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.

The inclusion of "heteronormativity" into the criteria for NPOV itself should be looked at because the term itself is political, as it is associated with Neo-Marxist Critical Theory. Maintaining it undermines any sense of neutrality. Homosexuality is a controversial issue that is entirely governed by subjective variables, and including a pro-homosexual slant as one of the rule violates any notion of neutrality. [User:Pravknight]-- Pravknight 03:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A "pro-homosexual slant" would be an inappropriate bias to introduce into an article, but this isn't an article. We're not aiming for neutrality in our policy; we are actually taking a strong, clear position on our content. The list you are referring to is simply a list of biases that editors might want to watch out for, and may or may not be helpful to individual readers. I suppose that it can be reworded if you think that there is a danger that users will think that Wikipedia policy asks them to adopt "Neo-Marxist critical theory" when editing, but my suspicion is that this is not a pressing concern. Jkelly 03:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest doing just that, mandating a neutral voice in all articles because Wikipedia is taken as an authority by millions who will read what is written here as "fact." Lack of neutrality makes the NPOV rule meaningless.

I edited the GID article because I found it was full of terms and concepts that I would probably find in a GLAAD press release. Terminology such as transgender people isn't just bad grammar as far as I am concerned, it's political language. If an authority on Gender Identity Disorder uses it in a quote, that's one thing, but a as standalone choice of words it's problematic.

In the newspaper business we prohibit the use of such language unless it is in quotation marks. I think it is inapproriate to permit words that editorialize unless they are in quotations.

Considering that by Jimbo Wales' own admission people who contribute here are slightly "more liberal" [1] than most those whose political and religious values are more conservative might find some of the presentations slanted to the Left. Consequently, the NPOV rule needs to mean neither conservative nor liberal buzzwords belong unless they are in quotes.

Terms such as religious fundamentalist shoud be banned unless they refer to a group that describes themselves as such. We wouldn't use the term secular fundamentalist in an article about about religious criticisms of secularism now would we?

I am a news reporter, and I am forced to keep my peace about my political views every day. I just don't want my beliefs slimed because of word choices anymore than you would.

I think we need to develop a style manual akin to the AP Style guide if one doesn't already exist; one that contains language acceptable to both right and left readership. The NPOV rule needs to mean neutrality.

User:Pravknight-- Pravknight 00:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming the we're engaged in a rather naive attempt to hit an ideal "neutrality" on a two-dimensional political spectrum. That might be an interesting way to try to write an encyclopedia (what would be the absolutely politically-neutral way to write Bulbasaur?), but it isn't what we do here. We try to encyclopedically summarise major and minor viewpoints. If we're describing some organisation as religious fundamentalists without a reference as to a reliable source, that is a violation of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If that description is given undue weight in the article, that is a NPOV problem.

Your comments above also seem to suggest that you are making the same strange assumption that Robert Cox makes in the interview linked to by the blog entry you linked to. Even if we were interested in trying to adopt writing from a "politically neutral POV" for Wikipedia articles, why would it be defined in terms of not deviating from the current political mood of the United States, which is what User:Jimbo Wales is suggesting that Wikipedia is "more liberal" than? While your journalism background may be very helpful in terms of writing and close reading ability, it may mislead you in other ways, especially if it has lead you to think that there is some neutral, objective truth that lies between two opposing sides. Jkelly 01:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What Jimbo actually said was:

"The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to libertarian and beyond. If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) they almost certainly don’t, I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population.

There are no data or surveys to back that." [2]

If he's right, that's where we should be; we should match our readership, the anglophone population as a whole. As for Cox: he edited a couple of articles on a single subject, declined to use the talk page, and persistently reverted. His case against WP as a whole consists of being blocked after making 5 exact reversions in 24 hours. (There are links to the article concerned from the debate.) Septentrionalis 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The term religious fundamentalism, itself, can be taken in a perjorative context, meaning all religious traditionalists. I would simply prefer a more journalistic approach to content. The articles related to homosexuality and same-sex marriage for example read like GLAAD or Human Rights Campaign press releases. There aren't any strong counterarguments presented, but at the same time I agree about the importance of a neutral tone of voice.

When we are dealing with scholars whose works are open to debate, shouldn't we use attributives such as John Doe claims that x is evidence of y. I think giving more credibility to one side over the other undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Simply because Anglophones in Canada, Australia or Great Britain tend to be more socialist/liberal doesn't mean that Wikipedia should follow suit.

My journalistic training has taught me the importance of being just as fair to people whose views I despise in my writing as to those who I agree with. I've staked my journalistic reputation on that. For example, while I wrote for CNSNews.com, I was never once cited by ConWebWatch for anything I wrote, and I developed a close, actually friendly working relationship with Rob Boston of Americans United For the Separation of Church and State. The same was true while I worked for the former Northern Virginia Journal where I had a closer relationship with Congressman Jim Moran, a political polar opposite to myself, than I had with many Republicans.

The entire NPOV rule should be revamped to eschew both ideological slanting and linguistic slanting. The Left-oriented articles on Wikipedia, from my years of lurking on this Web site, almost never seem to get flagged for POV violations when I say many of them should. Otherwise, the NPOV rule should get junked and Wikipedia should openly declare its ideological affiliation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.70.147 ( talk • contribs)

Does the following constitute NPOV language:

"In response to a 1999 controversy covered by the press concerning a group of Wiccans in the United States military who were holding religious rituals and services on the grounds of the bases they were assigned to, Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and bar them from serving the military altogether. Weyrich, as president of the Free Congress Foundation, led a coalition of ten religious right organizations that attempted a Christian boycott on joining the military until all Wiccans were removed from the services, saying:

"The official approval of satanism and witchcraft by the Army is a direct assault on the Christian faith that generations of American soldiers have fought and died for," Paul Weyrich added. "If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks. It's time for the Christians in this country to put a stop to this kind of nonsense. A Christian recruiting strike will compel the Army to think seriously about what it is doing."[3]

According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are both closely associated with Dominionism.[4][5] TheocracyWatch lists both as leading examples of "dominionism in action," citing "a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation," The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement[6], "illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement."[4] TheocracyWatch, which calls it "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual," and others consider this manifesto a virtual playbook for how the theocratic right in American politics can get and keep power.[7] The Anti-Defamation League identifies Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations which threaten the separation of church and state. [5] Weyrich has rejected allegations that he advocates theocracy saying, "This statement is breathtaking in its bigotry"[8] and dismisses the claim that the Christian right wishes to transform America into a theocracy.[9] Katherine Yurica has written that Weyrich guided Eric Heubeck in writing The Integration of Theory and Practice, the Free Congress Foundation’s strategic plan published in 2001 by the foundation,[10] which she says calls for the use of deception, misinformation and divisiveness to allow conservative evangelical Christian Republicans to gain and keep control of seats of power in the government of the United States."

I am looking for input as to whether this passage amounts to POV pushing because I already looked at the site and found that the supporting articles are poorly cited and biased. Dominionism is never adequately defined, and all I want to know is if revisions need to be made to give it a more neutral tone of voice. For one, Weyrich's a Melkite Catholic and a self-described Christian Democrat. Does the underlying article qualify as a primary source of credibility? [3]-- 146.145.70.200 00:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Before anyone spends too much time arguing over this, they'd be wise to read this user's RFC first Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pravknight. FeloniousMonk 05:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems just a bit dishonest, Pravknight, to post as an anon to try to skirt any connection to the RFC. Were you trying to get supporting evidence for your RFC? •Jim62sch• 09:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This might have been brought up before and if it has, please provide a link so I can read up on it.

NPOV does not apply when talking abouts facts, such as the moon orbits the earth. However, a scientfic theory is not a fact (it is simply supported by facts via reasonable deductions and inductions). And the nature of science dictates that all theories will have some opposition, regardless of how well established. Now in the case of the theory of gravity, does NPOV apply. How does somebody reply to a challange that says that "The moon orbits the earth due to the force of gravity" is a scientific theory and should therefore not contain POV (rewrite the sentance to "Most scientists believe that the moon orbits the earth due to the force of gravity").

I frequent a lot of scientfic topics (especially biology) and this challange is brought up often. It would be great if the resolution to this problem could be posted on the main page to allow for easy referencing.-- Roland Deschain 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are asking: If there is a commonly held idea which has been questioned by modern science, how can the modern questions (theories) be juxtaposed against the established view. One method would be something like this: "The moon orbits the earth due to the force of gravity, however, some modern theories consider the attraction of dark matter [link] to be important. In addition, John Doe has presented his theory [link] which has the U.S.S. Enterprise responsible for our moon's orbit." Terryeo 10:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Theory help? -- Donald Albury^{( Talk)} 13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, why do you think so? If I understand it well, to avoid weasel style, for those statements to which no notable opposition exists we can simply write it as a matter-of-fact. Thus, "The moon orbits the earth due to the force of gravity" is a perfectly acceptable sentence in Wikipedia except if notable disagreement can be cited (and in that case that alternative POV should be referenced). Harald88 11:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar disputes are discussed very, very often...too often (I'm guessing) to provide a single link that does justice to the debate. My view is that every issue like this must be argued individually by editors based on the merits of that particular article. A global policy to decide a lot of scientific topics won't do any good, doesn't exist, and shouldn't exist. What that means is that a huge number of scientific articles will continue to have sentences or entire sections that are always being challenged based on notability, verifiability, fact/theory NPOV disputes or similar things. The only way to reply to these challenges is to debate them out in the specific talk page for that article and encourage a community of editors to contribute to the dispute so a consensus opinion is reached. In the long run, that will probably mean that Wikipedia will continue to include more alternative theories and to be more wishy-washy about scientific facts than academic textbooks or other encyclopedias. Maybe the stable-version-Wikipedia idea will correct this, but for now, focus on each challenge individually and focus on finding and maintaining a good community in the talk page to discuss each challenge. Flying Jazz 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Flying Jazz's assessment is well grounded. There is ony so much that policy can provide. Good judgement and collaboration by editors, will always be needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and there's a clause already in this policy about making necessary assumptions. FeloniousMonk 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun... gravity isn't a force in General Relativity so the sentence is wrong, anyway :-). Though if by "most scientists" you include all scientists, not just gravity theorists, it probably goes back to being true :-) William M. Connolley 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi? Bensaccount 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the lead to be "condescending". This policy is probably the most important on this project and needs to be spelled out clearly. The fact that there are other policies as important and this one, and the fact that these work together, it is not redundancy, but essesntial. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why spend an entire paragraphs repeating what can be said in two words? Bensaccount 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Which two words are you speaking of? -- tjstrf 17:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with verifiable views; original research is not permitted.

Instead of:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.

Why? Because this is central and important policy, and people that come for the first time to tis page shoud be given the benefit of a full explanation and how this policy works with others. Read Andragogy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not just state that the views must be verifiable and non-original. Why do you need to excessively repeat it over and over? I find this aggravating. Do you really think that patronizing the readers in this manner will "teach them"? Bensaccount 02:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Because NPOV is one of the pillars upon which this project is based. And I disagree that it is condescending or aggravating. It is not. New editors (as well as veteran ons) need to be reminded that NPOV is not an islated policy. There are others and all are needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any condescending in the statement either. It might be possible to state the idea in a few less words, but the policy is the real foundation of our work, after all. Terryeo 10:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi and Terryeo. The current statement is neither patronizing nor is it merely redundant--it says several things that Bensaccount's single sentence does not, and as such it stands as a far more complete introduction to Wikipedia policy, which seems quite appropriate in this context. BTfromLA 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. In my opinion all three policies are interrelated. For example, to ensure a neutral point of view, original research would have to be disallowed because it tends to contain inherent bias (and can therefore be used to push a point of view). Also, original research is difficult if not impossible to verify in terms of accuracy by Wikipedia, that's why it should be published in a reliable rigorously peer-reviewed journal first. However it seems that the NPOV policy goes "deeper" than the other two, because it is part of the fundamental "foundation issues" for the whole WikiMedia project. Just my 2c. 70.101.145.181 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: If you don't really care what it says, you could have just said so in the first place. The part about "not a rigid rule" refers to the sentence about double and single quote marks.

Though not a rigid rule, we use the "double quotes" for most quotations — they are easier to read on the screen — and use 'single quotes' for nesting quotations, that is, "quotations 'within' quotations".

JA: The discussion about punctuation marks in and out of quotes reflects what has become the newer standard since about the late 60's, partly on account of computer searching requirements. Jon Awbrey 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not delt with images much. An image has recently appeared whose summary grants Wikipedia the use of it. However, the summary has a condition attached to it. The condition is stated, "critics of the Church of Scientology are free to use this image". On the face of it, NPOV clearly states that Wikipedia is not a critic of any institution, nor any individual. Quite the opposite, we try in every way to present dry, encyclopedic information from a neutral point of view. For Wikipedia to use an image with the condition attached that Wikipedia can use the image so long as Wikipedia appear (in the grantor's eyes) as a critic, seems to me contrary to Wikipedia's stated purpose. Is there a policy, guideline, or page which addresses this sort of issue? Terryeo 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is misrepresenting this situation. Please take a look at the discussion at Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg before responding to his request. BTfromLA 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do editors run around and say that what I say is not the actual situation. I stated the situation as I know it to be. I believe any literate editor will find the situation to be as I state it to be. I don't need another editor interpreting my every statement. I grow irritated with with after months of it. You are misrepresenting the situation, BTfromLA. This is the first time I've really reacted to one of these "chase after terry and tell everyone he is wrong" games. It grows irritating after a while. Terryeo 22:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors write that you are misrepresenting something when they believe that to be the case. I think the evidence is clear that the reason Wikipedia was singled out for permission to use that photo is because the owner of the photo recognized that Wikipedia is NOT a critic of Scientology but a site that presents information about Scientology from a neutral point of view--he says that in so many words on his web site. It seems to me that anybody interested in adjudicating this matter will be better informed by looking at the language of the licence and reading the exchange about this at Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg, where possibly relevant facts, such as the origin of the line about Wikipedia and the fact that the web owner is not a native English speaker and thus prone to awkward sentence construction, are introduced. One person has done so, and he ultimately agreed with you. But when you state that Wikipedia is, "in the grantor's eyes" a critic of Scientology, I think you are leaping to a conclusion that is contradicted by the evidence. That is not a fair way to introduce the problem. As to your concern about "games" designed to contradict you at every turn, scroll up a bit and you'll see where my previous post on this page was an endorsement of something you'd said. BTfromLA 23:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, after ChrisO's change of the copyright problem tag for that image, it is now listed here: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#August 11. As I suggested at Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg#Actual discussion about the image: if a Wikipedian would go out to take a picture of the building, and then uploads it to Wikipedia under GFDL that would be the smoothest solution of the issue. -- Francis Schonken 08:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Systematic conflicts of intesest as in autobiographies and paid editing can threaten NPOV. Please see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest created by User:Eloquence 10 August 2006 in this regard. WAS 4.250 21:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One wonders. The author of the photo's site is cited in nearly every article of the Scientology series. Terryeo 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that WP is limmeted by the NPOV policy. If there were more controversial things on WP more people would be drawn here to help the page(s) grow. Ouijalover 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Please respond

Please see Everything2 and Wikinfo, both of which have what you are looking for. Jkelly 22:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I handle a situation with an editor who tags articles as POV without giving any reasoning for the tag, or anything that they suggest needs to be done or changed in the article to make it NPOV? Is there a burden on the editor placing the tag to explain the reasoning, and what needs to be done to correct it? If the editor doesn't explain after a certain period of time, can the tag be removed ? Sandy 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? If {{ POV}} is added without discussion or at least a reason given in the edit summary, it is often removed in a short time. If there is an ongoing content dispute, it might be assumed the tag relates to that dispute. Gimmetrow 00:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's come up a number of times, and I can't recall all the places, but I can give the two most recent examples (not necessarily the best examples). On Criticism of Hugo Chávez, the editor who placed the tag said it was "so the article wouldn't become POV" LOL ! It's a preventative POV tag, according to him. I've been asking him for days to justify the tag and say exactly what he wants addressed (I can't concoct data to present an argument he imagines isn't there). If the article is a POV fork (which can be argued), then the content should be merged into the main Hugo Chávez article. The same group of editors who sometimes make the argument that the Criticism article is a POV fork refuse to allow the content to be merged back to the main article (I removed the content when we were trying to shorten the main article, then they changed their minds about using Summary Style, but won't let the content come back). On Súmate, the editor who placed a tag gave an explanation, which is vague. My question there is does the editor have the responsibility to spell out what s/he considers needs to be changed in or added to the article? Just saying an article reads like it's POV doesn't give one a lot to go on. When I've tagged an article POV, I've given a specific list of problems that needed to be addressed, information that was left out, examples of biased terminology, etc. Is that not how it should be done ? It seems that the person doing the tagging should have some burden of explanation, akin to actionable objections on FAC, so that other editors can fix it. Thanks for the help, Sandy 01:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

What does this "undue weight" stuff have to do with? You say that "tiny minority" views should perhaps "not be represented at all". Wait a minute.. what if people want to find information on these views? Does this means that articles specifically devoted to them are inherently "biased"?! That doesn't feel right to me. 67.138.199.173 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you could write an article about the "tiny minority view" of almost any subject, with a little thought. Especially so if the minority view espoused a unique or different idea from the majority. The article's title could be the unique or different idea which the minority espoused, it could spell out their reasons and reasoning full blown. Then against that, as a controversy, the majority opinion (which holds the minority's opinion as inconsequential) could be placed. (I think, heh). Terryeo 09:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The quantity of published material is the basis for such a presentation. The idea being that widely published is presented as being widely published, while narrowly published is presented with less article space and, depending on "narrowly published", it might or might not be presented at all. This is not to discourage information being present, but to discourage extremely far out, rarely mentioned things from clogging an article. Terryeo 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. This undue weight theory doesn't work. Who's to decide if a viewpoint is to small to discuss? Grand Slam 7 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course even the tiniest tidbit of information held even by a single person can be presented as an "additional reading" or an "exterior link". Or, in at least some situations, relatively narrowly held points of view ( Flat Earth) can be presented in articles of their own.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryeo ( talk • contribs)

(After edit conflict) By consensus. If consensus is not clear, or would violate policy, then it can go to the dispute resolution process. -- Donald Albury 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, why would posting an article devoted to a "tiny" theory/view/whatever be inherently "biased" and non-NPOV anyway, even if the view is published in some sort of journal or something? How does the number of adherents determine this "intrinsic" bias? (I'm the original poster, BTW) 70.101.145.181 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This statement seems a little out of place in the lead of the policy. Since WP:V and WP:NOR have no such language, it may mislead the reader into thinking that WP:NPOV overides the other two. When in actualy, WP:NPOV is 'weaker' than WP:V since a point of view from a verifiable source is not the same as a point of view from an unverifiable one.

Maybe it should be moved somewhere else in the policy? -- Barberio 12:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The day NPOV is no longer the leading rule is the day I leave. NPOV overrides everything, on all wikimedia projects. If you think otherwise, you have been severely misled. Kim Bruning 12:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, that was my initial reaction. I'd better explain though, lest you think I'm being fanatic for the sake of being fanatic, or some such.

Neutrality is what protects us from many different kinds of lawsuits in many nations, and also gives us much leeway in nations with oppressive regimes. That's why for better or for worse, neutrality must come first, above all other concerns. If you disagree, there's several forks with slightly different rulesets that work differently. Feel free to join them! Kim Bruning 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, NPOV is the most absolute of the policies. WP:V and WP:NOR are only ways to assist factual accuracy, both have wide range of variations and exceptions and are strictly enforced only when accuracy is disputed. NPOV is the basic, and both WP:V and NOR may have easements if required by NPOV. Presence of bias in information itself makes it incorrect, unlike other issues. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Er... Okay, lets quote the lead of all three of the content policies'.

"Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three."

WP:NPOV is in no way more important than WP:V and WP:NOR, and in fact must be interperated in line with them. You must not apply NPOV to overide Verifiability and No Original Research.-- Barberio 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering the misinterpretation demonstrated above, do we need to strengthen the language so it says 'None of these policies should be taken as more important than the other. Content must satisfy all of the three policies.' or similar? -- Barberio 14:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is more important, as implied both in the policy, in founders' messages, and in current practices. Also, see User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. Probably it not exactly overrides - but it is a compelling reason for local easements in other policies, while other policies aren't excuses for deviations from NPOV.

Actually, we here aren't in position to question NPOV policy importance. You would better address Jimbo with that, if you want clarification or have arguments. In any case, policies are somewhat axiomatic and statements "No, it isn't more important", "Yes, it is", "No, it isn't" are basically useless. We can't change policy basing on a guideline or help page. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: It's clear as it stands. Don't Mess with the Text, Ass! (Regional humor). Jon Awbrey 14:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kim and I have had this conversation before. NPOV rests on V and NOR. NPOV says that all published views be represented, not all views per se. It's not that one or the other is more important. Rather, the three of them complement each other, and it's the synthesis of them that determines our content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, they all are important, though the NOR is somewhat supplementary to V. But here comes priority: first, we ensure the source is neutral, or represented neutrally. Then we check about how notable it is. Many reputable sources don't hesitate to lie or represent something in a very biased way. And in this case it doesn't matter how famous the source is: it must be represented as a POV, period. If there is a hundred of sources, we won't sort them by notability to represent views, but rather first ensure all major views are represented, and then select most notable for each major POV. Sources' difference in prominence can't override NPOV policy and allow POV-pushing, while NPOV does enforce us to ensure neutrality, even without strong outside support. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First we insure the information has been published. Then, that it is verifiable. At that point, discussions can happen about the information but before that point there is no basis for discussions. Terryeo 08:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Involvement with WP:V might lead us to think we must first ensure, or at least adjucate, the neutrality of a source of information. But WP:NPOV does not suggest we do. Rather, NPOV directs us to present information based on its breadth of publication. The neutrality which NPOV states and refers to, is to the amount of published information of a topic. The breadth of publication is the non-negotiable aspect of NPOV. A neutral presentation of a hot topic is done though an encyclopedic presentation which uses "breadth of publication" as its non-negotiable foundation. WP:V then supplies ways to weed out "unpublished" information and ways for editors to adjucate broadly published from narrowly published. WP:NOV excludes unpublished information. Terryeo 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's close to what I tried to say: representing a source neutrally means that we attribute its claims to that source, and mention criticism, as well attributed to published critics. So, NPOV determines the most general outline, what views can be presented, and WP:V (+NOR) requires that we use sources, and helps to decide which sources exactly to select for each POV.

For example, imagine a war where a few nations with highly developed media have bombed another nation to the degree when it can only publish a couple of newspapers abroad. If we followed WP:V as primary, we would had to only list sources and only represent POV of the attacking nations, which is plain absurd. That's why NPOV can only work being slightly more powerful, overriding selection of sources based solely on WP:V, and enforcing inclusion of sources from both sides. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting illustration. In such a situation, there might be an article about the media (western POV) and an article about the media (Eastern POV), and yet another (African POV). In some articles the most published information (available anywhere on the planet), NPOV would require the most broadly published to be flooded into the article. While in an article about African Media, (as a possible example), the vast amount of published information in Western Media might be used only for comparisons. Terryeo 19:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we write about media, yes, but for the main article, not so. The policy tells us to represent all POVs in the main article. And we're not wikiality, so number isn't all. Breadth of publishing is only secondary, while reliability is primary, as stated in RS. And, in case of different POVs, both sides should be represented. For a war, they should be in general case represented equally, and not based on how much mediafirepower each side has. -- CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reliability of publication is primary.
• Breadth of publication is secondary.

CP/M statement is, I believe an excellent differentiation. That is the foundation of my confidence in Wikipedia. In the Scientology Series where I am active Reliability is dismissed as secondary because WP:RS is only a guideline. Contrawise, WP:V's the threshold of inclusion is verifiability is used as primary. Personal websites are used extensively because they satisfy that element of WP:V and while personal websites are grudgingly admitted to not be completely reliable, the issue doesn't get clearly stated until after WP:V, at WP:RS. Thence the articles are just chocked full of references to personal websites which are verifiable (from within an article) but are rarely verifiable from a reliable source. Terryeo 18:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I consider all three of these to be different aspects of the same thing, ultimately. And at the moment, when I think about any examples of apparent tensions between the three, I think the right answer is to follow all three of them or else just leave it out of Wikipedia. We know, with some certainty, that all three of these will mean that Wikipedia will have less content than otherwise, and in some cases will prevent the addition of true statements. For example, a brilliant scientist conceives of a new theory which happens to be true, but so far unpublished. We will not cover it, we will not let this scientist publish it in Wikipedia. A loss, to be sure. But a much much bigger gain on average, since we are not qualified to evaluate such things, and we would otherwise be overwhelmed with abject nonsense from POV pushing lunatics. There is no simple a priori answer to every case, but good editorial judgment and the negotiation of reasonable people committed to quality is the best that humans have figured out so far. :) -- Jimbo Wales 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And, I guess, the central thing all policies are ways to ensure, is truth, as close as we can get to it? CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Barberio 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The threshold for argumentative editors is verifiability, however, the actual threshold, as stated in NPOV, is publication, it is not until such publication is challenged that "verifiability" need present itself. Terryeo 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Inarguably; but don't put the means above the ends. Verifiability is, by its very definition, the possibility to ensure that a statement is true. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Verifiability" is to insure that a statement exists. Said statement's validity matters not to an encyclopedia. Terryeo 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The term 'Verifiability' as used in WP:V means 'can be independantly checked', not 'ensure to be true'. -- Barberio 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there difference? Don't pick on words. Can be independently checked, and, more exactly, can be independently checked to be correct. (Well, one can also check something to be false, to produce Uncyclopedia). So it all revolves around that. We can't make sure if OR is true. We can't make sure if some statement is true; but we can point one to people who, with their autrority, confirm it is true. We can't decide which POV is true, but we can represent the major ones. Actually, the policies are connected, but they are not things in themselves, but means to improve correctness. See Jimbo's reply above: NOR serves to protect us from uberscientists like Archimedes Plutonium, V from people with whatever claims, NPOV from POV-pushers. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes a good deal of difference. A statement's being valid is one thing. Whether said statement was actually made, another. Terryeo 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm speaking not about the words, but about the purpose. Really a lot of statements have been made throughout history, and we don't catalogue them. The only sentences useful for articles (except of POV-dedicated) are ones who have, among all, higher chances to be valid - that's why reliable sources are used. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS (reliable sources) has been created by a concensus of editors who have understood and thereby followed WP:NPOV + WP:V + WP:NOR. It represents the concensus of editor opinion, applied to specific instances of "reliable, published information". Terryeo 19:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

From Jimbo — "I consider all three of these to be different aspects of the same thing, ultimately. And at the moment, when I think about any examples of apparent tensions between the three, I think the right answer is to follow all three of them or else just leave it out of Wikipedia."

Others wiser than me have already pointed out how much this doctrine is similar to the Catholic faith (the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (or Spirit)).

I'm still enjoying viewing the angst of the mental and emotional struggle going on here (even joining in from time to time), though I am sure I will never be able to reconcile the three aspects of the same Holiness. Guess I was just born to be a Unitarian.

Sincerely,

GeorgeLouis 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh ! It is really only one datum. An editor uses the information which is most broadly published (Per WP:V) to present the most broadly held idea in an article. WP:NOR eliminates certain potential information which would discolor an article. In hot topics, the broadly published point of view is presented as being broadly published. The actual basis of NPOV is; "What have people been willing to spend money to publish", or, stated somewhat differently, "What have people been willing to spend their money, buying?" And then Wikipedia articles simply reflect that result. If, for example, everyone knew there were aliens who visited earth every evening, but no publication house published the information, Wikipedia could not create an article about the nightly visits. Terryeo 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you confusing V and NPOV? It's V what people spent money on. Also, I'll add: We rely not om most broadly published data, but on most probable to be correct. For instance, archives may never be published broadly, but can often be two orders of magnitude more worthy and reliable than all newspapers-and-like publications. And NOR separates wikipedians' own research (though if everyone knows something and can check, it's OK to write article - like for apple pie).

CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is WP:V that people spend money on. But it is WP:NPOV which states: "All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." This means that unpublished points of view are not presented. It is the buying public which controls the broadness of publication with their money, that is the foundation for Wikipedia's NPOV. To say it another way, popular information, being widely published by people with the money to publish, will control the POV we present in articles. The Buddhist Monk whose life is devout and austere, who publishes nothing, well, his philosophy won't appear in Wikipedia. But if it did, it would be placed up against a vast amount of more commonly published Buddhism. Terryeo 08:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

While you are proving the truth, there's something wrong in your basis. Foundation for NPOV is NOT the buying public. It is NOT popularity as well. It's not the buying public which controls sources. It's the publishing one; and publishing doesn't necessary assume buying, especially buying by public. For instance, a serious web site, like http://fas.org is a publication as well, despite it sells nothing.

We use published sources only because unpublished sorces are unverifiable. But it is, I repeat, not about buying. If there is a thousand copies of a document, but they are accessible, it can be a source, if it is official and reliable. And it will outweight millions of printed and sold books filled with clueless speculation. A publication in a small scientific journal is more reliable than another popular conspiracy theory. Money might influence our information, but that is a problem, and one of the goals is to make money not control the articles' POV.

Briefly, we use published sources simply because something unpublished is a very poor source. But breadth of publication doesn't matter a bit. Only reliability. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 09:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, you seem to be making a fundamental mistake in your reading of the NPOV policy. Editors should not be making independent value judgements on a POV. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Prominence, not 'closeness to the truth'. -- Barberio 10:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, that have been published by a reliable source - see WP:RS. The point missed is that breadth of publication doesn't define reliability. The breadth of publication of Da Vinci code far exceeds that of any historical research; but breadth doesn't matter - we cite reliable sources, not broadly published. The sorting between reliable sources involves breadth of publishing; but it's reliability that defines inclusion, not sales. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's neither 'Breadth of Publishing' or a judgement on reliability. It's prominence of the POV. To use your argument, presentation of 'The Da Vinci Code' as 'a semi-real account' has been highly publicised, but it is not a prominant point of view. A minority of people informed on the subject support this view. And it is this measure we must use, not 'truth' or 'reliability'.

To be inclided, a POV has to come from a verifiable source. However, the way we present this POV in terms of avoiding undue weight, and it's relation to other POV, is be assessing the Prominance of this view. -- Barberio 13:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to say almost the same. 1) Reliability 2) Breadth; well, prominence is the term used here to describe it. We use positions of experts, because they have higher chances to be right, and measure views by experts position. That's why books of fiction writers like Ron Hubbard or Dan Brown are presented as fiction and given minimal, if any, note in facts-related articles, no matter how popular they are and how many people believe in them, but prominent experts views are represented even if not widely known or published. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Its really simple: NPOV applies to views. Views must be verifiable. Why not just put this in the intro already? Bensaccount 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in NPOV policy does nothing, the Ayn Rand related articles are a de facto exception to the NPOV rule. Because of the tyranny of the majority there, the articles are always skewed in the favor of Rand's followers and there's nothing that the average Wikipedian can do about it.

But there's another problem with the NPOV rule that this presents: Wikipedia can't handle pseudoscience. We don't have admins who are educated enough in various topics to stop pseudoscientists from taking over, and we don't have any that are willing to learn enough about the subjects to handle them. Thus, if a majority of pseduoscientists take control of an article, nobody can stop them because they can censor the article to remove anything they disagree with and the admins won't know the difference between the legit stuff and the fake stuff.

Rand's article is a shining example of this. Rand is not considered a philosopher by the vast majority of academics, and is rejected by most of them, but the Randists continue to trick the admins into thinking they are right because they can present poorly researched sources and sources from their own organizations. The fact that they never give real academic sources is completely ignored by the admins, who think any source is equal to an academic one. Thus, Wikipedia pushes pseudoscience because, ironically, Wikipedia is uneducated about the very subjects it writes about and doesn't have enough academic education to tell the difference between legit sources and illegit ones. Again, the NPOV rule does nothing. -- LGagnon 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV requires that information used in an article be published information. WP:V requires that information used be verifiable information. It follow then, widely published information will flood an article. If narrowly published information is flooding an article, there should be editor discussion toward a NPOV. Terryeo 00:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Rand is a pseudoscientist? What claims of a scientific nature does she make? BTfromLA 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

She is a pseudophilosopher, which isn't that different from a pseudoscientist. -- LGagnon 04:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be much harder to present an unambigous case for Objectivism as a non-philosophy than for, say, astrology as a non-science. I'm a little confused about the point at which you begin to object, and I haven't been following the Rand articles. Are you objecting to her being introduced as a philosopher at all -- would an intro with "Ayn Rand, novelist and self-taught philosopher" seem over-the-top to you? Or is your objection based on the fact that the low regard in which she is held by academic philosophers (and the reasons for that) are being squeezed out of the articles? Clearly, the latter should be included in the articles, at least the major ones, assuming proper sources. I'd need to see a strong case before endorsing removing all reference to her status as philosopher, though. BTfromLA 04:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It goes against the grain when an editor who knows a subject well is in the minority and a concensus of editors mis-present information. Probably anyone who had earned their education would feel the same, were the article in their own area of expertise. I still don't understand the motivation for the several editors who kind of (but not exactly) control the Scientology articles because it is completely obvious to anyone educated in the area that the information is not presented by knowledgeable editors. Terryeo 08:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

I wouldn't extrapolate the Ayn Rand case. It is specific. Jimbo Wales has said publicly he is or was a follower of Rand, and was deeply touched by a couple of her books. [4] I suspect that that fact, and maybe that that attracts pro-Rand wikipedians (and similarly: detractors), has triggered some overzealous reactions in pushing the Rand-related Wikipedia articles beyond the limits of usual Wikipedia articles.

Nothing wrong with Jimbo having his examples and heroes. But it makes this particular case a bit touchy. No lack of sysop involvement there, afaik.

Pseudo-science

for those who have been following this page for some time it is common knowledge that there was a surge of pseudo-science enthousiasts let's say the first half of this year. The part of the NPOV policy that speaks about pseudoscience (now at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience) remained virtually untouched. I can imagine that for some articles the situation will never be very easy. But the NPOV policy is clear IMHO: science is a wider view than pseudo-science. Pseudo-science should never be presented in a fashion as if it were scientific. Under these conditions it is perfectly possible to write about lots of interesting pseudoscientific topics. Yeah, maybe in some cases this would call for getting one's foot down with the "non-negotiable" aspect of the NPOV policy... Inform some sysops if this doesn't work out in particular cases, hopefully they know what to do best (e.g. semiprotect a page, etc, depending on circumstances).

Scientology

try to avoid Terryeo getting started on that topic. Just a friendly advise. -- Francis Schonken 09:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

By some reason "anti-Rand" editors are of the opinion that editors that do not agree with their point of view, are all "Rand followers". I would avise LGanon to discuss the topic at Talk:Ayn Rand and pursuse WP:DR to raise his concers. NPOV works ... it may take some time, but it does at the end. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 10:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. I never asserted that anyone who disagrees with me is a Randist. I simply stated that it is impossible to tell who is and isn't, as they have used sock puppets to increase their numbers (we have, on more than one occasion, proven this to be true). And again, dispute resolution does nothing, so I'm not going to continue using a method that's proven itself to not work. -- LGagnon 02:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that "Dispute resolution does nothing" and that NPOV does not work, why are you editing Wikipedia, may I ask? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with my argument. You are committing an ad hominem by focusing on my actions instead of the current argument. -- LGagnon 03:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since LGagnon bothered to link to the talk topic he started on the Resolving disputes page, I'll repost the (as of now) last comment there, for the edification of passers-by. Note the date. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Resolving disputes#Dispute resolution does nothing:

Suggestions? Bearing in mind that judging the validity of arguments on arbitrary subjects is hard (esspecially for busy people not already familiar with the subject). In any case, RfC is intended to be exactly what you asked for. It doesn't work as well as it might because we have more disputes than people who wish to become involved in them, but that is the idea of it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't handle pseudoscience - not true. Wiki struggles with it, but usually succeeds. We had this with global warming and eventually the arbcomm stepped in on the side of the angels. Ditto the Reddi case. Do you have any specific examples in mind? There is a wikiproject on it, though its rather dormant... William M. Connolley 17:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content is decided by the majority's opinion. If that opinion doesn't match the facts, they can still win because there's rarely a strong match for majority power. Admins are technically able to do something about such situations, but they are not always willing to help, and sometimes they get caught up in the ignorant majority as well (as admins are not always educated enough on the subject matter to be able to handle it). The Rand article is a perfect example of this: there are more fans of Rand working on it than neutral editors, and thus they are given de facto NPOV immunity. The admins could do something about it, but they simply aren't there all the time; they rarely show up, and once they leave the edit wars start up all over again. -- LGagnon 23:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Rand article, but I have just taken a look at the 'Atlas Shrugged' article after reading this thread, and while I'd agree that it's a little tilted towards Rand and the Objectivists, it hardly helps when, for example, apparently anti-Rand posters add comments to the article saying that 'people only read it for the sex scenes'. Similarly, calling it 'Mein Kampf rewritten by Barbara Cartland' (or whatever the exact quote is) is funny, but hardly helpful or the kind of thing I'd expect to see in an encyclopedia. There's certainly room to improve it, I can't see that's the way to do it. Mark Grant 01:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, it's very hard to make a well balanced criticism section for a Rand book because 1) almost all reviews are hard to find, as they are rarely reprinted due to the fact that book reviewers think she's too worthless of a writer to bother doing so, and 2) literary academics think she's a worthless romance novelist whom they shouldn't waste their time and skill analyzing. I know that sounds a bit biased, but Rand is seriously hated by the mainstream literary elite to the point of being ignored. In short, it's incredibly hard to do proper research on criticism of the works of such a shunned writer. -- LGagnon 05:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are two things you can do. First, if anyone makes positive claims about Rand or Objectivism, just make sure that the article is crystal clear as to the source and origin of the source - one part of NPOV is making sure that articles are very clear about WHOSE view is being expressed. Second, if within these claims are also claims about "philosophy" one thing you can do is just find a bunch of frequently assigned introduction to philosophy textbooks (clues: textbooks in their seventh edition; also, you can e-mail the top departments in the US and UK - Berkeley, Chicago, Michigan, Harvard, Princeton, Oxford,Cambridge, LSE - and ask them what intro textbooks they most commonly assign. Then, look up Rand and Objectivism in the indices. Then, add that information to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand; Rand is very, very rarely ever given so much as a mention by academic philosophers. You won't find her in a philosophy textbook, and you're unlikely to even hear her mentioned in a philosophy class. She's considered to be a bad philosopher at best and not even a philosopher at worst. Trust me, I've tried to find work on her at the local university, and absolutely nothing came up, as academia has no interest whatsoever in covering a pseudophilosophic romance novelist. -- LGagnon 17:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don´t think you ujnderstand. IF anyone makes a claim about philosophy, they have to back it up. You can ask them to detail how many times Rand is mentioned in philosophy textbooks. If the answer is once, or none, that is a verifiable fact and relevant to any of their claims about philosophy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think LGanon has a reasonable concern which I would like to address. Let us be frank: we do not have any good mechanism for enforcing quality on an article. I have in the past suggested a few which were ignored or shot down and I gave up. The community as a whole resists this. That said, LGanon, do not give up. Even when cranks and POV warriors are in the majority, you really do have one weapon which is often - perhaps not always but more often than you might think: tenacity. IF the core policies (NPOV, NOR, Verifiability) are on your side, are being violated, just keep making the necessary edits or revert violations of policy. Keep doing it, and here is the key to winning: never violate 3RR, always act in good faith, and be excruciatingly polite, and keep making the necessary reverts or edits. If you are tenacious, here is what will happen: at least one of the POV warriors will loose his/her cool. When that happens one of two things will follow. (1) He or she may just quit. It happens, just wait for it to happen. (2) He or she will become very abusive to you. Keep making any and all changes that are absolutely clearly justified by policy, and keep being as polite as a UN Secretary General. He or she will become even more abusive. At THAT point you can go to ArbCom. They will make a ruling not based on violation or compliance with NPOV, NOR, or Verifiability, but they will make a ruling based on personal conduct and as long as you are tenacious AND keep your cool you will win. This may seem like an awful lot of work for you. It is. But it often works. I am just saying that when the majority are cranks and POV pushers, one person can still bring them down if s/he is patient, tenacious, adheres rigorously to all policies and is always calm and polite. And if you can find just one person to help, who is equally calm and polite and equally patient and tenacious and equally committed to our core policies, it becomes much easier. The key is to provoke them to violate a rule of personal conduct - this is Wikipedia´s version of civil disobediance (being disobedient to the majority, if you are civil and are right - in this case, in terms of having the core policies on your side), you can in time get them to show their true colors which I assure you are (if they really are POV pushing cranks, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here) either luny or nasty. At that point, the system will work for you. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope that Wikipedia:Reliable sources might be a solution to the problem. It requires that editors know the topic well and enforce the use of sources that are scholarly. -- JWSchmidt 01:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" comes up from time to time in the Scientology series. We just insist on quotations and references, following WP:V and presenting broadly published as the prevelant point of view. It has been a hot issue sometimes, but Wikipedia policies work for it, there. Terryeo 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"broadly published as the prevelant point of view" <-- I hope that means: "broadly published in reliable sources" Wikipedia has no need to even mention published propaganda and disinformation no matter how widely distributed it is. -- JWSchmidt 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My statement was incomplete and you have stated the completion. Terryeo 21:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly so. WP is about facts, not about mass-media opinion. Only views of reliable sources are to be presented as major views. Criteria may be higher or lower, but a reviewed science paper unknown outside scientific circles holds a hundred times more weight than a newspaper speculation. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project|

