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.

... don't work, so personally I'd propose to omit WP:NPOVUW entirely from the policy page. Maybe it should better be proposed for MfD or so, per Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?, reason 2, that is: "confusing" (it creates the confusing, and incorrect, idea that the shortcut actually links to the UW section, someone not knowing that was the intention can only be more confused when reading the "NPOVUW" acronym, and when clicking arriving at the top of the NPOV page, where the "UW" is nowhere explained). And overall, i think NPOVUW to be a horrendous acronym, in the WP:WOTTA meaning. -- Francis Schonken 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If they don't work, then delete them. I seem to remember them working in the past, but that was sometime ago. FeloniousMonk 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, at RfD now, see Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#WP:NPOVUW → Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -- Francis Schonken 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the software would support redirects to sections. Not for NPOVUW, but to create e.g. WP:WEIGHT. AvB ÷  talk 12:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with AvB exactly.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I were to tag chinese ctities under Category:Taiwan as the goverment of Taiwan ( Republic of China) claims to rule mainland china? -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Seems like a question you could easily answer for yourself... if not, maybe after reading Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorisation, and other guidance linked from there.
2. If still not being able to answer that question for yourself after reading all that, maybe ask your question at wikipedia talk:categorization, or start an RfC (but I think you may assume that the outcome of such RfC would be pretty much predictable - only encouraging you to try to find a sensible answer to your question yourself - if you'd try to find it yourself, I'm convinced the eventual answer will stick better)

-- Francis Schonken 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right the outcome is easy to guess. The result would be that what I am suggesting is nonsense right? I for one would oppose tagging of Beijing under a taiwanieese category. I'll copy this chain to all those pages you mentioned. -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on Category_talk:Taiwan, not here. Bensaccount 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No this is a discussion of NPOV policy and how it applies to categories. Its place is aproporate. -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No this is a discussion of naming one specific category, Category:Taiwan. Bensaccount 01:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Per prior requests from the community, this discussion was moved to: User_talk:Iantresman#Moved_from_Talk:NPOV FeloniousMonk 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had no such requests, and you have no right to remove discussion from talk pages (now restored above). You also have no right to remove the original verifiable statements from Jimbo Wales. If you remove my discussion from the Talk pages again, I will report you. If you remove verifiable quotes from the article, I will also report you. -- Iantresman 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the archives. Literally dozens of Wikipedia's most credible editors have asked for this discussion to be either dropped or taken to user talk space over the last four months. Read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière. There is no support for what you've proposed. Read Wikipedia talk:No original research, where is issue of similar such changes by your contingent has been discussed at length and rejected. FeloniousMonk 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a strange discussion. What are "verifiable" quotes? This policy page is not an article on what Jimbo said in a specific context. It is about a policy, and it makes sense to paraphrase Jimbo as appropriate. The paraphrase is entirely verifiable, all we need to do is ask Jimbo if it is fair to ascribe these views to him. In fact, the page has been in this state for quite a long time. We should all feel fairly confident that if Jimbo felt his words were being misused, he would have made the change himself. I repeat: this is not an article on Jimbo and the standard for verbatim quotes does not apply. It is a policy page and what is important is wording that helps explain the policy. Verbatim quotes would be unnecessary and inappropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the page because of the reverting, because policy pages in particular need to be stable. Let me know when you're ready to start editing again. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Revert war seems to be over, I hope. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you please include the interwiki for Turkish page? Since here it is protected, I can not do so myself. Thanks. ( tr:Vikipedi:Tarafsız bakış açısı) -- tembelejderha 14:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The text attributed "From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:" [1] is inaccurate as he did not appear to write these words. At the very least, we need to make it clear that the attribution is not a quote, and provide a citation to his actual words [2] (see How to cite sources). -- Iantresman 15:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In academic writing (or any other writing that has a tradition of citation), paraphrasing is the default and it is assumed that any attributed words that are not in quotation marks are not the original words. The special efforts that you are suggesting are only required by academic honesty when we are stating that someone said something exactly. So, the text is already "marked" to indicate that it is not a direct quote by not including quotation marks. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

While quote marks certainly indicate quoting, I am not aware of any style guide that assumes that the lack of quote marks infers paraphrasing. The wording certainly suggests a quote, and any competent editor would be able to rewrite this to make it unambiguous.

Additionally, the Wikipedia style guide on citing sources suggests that we do cite sources. But we don't. Any reason why we can't provide a primary source (something that should be familiar to those familiar with academic writing)? -- Iantresman 20:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I always thought 'this is a paraphrase' and "this is a qoute". Merecat 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation policy does not apply to policy pages, once again. Apart from that issue, no style guide mentions this because it's not necessary. If you're attributing a statement to someone and don't quote, what else is it? It would only be dishonest and inaccurate if there were quotation marks. As it is, there are not. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So despite a trivial excerise in removing the ambiguity, we don't (far more important to argue the point). And likewise we don't provide a citation because technically we don't have to (heck, why make it easy for the reader). And Wiki's policies apply to all areas of Wiki, except the policies themselves. And you wonder why there are months of discussion over ambiguous policy. -- Iantresman 21:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also note that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style includes in the first paragraphy, a quotation from the The Chicago Manual of Style, yet it lacks quotes. Is this an exact quotation, or a paraphrase? Let me guess, Wikipedia style guides don't apply to policy pages either. -- Iantresman 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "we" is the right word, above. I at least, have added the citation to the mailing list post you mentioned, as well as adding the (arguably redundant, but afaics, harmless) word "paraphrased" into the section. You were saying what, again? JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to put block quotes in quotation marks. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Who did? JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian suggested Wikipedia has been delinquent by not doing so. Poor Wikipedia just doesn't get any credit for working well these days... — Saxifrage ✎ 21:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic. Simple, unambiguous and verifiable. -- Iantresman 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if that's all you wanted, why didn't you say? I was arguing against your reasons that were based on a faulty interpretation of policy—I was about to ask you for a proposed wording to try and skirt around that mess. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I also guess that Page protection has been removed, above. -- Iantresman 23:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesse is an admin. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Janitor, please. See my sig. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There appears some discussion going on regarding this sentence

See this humorous illustration of the "equal validity" issue.

in the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity" section.

That is: discussion the wrong way (removing/adding the sentence in consecutive edits)

1. First, I'd suggest to keep it there unless this discussion results in doing it otherwise (it has been there for ages)
2. Second, maybe rather give your opinion here instead of revert-warring.

• My opinion: keep it. It helped me understand NPOV when I started contributing to Wikipedia. In other words, I clicked the link the first or second time I visited the page, and it learned me something. -- Francis Schonken 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved to the "External links" section where it may belong. I does not belong smack in the middle of a policy page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes more sense for the link to be near the specific part of the policy it illustrates. Gamaliel 22:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think embedding a link about partisan US politics in our founding policy document is a Good Idea. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep where it is, because it makes an important point about NPOV. I think discerning readers should be able to understand the non-partisan argument made by the cartoon despite the mention of a specific US political figure. -- BostonMA 01:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But discerning readers are not the ones who are my concern. It's the ones who do read it as an endorsement of all sorts of partisan US issues that are the problem, and it's not an unlikely reading of the link's presence either. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

@Jossi: Equal for moving around, please find consensus first -- Francis Schonken 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly feel that this link belongs neither in the "equal validity" nor the "external links" section. This page is one of the three foundational policies of Wikipedia; advertising a partisan, tangentially-related web comic here is inappropriate and demonstrates well one of Wikipedia's systemic biases (to explain: how many republican and conservative webcomics are linked to from one of Wikipedia's core policy pages? :)), which is a Bad Thing. If the text does not satisfactorily provide all the examples users will need on its own, then it needs to be expanded and/or clarified, not supplemented with liberal rhetoric.
• (And I'm a liberal, a web comic addict, and an I Drew This fan (the last since mid-2004), yet even I can tell including a pro- John Kerry 2004 campaign comic isn't appropriate here. :)) - Silence 13:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kerry's not running for President, any more. Besides, I see the cartoon as a slap at a certain style of journalism rather than anything to do with the merits of Kerry or his campaign. -- Donald Albury^{( Talk)} 16:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• • It can be applied to a broader type of journalistic idiocy, but in the context it was created in it's specifically a response to the issue of reporting on Swift Vets and POWs for Truth in an uncritical manner. Moreover, should Wikipedia's core policy pages really be going out of their way to criticize just about anyone, including the media? Isn't that rather contrary to the entire spirit and purpose of "NPOV"? Additionally, any users who become curious about this webcomic that Wikipedia suddenly and randomly linked them to on arguably the most important policy page on the entire site, will very quickly realize that it's an extremely partisan and polemic comic: the very next comic after the one we're linking to, for example, is even more explicit in its critique of George W. Bush and his recent political campaign and policies (and the one before is similarly critical of the Republican party, accusing it of hypocrisy)—and even if you feel that Kerry is no longer a key political figure, Bush certainly is, and Wikipedia should not betray an obvious bias for or against him. I'm not saying it's a flagrant violation of NPOV to link to a strongly liberal webcomic campaigning for a specific recent politician to illustrate a certain point, but it's certainly a violation, and it's certainly not necessary in the actual context of the policies being discussed, which are layed out much clearer in the text than they are in the comic in question (in fact, some users may be confused by the comic's insertion and not understand that WP:NPOV is saying that this is what not to do, rather than that it's saying "do this" by providing such an example). And even if we could slip this comic into the page through some loophole or other in NPOV policy, surely we don't want WP:NPOV itself to "toe the line" of NPOV?! The benefits provided by this off-site link (which are trivial at best) do not outweigh the costs to Wikipedia's credibility and neutrality. - Silence 17:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, since Wikipedia is many, many, many times more popular and widely-visited than I Drew This (it barely even meets the requirements for an article, and is currently a stub), a link like this can very easily be construed as an advertisement and/or site endorsement. It's not like if Wikipedia provided a link to a Peanuts strip or something: not only is this link pushing the line of neutrality (as most politically-loaded comics would), but it's also clearly seeking to popularize a relatively minor webcomic just because certain Wikipedia editors like it. It's realllly not worth it, guys. :/ - Silence 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything Silence already said. I do think that though the link to the comic could be interpreted as merely demonstrating a point about balance, it also could be interpreted to mean we endorse the Democrats or any number of other things. If the fact that it could be interpreted fairly is an argument to keep it, the fact that it could be misinterpreted is an equally compelling argument to remove it, so they cancel out. It just does not reflect well on Wikipedia's neutrality and this failure would be doubly ironic in the very policy that demands neutrality. Besides, the subject of the cartoon is still an open wound for a lot of people in the US (and abroad even!), so it's just a Bad Idea to associate that with Wikipedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if noone disagrees with the above, can we just remove the durned thing already? :/ - Silence 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I didn't see anything in it that could me make review my earlier position. On the contrary, I got the distinct idea, that some of you don't really get the NPOV idea. I doesn't mean we can't talk about what's-his-name politician. It doesn't mean we can't talk about his opponent George Bush (don't forget we have to maintain a wikipedia article about GW Bush, and that that article also needs to be NPOV). The graphical joke should unload some tension, regarding people thinking they can't use examples in guidelines, or can't write about things irrespective whether they like them or not. You're all so tense. Whatever name is mentioned all of your emotions go soaring high. Endless discussions about whether someone might experience repulsive feelings or not. God, religion, atheism. Science, astrology. Bush, Monica Lewinski, Bill Gates. See, no problem, I can mention any name, and as far as I'm concerned any of these names can be used in the NPOV policy, if they serve an illustrative example. If you think it can't, I suppose you didn't really get yet what the NPOV policy is all about.

