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.

Please stop all these proposals for reform. The neutral point of view policy is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Yes, it is reasonable for newcomers to Wikipedia to have questions about it, and it is also fair to say that the comments on the project page are not as good as they could be in explaining to newcomers what the policy is, but that does not make it reasonable for you to make fundamental changes to it. Lumiere, Anon 84 and Sonny jim are all inexperienced editors (in some cases having no real experience of editing outside of this page). It is right for you to be curious, and good that you are willing to help to improve things - but changing the wording of our foremost content policy is not a good idea for newcomers. Please create content - write on subjects that interest you - and once you've gained experience of how we work, then by all means consider how you can improve the wording of our policies.

I have archived all the previous discussions - please leave them there. Try out our articles. Improve them. Write new ones of your own. Enjoy Wikipedia! jguk 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there are proposals for reform, but for clarification; and that can't be a bad thing. If a fundamental policy is misunderstood by newcomers, then it definitely needs clarification. -- Iantresman 20:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am mainly interested in articles that could be controversial. I am not controversial myself, but I am interested in subject that push the frontiers ahead, and tdihese are always controversial. I am not interested in working on these articles without clear policies. Working on the policies would have to be the first step for me. I have seen enough what happens in controversial articles to know how to contribute to these policies. Your request is dismissed. Instead explain what is so inexperienced in my proposal. This will be more to the point. Moreover, we will have to put back some sections that you archived but are crucial to the understanding of the current issue. It is good that newcomers bring new ideas and I understand that it may seem to create disorder, but I read somewhere in the policies or guidelines that editors should consider that such apparent disorder can actually be positive and very healthy. -- Lumière 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am unable to control myself. Please ask an admin to protect this page. -- Anon84.x 18:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good one! -- Lumière 18:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks, there are some niggles with NPOV-as-written you know. At least give people a chance to look into it, but DO please keep an eye on the process, lest things go off the rails. Kim Bruning 19:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

M./Mme./Mlle. (I apologize, I do not know which) Lumière, I believe that you have a good point. It would seem to my eyes that all of these ideas for reform should not be banned, persay. In my opinion, I think that you should allow people to say their ideas for reform, and at least give them a gander (hell, there may be good ideas there!) I myself do not have any ideas for reform, but I would like to stand up for being able to say them.

In another point of view, it would be wise to watch what you propose for potential edits; there are some things that probably won't happen, mais non?

But, again, proposals for reform are "positive and very healthy".

Sonny Jim ^news/ poll 18:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that User:Jguk's advice on this subject should be taken to heart. Jkelly 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that people also take to heart that we are sincerely interested in Wikipedia. As we explained above, it came to be a natural first step that we first clarify the policies. Jguk's advice basically means that we will not be able to work on Wikipedia, not by resentments or anything like that, but just because we sincerely do not see how we can work on the type of articles that interest us if the policies aren't clear enough. -- Lumière 21:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to prevent proposals for reform, but I think demonstrating a willingness to work on the project, before making such proposals, is a very good suggestion. Some possible ways for someone interested in controversial subjects to demonstrate such a willingess include, IMO:

• Going to some controversial article, picking 6 facts (trying to balance them between whatever "sides" there may be), and resarching and citing (on the talk page) sources for those facts.
• Going to some controversial article, reading over the voluminous talk page archives, and adding summaries of them to the list of archives on the main talk page, allowing people to find old discussions more easily.
• Finding a controversial topic that is not yet covered in Wikipedia, and writing a good stub on it, or expanding a existing stub.
• Looking through the list of uncatagorized articles, and catagorizing 20 controversial ones into the proper categories, so interested editors can take a look at them.
• Reading over RfAr Evidence pages (effectivly all Arbitration cases are controversial), and summarizing the evidence presented.

Any of these actions, if repeated a few dozen times, would throughly demonstrate a willingness to work on the project. If anyone suggesting proposals here already has done these things, then I'm not talking to you - thanks for your work! If you are suggesting proposals, and have not done these things, I gently suggest that you would meet with more success if you did. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My interest is sincere but limited to one kind of actions: removing bad insinuations and not well supported and unfair criticisms about any topic. The topic per se need not be controversial. It only becomes controversial in Wikipedia because of these criticisms. I am only concerned by the fact that, in my opinion, Wikipedia is a platform that allows unfair and not well supported criticisms, and also includes plenty of bad insinuations. For many topics, readers will be better informed about the topic if the topic was deleted from Wikipedia. I really mean it, as strong a statement as it may seem. Unfortunately, people that care about the topic don't even have the power to remove it from Wikipedia. I know enough about what happens when you try to discuss with editors that devote their life to discredit some category of topics, if not a given topic, to do better than continue to discuss with them without clear policies. My line of actions is very simple. I want to first improve the clarity of policies in a very simple way: just add more references between policies and avoid conflicts. It is a simple thing. If people were a little bit open, it would not even take much time. Then, I will be better equipped to discuss and explain why some unfair criticisms or bad insinuations should be removed. -- Lumière 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia can become a place reasonably free from this polution (bad insinuations, etc.), perhaps I might become interested in other forms of contributions, but not before. Sincerely, with the current level that Wikipedia has, I will not even be proud to say that I have contributed to it. -- Lumière 16:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I know it seems like a stretch (okay, a really BIG stretch), but who thinks it would be interesting if they could write articles with opinions, but under a new namespace (like opinion)?

NOTE: I don't think that namespace is the right word.

This is also the same poll that is on my page User:Sonny jim/Poll

Sonny Jim ^news/ poll 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• How would disagreements about content be resolved? Kappa 19:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point Kappa. If there were opinion pages, then obviously there would be conflicts of opinion within Wikipedia...I never thought of that... You would have to have some sort of moderation, but if there was, then that would mean that the moderators would be bioused, too...

BLOODY HELL!

Sonny Jim ^news/ poll 19:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sonny jim - if you want opinion pieces, you may be interested in the Wikipedia fork, Wikinfo. It's run by Fred Bauder, one of the Arbitrators, and has been going a while. Wikipedia has declared itself firmly against this approach, and people will not be receptive to such a proposed change (remember Jimbo has declared the "neutral point of view" policy as being absolute and non-negotiable, jguk 20:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Everything2. Jkelly 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I'm new :(.

Sonny Jim ^news/ poll

On the other hand, the proposal is not at all a big modification to the policies, but in fact just a proposal for a better connection amongst them. Therefore, I don't see that I should start to work on a different encyclopedia. OTOH, I would like to acknowledge that perhaps I (and perhaps others with me) am responsible for a big confusion about the proposal. At some point, I suggested to put a dispute tag. I went along with others in using a new terminology, which was not really needed. In this way, the overall impression is that perhaps we want to completely change the policy. It is not the case at all. I think that the whole thing is just a big misunderstanding. The proposal is very simple: just add references to other policies as needed for clarification and avoid conflict amongst the policies. That's all. -- Lumière 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that sounds good to me, and no doubt everyone will agree! :-) Harald88 21:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So, perhaps we should just proceed. -- Lumière 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't proceed as you need a developer to set up a new namespace. And no, it is not acceptable to proceed. A new namespace for "Opinion" is entirely contrary to Wikipedia's longest-standing fundamental policy on content, jguk 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My friend, you should take the time to read more than just the title of the section. You seem to be a title guy! The last few paragraphs were not at all about a new namespace. -- Lumière 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm a title guy. Most policies don't have any real meaning (in real-life editing) that goes beyond their title:) jguk 10:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point! OTOH, we don't help the situation if we only improve their title! -- Lumière 14:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The following live discussion was archived but looks important to me (who archived just started discussions?) Harald88 21:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As the person who added that section, I agree, it is certainly still current. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I went through the diff (actually, various sectional diffs, made with ediff) between the current version and the one from March 2005 (specifically, this version). There have been a number of important changes, which I'd like to alert people to.

• Various new sections have been added:
  • History of NPOV - Pointers to old forms of the policy. Excellent historical work,, IMO.

    I got some help from Larry Sanger and the village pump people with this. The point was to replace the so called "original formulation" with the actual history. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    Great; that makes sense to me, I support this having been done. Anyone oppose this, please speak up... JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The neutral point of view - Seems to basically be part of the introduction, for which see below.

    The introduction was combined with the "What is the neutral point of view" section. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Bias - Examples of types of bias, many article-space links. Wholly new - where was the discussion on this?

    Someone else created the bias section, I made it more comprehensive. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    Ok. I think we should have a bit more discussion on this, I've started a topic below. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • POV forks - Seems to be a summary section of another page, Wikipedia:Content forking - Discussion on this?
  • Rewording a potentially biased statement - Seems to be based on old material, just moved around and rephrased - Discussion?
• Various sections have been significantly changed:
  • The introduction section(s) - considerable rephrasing, moving things around, etc. Considerably more discussion is needed on this.

    See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Why should Wikipedia be unbiased? - A sentence has been added to the end of this section: "Neutrality has long been, and will always be, the only way Wikipedia can remain an unbiased source of information for the whole world." Discussion?

    I disagree with this sentence. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    I also feel that it is unnecessary;It was added by an IP, with no edit summary. I will remove it; if someone supports it, feel free to propose it's addition on talk. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The vital component: good research - Notable rephrasing, introduction of new material - discussion needed.
  • There's no such thing as objectivity - Seems to have been heavily cut. Should this be reverted?

    It was too-long winded. This version gives the same information and addresses the objection quickly and finitely. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    I'll look at what exactly was cut and report below. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Morally offensive views - Notable rephrasing, introduction of new material - discussion needed.
• Some sections have been removed:
  • Parts of the introduction, i.e. Introduction, The basic concept of neutrality, and the long quote from Jimbo, The original formulation of NPOV. Some of these may have been rephrased into the new introduction section(s), but discussion is certainly needed.

    See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • What is the neutral point of view? - Was turned into the Undue Weight section, but the top three paragraphs were removed. Should this be reverted, or were they rephrased elsewhere?

    See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    So, you are saying that the top 3 paras were rephrased into the introduction? JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • A consequence: writing for the enemy - Was removed in full - discussion?

    The section was misleading. Other editors or other POVs are not "the enemy". The section was not missed. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    Was there a talk page discussion on this? I've opened one below, in any case. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume many of these things were discussed somewhere in the archives of this talk page; help finding and linking to the discussions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 13:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias section

Seems to have been originally broken out into a seperate section by SlimVirgin in this edit. Was re-written by Bensaccount as of this edit into it's current state. No talk page discussion that I am aware of. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as objectivity section

Heavily cut by Bensaccount.

Parts of the old version I think should be re-inserted, and why:

1. Insert "Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible."

   All the other objections have a italized statement of the objection, this should have one too.

2. Replace "rather that where bias can be detected, it can also be eliminated." with "to characterize disputes rather than engage in them."

   That is the standard phrsing of the policy. We are re-stating the policy there, we should use the standard phrasing.

3. The whole rest of the old version.

   I'm not as sure about this one as I am about the other two. I happen to like this answer, and feel it is a nice response to post-modern or philosopical critics of Wikipedia. However, it probably should go into Common Criticisms, or Replies to our critics, rather than the NPOV policy, as I can't see that it particularly helps to develop or explain the policy itself. So, make this proposal to re-insert the old text into one of the two pages mentioned above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A consequence: writing for the enemy section

Removed by Bensaccount, saying it was: "misleading. Other editors or other POVs are not "the enemy". The section was not missed."

I agree that the title was misleading, but I think there were some good pieces that should be restored. I think the last part of it: "The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all." and " "Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding deliberately flawed arguments to Wikipedia, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behavior as adding the best (published) arguments of the opposition, citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, and stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time. Always cite your sources, and make sure your sources are reputable, and you won't go far wrong." are both good, and should be re-inserted, somewhere. I will go into more detail if requested. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Writing for the enemy" is a historical phrase used wrt NPOV, so please do reference it, at the very least. Kim Bruning 16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is still a "writing for the enemy" section under common objections. If we could get this page unprotected I could try and merge what you want restored into this section. Bensaccount 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is now unprotected; please go ahead! JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is not at all a big modification to the policies, but in fact just a proposal for a better connection amongst them. Therefore, I don't see that I should start to work on a different encyclopedia. OTOH, I would like to acknowledge that perhaps I (and perhaps others with me) am responsible for a big confusion about the proposal. At some point, I suggested to put a dispute tag. I went along with others in using a new terminology, which was not really needed. In this way, the overall impression is that perhaps we want to completely change the policy. It is not the case at all. I think that the whole thing is just a big misunderstanding. The proposal is very simple: just add references to other policies as needed for clarification and avoid conflict amongst the policies. That's all. -- Lumière 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that sounds good to me, and no doubt everyone will agree! :-) Harald88 21:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So, perhaps we should just proceed. -- Lumière 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputes over how established a view is

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up.

From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more detailed information.

The above is a section taken from WP:No original research. In our policy, in the corresponding section "Undue weight", it is clear that the purpose of these three points is not selection of views, but only to distinguish views that are held by a significant minority from views that are held by a majority, the other views that are held by a tiny minority having only place in special ancillary articles. The purpose is to balance the space attributed to each view in a given article. It is important that we do not interpret any of these three points as a sufficient criteria for inclusion because this would take these points out of context and bring them in direct conflict with the requirement for a reputable publisher of WP:No Original nResearch and WP: Verifiability. Therefore, to address this specific issue, it is proposed to add in our corresponding section "Undue weight" one or two statements that remind the readers that No Original Research and the associated requirement for a reputable publisher is policy and add a reference to WP:NOR. This is an example of what I mean by adding brief references to other policies and avoiding conflicts between policies. In this case, this is particularly important since they refer to us. -- Lumière 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So you just want to add a sentence or two to "Undue weight"? Bensaccount 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the above proposal yes. Of course, there will be similar proposals for some other sections that might also be misinterpreted in a way that conflicts with other policies. I modified the wording to avoid a confusion. -- Lumière 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well what exactly is the statement you want to include. Bensaccount 16:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We can change the exact formulation, but something like "This section is about a fair representation of each acceptable viewpoint. To be acceptable for inclusion a viewpoint must respect all other requirements of the neutral point of view policy and the requirements of the no original research and verifiability policies.