It depends on the context. NPOV as a policy depends on the idea (and presentation) of context because the identification of point of view involves an account of its context. Propaganda and disinformation sometimes must be provided in Wikipedia in order to represent the point of view of the propagandist. The article on anti-Semitism provides a perfect erxample of where this is necessary. What is important is that the point of view of any propaganda and disinformation be correctly identified. Moreover, if there are verifiable sources that identify something as specifically propaganda or disinformation, those sources must be included to comply with NPOV. The point is this: we do not present any point of view "for its own sake," we do so to comply with NPOV in any given article. NPOV is not about truth and it is not for us to say what is true or not. However, NPOV is about including and correctly identifying multiple points of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just what do you think you are doing?

Writing an essay, making a userpage, or, maybe, emulating IRC chat?

CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Asking "Just what the phoucque are you doing?" (as you wrote in your edit summary) is a breach of civility, a violation of Wikipedia policy. I suggestion you calm down and don't get yourself in trouble. -- LGagnon 23:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't use the f-word! ;-). And the superbritish version is parodic, so if one doesn't have enough SoH to get that, one has a major problem. BTW, really only a f-word would be appropriate to describe what people are doing when they editwar about a main policy - so keep low until it gets to US! -- CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We have an abondance of pov forks such as Turkish Kurdistan or Kurdish celebration of Newroz. We also have plenty of articles which are not remotely neutral Kurdistan, Kurdistan Workers Party, etc...

Since I cant get Kurd related articles in anyway remotely neutral (as its either "Kurds are the best thing since sliced bread who are also oppressed like no tommorow" or "Kurds are evil") we might as well make this something official.

-- Cat out 23:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

These articles should be reviewed and corrected collaborately. I'll bring this topic to the attention of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, and, since it requires a broad review, I encourage everyone to attend and fix bias possibly present in these articles. Present state isn't a base for policy exceptions, it's policy what determines the proper state of all articles. I'd appreciate if you and other editors come to the WNP talk page and explain bias you've spotted in detail, and, again, to everyone - please don't overlook these issues. -- CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do that. (sorry for my barraging in btw) -- Cat out 23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. I also hope other editors will join the effort to fix any ethnocentric bias, as it requires most attention. -- CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have posted something on Wikipedia talk:Neutrality Project (its probably not at the right place). I havent presented any detail as I want people to look into it on their own first. -- Cat out 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

NO. Give no topic any exemption ever. As soon as there is one topic there will be 10,000 topics with their editors screaming, exemption! exemption !! exemption !!! Don't start this. Terryeo 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat, didn't you try unsuccessfully to get Turkish Kurdistan deleted because you thought that discussing the (widely documented) political concept was unencyclopedic, or something like that? (added: yes, you did). There is no exemption from WP:NPOV for any article. The subject of an article may be uncongenial to a particular POV ( Srebrenica massacre, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Islamophobia etc), but that doesn't mean to say that the article is itself POV. -- ChrisO 19:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Did the author of the NPOV really mean to include a statement to the effect that theft is now a value or opinion (reference to stealing under "A Simple Formulation")? I suspect he may wish to revise that particular section. JimScott 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He's technically right. The morality of theft is actually a highly debated subject, or at least what does and doesn't qualify as theft does. For instance, see wealth redistribution. -- tjstrf 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See also capitalism. GeorgeLouis 06:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Following discussion here, I'm going to propose that we include the following to the lead of each policy. In the case of the NPOV policy, this also includes removing a previous quote on the matter which has been superceeded.

In the words of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, "I consider all three of these to be different aspects of the same thing, ultimately. And at the moment, when I think about any examples of apparent tensions between the three, I think the right answer is to follow all three of them or else just leave it out of Wikipedia."

For the sake of clarity, please discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. -- Barberio 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppse this, though not passionately. Basically, I (1) do not think it adds anything that hasn´t been saids, (2) if our policies are unclear in some way, quoting Jimbo is just an excuse for not figuring out the real weakness and working on it, and (3) with all due respect to Jimbo, I think it sets a bad example to appeal to him as an authority. We already do it - genug. We just don´t need to do any more of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask if you think we should remove the current Jimbo quote from the NPOV lead then? -- Barberio 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don´t have a problem with it. I just don´t want us to go overboard looking for additional Jimbo quotes, that´s all. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the current one is that, since it's only present on the NPOV page, it seems to imply the NPOV policy overides the others. Which is contrary both to the policy and the above statement from Jimbo. -- Barberio 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn´t. That is because the paragraph that follows makes it clear that all three policies are inviolable. Just because Jimbo didn´t write it does not make it insignificant. In fact, Jimbo´s whole idea was that lost of people besides him could write a great encyclopedia, including policies to guide it. We don´t need another quote from Jimbo to say what we ourselves have already said. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. Can you clearly say yes or no to should we have a quote from Jimbo in the lead. And if you think we should have a quote, say which one.

Please note that people have in the past mistaken the NPOV policy to overide the others. So I think that if we are going to have a quote in the lead of the policy, it should be one that can be applied equaly to all three to avoid this. At the moment the policy does seem misleading in that it contains a citation that NPOV is 'absolute and non-negotiable', while Veriviability and No Original Research do not. This can lead to the assumption that in a 'fight' between the three, NPOV wins. Which is contradicted by the comment above by Jimbo. -- Barberio 10:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because NPOV did actually override the others, apparently opinions have been shifting. Kim Bruning 11:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NOR is really just an expounding of a certain part of Verifiability, which itself exists so that we don't have to be NPOV and "balanced" about ideas that no-one actually possesses. NPOV is the primary policy of those 3, the other 2 are supports for it. -- tjstrf 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This actualy directly contradicts both what the policy says, and what Jimbo has said on the matter. (See above.)

This can't be said enough, NPOV IN NO WAY OVERRIDES OR HAS PRIMACY OVER V AND NOR. The confusion over this seems to support removal of the quote in the NPOV lead that was introduced in April, since it's clearly causing people to misinterperate the policy. -- Barberio 17:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if I am incorrect, which I may be, that does not mean that NPOV's non-negotiability or absoluteness has been rescinded. Merely that two other absolute policies also exist.

Out of curiosity, what possible situation would even exist where NPOV could contradict Verifiability and NOR? If you write a properly NPOV article, it will be verifiable and contain no original research by its very nature, due to the undue weight clause in NPOV. The inclusion of unverified information and original research would break undue weight, hence violate NPOV, even if those two policies did not explicity exist. (which is why I believe them to be simple expansions of the NPOV policy) -- tjstrf 17:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there are a significant number of people who only read the lead section of the policy. There have been numerious content disputes which start when one party insists on making changes in violation of V or NOR, and use NPOV as a justification in support. The Policy text should avoid situations where we even give the appearance that NPOV can override V or NOR. -- Barberio 17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That indicates a misunderstanding of the NPOV principle on their part, especially the undue weight clause (which, for some odd reason, is not mentioned in the intro). People who only read the intro of a policy really should not be attempting to invoke it in the first place.

In the interest of actually resolving the question at hand, I'll throw an idea out on the table: create a sub-section called "Jimbo on NPOV" under history and rationale in which both the absolutism and trinity quotes are included, as well as any other major quotes he has made on the policy, such as the original formulation mentioned in the history sub-section. -- tjstrf 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

2 Tjstrf: Not very funny, and not considerable, of course.

2 Barberio: Jimbo != God. Jimbo is alive and accessible. We shouldn't seek out his quotes, but, if we agree that we need a change, just ask him to throw a short speech about his opinion on NPOV. That's pretty much all. No need to replace one quote with another.

Generally: No policy may be violated. This means no overrides. However, NPOV is still more essential: unsourced information (WP:V or WP:NOR violation) is to be tagged, moved to talk page or, best of all, sourced; POV is to be removed on sight. There are easements and exceptions to V and NOR; not a single to NPOV. The reason is that OR or non-V text is harmful only if false; POV is harmful always. -- CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Not very funny"? Huh? Could you please explain what you meant by that comment? -- tjstrf 18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not in proper mood - maybe it's actually quite funny. Anyway not considerable seriously, since this is not about Jimbo, but about policy. We may throw in a quote or two, but not a section - it's just off-topic. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is on-topic. Barberio takes issue with having the present quote in the intro, and raises a good point that it may not be useful to have in the first paragraph. But the quote is a useful one to the policy itself, as are a couple others, so I thought making a subsection where the quotes could be included might be a convenient solution. -- tjstrf 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It might create an incorrect impression that NPOV policy is either especially favored by Jimbo, or is his personal obsession he insisted on throwing in. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 02:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get POV is to be removed on sight, and POV is harmful always? POV is to be balanced, not removed, as long as it is verifiable and not OR. The only material that must be removed on sight is unsourced negative material about living persons, and that is more about verifiability than about NPOV. -- Donald Albury^{( Talk)} 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's more about lawsuits than anything else. -- tjstrf 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

POV insertions always were, and now are being removed, sometimes even too harshly. It is to be balanced, but first removed, then balanced, then reinserted. In simple cases, when all other policies are met, POV can be fixed by attributing claims to the sources and adding at least a mention of opposing claims. But if each claim is verifiable, but together they form a POV, or in other cases when it can't be easily fixed, it's OK and proper to remove biased parts overall, leaving them in history or, in salvageable cases, on the talk page. It's how it works, and, if people try to do it other way, WP will quickly lose whatever hints of reputation it managed to get. -- CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV in a nutshell says, All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. How can you represent views fairly and without bias if you throw them out? What you are saying would make more sense to me if you talked about edits that move an article away from a balanced POV. The problem is that while one editor may think that a particular edit inserts an egregiously unbalanced point of view, another may think it is just the thing to bring the article into balance. I don't think anyone is truly capable of writing a truly balanced article without input from other editors representing a variety of viewpoints. At any point, an article is going to favor one viewpoint or another. Careful application of the NPOV policy should, on average, move an article closer to an ideal, completely balanced state, but even in the best articles there will be some sort of 'Brownian motion' of the article's point of view around that ideal point. Getting all of the editors contributing to an article to agree on on the location that ideal point is another matter. -- Donald Albury^{( Talk)} 01:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, not throwing out views per se - but removing POV from text if possible, or removing the piece overall if not. It is especially so for articles which are not at starting level. Articles should not be battlegrounds for POVs - not even for balance purposes; only for neutral representation of existing points of view. In most cases it is way easier to rewrite something from scratch rather than turn POV-pushing into legitimate neutral text. -- CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 02:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically advanced nations have more media power, which affects points of view of the wikipedia editors. Even quite smart people are getting brainwashed sometimes (especially in political and philisophical matters). First of all, when someone postulates a false statement one thousand times, it doesn't looks false anymore. Second, the biggest bias is omitting of information, not presenting all of information. Even if the information is presented, it wouldn't be giving a media attention. Taking example from the page, they cry about Saddam Hussein, but doesn't give any major attention to other dictators, which aren't confronting USA interests (Pakistani and many more). Or, they talk about serbian atrocities on every street, yet doesn't mention anything about albanian atricities, their nationalism. Thie bias is impossible to fight. because the west, especially USA has too much of political, technological and finansical power. Yet, having power and money doesn't make you NPOV! Think about that, americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuestPc ( talk • contribs)

We appreciate your input, but we have long been aware of this fact. Obviously, a perfectly objective writer does not exist. We used to have a User:God, but I think we banned him, so there went our only hope there. ;) Basically, NPOV is impossible, but that's because it's the ideal standard. If everyone just does their best, we can reach a close approximation of NPOV, and that's all we're held to. -- tjstrf 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following link:

---

• The Yellowikis' Neutral point of view policy, derived from this policy and employed at Yellowikis

---

Edit summary: rv, seems irrelevant: Wikipedia is run by a non-for-profit organisation. Don't link to a page that has "business" written about five times per paragraph. This is unrelated to Wikipedia's NPOV.

I think there's more than one person needed to form a "consensus" to keep this on the policy page.

Yes we could link to everything that somewhere half-way through is derived from Wikipedia. But WP:NOT a repository of links. Certainly not the core content policy pages, for commercial links. If YelloWiki derived this from the WP:NPOV page, it is their task to mention that on that page (otherwise it'be a copyright infringement). Returning the not fulfilled favour, not knowing whether the YelloWiki NPOV page has any success at all, clutters the WP:NPOV page more than it clarifies. If we need more content on WP:NPOV, I'd rather bring back the FAQ content. Why am I putting so much time in something that IMHO should be clear to anyone, on first sight? -- Francis Schonken 15:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear from that edit summary that that "first sight" was nothing more than "Oh, the word 'business' occurs on the page. It must be commercial!". That "first sight" isn't at all accurate, it appears. I suggest that you read our article on Yellowikis, which was even linked to, and then re-read the page at the link given — carefully, not just skimming it looking for the word "business" somewhere. I also suggest that you read the external links section of this policy. Derived policies are just as relevant as ancestor policies. Uncle G 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't follow. Ancestor policies are adapted here by members of WP, so they were at least partly pleasing to Wikipedians; if not, the descent wouldn't exist. Derived policies may well be interesting, but do they have the same claim to our attention? Septentrionalis 19:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Given that we have an external link to the MPOV policy on Wikia (which, unlike Yellowikis, is a commercial web site — with an advertising area on the page linked to, no less!) which is also derived from the Wikipedia NPOV policy by being a reaction to it (and states as much in its second sentence), the answer appears to be "yes". (The fact that xe was removing a link to a non-commercial web site for being "commercial" when there was a link to a commercial web site right above it, was why Francis Schonken's edit summary was clearly based upon not actually reading and why I encouraged xem to actually read the external links section.) Indeed, in some ways it has far better claim to our attention here than the MPOV link, because it is at least about the same policy as here, rather than about another, different, policy. (It is interesting, of course, because it shows this same policy as applied to a project that Wikipedia specifically is not, i.e. a business directory.) Uncle G 00:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Recently a new user pointed out a section of this guideline page that seems problematic to me. Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Fairness and sympathetic tone presents the completely true principle that the way in which discussion of points of view are organized can imply a stance. However, it then presents a "for instance" that I find problematic:

"— for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section."

This seems to be saying "the wrong way to do it is to discuss both supporting and opposing views in the same place; the right way to do it is to have separate sections for supporters and for opponents." I really can't support that; it doesn't make any more sense to me to have inherently POV sections of an article than to have inherently POV article.

I think the real problem is that the "for instance" is written too specifically, and obscures how very many ways there really are to damage the NPOV of an article through organization. I suggest that it be rewritten to illustrate the basic principle, by analogy, pointing out that just as constantly interrupting one's opponent in conversation is not a means to get everyone's voice fairly heard, neither is allowing an opponent's voice to be heard only to follow it up immediately with a counter-claim, et cetera. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree; the present phrasing may be the result of one particular execrable structure, in which the article presents side A, and then side B, but follows each point of side B with a sentence explaining why it's wrong. I called this the "sandwich technique" when I met it. Septentrionalis 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've definitely seen that -- I've seen cases where the opposing POV wasn't even granted a complete sentence before getting refuted. "Here's my POV! And here's what the other people say but as you can clearly see they're utterly wrong so forget them..." The problem is that there's so many ways to abuse NPOV, and, well, some of them can be described as following the advice in the section as it stands.