In sum, keep the link exactly as it is as far as I'm concerned. And try to learn something from the example, instead of trying to remove it. -- Francis Schonken 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV policy isn't subject to NPOV, so my arguments (at least) are not based on NPOV. My arguments are premised on what I think is and isn't appropriately professional on the part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not even hint at the appearance of taking sides in the heated politics of one nation. Defend its innocence we might, but it does us no favours to have to defend it when it's such a small thing. Any benefit from "unloading tension" for one person is going to be undone by angering an other. Again, if the first is an argument for including it, the second is an equal argument for removing it. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

On April 22, SlimVirgin changed the 2nd sentence of the top-of-page notice from this :

Feel free to edit the page as needed, but please make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus before you make them.

to this:

Please make sure that any changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus before you make them.

Since I preferred to old version, I reverted it back. I'm posting this notice here (and on WP:NOR and WP:V), because it seems like a better place to discuss it than the template page. Ragout 04:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed "the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral" which I've read a couple of times and had a little giggle over. I'm assuming the average reader is not a five-year-old. Marskell 09:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't think the removal is "minor", nor that the "is a point of view" formulation is redundant. In fact, from my experience, I rather see this as one of the harder-to-grasp points of the NPOV policy. It is the simple formulation of what is explained in a more scholar-philosophical way in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#There's no such thing as objectivity. IMHO both should be kept, the "simple" formulation, that is easiest to grasp for anyone, and the longer elaboration, to satisfy the (semi-)professional user (but which I can imagine to be skipped by many). All (whatever your prior education level) are welcome to Wikipedia.

So, reverting, unless another consensus establishes here on this talk page. -- Francis Schonken 10:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorical tautologies, by definition, explain nothing. If there is an important point that needs stating here, I'd suggest expanding the sentence. Marskell 11:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reading it as tautological. It has a name, and it's explaining the implication of the name. — Saxifrage ✎ 11:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To be more precise: the predicate(s) explains nothing not inherent in the subject(s). If these clauses aren't an example of that, I've never seen one. "The neutral point of view is a point of view. It (the neutral point of view) is a point of view that is neutral." Things are repeated, not explained—the first pattern makes tautologies deceiving, the second makes them meaningless.

That said, I don't want to just make a prickish syntactic point and I understand there is an idea to be emphasized. We might say something like: "neutrality is itself a point of view, not the absence or abrogation of viewpoints. By adopting the NPOV, Wikipedia articles do state a position but are neither sympathetic to nor in opposition to their subject." Marskell 22:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I see what you mean now. The proposed wording makes it much more explicit, yes. Though, I'd make it read "...do state a position, but it is a position that is neither..." just because I stumble when I try to parse that part of the sentence. Instead of "...the NPOV..." I would also write "...a neutral point of view..." because it scans well and elegantly restates the point without getting in the way, and being able to say it in multiple non-conflicting ways improves the chance that one of them will click with the reader. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK then. If Francis agrees (or at least no one else disagrees) we can change the sentence. Marskell 12:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, this sentence was added in the first place without consensus. It used to say the exact opposite: The NPOV is not a point of view. [3] Bensaccount 00:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ben, your solo operation (8 edits) on January 19 earlier this year [4] wasn't exactly copy-pasting something from the talk page that had been agreed upon before, as far as I can see. The prior version had more nuance (allthough I didn't think it very well written). Reducing

The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

(the prior version) , to

The neutral point of view is not a point of view at all.

like you did, only made a questionable statement into a totally unacceptable one. Consequently it was changed the next day (that is the diff you linked to above), and that is still (apart from a comma that was added) the version we have today.

Most of the rest of your January 19 changes were left unchanged, I don't want to create the impression I don't think you did a good job on the whole, getting rid of much of the uneccessary complication. But I don't think you should implicate that your nuance-less "The neutral point of view is not a point of view at all" statement that didn't live to the next day was in any way a consensus version.

I read the above talk between Marskell and Saxifrage a few times, but don't see exactly yet what they propose to change to what at the end of their exchange of ideas. Could anyone write the whole sentence down maybe, then it'll be easier to see what others think about it. -- Francis Schonken 22:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"As the name of this policy suggests, neutrality is itself a point of view, not the absence or abrogation of viewpoints. By adopting the neutral point of view, Wikipedia articles do state a position, but it is a position that is neither sympathetic to nor in opposition to its subject."

Circular sentences removed, point made explicit. Marskell 18:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would change "the neutral point of view" to "a neutral point of view" (using the indefinite article and emphasising the neutrality under discussion) and remove the duplicate "to" so that it reads "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to". But aside from those very minor differences, that's about the shape of it. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't use "abrogation", legalese. Don't forget this is supposed to be the "simple" formulation, while the treatment for the more experienced reader is in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#There's no such thing as objectivity.

As a side remark, from a logical point of view, the phraseology of the first sentence of your proposal is as "circular" or "tautological" as the previous one, you just used some more difficult to understand pseudo-synonyms.

So, no this doesn't do better yet IMHO than what is there. The two minor remedies proposed by Saxifrage below, don't make this wording substantially more acceptable IMHO. -- Francis Schonken 09:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not getting this objection in the slightest. Tautologies repeat their subject. This does not. Note it's "neutrality is itself a point of view" NOT "the neutral point of view is itself a point of view." That is, neutrality is defined with a perfectly fine, non-circular, declarative sentence. I honestly don't understand the problem. Marskell 16:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Or: what is possibly better about the sentences as they stand? They certainly don't impart as much infomation and nuance. Marskell 16:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be in response to my suggestion of grammar and orthography changes? If it was I'm not understanding the connection. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, no. Francis commented in between our points and I responded at the end. Sorry. I think we're (you and I) at a rough agreement the change is OK. Marskell 22:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I've fixed the indenting and ordering. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding what aspect of this policy disallows bias from being introduced by covering a topic more than it deserves based on its importance relative to the rest of the article. For instance, if a city has had problems with water quality and it's both verifiable and relevant, what's to stop somebody from filling 2/3 of the article with cited information about how terrible the water quality was, and aggressively defending that information's importance? (It's not a fringe viewpoint; it's simply an accepted fact being vastly over-emphasized.) It clearly introduces a bias to over-emphasize a negative point like that, so it seems like something the NPOV policy should cover, but when people make the mistake of doing this, I'm not sure what part of this (or any) policy to point them to. – Tifego ^(t) _{08:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)}

Sure, the policy should guide us better than it currently does to address this important problem. Some editors oppose to the idea to improve the policy on this respect with the argument that it is impossible to code in rules the solution to the problem. The flaw in this argument is that it might be possible to improve the policy without necessarily fixing every thing in rules. The fact that a policy will always be subject to interpretation in view of specific situations, does not mean that it cannot be improved for better clarity, clearer general principles, a few key examples, etc. The reality is that there is no account anywhere that we have tried to improve the policy to address this problem in a civil manner without having editors that attempted to suppress the discussion. The fact is that people like me that are only asking for an open discussion in the policy talk pages about this matter see their opinion being suppressed, attacked under Rfc, etc. Their argument to suppress my opinion is that I have only edited a few articles before my interest switched to the policy. Similar arguments are used for other editors that are even more agressive than me, but strangely they only picked me for an Rfc. It is easier to attack one editor at a time. However, the big picture is easy to see here: Mainly those editors who have an interest on specific topics which are jammed because of strong disputes and possibly suffer from undue weight, etc. feel the need for a policy that help us better than it currently does. These editors don't need years of experience to see the problem. A few months in few articles where the problem lies is enough. At that point, these editors either quit Wikipedia or are banned of Wikipedia for misconduct if they try too much to address the problem. Note that these editors do not try to take control over the policy. They just want to be able to discuss the problem together with other editors. The editors who suppress opinions usually have no problem with the policy. They are either satisfied with the current jammed situation in the disputed articles or they might not be interested in these articles. They are editors that have cumulated years of experience and many of them are admins. -Lumière 11:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the situation, there was a lot more going on than that. - Taxman ^Talk 12:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I represented the situation fairly. However, it maybe that Tifego will succeed just by pointing out the general principle of No undue weight. We will see. The problem is that it is often insufficient. When it is sufficient, it is often because those that calls the principle of no undue weight are a majority supported by a few admins. In this case, there is not even a need for a policy. The problem is when a large proportion of the local editors, perhaps with the support of an admin, are the proponents of the criticism. In this other case, we need a more elaborated policy. -Lumière 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the RfC clearly established that you are mischaracterizing it and that your efforts grind useful discussion to a halt and prevent improvements rather than facilitating them. Your above comments did nothing to answer the question that was posed and didn't even try. You just took it as your cue to further your own agenda. That can't keep happening. I predict that you will be completely unable to refrain from responding and you will carry this further from useful discussion. If I'm right there may have to be actual restrictions placed on your editing, which would be unfortunate. - Taxman ^Talk 15:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tifego, you've got the right section. Providing too much detail on small points (positive or negative) is not NPOV. That's supported by the 'Undue weight' section as you've already found, and by the core of the NPOV policy that you can't emphasize small facets of a topic over more important ones—that's bias. - Taxman ^Talk 12:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And, as gadfium said at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), removing the text into a separate article specifically about that topic and giving a link and a few words of explanation in the main article is a legitimate way of dealing with this without removing arguably well-sources and notable information. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tifego. I think the Undue weight section is vague because it feels safer for those who have a "firm grasp of the policy already" to keep it that way. Why else would these users be pre-opposed to any changes which try to clarify it, regardless of whether they succeed? Bensaccount 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I direct you to my comment below that contradicts your implied slight, Ben, and gently remind you that passive-aggressive personal attacks are still personal attacks. — Saxifrage ✎ 10:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the 'Undue weight' section is that it talks very specifically about viewpoints, which doesn't seem to generalize to aspects. It seems like it should, but right now it focuses entirely on over-/under-emphasization of views held my a minority/majority of people, which doesn't apply to other types of bias. As for the "the core of the NPOV policy that you can't emphasize small facets of a topic over more important ones", does the policy actually express that anywhere? – Tifego ^(t) _{23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)}