OK. I support adding the statement just above to the section on Undue Weight. It seems somewhat redundant to me, but I don't see that it is harmful, so it's fine by me. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of saying "This section is about a fair representation of each acceptable viewpoint" why not just change the section's title to something descrtiptive like "Fairly representing views? Bensaccount 19:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The acceptable in "of each acceptable viewpoint" is important. -- Lumière 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a non problem. It is already clear each of the major content policies are in force and you can't use an unusual understanding of one to violate another. What the policies allow is at the intersection of each of them, which should be obvious from them all being in force. That being said, minor changes to make that even clearer are not a big problem, and neither is pointing out any actually conflicting statements in policies (though there aren't really any major problems on that front). And since I can see no good evidence for there being a dispute I'm going to unprotect the page. Keep in mind that this is a bedrock principle, so significant changes to it must be backed by a community wide consensus. Just because one or even a few editors feel they disagree with it does not make a valid dispute given the level of consensus that this policy has. Continuing to re-add a dispute template is disruptive and instead consensus should be gathered for any desired changes. - Taxman ^Talk 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, I disagree with your vague definition of consensus. It seems so much like a standard non-NPOV argument: "Every one knows ..." "The overall consensus is ...". There is only one definition of consensus in Wikipedia and it is the consensus amongst the active editors. Of course, anyone is free to call a Rfc etc. If really there are many wikipedians interested in the issue, they will come and be part of these active editors. There is no need for a special rule that is only a disguised non-NPOV argument. The standard rule is already very very efficient, perhaps too efficient, to preserve the statue quo. -- Lumière 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"There is only one definition of consensus in Wikipedia and it is the consensus amongst the active editors." That might wash over at Corn, but not on this bedrock policy. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It is impossible to prove that we have the consensus of the entire wikipedian community. You can only see that you have the consensus amongst those who participate in the discussion. With this community wide concensus requirement, all edits that were done thus far were not acceptable because not known to have the required concensus. Please revise your position. This is a call to common sense. What is going on here? -- Lumière 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, common sense says new users (or anyone, really) shouldn't tinker with THE foundation upon which Wikipedia functions, particularly in the absence of a broad consensus. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that by "tinker" you mean edit. You are wrong, the foundation upon which Wikipedia functions is: anyone can edit. You are attempting to change this or make exceptions to it. Bensaccount 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles, yes. Not THE policy upon which Wikipedia functions. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 00:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is really simple Lumiere, and it seems you simply don't have enough experience editing to have the needed context. Perhaps your misunderstanding is where I said significant change. To enact a significant change in meaning to a bedrock principal, you would have to make an offical proposal. That would include a clearly worded proposal and posting a link to it in all of the standard places where proposals are discussed. Even that is not recommended in the case of this policy. You appear to not reallize how long and how broad the consensus for this policy is. That's fine, but proposing changes to something you don't understand is just wasted time for everyone. Pointing out areas that need tweaks for clarity is different of course. - Taxman ^Talk 00:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh! You are saying that "community wide consensus" means posting a link to a proposal in all standard places etc. I already agreed that it seems reasonable to require the opinions of others via Rfc etc. when we check the consensus. This is consistent with the definition of consensus in Wikipedia, which is a consensus amongst those who participate -- it cannot be anything else. So the misunderstanding is just that you did not expand my "etc." Also, I told you that "community wide consensus" was vague, but I admit that I should have asked for a definition instead of just saying that it was vague and then reject your request on that basis. From my examples, it should have been clear that my problem was that there was no precise definition of who are the persons involved in that concensus. It would have been so simple just to see that definition so that we can all appreciate that we were actually in agreement. I really like the idea that we work to have a "community wide consensus" on this policy. There is no other way it should be! -- Lumière 00:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Taxmam, I just realized that you immediatly answered my issue with regard to the meaning of "community wide consensus" and it was only Katefan0 that interfered in between. So, the above should not have been addressed to you. The only thing I feel about you is that you consider that I have less right to edit and propose improvements because I have been around for less time. I am acting as if it was not the case. It just turns out that naturally I never personally proposed any significant change to any policy, but it is not because I feel that I have no right to do so. I hope it is not a problem with you. -- Lumière 05:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I guess I'm "interfering" again. Your reading is, once again, incorrect. Simply posting notice is not adequate. It is the minimum of what must be performed in terms of due diligence. The community must be informed, and then they must approve the proposed changes by a wide consensus margin. Anything less than that and the proposals are, for all intents and purposes, moot. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 06:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In french "interférer" does not attribute a bad intention, but do refer to a disruptive effect. For example, an official legislature can be said to "interférer" with an administrative procedure. I do think that you have "interféré". Now, back to the issue of "community wide consensus", I think I understood that correctly. I thought I was very clear that I agree with the "community wide consensus" requirement as defined by Taxman, which obviously is more than just a posting, but also includes a consensus. I don't know what it is exactly that I wrote that you misinterpreted (except perhaps that you failed again to expand an "etc."), but it is just a misinterpretation. I propose that we stop this debate. -- Lumière 13:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For some time now (first discussed here in November) we have a useful list with bad examples of how articles can be biased due to selective "omissions".

However, while it was first planned to be just a few clarifying sentences on the NPOV page, it has been expanded on and is now parked away for discussion "to make it policy" - something that doesn't make sense to me (and which caused negative comments). It already is the most basic policy of Wikipedia to fairly represent notable information and opinions, surely we don't need new policy on that!

Instead, I propose to spin it off to the NPOV_tutorial, where more good and bad examples about NPOV are given. Harald88 14:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The obvious concern is that a tutorial does not seem a valid reference when you want to refer to the policy in a dispute. If the purpose of these examples (see Information suppression ) is to help use the policy to resolve a dispute, to move them in the tutorial will seriously reduce their usefulness. To the contrary, IMO, we should make sure that there is a "community wide consensus" on these examples so that they can be seriously used to resolve a dispute. An alternative is to rise the level of the entire tutorial so that it reflects a "community wide consensus" and essentially gains the authority of a policy, but it will take time. It is easier to focus on these examples. This comment is not a support for these specific examples. It only supports the general principle that examples are not going to be useful to resolve disputes if they are not part of a "community wide consensus." Please do not attack my opinion on the basis that I have been around for two months only. I believe that Wikipedia is welcoming new comers at every level. -- Lumière 15:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples is a proposal that, if accepted, will have the status of a policy or guideline. I hope it will have the status of policy. -- Lumière 16:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, you may be new here, but can you tell me what the difference is between policy and guideline, in practice?

I don't see how we can call examples "policy"; however, they are useful to help enforcing the policy that articles must be unbiased, which certainly means (who stressed that point recently?) not only in choice of phrasing but also in choice of content.

Thus, verifiable cited information that is notable must not be suppressed or represented in a non-neutral manner. Such a phrase should perhaps be added to this NPOV policy article, with a link to the examples. The problem now is that the article still neglects this aspect of NPOV.

This has also been recently brought up by anon84 ("selective bias"); likely Anon didn't know that we had already agreed on mentioning this. But still no explanation of that appears in the article space, which should be corrected ASAP, for what's in fact half of the policy isn't really explained -- this is certainly more important than items like "POV forks"!

At least the summary still states clearly that:

"Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias."

The point is to explain that "writing fairly and without bias" implies much more than only phrasing, it's also about selection of content as well as way of presentation.

The only hazy point is what "significant" means, while other places use "notable". That's important for drawing the line somewhere so that not too many junk ideas seep through but also not too many valuable opinions are omitted. But that's the subject of other discussions. Harald88 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PS I regard the NPOV_tutorial as a guideline; while hardly anyone will look at the specific NPOV examples, I'm afraid. Harald88 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, the practical difference that I see between a guideline and a policy is that I already heard the argument "this is only a guideline, not policy". I agree that the examples are not policy in themselve, but they are a part that is necessary for their correct interpretation. Whether we try to communicate a policy or something else, a mathematical theory, etc., abstract concepts should always go together with examples. Editors should feel that they can refer to these examples with authority. In particular, the interpretation of the policy that is expressed in these examples should have a "community wide consensus." Also, the text of the policy should refer to these examples whenever needed. In this way, these examples will not be overlooked and they will gain authority. Perhaps, they should not be declared policy. Perhaps, we can declare them "policy examples" with some official header similar to the one that declares a policy a policy. What I meant is that I hope that they will not be declared only guidelines. -- Lumière 19:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Point by point

Thus, verifiable cited information that is notable must not be suppressed or represented in a non-neutral manner. Such a phrase should perhaps be added to this NPOV policy article, with a link to the examples. The problem now is that the article still neglects this aspect of NPOV.

Yes, I agree. Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This has also been recently brought up by anon84 ("selective bias"); likely Anon didn't know that we had already agreed on mentioning this. But still no explanation of that appears in the article space, which should be corrected ASAP, for what's in fact half of the policy isn't really explained -- this is certainly more important than items like "POV forks"!

Yes, I agree. However, I think that it just means that we need to make sure that every section is well connected to the whole policy and other policies. The only thing that is missing, IMO, is proper connection between the different parts and some wholeness. Also, remove all potential conflicts. People are right when they say that every thing is there. Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

At least the summary still states clearly that:

"Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias."

Where is this sentence in the policy? It should be there in the lead section. The part that is important is "with significant support", which IMO should in addition refer to the other policies. Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is to explain that "writing fairly and without bias" implies much more than only phrasing, it's also about selection of content as well as way of presentation.

Again, if we make sure that there is a good connection between the different parts and with other policies, this problem would be taken care of. (see below for more) Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The only hazy point is what "significant" means, while other places use "notable". That's important for drawing the line somewhere so that not too many junk ideas seep through but also not too many valuable opinions are omitted. But that's the subject of other discussions. Harald88 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the point. Significant or notable in the sense of acceptable is defined in the other policies. In particular, no original research filters for content that does not reflect what is already published in reputable source. There is nothing else we can do to guarantee neutrality in the selection process. (I mean we can help improve these other policies, but we should not deal with the selection process as part of the neutral point of view policy.) So, other policies filter the content (this includes any presentation that communicates a content that is not really supported in reputable source) and the neutral point of view policy takes care of (1) the style and (2) fair representation of the viewpoints that are acceptable in accordance with the other policies. The point (2) is discussed in the section "Undue Weight". We should always refer to the other policies for the notion of acceptability, which is different from (1) a neutral point of view style and (2) fair representatiom (of acceptable content). Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PS I regard the NPOV_tutorial as a guideline; while hardly anyone will look at the specific NPOV examples, I'm afraid. Harald88 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If we refer to the examples in the policy and if these examples receive the official status of "Policy examples" or something like that, they will not be overlooked. Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

retake

OK -- but first of all, I don't think that that sign about "policy proposal" on the NPOV specific examples page means anything: it was added without discussion by someone in reaction to my suggestion to add the POV suppression examples to the NPOV tuturial!. Thus I will take that sign away.

To get back to my point (I will split it up):

- those guideline examples have been parked away for months, and few people noticed them at all; while a few corresponding policy explanation lines are still lacking; - meanwhile this NPOV article got a number of less relevant additions without a similar procedure (or, where are the coresponding opinion poll pages?).

In short, this essential part of NPOV still isn't mentioned at all; IMO, the recently added Bias and POV forking chapters may go to the NPOV tutorial, and this article should focus on the main issues.

Below is, slightly adjusted, the text of NPOVenforcer which wasn't so bad but which first was tranfered to this Talk page and extended etc. etc., so that still nothing on this problem can be found in the article space, eventhough you and others independently brought up this same missing issue.

"POV selective fact suppression"

"In wikipedia, a common form of violating the strict wikipedia NPOV policy is to selectively remove specific facts from an article so as to give a false impression of "truth"."

"To illustrate how POV selective fact suppression works:

"Suppose that there is belief A and belief B. Some evidence favors belief A and other evidence favors belief B.

The NPOV policy is to include all relevant facts in an article. In POV selective fact suppression, evidence that supports one or the other beliefs is deleted by the opposition.

"An other variant of this behavior is to delete the details of why one's own evidence favors one's own position, when those details reveal that the evidence is in fact very weak.

"Yet an other variant of this behavior is to delete any mention altogether of specific beliefs or ideals that oppose one's own, when those opposing beliefs or ideals are highly credible, yet other opposing beliefs or ideals have little credibility and thus make one's own beliefs or ideals look good by comparison."

It is high time to insert a statement like the one in italics in the article space - or, my suggestion, with a retake of the summary phrase:

Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. Thus it is not allowed to suppress notable, verifiable information related to a significant view if such suppression considerably biases the article; similarly, articles may not be biased by presenting information in an unfair manner.

Later we can link to the examples; I disagree that we only need to connect the different point better. NPOV boils down to an interdiction of thought manipulation together with explanations. Please read the policy again, and tell me what percentage is about phrasing, what percentage about content selection, and what percentage about content presentation. In fact, if articles are only corrected by more neutral sounding phrasing, they can be worse than not improved at all: they may give a false impression of being NPOV.

PS. about the excellent summarizing policy sentence: it's complete up in the header. As you missed it, probably because of the similar polcy block just above it, we should put that text box lower, and repeat that sentence in the body of the text. Harald88 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, The sentence that I see in the policy is

"...must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias". There is no mention that the views must be sufficiently supported, so it is not as good. In fact, I think a good sentence should refer to the other policies that define "sufficiently supported", or at the least another sentence should make the link with other policies.

Yes you are right that the policy is mostly about the narrative aspect. Except for the section "Undue weight", there is not much about the fair representation of the selected viewpoints. There is nothing about how to select these viewpoints properly. Note that in a way the narrative constraint of the NPOV policy is a criteria to select or reject a viewpoint -- we can say that we reject the viewpoints that are not presented in the proper style, but here for simplicity what I call "selection" is what is done with the other policies.

The fact that most of the policy is about the narrative aspect is exactly why I felt that the wholething was confusing. So, I am sympathetical to your point. However, if you understand the situation as I understand it now, there is some logic about the fact that there is nothing about how to select viewpoints properly: this must be taken care by the other policies. The fact that fair representation (after the selection) is essentially only discussed in the section "Undue weight" is also reasonable because there is not much to say about it, but I might be wrong here. So, I do believe that most of the issue will be taken care of with a proper connection of each section with the whole policy and other policies.

With regard to positive suppression of facts, my understanding is that this is taken care by the understanding that the NPOV policy cannot be used to suppress any fact or content, but can only require a neutral style. Period. So, every viewpoint or content that is acceptable in accordance with the no original research and verifiability policies and is presented in the proper style cannot be suppressed. I think that we should have such a sentence. This is an example of what I mean by a proper reference to other policies.

To answer your main concern, I also agree that it is useful to have concrete examples of incorrect attempt to suppress information with POV arguments, even if the basic rule is very simple: no suppression at all, except those that are justified by an improper presentation of the viewpoint or by the no original research and verifiability policies. I agree with anything that can help, especially examples. -- Lumière 03:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we agree that the current presentation of the NPOV policy is incomplete, as well as that only one sentence needs to be added with proper links; and that this really needs to be done; and also how it should be phrased, roughly. I'll wait for comments from others now.

BTW, I simply copy-pasted that summary sentence from the article page; thus I don't understand what happened! Harald88 08:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless you were only referring to an explanation of no suppression of facts in the policy, I do not think that only one sentence is enough. This would go too much in the opposite direction, We do not need a complete rewrite, but first we must also check carefully that there is no potential conflicting interpretation and second, for every part of the policy, we should make sure that the readers see where this part is situated with respect to the other parts. It is always useful to place a section in its context. None of the additions or modifications that are necessary to achieve this goal should be problematic: they will only explain what we already understand, but is not explicitly said in the current formulation. We already discussed such a modification (addition of two sentences) for the section "Undue weight" (see above), and it was not problematic at all. I think such modifications will be very useful for those who just start to learn the policies. I have the impression that some underestimate how confusing it can be at first to go through these policies. -- Lumière 12:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, in addition to the above, I recall that you also suggested that we add links to the examples. I think we should do that as much as needed. I know that the formulation is essentially complete as it is now, but it does not mean that examples are not important. To the contrary, it is necessary IMO to see how the abstract formulation connects with concrete examples. IMO, we never really understand any material until after we can connect it with a variety of concrete examples. It is so often the case that one has the impression to understand, but then examples bring new aspects or connections that were not considered in the original understanding. -- Lumière 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Those who like the statu quo for the policy should agree because it is like reenforcing the policy as when you add a few more diagonal timbers in a construction. -- Lumière 12:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere and Herald88, are you trying to define what exactly is meant by "fairly representing views"? If so, rewrite the appropriate section, not the general statement of the policy. After the rewrite we can address the changes and revert or modify as appropriate. Bensaccount 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bensaccount, that's a good idea, although usually we first discuss proposed additions or modifications before implementing them. Thus I propose to wait a few days for more reactions, and meanwhile we can do some tweeking of the phrasing. BTW, I like your last title change which covers not only "undue weight" but also unfair editing, and thus avoids the need for adding a separate chapter. Harald88 17:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mean you should edit the article, although if you do it is easy enough to revert. You could make a section on this page, or do the rewrite wherever. Bensaccount 17:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bensaccount, I have no personal opinion on how we should explain what is a fair representation of the views in the section formerly known as "Undue weight". I think that the use of the concepts of minority with prominent adherants and majority with standard text references is perhaps the best that can be done. The only concern that I have is that, even if this approach is well explained, it could be misinterpreted to conflict with other policies. This issue can reasonably be adressed by adding the two sentences that I proposed before. These two sentences do not attempt to better explain the section. They only situate the section in its context, which is very useful.

I also think that, in addition, the lead section should be clear about the connection between the NPOV policy and other policies. In particular, it should be clear in the lead section that the NPOV policy only considers well supported views as defined in other policies. Even if it is to going to be said later, we should be clear about it right from the start in the lead section. This situates the NPOV policy in its context, which is very useful. -- Lumière 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Harald88 that we should work on the specific phrasing in this talk page. -- Lumière 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For now a few more short comments (I really hope to hear comments from others, and I largely agree):

"Minority" and "majority" viewpoints are not necessarily an issue; such bias may just as well come from the hand of a minority POV pushing editor. Thus it's not clear to me what lumiere means.