I notice that Jossi has reverted the attempt to clarify this section with the edit summary "not every discussion in chat, warrants a change in wording." However, he didn't post here to explain why he thought this was one of the ones that did not warrant a change; if he has reasoning, I'd like it if he would bother to explain it rather than just simply reverting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree too. The current phrasing that seems to steer for the creation of separate "opinions-of-oponents sections" is IMHO currently the most problematic part of the WP:NPOV policy. It has some other history too. Let me take you through that thread of history in three steps:

1. Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure has a bit of an ambiguous treatment regarding whether or not it is desirable to treat "opinions of oponents" (better known under the name "criticisms") in a separate section: the thrust is "[...] editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections [...]" - that recommendation being followed in that guideline by a quote of the separate "opinions-of-oponents section" recommendation from WP:NPOV.
2. Faced with the same problem when developing Wikipedia:Criticism, that proposal started out with the same kind of ambiguity.
3. Then, in another debate (re. WP:BLP) on the mailing list Jimbo said: "[...] it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." [5]

So, here we are... I think we should bring the "how to present opinions of oponents" example up-to-date one way or another, so that WP:NPOV is more coherent with how we (should) go about this. I mean, my assessment is that something has changed by now, and that in fact separate "criticism"/"opinions-of-oponents" sections are regarded less as a viable solution than they used to be... -- Francis Schonken 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to Antaeus, note that this is not an Wikipedia article, but an official policy and as such, changes to wording that has been stable for quite a while, requires an unambiguos and evident consensus. I do not see such a consensus been reached in the short discussion above. Make a clear proposal, ask if there are any objections, and if there are not any substantial ones within a reasonable period of time, proceed. Wikipedia policy pages are not the place to be bold, on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, then. May I ask that you spell out for us ahead of time just what format this "clear proposal" has to be in? -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, again. Three editors agree that the present example is objectionable; no one has defended it. What does it take? Septentrionalis 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's see if this works:

Proposal 1: on the basis of the discussion above, I propose that the present example under "fairness" be removed as misleadingly endorsing a specific format. Septentrionalis 20:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How should someone go about cleaning up an article that, in my interpretation, subtly yet massively violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy? Because it has been difficult for me to convey just how non-neutral, unscientific and errantly suggestive the race and intelligence article's paradigm of presentation is I've decided to come to this discussion page in the hopes of clarification. This task is all the more difficult because it seems to me that many of the "pro" editors of race and intelligence have been infected (brain washed) by its misleading paradigm and dichotomy of presentation and they apparently unconsciously feel the need to defend what they (errantly) interpret to be an absolute conclusion at all costs. Given the seemingly intentionally fabricated unscientific paradigm of presentation it's as if most if not all pro "race and intelligence" and "intelligence research" publications are intentionally misleading and racism inducing propaganda with zero scientific value (see scientific racism). Almost every word choice in the current version of the race and intelligence article is unscientifically and psychologically suggestive and almost every statement fundamentally disputed. Please Think Perpendicularly 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

All these assessments and assertions need to be supported by reliable sources, and significant views attributed to those that hold them. NPOV needs also the help of WP:V and WP:NOR in order to be enforceable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion, it's not "original research" to interpret that an article's method and paradigm of presentation massively violates Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy is it? The concept of "no original research" applies only to not creating sources for inclusion in an article yourself, which is a completely separate issue from interpreting that an article massively violates the principle of neutrality. Neutral presentation using the scientific method and neutral unambiguous language are also important aspects of neutrality.

There are numerous citable critical sources for the claim that the entire foundation of "race and intelligence research" and its method of presentation is non neutral (to say the least). For starters look at all the critical sources recently posted on the discussion page here (also note someone attempted to mostly deleted that section earlier today which fits a pattern). The talk page history is riddled with examples of the censoring, gang bullying and obfuscation of all criticism. Why aren't more Wikipedia editors investigating what I believe is a racism inducing and scientifically racist article!? I do not make these accusations lightly. The Pioneer fund which sponsors most "race and intelligence research" has many connections with neo-nazi propagandists and eugenicists... Wait a Second 02:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked briefly at this group of articles, and as abhorrent these can be to some of us, fact is that these are significatly held POVs. The articles are well sourced, although the main article reads too much as an assertion of fact rather than an opinion. The article does violate NPOV in that respect. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you massively underestimate the degree and scale of the neutrality violations in race and intelligence. That article is not a run of the mill violation of Wikipedia's Neutrality policy, it's a ridiculously unscientific presentation paradigm. I agree with your point that many people believe it and I am not advocating not reporting on it, instead, I am simply asserting that Wikipedia's Neutrality policy and the scientific method are much higher standards that (should) require us to present their viewpoints/claims neutrally. That article absolutely should not be allowed to hint at or presuppose unscientific conclusions nor be allowed to use presumption inducing language. Read all the recently posted criticisms here, the foundations of "race and intelligence research" are fundamentally disputed which includes their method of presentation. I don't think you get the point that scientific racism means propaganda fabricated to have the appearance of science but upon closer inspection has zero scientific value. Please take accusations of a racism inducing method of presentation much more seriously. Wait a Second 06:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Escaping a dichotomy

For example, at a basic level the phrase "race and intelligence" seems to be a dichotomy that unscientifically confuses description with conclusivity. A test taker's supposed "race" is just one among many bits of information, there are many different yet equal ways of correlating data given multiple data points. The word "race" hasn't even been defined anywhere close to the point of scientific consensus so how can advocates of this research even propose a conclusion based on a fundamentally disputed definition? There also isn't much if any general scientific community support for the concept of an absolute "quotient" and/or definition of "intelligence". Given multiple data points and multiple correlation possibilities a subject should be presented more generically and abstractly and should not be allowed to focus, to the exclusion of all else, on just one data correlation pair. Please Think Perpendicularly 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions can't be known ahead of time

In science generally an investigation begins from the starting point that the cause is unknown and certainly not known conclusively, e.g. a "working hypothesis". First, you have to present and describe what you or someone else is _investigating_ before possible conclusions are even proposed. "Race and intelligence research" does not do that, they've put the cart before the horse by errantly confusing description and cause. The phrase "race and intelligence" fails to note that this disparity is in fact more abstract and generic given multiple data points and possible correlation pairs. Correlating by Wealth and Nutrition is just as valid as correlating by "race" and "intelligence". Please Think Perpendicularly 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Handling presentation criticism

How should Wikipedia handle the situation where some sources criticize how a subject is being presented in other sources? In that case, I think Wikipedia should present that issue more generically and explicitly indicate where the scientific dispute begins? If other sources criticize certain researchers methods Wikipedia should not present that subject using those researchers' method, right? Please Think Perpendicularly 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestive words

The current version of the race and intelligence article is a minefield of psychologically suggestive and conclusive words and phrases, some examples:

• The phrase "practical consequences" errantly presupposes that "race and intelligence research" has concluded something.
• The word "score" in "IQ test score" presupposes that IQ tests have validity which is disputed, a more neutral and accurate phrase is IQ test result.
• Causes other than "race" for the abstract disparity are errantly downplayed using words and phrases that discourage mental consideration of them as causes, for example, instead of accurately describing possible "environmental causes" such as nutrition and lack of health care as causes these "researchers" refer to them as "environmental factors" which is ridiculous. These "factors" actually could be the cause or main cause for the abstract disparity. Why are all possible non-"race" causes described using terms from within the dichotomy and paradigm of "race and intelligence"? Each and every possible environment cause is an equally relevant bit of information that can also be used to correlate data, but for some reason "race and intelligence researchers" only correlate and focus on just one correlation pair among the many possible.
• Just because someone named their test an "intelligence" or "intelligence quotient" or "cognitive ability" test doesn't mean it accurately measures the abstract concept of "intelligence". Please Think Perpendicularly 00:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• The two "assumptions" that form the basis of "race and intelligence research" are more accurately described as "fundamentally disputed points.
• Just because someone created a concept called "General intelligence factor" or "general cognitive ability" doesn't mean it has any validity. That entire concept seems designed to additionally trick the mind into unquestionally accepting "intelligence research" as valid. Any conclusions should come fact and logic, not from presumption inducing language.
• The argument that "brain size" is correlated with intelligence has been refuted as an example of scientific racism.
• If "Several hypothesis have been proposed to explain..." why are they all presented within the suggestively misleading "race and intelligence" dichotomy and paradigm? Each hypothesis should be described using its own language rather than misframed in terms of "race".
• Words which are subtly similar to "race" are used to errantly imply "race" as the cause, for example "group" in "The primary focus of the scientific debate is whether group IQ differences also reflect a genetic component". This sentence says almost nothing complicatedly and appears to be a tautology that completely befuddles an abstract understanding of the issue. It also notably does not indicate exactly where the scientific dispute begins. The foundation, definitions and premise of "race and intelligence research" are fundamentally disputed.

As I said above, that article is written in a voice that is asserting a POV rather than describing it. I would slap the NPOV tag on it and get to work with other editors to make the article compliant by attributing POVs to those that hold them rather than making assertions of fact. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of the history of that article. I was banned from Wikipedia for directly challenging its racism inducing method of presentation. It seems to me there is a systematic effort by a small highly coordinated group of users and admins within wikipedia to maintain that article's racism inducing method of presentation. Do you get the scale of the issue now? Wait a Second 07:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are talking about. I'm not sure how to blow the needed cool wind of sanity into that emotionally hot area but I would agree there is a great deal of emotionally weighted talk throughout the article. Frankly, it sounds like erudite psychologists have used their familiarity with psychological doublespeek, combined it with the only discipline recognized to be able to measure IQ (psychology) and produced an article independant of any real germ of data. Terryeo 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, it sounds like someone who is barred from promoting his anti-psychology-and-psychiatry hate speech in the articles has taken up the habit of editing the policy talk pages in order to spread his prejudices. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, I wonder if psychological doublespeak is better or worse than Office of Special Affairs doublespeak? I suggest that a way to blow sanity through a discussion is apply a Guideline AS a Guideline, which can never be enforced as a policy can be.-- Fahrenheit451 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What, User:Fahrenheit451 ? Terryeo 17:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What "what", User:Terryeo? Bi 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of unreliable sources as secondary sources is enforced via edit war. It's been argued that this doesn't warrant a POV tag, as it is not dealt with explicitly on WP:NPOV. What can I do, as admins refuse to deal with the article? Can my stance be inferred from existing rules or should ruling be added? -- tickle me 01:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Which article? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't want to hear that: it's a German WP article on something Arab/Israel related. I won't mention the name to not arouse suspicion of inciting interwiki warring. There's a slight chance that opponents will give some weight to en:WP:NPOV rulings, ours are less detailed. For now, some insist to use e.g. anonymous uruknet.info reports as secondary source, and sources considered left-wing extremist by German authorities too. I feel that these are primary sources on themselves at best. A German admin concurred with my stance - and left it with just that. I'm a bit desperate, besides it struck me that the issue is, it seems, not dealt with explicitly here indeed. So clarifying that could possibly be of general interest over here too. -- tickle me 06:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tickle, don't just take my word for it, but consider being specific. Nothing gets resolved except that it gets communicated about. It helps no one to hold a secret in one place while nurturing aspects of discussion until your point is supported or denied. Just brashly lay it out, toss the target into the ring, let editors fire away at it until a concensus is reached. Have a little confidence in Wikipedia's robustness, you'll be pleasently surprised! Terryeo 21:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, that is so refreshing to read your enlightened words of counsel. I would really like you to take your own advice, "let editors fire away at it until a concensus is reached." On the Guideline of Reliable Source I have found you not to respect such a consensus.-- Fahrenheit451 21:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What, User:Fahrenheit451 ? Terryeo 17:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What "what", User:Terryeo? Bi 12:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope I don't get attacked for this post. Lately, I ran across Anti-Semitism, the article. It states that the usage of this term for arabs (which is the opinion of arabs) is not generally accepted. And the rest of the article describes the subject as prejudice against jews. I know it's a delicate problem, but if a definition of term differs between two groups of people, shouldn't the two definition be fairly represented? And the article description (or even title) take account of these two definitions and not consider one false and one true and rely on it in the whole article since we're searching for verifiability not truth. I know it's difficult but how could this be solved in a reasonable manner. You're answer is appreciated (and if I didn't make myself clear, plz tell me, my english sucks ;) Thank you. CG 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That is an good question. It strikes at the heart of NPOV. I would say that two definitions of a single word should be presented. Full definitions, discussions of the meanings as understood and used by one group. And then, after the first group's definition is fully discussed, the other group. I would say, dedicated a subsection or a sub-sub section of the article to it. ===word as used by A=== and ===word as used by B=== Terryeo 20:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. This could be applicable for articles like Macedonia (terminology) which deals with only the definition of the term. Splitting the article into "Definition by A" and "Definition by B" is simple. However, some article (like Anti-Semitism doesn't deal with the term as a word but with the concept and the actions taken that could be described as this term thourough history. How could we concile two definitions of the term while describing its application thourough history? CG 10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, I am developing some guidelines that would be sensible to include in NPOV and I'm not quite sure how to integrate them. These guidelines have to do with images and captions on those images. Here is what I'd like to include. Might there be any suggestions from the regulars who edit on this policy on how best to integrate this potential new section? Thanks. ( → Netscott) 14:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

NOPV and all other content policies apply not only to main article text, but to captions as well. I do not see the need to expand the policy beyond to include specifics about captions. NPOV, V and NOR always apply. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately while what you're saying would seem to be common sense Jossi in practice it hasn't been the case. I'm aware of the possibility of instruction creep but as NPOV makes very little mention of image/photos relative to the policy as it stands now it is sensible to clarify this. ( → Netscott) 15:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

COmmon sense should prevail. If there is a content dispute about a specific caption, discuss in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean like this? ( → Netscott) 15:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. A vigorous debate amongst editors is always a good thing if done with civility. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I saw nothing to debate. This edit was what folks got riled up about. ( → Netscott) 16:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk on the article's discussion page (even a photograph's discussion page) is a first step of achieving editor concensus. In situations where the discussion involves elements of guideline or policy, the discussion often moves to the appropriate discussion page. Terryeo 20:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• I support the contention that If the subject of an article covers a disputed concept or idea then in order to maintain neutral point of view Wikipedia must not add images (particularly lead images) to the article that support one view of a concept or another without properly qualifying the image in the context of the article. While common sense should prevail and bracket creep is preferably avoided, unfortunately I think it is probably useful to spell it out. It can only make the article and the image more useful to the reader if the caption is better. Lead images do catch the eye and set the tone. When in doubt there should be the minimum of ambiguity about the image in the context of the article. If there is ambiguity, that ambiguity should be made overt in the caption or the image not used. (I didn't see the rabbit :-( ).-- Arktos ^talk 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing that cannot be resolved by involved editors by common sense and applying the current content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The recent nutshell change made by David Gerard including the word "illustrations" will be helpful towards these ends. ( → Netscott) 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This says "Currently, the "Policy in a nutshell" says, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This also includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals." The first sentence is fine. The second presents an inclusion list. It would be possible to add "images" to that list, but next week, or next month, or next year someone will have a good reason to add something else to the list. Why not just change that second sentence to, "This applies to all aspects of an article." would people find some part of the word "all" that they don't understand?" I think the nutshell can be improved. Does anyone else think it can be improved? WAS 4.250 04:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The nutshell para should be short and pointed. There is no need to include all the nuances of what might be covered, that's the job of the policy itself. The policy in a nutshell is that all content must be neutral, we really don't need to say much more than that. Just zis Guy you know? 10:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If there's no need to include every nuance of what might be included, wouldn't that support revising it to something slightly more general, rather than the current itemized listing? -- tjstrf 10:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just shortened the nutshell and made it clear the list is an e.g., not an exclusive list. (I've also added "significant points of view" to the intro para, as that's the phrasing the Arbitration Committee keeps hammering home. This is also good for keeping out cranks' insignificant POVs on something.) - David Gerard 13:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I see my comment here was eaten by the system, which helps to justify this reversion; half of this, however, was a response to #Problem with examples in "Fairness and sympathetic tone"; which has been here, unobjected to, for some time. "All parts" is unclear. I would make it "all parts of articles", but it is not clear that this fits portals. Septentrionalis 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• So I think the nutshell should say all parts of Wikipedia intended for readers
• And the example under Fairness should be

  presenting one view in a block, and then presenting another view with a sentence after every point explaining why it's wrong, is unfair to the second view.

I for one think that is excessively wordy and doesn't communicate the gist of it as clearly as the earlier statement does. Terryeo 18:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but which do you mean? Septentrionalis 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what is the reason for the lately excercise in hair splitting in policy pages? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

At least we aren't edit warring over it, like they are/were yesterday at WP:NOR. Also, can't policy be edited like any other page? So what's suprising about having a spurt of activity? -- tjstrf 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can' be edited? Sure, this is a wiki. Should be edited? No, unless there is wide consensus for changes. This is an official policy of WP. See the note at the top of the page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean the note that, prior to some editors getting into a content war over it and a resulting protection, explicity welcomed changes which clarified the policy? -- tjstrf 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I refer to this: The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, that notice. Also, I would argue that the nutshell is not itself policy, but rather a summary of a policy. And right now, it doesn't accurately summarize the policy it is supposed to be describing. -- tjstrf 01:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then make a proposal here, let it be debated, gather consensus and only then edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I propose the following 2 modifications to the nutshell:

1. A specification be made that NPOV applies to article-related content, whether in those words or otherwise. This was previously expressed as "reader-facing" content. At present, we have a dichotomy in which "All Wikipedia articles... ...this includes all content," must be NPOV. While the point is there, it's not consistently presented. (I am opposed to the inclusion of the itemized list in general, since this is supposed to be a nutshell, but that's another issue.)
2. "Views" be changed to "subjects". The use of "views" is confusing, since most articles are not about views, they are about their subjects. A view is just one of the many types of subjects, and NPOV applies to Gopher as much as it does Liberalism.

Neither of these changes will effect the message of the nutshell, but they will make it more accurate as to what NPOV applies to. -- tjstrf 23:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several views of the Jay Treaty: in straight diplomatic terms it was, at best, a minimal success for the Americans, in that they did not have actually to accept anything intolerable. More recently, there have been more positive views. A lone editor insists on quoting only the positive views, and including the positive parts of mixed assessments. Septentrionalis 17:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, despite discussion seeming to me to sugest against having this quote in the lead, removing the quote keeps being RV'd. So let's see if there is any consensus on this... (Note, this is not a vote, yada yada yada... This is just to spur a discusion to see if there is any consensus on this quote being in the lead other than inertia.) Please post a reason behind your position. -- Barberio 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Note, previous discussion on the subject kept getting side tracked into 'is NPOV the prime policy?' instead of discussing the quote. So this poll is intended to focus discussion on the quote, not as an actual vote in itself. -- Barberio 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, just to clarify, this is not a vote. This is just trying to focus discussion on the quote, and if it should be in the lead of the article. -- Barberio 23:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep the quote in the lead of the article.

• The quote is helpful. Any supposed "confusion" it causes is not confusion but rather a cleverly disguised fact: NPOV is the defining policy of Wikipedia, and when properly applied, WP:V and WP:NOR will also be met. Also, no other location in the article really fits. -- tjstrf 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd fit well on the end of Common objections and clarifications as a final clarification of the non-negotiablity. -- Barberio 23:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep the quote, but move to somewhere else in the article. (Not in the lead)

• Move, the quote is worthwhile but should not be in the lead for three reasons. 1) It adds clutter, the lead should be a clear explanation of the policy. 2) The policy needs to stand alone without prominant support from Jimbo. 3) The quote is moderatly misleading by making NPOV appear the prime policy. -- Barberio 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionaly, I would alter the way the quote is presented. At the moment, it's giving a bad example of selective quoting as it's original context has been removed. It is infact a misquote that makes it appear that Jimbo said "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable" when he actualy said "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." which reverses the impression that NPOV alone is primary. -- Barberio 11:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

* Move, I'm not against the quote, but placing it in the lead, in this form, might sound like it assumes something. Maybe "according to Jimbo, NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable, (but only according to him)", or "It's Jimbo's own pet policy, in fact", or whatever. It's our common policy. It's the core policy of all Wikimedia, the only one that is present on all Wikimedia projects in all languages (many parts don't have WP:V and/or WP:NOR), and it is gone far beyond just some Jimbo's idea. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove the quote.

