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.

Some of the criticisms against the current formulation of NPOV ignore the other policies. Therefore, before we begin to write a clearer formulation, it is important that we agree on its correct interpretation in the light of other policies. It would be useful that someone that has a lot of experience with the NPOV policy and the other policies explains how the NPOV policy, especially the section WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, is or can be rewritten in a way that is consistent with the other mandatory content policies: WP:V and WP:NOR. I have my own viewpoint and I intend to defend it, but I think it will be easier if we start with the viewpoint of someone that has more experience with the WP policies. -- Lumiere 16:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are overplaying the point somewhat - see my comments on what "a neutral point of view" really means in the section directly below, jguk 12:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean with "overplaying the point somewhat"? I have replied to your comments below. I feel that in these comments you basically suggest that the NPOV policy does not need to be explained. I completely disagree. -- Lumiere 14:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me offer my comments based on my 17 months here on Wikipedia.

The essence of what a neutral point of view is is relatively straightforward (although it can be difficult to apply in certain places in practice). I see Ben above has listed out a number of definitions, but only two are appropriate here:

• Neutral: adjective, not engaged on either side
• Viewpoint: noun, a position from which something is considered or evaluated.

These two alone show what is meant by a neutral point of view (or to put it another way, what is meant by a neutral viewpoint). It's really as simple as that! All the other bits of discussion above (in particular the rather convoluted comments from Ben) are largely irrelevant, jguk 12:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not what "neutral point of view" means with the above definitions. The root problem is that the policy incorrectly states:

Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view

Instead of:

Wikipedia policy is that the editors' consensus should be written from a neutral point of view

And no, this is far from a minor cosmetic change. It reflect a radically different meaning to the policy. -- 84.228.107.148 13:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia policy that "the editors' consensus should be written from a neutral point of view", it is that "articles should be written from a neutral point of view". This policy says absolutely nothing about consensus on Wikipedia - that issue is discussed separately on WP:Consensus, jguk 13:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My so-called "convoluted comments" above show just that. In practice, it is not the article written from a neutral viewpoint, but the consensus of the editors about the subject, which is a very different thing. -- 84.228.107.148 13:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that's not what should be happening. Also the neutral point of view policy has long been held as being non-negotiable. Attempting to rewrite it in a way that changes the policy is not acceptable, only attempting to rewrite the existing policy in an easier to read way.

Incidentally, if the page was unblocked (and your named account was unblocked) would you agree not to make any changes to the project page itself for a while - instead proposing any amendments you wish to make on the talk page to see if they have consensus? I'll also revert the project page to where it was immediately before the revert to the November version, jguk 13:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not Bensaccount, but just some IP. Second, I don't especially care if the policy is changed. Feel free to decieve yourself. The policy does not reflect what happens in practice. Enjoy your wishful thinking. Bye -- 84.228.107.148 13:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Jguk, your comment on the top of this section is more about the title that we should give to the policy than it is about the formulation of the policy. I am aware that you did not intend to discuss the title, but only argued that the NPOV policy is so simple that the essential is all contained in the title. I disagree and consider that your comment is at the best an argument in favor of the title. OTOH, my request was directly about the formulation of the policy: a WP content policy should be clear, well connected with other WP content policies and explained with good examples. Could you please consider my request directly?

Now, as far as the title is concerned, I think it is not that clear. What is neutral? Is it that each viewpoint expressed in an article is neutral or that somehow we claim that neutrality is achieved when we allow a collection of opposite viewpoints? I have my own answer and I am sure you have yours, but to the contrary of what you suggest, one cannot find an answer just from the current title. Of course, no title will be perfect and it is reasonable that a title needs to be explained. Still, I think that we could find a better title. Again, this is not my main concern. My main concern is about the formulation of the policy itself, not about the title. -- Lumiere 13:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've found the problem to lie with the assumptions that:

• "neutral point of view" is the opposite of "point of view". It isn't. The former is a neutral style of describing the latter.
• An article describing a specific point of view, should be balanced extensively with competing points of view. It shouldn't, unless the article is about different general points of view. (eg. a general article on political systems would summarise many of them, but an article specifically on democracy would not provide details, such as the merit, of other political systems)
• Where facts are disputed, summarise and attribute the view with verifiable citations, and if the article is a general (rather than specific article), summarise the competing view(s) with attribution and verifiable citation.