I am lost here. "Minority" Vs "Majority" is not my invention. I expressed no opinion about it. I only expressed the opinion that it is about "Undue Weight" because this is what the section is about. So, what do you mean by "it's not clear to me what luniere means". Lumière

I'm guessing he's refering to the lack of an Aufklarung. Jim62sch 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight isn't necessarily always an issue of "majority" vs. "minority" views. Harald88 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I only see these concepts being discussed in the section Undue weight. If I missed something, let me know. BTW, a point that is somehow related, you do realize that WP:no original research is very useful to eliminate some bias, including some examples that are mentioned in the list that you propose. In any case, it is orthogonal to our current discussion. Whatever Undue weight mean, I only want to explain that we must still consider WP:verifiability and WP:no original research. -- Lumière 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, as NPOV is one of the few policies that is not decided by the editors but instead was a non-negotiable founding decision by Jimbo, I wonder if there doesn't exist some explanations of him that relate to this matter of giving a proper umbrella description of NPOV. It may be worth to search through some discussions. Especially in case of conflict with other policies, that may prove to be of great importance.

Interesting, I have the impression that you suggest that we change the current policy that has a community wide consensus! Clearly, the three points (irrespectively of their source) that are mentioned in the section "Undue weight" are about undue weight. So, they are not intended to conflict with other policies about reputable sources. -- Lumière 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary: I was referring to the NPOV policy as defined by Jimbo. Harald88 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Aren't they supposed to be essentially the same, except for clarifications and small improvements? I am quoting you here "as NPOV is one of the few policies that is not decided by the editors but instead was a non-negotiable founding decision by Jimbo". Oh, perhaps you are suggesting that the current community wide consensus on NPOV is a misunderstanding of Jimbo orginal policy. -- Lumière 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I surely hope that they are the same! I simply point out that the basics of this policy are not for the community (us) to decide on; instead it's up to us to assure that this article continues to correspond to his basic requirements.

Cheers, Harald88 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth to give a more general introduction of NPOV, pointing to the related policies insofar as they take care of certain aspects so that the relations as well as the hierarchy are clear, and that what is further discussed in the article space is the remainder. Does that correspond to what lumiere has in mind? (Of course, no need to do that at the same time as the few additional sentences, but it's helpful if we are working in the same direction). Harald88 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand what you meant in your first sentence. I always said that we should clearly explain where this policy fits in relation with the other policies. If this is what you meant, then Yes. The additional sentences should have this purpose. This is always what I meant. I always proposed that we add a few references to other policies so that the relation with other policies is clear. -- Lumière 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good! Harald88 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias.

I just did a cut and paste so that we can have a discussion. -- Lumière 17:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My first comment is that the above sentence should be followed by a statement that specifies the respective role of the NPOV policy and the other policies. More specifically, it should be clear that the "significant support" is defined in the other policies. -- Lumière 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; but notice that the qualifyer "with significant support" is now completely lacking. I also reconstructed what happened above: I copied it from an older page version, of 8 November or so, whiie looking at additions. I had not expected such omissions. When was that change discussed? I'm not necessarily against a change, for it's arguable if it should be notable or significant. However, leaving such a qualifyer completely out altogether is no good, as it is now it could be interpreted as "any" view. Harald88 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Reminder, in case someone lost track: at this moment the article does not read anymore

Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. Harald88 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Who removed the qualifier "significant"? It is a good question. It is not me that removed it for sure. It is interesting that it went unnoticed and that it is such a big issue now. --Lumière 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, What viewpoints are significant is verfiable without relying on subjective opinion. What viewpoints are "well supported" is not. Also, I see no pressing need for rewritting section that is widely accepted, established policy. What is the justification? FeloniousMonk 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If so, please give the link to back up your claim; next we can repair the opening sentence accordingly, and add the proper link. Harald88 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant neutral and well supported views in proportion to the prominence of each. To be acceptable for inclusion a view must be neutral as described elsewhere in this policy and it must be well supported as specified in the no original research and verifiability policies. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare acceptable views ...

This is a proposed variation on the first few sentences of "Undue Weight". Italic is used here to mark new content, but will not be used in the final version in the project page. -- Lumière 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No. This is dismantling the entirety of the concept of NPOV. All views are explained neutrally, not all neutral views are explained. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What viewpoints are significant is verfiable without relying on subjective opinion. What viewpoints are "Neutral and well supported" is not. FeloniousMonk 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To me, such an evisceration of the current standard only bodes ill for Wikipedia as it opens the door for countless minor viewpoints that have "x references on google" (a somewhat useless indicator of representation), and in addition, "neutral and well-supported" lends too much subjectivity to the process. To me, the fact that someone is even willing to gut NPOV is an indication of just how well the concept is working. I would hazard a guess that someone was not able to get his or her viewpoint into an article and decided to propose a recipe for disaster. Jim62sch 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You just misinterpret the sentences. Your concern is taken care of in the sentence: "To be acceptable for inclusion a view must be neutral as described elsewhere in this policy...". I think you exagerate when you say this is dismantling the entire concept of NPOV. However, there is perhaps room for improvement. What about what is proposed in the next section Lumière

NPOV says that the article should neutrally and fairly represent all significant well supported views in proportion to the prominence of each. A view must be well supported as specified in the no original research and verifiability policies. How to describe a view neutrally is explained elsewhere in this policy. Now Here is the important additional qualification fairness requirement. Articles that compare neutral and well supported views ...

I have removed the bold emphasis. It is like saying that what came before is not important when in fact it prepares well what follows. -- Lumière 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See my comment in the subject just above: we first have a bigger nut to crack! Harald88 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is surprising because the above paragraph is totally equivalent to the addition of the two sentences that I proposed before, which have received local consensus. It is just simpler. The key idea which was accepted is that the views must be acceptable for inclusion as described in NOR and verifiability, and that the "Undue Weight" section does not conflict with this. -- Lumière 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Then who removed the qualifyer so that now it's missing, and why?

See above, about the lead phrase. Harald88 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Who removed the qualifier "significant"? It is a good question. It is not me that removed it for sure. It is interesting that it went unnoticed and that it is such a big issue now. -- Lumière 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, What viewpoints are significant is verfiable without relying on subjective opinion. What viewpoints are "well supported" is not. Also, I see no pressing need for rewritting section that is widely accepted, established policy. What is the justification? FeloniousMonk 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just a problem of terminology. What is your definition of "significant"? My definition of "well supported" is clear: something is well supported if it is acceptable in accordance with WP:no original research and WP:verifiability. I don't care about the terminology. We can use another expression. There is obviously a need to have a clear policy which is well understood in relation with other policies. Nobody can argue against that. -- Lumière 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

NOR and verifiability do not indicate that a potential addition to an article is well-supported. If I say that the Earth is flat, I can easily find proof that that is NOR and that some people think it is true, thus it is verifiable, easily allowing such silliness to creep into articles on paleontology, geology, physics, etc. However, such a viewpoint is hardly significant in the sense that it would be supported by only a few people who revel in pseudoscience. Jim62sch 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch, there are two things that I want to tell you: 1) The paragraph I propose does not reject the notion of Undue weight as defined in the NPOV policy. It only says that WP:verifiability and WP:No original research should also be considered. So, it is just additional protection, not less. 2) You underestimate how WP:Nor and WP:verifiability if well understood can be useful to help achieve neutrality. -- Lumière 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I know what is your problem. Perhaps, your definition of "significant" is "held by a significant minority or a larger group", and you would like to say that only significant views should be considered. This would be in conflict with both the remainder of the Undue Weight section and the other policies. It is in conflict with the Undue Weight section because it is clearly said that the view that are held by a tiny minority can be acceptable in their own article. It is obviously in contradiction with the other policies. It is also plain nonsense: we do not want to reject a view that is well supported in accordance with NOR and verifiability only because it is held by a tiny minority. -- Lumière 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See my above example. In an article on the Flat Earth Society, obviously the material would be significant as it directly relates to the specific topic. However, it is too insignificant a viewpoint to be put into very many other articles. Jim62sch 00:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point! I love the NPOV policy! I am not trying to change it at all. It is just a misunderstanding. The paragraph is very clear. I think the problem is that you are so afraid that it might change the policy that you see things in this paragraph that aren't there at all. -- Lumière 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"we do not want to reject a view that is well supported in accordance with NOR and verifiability only because it is held by a tiny minority"

The existing policy is already clear on this: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all..." This is established and widely accepted policy, and your changes are attempting to alter that. I'm just one of many who'll object on a number of grounds.

"Perhaps, your definition of "significant" is "held by a significant minority or a larger group"

My point is exactly what the article has said for a very long time now: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." Nothing more, nothing less.

Changing "significant" in the sentence to "well supported" fundamentally and mistakenly shifts the issue and the topic from the amount of weight given any viewpoint in an article being based on its significance in the real world to the amount of weight given any one viewpoint in article based on its verifiability at Wikipedia, which is something else altogether.

The concept that the weight given a viewpoint in an article should be based on its verifiability is supported neither by convention nor policy. WP:V enjoins us to make sure that all content must be verifiable. It says nothing about the amount of weight given to relevant viewpoints.

Undue weight is a long-standing, fundamental part of one of Wikipedia's foundational policies. Changing it to mean something completely different from what it has traditionally meant is not going to meet with wide acceptance. FeloniousMonk 23:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. One need only look at the current success of Wikipedia to realize that the current guidelines are working. I, for one, will never support the changes suggested in this discussion. Jim62sch 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Me too I will never support what is being understood in this discussion because what is being understood is not what the proposed paragraph meant. -- Lumière 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this points to the paragraph needing significant clarification. It also raises the quesion, "why bother to change that which has proven to be effective"? Jim62sch 02:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply point by point to FeloniousMonk

"we do not want to reject a view that is well supported in accordance with NOR and verifiability only because it is held by a tiny minority"

The existing policy is already clear on this: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all..." This is established and widely accepted policy, and your changes are attempting to alter that. I'm just one of many who'll object on a number of grounds.

To the contrary, my changes entirely support that. In any case, I am happy that you agree that WP:no origibal research and WP:verifiability are not in conflict with the Undue Weight section in the above. -- Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps, your definition of "significant" is "held by a significant minority or a larger group"

My point is exactly what the article has said for a very long time now: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." Nothing more, nothing less.

I see that you avoid the question. We will not progress if we do not know what is meant by "significant". Is it in this kind of context that we have a "community wide consensus"? -- Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing "significant" in the sentence to "well supported" fundamentally and mistakenly shifts the issue and the topic from the amount of weight given any viewpoint in an article being based on its significance in the real world to the amount of weight given any one viewpoint in article based on its verifiability at Wikipedia, which is something else altogether.

This a misunderstanding. The paragraph that I proposed does not say at all that the weight given to a view is based on its verifiability. It clearly says that the weight is based on the "prominence of each view", and this is exactly as it was before. Nothing changed at this level. The paragraph only reminds us that the views must be well supported as defined in WP:verifiability and WP:no original research. That's all. -- Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The concept that the weight given a viewpoint in an article should be based on its verifiability is supported neither by convention nor policy. WP:V enjoins us to make sure that all content must be verifiable. It says nothing about the amount of weight given to relevant viewpoints.

I totally agree. Again, this is just a misunderstanding. The paragraph does not say at all that verifiability should be used to determine the weight. As you say, verifiability only says that we should not accept content that is not verifiable (i.e. does not have a reputable source.) This is perfectly in accord with the proposed paragraph. We have no disagreement here. What I find useful is that you seem to say that WP:verifiability cannot be found in conflict with WP:neutral point of view. This is my point. The paragraph just try to make it clear. It is not enough that you and I agree. It should be very clear for the new comers. -- Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight is a long-standing, fundamental part of one of Wikipedia's foundational policies. Changing it to mean something completely different from what it has traditionally meant is not going to meet with wide acceptance.

Sure, but again it was just a misunderstanding. There was no attempt to change the NPOV policy that you and I understand, as I can see above. The goal is just to clearly explain it in the context of the other policies, which will be very useful. -- Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The confusion is very simple to understand. The paragraph strikes "significant" and replaces it with "well supported". So, naturally people interpret it as if the proposal is to reject significance as a criteria and to replace it with well supported. I almost cannot blame those who had this interpretation. However, the motivation to strike "significant" is, of course, not at all to reject the criteria. This criteria remains implicit in the remainder of the sentence: "in proportion to the prominence of each". We can put it back and write "significant and well supported". The tricky point is that it is not true that we reject all non significant views, as it is clearly explained in the remainer of the section Undue weight. However, this is issue is completely orthogonal to the essence of what is proposed in the new paragraph. Therefore, for now, I propose the paragraph

NPOV says that the article should neutrally and fairly represent all significant and well supported views in proportion to the prominence of each. A view must be well supported as specified in the no original research and verifiability policies. How to describe a view neutrally is explained elsewhere in this policy. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare significant, neutral and well supported views ...

Later, we can discuss if we want to keep "significant" or remove it from the first and last sentences. I do not mean keep or remove the criteria, but only the word "significant". We could keep it, because the presence of two or more views to compare is kind of implicit in these sentences, and a non significant view should go into its own separate article. Also, as pointed out by FeloniousMonk, the policy is very clear that non significant views are acceptable in their own article. So, there will be no misunderstanding. OTOH, it is somehow redundant in the first sentence because of the "in proportion to the prominence of each", which could be rewritten as "in proportion to the significance of each". We obtain this other alternative

NPOV says that the article should neutrally and fairly represent all well supported views in proportion to the prominence significance of each. A view must be well supported as specified in the no original research and verifiability policies. How to describe a view neutrally is explained elsewhere in this policy. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare neutral and well supported views ...

What people think? -- Lumière 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is accurate, narrow, concise, and easily understood. You're proposal adds ambiguity and introduces a new concept, fairness, to an already clear and appropriately narrow policy subsection.

By mentioning "fairness" the proposed wording would open the door to pov pushers on non mainstream topics to challenge the mainstream viewpoint being presented in non mainstream articles as fundamentally unfair.

Adding "neutrally and fairly" is unnecessary: neutrally is already sufficiently covered elsewhere and fairness has nothing to do with undue weight. If you want the NPOV policy to address fairness then propose a new section. Fairness and undue weight are two distinct, separate topics.

Again, undue weight has stood for some time now as it is and has been a useful, necessary, and widely accepted guiding principle within NPOV. You've made several proposals now to rewrite it, but from my perspective, you've made no case for why this necessary. I haven't found the reasoning given here compelling, nor can I see how the current policy is flawed, how these proposals improve the policy (indeed, just the opposite), or any other pressing need for rewriting Undue weight, so I don't support the proposal. FeloniousMonk 02:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FM's right. There's nothing wrong with the wording as it stands, while this change introduces ambiguities and dilutes the policy. This is part of our contral policy and the wording fits the way it is used. I do not favour the change. Guettarda 03:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your intention not to dilute the policy, and your right that there was nothing (very) wrong with the formulation per se. However, I still think that it is necessary to place this section in its context. The formulation can be very good, but the link with other policies was missing. A situation in context is very standard and considered necessary to communicate well a new concept, and it is a new concept for the new comers. What I understand now is that I am better do that by adding new sentences. I propose to add two sentences at the end, after the three points:

The three points that are mentioned above should not be interpreted as a replacement to the WP:verifiability and WP:no original research policies. To be acceptable for inclusion in an article, in addition to the requirements of the neutral point of view policy, any content should be acceptable in accordance with the WP:no original research and WP:verifiablity policies.

Similar sentences (see above) were already accepted by many editors. I hope this will not be considered as a dilution of the policy. Clearly, the goal is to place the policy in its context. This was always my only goal. I am sorry that my first attempts diluted the policy. -- Lumière 03:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This, as said above, seems like it would already be obvious, but, also as I said above, I cannot see a harm in the addition. I have no opinion, positive or negative, on this proposal; but can you point me to where you provided evidence of confusion on this point among editors? (I assume you did, somewhere in the volumnious archives, that's why I'm phrasing this in this way.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is just by principle that I have this request. Note that it is also a good principle to say what we believe is obvious. Nothing is so obvious for new comers. I am very happy that you find it obvious. -- Lumière 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.