It seems there are criteria other than popularity (majority/minority) to consider. Relevance and expertise come to mind. Does this address your question? Bensaccount 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No, because it didn't relate it to the policy. There are other things to consider, but where does it say that? It seems to imply that there aren't. – Tifego ^(t) _{00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

It does seem like it should generalise. If that is indeed the spirit of the policy and it's just not reflected in the text explicitly, then it should be revised. To everyone else: What is the existing consensus about giving undue weight to facts/aspects of a subject? — Saxifrage ✎ 01:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that questions of proper weight to 'aspects' of an article depend on your point of view about the relative importance of the aspects. So, that puts it back to maintaining a neutral point of view. I hope that clears things up for everybody. :) -- Donald Albury^{( Talk)} 01:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That's my feeling as well, but there's nothing explicit in the policy page that makes this clear. In fact, by omission and principles of discourse, it can easily be read that there is no special rules about undue weight except in the case of editorial representation of external points of view. (Which, I add, is exactly what Tifego cites as the problem, writing, "it talks very specifically about viewpoints".) Obviously undue weight should cover more ground than that, but the text itself does not. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Placement is also another important issue along with "aspects". To use Tifego's example, even if one only says "they have terrible water" and doesn't drove one for 2/3 of the article, but places it in the very first paragraph of the article, that can be just as bad (" Las Vegas is the most populous city in the state of Nevada, United States, and a major vacation, shopping, and gambling destination. It has terrible water."). I see three ways undue weight can be given: inclusion of ultra-minority POVs, wrong emphasis of facts, and improper placement of facts. » MonkeeSage « 10:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to add text to Undue weight section

(This section header was added to highlight the proposals for change. Taxman's comment that immediately follows was in reply to MonkeeSage's comment at 10:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC) immediately above the section header. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

Yes, it seems two things should be clarified in the policy. That selective presentation of facts (even if worded factually so there is no POV in the statements themselves) is just as much a problem as POV statements; the balance of coverage must reflect the importance and relevance of the material., and I agree placement can be a problem too. Any ideas on a concise addition or clarification that can put this into the policy? I think anyone that knows and uses the NPOV policy is comfortable with this already, but clarifying can't hurt. Above I wasn't saying we couldn't use clarity improvements, just that tangential conversation and editors that block improvement aren't the way to go. Specific wording of a proposed addition is much more helpful so my suggestion is exactly how I worded it in italics above. - Taxman ^Talk 13:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As for where, I think a short paragraph added at the end of the undue weight section would do. I don't think we need to mention anything about "selective presentation" since that's already covered, I think, by the current contents of the section. I would propose:

This is not to say that only viewpoints should not be given undue weight in an article. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways. A non-exhaustive list of such ways includes depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

— Saxifrage ✎ 22:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC) edited to insert underlined text — Saxifrage ✎ 23:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, although it doesn't seem to cover MonkeeSage's point about placement. (I don't know if it should or if it's already implicitly covered.) – Tifego ^(t) _{23:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

You're right, I forgot about that. I've amended my suggestion. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Does anybody object to that going into the policy? It certainly seems to be in the spirit in which the policy was intended. – Tifego ^(t) _{01:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}

Though I think this does reflect the spirit of the policy and present practice (which is the important test, I believe), I also think that we need a lot more people confirming this before such a large change of explicit text will be accepted as having consensus-support. There's no real rush, so we can let this simmer for a while and collect opinions and other suggestions for wordings or amendments to the two wordings already suggested. I have added a "Proposed change" heading above to make it a bit more prominent. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think that is quite good and covers more bases more clearly than mine. It could use a bit of improvement for flow, but it has the basics down very well. While I also agree there's no hurry because that's pretty much how people interpret it now, it would be good to get it in to clarify it. I believe it represents what consensus already is for the policy. I also approve of splitting my comment off to this section. :) - Taxman ^Talk 03:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Support: Good job Saxifrage. I agree withyou and Taxman that this is how the policy is generally understood, even though it doesn't explicitly address these concerns (the "spirit of the law" rather than the "letter"). A good example of policy growing out of common usage and ideals. » MonkeeSage « 05:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks good to me. This kind of selective presentation of facts is often a serious problem, especially with articles on contemporary politics, and I think it's worthwhile to explicitly lay out the issue in the NPOV policy. john k 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What John K said. You may also want to put a note on the village pump policy section that this change is being disucssed. JoshuaZ 05:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I left a note in the section where this question was also raised, but I didn't create a new section. I honestly believe the lack of controversy over this represents a lack of a problem, but lets hold for a couple days maybe. - Taxman ^Talk 14:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll support this. -- Donald Albury^{( Talk)} 12:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it adds clarity. -- Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support this, of course. – Tifego ^(t) _{19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)}

Don't think it a good idea (sorry),

This is not to say that only viewpoints should not be given undue weight in an article.

...confuse, double negation, what exactly does this sentence say?

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements.

...also confuse phraseology (one has to remember to take the "not" in the second half of the sentence for it to make sense). Regarding the content, where does this do better than the "Article structures which can imply a view" section of the Words to avoid guideline, or for that matter, what we're trying to do in wikipedia:criticism currently?

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

..."should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject", etc... again that convoluted phraseology. And definitely not better than the way this point is formulated in the "Space and balance" section of the NPOV tutorial:

Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.

...in comparison, surprisingly simple and effective, no?

Note that undue weight can be given in several ways. A non-exhaustive list of such ways includes depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Vague, and in essence, when this could be formulated clearer rather something for the NPOV tutorial, than something with which to burden the NPOV policy page, as far as I'm concerned. Also, it makes something that is unavoidable when writing about opposing views ("juxtaposition of statements") look as if this would in itself be something bad. And then, weren't "Biased or selective representation of sources" and "Editing as if one given opinion is right and therefore other opinions have little substance" forgotten from the list? Surprise, they're already, elaborated with examples, in the NPOV tutorial.

So here's my suggestion, maybe look a bit further to what already exist (like the NPOV tutorial, or the criticism proposal), before trying to cram the content of the implementation guidelines all on the main NPOV policy page, that might only become totally unreadable again. -- Francis Schonken 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps all we need to is, at the bottom of the Undue Weight section, add a link to the NPOV tutorial. Still, though, I think that the laser-fine focus of the Undue Weight section on viewpoints is misleading, and it should be somehow changed to make it clear that undue weight is the problem, not undue weight of viewpoints. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

On the WP:NPOV page, NPOV tutorial is the first link encountered under the two templates. Note also that there's also another section, already for a long time on the NPOV page, Giving "equal validity", that also treats the same idea. I think the "Undue weight" section has gotten an out of proportion amount of attention since a few months, and would rather leave it at that. Maybe remove the "shortcut" box from that section (that is giving "Undue weight" to the Undue weight section). -- Francis Schonken 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really address what I was saying. Note that both the Undue weight and Giving "equal validity" talk about viewpoints. A sensible, but mistaken, reading of this would be that there are rules for how viewpoints are presented but not for other things. Since NPOV is policy and the NPOV tutorial is not, I don't see that this being covered in the NPOV tutorial does anyone any good: after all, citing the NPOV tutorial in a dispute will only be met with laughter (so to speak).

I realise this section has been under a lot of scrutiny recently. However, that's not a good reason by itself for inaction. That's essentially arguing that the time during which good work has been ground to a halt by controversy should be stretched out even longer after the controversy is no longer in the way. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"... talk about viewpoints" - The policy is named wikipedia:neutral point of view. Maybe better not stretch the policy beyond talking about viewpoints.

"... there are rules for how viewpoints are presented but not for other things" - the "other things" are treated in other policies and guidelines (already!), but the neutral point of view policy is about viewpoints. I tend to see some logic in that distribution of content over the several policies and guidelines.

"... citing the NPOV tutorial in a dispute will only be met with laughter (so to speak)" - for points specifically described in guidelines, I tend to cite these guidelines when there's a NPOV (or other) issue that needs resolving. In that sense, statistically, I think I've cited the NPOV tutorial more often than the NPOV policy page (which I cite when none of the specific problem-solving pages seems to apply). Never had problems with that. If the problem gets solved, that's that. While the NPOV policy page is rather about the general (and somewhat abstract) principle, it often needs more clarification of how that principle applies to a specific problem (so needs more attention when citing). Citing practical guidelines is often less cumbersome in that sense.

Appears also that I misunderstood your original intention with the proposed insertion (which I thought to be in the first place about Article structures which can imply a view, as for example in Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures which can imply a view). Your new comment rather indicates it is supposed to be about what is covered by the guidelines/policies in Category:Wikipedia proportion and emphasis (see also Wikipedia:Proportion and emphasis, which also refers to wikipedia:Verifiability, maybe more important than WP:NPOV when talking about balancing out other things than viewpoints).

So, anyway, I still think the wording you proposed to raise an issue on the NPOV policy page is confusing. Could you maybe reformulate a bit clearer (and then, indeed, I'd rather stick to the Article structures which can imply a view idea, than expressing something about other things that are not viewpoints). -- Francis Schonken 10:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are completely missing the point that people are bringing up. Too many perfectly verifiable facts about problems on a topic and no coverage of positives is POV. It's promoting a viepoint by selective presentation of facts. It's been very long held that the NPOV policy prohibits that type of thing. There are no other policies that should, and in fact it is the NPOV policy's job to cover that. But I see your point about the wording, that could be improved to eliminate the double negative. How about "Viewpoints are not the only thing that should not be given undue weight in an article." Still two "not"s, but I think it's clearer. Anyone with idea's on how to remove the double not would be good. - Taxman ^Talk 16:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but (additionally) I don't see what the problem is with the "double negation". It's a perfectly valid and understandable sentence ("This is not to say that only viewpoints should not be given undue weight in an article"). And if two "not"'s are really that confusing, it's easy to reword it to something like:

"This is not to say that articles should only avoid undue weight of particular viewpoints."

The proposed wording is not much of a reason (IMHO) to prevent what is already de-facto community-supported interpretation of policy from being expressed in the official policy that is responsible for dealing with the issue.

– Tifego ^(t) _{19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)}

Sorry, still no consensus on the verbosity of the phrasing. Note that I also raised some other points (e.g. context of Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance and/or category:Wikipedia proportion and emphasis; avoiding that the NPOV policy page centers too much on the "undue weight" section, which is only a corollary of the main principle of the page;...) which received no comments, or otherwise comments that had no relation to the points that were raised. -- Francis Schonken 12:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? No one has agreed with you, and a substantial number of people have agreed the wording is needed and matches what people already use the policy for. I noted that your points are all completely off, someone else agreed and you never responded. Unanimity minus one is a working consensus (this project rarely gets better), and you bear the burden of refuting that. You haven't come close, so your revert of wording that has gained consensus is irresponsible. Much better is to let the edit stand and then try to prove your point. - Taxman ^Talk 12:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I am a political Scientist, and a Social Scientist, (of the self educated sort.) And also an information systems Theorist. (Of the rank amatuer hobbyist sort.) I say this as background material, so that people will understand where I am coming from (I hope) a little more clearly.

