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.

Proposed wording

The use of nested criticisms is strongly discouraged under the NPOV policy. Nested criticisms often occur when two editors who support different viewpoints about an article's subject. When one editor adds a source criticizing the article's subject, the other adds a criticism of the critic. This pattern often continues with responses adding "critics of critics" and "critics of critics of critics" and so forth. Often criticisms of the critics stray substantially from the original article's topic. They can make the article difficult to read and create a source of bias.

When a criticism is/is not appropriate - As a rule of thumb, direct criticisms of an article's subject should be sourced and placed in a designated section. Additional criticisms of these critics may be included when they were made by:

(1) The article's subject in response to the criticism. (Example: Reporter John Doe criticized Congressman Smith for allegedly taking money from the Tobacco lobby[SOURCE], but Smith replied that the reporter had his facts wrong[SOURCE])

(2) A person or group affiliated with speaking for the article's subject in response to the criticism. (Example: Reporter John Doe criticized Congressman Smith for allegedly taking money from the Tobacco lobby[SOURCE], but Smith's campaign manager Sue Johnson replied that the reporter had his facts wrong[SOURCE])

(3) A third party specifically related to or involved in addressing the controversy. (Example: Reporter John Doe criticized Congressman Smith for allegedly taking money from the Tobacco lobby[SOURCE], but a spokesman for Tobacco-PAC responded that it never donated money to Smith's campaign.[SOURCE])

A criticism of a critic that has no immediate relevance to the article's subject or the criticism is not appropriate in most cases. (Example: Reporter John Doe criticized Congressman Smith for allegedly taking money from the Tobacco lobby[SOURCE], but Doe is a "personal smear artist and a scoundrel" according to the Family Values PAC[SOURCE])

Solutions - Nested criticisms are inappropriate when the material is off-topic to the original criticism or the article's subject, even if they are sourced. This does not necessarily mean they should be excluded from Wikipedia though. Instead of nesting off-topic criticisms of critics into existing articles, add them into the appropriate section of the Wikipedia article about the critic and wiki-link to that article. This keeps articles on topic and reduces the problems of bias and edit warring caused by nested criticisms.

Suggestions, changes, comments? Please propose below. Rangerdude 23:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

don't forget to post a notice at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page. - Willmcw 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a natural limit to the depth of the nest?

1. Smith acts
2. The Coalition for Constant Criticism criticizes Smith.
3. Smith responds to the criticism of the Coalition for Constant Criticism. (rinse. repeat.)

If the Association of Astute Political Observers has a problem with the objectivity or truthfulness of the Coalition for Constant Criticism, it doesn't belong in Smith's article, it belongs in the article on the Coalition for Constant Criticism.

On the other hand if Secretaries for Smith has responded on behalf of Smith to respond to the criticism by the Coalition for Constant Criticism of Smith, then it belongs in Smith's article.

To step back into the real world, it's obvious that attacks on the policy, personality, and style of President George Bush are not going to be answered directly by him, so responses to the criticisms of President Bush are going to be made by his supporters, and these supporters will attack the motives, credibility, etc. of the Bush critics. Anyway, I think this is merely a restatement of other intelligent proposals made above. patsw 01:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Patsw - thanks for your suggestions. I believe your example about the "depth of the nest" effectively captures the issue here. The point of this is to keep criticisms and countercriticisms on topic and germane to the article. Drawing a limit there helps curtail edit warring and POV biases at the source. Rangerdude 05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to have a "depth of criticism" limit then it should apply to all sources of criticism, not giving a special allowance to criticism for "affiliates" of the subject. - Willmcw 05:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any problem created by affiliates. As Patsw noted above, we cannot expect the president of the united states to respond to every critic but he does have several direct affiliates in his press office and in the RNC who can and do respond. Quoting them is entirely appropriate so long as it's on topic. Rangerdude 06:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And how do we define "affiliate", or the third exception, "specifically related to the controversy"? This seems like a major case of instruction creep. In any case, it means that ad hominem attacks are allowed by partisans. - Willmcw 07:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Then let's put a provision in there barring ad hominem attacks from nested criticisms. Rangerdude 20:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In some cases, there is a natural way out of this provision by arguing that we cannot separate the original subject of the article, say some special theory, from the proponents of the theory. One can argue that the topic of the article should naturally include the proponents of the theory and anything that can be said about these proponents as is the case in ad hominem attacks. For example, is the article about creationism only about creationism per se or does it include the proponents of creationism as well, their religious motivation, etc? In cases like that, should we barre ad hominen attacks at the first level. If we don't, is it then fair to barre it at the second level, which involves the proponents of evolutionism? -- Lumiere 07:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A discussion on the reformulation of the NPOV policy is taking place here: Wikipedia:Policypedia/NPOV. FeloniousMonk 17:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Redshift is currently involved in a Point of View discussion, whose scientific nature may interest some people. I am one of the two editors involved. The argument centres around whether the "astronomical" use of the word redshift, is the only acceptable definition of redshift, or whether other scientists use the word in an acceptable way in their fields. -- Iantresman 17:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Does a neutral point of view require an automatic reduction in labeling?