This is a cut and paste from the current version of the section Undue weight of the policy. There is nothing from me in this sentence. I did not add the "fairly" nor the "significant". I never edited that section.

I propose to remove the "significant". This proposal has nothing to do with the previous proposal. The justification is that (1) the requirement that non significant viewpoints should only appear alone on separate articles is not expressed at all when we use "significant" as it is used in this sentence and (2) the fact that the significance of the view must be taken into account is already there in the sentence at the end: "in proportion to the prominence of each". So, it is completly useless. BTW, I also agree with FM that the "fairly" is not really useful, if it is what he/she meant when he/she said that the notion of fairness was not clear. -- Lumière 04:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is useful as it makes it clear than non-significant viewpoints do not need to be, and should not be, included in articles. I oppose this change. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

JesseW, you are suggesting a rule that goes beyond the policy. Clearly, the policy is that a view that is well supported in accordance with verifiability and no original research is acceptable for inclusion in some article, perhaps not in any article, but at the least in some ancillary article. Otherwise, what is this rule exactly? It seems to me that it could be used by a few biased editors to suppress some well supported information. Why would we want to allow the complete suppression of some information that was presiously published in a reputable source? Certainly, the quality of Wikipedia is safe if the information was already published in a reputable source. So, why? -- Lumière 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"This proposal has nothing to do with the previous proposal."

This is ridiculous, of course it does. It's the exact same word, the same sentence, the same issue. Now it really looks like you're trying a fast one. How many new sections here are you going start in your campaign to remove this word from the policy? And how many other editors have to object? There's no support for what you propose. FeloniousMonk 05:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow again a misunderstanding. By previous proposal, I meant the proposal of the previous section, not the one in the next section above it. Make sense? Also, I do not propose to remove this word. I just want to know what is the purpose of this word exactly. If the purpose is to completely suppress well supported (sourced) information, then I ask why do you want the power to completely suppress this kind of information from Wikipedia?

Note that I understand that you think that I was discussing this issue with you before (in the next section above the previous one), but actually at the time I was not really interested. I did not really appreciate the point. My interest at the time was only to situate the section in the context of the other policies. Now, that I see the point, I am interested. It is a completely different point, but it is important.

Also, it is you that I have no support for what you propose. Just this isolated phrase with the word significant is not policy. You will have to show that some further elaboration of your interpretation, whatever it is, is found in the policy. What every one can see from the section Undue weight is that even the view of a tiny minority is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is not at all in support of a special interpretation that says that we can completely suppress well supported (sourced) information. -- Lumière 05:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

JesseW, I am not impressioned by FeloniousMonk. My question is perfectly legitimate. -- Lumière 05:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? That the word "significant" be removed from the undue weight section? What benefit does the project gain if we make it easier to insert crackpot viewpoints? We already have a reputation for indulging crackpots, which hurts our credibility. If anything, the policy should be tightened, rather than loosened. Too many people here push fringe viewpoints. Guettarda 07:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

About this, yesterday I asked FeloniousMonk to back up his claim that "What viewpoints are significant is verifiable without relying on subjective opinion." Harald88 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, as far as I recall, Jimbo's explications about how to deal with what we may regard "pseudoscience" sound more like lumiere's than FeloniousMonk's -- but now I have difficulty to find them, where are they grouped? Harald88 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

JesseW and FeloniousMonk are correct - significant vs. insignificant should be illuminated, otherwise it may open the door to every fringe theory and idea being treated equally by a few determined POV pushers. This would fundamentally damage WP's reliability as a source of information. There are a couple of hundred hollow-earthers; should we present their views equally with the geology and structure which is presented in Earth#Physical_characteristics? I think not. To go down this path is madness and we should not even be considering it. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 14:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Puppy's opinion is certainly shared by all, not only by JW and FM. However, at the moment the article is potentially selfcontradictory, as shown above but ignored by many. Any added qualifyer such as "significant" should be based on input/precisions from other policies, and then the problem is solved.

We have now a proposed precision of what "significant" means from lumiere; and I agree with that formulation, as it is in harmony with all policies so that such a clarification doesn't change the NPOV policy.

I still hope to find Jimbo's comments on these matters. (Anyone?) Harald88 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I can only tell you that there is nothing about the three points of the Undue weight section in the wikipedia-l mailing list in the November September 2003 period, which is the period where Jimbo apparently wrote these three points. Also, I agree with you, Harald88, that we should not invent our own definition, but refer to other parts of the policy. Otherwise, it is like a significant modification of the policy. -- Lumière 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

are you sure that he wrote those three points? Harald88 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I only know that it is what we say in the Undue Weight section. Bensaccount who worked in the history of the NPOV policy might know more about it. -- Lumière 21:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I now found that it was Bensaccount, who removed "significant" from the article summary on 15 december 2005, with the comment: "(What kind of view is an insignificant minority and why should it be ignored?)". Probably he remembered the similar original summary definition, which he pointed to on the Talk page around that time:

Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly. Wikipedia uses the words "bias" and "neutral" in a special sense! This doesn't mean that it's possible to write an article from just one point of view, the neutral (unbiased, "objective") point of view. That's a common misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. It's crucial that we work together to make articles unbiased. It's one of the things that makes Wikipedia work so well. Writing unbiased text is an art that requires practice. The following essay explains this policy in depth, and is the result of much discussion. We strongly encourage you to read it. - http://meta.wikimedia.org/?title=Neutral_point_of_view--draft&oldid=20764#Executive_summary Harald88 03:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I can think of only one reason for removing "significant" from this wording: to allow people who want to push fringe (for which, in most cases, read "crackpot") points of view into Wikipedia articles, and have them treated with a seriousness that they don't deserve. When, for example, writing an article on a controversial politician, we should be neutral as between those who disapprove of her and those who don't; we don't have to be neutral between those who think that she's human and those who think that she's the spawn of Satan, sent by the dukes of hell to prepare the way for the coming of the antichrist. That is, we treat significant viewpoints neutrally, and either ignore the rest or give them the space that they deserve.

Incidentally, I find it worrying that Bensaccount doesn't understand the plain English phrase "significant majority". I haven't checked the History yet, but did he really write that? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel, as far as could find out, someone had added "significant" to that phrase. I have not yet found when it happend nor with what motivation. It may have been added by some people who were not acting in good faith. For example, a few people who fanatically adhere to certain majority POV's could be incited to attempt to silence alternative POV's by tinkering with this policy. Anyway, the addition of that word has led to ambiguity. According to Wikipedia policy, less significant monority viewpoints can be given separate article space with a link from the main article. In the end, notability is the selection rule for inclusion in Wikipedia. See also below. -Harald88

The real problem is not whether or not we keep "significant". The problem is to keep it without a reasonable definition for it. There is no problem to keep "significant" if we define its meaning as follows: A view is significant relative to an article if (1) it is held by a significant minority or a larger group and is relevant to the article or (2) it is held by a tiny minority and the article is exclusively devoted to this view. With this definition, the requirement that a view is significant is perfectly in accord with the Undue weight section. The problem is that some people would like to keep "significant" with a definition that is so vague that, when it used to resolve a dispute, could exclude case (1) or (2) above. With this vague definition of significant, one gains the power to completely suppress well Sourced Information even if it held by a majority! I am not saying that someone will try that, but in principle it can happen. For example, one could say that an article about standard classical mechanics is not significant because it is too elementary. My point is that as long as we do not define what we mean by significant we open the door to any kind of argument like that.

Those who want to remove the term "significant" in the first sentence do not want to remove the concept that views must be selected in proportion to the prominence of each. The fact that the view of a tiny minority does not have its place in Wikipedia, except in their own ancillary articles, is very clear in the Undue weight section and nobody wants to change that. Removing "significant" in the first sentence will not change that. The problem with "significant" is that it is not well defined. It is a new term that is not defined at all in the section. Concretely, the problem is that such a vague notion allows the suppression of any well sourced information. Why would someone wants to insist to have this power? -- Lumière 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The undue weight section is the part of the article describing how to "fairly represent" views. I find it vague and skewed towards certain details while ignoring the bigger picture. Heres how I would rewrite the section:

NPOV says that when there are conflicting views, these views should be fairly represented. Fair representation requires consideration of factors such as popularity (majority, minority, or tiny minority), significance (relevance to the article), and expertise (expert vs amateur). Once there is consensus regarding these factors, views are represented proportionally. Undue weight should not be given to views which do not meet these qualifications.

This could be followed by examples of what qualifies as a majority view, significant view, or an expert's view. etc. Bensaccount 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Do you think the "Undue Weight" section should be changed?

Support

1. Yes - See above. Bensaccount 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes - However, I think that it should be made clear that this NPOV policy is only about competitive views in one article and cannot be used to prevent a view from being presented in its own separate article. Also, I would add one sentence that says that a view still need to respect no original research and verifiabily, and this even if it appears in its own separate article. -- Lumière 21:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Yes I already explained this above: Undue bias is only about one aspect of fair and unbiased representation; and for consistency, "significant" (no matter if that word stays or is substituted), should be shown to be based on other policies, together with an appropriate link. Note that of course no policy change should be considered: NPOV is non-negotiable. Harald88 18:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I oppose the proposed change on the grounds that it is formulaic. What is "significant" in any given case is easily arrived at by appropriate use of consensus processes. Remember that NPOV does not operate in a void, and it is not the whole of Wikipedia policy. In other words, it's not broken so it doesn't need fixing.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   You propose that a view is "significant" or "non significant" when it is declared so by consensus. I would prefer a real definition based on what we really want to mean by "significant". In the case of a dispute, whatever is the definition, a consensus might be required to interpret it, but we should do our part and provide some real definition that explains as much as possible what we mean without the need of a consensus. In particular, when there is no dispute, there is no consensus to call and your definition is useless to an editor, which still needs to make choice and needs some guidance. The notion of consensus is indeed important, but it only and should only apply when there is a dispute. -- Lumière 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   Also, your definition allows a consensus to suppress a well sourced tiny minority view that appears in its own separate article. It also allows a consensus to suppress a well sourced minority view from an article where it is relevant. Why do you want to give that much power to a consensus? In accordance with WP:Consensus, a consensus should not be used to violate a WP policy, which means that it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to give unrestricted power to a consensus. -- Lumière 05:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Another change designed to get POV pushing in the back door. Look at the support votes! Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   I don't think guilt by association is a valid argument, I had good intentions when I have voted and didn't get the subtility of the change and the differences at first. Fad (ix) 20:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose, for the reasons I've already stated above. Also, staw polls are non-binding and ill-advised. From Wikipedia:Straw polls: "If you try to force an issue with a poll, expect severe opposition, people adding a "polls are evil and stupid" option and your poll not being regarded as binding." FeloniousMonk 18:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose, for the reasons stated above. I have nothing particular to add. Bill Jefferys 19:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - as above. Guettarda 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - present policy works, no reason to change. PiCo 01:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, for the reasons given above. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose as many of the sponsors seem to have acted their proposals in bad faith. -- ScienceApologist 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - the proposed changes appear to be a charter for including misinformation on the grounds of claims that it is popular. .... dave souza: talk 20:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose -- per FM, Dave, Guettarda, etc., and my own earlier comments. Jim62sch 21:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Rainbowpainter 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Strongly oppose; which part of non-negotiable don't you understand? — Dunc| ☺ 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ ( t- c- e) 09:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose – It is not the job of an encyclopedia to report what is popular, but merely what is factual as determined by the reputable sources cited. Often this will contradict the 'popular' view. There is no satisfactory way of 'weighting' the one against the other. -- PL 10:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose – in case my comment "To go down this path is madness" did not make my position clear enough. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 11:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    Whether you oppose it or not, this is the way it is done. I suggest you allow the policy to reflect this. If you disagree, perhaps you would like to state how exactly did you think views were being chosen? Bensaccount 15:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

16. Oppose - As per the good people above. I've still not seen any reason to make such dramatic changes. -- Ec5618 16:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    "Dramatic chainges" Ec? how exactly did you think views were being chosen? Bensaccount 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

17. Oppose per Dave Souza. -- Ian Pitchford 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    Have you even read the section in question? "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". According to the Undue Weight section, popularity is the only qualification. Bensaccount 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    That isn't the only way to interpret it. It unburdens editors and articles from having to detail or give into every-minority-view, "need not" allows for elaboration if it is warranted by such and such a criteria, which is worked out on the talk page. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose - Can the POV-pushers please finally give up the delusion that they can rewrite policy to suit their own agendas? DreamGuy 17:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose - Can't see the problem with the present form. -- Plumbago 10:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Discuss. Let's not hold a poll, but hold a consensus-finding discussion instead.

1. Discuss: It was not made clear that this was a poll to find the current state of consensus, so I oppose having a poll at this time. (standard pulling-an-elian vote :-) Kim Bruning 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
2. While I prefer this option, I am still opposed to the proposed changes. Guettarda 19:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
3. per Guettarda. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
4. I think these polls were only a trick to gain the attention of people. Unfortunately, it only works superficially. There is only one justification proposed to oppose (given in the first oppose vote), and it basically says that we don't need a clear policy - we just have to seek consensus. Others refer to it or provide arguments that attack the proponents instead of the proposal itself. I explained what is wrong with the justification of the first oppose vote. This explanation is partially in the comments 5 and 6 and partially below the vote itself. -- Lumière 20:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

1. Polls are evil. - KillerChihuahua ^?!? 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   note: except for my comment here, all 5 remaining comments are from Lumiere. Lumiere, do you think you could edit this to one definitive statement? It looks like input from six different people and it is input from one person, and one person citing Polls are evil. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   I don't see where is the problem. One person can write more than one comment. I think that I am contributing to the thinking process from different angles. -- Lumière 18:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

2. We have to be realistic. If it is difficult to only remove one word that is not well defined, a modification that does not change the essence of the policy, but only remove ambiguity, how can we expect a support to rewrite the entire policy? -- Lumière 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Has it occurred to you that defining the term better is an option, and that you may have no support for rewriting the entire policy because that is not necessary nor desirable? KillerChihuahua ^?!? 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, but currently the term "significant" could be defined in so many ways. In particular, one can define the term to add a substance to the policy, thus modifying it, or just to repeat what is already clear in the policy. Which of these two cases are you supporting? I don't think that playing with the definition of a specific term is the best way to improve the policy. If you propose that, be ready for a long debate that will miss the big picture. An explicit extra definition that repeats what is already mentioned in the policy is just confusing. Instead, I would simply add a sentence at the end saying "a view that is acceptable for inclusion in an article in accordance with the NPOV policy is said to be significant (relative to this article). -- Lumière 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Horse-feathers - "significant" is quite clear, if you feel that it isn't, try fixing its definition rather than trying to weaken NPOV. Jim62sch 22:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

3. If we want to improve the policy, we should not do it by considering only the Undue Weight section in isolation, certainly not just how to define a term in this section. Before we improve the Undue weight section, we must consider the relationship with other policies. In particular, it is likely that the objective of a given definition of "significant" can be better achieved by a clarification of the no original research and the verifiability policies. People underestimate how much these policies can be useful to suppress "non significant" views. -- Lumière 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
4. KillerChihuahua seems to be ready to discuss the definition of the term "significant", which can be defined in so many ways. He/she does not realize that, unless we fix that it will not add anything to the policy, it is equivalent to a serious rewrite of the section. -- Lumière 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Like you say, significance is non-specific and could be defined in many ways. More useful terms here are popularity, relevance, and expertise. Bensaccount 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   None of which are synonymous with "significant" as used in Wiki policy. Jim62sch 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps you can enligthen us Mr. Definition and provide a link to that definition in WP policy. Then we will have to check that the policies are not in conflict when we use that definition. -- Lumière 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   When you learn civility, I shall be glad to assist you in your search for knowledge. In the meantime, do your own homework. Jim62sch 12:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Reply to comment above by Bensaccount, reposted here: Have you even read the section in question? "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". According to the Undue Weight section, popularity is the only qualification. Bensaccount 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

prominence and popularity are not the same thing. Please watch your formatting; in a numbered list comments to signatures must begin with a #, followed by the appropriate number of colons, to maintain numbering. Thanks. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that the difference between prominence and popularity answers my question? Bensaccount 16:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It was meant as a correction: the first sentence reads NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.. I concur the later use of "popularity" might be misleading. However, your statement that popularity is the only criteria is in error. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that popularity is the only criteria in the remainder of the section, and the most natural interpretation of significant should be consistent with that. Of course, if you decide to play with the meaning of "significant", the first sentence can mean about anything. -- Lumière 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion started with another look at the NPOV policy summary:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias

The question is if this is a good summary of Jimbo's requirement, and if it is well expanded on in the article. It rapidly became clear that "representing views fairly" is not well described, instead some (but not all!) aspects of it are treated seperately; and that also an additional word "significant" in the article is ambiguous which could lead to a misunderstanding of NPOV.

lumiere did some suggestions how to correct this lack of explanation and his approach looked reasonable to me; it seems quite feasible to deal with this matter without introducing any new rules -right? Harald88 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Which two (or, if you're using "ambiguous" loosely, more than two) meanings does "significant" have? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, of course, I think my proposed definition is fine. (-: It will solve the problem if others also do not see any problem with it. -- Lumière 01:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't reply for one day, maybe someone else can copy lumiere's overview above back here, thanks. Harald88 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the defintion of significant that I suggested:

A view is significant relative to an article if (1) it is held by a significant minority or a larger group and is relevant to the article or (2) it is held by a tiny minority and the article is exclusively devoted to this view.

