Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Shortcut:
WT:NPOV
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Archived discussions
Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004
Archive_002 Closing out 2004
Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005
Archive 004 July to November 4, 2005
Archive 005 to November 13, 2005
Archive 006 to December 4, 2005
Archive 007 to December 30, 2005
Archive 008 to December 27, 2005
Archive 009 to January 16, 2006
Archive 010 to January 23, 2006
Archive 011 to January 25, 2006
Archive 012 to January 26, 2006
Archive 013 to January 29, 2006
Archive 014 to January 29, 2006
Archive 015 to March 8, 2006
Archive 016 to March 10, 2006
Archive 017 to April 09, 2006

Note: Edit history of 001-017 is in 017.

Archive 018: Apr 2006
Archive 019: Apr 2006 - May 2006
Archive 020: May 2006 - Jun 2006
Archive 021: Jun 2006
Archive 022: Jul 2006
Archive 023: Jul-Aug 4 2006
Archive 024: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006
Archive 025: Sept 22 - Oct 2006
Archive 026: Nov-Dec 2006
Archive 027: Jan 2007

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

Contents




[edit] Balancing different views

It says "If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred" (so much for NPOV) We Holocaust Revisionists are often likened to those who said that the earth was flat. But just the reverse is true: It is the other side that acts like a Holy Inquisition, institutionalizing one viewpoint and punishing heretics. Remember: We only accepted that the earth is round after the debate was opened. And since then, the round-earth adherents have not needed false news laws, hate crimes laws, and libel or slander laws to protect the truthfulness of their view. Likewise, all we ask is that the Holocaust story either stand or fall according to the evidence -- or lack of it.

Saintrotter 3 March 2007

Please, try to see the truth

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html

Wikipedia does not have the truth only a reflection of informed opinion. Holocaust denial is still the opinion of a small minority and the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust should reflect this, though an article holocaust revisionist should deal with this in more detail. If you want the holocaust revisionist point of view to be more sympathetically dealt with then first you must get this point of view accepted amongst historians generally. The wikipedia article will only change after opinion elsewhere has changed - not before. Filceolaire 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality is "objectivity", nor is it saying two sides have "equal validity". It means refusing to evaluate either view's validity. --Uncle Ed 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

-The Church of Rome believed the earth was flat. -Jews believe 6 million died in gas chambers.

-The Church went as far as to outlaw any questioning of their official flat earth view. -Jews went as far as to outlaw any questioning of their official holocaust view.

-Galileo discovered that the earth is round and moves around the sun. -Revisionists discovered that the 6 million number was wrong and gas chambers did not exist.

-Galileo was persecuted for his discoveries. -Revisionists are persecuted for their discoveries.

If anyone is trying to say “the earth is flat”, it is certainly not those brave enough to question official dogmas.

Saintrotter 04:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV != Use of Subject's Publicity Materials

To maintain NPOV I believe that there is a fundamental flaw in using a Subject's own publicity material within articles, a publicity photograph for example portrays a perfect POV image of the subject with the context, setting, lighting and demeanour that the Subject wishes to portray ("in the best possible light" to use a cliche). This portrayal in the best possible light is definately not in the spirit of NPOV.Belbo Casaubon 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We are allowed to use material from a subject's own publications or web sites, but we are not forced to use them. The choice of a photograph or other materials is up to the editors, who should by consensus decide which item to use, when there is a choice. Crum375 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I am fully aware that we are allowed as opposed to forced the point is that for the sake of NPOV, should we really use publicity material which by their very nature portray the subjects in a POV best possible light?Belbo Casaubon 00:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
They are there for the taking. It is up to the editors, trying their very best to apply WP:NPOV rules, to pick the right item (assuming several are available). If the item can only be obtained from the subject's site, and seems to portray the subject in a very flattering light, the caption could say: "Joe Blow, photo obtained from the Joe Blow Foundation web site", and let the reader reach her/his own conclusions. The point is that it is not taboo to use those materials, they just need to be used with discretion and neutrality, per WP:NPOV and all the rest. Crum375 01:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As relates to people, using their own publicity photos may be favourable to our WP:BLP compliance. (Though some editors will want me hung, drawn, and quartered for suggesting that we are actually allowed to use publicity photos under fair use at all.) As regards photographs, I believe the main NPOV concern is how representative the photo is of the person's normal image. We wouldn't want to use a police mugshot for an individual who is not best known for being a criminal, for instance. In the case of film stars, models, etc. where their image is publicity shots, those are the most representative images available. --tjstrf talk 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Being WP:NPOV does not preclude us from showing a movie star (say) as s/he wished to be portrayed, especially since this would be the image most people would be familiar with, the 'work image' of that person. Nothing says we need to show the last living image of a deceased star, on their deathbed, or a mugshot if arrested, to be NPOV. Even when you take a passport photo you are allowed to comb your hair and put on your best face. Crum375 02:00, 4 January

2007 (UTC)

So I am guessing that to make an article truly WP:NPOV, if the character is subject to widespread parody, including caricature, then it would be fair play to include a caricature to balance the article, if a publicity shot was included?? Belbo Casaubon 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say only if the person is shown as a caricature as often as they are shown in a photograph. Publicity shots are often the best or only pictures available, and they are often representative of how the public sees that person. I don't think NPOV requires finding a shot of people first thing in the morning in their bathrobe. The point of a photo is to illustrate what someone looks like, and a publicity photo does the job. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability reference

Hi.

Since you reverted my edit, I'd like to go and discuss it here. Does the "significance" of views have any relation to notability as defined in WP:N at all? How is "significant views" defined, anyway, and what is used to judge it? Should there be a guideline on it? Since Wikipedia:Significance redirects to Wikipedia:Notability, does this mean there is a connection? If there is, should it be mentioned, as my edit would have done? Sorry for any inconvenience due to the edit, however. 74.38.35.171 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstandings?

It is NPOV to describe misunderstandings as "misunderstandings" without qualification, when the misunderstanders do not believe themselves to be misunderstanding anything? This seems like a tricky, borderline issue, so I wanted to get a more general idea of what the community thinks about an article like Misunderstandings about evolution. -Silence 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The definition of a misunderstanding is that the misunderstanders do not believe themselves to be misunderstanding. For example, when a child believes that you cannot subtract a 4 from 3, that is a misunderstanding. The child does not "believe" themselves to be misunderstanding but are believing in an incorrect rule of subtraction due to their own misconceptions about arithmetic. --ScienceApologist 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant that they frequently do not believe that they misunderstood even after being corrected and educated on the matter, not that they didn't believe it beforehand. -Silence 20:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I can see WP saying that something appears to be a misunderstanding, because A said X and B said Y, where it is obvious and uncontested that there was a misunderstanding. If it is disputed, controversial, derogatory or just non-obvious that it is or was a misunderstanding, then IMO it can only be cited by a reliable source. Crum375 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

<<The definition of a misunderstanding is that the misunderstanders do not believe themselves to be misunderstanding. For example, when a child believes that you cannot subtract a 4 from 3, that is a misunderstanding. The child does not "believe" themselves to be misunderstanding but are believing in an incorrect rule of subtraction due to their own misconceptions about arithmetic.>>

The above comment manifests misunderstanding 1) children, 2) arithmetic, and 3) Misunderstandings about evolution. Furthermore, that comment demonstrates "misunderstanders do not believe themselves to be misunderstanding." Moreover, the current Misunderstandings about evolution page continues blatant censorship of the POV of what the non-religious scientists such as Arthur Strahler have actually written about the Creation-evolution controversy. --Rednblu 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Surely the issue here is that an account should be given of what mainstream scientists regard as misunderstandings, and a proportionate indication given where minority scientific groups or sections of the lay public (or religious public) hold different views. It should be made clear that, for example, creationist organisations such as AiG debunk misunderstandings which other creationists use as the basis for their claims. The article could also usefully cover any scientific misunderstandings about creationist viewpoints if reliable sources can be found. It should also be emphasised that many of the misunderstandings are by no means confined to religious groups – the idea that evolution should mean progress is quite widespread. .. dave souza, talk 00:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That may be what you wish the issue to be. But apparently that is not the issue. The issue here is that the majority of scientists tenacious on Wikipedia are violently opposed to NPOV. --Rednblu 00:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight issue on Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)

This issue has gone to medcab Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-12_Nick_Baker_(chef) and I would be grateful for some authoritative opinion on it either there or on the Baker discussion page. Thank you kindly. David Lyons 08:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

David Lyons is acting in bad faith by using narrow interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines to try to suppress information negative to his campaign to free Baker. So far he has tried to deny the relevant section by saying the sources were self-published (dealt with on WP:RS talk). Next he tried to misrepresent the notability of the source saying the magazine is minor (it isn't), then the publisher's expertise (it's relevant). Then he tried exceptional claims (they aren't). Now he is onto undue weight (it hasn't).
To try so many ways to suppress information is the definition of "gaming the system". See this essay for similar examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Gaming_the_cite_system
Regarding the issue at hand. That Baker's story was not as it first appeared has significant weight in any article about him.
Undue weight: 2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.
Viewpoint = Baker is not telling the truth
Believed by = probably the MAJORITY of the public: http://www.japantoday.com/jp/vote/172 (55.8% believe he knew what he was doing when he brought a full suitcase of drugs into Japan)
Prominent Adherent=Devlin
In addition it is reasonable to add the Baker-Devlin spat (Publisher accuses mother - mother accuses publisher - publisher defends). It is verifiable with third-party sources. In any case, I have proposed a more concise paragraph in the article's talk page.Sparkzilla 09:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it not show good faith on your part to allow interested parties to actually read it and make up their own mind without trying to put your pre-conceived opinions the mind first? David Lyons

[edit] Principles??