• Delete. Why not? I find quotes from Jimbo to be irritating. it's like quoting scripture, or something. The policy should be defensible on its own merits, not by an appeal to authority. Is NPOV a policy because Jimbo says it is, or because it's the right thing to do on the merits? Personally, I'd prefer that no policy page quote Jimbo if it can possibly be avoided. john k 01:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment shows why it must be kept and perhaps enhanced: It is "scripture" for Wikipedia users who have a contractual obligation to apply it when editing. It is indeed first of all policy because the founder stipulated it. Harald88 10:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Other

• No need for poll. Discussion has not been exhausted ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Waste of time. The quote is widely seen as both useful and necessary; not likely many will stand for it being removed. FeloniousMonk 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  Can I ask you to expand on why you see it as both useful and necessary, rather than assume a fait accompli? The point of the poll is to discuss this. -- Barberio 23:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop wasting time with these polls. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• If I'm allowed to "vote" 2 places, I'd agree with Jay. Arguing over a 3-word quote is a waste of time to start with, and a poll won't really help. -- tjstrf 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote, it's a discussion formatted this way to try and keep focus on the Quote. -- Barberio 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence the quotation marks around "Vote". Also, I got into 2 edit conflicts trying to post that, at the time I wrote it, this WAS formatted like a vote. -- tjstrf 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An issue I have is that if it's 'just an unimportant quote' then it should not be in the lead of the policy. It's either important enough to warrent discussion, or it's unimportant and shouldn't be in the lead. -- Barberio 00:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's important, but it's also 3 words long. The only direct argument you've presented for not having it in the lead is that it makes the intro too long and not succinct enough. 3 words do not make a substantial enough length difference for that to be a valid argument. -- tjstrf 00:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Er... The sentence containing the quote is eleven words long, plus a footnote. And clutter was only one of my arguments against it being in the lead. -- Barberio 00:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If clutter is not your primary argument, please tell me what is, so that I may address that directly. Clutter is the only argument I've seen you make that you didn't claim was "sidetracking" when people refuted it. Your other argument I've seen, that the quotation somehow "elevates NPOV above the other policies", is strictly a matter of personal opinion, hardly a negative thing to begin with, and finally, NPOV may actually be the highest of Wikipedia's principles, making it a proper assertation.

11 words hardly constitutes "clutter". Without a third sentence, the introductory paragraph hardly qualifies as a paragraph at all, at least according to the Strunk & White guidlines. So, for stylistic reasons, the quotation is preferable. Another argument for inclusion is that it verifies the NPOV's fundamental nature, and stresses its importance. -- tjstrf 01:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you require a single primary argument. I raised three concerns, all of which I think need to be addressed. It's clutter. It makes policy seem less important than quoting Jimbo. It gives the impression that NPOV is 'more important' than V and NOR, which directly contradicts both the policy itself and Jimbo's stated intent.

And yes, I do belive it counts as clutter. 11 words is a lot in a terse lead. What's more, the language used is not a simple statement of 'NPOV is Un-negotiable', but 'According to...'. This is a doubtful statement, muddying the language in the lead. -- Barberio 10:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think the selective quoting to use Jimbo's words appear to imply something they did not is very important and needs to be addressed. -- Barberio 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nullify the poll and discuss, per Jossi and FeloniousMonk. -- Donald Albury 01:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Why is there a poll here? Can we delete this section as a complete waste of time? — Centrx→ talk • 03:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound a little testy over this, but this has been in discussion since the 15th, and neither Jossi, FeloniousMonk, Donald Albury, nor Centrx have entered into discussion on if the quote is suitable in the lead of the article. If you want to discuss the issue, discuss the issue, don't attempt to dismiss the issue. The straw poll is just a way of sorting people's arguments and discovering opinions. Not to actualy make any kind of decision. It's simply a structured method of discussion, it is not a decision making poll. Refusing all Straw Polls because 'Polls are Bad', even when the poll is a pure discussion tool not a decision making process, is as bad a case of the bureaucracy mind set as using polls for everything. -- Barberio 10:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you take the hint? There is no support to discuss the issue through a poll. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing your own opinion with that of everyone else. You should note that there are people who have been willing to use the poll as a discussion point. -- Barberio 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about me by "people", I would also prefer we discussed this in a non-poll format, since poll type discussion is ackward to the reader, does not preserve any coherent order by time, and generally unhelpful to anyone reading the archive later. -- tjstrf 19:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed: No need for poll, and it doesn't work anyway: no definite support for anything. Let's leave the things as they are. CP/M ^comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Have the Cake and Eat it too.

• I tinkered with some minor wording in the second lead paragraph and moved the quote to a point after the "complementary" phrase in the second paragraph to avoid confusion. Finally, I lit the quote up using Cquote. I think framing this way addresses almost everyones concern. Electrawn 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

One uncontested (even uncontestable) detail that came up the above discussion was the misleading suggestion that Jimbo only expressed his "opinion". I'll fix that now. Harald88 19:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the correct thing to do when the sources on all sides of a topic are all self-published? This is regarding the page Neo-Tech (philosophy). Bi 11:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are no published reliable sources, the topic does not belong in Wikipedia. I suggest prodding it. -- Donald Albury 12:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's been tried. I was in favour of deleting it actually, but other people didn't agree. Now what? Bi 13:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have a stake in the outcome of this beyond simply improving Wikipedia, it might be best to just walk away from it. If you want to proceed, you can apply Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research to statements in the article. If a statement in an article cannot be sourced to a reliable published source, it can be removed. As I suspect you will meet resistance, be sure that the statement in question is not verifiable from a reliable source before trying to remove it. If others insist on keeping unsourced statements, follow the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Don't edit war. If I get a chance, I'll look in on the article, but I'm making no promises. -- Donald Albury 14:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Tried, tried, all tried... which is why I'm here. Bi 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And this one: WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms? -- Francis Schonken 16:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... does that mean I should start yet another AfD... and hope it doesn't get shot down again? I can try that... Bi 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did exactly that: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination). Weird, people here are saying the article should be deleted, but when I start an AfD people suddenly say it shouldn't be deleted. It's a mad mad mad mad world. Bi 17:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comment at the AfD. You most certainly did not follow my advice, and there is nothing I can do to help you. -- Donald Albury 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you certainly did help a lot. Bi 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there scenarios in which POV could ever possibly be a valid addition to any article on any scholarly website anywhere? Smith Jones 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything anyone ever writes is a from a POV. Some keys to making them a part of an overall NPOV presentation are sourcing, attribution, and common sense. WAS 4.250 06:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been pointed out above that "according to" wrongly suggests not more than an opinion; I did not notice any opposition against that criticism. Thus I changed the phrase to "stated:", in harmony with the text elsewhere. Regretfully this was immediately modified to an alternative version that only links to Jimbo; I don't mind but it's a much bigger change. Francis next reverted to the above "according to" text, which is definitely against consensus. What are the arguments against simply stating that Jimbo "stated"? Harald88 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So, we're discussing that quote AGAIN? *sigh*

Today's discussion will be based upon 4 diffs by 3 seperate users, all focusing on the Jimbo quote:

diff 1, a revert by User:Francis Schonken to some prior version.

diff 2, a change by User:Harald88 which he just explained above.

diff 3, a change by me which made the sentence non-redundant with the reference it linked to, fit in with the prose better, and stopped citing Jimbo directly, which certain users were complaining about.

diff 4, by Francis Shoken again, reverts back to his previous revision, claiming that until we have consensus, his version stays. So, let's find a consensus.

I disagree with Shoken's revisions, as they read akwardly, do not fit in with the overall tone of the page, and are excessively wordy. -- tjstrf 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I fail to see "improvement" in these suggestions. I neither think that this should be formulated in a more "ex cathedra" way (as you seem to suggest), nor do I think this should be "removed", nor "replaced", nor "formulated more casual", nor "made more prominent lay-out-wise", nor whatever I've come across these last few weeks. As said, I fail to see "improvement" in any of these (contradicting) suggestions/changes. -- Francis Schonken 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As a minor commentary, I note that this edit reverts to long-standing phrasing under which murky statement of policy the pack of editors violate actual WP:NPOV by ripping from Wikipedia the cited expressions of those reputable scholars that the pack does not like. It is not a big deal in the overall scheme of things, but it is the dysfunctional current state of affairs in Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV. -- Rednblu 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would kindly ask you to refrain from calling editors as being part of a " pack". We are human beings, not dogs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, and in addition your edit did nothing to clarify, so far as I could tell. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My friends, I apologize for any demeaning of the incredible work that any editor does. But in discussing very real problems, one must sometimes be blunt, even if apologetic at the same time for the bluntness. Accordingly, I would kindly ask you to refrain from interpreting the blunt and accurate technical description of the problem in a way that demeans in any way what we can do if we face the problem and address it appropriately. Let us keep in mind that the natural patterns in 1) The Call of the Wild are noble, any 2) Cub Scout pack is loveable, and furthermore the 3) greatest American football team is called "The Pack" Our jobs here are building an encyclopedia, and there are problems to be solved in WP:NPOV. What are your ideas? -- Rednblu 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What problem do you claim exists thats addressal was removed by that revert? The only change in that revert was the removal of an ambiguous "example" which didn't even have enough context to be helpful within that paragraph, and the removal of 2 returns. That is not a significant reversion, and the change was unsignificant in the first place. -- tjstrf 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not I that has the data that we need to work this problem. It is my guess that User:Ed Poor has the primary clue, since the pack is out to take down Ed Poor. The pack cannot stand the NPOV that User:Ed Poor contributes, and minions of the pack saw this edit as another of User:Ed Poor's attempts to correct the flaws in WP:NPOV policy. We need to hear User:Ed Poor's statement of what the flaws are in WP:NPOV policy. For example, what flaw in WP:NPOV policy did User:Ed Poor think he was fixing with this edit? -- Rednblu 01:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Rednblu it is simply demeaning and disrespectful to use the word "pack" in the context you are using it. It is uncivil. NPOV has been a bastion for a long time, it is carefully watched and while changes do happen, they are done by concensus and use our founder's statements as a foundation. Your erudite posting, attempting to be both apologetic and putting "group think" into an easily pointed at package doesnt' appeal and isn't likely to produce cooperation. Besides which, how would you like your thinking to be talked about, not as individual nor creative, but as "pack thinking", or "group thinking" or such ? Its simply uncivil and you've done it twice in 2 postings. Terryeo 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How would you put into the English language the pattern of group coordination in behavior that I have described, my friend? Could you suggest alternative choices of English words? -- Rednblu 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's for the sake of discussion, assume the situation is exactly as you spell out. That there are one or two clear thinking individuals (you and your friend) and all the rest of the people who edit Wikipedia have a "pack" mind, that is, they are unable to think for themselves but can only mouth each other's words. okay? Just for the sake of discussion, okay? Now you want to present new information that the "pack" has not considered, ok? You want to introduce a brand new thought to the "pack" which they have never thought of, okay? Well, there is a way to do it. But here is the wrong way to do that. "HEY, PACK !!!! You, you PACK you !!" That's the wrong way. Instead, you should politely state your new information, okay? Honest, you really are talking with individual people. Terryeo 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said. That's fair. I think you clearly voiced the problem. In my opinion, I should not be forced by the political dynamics of Wikipedia to organize my own . . . . to wear down the opposition to let cited NPOV statements stay on the page undeleted. There should be some clear standard of what Undue weight actually is so that I do not have to organize my own . . . . to establish what Due weight is. Would you agree? -- Rednblu 21:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus. -- tjstrf 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words, another content dispute being dragged to the policy talk pages. Who was it that decided unrelated content disputes made valid topics of discussion here? Oh right, they aren't. Well, considering that his edit made no significant difference to the policy in the first place, I fail to see how this is relevant. -- tjstrf 01:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit; I do not see any consensus in favor of it. The Weekly World News is widely published, but WP should not represent its point of view. Septentrionalis 17:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, anything sensational will become widely published, but sensationalism bandwagonning is the opposite of neutrality. -- tjstrf 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is, as you put it above, "another content dispute being dragged to the policy talk pages". Terryeo (a Scientologist) has repeatedly argued that because the Church of Scientology has sold millions of copies of the works of L. Ron Hubbard, they should be accorded a higher level of status than lower-selling neutral and critical works on the grounds that they are "more widely published". I don't think I need to spell out the problems with this line of reasoning. -- ChrisO 19:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect to see User:ChrisO spell out a difficulty in specific subjects here. Terryeo 20:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What we need is a clear standard for "Due weight." In my opinion, either 1) "most widely published" or 2) "lower-selling neutral and critical works as ranked by the National Academy of Science" would be preferred to the . . . that rules the current pages of Wikipedia--which may be WP:NPOV but most certainly is not NPOV by any rational standard. Better than the . . . . that we have now would be flipping a coin and just going with either 1) or 2) above for the next six months of clarity. -- Rednblu 20:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it make sense that if 3000 books have been published based on the moon being made of green cheese, and only one published on the basis of the moon being made of rock, that the point of view, "the moon is made of green cheese" would be presented as the more widely published point of view? Terryeo 20:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No. But it isn't worth spelling out why, since "Widely Published" is not a relevant standard. It does not appear in the policy. The policy says "article[s] should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." So the question is, how does one assess prominence? That is not the same as "widely published." BTfromLA 21:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us please keep in context that we are talking about Undue weight here. In particular, we are reporting that a) "Scholar1 says the moon is made of green cheese" followed by Scholar1's reasoning and b) "Scholar2 says the moon is made of rock" followed by Scholar2's reasoning. Both NPOV reports should be allowed PageSpace if they are significantly held among Wikipedia readers; one or the other surely must dominate the lead section. And our question here is: "Which one should get Top billing under the Wikipedia Due weight standard"? Is that what we are discussing? -- Rednblu 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely what we are talking about, I believe. User:ChrisO is mistaken to evaluate what I type onto the page and misrepresents what I say. I rather don't like it, User:ChrisO. People can read my words and reply to me without your damn intervention. Terryeo 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Terryeo is advocating an incredibly crude metric which could be summed up as book sales = authority. Chariots of the Gods and Worlds in Collision sold vastly more copies than most conventional works on archaeology or cosmology, but nobody sane would consider that sales figure indicate the degree of authority. Terryeo's proposal would lead to Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health being considered to carry more weight than DSM-IV, or the Bible to carry more weight than The Origin of Species, simply because it had sold more copies. Frankly, it's the kind of proposal that would bring Wikipedia into disrepute if it was ever implemented (and it won't be). -- ChrisO 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How about let's work out some explicit quantitative metrics of how Due weight could actually work--as Terryeo has started below. Surely, on a page about Dianetics, the Publications of Dianetics should dominate as a majority statement, should it not? And on an Origin of Species page, the Publications of evolutionary biologists should dominate as a majority statement, should it not? What do you think would be reasonable? -- Rednblu 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, the National Academy of Science doesn't do book rankings. And the clause of the policy dealing with undue weight is sufficient and necessary as it is currently formulated. FeloniousMonk 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that Septentrionalis disagrees with the edit I made. I'll happily conceed "aims" and place the two statements side by side, here: Terryeo 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

  This statement says that our common Wikipedia reader depends upon Wikipedia editor's judgements of who is expert and who is less expert. This would require wikipedia editors to judge who is expert and who is not and present, therefore, information about the widely held point of view based on our judgement of expertness. Alternatively, to judge which concerned party's previously published by reliable sources statements have the broader concensus. Terryeo 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia aims to present competing views in porportion to how widely published the view is. Terryeo 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  This second statements says such judgements need not be made by Wikipedia editors. This statement says that the broadly known point of view will be present because it has been most broadly published. I believe that is the intent of NPOV, I believe that is our founder's intent. Therefore, I edited to produce that. And too, I've seen it or something very like it, in the policy page many times. Terryeo 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, the problem is that when you say "most broadly published" what you actually mean is "most copies sold". Let's be open here - you've argued that because L. Ron Hubbard sells more copies than his numerous critics, Hubbard should be given priority. Actually, Hubbard is actually the most narrowly published - he's one source from one organisation, as opposed to dozens if not hundreds of journalists, academics and researchers who've written about him. "Broadly published" does not mean "one source who's sold a lot of copies". -- ChrisO 21:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's be open here, User:ChrisO, quit aping what I say and restating it into different words which are not my words. Its irritating. Terryeo 03:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User:Terryeo is again accusing other editors of exactly what he does. It's irritating. -- Fahrenheit451 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in the response to the question on this specific case--because I think I might learn something more from the detailed question and answer. But may I just put a marker here for an over-riding question, which would be: Don't you think we could hammer out the outlines of a quantitative metric for Due weight--based on something objective--even if only book sales--or something else that we may not have thought of yet? -- Rednblu 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. An actual meteric, an actual method of measurement has never been in the policy and is needed. Whatever metric that might be, whether "quantity of publication", "quantity of experts", "recognition of experts" or other consensus arrived at metric, certainly some metric would be very helpful. Terryeo 22:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this for an approach? Let's work backwards to derive a metric for Due weight. It would be maybe something like reverse engineering. We are all formula wizards. Let's 1) pick a Wikipedia page that everyone agrees is tops, 2) list the NPOV units, such as "Scholar1 says POV1 is true", "Scholar2 says POV2 is true," ..., 3) give an estimate of the Due weight that this exemplary page gives to each NPOV unit on the page as a percent with the total of all Due weights on the page totalling to 100%. Then let's contemplate how we would reverse engineer the process of establishing the Due weight from the start, if the page had not been written yet, and if we had just started from raw materials. Or maybe you or someone else can think of some other approach you might think would get us somewhere in developing a formula or procedure for quantifying the Due weight on NPOV units. What do you think? -- Rednblu 00:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see what's so hard about establising the relative importance on these matters. On matters of things being purported as science, scientific reasoning following the scientific method counts, peer review, etc. Tabloids fond of publishing unresearched information should not be strongly listened to. A person who has worked in a bank all their life probably knows little of milking cows. Uncontested Law court decisions, especially those of the higher courts, tend to be almost unrefutable. LinaMishima 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Well said. I agree. But apparently not everybody finds it easy. Right now, someone is deleting a well-formed unit of NPOV from an important Wikipedia page. And the WP:NPOV policy is so skimpy on the detail of what Due weight really is that any group of ten biased editors can turn NPOV on its head and rip out any piece of NPOV that they want, and there is nothing you can do other than fight about it. Does that sound like something you have seen? -- Rednblu 01:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, at this point I'm inclined to suggest some examples and your own biases and beliefs about them (in a good faith attempt to understand the issues fully, to look for other solutions, and to see what we would actually need to define - wikipedia is, after all, keen on 'soft security', minimal rules, etc). LinaMishima 01:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you very kindly. That is very nice of you. Most listeners know of the case that brings me here. But I think it would be more appropriate for me to find another Wikipedia situation that illustrates this Wikipedia policy problem. Briefly, I will look for a live on-going situation that I think illustrates how biased editors use even unconsciously and in good faith the murky and unclear wording of Undue weight policy to turn NPOV on its head and rip out cited and valuable NPOV that the biased editors do not like. If you please, here will be a place holder when I get back with a live case for us to examine. I found a complex one. But I think I can find a better one with fewer "political" complications. Thank you. -- Rednblu 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea that you can formulize NPOV or proper weight ignores that writing is an art, not a science, and that NPOV is an ideal. Mandating a certain number of words or paragraphs or (worse still) kilobytes for each position would be instruction creep to the max. Actually, forget creep, that would be an invasion of instruction on par with that of the Mongols. A very well-intentioned effort, but you cannot write a formula for how much weight each position deserves. Especially since that would require you possess every single resource ever written on the subject. If we were omniscient enough to do that, we could redefine our position to the absolute truth POV. -- tjstrf 01:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. I will return with a case for us to see if we can construct some good policy to advise. Thank you. You may be right. Let's see, shall we? -- Rednblu 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, though I think that using policy pages to hammer out content disputes is an improper usage. After all, if you're after a wider audience, isn't that what the Village Pump is for? (Of course, their discussions aren't archived, so there can be exceptions.) Well, when you do, please put it under a different heading, this one's gotten huge. Also, at least 2 policies which expand undue weight already exist, WP:V and WP:NOR, so bear in mind that a specific issue may already be addressed by one of them. -- tjstrf 02:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, Terryeo, this fails in the case of sensationalism. If you read the policy section on Bias, we are specifically advised to avoid giving excessive weight to information which is extreme, transient, sensationalized, etc. and all of those things will be widely published. You cannot make NPOV self-contradictory like that. As with anything else, judgments must be made case by case. -- tjstrf 21:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, perhaps, you can find an exception which is "widely published" and "extreme, transient or sensationalized", maybe. I doubt it. I think it would be rare. In general we fill our libraries and our newspapers with information which people regard as being valuable. You might find an exception. Terryeo 22:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Need I mention the news? How many months did we have to hear about Laci Peterson again? By the widely published standard, she should have an entire category tree to herself. But no, because her story was sensationalized, extreme, and ultimately transient, we don't. We seem to have an article on her, her husband, and one on the trial as a whole, maybe. (I didn't look too closely.) And that's as it should be. -- tjstrf 23:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that sensationalism sorts of articles should have a separate, individuated criteria of judgement? What would you propose, that somehow, someone be elected to judge who is expert about such a topic and who is not, and thereby present the valid point of view? I don't follow how you would arrive at which point of view should be presented as the point of view which "most people" view someone like Laci Peterson. Terryeo 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out that your proposed "wide publication" guideline contradicts the Undue Weight and Bias rules. -- tjstrf 23:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Laci Peterson article's first template states, "This article or section does not cite its references or sources" so I don't follow if you are saying that such articles are never going to have widely published information, thus "widely published" should not be even a guideline, or, alternatively, if "widely published" should be a guideline but be ignored in some instances ? Terryeo 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is quite simple:

Your proposed guideline would place NPOV in contradiction with itself by requiring that sensational, extreme, and transient information be given an undue weight compared with the natural, mainstream, and timeless, which are the things that encyclopedias are intended to focus on. We already have enough trouble with this as is.