For argument's sake, let's say we have Smith, a confessed and convicted murderer who killed Jones. There are eyewitnesses to the murder. There is a videotape of the murder and DNA evidence implicating Smith. There simply are no disputed facts.

Does being neutral in the Smith article require a reduction in the label from murderer to felon or lawbreaker?

Hypothetically, a scholar, Bob, made in a blog or magazine article an argument to this reduction along these lines: definitions of murder vary in place and time, many murderers go unpunished, murderer is perjorative, etc. so Bob concludes Smith must be labeled a felon and not a murderer.

What weight, if any, can be given to such arguments as Bob's made by those with no or very remote involvement in the actual case? patsw 21:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cts: Your question is about calling a killing a murder or not. I think that in those cases where not universally the killing would be called a murder, it may be appropriate to state that the killer was convicted of murder. Kill is neutral, murder adds opinion. And I don't see what involvement in the case has to do with it. Harald88 22:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Harald, would you call a person who killed someone else by accident a killer? Is Smith's confession, conviction, videotape and DNA evidence, and the text of the law giving Smith's action the name murder in my example only opinion? Doesn't the premeditation and the intention by Smith to kill Jones matter for making a murderer/killer distinction? patsw 22:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK know that's the exact, neutral label for anyone who causes the death of a person, independent of the circumstances. And sure it's the well founded opinion of the judge that it has the degree of badness that is called "murder" according to the law. "murder" is a judgment about circumstances. For example, do you still think it should be called "murder" if btw, (oops, omitted fact) Jones was about to kill Smith's wife? Harald88 12:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The label of murderer is applied in two parts. First a government or something acting in the role of a government defines the crime of murder. Then a court or something acting in the role of a court determines a particular killing to be a murder according to the facts in the case. Of course, the article can include with attribution, points of view which dispute the legal definition of murder, or points of view that dispute the the determination of the court to a specific case. In your case, the editor doesn't make the judgment, the court does, and the article includes that, and if there were disputes of the court's judgment by identifiable critics, the article includes that as well.

Exactly, I think that your last sentence very neatly summarizes what most people here understand to be Wikipedia's neutral approach to reporting. Harald88 21:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue, I realize, is a subset of the general question of whether the Wikipedia must expunge references to morality per se or whether the moral points of view attributed to adherents is to be included. That's the discussion I opened in the following section. patsw 14:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Which one is more accurate in describing the neutral point of view policy?

• The Wikipedia must be amoral and exclude words and phrases in presenting a point of view that include a sense of condemnation or moral approval. Neutrality is achieved by excising whatever is pejoration or whatever is approbation.