-- Iantresman 14:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify if the third point is also a problematic assumption or is it a point that you make and thus should not be included in the list, which you describe as a list of problematic assumptions. -- Lumiere 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The third point is not covered by the neutral point of view policy. A "fact" or statement can be entirely untrue and still be from a neutral viewpoint. That's why neutral point of view is not the only content policy, but is supplemented by others. Here Wikipedia:Verifiability would be in point, jguk 17:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, you are the only one that can answer my question. Can you clarify what was your intention when you added the third point in the list. Do you really wanted to list it as a problematic assumption? -- Lumiere 17:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for the third point, my logic is off as I describe it. I guess that what I should have said is that "A fact that is generally accepted by the consensus, is neutral and accurate". It isn't necessarily". And hence where facts are disputed, summarise and attribute the view with verifiable citations, and if the article is a general (rather than specific article), summarise the competing view(s) with attribution and verifiable citation. For example, everyone knows that "The Sun and Jupiter are the largest objects in the Solar System". But I could be a little controversial and suggest that actually "The Heliospheric current sheet can be considered to be the largest structure in the Solar System [1]". -- Iantresman 18:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the additional comment of Jguk that is given above is necessary here. It explains that WP:NPOV is not enough to deal with the following incorrect assumption "A fact that is generally accepted ... is ... accurate" that is given in the amended third point. In fact, not only WP:V but also WP:NOR is neccessary to correctly interpret NPOV (i.e. to avoid misinterpretation such as in the amended third point.) -- Lumiere 19:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Where I disagree with Jguk is when he suggests that NPOV is straightforward and that there is no need to seriously reconsider its formulation. I think the above discussion and other similar discussions that I have seen elsewhere shows that there is a need to make sure that NPOV is explicitly connected with the other policies. Also, good examples is just natural when you want to explain a concept. So there are two ingredients in my request: explicit connection with other policies as much as needed and good examples. I would also add that if we decide to present alternative formulations of the same policy, we should even be more careful in each formulation because each new formulation can lead to a different interpretation: we want to make sure as much as possible that we agree on the same policy. -- Lumiere 19:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not redefine words. Converting an expression like

Joe is a bad person

to

Eve said joe is a bad person

is converting an assertion of opinion to an objective fact. With the converted statement, the narrator does not take a stand about Joe, therefore the narrator is neutral about Joe.

But the article as a whole is not neutral about joe because it selected a negative fact about Joe. There is bias that stems from language and bias that stems from selection. Any selection is a form of bias because you are implicitly taking a stand by consciously selecting facts. Claiming otherwise is distorting the idea of neutrality. -- 84.228.107.148 16:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon, the article as a whole does not need to be neutral as a whole (as perceived by every reader). It just needs to be written from a neutral viewpoint. Take the example of a convicted murderer who believes he has been unjustly convicted - a neutral viewpoint will leave someone reading the article with the impression that the guy is a convicted murderer. It is irrelevant that the guy himself would find it objectionable, jguk 17:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is that articles written from a "neutral point of view" are not neutral. If the neutrality policy is not about neutrality then it should be renamed. Wikipedia does not redefine words. --- 84.228.107.148 17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No. What I am saying is the question to ask to determine if an article is compliant with this policy is "Is this article written from a neutral viewpoint?", not any other question you may wish to raise, however related you may think that question is, jguk 18:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy, apparently, does not agree with you. The policy trys to deal with much more than neutral language. The policy thinks it has a solution for writing a neutral article (did I mention saving the world from totalitarian governments, encouraging "intellectual independence" - which is obviously not what I see here). That's what I'm so enraged about. If the policy would have been honest it would say something like (Titled: "Neutral language policy")

This policy explains how to write with neutral language, a style of prose that does not engage in one of the viewpoints presented in the article. This policy does not, however, tell you how to make your article neutral (balanced), but make your best!

According to you this should be one of the shortest policies in wikipedia. Apparently it does not want to be. -- 84.228.107.148 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are both right to some extent, because of the ambiguity of the "neutrality" in that it does apply to two different things (1) Writing something fairly (2) Making an article balanced. In this respect:

• 84.228.107.148 is surely correct that "Eve said joe is a bad person" is the better usage because (a) it is verifiable (or at least should be!) (b) It is not stating the writer's point of view (ie. it is the neutral point of view of the writer).
• But I think that the selection of facts are irrelevant if they can be described neutrally, and are verifiable. Fact selection is only bias if the selection exclude other neutrally presented facts that are verifiable. For example, "Many people consider Hitler to be a dictator" (is factual and verifiable); but sympathisers would probably contest that. "Nazi party members admired Hitler and considered him to be a great leader" is also probably factual and verifiable, even though it is distasteful to most. Excluding one of the statements would not be neutral.
• Jguk is surely correct in suggesting that articles need not come across neutral as a whole. I'm sure it would be difficult in making an article on Murder come across as non-judgemental.