My observation is that wikipedia has become a battleground for politicos, and that NPOV policy, while set to deal with the issue, is failing in general to keep cliques of Right wingers and left wingers from forming and resulting conflicts and social entropy ensue.

I have a set of theoretical partial solutions to this problem, at the very least some ideas I think might seriously help if they were in some way codified into policy.

The first of these is simply what I will call "Full Disclosure." It is my opinion that in order to make clearer sense of who has what biases, that participants contributing to contentious articles would all benefit from the lucidity that would follow if a "Full Disclosure" clause was added to the NPOV policy. The idea here is that the lead author of an article would begin the process on their user page, or a user subpage, by disclosing their biases, affiliations, loyalties, allegiances, and personal agenda. They could then ask "Disclosure questions" which other participants would be obliged to answer on their own user page, or user sub page, before contributing to the article.

• Comment inserted by Saxifrage: some of your premises conflict with principles fundamental to Wikipedia. That's not to say that some other formulation wouldn't work, but this one has the fatal flaw of conflicting with the ownership of articles policy, which states that no editor may exercise control over an article (i.e., no one editor may "own" an article).

• I think the problem is that you will get everyone claiming to be a moderate working for the good of mankind, motherhood and apple pie. As Jimbo Wales recognized, the basic and current view of Wikipedians leans progressive or leftist but most Wikipedians don't see their edits this way. The current scenario seems to be that we have recreated the American judicial system of "adversial confrontation will yield truth." But I don't know that Wikipedia "Justice" is encyclopedic. In fact it appears that most political or news events contain juxtaposing talking points from the extremes. I am not sure this qualifies as NPOV but it seems to be the best we can do for now.-- Tbeatty 05:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Thats a minor detail, it only works that way as a for instance. I'll change it? I don't want to conflict with anything, i was just giving the very general idea of how it might work. Of course it would have to be fit into the way things currently go. For instance, never mind the "lead author" clause, just imagine it as a function of agreeing to work on articles with serious pov issues. The only reason why to use a lead author is to define the most relevant pov issues. It could be done round robin, or, the consensus process could be used to generate basic criteria. I'd change it immediately, but i don't want to misrepresent the evolution of the idea. Thanks so much for your explanation. Prometheuspan 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For instance, a full disclosure by me regarding Rationale to impeach George Bush would look like this;

Example Full Disclosure

My Disclosure

I am a third party leaning democrat who believes sincerely that The president should be impeached. I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the election, but could not bring myself to vote for the lesser of two Evils represented by John Kerry. I consider myself a Radical Moderate, and an eclectic, and like to integrate apparently opposing viewpoints into more cohesive wholes. My agendas in writing this article is firstly to provide a neutral information service to the public, and secondly to make a strong argument that in fact, there are good rationales to impeach Bush.

Disclosure Questions

• What are your party affiliations?
• Who did you vote for in the last two elections?
• Do you believe that there are grounds to impeach?
• Aside from party affiliations, how would you characterize your bias?
• What are your personal agendas in participation?

Agendas

The point of this system would be to determine what peoples Agendas and Biases are, so that their contributions and potential conflicts could be understood in the context of where they are coming from. This would in my opinion, seriously aid in understanding in case of requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration, and make understanding contributors bias as simple as looking, rather than trying to guage that bias by reading pages and pages of contributions. It would force a new level of honesty into the system, and this would facilitate lucid problem solving regarding conflicts.

Perhaps more importantly, persons with serious agendas and biases would thus be encouraged to self identify, and could thereby in some cases be asked to recuse themselves from articles, based on the standard model of conflict of interest.

Lastly, trollish and manipulative behavior and dishonesty would be much easier to identify, because such persons would be likely to undereport their true agendas, and, agendas become apparent after a certain amount of interaction, generally.

I don't think stating one's bias or lack of bias or unusual outlook will do much good at all. God only knows I've stated my strong distate for Republicans and Democrats and Fascists and Socialists a million times and people heard what they wanted to hear. It's simple. Articles need to be neutral and factual. When editors are putting a slant on an article it's obvious. At least to me. The articles tend to read like ads or editorial comments. Maybe there could be a committee that is easy to find and readily responds to calls for help. When a lot of people are complaining about the same kinds of things or especially the same group of editors, tis probably true and worth investigation. When these same people suddenly get blocked or banned indefinitely its a clue that something's up. We need people to listen. I would volunteer to be on such a committee. thewolfstar 09:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope that this can be something useful to wikipedia, thanks for your time and energy in consideration. Prometheuspan 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that this would be helpful. Actually, if we, and especially administrators, came to rely on self-report rather than an investigation of actual behaviour, I think this would encourage misleading "disclosures". Also, this policy would do nothing to users who already actively disagree with Wikipedia's philosophy and systems and seek to subvert it for their own agendas. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that NPOV is failiing, but I don't think this is the way to solve it. I note that there are instances when consensus is used to trump (aspect of) policy, despite this guidelines on consensus noting that "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)".

I've always found this statement bizarre and incomprehensible. When has anyone ever explicitly claimed that consensus ought to trump NPOV? This statement is almost always brought up in the context of people trying to unilaterally claim that their preferred position is "NPOV" and that the consensus position is not. There is no way to figure out what is POV and what is NPOV except through consensus. Except in the utterly unlikely scenario of a group of editors all explicitly agreeing that an article would be better if it is POV and coming to an explicit consensus for a version which they themselves believe to be POV, this statement is absurd, because consensus and NPOV relate to different parts of wikipedia policy - NPOV is a requirement for article content; consensus is the process we use in case of conflict about article content. john k 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John K, I found several things said to be totally incomprehensible. I didn't say anything about consensus, and don't see how it hopped into the conversation. It seemed like a projection to me, and an absurd one, but then again, maybe its my ignorance regarding wikipedia as a newbie. I certainly didn't say anything about conensus at all, let alone trumping NPOV. All i am doing is trying to explain how a tool would work that would enhance our ability to see and deal with pov and bias more clearly and lucidly, so that the NPOV process is an easier one. Thats not trumping NPOV, its facilitating it. Prometheuspan 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Prometheuspan, that bit of non-sequitor was Iantresman using your post to continue a long-running argument while failing to address what you said. That is understandably confusing, and my comment below his was me chiding him for his axe-grinding, not directed at you. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC) oh, thanks, that helps. Prometheuspan 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason is clear, areas of policy are ambiguous, and there is no will (by the consensus) to clarify them. In other words, the consensus will not clarify policy in order to reduce subjectivity by the consensus. Conflict of interest? -- Iantresman 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The constant campaigning = not cool. All y'all have to stop hijacking posts that relate to policy discussion in order to talk about your particular beef. Just one problem is that it's disrespectful and unhelpful to the original poster to ignore their issue in favour of your own. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very surprised to hear that others don't think that this would be helpful. I honestly hadn't anticipated that in the least. I was sure that the usefulness of the system would be self evident. "misleading disclosures" Actually, I think you miss the point. We don't rely on this, its another tool. "Misleading disclosures" would rapidly become evident. It isn't hard to watch an agenda in progress. Think about it. For anybody with over 100 or so edits, you can probably guess their agenda if you study whats done and said. The point here is to bring a focus and thus lucidity to the issue of agendas, which isn't something wikipedia even discusses. Misleading diclosures would be a give-a-way very quickly of action not in good faith. "Do nothing" I can't see how you can say this. It would do lots regarding that subversion including making subversion more apparent and easier to diagnose. "areas of policy ambiguous" Policy or a set of rules can only get you so far. Sooner or later this comes down to figuring out what a persons agenda is, one way or another. If somebody has an agenda to be disruptive, then we have to figure that out the same as we do now. Straight out liars and con artists would be forced to come up with some good answers, but would still eventually give themselves away. "Particular beef" Are you accusing me of doing that here? Honestly, I am trying to help Wikipedia solve this problem.

Regarding my "beef" comment, that was very much not directed at you, but to Iantresman. The indent is intended to indicate whose comment is being replied to.

My concern about enforced disclosure (from a systems point of view) is that I think it would either give a false sense of security, or be ignored completely. Right now, biases and agendas are generally easy to detect and users that are subversive generally end up on the wrong end of a Request for Comment or Arbitration case. I don't think such a system of disclosure would speed that process at all. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC) I do think it could be very helpful, it doesn't look to me as i wander around that most people are clear what kinds of biases others have hardly at all. Nobody even says the word "Agenda." Prometheuspan 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope that both of you will think about this and review the idea carefully in your mind. I am certain it has enormous merit. "Conflict of interest". For instance, I would have to recuse myself from writing the George W. Bush Article, because i would be too biased against him to provide useful assitance in that endeavor. It would be a conflict of interest for me to do that. For instance. conflict of interest

Prometheuspan 01:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, you actually seem to have a full disclosure area of your user page, as if you allready get it. ???? Why did you tell us about your biases? Because its helpful to the effort for everybody to put their biases on the table. You make the argument for it yourself on your user page. ??? If everybody was as honest and forthcoming as you are on your user page, this would be redundant. Think about it. Prometheuspan 01:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think it would be better if everyone did, but I don't think it would be better if everyone had to. Mine is also not full disclosure, since I only have there my biases that I think are relevant. (Notice it lacks any party affiliations or what I stud(ied/y) in my "post-secondary education".) I hope that my disclosure of biases on my User page is useful to other editors, but I would not ask anyone to rely on it farther than they can throw it. It's also there for my own benefit, as a reminder of what my biases are.

I think that if disclosure was mandatory, people would evade it. It's not something that can really be enforced, and rules that are unenforceable usually cause more problems than they solve.

Beyond this, such a mandatory policy, imagining for a moment that it were enforceable, would have all kinds of privacy implications. Just for starters, I don't have to disclose who I voted for in any election, anywhere, ever—what gives Wikipedia the right to demand I do so? — Saxifrage ✎ 02:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC) I think that is a good point, but if you were working on an aricle related to George Bush or the rigged elections problem, I think it would become very relevant very quickly. If people didn't want to disclose they don't have to work on the article, or, even, if they didn't want to disclose they could even still work on the article, but have to more or less defer to those that did disclose in disputes. I think you are doing a great job of finding potential holes, but every hole you have found so far seems either illusory in the first place or an easy patch to me personally. "Mandatory" might be much too strong a word and way to think about the whole idea.