I suggest removing this sentence:

The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

because:

  • The policy page has already made it clear that NPOV is non-negotiable, so there's not need to repeat it. (This is a statement that Jimmy Wales has made several times, typically in the context of other language Wikipedias adopting policies different to NPOV.)
  • The statement suggests that there are certain "principles" underlying NPOV, OR and V that are "non-negotiable". However, there has been no statement by the foundation or Jimmy Wales that this is the case. These policies, like most policies on Wikipedia, were adopted by a strong consensus of editors, not by any edict of Jimbo or a committee. It's rather vacuous to make a statement that comes down to saying "there is a consensus that this policy can't be overruled by consensus".
  • Ultimately, the reason why these policies are so important and so well respected is that there is an overwhelming consensus in favour of them - not that they have some special status granted by authority.

Enchanter 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I second this. Bensaccount 01:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, same as on WP:NOR and WP:V. NPOV is a foundation issue and that is stressed, but saying that all three policies are is unnecessary and possibly misleading. Trebor 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Now done Enchanter 00:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is no such thing as a neutral point of view

Period.

Why pretend? Concoct a guideline that makes some sense to replace it. Relgif 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Trebor 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This common objection reflects a misunderstanding of the neutrality policy. NPOV does not say there is absolute objectivity. The idea behind NPOV is not to achieve an ideal state of objectivity but rather that where bias can be detected, it can also be eliminated.Bensaccount 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Bensaccount, Declaring something "biased" is in itself a form of bias. "Bias can be detected" everywhere, so "detected bias" becomes such an all-inclusive category as to become meaningless. I believe the NPOV rule is all-too-easily used as a cudgel against a particular treatment of a subject when no other cudgel suffices. Does it perhaps not suffice to grant my point? It is not an outlandish one, and it is not a "misperception", "common" though it may be. Relgif 05:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Bias can not be detected everywhere. Facts precede opinions. Bensaccount 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This is pointless, as people just aren't reading the available policy material. And, Relgif, you're talking in circles. "Calling something biased is biased." True, but unhelpful. NPOV is a POV, you're right, of course. People need to read all the material here on the subject. NPOV is the POV of Wikipedia. No one's arguing that it's perfect, or that ultimate objectivity can be achieved. It's a process and a goal. Why do people have such a hard time with this basic notion. It's not a falacy, it's a set of working principles and practices, nothing more. It's a goal worth striving for, even if it's not achievable. Otherwise you have chaos, and continuous edit wars with no mechanism for determining how to resolve them and stabilize articles. Anyway, this stuff is all addressed in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Common objections and clarifications --Christian Edward Gruber 07:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Not pointless, and here's why: Someone notes above, sensibly, that the central chunk of the available policy material to which you refer does not define its terms. It does not define "POV" prior to issuing NPOV policy. Sounds like the available policy material needs some fundamental work. Relgif 21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
POV? Point of View. NPOV? Neutral Point of View. Upon this basic distinction we have managed to create an encyclopedia as well as community of proportions that never existed before. If you do not like it, there are other projects such as Wikisource. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I invite Relgif to take some time and read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Common_questions, if the answers there do not satisfy you, it could be simply that WP may not be for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Telling your readers what the letters POV and NPOV stand for is not the same as defining the terms. This misunderstanding of yours dovetails nicely with another: when I dissented from the notion that Wikipedia defines its terms adequately, you suggested - twice - that I might be happier elsewhere, ignoring the fact that Wikipedia has always depended upon the exchange of differing viewpoints for its very existence. If anyone has plainly indicated here that he might be "happier elsewhere", it is you, not me. By the way, you failed to indent your comments - twice (I have repaired this). You do like to do things in pairs, it seems. Relgif 19:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

---

<<There is no such thing as a neutral point of view.>>

I find this an interesting observation. So let's see why the following is not a "neutral point of view."

Counterexample one. Let T be the TotalSet of all published points-of-view on a WikipediaPageTopic. Lay out T across the hillside and make a photograph P of the entirety of T through a wide-angle lens (à travers l'objectif). Compress the pixel representation of P to fit on a Wikipedia page WP. That WP would be a "neutral point of view."

Just because we as a Wikipedia community have not figured out how to control our natural dog-pack politics that rips out NPOV from Wikipeda pages does not throw into question the existence of NPOV. We just have a lot of work to do in being honest with ourselves about the power politics that currently determines the biased POV that "hot" Wikipedia pages promote. --Rednblu 03:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nutshell revert

Actually, there are no rules on the nutshell, they are still evolving (see: Template_talk:Nutshell). There is an active discussion on whether the nutshell is useful, or redundant. To make it useful, it should not just echo the first paragraph. I think the edited version conveyed the same essence more succinctly. If someone else would like to take a crack at condensing the nutshell, please do. But as it stands it is too wordy, and does not set a good example for the usefulness of the nutshell in general. Dhaluza 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The nutshell content has been discussed in several sections above (please read these discussions), none of these leading to a consensus to change the nutshell content (please see above why):
(note: there are some casual mentionings of the nutshell in other sections too)
I don't see any advantages in the new rewordings of the nutshell proposed by Dhaluza and Brian Kendig. And the argument "To make [the nutshell] useful, it should not just echo the first paragraph" is a logical fallacy. I don't like logical fallacies. A nutshell can be useful echoing other paragraphs of the page, including the first or the third, or whatever. That is simply unrelated to the usefulness of the the nutshell. Further, Dhaluza didn't even seem to understand it echoed not exclusively the first paragraph, but also other content of the page. --Francis Schonken 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If the nutshell echoes the first paragraph, then that means that the first paragraph is already concise enough to summarize the page, and therefore a nutshell is not needed. In the case of WP:NPOV, the nutshell was almost verbatim the same as the article's first sentence.- Brian Kendig 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, "[...] the first paragraph is already concise enough to summarize the page, and therefore a nutshell is not needed" is a logical fallacy, you didn't demonstrate (didn't even attempt to demonstrate) that a nutshell can only be useful if it doesn't summarize content from the first paragraph. --Francis Schonken 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You are dismissing the argument on form, without considering its merits. Why not consider which is more useful, a simple repetition, or a thoughtful reconstruction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.96.161.110 (talk • contribs). 17:10, 23 January 2007 ([1])
There's no rule that in general "a thoughtful reconstruction" is to be preferred. Further, Brian Kendig wasn't arguing anywhere "thoughtful reconstruction" for the nutshell, not here on the talk page, nor in edit summaries, nor by his actions on the policy page: the epithet "thoughtful" was not applied by Brian Kendig nor in words nor in actions. Also, you're assuming the nutshell most people seem to prefer was not thoughtfully constructed. Please don't insult the people that put their work in it. Again, read the discussions above, before deciding whether the discussions that led to the present nutshell were "unthoughtful". --Francis Schonken 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The nutshell, after Francis's revert, was: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. I believe this is excessively wordy for a nutshell; at the very least it can be simplified to Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views without bias. (I've just made this change in the article.) In my previous edit, I phrased this as: Bias is unacceptable in articles. Be fair when presenting conflicting points of view. What was wrong with my wording? - Brian Kendig 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. Too short, to the point of not saying anything anymore;
  2. Obviously, you didn't read any of the prior discussion as I suggested, that might have informed you why many other people would have problems with your rewrite;
  3. Obviously, you've got a formidable idea about your style skills in English. I don't share that idea. And, regarding style preferences in general: de gustibus et coloribus nil disputandum. I don't like the too short style. So, there's no consensus about it. --Francis Schonken 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is more than consensus on avoiding obfuscation, there is policy. See: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use short sentences and lists. Dhaluza 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
My bad, guideline, but this is still consensus. So your point about obfuscation being O.K. was off the mark. Now you are using false logic by arguing against the opposite extreme. Far from pushing novel ideas, I was simply trying to improve the nutshell by removing excess words. Dhaluza 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
When did he ever say that obfuscation was OK? I think I smell a strawman. Reading the guide linked, I think it supports the current wording: "This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell." and "Conciseness, however, does not justify removing information from an article." --Milo H Minderbinder 19:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the previous version of the nutshell - it makes sense to include fair and proportionate (because of equal weight). --Milo H Minderbinder 16:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a nutshell. It need only give the general idea of the guideline, "Fair", "proportionate", and "without bias" are similar enough in meaning that I don't see any point to wasting the words in the nutshell. - Brian Kendig 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you've again reverted the nutshell, undoing my changes. The nutshell as it stands now is this; I've italicized the words I had deleted: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." Would you please tell me why the italicized words are so important that the nutshell is not accurate without them? - Brian Kendig 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This has all been covered already on this page, if you search for those terms here you'll find explanations. I was actually going to leave out "and other encyclopedic content" before I went back and read the previous discussion. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion up above says that the "and other encyclopedic content" phrase refers to "templates and image descriptions". I still don't feel that you have to specifically point out "templates and image descriptions" in the nutshell; I believe a reader can get a good idea of the purpose of the guideline without the nutshell needing to be all-inclusive. Again - it's a nutshell. When reading it, a person should say, "Ahh, I get the gist of the guideline." He's not going to say, "Oh, the nutshell doesn't mention templates, I guess the guideline doesn't apply to templates!" - Brian Kendig 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's precisely the sort of problem that would arise. These nutshell summaries are especially useful for conveying the pages' essence to users who don't bother to read any further (just as you initially didn't read the relevant discussion on this talk page) or skim for sections that reflect their preconceived notions. Omitting a significant portion of the page's scope most likely would result in situations in which editors create biased templates/image descriptions and argue that "WP:NPOV only covers articles!" until finally reading the actual policy after several requests to do so.
As I commented at Template talk:Nutshell, I believe that the current nutshell wording is suitably succinct (and yours was too succinct), and the same applies to WP:NOR. —David Levy 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this more and more looking like WP:POINT in my eyes. Neither Brian Kendig, nor Dhaluza seemed to get much support for their novel ideas at Template talk:Nutshell. Then, instead of waiting till the discussion reaches a point, they went around implementing the novel unapproved ideas on the nutshells of some high-profile policy pages, including this one, in an attempt to illustrate their points that weren't agreed upon at Template talk:Nutshell. Because of the high profile of the pages, these changes cause quite some disruption (while on average, there's little enthousiasm about the intent of the novel principles, and even less about the way they're being forced down), also because ongoing and recent other discussions on the nutshell topic, at the talk pages of these policies, are being ignored. We have a guideline about that: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please, go read it, including the last paragraph of WP:POINT#Examples, before deciding to continue on this slippery slope. My next step would be to let people at the WP:AN/I decide about how best to proceed next. --Francis Schonken 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me lay my cards on the table. I initially didn't like nutshells at all; I saw them as workarounds for poor opening paragraphs, especially where the nutshell merely repeated information an inch below it on my screen. But the discussion on Template talk:Nutshell changed my mind, especially after I saw some nutshells I really liked: friendly and succinct, giving the gist of the guideline without merely repeating it. (WP:POINT, WP:BOLD, and WP:SOCK are good examples.) So I've been trying to find a way to make the nutshell on WP:NPOV more like the others in tone. I accept that you disagree with my purpose, and this not important enough to make a fight of, so I'll defer to your judgment for now. - Brian Kendig 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Tx for the compliment, I think I wrote the WP:POINT nutshell. --Francis Schonken 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Welham