-- Iantresman 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While I think of it, only a general article, for example, about political systems would be balanced, in the sense of devoting space equally to describing different kinds polical systems, taking into account that more obscure political systems would not receive as much space.

However, a specific article on, for example, democracy, should not be made neutral by contrasting each point with details about other political systems; these would be described in detail in their own article.

-- Iantresman 19:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to understand the above discussion in the light of an example that is close and important for us. It is easy to say that it is perfectly fine to present all viewpoints on a subject, etc. in the abstract, but let see what it means if we consider a case that is important for us. A good choice is to take this WP policy article as an example --this is certainly an example of an article that is very important for some of us. Of course, the reality is that this policy article is much less important than say an article on drugs that can save life, but it is closer to us. Anyone that would argue that a WP policy article should be considered a special case is highly biased. It is not at all a special case, and if the NPOV policy works well, it should work well for the writing of a WP policy without having to appeal to special rules.

Now, let us see what is the implication of one possible interpretation of the NPOV policy when we applied it to the NPOV policy itself. We would have a policy that states "Iantresman says that the policy is ... " Others such as Jguk, say that to the contrary the policy is ...". This seems to be perfectly in accord with one possible interpretation of the NPOV policy. Of course, such a policy would not be very helpful to determine how to resolve a dispute. What I am saying is that clearly there is a need to make use of other policies to guarantee that WP contains useful articles. Put yourself in the position of someone that wants to write an article about a drug that can save life, and he find himself with an article poluted with all sorts of conflicting opinions! I would like to emphasize that an article about a drug that can save life is certainly not less important than a WP policy, and the WP policy is not a special example at all. -- Lumiere 19:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still of the view that misunderstandings of the Neutral point of view, are the problem. And we should be able to show this to be the case with some specific examples. -- Iantresman 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I should also mention that an article on drugs should not contain conflicting opinion, but may contain conflicting facts. For example, "Studies in 1998 show that taking Acme-x makes you live longer [Ref], whereas studies in 1999 show.... [Ref2]". And too be balanced, the article should include both (as long as they are attributed and are verifiable.) -- Iantresman 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, we are perhaps not in disagreement, at the least not on the essential principle. What I am saying here is that you had to refer to verifiability here, and it is important that when we explain NPOV that it is clear that its correct interpretation is limited by other policies. The above was just an example, but there may exist more complex situations. Though it is not possible to cover all possible situations, we should at the least attempt to cover the most significant and controversial situations. -- Lumiere 20:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Written before I read the above comments of Iantresman: Thinking more about it, it may be that some believe that a WP policy is a special case because they feel that it is important that a WP policy contains information that stands by itself so that one does not have to rely on other sources to determine what is the policy. These people might feel that, on the other hand, it is perfectly fine that all other articles contain conflicting viewpoints, some of these viewpoints perhaps completely unfair, with no clue as to which one is correct and which one is not correct, so that one is left in a state of complete confusion that is even worst than if he did not read the article at all. -- Lumiere 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I was perhaps a little bit weak in the above paragraphs because I suggested that we can resolve the problem simply by given some clues as to which viewpoint is correct, but this is not enough. Some viewpoints need to be completely suppressed as allowed with WP:NOR or WP:V. This is what is not clear enough in the formulation of NPOV. -- Lumiere 21:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems I have with the article as it stands, is that it does not make it clear that NPOV has (a) a couple of different meanings, and (b) would probably be applied differently to general and specific articles. Although you can probably find this within the article, I think it would make people more aware of them, if this was summarised in the introduction. For example:

I would welcome criticism, with specific examples indicating where this may not work, or be accurate. -- Iantresman 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please define the following terms: "majority view", "minority view", "significant minority view". -- 84.228.107.148 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's potentially a tricky one, though again, I think it has to be based on verifiability. I should be able to find more references to a majority view than a minority view, with significant views in between. And also the majority view should have between quality references (eg. mentioned in other encyclopedias, peer-reviewed journals, books, etc). -- Iantresman 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It would improve a lot if such useless and difficult to verify notions are omitted. And there are some other little points; it escaped me why you added "attributed". I'd say, basing myself on your text:

Harald88 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Majority (according to webster dictionary) means larger in two groups constituting a whole. What are the groups? -- 84.228.107.148 22:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that a new introduction will address the issue. It is the entire formulation of the policy that must be considered. I think the first step is that we explain clearly the policy with the help of examples. It should be easier for those who have a lot of experience to explain the policy with examples than for me to try to explain what is not clear with this policy also with the help of examples. You are suggesting that the tutorial contains examples. Great! I think that it will be useful to refer to some of them in this talk page and perhaps eventually in the project page. -- Lumiere 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I just read the tutorial. It contains useful information that I feel is not included in the policy itself. For example, there is almost nothing, if not nothing, about insinuation in the policy itself whereas the tutorial as a nice section about it. It is almost like another formulation of the policy that contains aspect that are not covered in the main policy, but perhaps omits other points that are included in the main policy. That is not so good. The tutorial should illustrate the policy and explain it without introducing new concepts such as insinuation. In this case, I think that the concept of insinuation should be covered in the main policy. However, I have a much more serious concern about how badly connected it is with other policies. Consider the section NPOV_tutorial#Expertise. Here it is suggested that the expertise of the author should be used to determine how much his viewpoint has a place in the article. This is not well connected with the other policies which emphasises that we should consider the publisher instead. I believe that it is clear from the other policies that even the best expert has to first publish its view in a reputable publication before it can be included in WP. So, I am even more convinced than ever that the current formulation of NPOV, including its tutorial, has a serious problem of connection with the other policies. -- Lumiere 21:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If the idea was not to only rewrite the Intro, but only to begin with the Intro, then I am less in opposition. I was told a few times in my formation that the Intro is in fact the last thing to consider, but as long as we come to consider the entire formulation at some point, I guess it is OK. Simply, I personally will not get involved with the Intro at this point. -- Lumiere 21:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So, does the content of the article and tutorial already contain all the necessary information, but that could be presented better, or is there additional information required? Or could the table of contents be constructed better? It seems to me that IF Neutral point of view does indeed related to two distinct areas of article writing, then the table of contents should be split into two major sections, further subdivided.

I don't think the idea of "insinuation" in the NPOV tutorial is a new concept. It is covered by "The representation of facts in a neutral manner", specifically "no judgements, opinions or ascertions", of which insinuation is an example.

Even the existing section "Objections and clarifications" appear to be specific examples.

-- Iantresman 22:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so: they are different aspects, not different areas. Neutral tone and balancing should be through-out, it's only a matter of taste how big each opinion block should be. One could add (if it's not already there) that often an article starts with a lead that is an intro merged with a summary, and that that lead itself is an essential NPOV part of the article. Harald88 23:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think much of the confusion is that the NPOV policy mixes two completely separate things. This is an important distinction pointed out by Iantresman.

• Neutral viewpoint: A viewpoint that is not engaged in any of the views in the article and presents them factually and fairly. Writing from this viewpoint, however, does not suggest that article is balanced (neutral).

• Balance: A property of the article as a whole, that reflects opposing sides all being represented fairly. Balance is not always needed or wanted on all articles. I think this should be open to discussion.

The notion of a "Neutral viewpoint" is actually very simple to explain. It is a very "mechanical" style of prose and shouldn't be difficult to convey clearly and concisely.

The notion of "Balance", however, is not that straightforward and requires a lot of dicussion.

Separating the above terms will be a major step in understanding this policy properly (and it being understood properly). -- 84.228.107.148 22:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reason I mentioned this in the first place, is I find some editors assuming they must either (a) balance an article (in order to show no bias between different views) (b) consider any statement as a "point of view", regardless of verifiability, and hence must be removed because "points of view" are not allowed. -- Iantresman 22:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, would a section on Balance say? How do we determine what proportion of an article should be dedicated to a particular point of view? Take these questions as rhetorical. Banno 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

These question are not rhetorical. If the current policy did not deal with them it would have been 3 paragraphs long -- 84.228.107.148 23:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: let's start with the easy part first and make a draft formulation that deals exclusively with the "Neutral viewpoint" part. Then move to the harder part (balance). -- 84.228.107.148 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(draft)

Neutral viewpoint

Neutral - (adjective) not engaged on either side

Viewpoint - (noun) a position from which something is considered or evaluated

A wikipedia article is written from a neutral viewpoint. Writing from a neutral viewpoint means stating facts about views, rather than asserting them, as well as being fair and not engaging in any of the views. It is also required that all facts are verifiable.

Balance

Balance - (noun) the difference in magnitude between opposing forces or influences

Balance is a general quality of an article that means views are represented according to their significance. Balance is especially important on disputed or general subjects, in which there are usually many viewpoints that deserve representation. Significance is a subjective measure that is agreed by wikipedia's editors, based on general support, verifiability (citations) and relevance to the subject.