As far as "full" goes, people would only be disclosing things relevant to working on highly contested articles. Think of it as a tool used perhaps only after a pov dispute has reached critical mass. Prometheuspan 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I, like I assume Saxifrage does, sincerely appreciate your efforts to point out something you think would be helpful. But I also agree with him that I don't think this would be helpful, both because enforced disclosure wouldn't work (difficult people might just lie), and because people's biases are pretty easy to spot in their edits. The way this crazy place works is that to people who are familiar with it, edits stand pretty well on their own. You can tell by the edit whether it is an improvement or not and you get a feel for what editors are being helpful and which are not. For example, based on Saxifrage's editing, I know he'll be right in his edits much more than wrong, and that though we would certainly disagree on things, we would be able to present facts and come to a mutually agreeable solution and both learn something. For other editors not willing or able to do that it is much tougher to collaborate succesfully, but I still know if their edits are good or not. Point being the edits stand on their own and I don't need to know what Saxifrage's beliefs are. - Taxman ^Talk 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem disclosing my biases and agendas (check my user page if you doubt it), but this suggestion is a bit worrisome to me. The No Persoanl Attacks policy says that the following qualifies as an example of a personal attack: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." I fear that such a forced-disclosure could (likely would) lead to witch-hunts and edit wars based on affiliations and personal convictions; implicit ownership of articles (e.g., Christians claiming that "hard" Atheists can't edit articles about Christianity because they are too biased, and vise versa); and hasty generalizations. » MonkeeSage « 05:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly dislike this. If someone has a strong bias that gets in the way of their editing in a NPOV way it will be apparent in their edits, A general rule of forced disclosure is unproductive, will scare away new users, make personal attacks more likely and simply won't accomplish much. JoshuaZ 05:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I disclose some things about myself on my user pages (and disclosed more in the past, still accessible in the history), but I much prefer to be judged by my edits than by anything I say about myself. Since we have no way of verifying what editors say about themselves (without engaging in what, in some circumstance, I would consider to be 'stalking'), I much prefer to judge people by their behavior in Wikipedia. In the same vein, if I have learned something about an editor that is not available publicly, I do not reveal it. So, I also do not like any proposal to force editors to disclose biases, viewpoints, etc. -- Donald Albury^{( Talk)} 12:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Disclosure

I've said before I favour the notion of knowing where an editor comes from. I have listed my biases, as I understand them, about major topics on my user page. I'd not favour requiring it from every editor! It's an optional thing (I think it makes our interactions better if you know where I am coming from and vice versa but if you don't agree, no biggie) and certainly don't see the need for it anywhere else though. My concern with the above is that it seems to be more than just that although I confess I haven't parsed out what exactly. + + Lar: t/ c 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your assorted comments. Seeing as i have no support and only people who think its a bad idea responding, i suppose I'll just drop it. I think you are all miscontruing how it would work, and underestimating how helpful it would be. The idea here wasn't for me to generate an actual policy, but to start a policy concept. I think it would be more fair and realistic if people would stop and think about how in theory it might be implemented, before just dismissing it out of hand. In any case, I am slowly coming to the realization that Wikipedia is a mostly headless beneficient dictatorship combined with a loose level of consensus process resulting actually in pack psychology driven anarchy, and, I will probably quit participating, because i don't see that theres any sane way to deal with abusiveness, and the policies in place that do deal with the issues require exorbitant amounts of time and energy, which means that only the very worst problems are ever resolved, and editors who are clearly gaming the system and manipulating and lying can continue to do so as long as they are clever enough not to become a really big pain to some administrator. Prometheuspan 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are those issues. I think problematic cases come with every society though, and that kind of difficulty is one I'm personally willing to accept. Besides, in practise there are very few who manage to walk the fine line between disruption and useful editing so much that they don't eventually get called up for bad behaviour. In practise, it's not so much the worst cases, but the most persistent ones (which covers most of the worst ones) that get dealt with. That's fine by me, since the ones that aren't persistently disruptive stop and become good editors. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately biases are indicated by what people write in an article, not by their background. It doesn't matter whether I'm a gay, liberal, black, communist, or whatever, it's what I write that counts.

But I do agree with you that Wikipedia does come across as headless, and I think that pages and pages of repetition arguments on these pages, demonstrates that, regardless of what some contributors may suggest, it is indeed driven by anarchic consensus, rather than policy. -- Iantresman 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

WP is more like a principled republic. Policy is binding, but at the same time it is in a state of flux, trying to keep up with the community as it grows and changes. Somewhat idealistic. But still specific enough to apply to concrete cases, per mutatis mutandis. » MonkeeSage « 03:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

(Previously titled Is it OK to say Hitler's a monster because he really is?)

Actually the situation is more complex. People who believe the communists are evil (etc) think they are justified in using POV words to describe communists, because they believe their words REALLY, REALLY fit the communists, so they don't think it's POV to use those words. Eg:

I very much agree. "Persecution" is a very negative term, however, we shouldn't avoid it simply for that reason. What the Chinese government has done fully meets the term's definition, which has been acknowledged by many third party sources, as -someone- mentioned. I opt for "persecution" rather than "crackdown" or "suppression" becuase it more clearly describes the reality of what is being discussed. -names removed-

-- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 18:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, because the use of monster in that way is metaphorical—he's not a slavering non-human beast out of mythology and nightmare, which is what he'd have to be to "really" be a monster. In this way it is different from the persecution analogy. It's POV, and should not be done. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that most of us will characterize Hitler as a monster or worse, does not mean that it is encyclopedic to say so. Hitler's despicable acts speak for themselves. It does not need any metaphorical constructs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not what he's asking. The real question is: "Is it OK to call the Chinese government's action(s) 'persecution' because it really is?" As one example, that is. Hitler and monsters aren't involved at all except as an analogy referring to the example in this policy. – Tifego ^(t) _{23:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)}

I know that he is not asking that. But the example stands. There is no need to pass value judgements on material in articles unless is attributed to a reputable source. Value judgements about right, wrong, moral, immoral, etc, are outside of the domain of editors. Attribute POVs clearly as per WP:NPOV and cite your sources. Period. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a power in neutral language which the use of any 'emotive' or 'subjective' terms destroys. Using neutral language allows the reader to apply their own moral judgement without feeling that they are being propagandised to or preached at. An example is Martin Gilbert's book The Holocaust. It details page after page of facts, and leaves judgement to the reader. It is the most shocking book I've ever read, and that's because it tries to lay out the facts only, without judgement. Is it possible to describe the verifiable actions rather than try to decide between 'persecute' or 'suppress'? -- Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

From the above it's not clear to me whether the interlocutors were or were not aware that Hitler is actually used as an example in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves. In other words: didn't the content of that section already settle the issue brought forward? Or, is someone implying, by bringing this topic up on this page, that something is wrong with that section? -- Francis Schonken 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He's implying, by bringing it up on this page, that other people are incorrectly ignoring that section of the policy. – Tifego ^(t) _{00:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)}

No, I wasn't "implying" that, I was asking two questions:

1. Was there awareness that Hitler was treated as a topic in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves?
2. Does that section cover the question at hand, or is someone suggesting improvement of that section of the NPOV policy page?

I'm indifferent about what answers you give to these questions. But my feeling is that this discussion is somewhat hollow (or: not really relating to the current WP:NPOV policy) if these questions aren't answered. The only thing I was implying is this: if this is not a discussion that relates to the actual NPOV policy page, it should not be on the talk page of that policy page, per WP:NOT discussion forum. -- Francis Schonken 09:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

(Serves me right for reading the header and skimming the actual question.) So, in answer to the actual question, I would still say no.

Here's my (rather rambling) thoughts on the issue. To use the word persecute requires knowledge of motive or contains an inherent judgement that the action is undeserved (depending on what definition you look at). Merriam-Webster's definition says, "to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict" (emphasis mine); my Mac OS X dictionary says, "subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment" (emphasis mine); dictionary.com's definition says, "To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs" (emphasis mine). However, I am not really familiar with the subject enough to think my "no" is definitive: if it is absolutely clear and verifiable what the government's purpose for their acts are and that purpose is to subject people to maltreatment because of their religion (etc.), then it might be warranted. However, then you have to be absolutely sure you haven't crossed Wikipedia:No original research in order to get to that judgement. Even then, Wikipedia saying that it is persecution may be unwarranted, since it would then be presenting one POV as true. (O, what a tangled web...) — Saxifrage ✎ 00:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is NOT OK to say Hitler was a monster as this is clearly POV. On the ultimate scale of events, Hitler's actions were actually following some sort of a world-wide order. If Hitler, did not exist, many countries would still be under foreign rule and the world community would still view war with a high level of tolerance. One must remember that Hitler (and no man) is evil in ABSOLUTE terms. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

But presumably it would be OK to say that many authors have described Hitler as a monster, if citations can be provided [5] [6] [7]; but equally it would then mean that we should say the some authors have described Hitler as not being a monster, again, if citations can be provided [8]. And this highlights that Wikipedia's policy of verifiability states that: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." -- Iantresman 16:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

People have called him a hateful monster. People have said he was right and that they admire him. As to who says (said) which, how about an "opinions on" section, all neatly (<ref></ref>) footnoted? Metarhyme 19:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but the point is moot: the original poster was actually asking a question unrelated to Hitler. I made the same mistake. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Does NPOV apply to non-controversial subjects, controversial subjects, or both? -- Iantresman 18:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV applies to all encyclopedia articles, and is "non-negotiable". (But surely you know that, it's clearly stated; so why do you ask?) Harald88 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen several Wiki policy statement that I thought were clearly stated, but which may be re-interpreted by other statements. So I'm double checking, to make sure I haven't missed anything. -- Iantresman 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Second opinions? -- Iantresman 09:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"On every issue about which there might be even minor dispute among experts on this subject, is it very difficult or impossible for the reader to determine what the view is to which the author adheres?" Sanger said that. If you write your fringe cosmological views into an article on not-generally-accepted-cosmologies using Sanger's statement as a guide, there's a chance they may stick. If instead you crusade as a devotee of Truth, you are sure to be viewed as pushing a point of view, and the concepts you wish to communicate will tend not to stick. Try being neutral as a tactic - it might work. Metarhyme 16:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the core meaning of the Wikipedia|verifiability policy, that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.", and consequently, theories/ideas should not be present as absolute truths. But if a theory is not controversial, then does NPOV still apply? -- Iantresman 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The bigbangers are bound by NPOV also. You may wish to hold them to it. Metarhyme 23:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the page on POV pushing, only excluding all points of view but one, counts as "POV pushing". Does that infer that including a particular point of view (POV), in a neutral point of view style (NPOV), can not count as "POV pushing" under any circumstances? In other words, mentioning a POV is not POV pushing, otherwise any POV already mentioned in an article can be considerd POV pushing. -- Iantresman 09:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC) The apparent final application of NPOV becomes MPOV as in "multiple Points of view." This applies where there ARE multiple points of view, and where any given point of view is both noteworthy and sane enough to withstand the obvious scrutiny of basic reality checks. I could write a theory on cosmology based on the divine intervention of the flying spagetti monster. Fortunately for all of us, this would only fly in a humor article, not a cosmology article, because its not a serious REAL Cosmology.

As a newbie, this is only my current interpretation. I keep finding new details that makes me scratch my head for 20 minutes. Prometheuspan 23:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

'Objectivity' in my experience is impossible, individuals (myself included) will always write or comment on a subject based on how they have experienced it. Most of what I hear is usually subjective at some level. For every one 'fact' I choose to report, I'm sure I leave out many other 'facts'.