In contrast with other possible definitions, this proposed definition creates no conflict with other policies. In particular, it cannot be used to entirely remove a well sourced view from Wikipedia. It does not matter how we define "relevant" there will be no conflict with other policies. There is some hint to what is meant by relevant in the remainder of the section. I don't think more is needed, but if anyone has a way to better explain what it means, I see no problem with that. -- Lumière 02:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Trouble enters as soon as the word significant appears in the definition of significant. —  Saxifrage  ✎ 09:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because it's not a definition the word "significant", but of its use in this context. The phrase "significant majority" is slightly vague, but easily defined more precisely. The two uses don't support each other, so there's no possibility of circularity. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, there was no problem. -- Lumière 19:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Good one! Replace it there by "notable" (whcih is defined elsewhere) and it should work. Harald88 10:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

PS there is also a range of subject matters that view people published about; in that case notability is the only concern. Harald88 10:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there is an alternative to avoid conflict with other policies:

NPOV says that, when two or more viewpoints are considered for inclusion in an article, the article should represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.

I only added "when two or more viewpoints are considered for inclusion in an article" (and removed "fairly", but we can put it back). This may actually be exactly what was meant by the original sentence. Indeed, the context strongly suggests, and perhaps even implies, that there are more than one viewpoint in consideration. Then "significant viewpoints" can be taken as a shortcut for "viewpoints that are held by a significant minority or larger group", which is very natural given the context, and then the sentence is exactly saying what is explained in details in the remainder of the section. May I suggest that the issue with "significant" was perhaps just a non problem related to the non natural interpretation of the sentence where the article in consideration may have only one viewpoint. -- Lumière 13:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If we add the phrase "when two or more... ", there will be no harm to further clarify that "significant viewpoints" means "viewpoints that are held by a significant minority or larger group", so that there is no misinterpretation. Of course, we can also continue to debate the actual meaning of "significant viewpoints". My point is that the policy should not be vague, and certainly not be self contradictory. -- Lumière 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously "fairly" must not be omitted.

Remains that significant seems to conflict with the requirement that to mention something in Wikipedia it must be notable, and not significant. IMO, simply putting notable there with the appropriate link is the most straightforward solution. Harald88 20:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If we take "significant viewpoints" as a shortcut for "viewpoints that are held by a significant minority or a larger group", it is not opposed to the principle that a view must be notable, and it just says what is clearly explained in the section. However, I do understand that you would like that the sentence says that that a view must be notable. Note that the sentence does not refer to verifiability and no original research either, and this does not bother me because these are part of other policies. It is enough, but necessary, that the section have some reference at the end to these other policies. Why is it important that notability is mentioned in this first sentence. Is it a main concept of Undue weight? If yes, where is it explained in the section? -- Lumière, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as the two different applications of the two words are not confused, it will be no problem; from the above reactions it appears however that that confusion already exists, for why would there be otherwise so many votes "against" such a disambiguation? Harald88 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes a significant viewpoint is not a difficult conclusion to arrive at, nor is it a obscure or difficult concept to grasp. That articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each is a matter simple logic not to mention common sense. The only people who will find issue with that concept are those who have a less than significant viewpoint they want represented out of proportion in an article, which makes me wonder what the motive and subtext of this recent push to redefine Undue Weight is. FeloniousMonk 22:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, despite that FM didn't see the problem, we may have have reached consensus! I agree with FM's clarification: "articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". That leaves no doubt about the way "significance is meant: significance for the subject of the article, and not significance of the number of people that discussed it (for that we have "notability"). Harald88 08:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok FeloniousMonk, can you say something more precise about your understanding of "significant viewpoint" because this is going nowhere. We have two possible defintions above, and I will be happy with both. One is more complicated, but need no addition to the sentence. The other is simpler and more natural, but requires that we add "when two or more viewpoints..." to the sentence. There are also some that suggest that a viewpoint is significant or non significant if it is declared so by consensus. Can you say what is your definition? We can consider more definitions and associated modification to the sentence. Then we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each. -- Lumière 22:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

FM, judging by your comments above it would seem you are of the opinion that NPOV should not provide any advice on how to fairly represent views, beyond disciplining people with views that your common sense tells you are "insignificant". Is this really your position? Bensaccount 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Don Quixote was a charming character, but he always lost to the windmills. Jim62sch 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Somone added:

"These policies, which have mandatory application, are complementary and should not be interpreted in isolation."

Please back that up by references, in particular "are complementary". Next we can p[ut it back in (preferably with the links). Thanks in advance! Harald88 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This IS the reference. This is black-letter, set-in-stone policy. If you want to make a change, propose it in the proper places and then gather a broad and significant consensus. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 00:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I only demand you to tell us where you copied "are complementary" from, as I wondered for some time about their ranking. Thanks, Harald88 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Perhaps someone else can help out on this? Harald88 20:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The policies have beeen and are complimentary, they work together. You need to have all three present in an article to claim compliance. See also WP:V in which same wording is used. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. What I enguired about was the addition of the word "complementary", setting them all at equal level - which was a point for me to verify, as I know no valid source for it. I had guessed, from what I read from Jimbo, that NPOV is a "higher commandment". That makes a big difference in evolution of policies: equal standing carries the risk that this policy may be eroded by another policy, possibly violating its original intent.

Anyway, I now found that this change happened on your referred WP:V page by Slimvirgin, on 29 September, and also without any motivation nor any discussion on the Talk page, as far as I can see. Thus I'll demand Slimvirgin to back it up. Harald88 20:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You would be better off, asking nicely. WP:AGF ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As it happens I did so, and the resulting discussion was good but unsatisfying: In the end, he could cite no source! Thus I will do a retake of this as a new subject below. Harald88 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I placed the following post at the Help Desk, but thought that the experts on this matters are really found here. Kindly also see the response of Eequor at the HelpDesk. My thanks to those who can clarify this question well. Lafem 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV policy states: "we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

Since the conjunction used here is or implying that the second part is but an alternative, should we take this to mean that if there are experts on the subject with different points of view, there is no need to look into how the topic itself affects concerned parties nor much less how the ordinary people opine about the subject.

I base my interpretation in that the decision on what is majority and minority viewpoints is based on reference texts (experts I presume) and prominent adherents. See NPOV policy: "From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents."

To summarize: the "or" means that if there are experts, commonly referenced texts and prominent adherents, we should not look into the opinions of ordinary people or how people in general feel about the subject? Thanks. Lafem 12:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The comma in that statement is a hypercorrection. I think this is a poorly-written way of saying "we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among concerned parties and experts on the subject" — that is, we should present all views to an appropriate degree, which is what the rest of the policy says. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 15:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Eequor. That's a very scholarly response. It seems very bad writing indeed if that is the intent and policy-makers could have just chosen another conjunction such as and. That is why I am bringing this up for others to see. Thanks again. Lafem 05:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Or is non-exclusive. And/or is redundent, since both meanings exist in or. Guettarda 16:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Lafem is right, the section is very badly written. Bensaccount 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. But how about seeing this policy from the No Original Research Point of View:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say.

The original motivation for the no original research policy was to combat a real issue: people with personal theories that very few people take seriously, such as cranks and trolls, would attempt to use Wikipedia to draw attention to these theories and to themselves.

1. It is an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources. See "What counts as a reputable publication?" and "Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable.
2. Credible sources provide readers with resources they may consult to pursue their own research. After all, there are people who turn to encyclopedias as a first step in research, not as a last step.
3. Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our NPOV policy.

• Is it possible that here lies another connection between the two policies? Lafem 03:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In general I believe that you're interpretation is correct: the topic was in reference to minority points of view, and if the experts are fairly unanimous about something, and the references are fairly unanimous, you can express their views to a greater degree than the opposing view point. Thus, for instance, our article on the Common cold does not say that being cold gives you the cold, even though that is view held by a significant proportion of non-scientists. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding new sections to this page to say the same thing you've said before again in a new section. This is getting quite old, quite quickly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Quit what? We did not even had the chance to begin! -- Lumière 05:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Quit". "Quite". See the difference? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The horse is dead. It's not getting up. Stop flogging it. Jim62sch 10:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing the policy. It is you that don't get it. There will always be new sections. This will never stop. If you don't want to contribute fine. -- Lumière 10:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about policy, and the majority of others are telling you to desist. That is the sum of this "conversation" about policy.

As for your note below, it is not against the rules—what is against the rules is ignoring the wider community. If you were proposing anything that was acceptable to the wider group of editors you would not be getting told to stop. —  Saxifrage  ✎ 21:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd put a large amount of money on it's stopping, possibly quite soon. Moreover, saying that you refuse to accept community consensus isn't helpful or advisable. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By judging on the profuse comments in this and WP:V, I would argue that Lumiere ( talk · contribs) and Light current ( talk · contribs) seem to be engaging in a campaing to change WP policy barehanded. Well, that will not work. They will need to learn more about this project, address fellow editors with more respect and be a tad more humble in their WP endavors. Then they may, and I mean may, have a chance to be heard and taken seriously. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We were just discussing the "Role of truth in Wikipedia". We didn't know it was strictly prohibited by the rules. -- Lumière 16:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually what you're doing is called ignoring consensus to force an issue, and it needs to stop. Read WP:CON, and learn to accept and abide by it. The community has now voiced its opinion on the matter, and your proposals were rejected. I suggest moving on from this topic before you wear out the community's goodwill. Trying to force the issue as you are will only harden consensus against you. FeloniousMonk 16:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think consensus has been reached FM? Bensaccount 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is and has always been a longstanding consensus. If you want to change what is now a consensus version, you must again suvey the community's opinion, posting to all the appropriate places to inform people of your newly-formulated version of the changes (preferably marked up in a separate page). Then there has to be a wide-ranging consensus formed around it, or not. Talking on this talk page isn't enough to override the already established, well-founded consensus. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 04:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FM and Katefan0 -- this Quixotic crusade by a few editors to recast Wiki policy in their own image has got to stop in its present form. Kate explained what you need to do, FM gave you something very important to read. Listen to them, listen to Jossi, listen to RoyBoy, listen to Killerchihuahua and Guettarda and Mel Etitis. If you do, you might have a chance to salvage your reputations and you just may learn something in the process. Jim62sch 10:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, Bensaccount's proposal is dead. The following comments can be useful to consider the following proposals:

1. A modification of the first sentence of the section Undue weight:

   NPOV says that, when two or more viewpoints are considered for inclusion in an article, the article should represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.

2. Together with the first sentence that is proposed above:

   We consider "significant viewpoints" as a shortcut for "viewpoints that are held by a significant minority or larger group."

3. Together with the first sentence that is proposed above:

   We consider that a viewpoint is significant or non significant if it is declared so in a consensus.

4. Without modifying the current sentence:

   We consider that a view is significant relative to an article if (1) it is held by a significant minority or a larger group and is relevant to the article or (2) it is held by a tiny minority and the article is exclusively devoted to this view.

5. Together with the first sentence that is proposed above:

   We consider that a viewpoint is significant if it is relevant to the article.

Please this is not a pool. Stop voting. We only want thoughtful comments. -- Lumière 06:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

1. A typical comment of opponents to any change whatsoever is that they are concerned that these modifications to the policy can be used to prevent editors from suppressing crackput, etc. content. -- Lumière 06:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   This is a valid point, but a policy should provide a good trade off between rules to suppress content and rules to accept content. Note that the proposals 1 to 5 all allow that we suppress a tiny-minority view point from an article that compares two or more view points. Note also that there are other policies to suppress information: no original research and verifiability. To help us understand what is exactly the concern, it will be good to have one example of a content that cannot be suppressed with all these suppression rules, and yet should be suppressed. -- Lumière 07:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Another typical comment of opponents to changes is that significant has a natural meaning that does not need to be specified. -- Lumière 10:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   IMO, this is equivalent the proposal that defines significant in terms of consensus. If we use this approach with the modified first sentence (proposal 1), there is no conflict with other policies. IMO, this is not so bad. Basically, I am happy with proposal 1 alone. -- Lumière 10:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

3. The formulation should not systematically require a consensus. As usual, an editor should be allowed to proceed without consensus. A consensus is only required when there is a dispute. This is a potential problem with a definition based on consensus. -- Lumière 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   That is a personal opinion, and not supported by policy or guideline, see WP:CON. FeloniousMonk 18:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   You obviously misinterpret WP:Consensus. Your interpretation is in total contradiction with the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia invites new comers to contribute even without knowing any rule, and certainly without having to seek a consensus! --Lumiere