(edit: I have made some changes to the draft, so the discussion below is obsolete)

How is balance achieved? Banno 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. This is open to discussion -- 84.228.107.148 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO, NPOV incl. balance is achieved when a superficial reading does not reveal which opinion is most favoured by editors. Harald88 23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So, for instance, one would look at the article on Shakespeare and not notice that the view that his plays were written by Marlowe is in the minority? Banno 23:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A wild guess is that this is where verifiability comes into play (however, I claim no understanding whatsoever of the idiosyncratic way wikipedians interpret that policy, I'll leave it to them) -- 84.228.107.148 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The theory that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's plays is certainly verifiable. Would you give it equal weight in the article? Don't back out - this is your idea. I don't think it makes sense, and its up to you to defend it. Convince me, and let's see if we can reach a consensus (hint, hint) Banno 00:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

On a second (quick) though it really doesn't make sense to me either, but it certainly "feels good" and "fair" and "balanced" - isn't this what policies are supposed to do? to give a you a good feeling about yourself? that you are doing the right thing?. It seems like the biggest problem of wikipedians is not their policies, but their unwillingness to admit they are doing conscious, subjective choices in writing articles. Be proud of your choices and bias. You don't need any policies. Ignore all rules. Bye. -- 84.228.107.148 00:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I congratulate you for your insight! Until now, I never realized that some people only saw what you call the "Neutral Viewpoint" aspect of NPOV, and not what you call its "Balance" aspect. On my side, I somehow ignored the "Neutral Viewpoint" aspect, because I felt it was superficial in comparison with Balance, but that was my mistake. If we don't confuse these two aspects, they are both important. I completely agree that a separation of these two aspects will be a great improvement.

I would like to add the following. I think that we should include in Balance the preliminary consideration which is what viewpoints are acceptable and must be balanced. In fact, it is just an extreme case: some viewpoints might have 25%, some others 5%, but then there is also the 0% case. The viewpoints that are not acceptable are those that correspond to original research, those that lack of sources, etc. This required selection is already implicit in the current formulation of NPOV, but the connection with WP:NOR and WP:V is not well explained.

I would also like to argue that the most controversial aspect is not so much the balance aspect between the viewpoints that are acceptable, but what is acceptable or not acceptable. The point is that in most cases when someone is open to a viewpoint in an article, he also understand how much space should naturally be given to that viewpoint. On the other hand, if you don't like a viewpoint, then you do not want to see it at all in the article, and even a short sentence that give a reference for more details is not welcome. Therefore, I believe that good policies that take care of what is acceptable or not, should be enough to resolve most disputes. It is true that we do not have a policy to determine how balance between acceptable viewpoints should be enforced, but I think it is not that bad. -- Lumiere 04:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Balance differs for each article depending on (a) the nature of the article (b) number of verifiable citations. The more general an article, the more balance from opposing view ppoints will be included. For example:

• Shakespeare (the man), may have very little on Marlowe, perhaps one senetence.
• Shakespeare (the man and his works), make have a little more on Marlowe.
• The Works of Shakespeare, may be mainly about Shakespeare, but have a section on Marlowe, and other possible authors.
• Marlowe may have a section on his possible authorship of Shakespeare's works.

None of these articles would include the suggestion that the Queen of Sheba authored Shakespeare as there are no verifiable citations. -- Iantresman 08:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made changes to the draft above that correspond to your suggestions. -- 84.228.107.148 09:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What is "the draft above"? If your proposing changes in the text it would be useful to have them on a separate WP:NPOV/draft page so it is clear what you are wanting to do, jguk 11:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a short example draft, that separates the definition of "neutral viewpoint" and "balance" earlier on this thread. Do you think it's good enough as a starting point towards consensus? (BTW I cannot create pages) -- 84.228.107.148 11:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary of "neutral point of view" aspects

Here's how I see neutrality, and how it applies to general and specific articles. I note the following:

• A non-verified fact defines "point of vivew". Hence a verifiable fact is a "neutral point of view"
• Biases statements are allowed if they are verifiable'.
• The degree of article balance will depend on the nature of the article.
• The two counter-intuitives options are (a) Verifiable biased statements of fact, are allowed (b) Articles on a specific subject should not be balanced