The Tom Welham page is a textbook example of POV, but I don't know enough about the guy to do anything about it. Can someone help out here? Knight of Ashitaka 15:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss

It appears that one or more editors are opposed to making any change whatsoever to the main page, and the discussion is not going well. WP guidance in this case is to use WP:BRD. So I am re-applying my last thoughtful good-faith effort, and asking that the procedure is followed. Also, it would be good to review WP:Consensus carefully, because there is a new consensus there, with a flow chart that differs from the recent edit history here. Dhaluza 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My intention was to clarify that the change was made in the spirit of WP:BRD, not WP:POINT as you suggested. WP:POINT is not even applicable because it refers to conducting experiments to prove a point. Experiments as defined there are not serious attempts to build new consensus, just messes left to be cleaned up. Also, your reversion was apparently inconsistent with WP:3RR so I suggest we focus on moving forward, and concentrate on the product, not the process. Dhaluza 10:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Your mode of operation according to what you call "the spirit of WP:BRD" is a travesty, I think I explained in enough detail why that is so. Assuming good faith, but the most correct way of describing your mode of operation thus far on the WP:NPOV page is: "messing around". I gave enough links to guidelines and prior discussion, so that pretty soon you won't be able to invoke the argument of ignorance any more. Please, discontinue your behaviour that might be interpreted by wiser (wo)men than me to be disruptive. --Francis Schonken 10:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the content of your proposed change: above (in the #Nutshell revert section) I wrote: "[...] Dhaluza didn't even seem to understand [that the WP:NPOV Nutshell] echoed not exclusively the first paragraph, but also other content of the page." - the "other encyclopedic content" in the nutshell echoes other content of the WP:NPOV page. It is fully justified to keep it in the nutshell. Again, there's no "rule" that the nutshell should be a summary of the first paragraph; and even less is there a rule that the nutshell should not contain anything that is not also in the first paragraph. --Francis Schonken 08:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The word "encyclopedic" does not appear in the body of this version, and "content" only appears once as "content policies", "other content" does not appear at all, so I don't understand your argument that it reflects "other content of the page."
There are no specific rules regarding the nutshell at all, so your argument that it is OK because there is no rule against it falls flat. But there is consensus reflected in long standing content on the nutshell template page, that the nutshell is used to summarize a page. So by this definition, the nutshell should not contain information that is not covered in the main page. As a summary, it should not cover material in more detail either. Therefore the page prior to your revert was a more appropriate usage of the nutshell template. I request that you revert it back, or re-edit it to reflect the more appropriate usage. Dhaluza 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Reasoning behind NPOV starts with "Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, [...]" - it clearly refers to all encyclopedic content. --Francis Schonken 10:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not helpful to me. Please explain how it relates specifically to the text of this article. Dhaluza 10:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is not an article, it is a policy in project namespace. As such, it is not part of the encyclopedic content. Otherwise, it wouldn't be possible to write "[...] the neutral point of view is a point of view [...]" without creating some sort of internal contradiction.
True, the WP:NPOV page doesn't give much detail where the "encyclopedic content" is situated on the wikipedia.org website, it treats "encyclopedic content" as an intuitive concept, the whole page is written from the assumption that that concept is understood, and that that is where WP:NPOV applies. For me that's OK. If you think that in some section of the WP:NPOV page a clearer description of the "encyclopedic content" concept should be given, that sounds a reasonable proposition to me too. You're free to propose such description, and to propose where you think it should be included in the WP:NPOV page, if you think there's a real problem with understanding that concept. None of that involves a change to the nutshell though. --Francis Schonken 11:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. My suggestion is to move the "or other encyclopedic content" from the nutshell, down to the first paragraph. Then it would be a good idea to expand this later on, explaining that it includes image captions, etc. This question came up on this talk page before, so the article is ambiguous on this point. My proposed solution builds from simple, to more complex, an effective teaching technique. Dhaluza 12:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
On further consideration, perhaps encyclopedic content is the main point. I have revised my edit to the nutshell to reflect this. Dhaluza 13:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence of my last comment above read: "None of that involves a change to the nutshell though" - don't know what was unclear about that. It did not express pre-emptive consensus on any change to the nutshell you'd fancy, as far as I can read that sentence: it is concise, in plain English etc.
So, no consensus for your focus on wanting to reduce the two line sentence in the nutshell that has been agreed upon earlier on this talk page and its previous versions. It is useful to keep both "articles" (which is clearest) and "other encyclopedic content" (added for avoidance of misunderstanding the scope of the policy) in the nutshell. --Francis Schonken 15:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


May editors consider what a waste of time/effort this discussion is? Rather than spend so much ink & sweat discussing the fine differences between "Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content" and "Encyclopedic content", volunteers' time could be better spent improving articles, starting a new one, checking a random article to see if it needs our assistance, or in any of many other useful tasks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I am going to take a break, and get back to working on content. And I ask that the other involved parties do the same, and let others have a chance to give their input without getting reverted. Dhaluza 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
A discussion is rarely a waste of time. Taking time here to talk things out doesn't necessarily mean there's less time being spent on other tasks. IMHO, this nutshell is too wordy; it isn't necessary to make a distinction between "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content" in a nutshell, nor is there any reason to make a distinction between "fairly, proportionately and without bias" in a nutshell. Additionally, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content" is misleading, because it implies that it refers to encyclopedic content other than that in Wikipedia, and I don't think Britannica cares much for our guidelines. :) - Brian Kendig 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move protection

This page has been move protected for a year. Is it a good idea to keep it that way? I can not think of a reason why the page should be moved, but still... it is like not protecting user pages, just because it is a wiki and we should make sure it stays that way. // habj 01:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd guess nobody can think of a good reason why this page should be moved, so it stays protected. Neither here nor there myself. Marskell 20:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Film Reviews

I have tried to add a link to a list of film reviews (see Children of Men article) from a reviewer who is Catholic in a Catholic journal, and been told that any review by a Catholic in a Catholic journal automatically violates NPOV, and that only non-Catholic journals could be unbiased. I do not understand the concept of an unbiased review of artistic work, or how reporting the fact that there was such a review is biased. Especially since the reviews of the film from non-Catholics have been favorable and by Catholics unfavorable, I fail to grasp how this "only exclude Catholics because they are biased" reflects NPOV. This is not a science article, it's a movie review! Agent Cooper 12:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be a touchy concept. If you think about it, the makeup of the human mind makes true NPOV impossible. There are too many entrenched biases in our daily lives to be truly neutral. That being said, it is probably better to steer clear of sources that are overtly biased, such as a catholic journal. Not to say that the views of the catholic reviewer may be right or wrong in any way, but it is obvious that the entire point of his review would be to justify it to a purely catholic audience. This is probably a pretty glaring violation of NPOV. The review itself may be great, but that does not preclude the fact that it was written with a catholic audience in mind, as opposed to a nuetral audience review that may be found elsewhere. Bigbrisco 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki policy on use of word "Christian"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion says care should be used in using the term "fundamentalist." Is there a policy on how to use the word "Christian"? On some pages it is assumed that a certain theological test must be passed before it can be applied even if a group professes itself as Christian. The claim is made that since there is disagreement on this the term cannot be used of them. (This despite the fact that there are sizeable groups who would say Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are are not Christian Churches.) This has the effect of perpetuating the theological test of what a Christian group is. Do we go with a majority view and perhaps require a minimum theological perspective (is that even really possible?) or do we adopt a secular meaning of "Christian" for this resource? Dtbrown 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy other than our core principles and good editorial judgement. If there's controversy, carefully attribute who uses what label. Present the mainstream perspective of authorities on religious movements, and mention significant alternative points of view. Leave out fringe points of view. As an aside, if you believe that "sizeable groups" dispute whether Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are Christian, you might want to ask other editors to help you check your own biases about what is a significant minority and what is fringe. Jkelly 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the term not just simply be used in reference to any group of people who congregate and share a belief that Jesus is their theological savior? Whether or not they practise what they preach should be irrelevant. The mere fact that they believe in Christ as a savior makes them Christian, does it not? Bigbrisco 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A comment on the bias section:

Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class division.

This scentence is in the summary on bias. It seems a little conflicted.

Is it biased to ignore class divisions and assume that you are talking to people on an equal level. The way that this is worded is saying to somehow be classest, and not be classest at the same time.

I would attempt to fix it, but I am not 100% sure what is meant to be conveyed here. I get the idea, but I think that someone with more experience than myself should give it a go.