   No, I think FM has the concept of consensus down pretty well; your definition borders on anarchism. Jim62sch 23:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   The problem is not with the definition of consensus. So, I think you completely misunderstand the issue. The issue is whether or not an editor must seek consensus for every edit. My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that an editor does not need to seek consensus before every edit. Do you have a problem with this? -- Lumière 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   Where in the world do you get the idea that the current policy requires seeking consensus on every edit? When it comes to significance, it's simple—if there's no dispute and an editor is unsure whether what they'd like to add is "significant", then they may deliberately seek consensus. If there is a dispute, then consensus-seeking is mandatory. If they are sure that what they'd like to add is significant, then they can just add it. If their surety is wrong, then dispute happens: Rinse and repeat. All of this is a pretty straight-forward result of existing policy. Perhaps you are just unfamiliar with policy in a practical sense? Really, you and a bare handful of inexperienced editors are the only ones who seem to think the policy is broken. Wikipedia has been functioning just fine, have you noticed? —  Saxifrage  ✎ 11:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is not working just fine. There are plenty of dispute tags, rfc, etc. I do not want to go into any details. Here, the important is that you agree with me that an editor does not have to seek consensus before every edit. Thanks. Now, you try to evade the issue saying that, if "they" are not sure, "they" can seek a consensus. First, often "they" are just one person adding a contribution to an article. Second, what if "they" are sure but are actually in conflict with other policies, which is allowed with some definitions of "significant". Third, and perhaps more importantly, when it comes to have consensus, it is much easier if the policy provides clear rules that do not conflict with themselve. -- Lumière 12:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   It might behoove you to take a much better, more analytical, look into why there are tags, RfC's (although, they are for the most part a totally different subject), etc. If anything, the use of the tags and the RfC process indicate the the current policy is excellent at allowing Wiki to be self-policing. Most frequently, RfC's and disputes arise because one or two editors are POV-pushing and engaging in revert-warring. As for your remaining three points, you need to develop them a bit more clearly. Jim62sch 13:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   It doesn't help the discussion that you just repeat in different ways that you like Wikipedia the way it is. Clearly, others have a different view. The value of "self-policing" with an unclear policy is exactly the issue that is discussed in this talk npage right now. I think that my three points were clear, but I am happy to reexplain them. In the first point, I say that many edits are done by a single editor without consulting others, and this is not against WP policy. A rule based on consensus is totally useless to guide these edits, whereas a meaningful rule that stands by itself remains useful in these cases. In the second point, I say that, if significant remains not clear in the first sentence (as we have it now), then one could argue that a well sourced view is not significant and has no place at all in Wikipedia. Of course, the remainder of Wikipedia policy does not support that, but still this sentence should not create any confusion about it because someone can make use of it. In the third point, I say that, even if we take the view that consensus is the ultimate approach, it still remains that a clear policy is helpful to reach a consensus. It is easier for an editor to accept a consensus, if this editor sees that this consensus is supported by a clear policy. Moreover, don't forget that we have many articles in Wikipedia and the few editors that participate in a consensus often do not always have time to understand the issue. So a consensus amongst few editors can be biased. A clear policy is not only useful before a consensus is called, but also to avoid a biased decision when a consensus is called. -- Lumière 17:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   Ahah! I have found your problem. You seem to believe that the policy is for guiding individual editors in their work here at Wikipedia. You could not be more wrong! The policy guides the project. Individual editors are not expected to make perfect edits every time, which is where collaboration and consensus work their magic. As such, we do not have and do not need an NPOV policy that can provide a lone editor working in isolation a programmatic guide to how to edit without bias. It is not expected that an individual editor can entirely avoid bias and POV, but that a group, working to consensus, can get as close as possible. By the way, there are guides for single editors available which are derived from and consistent with Wikipedia policy; that's what Wikipedia:Welcome, Wikipedia:Tutorial, and other such pages are for. Please desist from trying to make NPOV policy perfect for you and let it be perfect for the project. —  Saxifrage  ✎ 20:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, that is wrong or at least misleading: The original draft policy contained "Writing unbiased text is an art that requires practice" as well as a chapter called "Writing for the enemy". Harald88 08:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   Postscript: On this note, may I direct you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, which states that procedures and rules are not to replace consensus; and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, which by implication states that the spirit of any policy is more important than the wording of any policy, and further means (by its very existence) that letter-perfect policy pages are not required to make Wikipedia run properly. —  Saxifrage  ✎ 20:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   You are getting closer since you understood the first point that I made. Unfortunately, it was the less significant point. It was just a remark on the fact that you used "they" in your sentences. Every thing else that I explained apply to a group of editors as well as to a single editor. Perhaps, you want to go as far as saying that the policy is only to be used when we seek consensus. I think this is going a little bit too far. However, even then, I explained why we need a precise policy when we call a consensus. Ok, I do understand that you favor a weak and even unclear policy that relies on local consensus instead of precise rules. Superficially, because of the word "consensus" it seems that you are fighting for the use of consensus, but in reality, as I explained, you are fighting for anarchy and confusion based on many local consensus, which depend on the bias of the few editors that participate in these consensus. Precise rules does not mean less consensus. To the contrary, it is an occasion for a community wide consensus on important issues. -- Lumière 20:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   As far as your added note is concerned, it is interesting that, if what you say is true, Wikipedia is NOT seems to conflict with WP:Consensus, which explains that a consensus cannot be used to violate policy. Also, if you are right about (1) policy are only used when there is a call for consensus and (2) consensus does not have to follow policy, then to be honest we better move all policies at the level of guidelines. Look at the last comments in the talk page of verifiability, and you will see that many don't agree with the idea that policies are like guidelines. -- Lumière 20:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   In case you've not noticed, this proposal is doing a Hindenberg. You might want to take some time to figure out why. Jim62sch 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   Because it deals with an unclear policy. -- Lumière 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   (reduce indent) Nice try, but totally wrong. Jim62sch 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   I still maintain that in general, we should have a policy that is as clear as possible on important issues and a consensus should only be used to complement it. In this case, the issue IMO is that we should not have a policy that allows the suppression of any well sourced content. This is achieved with proposal 1 alone. So, if we use the modified first sentence of proposal 1, we can rely on consensus to interpret "significant" and yet this will not allow a consensus to suppress any well sourced content from anywhere in Wikipedia. Still, I think there is no harm and it is safer to say more about what we think it means, because some editors might have a completely different interpretation that may not be so good. -- Lumière 10:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Some rules require the suppression of some information to maintain the quality of Wikipedia, but these rules are designed to suppress as little information as possible. Any information that cannot be suppressed with these rules should be acceptable for inclusion. Two important principles can be seen here. First, we protect the quality of Wikipedia while suppressing as litttle information as possible. Second, what is acceptable for inclusion does not depend on the mood of the editors. Any rule that gives an extra arbitrary power to a consensus to suppress or not information (beyond what must be suppressed in accordance with the above mentioned rules) violates these two fundamental principles. Such a rule allows more suppression of information than neccessary and do nothing to prevent a biased selective suppression of information. -- Lumière 05:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   Since much of this discussion is reliant on semantics (albeit poorly used semantics), let me pose the following accurate semantic question: would you care to define "information"? Quite honestly, until we accurately define that word there is little point in moving forward with discussing the rest of the items raised in this topic. Jim62sch 23:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   For the purpose of understanding the above paragraph you can consider that information is any block of text, a sentence, a paragraph, a section, etc. at a given location in Wikipedia. So, an "information" that is suppressed means that the associated block is not accepted in Wikipedia, and must either be removed or modified into something acceptable. Was this a sincere question? I realize that some people like to see definitions. However, I do not think that we should be too picky here. If you really do not understand, please ask, but don't be picky just to be picky.

   Note that the case of "significant" is a good example where it was perfectly legitimate and even necessary to ask the definition. I have seen three different meanings of this term in this talk page, sometimes only given implicitly. One of them is a very pragmatic meaning: A view is significant or not significant if it is declared so by consensus. I don't like this one because it depends too much on the few editors that participate in the consensus. Also, it is useless before a consensus is called, which only happens when there is a dispute. Editors need guidance before a dispute occurs. -- Lumière 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Judging "proportionality" is what consensus/discussion accomplishes per article; putting together a metric, even a good one, will leave things out (and if comprehensive would be a long dull and unencyclopic policy just by its potential length alone). Certainly providing basic guidance to editors is a good thing, but I guess I'm cynical it would be helpful as those who tend to engage in disputes have a skewed view of the criteria that would be outlined to them (re: popularity, competance of adherants, etc.); assuming they are diligent enough to read it in the first place. I concede it could be handy to users to refer to (copy and paste wise) when engaging with relatively new editors on these matters. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   You perhaps meant to say "it would not be helpful as those..." because otherwise I am not following your logic. I will assume it was a typo. -- Lumière 06:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   You are explaining very well why consensus must play a fundamental role in the application of any policy. Next, you are cynical and suggest that no policy is useful because editors involved in a dispute will misinterpret it anyway. It is indeed a limitation to the usefulness of a policy, but not a valid excuse to have an unclear policy. Finally, you acknowledge that a policy can be useful with new comers. I would rather say that it can be useful with all those that can accept and respect the policy, and it would help if it was not ambiguous.

   This being said, you perhaps did not have the time to read all the so many lenghty comments written above and figure out what is the issue. The issue is that if we are vague about significant in the current version of the first sentence of the Undue weight section, editors can use that first sentence to completely suppress even a well sourced content from appearing anywhere in Wikipedia. I am not against the principle that a consensus should be used to complement a policy, but this does not justify at all that the policy contradicts other policies and allow the suppression of information that is explicitly considered acceptable in these other policies. Note that the Undue weight section allows that we suppress a tiny-minority viewpoint from an article that compare two or more viewpoints. This is not the issue. Those who oppose to all these proposals want to be able to completely suppress even well sourced content from anywhere in Wikipedia.-- Lumière 07:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I ignored anything written in this yet another new section, but in the event I missed a specific proposal, OBJECT. Discuss on reasonably formatted talk page first. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC) I join Hipocrite in this objection This discussion is impossible to follow. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just more of the one or two here who won't or can't accept consensus attempting to force the issue. It's getting really tiring. Like Dunc pointed out: "What part of "non-negotiable" don't you understand"? FeloniousMonk 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A royal waste of time, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another member of the community agreeing with the objections mentioned above. Drop it. Come back in a year. Your stores of goodwill may have returned by then. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I join Hipocrite, Jossi, FM and JesseW. Jim62sch 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". I hereby include a useful definition:

Dogma:

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. (doctrine)
3. A principle or belief or a group of them.

NPOV is scripture set in stone. Do not attempt to modify, interpret or clarify it, or it will lose its original meaning. This is your God's wish, obey it. -- Anon84.x 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehehehe, behave! Kim Bruning 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey mom, what are you doing on this wiki? -- Anon84.x 13:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the following formulation good when I first came to Wikipedia. It seems to have disappeared sometime recently: is there objection to reinstating it? Septentrionalis 17:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased.

I support re-including this phrase. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem with constantly rewriting/refactoring policy without a genuine need; necessary points get lost in the churn. I support reinserting the passage in its original form and placement as much practicable. I do not support expanding the passage to cover points it was not originally associated with. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with FeloniousMonk. Re-instate the passage only. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Jim62sch 10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur also. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 11:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Its already there. I suppose a sentence about not advocating any side could be included for those people who manage to advocatr a side of a debate without engaging in it. (To me this seems impossible.) Bensaccount 19:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Bensaccount 19:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes please reinsert it. It is part of some stuff that some people here thought so obvious that they deleted it; however, the some recent comments on this page prove that it's not obvious to all.

BTW, some people are quite capable of doing the "impossible": to write nearly NPOV articles in one go, even if they have an opinion about the subject matter. It just requires objectively looking at the subject and compensating for one's own bias. See also below. Harald88 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Related to the above, from an earlier discussion (pushed into archive oblition before discussion):

A consequence: writing for the enemy - Was removed in full - discussion?

The section was misleading. Other editors or other POVs are not "the enemy". The section was not missed. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounded plausible. However, on this same talk page Saxifrage stated, among other things:

You seem to believe that the policy is for guiding individual editors in their work here at Wikipedia. You could not be more wrong!

Instead, this policy does instruct editors, both on their own and as group how to strive for NPOV. It's essential that Wikipedia isn't seen as a battlegound of opinions, whereby each editor defends a single POV against that of others, so that only after negotiation a kind of NPOV will be obtained -- but still mostly biased towards the POV of the editor who has most persistence, or that of the majority of editors. IMO it's crucial that the contrary is emphasized, that such is not an acceptable way of operation.

Thus, now that its necessity has been demonstrated I disagree with the omission of the whole "writing for the enemy" paragraph, and insist that we put this deleted policy piece back.

Note that I don't disagree with rephrasing (for example enemy -> "enemy", taking Bensaccounts point) and also a little trimming is of course open for discussion. But first put it back. Harald88 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is one of these points "lost" in the attempt to simplify. Let's put it back. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Per Harald and Jossi. FeloniousMonk 20:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

On this page: "NPOV is one of Wikipedia's four content-guiding policy pages." On pages for the other three policies, mention is only made of "three content-guiding policies". In need of review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.97.52 ( talk • contribs)

Some consider WP:NOT to be a content guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

... I won't be supplying anymore of it, and encourage others to do the same. Watch the page, revert ill-formed, misguided or bad faith edits, and leave it at that. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 04:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As usual, sound advice from Katefan. FeloniousMonk 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Excellent advice. -- Anon84.x 20:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

retrieved from Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 004#God's existence is essentially undiscoverable?

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)

This was not acceptable as a change. The statement "god exists" is nowhere near the borderline, and is intentionally inflamatory. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote in the edit summary: "The statement "god exists" is pure pov". WP:NPOV is the page that defines what wikipedians designate as "pure POV", so this page is the reference. It uses the opinion/value concept to do that. There is no other page in wikipedia more suited to define what "pure pov" is. The God/atheism example is illustrative, as it demonstrates the difference between "facts" and "The Truth (about the existence/non existence of God)": in wikipedia such type of "truth" is usually pov, and thus to be replaced by verifiable facts, e.g. an account of who said what about the existence of God/deities, and in which verifiable source that can be checked. -- Francis Schonken 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Using god as an example is weak, because it is NOT borderline, yet many people will (like you) think it IS borderline. It also tends to inflame passions and make people see things less rationally. Avoid God. I would also note that the words on the page do NOT define what we designate as POV. The words on the page are a textual representation of what we designate as POV. Jimbo's vision for NPOV is the final arbitor of POV, not this page, which is designed to express his vision. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I concurr. We have enough work just keeping tempers cool when editing aticles abour religious subjects, that to add these statements just to prove a point, when he point is already made, is in my view, unecessary and will inflame passions rather than clarifying what NPOV is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Playing the "God card" may be appropriate for politicians as it allows them to create the impression in the mind of the listener that the opponent is godless, or anti-god, or downright evil, but using it here, for the same purposes, is innapropriate. A better example, one less fraught with danger, might be the question of whether or not aliens have visited earth. Jim62sch 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, @ Hipocrite:) "existence of God" is the fourth in a list of non borderline cases:

1. "stealing is wrong"
2. " the Beatles was the greatest band"
3. "the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki"
4. "God exists"

This fourth example is specifically described as NOT troublesome.

There are Wikipedia articles describing proofs of the existence of God (see e.g. Summa Theologica). The NPOV policy page describes how that is done without inflamed passions, and without needing a {{ NPOV}} template. Since, for example, the "Summa Theologica" article HAS a {{Cleanup}} template, I don't think the "existence of God" example is redundant on the NPOV policy page (irony, that template on that article was put up a few days before the "existence of God" example was removed from the NPOV guideline - no surprise that the "cleanup" of the "Summa Theologica" article seems to stall...).

The "avoid God" instruction you wrote in the edit summary [1] is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as intended by Jimbo (ask him!). The NPOV policy page is intended to show that Wikipedia can handle the most sensitive topics if treating them in a NPOV way.

Further the "existence of God" example was at the WP:NPOV policy for a longer period of time than your user account exists: the example was there when I started editing wikipedia (July 2004) and was there until three months ago. So I'm quite confident it is included in our shared vision for the NPOV as mentioned by Jimbo in User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, rather than your "avoid god" instruction. -- Francis Schonken 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not apply to the Wikipedia namespace. The example detracts from a users understanding of the policy, in addition to being written in the wrong tone for a policy page. It is not an "edge" case. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

First, enough with the Jimbo stuff -- if we all recall this is representative of one of the great fallacies, the argumentum ad verecudium, something one needs to avoid at all costs.

Second, the example of the Summa Theologica (you should have stated "Summa Theologiae", but that's a Latin and history lesson for later) is a poor example. Of course such an argument would cover the proposition that God exists -- that was Aquinas' point. By the same token, the article on Atheism carries the opposite message. So what? Within those specific articles such assertions, while POV, are OK because they are reported in an NPOV fashion. Bottom line, the Summa Theologiae example is not germane to this discussion. Jim62sch 23:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fool's rewrite (August-November 2005)

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)

After retrieval from archive

Since the "truth"/"verifiability" discussion was revived on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability I'd definitely want to return to the version that was worked out as a collaboration of Nauraran, Func, myself, gilbertggoose and Ann Heneghan - and not Fool's version.

Sorry I didn't give a reaction to this before. -- Francis Schonken 08:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the essential difference, or (better), do you have a link? Harald88 13:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A link had already been provided, immediately under the section header above. -- Francis Schonken 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I added a paragraph with information suppression examples to the NPOV_tutorial; Francis Schonken however reverted the page. Interested people, please discuss on that article's Talk page about the reason to suppress this much demanded instruction part, or reinsert that information, thanks. Harald88 08:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be edit warring over this page, THE foundation document for Wikipedia's editorial practices -- if there are reversions ongoing, that means those who sought to include (or exclude) the text in question have not adequately surveyed the community's opinion on whether it is proper. I've protected the page until this stuff can be sorted out. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 16:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I support this action. NPOV is scripture set in stone. -- Anon84.x 16:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Most excellent! Jim62sch 23:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes and the admins can still edit it anyway. -- Lumière 01:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And your point? Jim62sch 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Important modifications will still be possible. -- Lumière 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So? —  Saxifrage  ✎ 03:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is only one good interpretation, and even though you doubt it, I am a good team player! -- Lumière 12:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The only qualified interpreter is Jimbo himself. NPOV is scripture set in stone -- Anon84.x 18:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From a recent discussion on this page as well as on my own page, it turns out that the whole intro is insufficiently sourced:

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".

NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus.

As this is supposedly not the result of us editors, but referring to sources provided by Jimbo: Anyone who can properly source this?

Note that, if I'm not mistaken, at the moment the only source with a link from this page is:

A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example. - Jimbo.

Sorry, but I disagree that that statement sufficiently backs up all the claims above! Harald88 22:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need sourcing. It defines Wikipedia policy, it doesn't represent some external source about what Wikipedia policy is. —  Saxifrage  ✎ 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, I think Harald88 was not refering to the Verifiability policy. He was just refering to common sense. If we claim that the policy is from Jimbo, even if it is just to satisfy ourselve that we are not wrong, we should find the references to verify it. -- Lumière 04:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#History_of_NPOV. What about this does not answer your question? JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact I was comparing it to that, but indeed referring to common sense! I don't buy claims that can't be backed up, and it's nonsense to negotiate fantasies of editors where we should be discussing implementation of Jimbo's non-negotiable requirements. Harald88 08:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am curious to know why we don't ask Jimbo directly. Is he so hard to contact? Or is it that he shows no interest in the policies anymore? -- Lumière 04:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question, what is his email? He is clamed to be hard to reach. Harald88 08:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ask him what, exactly? I still don't understand what is being asked here that is not answered in great detail in the History of NPOV section linked above... JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a bunch of editors telling what Jimbo supposedly said, but so far it's just rumours, hear-say. Thus our key policies should be, at this point in time, be regarded as mere unverifiable rumours. Ecept if I overlooked a quote of an article by Jimbo or his direct associates in the text that you refer to. Harald88 08:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the string of similar tendentious objections above from the same editors stretching back at least a week here. There's no genuine understanding of policy and foundation issues nor interest in learning them, only in altering them to suit their own ends. Engaging in good faith dialog at this point is fruitless. FeloniousMonk 07:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

When pertinent questions about basics can't answered, it raises doubt about reliability. In this case, the reliability of the foundations of Wikipedia. I don't buy bullshit, indeed I want to verify that the policies haven't been changed just before I arrived. Such things are bound to happen without the original information. Harald88 08:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You have not clearly stated any question yet. The sentence ending with a question mark in your orignal post was: "Anyone who can properly source this?" It's not totally clear what you mean by "this"; at one point, you say "the whole intro is insufficiently sourced", so maybe you mean "Anyone who can properly source the whole intro?". This is answered by Saxifrage - "the whole intro" is a statement of policy; it doesn't need to be sourced. Of course, you might mean something else by "this" in your question - that's why I said: You have not clearly stated any question yet. While I'm trying hard to AGF, I need something specific to answer. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Below, Lumiere expanded on it in the way I meant it. But to be specific again:

* It's not clear if Wikipedia 100% inherited the Nupedia requirement or not.

Thus: can we state that "written in stone",

a. Wikipedia NPOV = nupedia?

b. Wikipedia NPOV = wikimedia?

c. a+b ?

* And what this started with: I could not find anything about the claimed equal level of the three content-guiding policies. That's just one possible option. Harald88 19:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If I understand Harald88 correctly, he is concerned about continuity. I don't know how to answer that.

It is my understanding that it was hoped that after having started wikipedia, wikipedia would acquire a momentum of its own. That is, it would at some point not anymore be the "private dream" of a small group, but a shared determination of a worldwide community, independent of the original founders. The responsibility for gravitating towards a policy of conduct then must be the shared responsibility of the wikipedia community as a whole. The answer to the question: "what is the source of the policy?" then becomes the somewhat mushy: "You and I and everybody else who is an honest contributor are the source of the policy." Such a large community gravitating towards a common policy is a tall order, but that is the philosophy of wikipedia as I understand it. -- Cleonis | Talk 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I think Jimbo still has some authority, one that the community confer to him and perhaps also an authority by law. I don't know what is the status of the last form of authority (the one by law), but certainly the community still confer some authority to Jimbo. Therefore, it is important to know what are Jimbo's rules.

One thing that is well sourced is that Jimbo said that the NPOV policy was not negotiable. The formulation of the policy at the time is perhaps given in Bensaccount history. However, this policy has clearly changed. Therefore, for the community, "the NPOV policy is not negotiable" means that the essential principles of this policy are not negotiable, but the exact wording, the way it is explained, etc. and the details in general can be changed. It is therefore very important to understand what are these essential principles. People often quote Jimbo directly for specific parts of the policy. These direct quotes from Jimbo are often considered as being what is really not negotiable, that is, what is really fundamental. Some people are saying that we don't need to know for sure that these quotes are really from Jimbo because we have the old formulation of the policy. If it was not important that these quotes are from Jimbo, then why saying that they are from Jimbo? Why all the times people point out to these quotes as if they where the fundamental non negotiable principles? If we use these quotes, then we better be sure that they are really from him. So, Harald88's question, which was very clear, is very significant.

The significance of Harald88 question, which I think was pretty clear, is that a small group might have quoted Jimbo out of context or perhaps even changed Jimbo's quotes, if not even invented them. My following comment was not only about these quotes, but about the essential principles of the policy. When we have a dispute about what can be changed or not, what is fundamental or not, why not asking Jimbo directly instead of referring to quotes that are not well sourced? -- Lumière 12:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If the essential principals of NPOV are vague, then they should remain vague and not be further interpreted. Neither by modifications to the policy nor by any editor's "personal version". The only authority that truely understands NPOV is Jimbo himself. NPOV is scripture set in stone -- Anon84.x 18:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The source you need is m:Foundation issues. In fact, much wikipedia "policy" is a misnomer. The foundation issues are policy. All else is guidelines or in rare cases (ie copyright) law. Kim Bruning 12:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of what I mean. It is not even clear what was meant by "NPOV policy" when Jimbo said that the NPOV policy is not negotiable. Is it only the original formulation that is cited in m:Foundation issues? -- Lumière 12:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, [2], is that any good? Kim Bruning 20:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea! Lumière 23:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would make a few comments on this subject:

• The NPOV policy was originally arrived at through lots of discussion among Wikipedia participants, and since those initial discussions there has always been a very strong consensus in it's favour. Jimbo's comment about it being absolute should be seen as an endorsement of the existing policy, rather than as a "top down" pronouncement or decree. - Enchanter

Yes, if by the (2002) "wikipedia participants" you mean the american/libertarian/humanist cabal. If by "strong consensus" you mean that the last month's discussions are just some unworthy prole rumblings. I liked the "endorsment" part. -- Anon84.x 11:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon84.x, I think that you are interpreting these comments in the worst way possible. Maybe Enchanter's point is not even the one that you critic. Perhaps Enchanter meant that there is a strong consensus around some basic principles of NPOV, not a strong consensus around all its sentences and every principle that can be attached to these sentences. - Lumière 14:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what enchanter meant. Anyway, there might be strong consensus over NPOV simply because people are requested to believe in NPOV as a condition to participate in wikipedia. Did you consider that? -- Anon84.x 15:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I do now since you mention it. First, I think it is normal to expect that editors believe in the value of the policy. I see nothing wrong there. The main problem is that the policy is not really understood. Perhaps you meant to say that people say that they understand the policy because, normally, this is expected from them, but they don't really understand it, and thus the consensus is not substantial. -- Lumière 15:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• While the NPOV policy itself is very definately a strong Wikipedia policy and one of the core values of the project, it is the principle of NPOV that is absolute and not every single paragraph and sentence of the NPOV policy page. The finer details of the NPOV policy are negotiated and edited constantly, as the edit history of this page shows, and while some statements of policy on the page are supported by extremely strong consensus, others aren't necessarily. It's important for people to realise that they can't just quote a sentence out of this page and say that it is non-negotiable - disputes have to be resolved in a more pragmatic way than that. - Enchanter

Yes, the principle is vague, and the "correct" interpretation of it is socially constructed by whoever spends more time on the project (hint, hint) -- Anon84.x 11:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I do agree that the policy is not clear enough and that the actual rules that are applied in practice are socially constructed by a group that took over Wikipedia. However, this problem might still be there even if the policy was perfectly clear. - Lumière 14:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. Even if the policy was very clear it would still be possible for some lawyer-style interpratation to take place. However, clarifying the policy (as a goal) does not seem to bother to the people here, and I consider that a stronger problem. -- Anon84.x 15:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It all depends where it is clear. If it is clear in the mind of a majority, then it is like you say. If it is only clear on paper, anything can happen. -- Lumière 15:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is particularly relevant for people translating key policies for other language Wikipedias. It's very important that other language Wikipedias adhere to NPOV, but that doesn't mean that they have to translate this page word for word - indeed, they may well come up with a policy for writing unbiased, NPOV, articles, that is better than the English one.

Enchanter 00:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jimbo doesn't understand swedish. I guess he can't "vigilantate" the swedish wikipedia like he does on the english one. -- Anon84.x 11:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Echoing Katefan's caution made here earlier, let's not supply anymore of it. As Katefan said, watch the page, revert ill-formed, misguided or bad faith edits, and leave it at that. Otherwise, feeding the trolls just keeps them around. FeloniousMonk 07:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I second FeloniousMonk. NPOV is scripture set in stone. Questioning it is crimethink that can only be corrected by WikiLove. -- Anon84.x 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Absolute and non-negotiable" is the preferred term. [3] Damn! I forgot! FeloniousMonk 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe NPOV is not the flawless scripture you think it is. Maybe these people who are trying to improve the page are not trolls. Bensaccount 16:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Even is suposedley is not not flawless, there is nothing you can do about it, I am afraid. NPOV has been noted as non-negotiable by the founder and owner of this project. You will need to convince Jimbo Wales, not fellow editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Being absolute and non-negotiable does not mean it can not be modified or edited. It means that the version of NPOV that stands can not be argued with. Bensaccount 17:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The context of this "non-negotiable" was the Wikipedia policies of other languages and cultures. Jimbo said that the policy could be adapted to these different contexts, but that part of it was non-negotiable such as NPOV.

Clearly, not all details of NPOV are non-negotiable. Therefore, we should ask Jimbo what exactly is non-negotiable. This was discussed before in this talk page, and it remained totally unclear. I would simply ask if the community is allowed to try to improve the policy, and if yes what are the fundamental points that are non-negotiable. - Lumière 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Are essays in wikipedia namespace expected to be NPOV? If not, how are content disputes to be resolved? Kappa 04:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course, read "writing for the enemy". Harald88 06:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be less clear and helpful and say "it depends." It depends on what the essay is about, what its purpose is, and who's going to be seeing it. NPOV is generally only binding on articles in the actual encyclopedia, not to Talk pages and other project pages. However, the spirit of NPOV is always a useful guide for writing in a way that avoids inflaming others. Further, the more "user-facing" the essay is, the more important that it read as impartially as possible.

For your second question: Without NPOV, disputes can be handled by the more general principle that what the consensus accepts is what stands. If there's a dispute, all the same tactics for resolving disputes and finding an acceptable middle ground that apply to articles can be brought to bear on a Wikipedia-namespace essay. —  Saxifrage  ✎ 09:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I posted this at WP:RFC/P, but was hoping I might get some additional interested people here. There has been an ongoing argument at Flag of Western Sahara about the name of the flag.

Western Sahara is a region claimed by Morocco and a government in exile of indigenous people, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Both parties control a portion of the territory and both claim the whole of it. The flag is the flag flown by SADR, but it is generally known as the "Flag of Western Sahara", mainly because Morocco does not recognise the term Western Sahara (calling it Moroccan Sahara), so there is no other flag which also might bear the name. There have been extensive discussions about comparisons with Flag of Tibet, and Flag of Taiwan, but up until now no conclusion.

To break the stalemate, a vote has been proposed here, and we would very much appreciate any and every input. The more the merrier!

Thanks and greets, The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 08:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.". Surely if it can be proven to be true, this should be a valid reason for inclusion if it is in the "public interest"? Comments? -- User:Rebroad 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If it can be proven by providing a reference to that proof published by a reputable source. Do you have a particular example? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, merely attributing a view does not warrant its inclusion. It must be judged as worthy of inclusion based on factors such as relevance, expertise and popularity. Bensaccount 16:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The rule is clear and clearly explained in the section: if it is the view of a tiny minority, it can still have as much place it needs in its own separate article. I don't see that it is such a bad rule. Of course, the policies are complementary: what is acceptable is at the intersection of all policies, which means that in addition it must be supported by a reputable source. - Lumière 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The rule is not clear. It implies that if views are only held by very few people they should be removed. This is not the way it is done. Popularity is only one of several factors that must be considered. Others are expertise, relevance, and verifiability. Verifiability is not a qualification for inclusion. Bensaccount 16:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the rule is clear, but you simply disagree with it. You seem to suggest that even though a rule says that a content is not acceptable for inclusion, the content can still be acceptable for inclusion if other rules do not exclude it. If we start to interpret the policy in this way, one would be able to say, for example, that it does not matter that the content is not supported by a reputable source, because it is very relevant, which is another important factor to consider. It is the first time that I hear that the rules are not complementary in preserving the quality of an article. What I heard is that what is acceptable for inclusion is at the intersection of what all rules says. - Lumière 17:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree though that "popularity" and "verifiability" are very much related in the following sense that if a view is held by a significant minority, it is likely that the view will also be reported by a reputable source for that view. However, there is no harm to maintain both requirements separately. If we start to weaken the rules by allowing editors to dispute them by calling other rules, then the disputes will have no end. Maybe this is already happening in some disputes. Is it? - Lumière 17:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We are "violating" Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. Of course, most editors in most talk pages don't even know this guideline. - Lumière 17:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No I am quite sure that the problem lies with the rule being unclear. If it clearly stated how views are chosen to be fairly represented there would not be a problem. It doesn't do this, which leads to a great deal of confusion. Proof of this lies in the endless creation of sections like this, by different people who find it unclear. Bensaccount 17:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your strike of verifiability makes a big difference. Maybe within this section, fair representation is determined by weighting popularity, expertise and relevance, not by insisting on each separately. My point was only that verifiability is firm policy and cannot be disputed by calling other rules. - Lumière 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a second thought about your understanding of the section, and I have a concern to express. It seems that you suggest that if any of the criteria popularity, expertise or relevance is "strongly" satisfied, then the content should be accepted for inclusion in the article. The concern is that the easiest of these criteria to satisfied, which IMO is relevance, will always be used by those who want to include some content that does not satisfied the other factors: notability (popularity) and expertise. It is very hard to argue against the relevance of a content. In fact, usually if you argue against a content, it can be taken as an indication that it is relevant. With your understanding of the policy, an editor would only have to argue that the content is very relevant, and that is it, it does not matter what the content is, even if it is not notable, etc. it will have to be included. Again, the problem is that I do not see how an editor can argue against the relevance of a content unless it has absolutely nothing to do with the article, but then the problem will not arise. The problem arises when the content is, excuse the expression, just some bullshit that is indeed related to the topic. - Lumière 21:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, arguing against the popularity of a view is equally as hard as arguing against its relevance. There is rarely a litmus test that says one view is more popular than another. As with the other qualifications, some kind of consensus must be reached. Bensaccount 22:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do not believe that it is as difficult to argue against popularity as to argue against relevance. Jimbo Well provides a useful criteria: if the view is held by a significant minority, it should be possible to find prominent adherents. Of course, what is a prominent adherent is subject to interpretation, but there is some common understanding of what it means. Of course, you are right that in both cases a dispute can occur and some consensus will be needed. Sure, but I think it is easier to reach a consensus against popularity when we have a criteria such as the one proposed by Jimbo Well (assuming that indeed there is no real prominent adherent). Really, if we try to respect the natural meaning of "relevant", I don't see that we can as easily obtain a consensus against the relevance of a content. Beside, if you are right and all these criteria are so weak for exclusion, then why make them weaker by allowing one to be used against the others. - Lumière 23:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically if every conflict involved a view with no prominent adherents, this would work. But this practically never happens. Views get excluded for other reasons. Some views might be irrelevant. Others might be held by people with no experience or knowledge of the subject. These views get excluded regardless of whether they have prominent adherents or not. Popularity (prominant adherents) alone is not an absolute determinant. Considering popularity, relevance, and expertise is helpful, but ultimately it is up to the editors to try and resolve the conflict and reach some kind of consensus as to which views should stay and which views should not. Bensaccount 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your last paragraph suggests that you would accept any of the three criteria, relevance, popularity (notability) and expertise, as a valid ground for exclusion. I agree with this approach. First, I thought that you meant that they must be used all three together to justify exclusion, which makes it much too difficult to use them to justify exclusion - so difficult that IMO they will not be significantly more useful than only a right to propose exclusion and hope that the consensus will be on the exclusion side. Or perhaps, you are just proposing that we do not specify how these criteria should be used. I do not support this unnecessary lack of precision. Consider that even though it is necessary that a policy uses terms that need to be interpreted, it is better that it is as precise as possible so that, for every application of the policy by a group of editors, (1) a consensus amongst these editors can be more easily reached about its interpretation and (2) this interpretation does not depend too much on the bias of this group of editors. Therefore, I see no point in not specifying that these three criteria can be individually used to justify exclusion from an article. - Lumière 02:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What makes you so eager to provide reasons to exclude views? The point of this policy is to guide the user on selecting views fairly. Popularity, relevance, and expertise alone are not absolute determinants for exclusion. All these qualities are considered and it is up to the user to reach a consensus. Implying that the rule should be black and white is harmful because it prevents proper evaluation of all the reasons for and against inclusion. Bensaccount 16:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the point to keep a view if there is a consensus that it should not be kept for whatever reason. Only one reason, if we all agree on it, should be enough to exclude a view. The policy should be well adapted to such a natural way. - Lumière 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just interjecting a reply to this point by Lumiere. Luther wouldn't have faired very well if this policy had been enforced......;-) This policy can be used to suppress minority viewpoints.

Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, suppression, whitewashing, or political correctness. One must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. -- Fyslee 16:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if it actually could be done that way, but unfortunately the way it works is that there are multiple reasons for and against keeping most views. There is no one reason that always provides an absolute determinant. The policy makes this unclear by focusing too much on popularity (prominent adherents). Bensaccount 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll think more about it, but just now, if a policy only states what happens anyway without the policy, then we do not need a policy. The policy should be there to improve a situation. Without traffic lights, it works one way. With the traffic lights, it works a different way. This is why the traffic lights are useful. - Lumière 18:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I realize that it will be useful that you clarify what you mean. For example, I agree that all rules for exclusion are important in the policy. However, this does not mean that they cannot be each used individually to justify exclusion. This situation is more subtle than it first appears. For example, when there is a poll for deletion of an article, usually all rules are considered including notability, verifiability, relevance, copyright, etc. One editor will often mention two or more of these rules to justify his delete vote. Certainly, it is better to provide two applicable rules for deletion rather than only one applicable rule-- it will help getting the consensus toward deletion. If it is what you mean, of course you are right. However, certainly it does not mean that each of these rules are not separately a valid ground for exclusion. For example, many experienced editors will provide only one of these rules, such as only notability or only verifiability, to justify their delete vote. This is because the understanding of these experienced editors is that each of these rules are individually a valid ground for exclusion. Other editors provide more than one rule, but this is because, even though one rule might be by itself a solid ground for exclusion, how this rule applies can be borderline. For example, verifiabiity is a solid ground for exclusion, but whether the source is really non-reputable or whether the content is really not not found in the sources can be disputed (and this is often the case). Therefore, in this way, without saying that you are wrong when you say that all factors must be considered, I think the policy states that each factor separately is a valid ground for exclusion. This is the way the policy always works. - Lumière 21:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would they individially be grounds for exclusion, but not individually be grounds for inclusion. I do not endorse either. I think that in principle, and in practice all the criterion should be considered. I don't think VFD is a very good analogy here, it just confuses things. Bensaccount 16:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The examples of criteria for inclusion that I have seen in practice are things like "it is interesting" and "there is no reason not to include it". The former is not policy at all. The latter is consistent with policy and means that if no criteria can be used as a valid ground to exclude some material, then we should include the material. This is the way the policy seems to work. It is not my choice. Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that in principle and in practice all the criteria for exclusion should be considered, but this is consistent with what I explained in my previous comment. Of course, when one consider some material for exclusion, one must consider all criteria. It still remains that a consensus that a single criteria such as verifiability is violated is by itself a sufficient ground for exclusion. I mean that one cannot refer to some other criteria to justify a violation of the verifiability criteria. This is what we mean by a firm verifiability policy. We can ask the verifiability people, but it seems to me that there is no ambiguity about this. Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to adopt a different princîple with the criteria of the Neutral point of view policy, but if I am missing something please explain what it is. For example, if there is a clear consensus that some material is not relevant, this should be a sufficient ground for exclusion. Why would we want to include something that is not relevant, just because it is notable say? If there is no consensus that it is not relevant, naturally we will consider other criteria -- this is fine, but it does not mean that the relevancy criteria is not by itself, when there is a consensus about it, a valid ground for exclusion. Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

However, I would combine popularity and expertise into a single criteria because it is necessary to take into account the level of expertise of the adherents to a view. In this case, yes, popularity and expertise, should always be considered together. I think it is what notability means: if an adherent is not considered an expert, it is not a prominent adherent. Prominent means widely known and esteemed. Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that your only issue is with notability. You might think that it is too exclusionistic to accept this criteria by itself as a valid ground for exclusion. However, I think the policy is quite clear that a view must be notable. Again, I think you are trying to change the policy. I am not against changing the policy, but notability is a key concept, which we should not dilute by mixing it with other criteria. I think it will weaken seriously the policy to combine notability with relevancy, by insisting that they must be considered together. I would suggest that instead we clarify what notability means, especially what is the role of expertise in this criteria. For example, I would accept that it is sufficient that a view has been accepted through peer-review to consider that the view is notable (since the reviewers are like anonymous, but yet expert adherents to the view), which means that verifiability (with a peer-reviewed source) would imply notability. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My issue is not with notability. I think the Undue weight section does a pathetic job of expressing how views are fairly selected. It needs to be more clear and more comprehensive. Bensaccount 22:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It occured to me, while reading the AFD for Republicans Block Investigation of Domestic Spying Program, that the precedents used to delete such material would also be applicable to many historic documents which were/are POV, such as the United States Declaration of Independence, were they not already historic.

I'm not saying the article should have been kept. This is just a thought I wanted to bring up. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, Keith - there was no AfD on that article. It was WP:PRODed. Maybe you were thinking of some other article? JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy that states whether users may stamp a page as POV and not say why? I think it's common sense that POV claims should be explained — "whoever asserts must prove", and all that — and I think there's potential for abuse if users can tag pages as POV and not have to cite specific concerns. It's easy to imagine someone using the POV tag as a form of vandalism (forcing Wikipedians to make sure the article is not POV, and thus wasting their time), or as a way of discrediting a neutral article which simply discusses a subject they dislike.

If anyone cares, the example I'm thinking of is that of User:Drboisclair, who has recently added POV tags to three articles: Bruno Bauer, Michael Martin (philosopher), and J.M. Robertson. I can't figure out what specific POV problems there are with the latter two, and the first one is too long for me to examine right now anyway. It doesn't help that he hasn't explained why he tagged the Bauer article at all, and his explanations for the other two articles are no more complicated than "I contest the NPOV of this article."

— Elembis 06:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The POV tag links to the talk page ("Please see the discussion on the talk page", where talk page is a link to the corresponding talk page). So if there's no active discussion there (that makes clear why the POV tag was applied), and if you know no reason on what topic a POV-related discussion should be started there, you can remove the POV tag:

• The last comment at Talk:Bruno Bauer is over a month old. I've no idea whether the updates announced in that comment were effectuated. Anyway, no active discussion, and I see no reason to start one, so I removed the POV tag from the article.
• Talk:Michael Martin (philosopher), Talk:J.M. Robertson: on both of these pages Drboisclair made a short, unclarifying statement, supposedly together with applying the POV tag to the respective articles. On both talk pages other wikipedians asked Drboisclair to clarify. So, maybe give Drboisclair a day or so to explain his/her POV suspicions. If no real discussion follows, I'd just remove the POV tag of these articles too. You can always leave a note on Drboisclair's talk page to enhance the chance (s)he gets involved, but there's no reason why you should do that. If Drboisclair is really interested in the topics (s)he will come back to these article talk pages without needing extra invitations. -- Francis Schonken 14:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this page has been protected or perhaps my account has tagged or blocked.

Better wording in section "Avoiding Constant Disputes":

"This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides."

Would be "... It is not our stated goal to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our community's coordinated mission to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides."

For the priveleged editor who undertakes this clarification task ... feel free to use your own preferred alternate wording. The word I object to is "job". This word usually implies compensation via cash or some other consideration and while it might fairly be used to describe activities of some of the stacked Board members or perhaps our professional compensated staff members, they are a very tiny slice of a very large community of uncompensated volunteers. Lazyquasar 23:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The section on Undue weight includes the qualification that "None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views".

To me, this comes across as a difficult sentence to quote, because it does not explain "None of this", and comes across as a double negative. Can we (a) rewrite it in a more concise and positive form, (b) qualify that it will also apply to non-comparative, non-general subjects, eg:

"However, minority views, and non-comparative articles detailing specific views, may receive as much attention as we can give them on pages devoted specifically to those views".

-- Iantresman 14:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

To be consistent with the original sentence, it should be "However, tiny minority views...". - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 14:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, though I am not against the idea that a given view in a comparative article can be expanded into its own separate non-comparative article, I don't think it was part of the original sentence. The original sentence was only about tiny-minority views. Again, it is not that I disagree with this addition. It is just that I am not sure that it is the correct place to mention it. It seems more like something that is part of what POV forking is not. We could perhaps extend the small section WP:NPOV#POV forks to mention it there at the policy level. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 14:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the point of Iantresman is the following. If tiny-minority views can have their own separate article, clearly this must also be true of other views. I agree. Again, the purpose of the original sentence was only to consider the specific case of tiny-minority views. The general case would fit better in the section WP:NPOV#POV forks. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I was thinking of the following examples:

• A general article on " Cosmology" would be comparative, and subject to undue weight. It might devote much space to the well-know, Big Bang theory of cosmology, and less space to the minority views of the Steady state theory of cosmology, and Plasma cosmology.
• But the articles on the Steady state theory of cosmology, and Plasma cosmology, because they are both minority views, AND articles about specific points of view, would be subject the proviso originally described above.
• It seems reasonable that if a tiny minority view can have an entire article written about it (eg. the flat earth theory), then a less tiny minority view may have at least as much to say. Indeed, I can't see how we can possible quantify "tiny" minority, but as a matter of principle, we can say whether an article is about several views, or about a particular view. -- Iantresman 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now that you explain it, I see that it fits in the Undue weight section. However, you were not entirely correct to say that it was just a clarification of the original sentence. Even though it is a very natural extension of the original sentence, it clearly remains an extension of this original sentence, not just a clarification. Moreover, I still think that your point will also fit in the POV forks section. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that your point that we cannot quantify a "tiny-minority" is irrelevant here. It was explained before that the notion of "tiny-minority" together with the related notion of prominent adherents are indeed subject to interpretation amongst the editors. This does not mean that they are not useful and central concepts in the Undue weight section. Your point is a different issue. In fact, no offense, but it is a secondary point in the Undue weight section. The key point of the Undue weight section is to determine how much space can be attributed to each view in a given article. In this context, your point is only a secondary point: it says that if a view has no space or not enough space, it can still have all the space it needs in a separate article. It is just a useful reminder. This is why I would also mention your point in the POV forks section, where it is necessary to clarify what a POV forking is not. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So can anyone come up with better worded sentence? -- Iantresman 19:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the original wording was pretty good, and perfectly adapted to the secondary nature of the point. I would only remove the restriction to tiny-minority views, which was not necessary. We get something like:

None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views and views that are not well represented in the article cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views.

I think that a more explicit statement that could be quoted would be more appropriate in the No forks section. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views and views that are not well represented in the article cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views." This is including views based on relevance. Same old problem. The Undue weight section is unclear and incomplete. Bensaccount 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain the sentence "This is including views based on relevance." I don't understand what it means. In any case, note that the proposed sentence does not need to refer to any of the factors relevance, popularity or expertise. An alternative sentence would be

None of this, however, is to say that views that have been partially or totally excluded from the article in accordance with the criteria of this section cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views.

Again, this sentence is about a secondary point in the Undue weight section. It does not even need to mention the factors used in the section. Whether or not the explanations for the main point of the section are clear or complete is a completely different issue. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think these minority views which would otherwise not be given much attention are getting more attention on different pages? Its because they are more relevant on certain pages and less on others. Bensaccount 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would get rid the "None of this..." start to the sentence, as it requires reading the previous sentence to find out what "this" is. And I think the sentence then becomes:

"Even minority views, may receive as much attention as we can give them on pages devoted specifically to those views"".

-- Iantresman 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, it is shorter. However, it suggests that the only criteria used to partially or totally exclude a view is popularity, which is incorrect. I do agree with Bensaccount on this point. My sentence is a little bit clumsy, but it is a fair attempt to avoid this problem. I think we should continue to look for a sentence that is simple, but yet does not focus on popularity or any other specific factor. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 15:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)<<

What about the following:

None of this, however, impose a limit on how much attention views may receive in Wikipedia. Views may receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views.

It is an attempt to keep the connection with the section and yet have a sentence that can be quoted. Moreover, it does not suggest that any specific criteria is more important than another. I still think it is necessary to separately explain the point of the second sentence in the POV fork section. Here, it should only be a reminder. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 15:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this project page should include a discussion of how criticisms of topics fits into the Wikipedia articles about those topics. For exmaple Igor Stravinsky contain's a "Criticism" section while the criticisms of Country music where removed from that article and, presumably, some articles have criticism in each appropriate section (hypothetically, criticisms of Stravinsky's rhythmic prodedures could go in the "Rhythmic procedures" section of his article). Anyone else feel this need? Anythoughts on a guideline? Hyacinth 12:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See also my reply at wikipedia:village pump (policy)/Archive L#Criticism, where I referred to Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures which can imply a view. In the mean while I re-read that section, and must say it conveys a thoroughly ambiguous message: (a) criticism should not be grouped in a separate section; (b) criticism should be grouped in a separate section... (the last of these two options allegedly based on the WP:NPOV guideline, didn't check yet whether that's still correct).

Yeah, you're right, time to come up with something more coherent. -- Francis Schonken 12:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is related to the POV Fork guideline what content/POV forking is not, for example see 2004 United States election voting controversies and 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. I mean, not only a separate section but also two separate articles are used for criticisms of United States presidential election, 2004. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 15:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No this is not related to POV forking. POV forking is not allowed. This is related to representing views which are relevant to an article while not representing those which are not relevant. Bensaccount 16:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I made the correction. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be very simple if the undue weight section didn't distort things. Bensaccount 17:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the Undue weight section makes it seem like there is a rule that tells you exactly where and when to include a view. It can not work this way. There are general rules which can act as guides, but to a much greater extent the specifics depend on the subject. Bensaccount 17:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am very much interested to discuss the Undue weight section, but I do not see the connection with the issue that is raised by Hyacinth. We should discuss the Undue weight section elsewehere or else explain the connection. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 17:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hyacinth's question was "how do criticisms of topics fit into the Wikipedia articles about those topics." This is pretty much the same question that gets asked over and over on this page. How do views get fairly represented. The only section of the policy that deals with this is the Undue weight section, which unfortunately tends to distort things more than offer guidance. The answer btw is: "Criticisms are included based on popularity, relevance, and expertise". Bensaccount 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the most important question is how much weight we should give to criticisms. This is related to Hyacinth's question. For some reason, I had in mind the point of Francis Schonken, which was not about the weight, but about whether or not a separate section should be used. I also agree that we should consider criticisms as we consider other views. In fact, it is very important that we do not give more weigth to views that are called criticisms on the basis that criticisms are supposedly important. They should be considered like we consider other views. The point of Francis Schonken is also very important because if a minority view is systematically inserted everywhere inside the majority view, then this gives too much weight to the minority view, and this remains true even if this minority view is called a criticism. Again, the main question is how much weight we must attribute to each view. - Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)