-- Iantresman 10:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If I get you correctly, by your first point, you mean that a non verifiable fact is unaccaptable when writing from a neutral viewpoint? -- 84.228.107.148 10:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. Then perhaps it just needs qualifying. If a statement is not contested, then there is no problem. However, if a statement is subsequently contested, then it should be verifiable. -- Iantresman 13:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it would be wrong. A non-verifiable "fact" is perfectly okay under this policy (it is WP:V that requires that information is sourced). Indeed, this policy does not prohibit totally false information from being added into an article (as long as that article retains a neutral viewpoint), jguk 11:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what/where false information would be acceptable? -- Iantresman 13:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

False information would never be acceptable in Wikipedia - but that is because it is contrary to our Verifiability policy, not because it is necessarily contrary to our Neutral Point of View policy. To make a clearer analogy, if you murder someone, you have not committed an offence under the Theft Act - but just because you haven't committed an offence under the Theft Act doesn't mean it is ok to murder people, you have just committed an offence under another provision (here the Homicide Act), jguk 13:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that verifiable information is covered, or at least related to NPOV. If I state "President Bush is a tyrrant", then that is a personal point of view, as indeed is any statement which can not be verified. On the other hand, if I state that "Sources have called President Bush a Tyrrant [Ref]", then I am no longer presenting a personal point of view, if I am able to attribute and verify it. The very ability to verify the statement changes it from a personal point of view, to a neutral point of view. It also just happens that this falls under the Verifiability policy. -- Iantresman 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it can also be argued in a similar way that we should not only consider verifiability WP:V, but also no original research WP:NOR. We definitively need to refer to these other policies because the NPOV policy can be misinterpreted to mean that as long as we replace "President Bush is a tyrrant" with "Sources have called President Bush a Tyrrant [Ref]" then it becomes acceptable just because it is a verifiable fact irrespectively of whether or not the sources have a reputable publisher. A technical point here: the term "source" is typically used in WP:V to mean the publisher, not the authors. (If you prefer, whether or not a source is considered reputable depends only on the publisher, not on the authors). So, we should be careful when we use "sources" to mean the authors as Iantresman just did above (and me also because I had to connect with his terminology.) BTW, the term "verifiable" in WP:V is also confusing -- they should also change it because clearly WP:V (and WP:NOR) requires much more than just verifiability in some source -- they both independently require a reputable source (which means a reputable publisher), and what is a reputable source or publisher depends on the subject area. -- Lumiere 16:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the policy would have raised the bar if it was named something like WP:Authoritativeness -- Anon84.x 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, when I suggest the statement "Sources have called President Bush a Tyrrant [Ref]", I was assuming "reputable sources", rather than, for example, someone's blog. For example, a published book or magazine, peer-reviewed article, etc -- Iantresman 16:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a problem I'm trying to solve in my proposal. I call it "significance" -- Anon84.x 17:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Iantresman 17:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that no original research WP:NOR amounts to non-verifiability. If it's peer-reviewed, then it's not original research in the sense that it is the contributing editor's research. I'm sure that there are a number of unique theories that have been promoted by individuals (eg. Royal Rife's beam ray), which is original research, but he's not promoting it. -- Iantresman 17:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is a large overlap between WP:V and WP:NOR. However, it is definitively not a justification to ignore WP:NOR. I believe that WP:NOR was written before WP:V. Also, in my opinion it is much clearer in terms of what is a reputable source or at the least it contains crucial information about it that is not contained in WP:V. On the other hand, WP:V goes into more details about the dynamic to source a content, remove it if it not properly sourced, etc. -- Lumiere 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we do not need WP:NOR as a policy as there is nothing in there which does not automatically follow from our Verifiability policy. Don't get me wrong, it's useful to have as guidance - but now we have a proper Verifiability policy, which we didn't until sometime in 2005, WP:NOR can be deprecated to it, jguk 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I had not thought of it, but it looks like you're right: the motive behind NOR was that editors should not be demanded to try verifying other people's research by themselves, but instead rely on published peer reviewed material (roughly, I write this by memory). Thus it looks like NOR can be presented as chapter in the WP:V policy, thus simplifying things. Harald88 20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Without warning, User:David Gerard suddenly banned me for editing (or in his words "messing around"). He then locked the article. User:Katefan0 subsequently reverted all of the recent edits to the page. Both these users promptly abandoned this page without a trace. I think these users owe me and all the people who have recently contributed to this page an explanation (more than that one sentence). Bensaccount 17:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bensaccount! I am glad you are back! Were you banned for editing all this time? -- Lumiere 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that some admins are trigger happy. Would it hurt them to put a little more effort into discussing the matter instead? Bensaccount 22:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, this from the guy banned for not discussing changes to the policy that clearly did not have consensus? DreamGuy 14:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we all agree to this as a way to get this page unprotected again:

1. Revert back to where it was immediately before the revert back to a November 2005 version
2. No amendments or tweaks (for the time being) to be made to the project page without them first being proposed on this talk page for at least two days (if a minor tweak, longer for anything major)?