Sorry! NPOV is not realistic IMHO

What may be more realistic is for people to simply take ownership or owe up to what is their opinion or simply state how they 'feel' about the subject (no one can call them a liar or 'have gotten it wrong'). This is a really tough one for historians.

I find it difficult in society which so often encourages people not to state how they feel. (notice I said 'feel' and not 'think').

Have a good one! WIKIPEDIAVI 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 02May2006

If we don't at least attempt to write from an NPOV this encyclopedia will simply degenerate into people arguing with each other over which view to represent; or every article will become an agglomorated mish-mash of part-articles written from different points of view. Not being able to achieve a perfectly neutral point of view is no reason not to strive for as much neutraility as possible. DJ Clayworth 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Since your experiences are not objective, then your view on a subject is not acceptable. That's why articles are written from a neutral point of view based on verifiable sources. -- Iantresman 20:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC) It is true. Neutrality is just a goal. A worthy goal, which, cannot actually be achieved. However, we can get very close to that goal, and the harder we work to achieve it the more closely we aproximate an information resource instead of a propaganda channel.

I think most subjects can be written in a NPOV style, it's only when we try to include subjective information that NPOV breaks down -- Iantresman 17:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy has already addressed this issue ( WP:NPOV#There's no such thing as objectivity):

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

This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy would have said something about the possibility of objectivity. It simply does not. In particular, the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense, a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)—such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim! Rather, we employ a different understanding of "neutral" and "unbiased" than many might be used to. The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them.

You don't have to believe in the possibility of neutrality, nor work toward it; you don't have to believe that biases prevent fair reporting; in the worst case, the policy allows for necessarily biased reporting to be balanced by necessarily counter-biased reporting, with the end result that all views are fairly represented by those who are biased toward them. » MonkeeSage « 23:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

When coming into wikipedia, I was soon faced with NPOV since my main interest are horses - a typical flaming topic. Particularly, since my aim was to let people know something about relatively new opinions and evidence about this flaming topic: barefoot horses, bitless riding, treeless saddles, passive leadership... Almost nothing about this was into wiki. I'm mainly working into it.wiki and commons, but sometimes I come into en.wiki (I'm a little discouraged by my far-from-good English). I thoght a lot about NPOV, and some from my first works had been marked with NPOV template. Then, this was my beginner's approach: 1. I looked for a wiki admin with "traditional" horse experience and I asked him to take a look to my work (thanks Ubi!), then I followed her suggestions; 2. I re-discovered by myself the principle "Work for the enemy": I translated many "traditional" horse articles from English into Italian, adding a mention to new opinions and evidences; 3. I posted into commons many horse pictures about traditional farriery too! and I add good links to some good farriery sources to articles that were lacking them. And I tried to discuss NPOV too, when I saw that sometimes there is some mismatch between "CPOV" (Common Point of View) and NPOV. I'd like so much a "EBPOV" (Evidence Based Point of View")! Am I perfectly neutral about horses? Not at all! Simply, I'm doing by best to be. Take a look to Laminitis, its talk page and its history just ho have a example.-- Alex brollo 07:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is really a simple answer to the overriding question here... NPOV, much like the truths of science, is an unreachable ideal. However, as in science, one can get asymptotically closer to the objective by striving for it, although never reaching it. Although true NPOV is somewhat unreachable, striving towards it is really quite easy. It is also quite easy to tell when something is not in the spirit of neutrality.-- Oni Ookami Alfador ^{Talk| @} 07:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as NPOV. I think this should be mentioned in the page. Proofs are: for the English wikipedia, there is no proff Lance Armstrong is doped. For teh French wikipedia, he is. For the English wikipedia, the kingdom of France starts in the late middle age, for the French wikipedia it starts in the Vth century. Herve661

"But to speak seriously, the universality of an opinion is no proof, nay, it is not even a probability, that the opinion is right." (The Art of Controversy, A. Schopenhauer). This underlines how much "common point of view" is different by "neutral point of view". The ia a hard discussion about truth into medicine (a science dealing with a complex system), and recently emerged the need for a evidence-based medicine.

In brief: when debating about NPOV, it's very important, in my opinion, to look for some evidence supporting a point of view, particularly if it is largely accepted (t.i. "not needing any proof" at a first glance). It's highly probable that such an undocumented point of view is - far from being NPOV - a received idea. Alex brollo 06:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is addressed by NPOV's companion policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this recently added sidebar {{Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things}} appropriate in a policy page? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:VPP#Zondor's "Bad Things" campaign, I started a discussion there. -- Francis Schonken 15:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well (slighty off-topic) it looked really bad with just a border; I added a default background color ("#fff"), and an id attribute ("badThings") to the div, so it can be customized in monobook.css. I'm not really sure if it is appropriate here or not. » MonkeeSage « 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how NPOV can really work. It seems it is self-denying. If I understand the idea correctly, NPOV is to be entirely neutral and without judgment. But to be without any hint of judgement doesn't the writer have to move to an amoral position, or at least not observe and describe without using any pejorative or ameliorative comments?

I can understand trying to remain objective but to claim to be without bias seems to be delusional, and stretching for God-like characteristics, as if it were possible to maintain a completely object viewpoint. For example, if I read the page on abortion I can clearly see how all the descriptions are couched around the pro-abortion/pro-choice position while attempting to "sound" objective. It sounds good if you're pro-choice/pro-abortion, but if you are anti-choice/pro-life it feels like the whole NPOV system is hypocritical because it claims objectivity yet the authors can't see even how their position is already so very skewed.

Might it not be a better way to admit that we have biases and allow for "positions" to be held? For example I recently read of a new shared Israeli & Palestinian history book project where history is present from each point of view. The same events are described with one side of the page being explained from an Israeli perspective and the other side of the book being Palestinian. This seems more intellectually honest.

I can understand striving for neutrality but pretending to be without bias seems to color the whole project to me with a sense of dishonesty. Dcsutherland 02:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You should try wikinfo. [9] · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 02:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And in the meantime, may want to see the above discussion with the heading "Objectivity nearly impossible RE: NPOV" JoshuaZ 02:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with being NPOV is that is might show people likes racist or the nazis or the KKK or other hate groups in a good light, instead in the bad light they are supposed to be shown in. That's why I don't like NPOV sometimes on some articles. -Alex, 74.133.188.197 04:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

74.133.188.197, you misunderstand the policy. The majority pov is that KKK and hate groups are bad for society. The article should strongly reflect this pov. The tiny minority pov that KKK is good should be expressed but not misrespresented as the majority view. This is true even in the KKK article. See section from NPOV policy below.

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. FloNight ^talk 00:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

May we change:

"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is striving for neutrality - a point of view that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

to

"As the name suggests, neutrality in the context of the encyclopedia is itself a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. By adopting the neutral point of view, Wikipedia articles do state a position, one that is neither sympathetic to nor in opposition to its subject."

or some other wording that avoids that avoids the non-statement circularity. Two say yes, Frances says no. Any other comments would be appreciated. Marskell 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if 100 say yes, and 1 says no. Check his statements carefully, and see if you can convince him to change his mind. He seems reasonable, so try some more reason :-) Kim Bruning 09:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out two to one to observe that we need more comments, not as a final tally. I have re-introduced the clause "not the absence or elimination of viewpoints" while leaving the rest. It makes the sentence less "no duh" and is compromise enough for me. Marskell 11:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

:-) Kim Bruning 11:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To take it one little step by little step. May I change:

"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view."

to

"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints."

A simple expansion of a circular point via one little clause. On the basis of "if it does not disimprove, do not remove" it strikes me as hard to justify reverting this. And this editing via revert is disheartening, which a glance through some history reinforces. Perhaps the page should simply be protected. Marskell 17:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Going twice... Any comment on why this is bad? Marskell 22:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's try it and see! (scardycat) :-) :-) Kim Bruning 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, that line now needs refactoring though, it's twisting my mind! :-P Anyone care to try? Kim Bruning 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My commentary re this sentence: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence of elimination of viewpoints." is that it doesn't really parse. In particular, "absence of elimination", unless we're talking constipation (:-)), doesn't really mean anything. If I understand the intention (which is far from certain), the line would be: "... NPOV is a point of view, not the absence of a viewpoint or the elimination of all viewpoints". -- Gnetwerker 01:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Akk! It should have read "absence or elimination..." Yes, your def is what's meant. Marskell 08:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

On March 16th 2006, I requested a change to the last paragraph of the "Reasoning Behind NPOV" section, which received 8:3 support (not counting myself), and after a long discussion and a compromise with one of the editors who was against the change, got to 9:2. I made the change, which was reverted by one of the other two editors who was against the change. This was not a change to the actual policy, only a change in the description of the policy, or more precisely, the description of the reason for the policy.

Is 9:2 a sufficient consensus for such a change? If not, the issue is still open, as I still support my request, and I ask an admin. to please instruct me how to resolve the matter. I am willing to abide my the consensus decision with no further adiue (even if it is against me), which is why I have let the matter rest for a month (since April 2nd); but currently it appears that the consensus is for the change, not against it. I'm not trying to be stubborn or cause any problems, I just want to get the issue resolved. » MonkeeSage « 10:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well "Mu". To answer your question, rather than what you really wanted to know: the requirement could be seen as being 11:0.

To actually answer what you probably wanted to know ;-) : Just do the change, and see who reverts you. Then you can discuss with that person until you agree on a compromise. If you like you can wash, rinse, repeat that several times, until you reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.

Kim Bruning 10:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I did try that, as did the other editor with whom I reached a compromise. The third editor, who reverted the change, remained fairly adamant in his opposition to both the originally proposed change and the compromise version. That is why I'm unsure what to do at this point. Should I propose some kind of formal vote? Should I go with the previously established simple majority (81.8%) over the hold-outs (18.2%)? Or. . .? » MonkeeSage « 10:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you try for mere majority, I shall kill you with fire!. I mean, why, I might disagree with that somewhat.

Oh hmm, why is that editor so adamant. Do you know? They have to realise they're outnumbered, I'm sure. If they're at all reasonable they might be able to come up with a compromise themselves. :-) Kim Bruning 11:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

While you're neutrality regarding neutrality is appreciated Kim ;), we can't confuse consensus and unanimity. If someone is dead opposed to something and a much larger group is not, you often have to simply make the change and let the chips fall. The sentence beginning "Totalitarian governments" is awful, BTW. Marskell 11:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to treasure that comment! Neutrality regarding neutrality, gosh! <blush> .

• Unanimity= We all live in a pretty world with flowers and unicorns, and everyone always agrees perfectly with each other. It all ends with a big group hug.

• Consensus= We all live in that post-modern mess we call the real world, and have no time for yet even more shenanigans. After hour after gruelling hour of discussion, no-one disagrees enough with the final proposal to be bothered to put forth the strength to oppose any further... so the change goes through. People finally stagger off to bed, and come in late for work in the morning.