-)

Emry 08:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


I think it means that articles should not be written 1. from the POV of a specific social class or 2. in a way intended to ignore or hide class differences

So, articles should: 1. try to avoid writing from the POV of a specific class 2. mention class POVs if they are noteworthy 3. mention class distinctions or differences if they are noteworthy

However, I would be careful when doing the task that I listed as #2 there, because not every member of a class (even if membership is easily definable) has the same view. But in any case, if you are discussing what humans experienced, the decision of which experiences to mention should not be unduly biased on the basis of the class of the person experiencing them. - Todemo

[edit] NPOV FAQ and ArbCom ruling on pseudoscience

Suggest fleshing out Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience with some of the principles from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. Particularly useful are the distinctions drawn in sections 20.1.15 through 20.1.18, i.e. among:

Obvious pseudoscience
15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Generally considered pseudoscience
16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Questionable science
17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Alternative theoretical formulations
18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for considering this - Jim Butler(talk) 09:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: David Barton

Would any neutral editor mind reviewing the version history of this article and weighing in there with their editing skill? Thanks. Wjhonson 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humans

Neutral? Let me give a statement, and tell you why it isn't neutral.

"The FERTILE CRESCENT is generally defined as the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. It is currently inhabited by a population of about X (source: census of A)"

The sentence, if it were neutral, would say HUMAN population, rather than just population. In order to have a neutral point of view, it would be necessary to start an otherwise unnecessary inclusion of the word "human" in almost every article, in a way that is dissimilar to almost any other form of writing. However, the current article specifically states as an example of bias,

"Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism, regionalism and tribalism;"

Does the fact that "Speciesism" is not on the list mean that species bias is allowed, and that assumption that humans are the topic can be followed as is followed in most other publications?

Is it necessary to write the encyclopedia from the point of view of a deist's god? Or an alien observer? When we discuss rockets travelling through the atmosphere, is the atmosphere's perspective important?

I suppose the answer is partly revealed by the fact that the current version of this article says that a POV must be published to even be mentioned. But if someone publishes a fluid dynamics paper, or a poem, about what happens to the atmosphere as a rocket passes through it, does that mean that this perspective is now important enough to deserve notice? -Todemo

Just being published does not warrant inclusion. There are other criteria that must be considered: relevance, popularity, expertise come to mind. (NPOV should mention this). Bensaccount 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The concept of a neutral point of view should be based on the collective equality of USERS of wikipedia. "Speciesism" is, at best, a fringe point of view and should be completely disregarded in an encyclopedia read by HUMANS, a single species. However, nuetrality to HUMAN groups in general (ie. not being sexist, racist etc.) should most certainly be practised. Basically, if person X can read the wiki, then person X should find group X defined in a balanced, neutral light. The atmosphere, to cite the above example, cannot read wiki and therefore neutrality policies should not apply (obviously). Bigbrisco 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience

In order to have a neutral point of view about the subject of pseudoscience, those who are accused of practicing pseudoscience (creation scientists in my case) should be able to point out, with reference to the definition of pseudoscience given in the article, why they think evolutonism is pseudoscience according to the definition given, as:

"On the other hand, Evolutionism, or the belief that modern life evolved from one-celled organisms, is considered by some scientists to be pseudoscience because of its over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, and the discouragment of scientific testing by interested scientists who do not accept evolution to attempt to refute the basic assumption that life evolved, as well as the suppression of the position that life did not evolve." Eddiejoe 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You should take a look at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. It is my suspicion that the label of "pseudoscience" applied to evolution would fall under a fringe point of view that shouldn't be given the undue weight of being mentioned even within the context of the evolution debate, but that's something for local editors to work out. Jkelly 02:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It is not a "fringe point of view" that "evolutionism is thought by some scientists to be pseudoscience because of its over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, and the discouragment of scientific testing by interested scientists who do not accept evolution to attempt to refute the basic assumption that life evolved, as well as the suppression of the position that life did not evolve." That is directly from the definiton of pseudoscience that the Pseudoscience article gives. You are saying that the definition of pseudoscience that is given is a fringe point of view. Note that the previous part of the paragraph does not give tne reasons, according to the stated definition, why the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint is pseudoscience. I show how evolutionism correlates with the definition.Eddiejoe 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That "definition of pseudoscience" was added by Eddiejoe himself. Without consensus. Enough times to get a 3RR block. The notion of evolution being a pseudoscience is a minority view and certainly doesn't belong in that article, especially unsourced. I assume it would probably be fine in the Creationism article, but I'm guessing that is said there already. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Evolution is not a psuedoscience, though it should be noted in the article that it does in fact lack refutable evidence. However, many scientific theories lack refutable evidence and yet are accepted as fact without thought. In mathematics for example we know that 2 + 2 = 4 because if I have two apples and you have two apples and we put all our apples into a basket, there are four apples in said basket. We accept this as obviously true, regardless of political or religious biases towards the 'theory' that 2 + 2 = 4. However, we have not presented any evidence that 2 + 2 /=/ 4, only that it does. This does not make basic mathematics a psuedoscience. So just citing the fact that some sceintists (no quantitative value given) may regard it as a psuedoscience does not warrant the statement "evolutionism is thought by some scientists to be pseudoscience" appearing on the page. However, stating that it lacks refutable evidence is fine. This compromise does not cheapen the article, and adequately presents the opposite point of view. Bigbrisco 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Is mathematics really a science? It's indispensable to scientific enquiry, but to make the evolution analogy you really ought to use a discipline that involves experiments and the like.--Shtove 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Very well. Replace grade school mathematics with high school chemistry. Elements replace apples and chemical compound equations replace 2 + 2 = 4. The same basic principle applies here. One Oxygen atom plus one Iron atom = Iron(II) Oxide (FeO). Again, I can illustrate the creation of FeO by showing you what DOES happen, but there is no way to absolutely prove it by showing what isn't happening. As a matter of fact, instead of picking nits, you might attempt to further the discussion by coming up with something that can be proven using refutation. Bigbrisco 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Apes pick nits. So do humans. Therefore humans are apes. QED! But that's logic, not science. Anyway, thanks for your polite suggestion.--Shtove 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a better way to approach it is that science allows the making of testable (falsifiable) predictions. Even in the 'historical' sciences, such as cosmology and paleontolgy, theories can be used to make predictions about future discoveries. Thus, the theory of evolution led to predictions that forms intermediate between fish and tetrapods should have existed. Every new 'missing-link' form (such as Tiktaalik) that is found leads to refinements in theories of how tetrapods evolved from fish, which are then used to make new predictions. It is not whether a prediction is supported or rejected by the evidence that makes a theory scientific. It is the fact that a prediction can be falsified, or refuted, that makes it science. Any discipline that makes predictions that cannot be falsified (refuted) is not science. -- Donald Albury 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It is ridiculous that there is a movement of human beings that would categorize Evolution as they would UFOlgy. What have we come to. Bigbrisco 01:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no dog in this fight but I know Ann Coulter went into this in good detialed in her last book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. You could use it as a source for the evolution psuedoscience. However, I'd try to find out her sources and use them directly. Morphh (talk) 2:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for NPOV to include section on inclusive introductions.

The NPOV guidelines currently promote USA-style journalistic balance, a "he said", "she said" approach, where if you balance it all out nicely, you should have a neutral article.

However, some articles are prone to bias, and can become very contentious. It would be good if the article could be not so much presenting opposing arguments, as presenting a framework in which these arguments all have a legitimate place. The articles in Wikipedia, such as [religion] which use an inclusive definition do not start with an inherent bias, and achieve a neutral tone much more easily than those that don't, such as [black people].

If this is considered to be a useful idea, it might a good thing to encourage via policy.

I have a draft proposal for an addition to NPOV, which you can find here.

Thank-you for your consideration, Trishm 09:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a difference between saying "an inclusive definition is unbiased" and saying "people who make exclusivist claims about religion are wrong"? I've been trying to think of a practical difference between the two, but it's not clear to me there is one. It seems to me that if a POV is disagreed with by other people with a different POV -- and an inclusivist POV would be disagreed with by religious exclusivists -- then this is empirical evidence that it is not actually a neutral POV. As a concrete example of disagreement with the proposal, although I belong to a monotheistic, I would disagree with the proposal's suggestion of describing religion as monotheistic in the Religion introductory because it's the majority POV. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response. I have rearranged my wording in the proposal, because obviously I had been unclear. The proposal's suggestion you speak of is an example of a reasonable, but non-inclusive approach - i.e. something that would fit the current POV guidelines, but is by no means optimal, as you rightly point out.
There is a difference between the two statements "an inclusive definition is unbiased" and "people who make exclusivist claims about religion are wrong". The current introduction to religion is a perfect example of an inclusivist introduction:
  • Religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to faith as well as to the larger shared systems of belief.
This statement applies to all religions, and doesn't imply that anyone is wrong. It is a good example of the approach I would like to see codified in policy.Trishm 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this description is helpful (as offered to date). How many of our editors will understand what is meant by "inclusive introductions". Count me in the set that didn't, and still doesn't. GRBerry 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me try another way. You have come across MPOV (Mainstream POV)? What I am trying to say is that an inclusive NPOV definition will apply at the outset to every aspect of the topic (see the introduction to religion, while the alternative type of definition will apply to the mainstream POV, and then later on discuss others.Trishm 08:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