We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is "POV" or someone is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something an "opinion" and note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made-up term POV is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of - you are wrong, I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is non-negotiable, which isn't a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved. Plus far too many people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to the real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.

My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just an interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint and make the shortcut link to it WP:NEUVIEW (or WP:NEUTVIEW). It goes without saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain completely unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it would enhance people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral viewpoint, rather than no viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the policy in positive terms and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content disputes escalating in scale and viciousness, jguk 12:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree on this move. I think that we need to make it clear having a stong POV when contributing is a bad thing. The current set up does just that. Gateman1997 18:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that's nonsense. To take a well-known Wikipedia example, I don't think it is any secret that David Gerard has very strong opinions against Scientology (or in the ugly WP jargon, he has a "strong POV"). And yet he is able, through working with others and by insisting on referencing everything to death, to produce some wonderfully informative articles on Scientology that are entirely consistent with our neutral point of view policy. Having opinions about people and things (which is really what is meant by "POV" or "strong POV") is a good thing - I encourage it! After all, we are not arguing for people to form an opinion of being neutral about everything! What's important, however, is that our articles are written from a neutral viewpoint. Trying to make this clearer is part of the idea of the proposed renaming, jguk 07:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose the move also, as the terms NPOV and POV are very much part of WP language and evoke specific things. Jonathunder 23:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The point is that they evoke discontent and dispute. Instead of saying "I don't think your phrasing is consistent with our neutral point of view policy" people tend to say "Stop POV warring". You're right to say NPOV and POV are a strong part of the Wikipedia jargon - but they are not useful parts. Show me a dispute that has been helped by the participants hurling "POV" claims at each other, jguk 07:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I probably can't find a case where hurling "POV" helped the dispute. There likely are cases where saying something like "we need to find a more NPOV way..." did help. Jonathunder 07:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The latter could easily be rephrased along the lines of "we need to ensure the article is coming from a neutral viewpoint" though. The term "NPOV" isn't essential there, jguk 08:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Then surely that's something to raise with the offenders, rather than making everyone else change to suit those abusing it. Nach0king 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree to the move. The term "NPOV" has become "loaded" in Wikipedia but in a positive sense, it expresses more than the literal meaning "neutral point of view" but actually encompasses the idea behind it and, by reference, the policy of NPOV. Changing that will only confuse. Also, since it's common Wikipedian lingo, changing it would be an attempt to force people to think differently by making restrictions in the language they can use. See doublespeak for more on that, in general it is not a very good idea and mostly a technique employed by dictators and the like. TH 18:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Two things. First, POV warring and POV pushing exist, and we will find new words for them if we're disallowed from using the old. If you want to solve a problem, simply renaming things does not help, or else all the problems with Votes for Deletion would have been fixed when we started calling it Articles for Deletion. (This sort of thing, by the way, has decidedly Orwellian overtones.) Secondly and far more importantly, "neutral point of view" refers to disputed facts as well as opinions. For instance, whether or not the works attributed to Shakespeare were actually written by him is a matter of fact—either he wrote them or he didn't, and either way, it's a matter of fact. But it's still disputed. Another example: it's a fact that men landed on the moon, but in the article on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, we treat, with neutrality, disputes to that fact. I would go so far as to say that Wikipedia should take no concern in the truth or falsity of any factual assertion—we should only record who agrees and disagrees with what assertion and why. Any obviously true assertion should be so obviously true after a neutral evaluation of the arguments for and against that actually stating it would be unnecessary. (C.f. the Apollo moon landing dispute.) — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose the move due to my reason offered earlier in this section, as well sa the fact that *if* it is generally agreed that there is a problem, I'd rather see it fixed through conventional means rather than this change, which will either be a cosmetic non-event or a rather covert way of altering the way the encyclopedia works. In assuming good faith, I do not think that the latter eventuality is intentional on the part of the proposer, who has good intentions. I do see it as a danger, however. Nach0king 13:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose the move itself, because using the term "neutral point of view" and NPOV as its abbreviation is a long tradition with few negative consequences in itself that I can see. I might support other ways of discouraging abusing the term POV as an "opposite adjective" to NPOV (I try to avoid using it myself) or using the term "POV pushing" in a dismissive way when unwarranted. Demi ^T/ _C 18:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Jgug, can you tell me what magical word you used to attract the attention of so many people on a title issue? Anon84.x, Iantresman, myself and others are trying to get the attention of people on the actual content of the policy, which seems much more important at this stage than a title issue, but we don't have as much success as you do. Is it that the only way to attract the attention of people is to propose a move at the superficial level? Maybe Wikipedians are thinking "Discuss the real issue with WP as much as you want, we don't care, as long as you do not change how it looks". -- Lumiere 13:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• In my case, the magical word was actually three: IRC :) Nach0king 15:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand you. You are violating WP:WOTTA. -- Lumiere 18:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