If people drag their weight on a consensus-seeking-discussion, things slow down. That's up to the weight-draggers, but I'd just remind them that we do need *some* solution, and maybe they'd be willing to compromise just a little so we can all finally get some sleep? <innocent smile of death>

Kim Bruning 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll instruct UBACAB, my user-boxen-and-category-aware canvassbot, to round up a massive supertroupermajority once I've decided which text I want. This is the right time; Kim is asleep and Marskell is studying the archives of this talk page to learn more about previous attempts to remove "Totalitarian governments" (if only from this policy). AvB ÷  talk 16:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Beware of sleeping kims, they might just wake up. :-) Kim Bruning 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit of two minds here. I like your proposed change (and argued for it). I also think that 80% is a sufficient margin for such changes. On the other hand, I do not think that 11 votes in total should be a quorum for policy changes that affect all of Wikipedia with its millions (?) of editors. If something like that only gets 11 votes, it implies that either something is broken in the community process, or that this is so irrelevant that the whole paragraph (either version) should be striken as irrelevant.-- Stephan Schulz 09:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Stephan, that conclusion is erroneous: if millions of people don't care if A is replaced by B or not, it doesn't mean that they would agree to instead delete A. ;-) Apart of that, likely most Wikipedians aren't involved in Wikipedia politics. Harald88 10:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't care if they support it. I'm happy to make the change if they don't oppose it. Brevity (especially of policy) is a value by itself. As to your second point: That's exacly why we should have as little policy as possible. By what justification do we make policies for the mass of Wikipedians, many of which don't even know that these exist? So I would strongly argue to keep it down to the necessary....-- Stephan Schulz 10:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK as long as you don't make a significant change without consensus. But IMHO we kind of reached consensus to make an improvement as discussed. Harald88 16:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it down indeed. A second look at the sentence and it strikes me as more ridiculous. Is it Wiki policy to give Totalitarian gov'ts "reason to be opposed to Wikipedia"? I say remove it if you're so inclined Stephan. The debate in the archive has consensus (again, not unaminity, which is hard to hope for). Marskell 11:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't really read the discussion on this subject (your look was erroneous). Harald88 16:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sake, just make the freaking change already. :-P And don't mention the '%' symbol in my presence again! >:-> (grrrr) Kim Bruning 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC) <performs quick change to innocent look, who me, growling?>

Mission statement?

The paragraph currently under discussion:

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

is maybe the clearest instance of a Wikipedia mission statement included in a policy page.

That is, the unavoidable "mission statement" by Jimbo ( user:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles) is not a policy page.

So maybe this is a question to be answered first: can/should Wikipedia policy pages include mission statement-like expressions?

My (personal) answer to this question would be: I tend to see the discussed "reasoning behind NPOV" paragraph as an explicitation and adoption into the community of Jimbo's first principle ("Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open community"). The paragraph currently under discussion makes explicit that this might conflict with the interests of less open communities, and that we shouldn't dodge awareness of such issue. So I oppose to a formulation that makes that point less transparant. Note that I don't think this should prevent a clearer formulation of the implied principle (see next subsection).

Note also that according to Jimbo's principle #6 a further discussion of this issue can and should probably best be taken to the mailing list. Would that be a good idea? -- Francis Schonken 11:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Namely

Couldn't we get rid of the "namely" beginning the second sentence of the discussed "reasoning behind NPOV" paragraph? I've been told that the word namely makes reading of an English text less fluent. So I'd try to get rid of that word in order to get a clearer formulation. -- Francis Schonken 11:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV correctly implemented would read dispassionately, in a dry analytic fashion such as:

"The Chicago Police today reported that three suspects were apprehended driving a vehicle which had been reported stolen by the grand-niece of Richard Daley."

, instead of

"Three hoodlums were caught red-handed violating the family tranquility of the beloved Daley family. When apprehended, they were committing a felony by being in possession of stolen car and are likely guilty of many other things as well".

It's really that simple. Hdtopo 05:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so: it's not obliged to always use dry language - "neutral" doesn't have to be boring. ;-) Harald88 09:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not dry, but I certainly would agree that it should be dispassionate. I think that passionate and POV are very nearly synonymous in this context. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 22:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that Jimbo is passionate about NPOV? Characterizing passionate points of view in a "fair and balanced" manner would be doing a disservice to the topic if the passions involved were not communicated. Rfrisbie ^talk 22:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps all these talks of NPOV still have to go a long way to understand the real spirit of NPOV. I am not sure though. -- Bhadani 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not have any passion about a subject, though. That's what the Real World that Wikipedia documents is for. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely; we are, after all, not a blog or newspaper but an encyclopedia. We should be disinterested, even as our articles needn't to be uninteresting. Joe 04:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Following banned user Zephram Stark's attempt to rewrite WP:SOCK using two sockpuppet accounts, there is a proposal to limit the editing of policy pages either to admins, or to editors with six months editing experience and 1,000 edits to articles. Please vote and comment at Wikipedia:Editing policy pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A source's POV is not something that should necessarily be removed. Quite the opposite, it often is the purpose of Wikipedia to report what the source's POV is. For example, Bytwerk has recommended including a source, Michael Burleigh, who has the opinion (the POV) that "Hitler dissembled his personal views behind preachy invocations of the Almighty". So, in Burleigh's opinion, Hitler was sort of a liar. That's his POV, and it is our job to report it. It's not a fact that Hitler lied about personal views, but it is a fact that Burleigh said that Hitler lied. So, yes we are interested in only giving the facts, but do you see how we report a source's POV here in a factual way? Reporting what a source said, is stating a fact, the source really did say it, regardless of whether what he said was true or false, fact or opinion.

This was what I read from another Wikipedian, but I am unsure about that being correct. The information here does not clearly state about a sources' POV. I do not agree with the above statements. POV'ing ought to be completely left out: just leave the facts, but upon coming here, I didn't see anything about it. Colonel Marksman 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that Burleigh has a POV about Hitler. Problem solved. By mentioning a POV, we don't necessarily endorse it. Johnleemk | Talk 13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Consider this then. It could be that we mention a POV by another person (regardless of who they are, historial, political figure, etc.) that can still disregard: "treating others as people" as is in the POV article. Take this look into other sides (e.g. political racists figures, etc). I agree that historians, books, articles, the Pope, etc. do not have any more say so in their opinion as any editor in Wikipedia. Colonel Marksman 13:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Could you rephrase that please? I've read it three times and can't make head or tail of it. Johnleemk | Talk 16:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Why do historians/books/other sources get opinions, but not editors? The policy in POV states:

"A good rule of thumb in avoiding POV is to never refer to someone in a way you would not want to see used to refer to yourself or a loved one. When writing something such as "the park has had a lot of problems with the homeless," consider that these "homeless" are people and would not want to be described this way. An improvement might be something such as "after the park was renovated, park officials began taking steps to show that individuals who were homeless were not welcome there."

So, it's ok to insert the opinions of sources (historians/books/articles), but Wikipedians (editors) can't? "Just as long as you state the source?"

• I'm saying that none of these policies say anything about the opinions, POV, or bias of the sources, but extensively about the editors. Colonel Marksman 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it. The idea is that we, Wikipedia, have to be completely neutral in how we refer to our subjects. However, our sources do not have to be neutral. If they were, it would be difficult to write an article on anything polemical. The important thing is that we ourselves must be neutral; therefore, for instance, it is not neutral to cite sources for only one side of the issue and ignore the other side(s). Johnleemk | Talk 12:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I got it, I'm questioning it. There's a Wikiwar going on about the Adolf Hitler page and his religion about it. (Some historians speculate he was Christian when he left home, and others don't, etc.)
• It's ok to state a source calling Blacks whores, but Wikipedians can't? And yet, Wikipedians are calle to keep NPOV, so instead, Wikipedians use a source to say it for them and support their opinions instead.
• To take that into consideration, there could be endless amounts of sources with differing opinions on Blacks, and it's far too easy for Wikiwars to slip up because of it.
• The fair way around it is to just post anything (source or not) with NPOV. Just give the facts--the important ones for that matter, and details can follow.
• I can go into the African-American page right now, find good, heavy sources (lots of them), and litter it with sources pointing fingers at African-American people screwing up the United States, and you can't do anything about it because I'm not breaking any policy (I cite my reliable sources).
• I'm not going to do that because by doing that, I'm not upholding NPOV.

Wikipedians are the ones who insert the quotes and the sources. They insert opinons by citing those sources which have such, and it may not even uphold their own opinons either (I really don't think African-Americans are screwing America). Colonel Marksman 16:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea is to avoid undue weight (read WP:NPOV). As I said, it would not be neutral if we cherrypick our sources. You can find many sources saying Blacks are screwing the US of A, but there would be an equal amount of sources arguing otherwise. Therefore, it is illogical to exclude one or the other if we want to remain neutral. The key phrase here is avoiding undue weight. Johnleemk | Talk 06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Another note, I am not finding it anywhere in any policy stating it is ok to allow POV from sources. Colonel Marksman 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's implied. Otherwise it would be impossible to write a neutral article about anything. Johnleemk | Talk 06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the idea that a single person's viewpoint has no place in the encyclopedia, I would say it depends on factors like the notability of the cited person or the media propagating the view (in terms of the number of people reached); or the number of people that hold the POV in question (in other words, the number of people represented by the cited person). See WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS, etc. AvB ÷  talk 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

...and another one that might provide some practical help regarding this issue: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance -- Francis Schonken 09:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea is to avoid undue weight (read WP:NPOV). As I said, it would not be neutral if we cherrypick our sources. You can find many sources saying Blacks are screwing the US of A, but there would be an equal amount of sources arguing otherwise. Therefore, it is illogical to exclude one or the other if we want to remain neutral. The key phrase here is avoiding undue weight.

• You're joking. I can't believe you actually just stated that--just like that. As per reading the lower end of this talk page, I repeal my POV vs NPOV with "MO" or "UVO".
• Even so, articles can go endless by allowing your statement (in italics) to run. Would it not make sense to only state the facts? With that, you eliminate a load of problems, quarrels, Wikiwars, etc. Whether or not you "balance" any POV (or MO) neutral with differing POV with the above example, this is an encylopedia, a place of information. I am yet to read any other encylopedia, on the Internet or not, that does not put a professional foot down and give only facts.
• Implied? I'm sorry, I refuse to go off something "implied". Lawyers love the word all too much for the very reasons I hate it. It's especially dangerous to the brainless and the smart allick. It could mean it could go either way. One can argue, "It's not there." The other, "Oh, its implied." Take it to court, and it becomes messy. Either it's policy or not.

Beside the point anyway. Would it not make sense to only state the facts? Colonel Marksman 20:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the message people are trying to deliver. If someone says something, the fact that they said it is a fact. However, including it or not is governed by things like not giving undue weight: it has to be relevant to the subject and the opinion-giver must be themselves significant enough (i.e., any ol' nutjob with an opinion about cold fusion does not belong in the cold fusion article).