• The Wikipedia includes points of view which include a sense of condemnation or moral approval attributed to the identified adherents of that point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view. patsw 05:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If I understand correctly what you are talking about: I'd say the second, (but "that carry" instead of "which include") with the caveat that only notable and relevant POV's need to be included. The first seems to imply information suppression, empoverishing or distorting the expounded knowledge. Harald88 12:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the semantic distinction you made between "that carry" and "which include". patsw 14:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing: just a matter of style. Harald88 20:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the anti-Irving academic wizards mentioned that Irving is not to be believed because how could he(Irving) say that Hitler did not know about the gas chambers,etc by 1945/44. Well my understanding is that neither FDR,Churchill, Stalin,Red Cross( it seems everyone with any indepth knowledge of the camps/decoded messages ) wouldn't?/didn't/refused? to put their name to a book/memoir that talked about the the holocaust. In your memoirs I suppose you don't want to eventually be made out to be a liar. I deduce that there are memos. etc in some archives putting the kibosh to the whole murdering Germans/holocaust story yet to be found by an Irving-type historian. By the way, because you are an "academic historian" or a "professional historian"etc doesn't mean you have the courage to investigate a controversial issue( as a matter of fact you have a lot to lose - few controversial topics are safe for an academic to broach, at least before he is tenured and of course tenured professionals have been sternly weeded to remove the troublemakers)or in many cases the IQ or drive( anyone who has the passivity ( and many good characteristics also I admit) to set through some 8 or more years of college classes to get a PHD may not have the fire to go after a really big lie) ( of course confirming a big truth can get you lots of money - and it's a lot easier job and review). 159.105.80.60 15:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The second of your two statements is wikipedia policy. This is why:

Under the neutral point of view policy, we represent each viewpoint from the point of view of its proponents ("writing for the enemy"). If a viewpoint includes verifiable citable information concerning emotional or moral views expressed by a source, whether positive or perjorative, and they are notable, then they may be relevant to a full understanding of the matter. For example, it is relevant to note someone felt rejected or hurt by something, if that is part of their viewpoint (eg a biography). It may be essential to note this in explaining their future actions. To remove these is not to be neutral, rather it is to take a view that non-emotion and amorality is "better", rather than neutrally representing that sides views.

We ourselves do not condemn in doing so, we merely report that source X does. Thus the secondary answer is, Wikipedia itself is amoral -- and achieves this by not judging the value of that morality as good or bad. It merely judges the value of noting that moral view X has been expressed by notable other Y.

Thus, we achieve neutrality by reporting of each notable "side" or viewpoint, its notable views and notable information, insofar as that can be verified by citable sources. I have yet to see a case that individual moral standpoints are not notable, if they forms part of that. They are often integral to the shape of the debate, and it would make some articles very hard to write if we were prohibited from stating both supportive and perjorative moral beliefs and feelings of some sources, both for and against different views. FT2 21:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Following discussion above, with several users, I've posted up a draft policy for discussion on Information suppression. previously this was discussed under the title "POV suppression".

• Why a policy is felt to be needed:

• A source or viewpoint may be notable and verifiable, but not all notable verifiable views may be given a fair hearing on equal terms. This is a common NPOV dispute issue.
• POV suppression and misrepresentation is one of the favorite attacks of POV warriors. It contains its own typical tactics. A specific policy to point to, with relevant examples of these tactics, will be of value and use to editors seeking to respond more specifically than "that's POV".
• It's a tight and well-defined subject that multiple users working on WP:NPOV have stated they consider worth enlarging upon beyond the basic outline in that policy.

In other policy areas, major and well-defined sub-policies are often covered in more depth on their own pages despite being contained within an umbrella policy. (For example, WP:NPA can be viewed as a sub-policy enlarging on an aspect of WP:CIVILITY.)

Draft policy for discussion is at Wikipedia:Information suppression -- please help improve it, or leave an opinion and contribution on the talk page.