An anonymous editor made changes to the Bias section, and this was reverted citing consensus although it is not clear that action this was supported by the policy there. In any event, the changes were mostly an improvement which carried the same meaning with far fewer words. I have further refined the changes. If the new verbiage does not reflect the consensus view of what the policy should say, then please improve it (without adding back unnecssary words--make every word tell). Do not return to an inferior formulation citing consensus, because consensus is not status-quo. Dhaluza 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, but I prefer much more the previous formulation. Your simplified version loses some of the strength. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You replace "bias" with "favoring or disfavoring". I would argue that bias in the context of NPOV goes beyond just favoring or disfavoring something. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the redundant "bias" from some list items because it was stated before the colon on the intro line. If you think it needs to be repeated, then it needs to be moved in front of the colon and repeated on each line. I think that will look awkward, but you are welcome to try it. Please restore the edits you reverted, and change them to the extent you think is necessary. Dhaluza 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have raised what I believe to be a well presented concern about your edit, in particular about the dilution of "strenght" about bias. It would argue that you would be better than me to apply these concerns to your edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Jossi is right here. FeloniousMonk 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll start over and work methodically. Dhaluza 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I wikified the list making it linkable, and making the important points stand out to people scanning the page. I changed the intros to remove the redundant instances of "bias" and introduce parallel construction throughout. This should not have any material effect on meaning or emphasis. I did not address wordiness in the rest of the items yet. Dhaluza 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
My concerns have been addressed in the current version, Thanks for your patience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. There are two more things I see that I think could help make it even more concise. 1. Do the items need to start with "including" because "includes" is stated on the intro line? and 2. Isn't "bias favoring" redundant because favoring requires bias, so can't we just say "favoring". Dhaluza 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I would ask you, Dhaluza, to be gentle with your application of WP:BETTER. Sometimes extended wordiness actually add value. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Words can add value, but wordiness cannot. Comfort words are like comfort food — it makes you feel good, but it also makes you fat. Policy pages should set a good example by saying what needs to be said as economically as possible. I will proceed cautiously, however. Dhaluza 11:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] POV title for historical event

I'm sure this comes up all the time - an article is given a biased but much more familiar title, rather than a neutral, less familiar title eg. POV Glorious Revolution over NPOV Revolution of 1688. Does NPOV just relate to content, or does it trump the 'Best known' policy on article titles?--Shtove 15:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Offhand, it sounds like the title may have "nationalistic bias" which is part of this policy. The title should reflect a worldview, being the one most commonly used worldwide. The references seem to be split on this, but one title suggests a reasonable compromise could be "Glorious Revolution of 1688". Dhaluza 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If "Glorious Revolution" is the name by which this revolution is known, and that is not disputed, there is no issue here. But if there is controversy reported in published sources about the use of that term, then there is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. There is controversy, reported and published. So, how to determine the issue? If there's a better page for discussing this, my apologies.--Shtove 17:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The best way to address the controversy is to get WP:V information from WP:RS and add it to the article, then discuss the change on the article's talk page. You can also apply the {{POV-title}} tag to the article to call attention to this if you have the facts to back it up. You do bring up a good point here, though, because although the POV title tag is listed, the NPOV article body does not mention title. Is it safe to assume this is an oversight that should be corrected? Dhaluza 17:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If both terms are used, then it is acceptable to have both names. The most used one as the article name, and the other one as a redirect. Be sure to [[WP:ATT}attribute]] the competing use of the term by those that assert the use of these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution replacing WP:Verify and WP:NOR

Hello, I know this isn't about neutral point of view directly, but since the major three (or major two, if WP:ATT is successful) policies do work in harmony, it does seem relevant. WP:ATT is basically intended to combine WP:V and WP:NOR together without changing them. Anyways, if you have anything to say on the matter, you are of course welcome to share your comments at WT:ATT. Thanks! — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment: use of the terms "Revisionist" and "Genocide denier" in relation to the Srebrenica massacre

The Srebrenica massacre article is currently bogged down in a seemingly irreconcilable discussion about what to call those who are critical of the established view of the massacre.[4][5] These include a wide range of views and persons:

  • those, mainly Bosnian Serbs, who claim that the massacre never took place or that only soldiers were killed
  • those that accept that the massacre took place but are critical of the ICTY's finding that it constituted an Act of Genocide
  • those who believe that the numbers killed in the massacre are fewer than the generally accepted range of 7500-8000 persons
  • those who believe that Bosniak killings (mainly by Naser Oric) of Serb civilians in the Srebrenica region 1992-1993 should be considered when describing the motives for the massacre
  • those who believe that the memory of the Srebrenica massacre has been politicized by Bosniak politicians

Group No. 1: believes that all of these views should be labelled as "revisionist" or as "genocide denial". As I see it their main argument is that criticism of the generally accepted view is per definition revisionist and that those who do not agree with the ICTY legal finding of the massacre as an Act of Genocide are, again, per definition, Genocide deniers.

Group No. 2: believes that headings such as "critical views" or "alternative views" are more appropriate and in line with Wikipedia:NPOV. The main arguments for this are that this is avoids casting all critics as "revisionists" or "genocide deniers", terms which insinuate that these persons and views belong in the same category as Holocaust revisionists and Holocaust deniers. I belong to the second group.

As the discussion on the Srebrenica massacre Talk page is going nowhere, I would very much like an opinion on this matter. Maybe even a suggestion. Sincere regards Osli73 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] a. Comments by editors of the Srebrenica massacre article belonging to Group No. 1

As so often I am inclined to suggest a slight revision in Osli73's account of the situation as set out so clearly above. Rather than "their main argument is that criticism of the generally accepted view is per definition revisionist" I think "their main argument is that the promotion of an alternative version of facts established by judgments given in a court of international law is by definition revisionist" describes the position more accurately. --Opbeith 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If one doubts ICTY judgements/findings etc, he/she is revisionist; if one doesn't accept reality that genocide happened in Srebrenica, then he/she is genocide denier. If one thinks that the UN / Bosnian Government / Serbian Government / etc could have done better to prevent mass scale massacres, then he/she has Alternative Views. I have also posted my final reply to your games here. Bosniak 05:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73, it's hard work as usual running after you. Your account of the views of what you call Group 1 is still in my view misleading (speaking as someone who you would presumably designate a member of that group). Criticism of a loose category of "generally accepted views" is not what the discussion at the article has been concerned with. The discussion has focused on how to categorise proiminent views that start from an "alternative view" of facts established in an international court of law - the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the ICTY you refer to. The fact that you've simply edited your input rather than describe the change you made makes my initial response to you a little puzzling but it's probably unhelpful to get into detailed discussion here of that and of some of the other details of your summary, so I'll leave the matter at that, but please have some regard for the general thread of the discussion, not just your own contribution. --Opbeith 10:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And is it really "civil" to systematise other people's comments into category without any discussion? --Opbeith 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] b. Comments by editors of the Srebrenica massacre article belonging to Group No. 2

[edit] c. Comments by third (ie previously uninvolved) parties

I am not sure that this project page is the right place for this? I reckon this not be discussed here but in the article talk page. You could then post a link here and announce it at WP:RFC to get more uninvolved users' attention. Regards, --Asteriontalk 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV - overall vs individual sentences.

Is it OK to have a sentence that isn't neutral POV, assuming there are other sentences elsewhere in the article that present the other POV? I'm talking specifically about sentences that omit something like "Supporters/critics say..." and are worded to make an opinion sound like it's presented as a fact. For example: "Bigfoot is said by some to be a big hairy creature" versus "Bigfoot is a big hairy creature" and later "Critics doubt its existence" (excuse my terrible example, but I hope it gets the idea across). I would think that all statements in an article need to be clear whether they are fact or opinion, and in the case of disputed ideas, the nature of the dispute should be clear as well. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In the presence of a dispute, attributing both sides may be a good idea. Rather than using vague phrases like "supporters/critics say...", it is often helpful to be specific in attributions, e.g. "Proessor X of the University of Y says..." Best, --Shirahadasha 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How can something really be neutral?

Neutrality of this article is debated because neutrality is never achievable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psyphen (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

It's a goal. The more editors that contribute to an article, and the more reliable sources that they bring to it, the closer it will approach to perfect neutrality. -- Donald Albury 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight

I notice certain people are deleting anti-X material on NPOV#Undue Weight grounds, claiming that there is not enough pro-X stuff. Isn't the onus on them to WRITE some pro-X stuff, if they can? X being the usual suspects. Fourtildas 06:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is, and we should say so. If there is no pro-X stuff to be found in a given case, and sometimes there isn't, then anti-X is consensus of the sources, and should be reported without weaselwording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought that, at one time, I read something in the policies to the effect that, if an article is unbalanced by virtue of including much more information on one side than the other, the solution is to add the missing information, not to delete material that is otherwise proper (on-topic, written neutrally, sourced, not original research, etc.). I can't find that passage now, though. Is this stated explicitly somewhere in the NPOV policies? If not, it should be. JamesMLane t c 15:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairness of tone

This statement in "Fairness of tone" has me a little confused. "— for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." How is the term "worse" used here? Is "worse" good or bad for fairness of tone? If worse is bad then it would seem to imply that users should create a criticism section, which would go against WP:Criticism and statements by Jimbo "[...] 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." Perhaps someone could clarify. Morphh (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe both "fairness of tone" and "sensitive tone" are important. Particularly when the subject involved is a political or relgious group, a philosophy, etc., the encyclopedia needs to present the viewpoint fairly as its proponents see it, followed by criticism from outsiders. Shooting down the group as its viewpoint is being presented is neither fair nor sensitive and can look a lot like an ambush. Thus, whether criticism is in a separate section or not, the viewpoint needs to be presented as a coherent idea -- perhaps at least a coherent paragraph -- before the first criticism. I fully agree with Jimbo's statement that criticisms need to be "properly" incorporated and that in particular permitting "random" criticisms is inappropriate. --Shirahadasha 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe you've stated it much clearer here. Could you rewrite the sentence to better articulate these thoughts? As it is now, the sentence very confusing. Morphh (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It is always interesting to see what happens whenever the 1) grammar or 2) clarity of the WP:NPOV text is improved. We shall observe in this particular case who does what. --Rednblu 23:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Opinions-of-opponents sections

In Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone, it says "for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section", but this isn't true. Collecting all criticism into a single section is not a neutral way of presenting information, and we shouldn't be encouraging it.

Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure explains this well:

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

— Omegatron 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

68.189.124.93 20:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


We could replace NPOV with this quote:

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

— Omegatron 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And all of our wasteful arguments would come to an end, while vastly improving the quality of wikipedia. Bigbrisco 02:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That bit has been removed from the page, which is good, but it was correct to say that back-and-forth arguments and rebuttals are not a neutral or encyclopedic way of presenting information. It was just wrong because it suggested a combined Criticism section as a solution. Both are bad. We should use this page to emphasize this, and maybe give an example of each type of bad writing and one example of good writing. — Omegatron 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV used as Weasel wording

I know this seems ironic and unexpected, but I have seen countless times when people have cited NPOV objections to my (and other's) contributions (especially in the democracy article) without citing any justifications. The authority of NPOV grants them their way without having to justify or explain how the authority of NPOV applies in each case. I, of course, believed my contributions to be NPOV with no problems at all in most cases. In some cases, these same people cited NPOV problems in contributions which exclusively contained source commentary by respected people (i.e. George Leef). Any chance that we can revise the wiki policy to require anyone citing a policy to justify how they feel the policy is violated, with specific details? Also, any chance that Wiki policy can forbid reversions unless there exists either vandalism or a consensus that material should be moved or removed? Something tells me that there already exists a policy about talking before you make major changes, but I can't seem to figure out which one or if it applies to those who cite NPOV without details or justification at the same time that they make substantial changes.

It's like someone saying, "x," and then someone else deleting x, and saying see talk page, where that person says only that "x has obvious NPOV issues." This has been common practice in the democracy article by two very active editors. It might seem obvious the NPOV assertion should be explained, but despite repeated request, this is not happening. It's almost like NPOV is being used as weasel wording (WP:AWW), taking the form of authority without actually citing such. --Landen99 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right of course. But let us use this 1) issue and 2) your interventions to collect data on how we might fix what is wrong with the Wikipedia policy system--rather than push for a particular solution. What do you say? --Rednblu 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny that these issues arise over the Democracy article. Can anyone post specific links to show how NPOV has been violated?--Shtove 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific POV not privileged

I did the same edit on the German Wikipedia, and hardly anyone complained, either. Fine with me, so I can finally demonstrate that Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia. If all sorts of POV pushers can hijack this platform, just because they are many, fine with me, just now I have it in written that Wikipedia does not respect the academy. Fossa?! 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, jftr: “hardly anyone complained” isn’t exactly the most accurate description. At the moment, it seems more like a single admin trying to convince just about everyone else that the scientific pov is in fact not privileged. See here for details. Regards, —mnh·∇· 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fossa, there is no need for content discussion here. You are doing this edit only to proof a point, which is actively discouraged. --Pjacobi 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, see also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Neutral_point_of_view_as_applied_to_science. --Pjacobi 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I violate WP:POINT, but quite successfully, nobody except yourself reverts me. Point is: This is exactly how it actually works, and this is, how user:Jimbo Wales dreamt up this project. Fossa?! 22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Whatever is going on here, it is definitely not NPOV as in "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." Whatever is going on here is some form of beating off the stage those reliable sources that do not say the right thing. --Rednblu 02:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So, when is a source sufficiently reliable? An article in a well-established scientific journal like The Lancet certainly is. What about books/OR-papers from ideologically biased publishing houses? Are they to be considered reliable? Other than bearing testimony to just how many half-wits *somehow* manage to get their harebrained ideas published, that is? Even though there’s a gazillion books out there claiming otherwise: there were no lightbulbs in ancient Egypt, the nazis had no extraterrestrial tech advisors, the middle ages existed and were not made up by scholars and the earth damn sure ain’t flat. Or a mere 65k years old, for that matter. Period.
Including these fringe theories in otherwise well-written articles imo borders on the brink of disinformation. It gives them undue legitimacy, because anything presented right next to the scientific rationale just *has* to be considered a viable alternative. If it were complete nonsense, it’d have been removed, wouldn’t it? Which in turn tends to attract even more fringe theorists, they get their free soap box here, after all. This isn’t exactly appealing to scientists either. (Well, maybe 24-year old ones…) Without the policy at least somewhat biased towards the scientific point of view, it is however near impossible to remove certain theories from articles. At least in de, but I doubt it’s different here.
This is what this debate is actually about. Regards, —mnh·∇· 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If there are 2 opposing journal articles, what shall we do?
  1. Suppress any mention of the one which goes against the mainstream.
  2. Report both without any indication of which one is the mainstream view.
  3. Report both, but if one is opposing, point this out.
The hardest place to apply decide this is in Global warming, where apparently there is mainstream consensus on every aspect - although several sources claim that "the science is not settled". Is this a political controversy or a scientific dispute? --Uncle Ed 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We already have an "Undue Weight" policy. Viewpoints are presented based on, among other things, the number of propoenents. Views that have too few proponentes relative to the majority view do not get included in the same article as larger views. Views that do not have any notability are not included in Wikipedia at all, period. If some "fringe" view only has ground in vanity presses, then it does not get included, as per Wikipedia's sourcing policies (It may also fail the notability guidelines, too.). I do not see a problem with not biasing towards the mainstream. You talk about reliability of sources, the problem with vanity, etc. but none of that suggests we should be biased towards the mainstream. Wikipedia policy already adequately covers many of the problems you address -- undue weight, for example, disqualifies very fringe points of view from appearing in an otherwise well-written article, the policies on attribution and the guidelines on conflict of interest prohibit creating articles based on pure vanity sources, the guidelines on notability prevent extremely fringe theories from getting included, thus preventing your "soapbox" problem, etc. I really do not see any sort of problem with the current Wikipedia system. You seem to have treaded over problems that have already been addressed by present Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Perhaps maybe you could point out some problems with those rules? mike4ty4 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody (I'm discounting mnh here) seems to be phased with the idea that academic science (incl. social science) should not be privileged (as is my experience on Wikipedia), I suggest to return my original addition. True, it's redundant, but most people would expect an encyclopedia to present chiefly scientific points of view. So, it's actually only a clarification of the currently existing practices. Fossa?! 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If we did privilege the scientific point of view, it would make no difference. We would report a single viewpoint when (as often) science represented a consensus (is there a non-biological view of the Christmas Island red crab?) and we would report non-mainstream views when there was a significant body of opinion behind them, and not otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In areas like animal species it might not matter, because popular opinion does not contradict or is agnostic about the scietific point of view. That applies to some areas of the natural sciences, but in the social sciences and humanities, the story is frequently very different. Fossa?! 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't support reinserting that text. Redundant and potentially misleading out of context. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ covers the issue with the nuance necessary. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 05:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem redundant to me at all and the FAQ is not illuminating on this point either. Fossa?! 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
See "making necessary assumptions" and "giving equal validity" at NPOVFAQ. Jim Butler(talk) 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I did read these passages, however they give me little guidance in almost every problem I have: Frequently, I do not face "pseudoscience" but conventional wisdom cum a number of journalistic accounts that unsurprisingly transport that conventional wisdom, which is debunked by scientific points of view. If I were to describe all POVs in order of their relevance, then the different scientific POVs would come in dead last, because, clearly, conventional wisdom is more imporatnt in society. Fossa?! 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry slo-mo reply here, Forra. I think I understand your concern, but for scientific topics, peer-reviewed journals and statements from scientific bodies, etc., are per WP:ATT considered more reliable than mass media reports. So it should be OK to mention both, citing who says what. Can you given an example of a problematic article? regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Enshrining the scientific point of view as "fact" presents multiple problems.
  1. In many fields, science is progressing rapidly, and "facts" are subject to dispute within the scientific community. Until things settle down, a lot of it is guesswork. It takes time for research to be conducted and reported. Then journals usually submit articles to anonymous peer review, which takes more time. The most important step is for other science to reproduce the results. By the way, anyone got an article I can link to for this, like reproducibility of scientific results?
  2. Nearly all of science incorporates methodological naturalism, which assumes that the spirit world or the supernatural either (A) does not exist or (B) cannot be measured, detected or studied. Jimbo has made it quite clear that Wikipedia must not endorse atheism or materialism. It must remain "neutral" with respect to these positions.
It would be better to refer to the scientific mainstream in terms such as "99.8% of biologists" or "95% of all scientists" or "the majority of climatologists" supporting a particular theory. And it's still better to provide their reasoning. Like, if our hypothesis is correct, then we predict X and Y. So and so investigated and found both X and Y. But we should also include dissenting findings, like A and B also investigated but reported that X was not true; thus, they say this invalidates the hypothesis. --Uncle Ed 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Uncle Ed, re your question on reproducibility above, check Intersubjective verifiability. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1. When "facts" are disputed within science the proposed passage, which is concerned with extra-scientific vs. scientific points of view, has no bearing.
2. To say that you cannot make a statement about the "supernatural"does not mean that you endorse atheism. You can at the same time exclude ideas from your investigation and nevertheless believe in them. Fossa?! 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition to NPOVFAQ quoting ArbCom on pseudoscience

I floated this idea above, and here's a specific suggestion. To the current version of WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, I propose adding text taken verbatim from principles in the ArbCom's December 2006 ruling on pseudoscience. (The specific section quoted is here, from sections 15-18.)

With the appended material, the Pseudoscience section of the NPOV FAQ would read as follows:

(begin quote)


Pseudoscience

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.