I think what you've been saying is that including the fact that certain people have certain opinions is often not neutral, and you're right. But you're focusing on the wrong thing, because no way are you going to get anyone to agree that the fact they said it isn't a fact. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that NPOV deals with opinions but facts precede opinions. Bensaccount 03:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The article on pseudoscience states: The term "pseudoscience" generally has negative connotations because it asserts that things so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively described as science. If a term 'generally has negative connotations', can using it for categorization purposes be NPOV? Is there a suitable term that would be politically correct in terms of WP NPOV policy? Aquirata 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point. Do you have an example of pseudoscience that should not be characterized somewhat negatively?

FWIW, I have thought the same at times. But the problem always boiled down to a difference of opinion whether or not a theory/device/whatever had some scientific merit. All involved editors agreed that it looked scientific. Since it does not assert that something is designed with the intention to deceive (although it often is), and as such only looks at the cold facts, I fully support the existence and use of Wikipedia's Category:Pseudoscience. Simply following Wikipedia's policies in a dispute about the scientific value of an item should be sufficient to ensure a correct outcome, correct in the sense of fully satisfying NPOV requirements. And if the outcome is that it's pseudoscience, we apply the label. It's a pity that it's a negative characterization but then, we can't help it if a correct description is interpreted as negative by readers making up their own minds.

However, strange as it may seem, and I guess this is going to lean towards supporting your point, a considerable number of people take "pseudoscience" as a cue that something worthwhile is being suppressed by conspiring Big Pharma, Corrupt Scientists, Egotistical MDs, Rotten Governments etc. etc. In short, it has become a "loaded word," which may be a reason to avoid it in an encyclopedia. The label may have the opposite effect. Much like littering an article on a pseudoscientific medical treatment with words like "quackery" and other opinions/conclusions may well chase away readers that arrive to be informed but seem to find a blatantly biased article instead. Especially when warned about said conspiracy by calculating snake oil peddlers. AvB ÷  talk 08:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Looking only at the cold facts, however, is in itself a certain bias because there is much more to life than cold facts; therefore, it is POV.

I think the main argument is that the word pseudoscience represents a scientific point of view. I am not saying that everything what is generally categorized under pseudoscience is valid from a scientific point of view, far from it. However, fair representation demands that our categories should also be NPOV. If I create a category of humans say based on skin colour, I can have a black category but not a negro one. If I create a category of commercial drinks, I can have a soft drinks category but not an unhealthy coloured waters loaded with sugar one. If I create a category of people on social assistance, I cannot rename this to lazy bums. Political affinities can have a republican box but not a greedy, cold-hearted bastards one, etc.

It follows that one cannot have a science vs. pseudoscience categorization. If the people representing any of the 'pseudosciences' are offended by this label (and I think this is a given), the label must be changed to accommodate both them and the scientific community that championed the original label. It is hard to find a proper term, but perhaps alternative body of knowledge comes close. Aquirata 14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not bad... but I see massive problems lurking 'round the corner I'm afraid. The WP:SPOV may officially be a fossil, in reality it's alive and kicking and always ready to pronounce verdicts without providing the proof the reader needs to decide and is entitled to per WP:NPOV. It's really understandable; its proponents are so often "right" that it may become a habit to demand respect. The problem is when they're not (or only partly) right. The "pseudoscience" label (the word itself) is an instrument they will not easily relinquish. I think it has been tried before, and failed. See the category's talk page... AvB ÷  talk 16:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting discussion here! Unfortunately for precisely this word - "pseudoscience" - it lies in the cards that those whose belief is labeled a pseudoscience will often vehemently oppose the label and claim that their viewpoint is very much scientific. They won't be happy with a politically correct euphemism. No, they actually make claims to the word "science" itself. It can't be any other way, since they don't understand the difference between science and pseudoscience well enough to have avoided getting involved with pseudoscientific thinking in the first place. The Talk page at pseudoscience is ample proof of what I've just described. There you will find defenders of pseudoscience claiming that their particular POV is scientific. The only solution is to purge Wikipedia of the word itself, which is just what they would love to see happen. But Wikipedia must not be made a party to political correctness, revisionism, or censorship. A tough nut to crack. -- Fyslee 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AvB, I fully appreciate the challenges of trying to change the mind of the scientific community.:) However, it would be a shame if that was to discourage us from trying to represent what NPOV is all about. Aquirata 14:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

After rounding the bend in my WP learning curve, I have come to realize that the terminology "Neutral Point of View" is actually doing more harm than good. Every discussion and argument tends to bring this up, one accusing another of not being in conformity with WP:NPOV. That should make a red flag go up that there is something wrong. Rules should be clear enough for the majority to understand what it means. The very wording lends itself to being misunderstood. The idea of "point of view" immediately brings to mind something "personal". This causes a lot of battles. It really is something more objective than that. I witness people who have had much experience here falling into the trap of treating NPOV contrary to the intention of the policy. The policy states that NPOV cannot be interpreted inseparably from verifiability. This is crucial. People don't seem to get what that really entails. It means that NPOV really only comes into play because you have found that two or more reliable sources of verification are opposed to each other. Once that happens NPOV is a solution to it. NPOV is really just a reasonable Reconciliation of Reliable Sources. (RRS, or AWR=Average Weight of Reliability). That means the sources themselves must be weighed as to reliability, and an average taken so that the final wording of the article conforms to that reconciliation. You could have a New York Times article saying the opposite of the Washington Post. The final RRS would probably be 50/50 reliability and perfectly neutral (though one could probably argue section and authorship since newspapers more hastily print depending on those factors). Then again, why choose reconciling opposites when you know that reality cannot have opposites in truth? Why not try to find which one is correct? If you have a source from the Scientific American and Readers Digest opposed on a fact, it would depend upon the subject matter (science or not?) and their own referenced sources. If it was more of a scientific fact, the weight would be in favor of the SA article and the final RRS (formerly NPOV) would be wording in accord with the average weight of reliability. Bottom line, personal opinion is minimized. But a major factor in minimizing it is by changing NPOV to something more accurate as I suggested. What needs to be done also is to have a separate page of WOR (Weight of Reliability). Let's face it, we all know that different magazines and newspapers have varying degrees of reliability. Newspapers are notorious for haste and waste when it comes to errors. Just because something is published in a magazine doesn't necessarily give is a high degree of reliability either (Mad Magazine?). As WP says, it is based on verifiability, and the term NPOV is constantly at odds because it gives people the wrong impression of what it is all about. The better the rules, the less argument, hard drive and administrator time spent. Moderation and arbitrations, etc. would be lessened. RFC's would be easier. Admins would have more time just handling truly abusive people rather than the abuses fostered by ill-chosen policy terminology. So far I have already found another contradiction in the policy, which I have recently expressed on the Talk page for Verifiability, which involes the guideline on reliable sources reducing policy to a mere guideline itself. ( Diligens 11:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree. People seem to confuse:

• Neutral point of view, "NPOV" as the opposite of "POV", rather than a style of POV.
• POV pushing as the mention of a POV, rather than the removal of all but one POV.

Perhaps better terms would be something like "neutral style", "personal point of view", "verifiable viewpoints", and "viewpoint selection bias".

-- Iantresman 12:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a strategy for handling that issue I once proposed ( [10] - dates back to October 2004):

But POV is bad, isn't it?

No it isn't: the expression POV is used by many wikipedians, but in fact it is a confusing term, often leading to a re-introduction of the "objectivity" concept, which above is dismissed for use in Wikipedia context. This can be exemplified by following quote (taken from a real Wikipedia discussion):

[Article X is] inherent POV [...] Have moved content to the objective [Article Y]

The confusion comes from the fact that POV can also be read as the abbreviation of "Point Of View" (which is inherently good for Wikipedia, or, at least, the basic stuff Wikipedia is made of), while many wikipedians use POV in the meaning of opposite of NPOV. Even when attempting to use the expression POV exclusively in this latter meaning, the objectivity concept appears to be lurking around the corner.

If you want to use an abbreviation that means opposite of NPOV, try any of these:

• MO - Mere Opinion
• UVO - Un Verifiable Opinion
• UFO - Un Falsifiable Opinion (resemblance to more common UFO's probably not all that bad)
• UO - Un-verifiable/falsifiable Opinion

... I recall it survived a few weeks or so.

The longer Wikipedia exists, the deeper-rooted the dual meaning of POV (" opposite of NPOV" - " point of view") appears to become.

But on the whole (taking the bad and the good), I don't think the use of the NPOV concept in Wikipedia is counterproductive, nor do I see any approach that demonstrably would be more successful. -- Francis Schonken 12:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A large part of this article is an essay-like discussion of hypothetical common arguments and responses.

Can we put these in an article Common objections to NPOV or Validity of NPOV and summarize in a dozen lines here? Essay-style material to this extent isn't really needed in a major policy. Better we summarize here and point to detail. FT2 ( Talk) 11:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to start (or "split off") a new policy, guideline or essay page I'd recommend wikipedia:how to create policy#Guidelines for creating policies and guidelines. I mean, it's not as if wikipedia:content forking applies to what you're proposing (in that case, you would clearly be proposing a POV fork).

I also recommend to try to get acquainted with wikipedia's namespace concept, e.g. at wikipedia:namespace. I mean, neither [[Common objections to NPOV]] nor [[Validity of NPOV]] would be feasible as a page name to which to split a part of wikipedia:neutral point of view. -- Francis Schonken 12:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The basic point holds, however: this page is an essay as much as a didactic explanation of policy. Perhaps simply WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV Expanded. Marskell 13:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

...as does my basic point: I recommend not to do this without the guidance provided at wikipedia:how to create policy -- Francis Schonken 13:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No. WP:NPOV is exemplary of how all wikipedia namespace pages should look. A reasoned NPOV discussion ⁽¹⁾ of the how and why of each aspect of a particular guideline. Policy pages may describe our internal processes, but that does not mean that they should not be held to the same standards as our encyclopedia pages. Rather, over time it should be our objective to edit all our other policy/guideline/essay pages into a similar form. Kim Bruning 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC) (1)yes, I'm aware of the recursion

Exemplary? I think it would be rather awful if all the namespaces looked like this. Think of WP:NOT. The main points are easy to remember and easy to cite; the explanations are unpacked but not over-long. There is a lot of fat on the NPOV bone, by contrast. Marskell 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how you think about the wikipedia guidelines. If you're a legalist, keeping things short and imperative is good. Wikipedia hasn't been built on legalist grounds, however. An objective (NPOV) representation of existing consensus is probably the better approach, as it will more closely match actual practice that way. Think of wikipedia namespace pages as an encyclopedia specialised in wikipedia best practices. Kim Bruning 14:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Appreciating "short and imperative" doesn't require legalism (I think I'm rather opposed to legalism, actually). I would say: simple but not simplistic. This page is not that. It's meandering. Marskell 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)