FT2 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This policy may be well-intended, but it puts the heavy hand of officialdom on each editors article. The articles end up reading more like the lifeless prose of a EULA. - Xed 13:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I never heard of Wooden tongue syndrome, maybe you want to write an article on that? I don't understand what you mean as the NPOV policy often implies inclusion of a range of very interesting POV's. Harald88 16:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

By "wooden tongue syndrome" I mean the blandness in style which afflicts some articles. They're almost written mechanically, because of the NPOV and other rules. "Some say this, but others say this, yet others say this etc". Very little depth. Multiple viewpoints, but no context. Compare the 1911 encyclopedia articles [1], which are concise, eloquent and sometimes sparkling. - Xed 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV I don't think refers to displaying no opinion whatsoever, it simply refers to displaying an acceptable balance of the different opinions surrounding subjects. For example, a controversial subject such as abortion could include both opinions for and against, so long as they are qualified as opinions and preferably balanced with the counterargument as well. -- Christopher 02:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Whats the earliest formulation of NPOV? I found this [ [2]] but I don't know how old it is. I tend to prefer it to the current formulation of NPOV. Bensaccount 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting indeed. It may be good to check if the current formulation has not drifted away on some places from a better way of presentation-- not all change is always beneficial. Harald88 19:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If you liked that you may also find archive 1 interesting. Bensaccount 20:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Also see: [3]. Bensaccount 03:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Specifically: [4] "NPOV was drafted originally for Nupedia by a philosopher". -- I would like to see this version and know who this philosopher was. Bensaccount 19:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It was Larry Sanger. The earliest version is the first link I posted. I am now trying to find where the Jimbo post came from. It seems to have appeared when NPOV moved to here from meta. Bensaccount 18:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok that is an opinion

But from my POV it seems that there are many subjects that can not be adequately described without using POV language to one degree or another. There things out there that require a POV to describe them in part or in whole. More than one side of a POV must however be required in addition to the “NPOV” description where possible for full understanding in those cases.

If a zPOV is required to describe subject “题”, there will also be a parallel yPOV to counter that description in addition the NPOV. Many descriptions are going to be colored somewhat by human attitude and behaviour to one degree or another.

I have seen what could be could content removed because it was removed due to it’s POV’ness. What I would have believe (there’s a POV!) maybe it should have been moved to a sub section and paired with it’s counter POV(s).

Is NPOV a POV in itself? I can’t tell, sometimes it seems so. Sometimes it seems not.

It was once said that “Understanding is a three edged sword;” I see some articles that require dueling POV’s to describe a topic and give it understanding; however it is critical to delineate and identify the POV’ness of the descriptions in the two or more sides in any inclusive article.

There is a slippery slope to this POV in that it may allow for the inclusion of kooks and shills, therefore it must be used with care.

There are cases in which NPOV makes the article incomprehendible as the article may require a POV to describe it. A previous writer wrote that many articles end up reading like an EULA and I tend to agree.

Neutrality in itself is a point of view. A table has more then the edge to look at. It has a top and a bottom, the table has a front and a back. The light shining on the table through the window may make its color change from light to dark depending on the aspect angle in which you gaze upon it’s surface. Total NPOC risks loosing nuances needed to garner to a fuller understanding.

Is NPOV important? Yes; I believe so. Is POV also important? Yes, I believe so too. Just so long as the slant of an article is clear, sectionalized and is proven. Bdelisle 02:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes the term NPOV is overemphasized and we confuse the issue. The neutral point of view is a point of view. It is just the consensus point of view. Otherwise the term would instead be the non-point of view. It is trivial to show that any meaningful statement has a point of view. Even statements which are properly couched have a point of view. For example, "POV pushers assert their point of view," takes a point of view about what POV pushers say. A nice well-defined way of stating NPOV is to say it means that we make only uncontroversial statements directly. Controversial statements must always be contained inside an uncontroversial statement of a form similar to "Those of XXX assert YYY". To address your point, Notable POV's are of course important(by definition). We can fully discuss them, uncontroversially, merely by couching them. Points and counterpoints can easily be so couched. In effect NPOV mostly just means that those of POV anti-Z who delete statements of the form "Z supporters say foobar" are not welcome here, so long as most everyone agrees that Z supporters really do say foobar. NPOV does not place serious limitations on our language. You can even do block quotes of arguments to avoid repetitious couching. It is possible to present every notable POV in a neutral manner which both encourages editor editpeace and promotes user understanding. (Anyone feel free to prepend 'According to Intangir,' to each sentence above which you strongly disagree with, so long as you state your NPOV dispute on the talk page in reply) -- Intangir 13:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)