorpionman 03:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)