Template talk:DoubleDisputed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is currently used only by "Template:Hawaiian", which itself is not currently used on any articles. —Ashley Y 03:02, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

No longer applies FT2 15:39, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 RFC 2 Amendment to NPOV tag? 3 RfC 4 Objection to the use of this template

[edit] RFC

Okay. The ultimate dispute tag *sigh*.

My only fear (and time will tell) is that we see a flood of articles tagged NPOV by one side and NPOVNPOV by the other, which doesnt serve wiki at all.

I think its a valid tag, but I have amended the wording deliberately so that its use will encourage quick development of a consensus on a tag such as {{Controversial}} or {{ActiveDiscuss}} and thus help remove the initial inappropriate NPOV that gave rise to it.

Since the tag has been created (and I think it's technically valid however much it could be abused), its use would be a sign that a NPOV dispute is happening. Although in an ideal world these would be resolved by discussion (and logically if they cant agree then for sure there's a dispute), realistically they do happen often and regularly end up in stalemate or PROT rather than rapid consensus (or a waiting game who outlasts the others), so such a tag does serve a purpose if it could reduce edit/revert wars.

By making the NPOVNPOV tag itself say "you need to talk and use a different tag", I'm hoping perhaps it can be used to divert article --> dispute --> NPOV --> edit/revert war --> PROT cycles, where people end up polarised and fighting, and divert them into --> NPOV --> NPOVNPOV --> told to choose other tag by consensus --> both vindicated --> pick up working on article again.

Idealistic? I really dont know. Time'll tell. I do feel it could, a tag that says "do this" like "If side A say NPOV and side B say NPOVNPOV then you HAVE to discuss and identify whats disputed and what isnt and find the most accurate tag" is quite powerful. Even if it doesnt, at least both sides feel "justified" (even at the cost of 2 tags), so they can maybe move on instead of reverting multiple times.

Case study of use of template to reduce edit wars:

An article I helped out on had 2 sides. One felt the title itself was inherently POV, the other felt it was not. The first side NPOV'ed the article, the 2nd removed it, etc. After several reverts I replaced the NPOV tag by TitleNPOV, which basically said "The title or scope is in dispute but the facts stated are not". This was accepted after a short debate as fair by both sides and the edit war totally ceased. More important two byproducts, (1) collaborators focused back on the article, setting the troublesome issue to one side, instead of polarising and fighting, (2) users of Wikipedia did not get an inaccurate description. The exact nature and scope of what was disputed and what was not, was for the first time made clear. Finally as time goes on the title will doubtless at some point be reviewed in a calmer light. This is what a good template is capable of.

For these reasons I would argue that NPOVNPOV could actually be a very good idea, and might do a very neat job of heading off some revert and NPOV disputes back into consensus building. I've seen tags used to reconcile debates rather than just identify them, a tag that lets both sides feel they've have their say will encourage people to work on the article not on their personal stuff.

RFC is sought on the above.

FT2 03:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I'm resisting the temptation to create Template:NPOVNPOVNPOV. Anyway, for the time being I think the whole thing is irrelevant as this is being used only for one template that itself is not being used anywhere. —Ashley Y 04:43, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Moved to {{DoubleDisputed}} as no need to assume nature of dispute being disputed, also removed from Hawaiian, that template is now better worded not using nested templates. Otherwise above still stands. FT2 05:13, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

The solution to this specific kind of problem is to state clearly in the policy that the NPOV tag is technical and only means editors have not agreed on a solution. I solved a number of "NPOV tag disputes" by explaining this fact to the tagger (3 that I can remember off hand). In short, if the meaning of the NPOV tag was stated more clearly, there would be no need for an NPOVNPOV tag. Gady 05:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The issue of understanding to wiki-ists is secondary. The main issue is twofold -

• NPOV on an article looks to a reader like it implies "this article is suspect and probably unreliable"
• NPOV is used too easily and no matter what we do in policy, will probably still (pragmatically) be a way people handle "I think thats biased".

So NPOV is hear to stay for a while, and a pragmatic approach says, can we both make it less harmful that an article is tagged NPOV, or find ways to reduce wrong use of NPOV, or handle it better when it arises. Gady has suggested a way to reduce wrong use, I'm focussing on ways to reorient people to articles, giving them an alternative to a tag/retag/revert battle. FT2 23:18, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment to NPOV tag?

Maybe the NPOV tag should be revised. What do you think about:

(I removed [[Category:NPOV disputes]] to avoid POV-ing this page...) Gady 00:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats not a bad idea, you know. Or:

What I prefer about that one is it actually explains what NPOV means, for the reader, which current NPOV templates don't. That means they know how to interpret it more acurately, not "is it neutral" but "does it describe all points of view neutrally". It also explains what the implication is - not "dont trust it" but "evaluate it more carefully". FT2 02:43, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to Template talk:NPOV and answered there. Gady 04:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know this discussion is old, but I thought I'd just point out that the {{Calm talk}} template can still possibly point out the concerns that this template formerly highlighted. --  Denelson83  05:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Does this page still need to be listed at RfC? Maurreen 06:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Objection to the use of this template

This template does not make sense. If an article is disputed, that fact can be easily verified by anyone by looking at the discussion page. If there is no ongoing discussion, the tag can be removed. This is the way we've always done this, and it works. There's no need for an additional template. I have therefore tagged this as a proposed template.--Eloquence* 13:36, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed? This old cruft? It has appeared on TfD, where, in a fit of what can only be temporary insanity, people voted to keep it (honestly, I can make no sense of the arguments used there). This reads like an attempt to have your exact viewpoint on what is and isn't disputed hashed out on the article page, because heaven forbid the casual reader might misunderstand the delicate intricacies. One step further and we'll be putting up capsules of our POVs and signing them. Superfluous, ugly, alienating the readers beyond necessity (unlike the other dispute tags), addressing the wrong priorities, and not getting you one inch closer to solving disputes. The theoretical "truce" process sketched above has never, to my knowledge, worked in practice (but to be fair, I've only ever seen this used twice). Keep the ideas coming—I don't think this one worked. JRM · Talk 14:45, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people have a tendency to use templates simply because they are not deleted (which is not what the deletion process seeks to determine); Template:Proposed template can be added to such templates to prevent them from being used until there is a consensus to do so.--Eloquence* 17:30, May 16, 2005 (UTC)