KMA ;) Nah, seriously, I was alerted to this because jguk mentioned it on IRC (Freenode #wikipedia). I said there that I thought it was a bad idea, and came here to "officially" say the same. Otherwise I don't really have too much interest in discussions about NPOV because I think the system is OK. Nach0king 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What you say have me worry about how to interpret the rule "do not change the main page without a consensus". I do not blame you. We all have our interest, and they change with time. However, the rule should be interpreted to say that you should have some concrete argument against or in support of some proposed improvement before we can count your opinion as a support or an opposition. Is that make sense? -- Lumiere 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose the move, per above reasons.-- Oni Ookami Alfador ^{Talk| @} 21:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Currious to know why there is so much interest about a title issue?

Is this because there was something said in the #wikipedia IRC? May I login in this IRC channel? There is something more important to be said. -- Lumiere 22:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made a very minimal (less is more?) new draft proposal based on recent discussion. What do you think about it? -- Anon84.x 13:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Warning

I think the small draft is a big conceptual improvement over the current formulation. The main improvement is the clarification that the policy is more than just about a neutral form of writing, but also about significance. However, one must realize that the term "significance" becomes a very loaded term, which in accordance with our discussion on WP:V and WP:NOR (see above), includes all the notions that can be used to suppress a viewpoint (i.e. it includes the case of null significance). Also, the small paragraph already acknowledge that the concept of significance includes the relevance to the topic, which is also related to WP:V and WP:NOR. The warning is that we should be very careful when we unfold the details that we do not create new rules that are disconnected from WP:V and WP:NOR and can even conflict with them. We should as much as possible refer to WP:V and WP:NOR instead of providing new criteria or even reformulating a new language for WP:V or WP:NOR. If needed we can work with the editors of WP:V and WP:NOR to clarify their policy. At the end, the whole thing will perhaps turn out to be very simple, with a only a few references to WP:NOR and WP:V there and there. However, the path to this goal might require some vigilance. -- Lumiere 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I already have a problem with the term "general support", which is used in the small draft. It is not clear what it means. We have to make sure that it does not suggest a new criteria to determine the acceptability of some content that is in conflict with WP:V or WP:NOR. This is what I mean when I say that we must attempt to connect with other policies as much as possible. -- Lumiere 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "common acceptence" but that whole section is still very bad and vague. I need to formulate exact, objective, criterions that make a viewpoint "significant". Do you have any ideas? (BTW you can edit it) -- Anon84.x 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded that section, now it uses WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT as criterions -- Anon84.x 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing that might help to avoid conflicts with WP:V and WP:NOR is to state that a minimal requirement for a viewpoint to be significant is that it respects WP:V and WP:NOR. I hesitate to add such a statement at this time because it might create the illusion that the problem has been fully addressed, which would not be the case.

If we add such a statement, we have to be even more vigilent because we might encounter situations where WP:V and WP:NOR can easily be misinterpreted. We must make sure that we do not misinterpret these policies and suggest rules that conflict with them because, otherwise, a statement in which we pretend to be in accord with them would only help to reinforce the confusion.

I understand that I am just giving warnings and expressing concerns here, and do not actually construct anything. I acknowledge that. So, in addition to these warnings and concerns I must add that I appreciate very much the excellent work that is in progress now. Now, just another concern, which is actually a different form of the same concern. Providing references to WP:V and WP:NOR, etc. can be just a disguised way to pretend that we are in accord with these policies, just as a direct statement can do. So, I do have the exact same concern with regard to such references as I have for a statement that would directly state that we do not conflict with WP:NOR and WP:V. Such references are obviously necessary, but they don't mean in themselve that the problem is correctly addressed. I will check the sentences. I will try to actually contribute with some edits... -- Lumiere 20:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I checked and, as far as I can tell now, the sentences are pretty good in my opinion. I still need to check the sentence that refers to What Wikipedia is NOT. It will be good to be more precise about which part of this policy is being used here, I think. -- Lumiere 20:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)