Your suggestion would essentially canonize pop culture, news, scandal, and extremist groups as the focus of Wikipedia, and is summarily struck down by WP:NOT. -- tjstrf 00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think so, nor do I think WP:NOT addresses the situation I am attempting to state. But in any event, if we do as suggested above and pick an article (or 2 or 5 articles) and examine it / them closely, I believe it will illustrate our differences (if we actually have them). How about the Freemasonry article ? If you like, Scientology. Or, if you prefer technical (always safe, heh), how about F-22 Raptor. Terryeo 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with favouring weightings based on the proportional opinions of the expert community surrounding a topic. Although defining expert precisely is indeed dificult, in most matters it is clearcut if somebody understands (scientifically, based upon the facts) the topic in hand to enough depth to be able to make a reasoned opinion. Most importantly, I do not believe it is wikipedia's place to give a platform to the loudest shouters. We are supposed to give a platform to the facts, and whilst the shouters deserve a mention, being loud certainly does not make one automatically more right. LinaMishima 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Due weight" is all about a careful judicious judgement by people with both good judgement and relevant knowledge; in other words "weightings based on the proportional opinions of the expert community surrounding a topic". WAS 4.250 03:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As I, a very new editor, examine some pages, asnd the discussion above, there seems to be some ambiguity in the interpretation of "undue weight" There are articles that essentially say: "most people say A, but some say not-A." This may be informative about where the consensus lies, but it give no information beyond that. I suggest that it might be better to say, for example, "most people say A, because they are convinced by the findings about X. some say not-A, because they think the evidence for X inadequate. [or whatever]" .

The actual example I have i mind is the "hockey stick" graph for global warming. "Some people think the statistical inadequacies of the graph sufficient to discreditt the theory; most others empasize the existence of many other arguments."

Normally these arguments will have been already been given in detail in the article, and one wouldn't want to repeat it all over again: That gives "Most scientists say A, because they are convinced by the many positive findings about X discussed in section 7, 8, 9, and 10 of this article, but some say the statistical weaknesses, as discussed in section 9.1, discredits the whole; and a few say the graph is right after all. --It is of course also relevant what people at large feel, not just scientists, and this also should be said. Even if they agree with the scientists, it may be for different reasons. For topics such as this, there are survey numbers--though they will need updating.

This approach also deals with the problem about how to count heads (or copies). For the earlier example of Scientology, one says straight out "Judged by the number of copies of books sold, Hubbard's view has had the widest influence; judged by the number of people who follow his viewpoint, .... [etc] (and I assume giving the no. of books if determinable.) This way we are providing information. Anyone reading an article on Scientology already knows that some believe in it and some don't. They are coming here to find out why. DGG 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to add language to the effect that care should be taken that parenthetical statements, in a brief clause following a subject, are particularly susceptible to insinuating non-NPOV perspectives because the structure permits only one POV. Parenthetical statemsnts should be strictly factual and parnethetical statements which appear to present an opinion should ordinarily be removed. (Example Tom, who is generally regarded as the less successful of the Tom, Dick and Harry brothers, was...) -- Shirahadasha 03:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why can't the same standards which apply to the rest of Wikipedia articles be applied in a similar way to parenthetical claims? That is, a {{fact}} template could be added if there was doubt, they would need a citation or could be removed by any editors, etc. ? What need for any special treatment, isn't the simplicity, must be previously published by a reliable source enough ? Terryeo 04:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just work them into the prose of the paragraph, and treat them like a normal statement. -- tjstrf 04:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Continuing from the previous work I found a good example of murkiness in the WP:NPOV page inciting rather than calming squabbles in the Middle East sections of Wikipedia. And I tracked the root causes of the policy flaws back through the "Undue weight" and "POV forks" sections and back into the very beginning "Explanation of NPOV" of the WP:NPOV page. Of course, these are only my opinions and findings. And more important is what you think.

I begin this morning with a simple example of the mistaken impression that the WP:NPOV page text gives to Wikipedians. One Wikipedian who shall remain nameless actually wrote the following.

"I was under the impression that NPOV was only determinable by consensus. Is NPOV subject to verifiability?"

And in tracking back through the "Undue weight" and "POV forks" sections and back into the very beginning "Explanation of NPOV" in the WP:NPOV page I could see how, if you read the text one particular mistaken way, you could come to the mistaken impression that "NPOV was only determinable by consensus"! So how do we fix the text of the WP:NPOV page? -- Rednblu 05:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's how I would address that person's misunderstanding:

NPOV is not consensus determined, as it is absolute and non-negotiable, but consensus of parties from a variety of different viewpoints is probably the only feasible way to decide on whether a given statement is or is not NPOV.

Verifiability is one of the standards on how to determine Undue Weight. Since an unverified view or statement has no proven supporters, it has a significance of 0, and its inclusion would violate Undue Weight. Similarly, Original Research has a significance of 1 person, the author, and its inclusion would similarly violate Undue Weight.

Does that answer your questions? If not, how do you suggest it be explained? Alternately, if I'm totally missing your point, could you make your question more specific? -- tjstrf 05:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think of NPOV as a single idea which is non-negotiable. This is the cornerstone page. This is the single, absolute, non-negotiable cornerstone of Wikipedia. All else could be modified by editor consensus but this foundational idea, Neutral Point of View, can not be changed. However, it is not stated in a way which is so clear and present that few editors misunderstand. In fact, editors frequently don't quite understand or even misunderstand it. I think it could be written better. Terryeo 05:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The principal of NPOV is non-negotiable. WP:NPOV must always be interpreted in conjunction with WP:V and WP:NOR, which are the other two of the three pillars. The question of whether a particular formulation of an article meets the requirements of NPOV is subject to discussion. Personally, I think WP:NPOV is stated pretty clearly. It may not be to the liking of editors who want their point of view to prevail in an article, but that is a different problem. -- Donald Albury 10:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the text in the WP:NPOV page is written wrong. So how do we fix it? -- Rednblu 05:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by wrong? To give some examples: Are you saying it needs expanded? Are you saying it is inherently flawed? Are you saying that the wording is actually inaccurate? -- tjstrf 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rednblu appears to be trolling. Zero evidence has been presented for a need to alter the text. Someone somewhere misunderstands something - therefore we need to add even more words to an already too verbose set of rules? Really? Really????? Yeah, right. WAS 4.250 11:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Knowing his history on the Usenet, I'd have to say you're right. I also agree that his justification for changing a long standing and fundamental policy is less than compelling. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

From all of the above, thank you, I think I see something. The first problem with the WP:NPOV text is that there is no definition of what "NPOV" is. Any good encyclopedia page should begin with the clearest definition we can think of. The first sentence of the "Explanation of NPOV" section is even wrong. Is NPOV a "means of dealing with conflicting views"? No it is not. NPOV is not any variety of means for developing consensus, arbitrating, mediating, negotiating, . . . , or any of the other means of dealing with conflicting views. NPOV is a way to write and construct an encyclopedia page.

So from all of your ideas above, I see a possibility. How about the following as a beginning of the "Explanation of NPOV" section. I use shorthand here. Feel free to fill-out or change as you think might make clearer to the readers and wide-public how to write NPOV pages in Wikipedia.

NPOV is a way to write and construct an encyclopedia page. Any POV can be turned into NPOV by presenting the POV in the following way "Scholar1 said that POV1 is right."

Which way shall we go now? What are your ideas next? -- Rednblu 18:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The long standing formulation is fine, you've failed to make a case that it is in anyway so deficient that it needs changes. Don't expect too many of the reputable, long term contributors to the project to accede to any minor consensus you may develop here that our foundational policy needs to be changed. I for one oppose any such changes you suggest here. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the policy explains what NPOV is: "[articles] must represent all significant views fairly and without bias." NPOV is a not a "way to construct an encyclopedia page", but rather a policy about how pages on Wikipedia must be constructed. The example you gave will not necessarily turn POV into NPOV, and I'm not seeing any issue with the current policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg hit the nail right on the head. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And in what way would "Scholar1 said that POV1 is right" not turn POV1 into a verifiable unit of NPOV? -- Rednblu 20:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rednblu, your question is a non-sequitor and as such suggests that your intention is only to disrut discussion. The question under consideration here, which you raised, is whethwer "there is no definition of what "NPOV" is." Jyjg provided the answer to the question: the article does define what NPOV is, and Jayjg quoted the definition. Thus, the end of discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Thank you, my friends. So far we have the following as a clearer possibility for the first sentence of the "Explanation of NPOV" section.

NPOV is a way to write and construct a Wikipedia page. Any POV can be presented in a NPOV manner by variations of "Scholar1 said that POV1 is right."

Does that capture the essence of what you said? -- Rednblu 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing an edit to the policy? Jyjg has already demonstrated that the policy has a much clearer and better-written explanation of NPOV. Yours is far far worse, indeed, it is a stupid, stupid suggestion. If you edit the policy to include this I shall revert without comment, having just explained myself here. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Have no fear, sir. I do not make changes to the MainPage when feelings are so high. That is not my style. In a situation like this, I would always let you make the move of text to the MainPage. Let's all just think about it for a while. Thanks. -- Rednblu 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's less clear, and incorrect. It captures the essence of nothing but your own thoughts. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So in what way would "Scholar1 said that POV1 is right" not present POV1 in a verifiable unit of NPOV? -- Rednblu 22:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As I was informed on the WP:NOR talk page, the essence of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS are the same - only add information that you can show to be true. So what is WP:NPOV's adjoiner to this? …and don't add true information in such a manner as to completely discount other true information, perhaps. This may well be an interesting ponderance, even if it's not directly related. Returning to the topic at hand, "The Neutral in neutral point of view refers to wikipedia's neutral position, outside of any debate surrounding a topic. Only verifiable information sould presented, and wikipedia must not distort the issue by portraying any opinion as having any more weight than those knowledgable in such matters give it". Does this really help? Probably not (but it's a nifty phrasing, in my opinon :P). But it should help to remind people that it is not wikipedia's place to state anything, we meerly report on the issues. The wording as suggested by rednblu is in and of it's self very much a point of view, expressing only opinions of individuals for everything. This more than anything makes it a bad option and poor copywrite. I am still baffled by the ongoing nature of this discussion, given that most people seem comfortable with the concept of undue weight. Sadly it is true to say that any attempt to quantify the weight of people involved is far, far outside of the scope of wikipedia, and majoritively common sense can perform an almost accurate comparison of weights. LinaMishima 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement, only add information that you can show to be true is almost accurate, but not quite accurate. "True", in this use of the word has a special meaning which is, "existing, published, extant" which actually means what WP:V states, previously published by a reliable source. So the statement would accurately be: Only add information that you can show to have been previously published by a reliable source. Stating it that way removes the possible confusion around "true" (valid, actual) and "untrue" (known about but not published). However, this section of discussion is relying too much on editors figuring out things for themselves. NPOV isn't suggesting that editors have to figure a lot out. "Widely recognized" is the basis of NPOV, so that "widely published" is most of the work we editors have before us. Simply recognizing the printed word, presenting the most widely published viewpoint as being exactly that, the most widely published view is our main work. Terryeo 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to go "aargh!" right now, as again I see the argument of Those who shout the loudest should get the biggest coverage when a subject is being reported. Whilst this makes good press, the side that gets the most coverage is normally mistakenly interpreted to have the more 'correct' viewpoint, when normally the side that's more 'correct' doesn't see the need to shout out about it. Wedge strategy, anyone? LinaMishima 03:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

huh ? Terryeo 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a section in the NPOV policy which says something like "majority views should be given majority repersentantion, signigirant minority views should given adequate representation....." On this basis of this sort of nonsense with ragerad to scientific matters, many cranks and supporters of various thelogical/pseudoscentific views have argued that, e.g., astrology may well be the majority view in the world and therefore should be terated respectfully, etc, . Now, this is the fallacy of argumentam ad populam obviously. Science does not work by the looking to the consensus of all the vast majorityof non-scientifically trained human beings. Science works by forumating various hypthoses and then subhectin them to rigious testing to either provide statistcal confrimation or eventual falsification. If the theory is falsified, it may be eother revised or abandoned in afvor of another, more well-cofrimed and unfalsified theory, etc... I'm being a bit simplictic, but I don't have time to goi into a full explanation of philosophy of science. In any case,the ultimate point is that science does not deal in "views" or "opinions" (doxa) at all. It deals in episteme, striving comnstantly to come closer and closer to revealing the facts and fundemantal truthts of the universe. When there is a dispute within the cisntific community, then the majority view should be repersented in a predominant matnerrm the minority view, etc... When there is a dispute between a scientific fact (e.g. evolution of species) and unfalsiable pseduoscintific beleiefs (e,g, Intellgient design), then the FACT must be asserted. The movement of religious fanatics who reject the facts should be mentioned as a political and histrocal curiosity only. -- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority)

This is taken from the article on the other side explaianing NPOV. I change it to this:

the flat earth error, which is demonstrably false

This was revereted by someone who commented: NPOV is not about true-false. Indeed!!! You've nailed it. It seems clear from this example that NPOV EXCLUDES the very notions of true and false. This is the heart of the failure of Wikipedia and projects like it. The NPOV favors a particualr point of view with regard to epistemology: epistemological skepticism or relativism (they come to the same thing in the end). The earth is NOT flat. There is no scientific theory that the earth is flat. The earth is spherical. Obviously. LOL! What nonsense. NPOV is fundemntally logically impossible becasue not holding a point of view is to hold a second-order poijt of view with respect to points of view: anmely, that they are all equally valid!!-- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re. "[...] failure of Wikipedia and projects like it [...]" — [sic]? -- Francis Schonken 10:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Failure to be taken seriously as a reliable source of information among scientists and other academic ,I mean. Not failure to be popular. "The Encylopedia that anyone can edit!!" How can that not fail to be popular. It's like blogs. Everyone and his grammother's dog has one, but what are they good for, intellectually speaking? -- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re. "Failure to be taken seriously as a reliable source of information among scientists and other academic " – " Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" (comparing Wikipedia to Britannica) published in Nature, December 2005. Compared to that your "opinions" on Wikipedia's failure to be taken serious by the scientific community appear extreme POV to me, and certainly not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Francis Schonken 07:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What was meant was that they do not regard us as a proper source, and infact we ourselves recommend against citing us. LinaMishima 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, from what I gather, Lacatosias is attempting to claim that Wikipedia should assert the scientific POV rather than the neutral POV... which is, as specifically addressed on the policy page, a long rejected concept. So this is basically a moot point.

As I've stated before, truth is not a relavent issue to NPOV. If we lived in the time of Gallileo, the sun would orbit the earth. Or rather, NPOV would dictate that the sun be covered as orbiting the earth. -- tjstrf 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't followed this philosophical discussion, but in the peer-reviewed academic world it is not a POV issue. Nobody today is calculating the trajectories of celestial (artificial or not) objects by Earth-centered theories. So Earth-centered theories are dead=debunked=toast=wrong - until someone publishes a paper showing that Earth-centered theories are better at predicting the observed trajectories.

Separates this argument out from previous comment. Can anyone answer:

The NPOV favors a particualr point of view with regard to epistemology: epistemological skepticism or relativism (they come to the same thing in the end). The earth is NOT flat. There is no scientific theory that the earth is flat. The earth is spherical. Obviously. LOL! What nonsense. NPOV is fundemntally logically impossible becasue not holding a point of view is to hold a second-order poijt of view with respect to points of view: anmely, that they are all equally valid!! -- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But NPOV does not say, "don't hold any point of view". NPOV says, "present one point of view (which has been published)". Now, present one point of view (which has been published)". Good, now "present one point of view (which has been published)". Okay that's all the points of view, right? Good, now place them in their relative importance. One part of NPOV is, "has this idea been presented to the common person, is it known about?" And the other part of NPOV is, "how important is this information, compared to that other information about this same subject". Terryeo 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents the information which has been published. In the case of the Flat Earth (ha!), that information can be presented. An editor should not evaluate that information, but should present that information. Now you know and I know the earth is not flat, but if information is published which says, "the earth is flat", that published information can be presented in Wikipedia. And the editor who presents that information is enjoined to NOT evaluate whether that information is valid, real, useful information or not. Simply present the published information. It is too simple, ok? Then THE READER can look at the information and laugh for himself, you see? lol. Terryeo 16:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#The neutral point of view: "the neutral point of view is a point of view" – no idea what Lacatosias/FF is trying to learn us that we didn't know already. -- Francis Schonken 16:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Continuing from the work above, I looked for an example where the unclear text of the WP:NPOV page supported a [ . . . ] of editors ripping NPOV from a page and replacing it by biased POV. I quote here the arguments of the editors who shall remain nameless.

"A sourced article does not necessarily mean better. This article has several POV issues and, worst of all, it states: . . . . That's wrong, . . . . There are several other such instances from sourced articles that deeply confuse the nature of the controversy (even though the citations are by educated scientists)."

[And the NPOV that was "wrong" was deleted, together with the in-line bibliographic reference to the scientist whose publication was "wrong"--with the Edit summary comment:] "deleted this section: this paragraph fails to understand . . . ."

One editor in opposition said, "The question is, whether adding a minority point of view to an article (properly attributed to a published source) is de facto POV pushing."

And judging from how editors refer to the WP:NPOV page on Japan, Korea, and China, I must say that the explicit text of the WP:NPOV page so inaccurately explains NPOV that teams of editors gang up to revert the insertion of cited published statements of scientists as de facto POV pushing. One gentleman on Japan took the inspiration from the WP:NPOV text that he lacked a [ . . . ] of editors to support him so he created his own pack of sockpuppets to assist his cause.