With regard to characterizing topics as pseudoscience, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee ruled as follows:

  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

(endquote)

Jimbo is quoted at WP:NPOV#Undue weight and I think the above comments from the ArbCom are equally germaine here. Pseudoscience is usually controversial, and the above, well-reasoned decision should lead to better editing and help keep the peace. What do you think? thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I have no particular interest in which way this goes. But I am interested in observing the coordinated patterns among the scientists. For me, it is like watching a bath of H2O freeze in sections--along the walls, around seed crystals, together in floating clumps. On Wikipedia, the scientists coordinate together en masse to freeze out any semblance of NPOV, where NPOV would be "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." I bring to your attention at this time the empirical data on the biased ideological coordinations among the scientists against NPOV in three pages intrinsic redshift, creation-evolution controversy, and global warming. For example, it is easy for anyone to access the actual publications of Halton Arp or Arthur Strahler. And it is easy for anyone to search back through the history of Wikipedia pages to see where the actual words of those who criticize the dogmatism of the believers in Big Bang and Evolution are replaced by the original research of the scientists who say that Arp, Strahler, and whatever other reliable sources that present empirical data that threaten the ideological position of the establishment are "wrong." --Rednblu 20:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rednblu, I think the behavioral patterns you refer to are indeed evident among scientists, but extend to all domesticated primates as well. Organized science is discernably less of a poster child for groupthinkish behavior than organized ... you name it, really. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think subjects are "obviously" pseudoscience, a word which has no precise meaning, and certainly no scientific meaning. People still argue over whether certain subjects are pseudoscience.
  • To vote on whether a subject is pseudoscience, without peer review, without testing, and without following the scientific method... is described by a certain word: pseudoscience, or in this case, pseudoskepticism.
  • By all means note which subjects have been described a pseudoscience by reliable sources, but a consensus of editors is not attributable. --Iantresman 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Ian, the above comments weren't meant as huzzahs for every aspect of that ArbCom decision. I think the ArbCom tends to get ban-happy, and did in this instance. But I did think the part of their ruling that I quoted was pragmatic. I'm not a great fan of the term "pseudoscience", but I feel that as long as WP is going to use it, we should be internally consistent. To be blunt, I'm willing to sacrifice stuff on the edge to the dreaded "pseudoscience" label if that means sparing significant minority views. I realize the boundaries of the mainstream are not sharply delineated, and define it as most scientists do, i.e. in terms of whether (and to what degree) a topic has been discussed in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. best, Jim Butler(talk) 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Editors do not have the remit to judge certain subjects as pseudoscience; they are anonymous, potentially unqualified and unattributable. If, for example, the Electric Universe is deemed pseudoscience, I don't want to read that "the consensus of Wiki editors have deemed it so". However, if Prof. John Doe writes that he thinks it is pseudoscience, then I want to be able to refer to the source and find out why. And if he doesn't say it, and neither does anyone else, then we can't pretend that anyone does. --Iantresman 13:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not saying that if it's not in peer-review, and claims to be scientific, it must be pseudo. It could simply be a tiny minority alternative view. Often, no need to label, just let facts (or lack thereof) speak for themselves. That said, lots of WP editors are label-happy and category-happy, so here I'd suggest we at least shoot for consistency, and direct editors' attention to some relevant ArbCom principles. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this talk page is the right place to discuss Wikipedia's science standards, but here goes:

  • Proper scientific methodology usually requires four steps:
    1. Observation. Objectivity is very important at this stage.
    2. The inducement of general hypotheses or possible explanations for what has been observed. Here one must be imaginative yet logical. Occam's Razor should be considered but need not be strictly applied: Entia non sunt multiplicanda, or as it is usually paraphrased, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
    3. The deduction of corollary assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Specific testable predictions are made based on the initial hypothesis.
    4. Testing the hypothesis by investigating and confirming the deduced implications. Observation is repeated and data is gathered with the goal of confirming or falsifying the initial hypothesis.
  • Pseudoscience often omits the last two steps above. [6]

Our question as contributors and editors should not be, "Is it pseudoscience?" Rather, we should ask, "Which scientists or scientific bodies accept or reject this view, and on what grounds?"

If somebody says that an essential step in the standard scientific methodology has not been followed, then the article should quote that person. (Same as someone saying that an essential step was or was not taken in a disputed election. Source A said they didn't let black people vote. Source B said they threw out military absentee ballots, etc.) --Uncle Ed 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically agree. Labelling something "pseudo" is much, much less important than presenting the facts about what support it does or doesn't have. Thanks! regards, Jim Butler(talk) 04:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and totalitarian ideologies

What about using the NPOV policy as a vehicle to push totalitarian ideology, e.g. Nazi or Soviet propaganda. Should this be avoided ? And how ? --Lysytalk 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's avoided with writing style. NPOV requires we describe, not promote any point of view. --Iantresman 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you give an example from an actual Wikipedia page history where there was danger of "using the NPOV policy as a vehicle to push totalitarian ideology"? As Ian suggests above, it seems to me that NPOV could not do that. --Rednblu 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't give a specific edit diff, off the top of my head, but part of arbcom's reasoning for putting me on "probation for POV-pushing" stems from an edit I made to an article about a totalitarian nation (China, I think). I indicated that some sources assert Mao Tse-Tung killed 20 to 60 million people. They considered it to be a "POV edit".
This, however, seems to be a misreading or misuse of NPOV policy. It amounts to using the name of NPOV to suppress one POV in favor of another. This is an error, because suppressing one POV in favor of another is the same as endorsing the other POV; and endorsing a POV is the definition of "POV pushing", isn't it?
The viewpoint being pushed is that "Communism has not engaged in mass murder, at least not on the scale of ethnic genocide like Hitler". Conservatives believe the opposite of this viewpoint, i.e., that Communism has killed ten times as many people as Hitler (estimates range from 60 million to 210 million).
The method of pushing the viewpoint was to brand the contributor (i.e., me) as a POV pusher on grounds that I "added a dissenting view".
The thing that bothers me about this is that I wasn't trying to make the article endorse the Conservative POV. I just wanted to add it, as a dissenting view.
Shouldn't NPOV embrace the concept of including dissenting views? (As long as there's no implication that the proportion of people believing in the dissenting view is higher than it's actually known to be?) --Uncle Ed 12:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I weep, Ed. Yes, I know. I have seen. The scientists as a pack are trying to take you down. Part of the Huwoman flaw here seems to be that we poor descendants of our ancestors have very, very poor tools of intellect, language, and civility for facing our snowballing problems. Fred is only trying to keep us all working here together on this our grand task; there is not much he can do. If the scientists won't take NPOV responsibility for our actual Huwoman condition and flaws, then you and I and anyone else also willing to take responsibility will have to think of a way to get them to see what is happening here and be honest; does that make sense? --Rednblu 12:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • An example of the danger ? I don't have anything specific and obvious at hand but here is a somehow exaggerated example but illustrating well what I had in mind. Should the Jew article mention that according to some ideologies Jews are human while according to others they are subhuman ? Would NPOV require us to mention both points of view there ? --Lysytalk 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Common sense dictates that these POVs are presented in Antisemitism , Anti-Judaism and similar articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the brightness of (insert favorite religion)

  • Recently I looked into treatment of monotheism believers in non-monotheism nations. Most articles gave good insight, neutral observations and so on but there was one think which started to nag on me:

Whenever the topic was "islam in (whatever country)" it read like "Islam has a bright and prospering history in (whatever). It influenced the culture with many scientific and cultural improvements with deep root in the society." - the funny thing, the two nations I looked up were china (while christs are a tolerated minority, muslims are an isolated/dispised much fainter minority) and Japan (less than 1000 Japanese are followers of islam, it has no influence at all) - but also in many other nations descriptions this style of propaganda showed up.

This all sums up to "blunt propaganda based on bad facts, most likely spread out over hundrets of articles all over Wikipedia". So my question is: Can this be considered an edit-war? How to cope with it? Who/Where to contact? Crass Spektakel 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an edit war precisely (not unless they keep putting it back in after reversion). But it is POV pushing, if the effect is to make Islam seem more prosperous or influential than mainstream historians and and sociologists think it is.
If, however, the edits are sourced to a clearly marked advocacy group, then it's not POV pushing. There's nothing wrong with saying, e.g., "The Egyptian government says that Islam contributed many scientific and cultural improvements to the world." That's not bias, because it doesn't state (blank) as a fact.
To detach Wikipedia from the endorsement of an idea, use this formula:
A said B about C.
Do others agree with this? --Uncle Ed 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NNPOV Redirects

The redirect at magnecule, which redirects to pseudoscience implicitly states (with a hand wave), "'Magnecule' is pseudoscience, period."

Now, such a statement would be a blatant violation of NPOV if it actually appeared on a "magnecule" article page and so, it seems to me, that a redirect of this type must be a violation of NPOV as well. Suppose "magnecule" is pseudoscience: So what? Either it is notable and worthy of an article of its own, written in NPOV (and identifying sources that consider it pseudoscience) or it is non-notable and deserves no page at all. In either case, it does not deserve a dismissive, opinionated, implicitly NNPOV, redirect.

So there should be rules in NPOV policy related to redirects that implicitly express NNPOV views. CoyneT talk 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a policy change is needed, because I think the policy already covers such cases. The fact that the redirect exists does not mean that the policy doesn't cover it – merely that nobody has noticed. It can be dealt with in the usual way; if you can think of a better target for the redirect, by all means edit it; if you think that the redirect is unacceptable, list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion – Qxz 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the policy covers it implicitly. However, the NPOV policy has a strong bias to articles; so strong that many people might neglect to note violations in the form of redirects (which aren't articles by definition).
I have dithered on this a bit (including considering that it should be in Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?—where it probably should be mentioned) but I still think it needs to be mentioned here. From a flow perspective, it would seem to fit best between the "POV Forking" and "Undue weight" headings in this article. It is kind of a reverse POV fork, created by someone with an opinion to direct other readers to that opinion.
In fact, it serves as the poster child for a whole class of related activities that could be very difficult to detect unless editors are watching closely. For example, I could make a link like this in the "Global Warming" article:
The prevailing [[pseudoscience|scientific opinion on climage change]] is that ...".
(Another possibility: "Supportive" references that link to contra-supportive sources.)
So maybe there should be a section on "Links Expressing a POV", which would mention both links, of the types I show immediately above, and redirects. CoyneT talk 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy?