I have many ideas about how to fix the text of WP:NPOV--as I am sure you do also. But I would suggest that, at this stage of fixing the text of WP:NPOV to actually promote editing "to represent all significant views fairly and without bias," we might get a clearer picture of what the problem is. The definitions of the WP:NPOV page fail to distinguish operationally between what is POV and what is NPOV. Witness the discussions of POV and NPOV on this page, none of which could cite to clear definitions in the WP:NPOV page that distinguish between POV and NPOV. -- Rednblu 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." is plenty clear.

Furthermore, you're conflating "pov" with bias again. Points of view are to be represented in articles, whereas bias is proscibed. FeloniousMonk 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that "proscribed" isn't enough description in talking about how bias is introduced into articles, but I agree with your main point. Terryeo 11:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The current formulation works. The distinction between POV and bias, is one that many people fail to appreciate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, Jossi explain for us what you mean. The proscription of bias is a bit funny considering how it gets applied around here. POV equals those opinions that follow the party line around here.

Nothing though provides protection against unscrupulous admins who arbitrarily declare views they disagree with POV points, even when a good-faith effort gets made to provide balance and neutral language in an article.-- Pravknight 22:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking about slapping a citation notice on the sentence "Dinosaurs were vertebrate animals that dominated the terrestrial ecosystem for over 160 million years, first appearing approximately 230 million years ago." (from Dinosaur). Outrageous. A clear violation of NPOV, which says that all claims must be made in a way acceptable to everyone. By contrast, the article Adam says " Adam ("Earth" or "man" ...) was the first man created by Elohim according to the Abrahamic religious tradition.". Why shouldn't the dinosaur article and ALL the articles like that have 'according to the Western scientific tradition' or something like that?-- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, to understand how the age of a tree, piece of bone, rock or other material is arrived at requires some education. That is, if a person who holds with the literal interpretation of the Abrahamic religious tradition picks up a piece of rock and wonders, "how old is this chunk of material" then how is he to know that? We can not satisfy his beliefs. If he doesn't understand a number system based on 10, how can we tell him? If he doesn't understand that light is a form of electromagnetic energy, how can we educate him? What we can do is present what is known. As we present what is known we may slightly infringe on his beliefs, but nonetheless, knowledge is what we will present. And in presenting knowledge we will not molly-cottle Mr. Abrhamic believer very much. If his sensibilities are offended, tough luck, Terryeo 11:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Terreyo's comment is correct of course, except for one serious flaw: generally we do not really know how old things are. All dating methods have a set of assumptions included, and crappy statements such as above (crappy for unscientific) certainly don't help the NPOV requirement - nor does it provide a correct image of science. It's not very different from stating that some patient doesn't have an appenditis problem simply because a medic states his/her opnion as fact.

Many professional journalist (and especially scientific journalists) know better than falling in such a trap, and Wikipedia guidelines attemp to instruct editors to avoid it.

Remains that Francesco's phrasing needs some thinkering - the precision should be more like "according to current scientific estimations". And it's more commonly integrated in the declaration itself, as serious scientists do. For example:

"Dinosaurs were vertebrate animals that are thought to have dominated the terrestrial ecosystem for over 160 million years, appearing approximately 230 million years ago." : That makes the same statement of (implied scientific) opinion without wasting space.

Harald88 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias, you are apparently mistaking our policy pages for philosophy articles. The policy pages are to give simplistic hand holding advise to people who need help. Their talk pages, such as the one you are on now, are for discussing how we can be even more clear to those who don't get it. You clearly understand what is desired in an encyclopedia article. To alter the policy to reflect philosophical issues so they can be theoretically better would make them worse because their reason for being is to sucessfully communicate very simple things to people who need such advise. Thanks for helping to improve the philosophy articles. Please don't use the same criteria on policy pages. The purposes are entirely different. WAS 4.250 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Continuing from the work done above, I learned that the WP:NPOV page lacks a clear definition of "bias"--as well as lacks clear definitions for POV and NPOV as noted before. I looked for some real data in a specific Wikipedia squabble where both sides thought the other had made a clear violation of NPOV and where both sides had correctly applied what is actually written in the text of the WP:NPOV page. I extract here what the editors said in applying the explicit contradictory wording of the WP:NPOV page.

Alpha: When I check your cite, I see that you quote only the portion that supports your POV. Then I add more of that cite for context and for NPOV. Why do you delete it?

Beta: First I insert a quote in a way that is entirely accurate. The section was on critical response, not popularity, and I quoted the part that concerned the former. I initially tried to use the whole quote, but it was awkward to insert into this context, as shown by your own attempt, which led to a false claim. In fact, some of her works were popular, but not all of them were bestsellers. Seeing your error, I gently corrected it so that it used almost the whole quote, yet did not leave a misconception in the reader's mind.

Beta above has read the wrong statement in the WP:NPOV page "When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed" literally--that is, that she is supposed to remove "misconceptions" from the statements of the scholars she quotes. In contrast, Alpha above has applied the NPOV mandate to "represent all significant views fairly and without bias" correctly--that is, that she is supposed to present what the published writer actually said, neither adding to nor deleting from the POV that the scholar actually conveyed in the writing.

Now, there are many different ways of clearly defining any technical matter. For example, there is not just one way of making clear the distinctions in Newton's laws of motion. So likewise the clear distinctions in Terryeo's Laws of NPOV stated above are not the only clear formulation of "NPOV is the mandate to represent all significant views fairly and without bias." But Terryeo's Laws of NPOV make a much clearer and better-written explanation of NPOV than does the murky and self-contradictory text of the current WP:NPOV page.

From above, Terryeo's Laws are the following.

1. NPOV says, "present one point of view (which has been published)". Now, "present one point of view (which has been published)". Good, now "present one point of view (which has been published)".
2. Okay that's all the points of view, right? Good, now place them in their relative importance according to an objective metric that is fair and without bias against any of the various points of view.

What the NPOV in "represent all significant views fairly and without bias" proscribes is bias against the POV of what any scholar has actually published. So how do we fix the text of the WP:NPOV page to clearly define bias, POV, and NPOV so that they can actually implement the mandate to "represent all significant views fairly and without bias"? Whose idea is first? -- Rednblu 16:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To remove "misconceptions" from the statements of the scholars is doubtlessly a misapplication of the instructions - editors have no right to "correct" information from sources! Instead they are to add balancing differing opinions insofar as they are notable. I'm surprised that that isn't clear.

Harald88 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Whose idea is first?" is my problem with NPOV, too. Terryeo 14:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"represent all significant views fairly, and without expressing an editorial opinion on that view " Opinions on the view which are counterpoints by those of other views are allowed, the issue is that of editorial commentary. Any help? LinaMishima 16:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

May I say the basic idea of a neutral point of view, first. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, each saying something a little different but referenced and put together one after another makes up a neutral point of view. And then second, bias. Each Source could be presented in a biased way, a way which would tell the reader "this is better" or "this is less useful". An example of bias: "Source 1 states the moon is made of green cheese", "Source 2 implies the moon is made of yellow cheese", "Source 3 thinks the moon is made of rock". A reader will tend to go with a statement, rather than a thinking. Terryeo 17:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But that can become a non-issue when there's a significant body of evidence pointing in a certain direction, and you become able to weight one side more strongly, hence can use 'thinks', 'suggests', 'speculates' and 'believes'. Note that under most circumstances, we can never use implies, as this suggests that we have having to read between the lines to discover an implication, ie, WP:OR. LinaMishima 18:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

May it always be a non-issue ! heh. Terryeo 14:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts precede opinions. Bensaccount 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How would that assist Alpha and Beta above to resolve their dispute over how much of a published scholarly POV to delete from a Wikipedia page? -- Rednblu 20:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a rule of thumb which states that you should only ever use notable quotes only that do not change in meaning without full context, ergo in situations like this they probably shouldn't quote, but rather summarise. When dealing with recording an opinion held by someone, you have to include the full immediate context of their opinion, and factor in any later additions within the work being used as a reference as appropriate. Now, going from what you've given as an example (and so don't use this in the real case), Alpha's best recourse would be to argue that the two sections of material being debated are infact not seperate matters as Beta believes them to be. Summarising avoids the stated problems of awkwardness, too. LinaMishima 21:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

-- 146.145.70.200 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The main article on some countries is declared to be about the "modern state". This turns out to mean it is about the conquest and colonization of the country by people from elsewhere who are now dominant. Anything about those inconvenient vanquished aboriginals is then off-topic and can be relegated to a subsidiary article. For comparison, Mexico is not split into separate articles on racial lines. Fourtildas 03:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

From a brief perusal of the Mexico article, it appears that the history section gives a brief summary of each period, with all the detailed info being in sub-articles. In other words, it covers the modern state and the history of the geographic region it occupies. I fail to see how either approach would necessarily be implicitly biased, at least without examples given. -- tjstrf 03:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How well would the United States page score under this standard of bias/non-bias? -- Rednblu 04:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that approach is fine. The title United States of America obviously refers to the nation of that name, so that should be the definition used in the article. The prior history of the territory it presently encompasses is dealt with in the history section and sub-articles. -- tjstrf 04:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not have a problem if all our "country" articles were about geographic regions and the past and present peoples and political entities were discussed in a balanced way.

My problem is that we are allowed only one main article on a geographic region, covering the people, geography, economy, natural resources, etc. In United States for example, the article about the nation state is also the the article about the geographic region. So the history is the history of the nation state, which is the history of white colonialism. Unlike the Mexico article, which discusses the Olmec, Teotihuacan, Toltec, Mexica (Aztecs) and the Maya on an equal basis in the main article, the USA article relegates information about the great North American Nations (eg.: Cherokee, Comanche, Cree, Hopi, Inuit, Iroquois, Mohawk, Navajo, Sioux, Ute) to sub-sub-sub-articles which the reader is unlikely to find.

Does anyone disagree that we would be more neutral if our country articles were about geographical regions and their political/national status were discussed in a sub-section or sub-article?

(According to WP Official Policy we are supposed to not be nationalist (Nationalism is an ideology that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles.) or racist ( [6] race = "a group of people sharing the same culture, language, etc.; an ethnic group"). Fourtildas 05:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that the subjects of that article, the USA and its geographic region, are huge? (Look at 1 E12 m².) America's size is close to that of the entirety of Europe. The sheer infeasibility of covering every single tribe, or even the major ones, in a single article would preclude it on a stylistic basis alone. Fully covering the American Indian tribes in the history of the USA section makes as little sense as covering every ancient european civilization in Europe, and is just as absurd.

You'd have a very valid concern if the United States had featured a major organized civilization prior to the colonization, as Mexico did, or if the article was located at America and only covered the USA. But the American Indian cultures were amazingly heterogeneous, and there isn't much that can be broadly stated about them. I would recommend expanding the coverage of the American Indians in the history of the article, but not by too much. Mentioning the Iroquois and the Hawaiian civilizations, for instance, could be well justified.

The article at which your concern would most validly be addressed would be History of the United States, which definitely needs a longer pre-colonial section. Also, this page really is not the place for individual content disputes. -- tjstrf 06:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

They fall into a few language/cultural groups that could be reasonably covered.

In order to apply the rule "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" we need to know whether "country" articles are about the contemporary nation state or the geographical region.

If it is about the geographical region then it should give appropriate weight to all people who have lived there.

If, on the other hand, "the history of the geographic region it occupies" is not included in the subject matter of a country article, shouldn't it be discussed in a separate-but-equal article, with neither article being designated in any way as the main country article? I'm not advocating this, it would be difficult to precisely state the topics of the two articles (try it!). Fourtildas 20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded that section slightly. Hopefully it will quell discussion about the neutral point of view being no point of view at all, and some of the other confusions that have been recently talked about. Terryeo 11:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted. Please see prior discussion on this page. Despite your enthousiasm there's no consensus for that kind of change.

As mentioned above on this talk page, your prior history is that you've been banned from editing Scientology-related articles. That you try to change guidelines and policies in a way that they would support the changes you would like to see happening to those Scientology-related articles, is in itself commendable. Until it becomes clear that policies and guidelines are not going to be changed in that sense, because there's no remote chance to get a consensus about such changes, despite the fact that you produced similar arguments several times on several policy- and guideline-related talk pages. -- Francis Schonken 11:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a major problem with your claim that NPOV writing should be cold analysis. NPOV does not have to be boring. -- tjstrf 15:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Presently the policy states:

• The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted.
  

(Emphisis as in policy) I am suggesting that the introduction of the qualifier "not asserted" adds complexity to this first sentence which is both unnecessary and undesireable as a first paragraph sentence. I am suggesting that the idea of not asserting a point of view as valid, but instead, presenting that a point of view exists is a very important element. It is too important an element to first bring it in on the tag end of another point of POV. Instead of bringing it into the policy as the tag end of the first element of the policy, I am suggesting it needs more development in its own paragraph. The first important element of NPOV, "present conflicting views independently of each other, not in a confusing mixture and jumble with each other" should not have this second and also important, "not asserted" element on its tag end. I propose we treat the "not asserted" element later and simply the first element to:

• The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. Terryeo 15:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how a detailed and confusing guide on not asserting things can help. You just don't assert them. It may be important, but it's not complex. If you're really concerned about having a tacked on phrase, then I suggest the following:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the conflicting views, however, should be asserted or given undue weight.

That would not only emphasize the point by giving it its own sentence, but also make the related concept of undue weight a part of the explanation. -- tjstrf 15:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Great ! By breaking the tagged on assert phrase, it makes a more simple, direct read. Terryeo 17:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The "asserted" may seem out of place, but that's because it's missing the "asserted as what?" bit. Hence I suggest:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the conflicting views, however, should be asserted as the absolute truth or given undue weight.

How's that? I'm personally keen on the undue weight bit, as it's another core part of the policy in my opinion. I'm otherwise not bothered about Terryeo's changes. LinaMishima 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Equally acceptable in my opinion. I think asserted can stand alone just as well though. No particular preference between them. -- tjstrf 18:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've used this information to reword the first paragraph, but hey, beat me until I comply. Terryeo 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with your edit, but I had to change 'true' to 'the absolute truth'. There are almost certainly some things we need to consider as facts (birth dates, that someone said something, overwelming body of scientific evidence with no counter argument), but these are never considered to be absolute truths, even in the field of science. LinaMishima 19:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Francis Shoken, I have met your two objections, please discuss before reverting. -- tjstrf 06:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If NPOV can work, I say it needs an explicit clause dealing with word choices because they can denote value judgments. I say the WP:WTA should be integrated or merged into NPOV. While POVs can't be avoided in discussing controversial issues, language that makes it seem Wikipedia advocates position X or position y undermines the entire rule. Also, opinions should be attributed in such a fashion that they are not treated as facts. Something such as the following shouldn't be give too much authority, such as if a group has a defined opinion, political agenda. I think anything included in an article, not based upon verifiable evidence, and relying upon innuendo or uncited assertions should be flagged as NPOV violations. Such citations undermines Wikipedia's credibility. -- 146.145.70.200 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You summarize rather well the NPOV policy, IMO, except in the title: Wikipedia facts happen to be facts about opinions. What do you think is unclear in the article?

Note also that anything that is well referenced is therefore factual.

Perhaps you need to read it again... Harald88 18:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's too much wiggle room for agenda-driven editors and admins to arbitrarily interpret the NPOV rule to fit their agenda and to censor opinions the dislike even if they are verifiable.

I honestly disagree. NPOV in practice is what matters, and I have seen well-referenced information deleted by admins and editors, jealous to keep their POV as the only allowed POV in articles.

Not to get into semantics here, but how do you define well-referenced? A propaganda leaflet could be considered well-referenced, say if it references Confucius or some well-respected figure.

-- Pravknight 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:WTA seems to be pretty well written, to me. I think it should be integrated in part and referenced to in whole, someplace in WP:NPOV. Defining some of the common "traps" that introduce bias into the article is especially difficult for people who use English as a second language, but even the commonly known "weasel words" creep into articles, sometimes. I would say, however, we need a section addressing "Bias" (or similar word) after we introduce the concept that each POV when added with other POVs produce a neutral POV. And then a section about bias, because if we don't get the basic concept in clearly, editors confuse "Bias" with the idea of how to create a NPOV. Terryeo 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that already largely taken care of by Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial? The policy happens to refer to that. Harald88 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Where? Can you point to anywhere in Wikipedia policy, tutorials, ... where there is a clear set of definitions that distinguish between the "bias" in 1) "to present all significant views fairly and without bias" compared with the empirical finding that 2) "the significant reliable source in a controversial area will have bias toward one view." -- Rednblu 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

- Already in the first sentence of this article: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. - conflicting views may be caused by bias (but it's not the only possible cause, and what matters are the views).

- in the tutorial, starting with "The first element in negotiating issues of bias with others is to recognize you have a point of view", and then discussing negotiating bias.

In fact it's all-over - just not with the "bias" word! Harald88 01:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, what would you think about incorporating a prohibition including sources on both ends of the political spectrum that rely upon

ad hominem, strawman or explicitly political language from commentaries. Unattributed partisan language jeopardizes the project's neutrality. It concerns me that many political or religious pages read like blog entries than a theoretically neutral encyclopedia.

I think including such material undermines Wikipedia's credibility. I am thinking along the lines of sources that say someone has ties to a particular movement when they don't provide any concrete proof for their charge. Perhaps that is more of a WP:RS issue, but I worry allowing such sources undermines Wikipedia's credibility.

Comments are welcome.-- 68.45.161.241 18:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of the nutshell since I think it is a useful tool. It is clear and gives a quick overview of the policy, especially for someone trying to get a quick feel for WP policies. Yes, it may mostly repeat the lead paragraph but that is logical as the lead should be a summary. The shell is eye catching and shows the casual reader the essence of the policy at a glance, to be followed (hopefully) by a deeper read at a later time. Crum375 03:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

---

From the above work, I learn that 1) there are three crucially different varieties of bias and that 2) the WP:NPOV page is defective in failing to define any of them. The three varieties of bias are "crucially different" because the policy mandate to "represent all significant views fairly and without bias" requires that each variety of bias be treated differently. The three varieties of crucially different bias are Bias1 of the 1) editors, Bias2 of the 2) page text in presenting published views, and Bias3 of each 3) reliable source that is cited.

• The policy mandate to "represent all significant views fairly and without bias" prohibits Bias2 of the page text.

• In contrast, this policy mandate commands that the Bias3 of each reliable source shall be represented faithfully in the page text by factual statements of the form "Scholar3 wrote that Bias3 is true."

• Accordingly, the policy mandate to "represent all significant views fairly and without bias" ignores Bias1 of the editors as long as there is no Bias2 of the page text in representing faithfully the Bias3 of each reliable source for the significant views. Dealing with the Bias1 of editors is treated in Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette pages and does not logically concern the WP:NPOV page.

• From all of the above, the "Explanation of NPOV" section should be rewritten to remove the current self-contradictions by specifying which bias is 1) prohibited, 2) required, and 3) ignored by NPOV policy. Removing the self-contradictions from the "Explanation of NPOV" section would give text logically equivalent to the following shorthand version.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views among the Bias3s of reliable sources. At the same time, NPOV ignores the Bias1s of the editors. Hence, the mandate for NPOV trumps any consensus that might be reached among the Bias1s of the editors. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views in Bias3s of reliable sources, these should be presented fairly without Bias2 in the page text. None of the views in Bias3s of reliable sources should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view in Bias3s of reliable sources or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view on how to present the Bias3s of reliable sources, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to any Bias3 of a reliable source.

Debates among Bias3s of reliable sources are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint among the Bias3s of reliable sources, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate among the Bias3s of reliable sources. When Bias2 of the text towards one particular point of view among the Bias3s of reliable sources can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

At this stage, we are looking for a self-consistent logical design. At a later stage, we would look for the exact words to express the self-consistent logical design. What is the next step for fixing the self-contradictory and illogical text of the current WP:NPOV page? Any ideas? -- Rednblu 12:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Could editors stop for a while to continuously make changes to this policy before reaching consensus about these? It is be coming really tedious. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Long before I came to wikipedia, I had thought that reporters in the public press should have to include, in their byline or at the end of the article, a brief statement of biases that they may hold with regard to the subject matter of the article. For example, a news report on Abortion might include a short statement by the reporter(s) briefly declaring their position on the matter. I realize that this is unworkable in many respects. But I add this as a pre-amble to my next statements so that they will not be interpreted as a reaction to a recent problem.

Having read the NPOV policy many times, I find it has one significant defect that I believe may injure wikipedia both in terms of neutrality and in terms of edit wars. The defect is reliance upon POV sources. Here is a typical scenario: Someone reads a POV book that takes a strong position on one side of an issue. They then come to wikipedia and edit many related articles with extensive quotes from this source. The source, highly biased, is presented as though it is neutral and fully factual on the matter. Furthermore, the amount of this biased text that is added is substantial, perhaps going on for several paragraphs or sections. Sometimes the area of concern is obscure enough or slow enough moving that it can be a long time before an adequate third party response (No Original Research in wikipedia) is available. This makes wikipedia a sort of validator of POV, giving it a credibility that is not appropriate.

There is currently no process or system for fixing this problem. If you can cite a third party source, the quality or POV of that source is essentially irrelevant. Even blogs, opinion editorials and propaganda may be quoted (Objectively) and presented as an important fact in an article-- because it is published. Indeed, all that is required is verifiability that someone (anyone -even idiots) said or wrote something publically. A page can be filled with such things, all from one side. This is a problem.

I suggest the following:

• A blog should not be used as a source
• A book that presents theories without citing sources should be mentioned as presenting such and such a theory but without evidence.
• A quote that comes from a partisan source which, because of naming or lack of familiarity may seem like a neutral source should be identified as "speaking from a position". Perhaps just a tag saying "An editor believes this article makes unbalanced use of biased sources" would be appropriate.
• Quotes from biased sources on either side should not dominate a page if possible.

(I would not, however, think that it is inappropriate to substantially use otherwise "biased" sources that are from the person or institution or article subject. For example, I would expect to use the "Democratic Party Platform" as a source for the article "Democratic Party" and would not consider this to be generally a part of the rule that unbiased sources should be used as much as possible. -- Blue Tie 15:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of a significant reliable source in a controversial area that does not "speak from a position" as you call it? -- Rednblu 18:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I said "from a position" I meant" "From a substantially biased position". Yes there are some such sources in some areas. I suppose I could provide a few examples, but that is really beside the point. If no such sources were available as your question seems to assume then it would be especially important to describe the bias in every source. -- Blue Tie 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We already discourage blogs. All sources, especially on controversial issues, will be biased. Your last point is covered by Undue Weight. Point 3, the addition of a tag like the one mentioned, would simply be redundant to the existing npov tag. -- tjstrf 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes we discourage blogs. But that is not really very strong. We say do not use "undue weight". But that is a bit like beauty... its in the eye of the beholder. I can think of a recent example, where I had to leave editing and article because of the aggressive stance of another editor. Since it is recent and was somewhat difficult for me, it stands out in my mind, but it is not the only instance of this sort of thing. The story is Abu Zubaydah and out of 3386 Words in the article, 903 words deal extensively with the theories of one book, written by a person who has a dubious reputation for objectivity. The article then cites an Opinion Editorial regarding the book, as substantiation for the book. There are other problems as well, but I do not want to detail them as I bring this up only as an example not as a specific matter to remedy at this time. (There are other articles that I feel also substantially use biased sources -- in essence being a "mirror" platform for them, but I am not going to create a list). My point is that 27% of the article space, being devoted to the positions of a single biased source is acceptable to some (maybe even many) editors not because they are necessarily bad editors but because wikipedia does not clearly declare such things to be invalid. It may not be so easy to make such a declaration. I do not know the answers. But it seems to me that things are so 'loosey goosey' that the person with the strongest personality and most agressive nature -- just short of being in trouble -- wins the day rather than a standard set in policy. I do not know if I am making good sense here, since it is late! -- Blue Tie 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you be satisfied with the published revelations of the opponents among themselves to establish the different writers' personal biases? And would you include the various opponents' ad hominem fallacies in avoiding dealing with their opponents' arguments? -- Rednblu 04:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if you are talking to me. I also do not quite understand the question. I do not think I am advocating a detailed lengthy matter. I think a simple description such as "a source that is self described as opposed to ________ says...". It should be short and to the point and relevant to the quote and the topic (giving an insight into what motivated the quote). -- Blue Tie 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Blue, my buddy. This is Red. Let's take an actual NPOV controversy in a page. Which controversy in which page would illustrate your point about: "Someone reads a POV book that takes a strong position on one side of an issue. They then come to wikipedia and edit many related articles with extensive quotes from this source"? -- Rednblu 05:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Am I a Dem and you a Rep? Interesting. Anyway, I will try to come up with a few examples. Truthfully I have seen this a few times, but I did not write the articles down. So now I have to dig them out. This is a really rough week for me, so I might not get to it that fast. Please remind me if I forget. Certainly the article I mention above is one. It is fresh in my mind. But there are others.. either books or website mirror like efforts that are going on. My concern is, that focusing on one example may tend to bog down and lose the general principle I am sort of dancing around in the hopes of describing some sort of cogent outline. -- Blue Tie 06:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. You be the Dem, and I will be the Rep this time. And let me look at the Abu Zubaydah page history. Take your time and R&R, and I admire your spirit. More later. -- Rednblu 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you get an administrator who doesn't care about the rules or changes his or her interpretation of the rules to push their own POV or

assembles edit cabals to support that POV, the NPOV rule is absolutely meaningless. In the world of journalism, we handle POVs by decreeing how sentences get constructed, such that POV advocacy gets neutralized.

The POV gets stated, but in a way that doesn't seem to advocate any particular position. We call not doing this Editorializing

. Avoiding POVs are unavoidable unless you happen to be Mr. Spock, but we are all human. The goal should be for Wikipedia to speak with one voice, and not advocate any discernable perspective, right or left.

I say, 1)"Never assume what you believe is fact," 2)"Write with the reader in mind," 3)"Step outside of yourself and write as though you are in the third person and your opinions don't matter," and 4)

"Imagine how you would feel if you stepped onto a page in an ostensibly "neutral" webpage that excoriates everything you believe in, then write in a way that doesn't advocate your position. Just a few thoughts. Word choices are what matters, not the content, beyond its verifiability and accuracy in my opinion.-- 68.45.161.241 04:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I notice that most of my edits today were reverted. I'm not too bothered: this is your project, and you have all worked hard on it (I read this discussion page a lot). I have to tell you, though, that the page reads very badly in places. This is to be expected from a page constructed by a group, but my edits were aimed to improve it in accordance with the manual of style, hopefully without altering its content (with one exception, which I made clear on the edit summary and which I isolated in one edit, where I feel you have a mistake).

A word about reverting. I think reverting should be reserved for mistakes, vandalism, or whatever, and not used for good-faith edits that contain a variety of separate changes. This applies particularly to style editing because if you revert the whole of such an edit when you dislike parts of it, you may incidentally lose some valuable improvements that resulted from close reading. In my opinion, it is better to alter back any particular changes you disagree with rather than reverting wholescale: as you can imagine, these types of edits take a long time and much consulting of the style manual. qp10qp 17:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

On the reversion of the rest of my edits

I notice today that the rest of my edits were reverted; one of the comments in the edit summary says that I should have gained consent for them here first. But I don't lack in trying to discuss things here, I would say. If it is meant that I should gain consent for individual style edits (I don't consider them "so-called style edits" since they're based on the manual of style), then I'm surprised, because I assumed the Talk page was for discussing less trivial proposed changes. I won't go through all the changes here; but just as examples, here are a few changes that were reverted:

Three instances of "we're" changed to "we are", plus a "there's" to "there is", a "we'd" to "we could", and an "it's" to "it is". (MOS: avoid the use of contractions — such as don't, can't, won't, would've, they'd, and so on — unless they occur in a quotation.)

"the neutral point of view policy" to my "the neutral-point-of-view policy".

"that page contains also comments" to my "that page also contains comments".

"a good way to help build a neutral point of view", or Bluetie's later edit "to establish a neutral point of view" has been reverted to "a good way to help building a neutral point of view".

This last one was turning into a good example of progressive editing. First I changed it to "build", and when Bluetie looked at it, which he might not have done otherwise, he changed it to "establish" because he thought that was a better word. By "progressive editing" I mean editing that inches towards a better document; that consists, for me, in looking at individual changes made, judging whether the editor had a point, and then either reverting that particular change or providing a better solution.

To give an example: my recasting of the following may not have been ideal, but it should have alerted editors to the poverty of expression of:

"So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time..."

The same principle could have been applied to some of my other attempts to tidy up passages or make them more precise: if you didn't like my version, you could have at least considered whether it identified a weakness in expression.

I'm not raising this matter here again to say how important my changes were (quite the contrary, which is why I didn't present them here in advance), but to show that they were not all of the same type. I would ask reverters of such multiple edits to consider a slower and more piecemeal response—to become editors again, for a moment—or at least, in keeping with reverting policy, to explain reversions on the discussion page.

Meanwhile, there is an elephant in the room here: in my opinion this page is badly written in larger ways than the ones I nibbled at and so is therefore unlikely to be read by many people.

I'm not sure anyone will respond to the above; but I have done this the right way by talking again on this page rather than trying to sneak my edits back in. qp10qp 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is an elephant in the room, yes. And the pattern of the problem is right here in this page. If we all put the whole page up on the screen and look at it from about ten feet away--just to where we can still read the text--we can see the pattern of the problem right here in this page. Let's all think about it. -- Rednblu 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on communicating your concerns in metaphor, we can't understand exactly what you're asking. -- tjstrf 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no one seems to object to the edits I mentioned above, I shall begin doing them again. I will start today with the contractions, in accordance with the MOS, and take my time with the rest over the next few weeks, so as not to alarm anyone. qp10qp 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

On a lighter note, isn't the following a bit woolly, speculative and POV?

"Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to oppose Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy." qp10qp 21:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, so what? Policy pages are not articles, and of course they contain POV: the POV of the Wikipedia community. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy that. I think it's poor. In my opinion Wikipedia POV should be to make a better encyclopedia and leave it there. qp10qp 01:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, a better encyclopedia when censored to some totalitarian state's whim? Hardly. Acknowledging that our NPOV policy may piss them off is merely being honest with ourselves. -- tjstrf 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see any air between QP's position and everyone else's. He/she made some edits that were, in my view, mostly grammar and style. Some people objected. Ok. I do not think though that QP is arguing with either intent or implentation as it currently exists. I happen to agree that the POV should be about the encyclopedia. I do not think we should have an agenda to piss people off, even if they are totalitarians. Our agenda should be to just edit a good encyclopedia. -- Blue Tie 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A good encyclopedia is an uncensored encyclopedia. Pointing out that this may aggravate certain individuals and organization is just giving people fair warning. Telling people "If you live in a totalitarian state, you may wish to think twice about editing articles about issues in which supporting the NPOV would be against the wishes of your government, because it may annoy them." is only fair and honest. See Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China for an example of what I mean. -- tjstrf 02:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, I agree with the sentiment. But it is covered well enough with "...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." The added note of airy wishful thinking strikes me as redundant on all counts. qp10qp 12:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the line should be removed because it has very little to do with the policy, is speculative, and does not clarify anything. -- Fastfission 00:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

More generally: my experience of trying to improve the policy's readability yesterday made me feel that the text is somewhat locked in. I tried to be cautious and respectful of content. But in fact, after several hours with it, I came to the conclusion that the policy contains a surprising amount of repetition. For example, parts like the following (there are others) say what was already said ("But again" is a clue):

"But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international collaborative project, and that nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted."

Does it matter? Well, I think a policy, even more than an article, should say what it has to say in as few words as possible. qp10qp 12:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of all contributions to Wikipedia shall be guaranteed by the wording in such a manner that they neither advocate any set position, ideology or POV in conformity with WP:WTA and WP:WEASEL.

All adjectives or adverbs passing value judgements or framing discussions are only appropriate within direct quotations and transition paragraphs may not advocate any ideological position.

Edits aimed at eliminating biased language, advocating a POV shall be exempt from the WP:3RR rule.

POVs, including predominating perspectives, shall be covered under this article.-- 68.45.161.241 04:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we require a more dry and boring writing style, please? Specifically, I want the use of any form of descriptive language banned.

Sarasm aside, are you seriously suggesting we ban the use of adjectives? -- tjstrf 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a personal campaign to eliminate vague or unhelpful adverbs but this is ridiculous. Under this rule we would need an explicit quote to say that New York is a large city or that 9 is the largest digit in the decimal system. JoshuaZ 04:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the sky being blue... Can we use a <ref>Try going outside and looking upwards, moron!</ref> as a reference for that? (Actually, we'd have to specify clear weather, mid-day, at a moderate latitude, but that wrecks the joke.) -- tjstrf 04:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to favor clarity above all. Why couldn't we advocate each of the opponents in turn just a little? --only as much as proved useful for clarity--as long as we were even and fair to each significant view? And I appreciate my old friends "68.45..." and the Half-in-Jest-Repliers above for making that proposal and repartees above even if partly in jest. You made me think, and that is good. Perhaps it would be a good thing if we spent a few weeks entertaining similar proposals half-in-jest--just to loosen up our thinker joints. We have to improve these NPOV rules--or we are going to miss a great opportunity here, and we have to get out of this box we are in. Any more far-out proposals even in jest? --if you promise to make us think? -- Rednblu 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Any more far-out proposals even in jest? No. thanks. We have articles to edit, new copy to write and other such useful tasks, rather. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be excused, sir. We have work to do. -- Rednblu 06:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not here, you don't. You're the last editor who should be trying to alter this policy. You're participation at this page is becoming disruptive, and it's time for you to move along and find another way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rednblu, I think your appreciation of how policies are built, the way you explained it at user talk:Jimbo Wales#Expendable cogs, to be missing the point. I recommend a reading of m:Power structure. -- Francis Schonken 08:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you cut the above ad hominem and this my response to my TalkPage where I would be glad to discuss that topic with you when I have time, my friend. The question before us here on this page is the following. How can we, as a community, get out of this thinking box we are in and solve our very serious problems in defining our culture so that we work together constructively to protect quality and the NPOV of world-class experts to keep them from being deleted from Wikipedia pages without reverting to our very natural but very wrong patterns in relating to each other--given what is at stake here at Wikipedia? Who has the next good idea? -- Rednblu 13:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Another unresponsive attempt to deflect legitimate criticism. Given your usenet history, Rednblu, and your history here, you'd be one of the last contributors to this project whose suggestions for rewriting one of our foundational policies I'd consider. You've been hammering away almost exclusively at this particular policy now for around a month, despite being told by numerous long-term and more credible contributors that the changes you seek are rejected and why. Your constant attempts to alter this policy are becoming disruptive of this page, and in my view it's time for you to move along now and find a more constructive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 15:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. You have yet to demonstrate an actual need for any of the changes you've suggested, or how they would be in the slightest bit helpful, or even what your concerns are other than hazy comments about "vagueness" and the like. -- tjstrf 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. I see no concrete reasons given here why the changes would be beneficial in any way. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Move on, Rednblu, move on. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA No personal attacks. I have to hold back on what I'm really thinking FM. Maybe you could read my mind and put it on my request for comment page. I second RednBlu. Hang in here RednBlu.-- Pravknight 22:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

35 days in Wikipedia and you want to change policy already? I would suggest you get some edits under your belt, learn the ropes and then come back to ask for changes in policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

35 days and a personal conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight, for NPOV, AUTO and NPA violations. It's obvious why he's at this page. FeloniousMonk 18:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, adjectives that have a political connotation to them or show favor. It's not dry. Adjectives with political or potentially perjorative language ought to have proper attribution.

I'm dead serious about my propsal. Journalists have to live by these rules, so should those who claim to want a neutrally voiced "encyclopedia". The NPOV rule as interpreted by many is vague.

ex:"J. Jonah Jameson is an extremist thug who has ties to a mafia group that wants to kill Spiderman." The words "extremist thug" convey a POV, and secondly who claims that J. Jonah Jameson is such.

I wouldn't want to ban something trivial like, "New York is a big city" It would, however, apply to something like,"New York is mean city."

I'm after adjectives and adverbs that convey a disputable opinion.

I only proposed this rule because I felt it could help Wikipedia sound more like an encyclopedia and less like a soapbox.

I thought this was a collaborative process where suggestions on improvement could be offered by others in a give and take fashion, not an all or nothing battle over turf. -- 68.45.161.241 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second... J. Jonah Jameson is a fictional character! I don't know if he's an "extremist thug" or not, but if he is portrayed as one in the comics, we can call him that without violating NPOV, because he's fictional. We are allowed to call fictional villains villains, you know. Further, I don't see anywhere on that page where he is called an extremist thug. -- tjstrf 17:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The point seems to have missed you. It's an analogy and an example ala high school English class.-- Pravknight 22:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If that was supposed to be an example, it was a bad one. Examples are supposed to be typical, not extreme exceptions where the rules don't even apply in the same form as usual. An example of POV on J. Jonah Jameson would be "A boring character, Jameson has had little impact on the Spiderman universe when compared to the much more handsome and effective Venom". -- tjstrf 22:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The assumption was that J. Jonah Jameson was a real person ala English class. -- Pravknight 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that examples should not be from classes which are not subject to the policy in the same manner. Try, I dunno, Pat Robertson as an example. He's a real life controversial figure. -- tjstrf 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood. But I was thinking a bit more academically. I believe that even controversial figures deserve to be discussed in a fair and neutral tone. My aim is to ban polemics under the guise of neutrality on either side of the political spectrum. If you could help to develop a more collaborative rule, I'm open to that. I think outlawing polemical language would be in the best spirit of NPOV, and polemical sources need to be treated in a careful way. Remember, not everyone believes the way you (plural sense of the word) do.

I'm all for being inclusive, but I cringe at the idea of regarding emotion-driven materials on either end of the political spectrum as NPOV compliant. Any time there is a controversial topic where varying interpretations of ideas such as separation of church and state or a person who has a political bias gets listed as a source, I believe proper attribution is needed.

So and so claims that x threatens their interpretation of the separation of church and state.

An accommdationist would dispute the strict separationist's view of the concept and vice versa. Simply stating, "According to so and so, x threatens the separation of church and state." I think the second example gives too much factual creedance to the opponent's view without letting the reader know that so and so has a political/cultural bias. The other person may believe in the idea of separation of church and state, but just not the speaker's interpretation.

The reader has the right to know that something is a subjective concept and not an objective fact. I'm required to do so in journalism even when my friends are involved, and presently I'm stuck writing a story about a personal friend's abuse of his office. Even though the person is someone who I like personally, I'm not holding back any punches because of my commitment to professionalism. That's where I'm coming from.-- Pravknight 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)