Why, and when, did WP:NPOVFAQ become policy? WP:ATTFAQ is aiming to become a guideline, and no more; so should this be. FAQ's cannot cover all cases; doning so would involve Infrequently Asked Questions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Since June 2006. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; you actually mean the edit before, I think.
This has been discussed at some length for WP:ATTFAQ, and the consensus there seems to be that this is undesirable. If both are policy, they must be kept in sync, or else we have two inconsistent policies on the same topic. This was one reason to merge WP:V and WP:OR in the first place; they tended to drift apart.
If one is policy and the other merely a guideline, we know which governs, and the FAQ doesn't have to be complete, or nitpick about exceptions - they're in the policy, if warranted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOVFAQ has always been policy. The page contains specific examples and text that stood on the main NPOV policy page as official for years and are considered central to dealing with issues like pseudoscience (which was in the very 1st iteration of WP:NPOV for example). They were spun out into a sub page around a year ago, and have stood since that time marked as official policy since they deal with central concepts. They will need to either remain marked as policy or be re-merged back into the main page. As far as keeping the two synched, we've had very little trouble doing that over the last 1 year + . FeloniousMonk 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point. Feel free to revert my change there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An emerging scholarly field

While I have serious concerns about the likelihood of achieving NPOV in an article, that is not the issue I want to debate on this thread. I am in the middle of writing some articles on which it would be silly to claim that there is a scholarly consensus because the field is itself rather new. According to the stated policy, "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views 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." The problem I am having is that there are very few published articles at all. I work on eighteenth-century British children's literature (one reason I am working in this field is because there is very little published - I can write the defining book some day). But when it comes to quoting sources for articles, there are usually only a handful of articles. They do not "agree" or "disagree" in any stark way (humanities scholars rarely do that) and to present one scholar's view as one side of the argument and another scholar's view as another side would be silly. Moreover, there are books published on 18c children's literature, but they were published many years ago and are now held in low repute by children's literature scholars. Unfortunately, those books are often cited in other books because they are available (so, a book about the 18c novel will refer to these or a book about 18c history, etc.). This situation is changing as others scholars become aware of the serious problems of these books and more articles on 18c childrnen's literature are published. Any thoughtful advice on this issue is welcome. Please refer to Sarah Trimmer, Ellenor Fenn and Anna Laetitia Barbauld for reference. Please remember that these pages are works in progress. Thank you. Awadewit 10:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV banner guidelines

I see these templates added from time to time with nothing in the talk (which I think should be a requirement). It is not always apparent what the "POV" issue is or what bias the editor that placed the banner perceived in the article. At that point there is little to do in regard to "fixing" an article. Every article gets its extremist that could see biased in anything that doesn't fit their perception. I find the banner itself can add more POV then whatever was perceived in the article, since such a banner seems to state that the article is inaccurate, not truthful, biased, etc. I've also had editors that do post in the talk but can not state what is POV or what view is not present - they just seem to think the article is biased. Again you end up with a banner that asserts the article is biased per some editor (that can't state what is POV) while you hope that someone unaffiliated will review it. It seems there should be some guidelines to adding a POV banner to an article. For example:

A POV banner can itself be considered a very visible POV statement. Therefore, wiki-etiquette regarding the placement of NPOV banners is as follows:
  1. It is recommended that a dispute first start on the talk page and progress to adding POV banners if necessary. It is appropriate to allow editors time to correct and respond before adding a tag.
  2. If a banner is added, there should be a talk to discuss the dispute.
  3. If no talk and no apparent POV is present, the banner can be removed with an entry added to the talk discussing the banner placement and its removal along with a request for further information. (Perhaps leave the Cat:Articles which may be biased if review is desired).
  4. An article banner is for an entire article and should not be used for minor POV disputes in a section or sentence. Use a section or sentence tag when possible to address the dispute.

I think guidelines such as these (probably greatly improved by this group) would allow for improved resolution, less POV disputes, a common process, and general wiki-etiquette. Thoughts - Morphh (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Policy on adding and removing the tags is currently very unclear and confusing, and frankly, the current practice is a disaster. Editors often add the tag without comments on the talk page (can adding them be done automatically through some fancy template magic?), then other editors interested in the article often remove the tag immediately with an edit comment like, "I don't think the article is POV." A big part of the problem is the glaring banner that goes right into the article. Wouldn't it be more effective to encourage first starting with some kind of "Policy warning" banner on the talk page? Groups of editors interested in particular policies (like NPOV-interested editors here) could watch for those tags on talk pages. There would be time to go help because the article's editors wouldn't be freaking out about a banner defacing the article itself. Obviously, a banner in the article would be appropriate if problems persisted. Gnixon 06:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for NPOV review News design

Hello Everyone, I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if I'm approaching this the wrong way.

I've developed a discussion with an editor for the News design page, and since we cannot agree, or, it seems even agree to disagree, I would like to hear from folks who work the NPOV issue on the elevation of some news designers over others.

In particular, in the Notable News Designers section Ernie Smith deletes some living and selling newspaper designers that get linked from the page and allows others to remain listed.

When asked, he replies that the folks he chooses to list are "truly" outstanding in their field, while others are not. A review of the history file shows some pretty aggressive removals, despite requests to review the work of people before he deletes them.

The trouble I have with this is that the links to some of the Newspaper designers he endorses go straight to their web sites where they are selling their services and books, thus serving to raise their visibility over their likely competition.

The discussion page documents the exchanges he and I have had on the subject.

Any thoughts from the NPOV team?

Thanks, Designing news 00:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the external links in the body of the article linking to the persons web page should not be there. If there is an internal link to the person, then link it. If the link is used as a source, then it should follow the sentence in a ref type format. If they're notable enough, a link can be added to an external links section at the end of the article and should follow the Manual of Style for External links. If the other user or yourself are debating over who is notable, it sounds like Original Research. You should be referencing something else that says these individuals are notable or outstanding news designers. It is not your or his/her place to make that determination on Wikipedia. Anyway - that's my 2 cents. Morphh (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-American focus

I think this FAQ question and answer itself betrays a US/UK/Ire focus as opposed to Can/Aus/NZ/SAfr, and should be edited to correct this. Joeldl 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ATT: Join the discussion at

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb questions and dead horses

I know this is a dumb question, and (even to me) it seems like I'm beating a dead horse. But what can we do if a particular topic or article series winds up being dominated by editors who:

  • assert that the most popular view is the correct one
  • turn passages describing the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint into an argument implying that one is better
  • insist that articles be sympathetic to one view and come out in forthright opposition to the opposite view
  • advocate the elimination of viewpoints from articles, on the grounds that the view expressed is "wrong"
  • omit background on who believes what and why
  • dismiss attempts to add significant published points of view which conflict with the mainstream, as "tendentious" or "disruptive" or "undue weight" - even when the contributor adding these agrees readily to describing these as "minority"
  • resist attempts to fix articles which have bias towards one particular point of view and remove pov dispute tags from articles or sections
  • engage in debates on talk pages and resist calls to "get back" to discussions on how to improve the article

I refer, of course, to that plethora of hotly disputed topics concerning history, politics and science (particularly the science of the environment) where a liberal point of view is exalted. I do not, needless to say, want to replace liberal bias with its evil twin, conservative bias!

All I want is for article to step back and refrain from drawing conclusions about conflicting views; to permit all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one; to refrain studiously from stating which is better; and to leave reader to form their own opinions. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue you raise is particularly relevant for articles like Creation-evolution controversy, Objections to evolution, Misunderstandings about evolution, etc., which almost always end up becoming a list of topics that begin with "Creationists say ..." and continue with unattributed statements like "However, [they are wrong because....]" Editors of those pages are anxious not to let any creationist POV creep in, and many seem to derive significant pleasure from proving creationists wrong. So even if the articles start out very NPOV, they gradually accumulate more and more anti-creationist bias. Most of the articles seem to have been spawned by debates with creationist vandals of the Evolution page on Talk:Evolution. With constant monitoring, editors of Evolution have been able to maintain a consensus that the article will reflect the view of scientists with only a brief mention of creationism in a controversy section, but obviously that option isn't available for articles on the controversy itself. Many of the editors of Evolution have exported their monitoring practices and fervor to the controversy articles. Gnixon 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite WP:RS to make it consistent with the spirit of WP:NPOV and explain undue weight?

See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion#RS_and_NPOV. You can participate at Wikipedia:Undue weight (sources). Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed clarification to the "Undue Weight" clarification

It seems there is a common mis-application of the "Undue Weight" principle, and this mis-application could be addressed by editing the relevant section of the policy page. I will now: 1) explain what I am talking about with an illustration; and 2) propose to make a clarifying edit to the policy page. If you are in a hurry, just skip ahead to the proposed clarification to the clarification below.

Example: This example is entirely fabricated for illustrative purposes only:

     The planet Earth is an oblate sphereoid.[fn1] The shape of the Earth has been
     confirmed by scientific studies[fn2] and documentary evidence including photographs
     taken from space[fn3]. Antecedent theories, such as the "Flat Earth" view and the 
     "Turtle's Back" hypothesis are now discredited.

     Proponents of the Flat Earth view have contested the scientific studies.[fn4] They
     have also stated that the documentary evidence is ambiguous, because the photographs 
     were taken in outer-space, where it is always night time, and too dark to see 
     everything.[fn4]
Oblate spheroid. This specific diagram was rejected by flat-earth proponents.
Oblate spheroid. This specific diagram was rejected by flat-earth proponents.

The point is this. For the article Earth it seems reasonable to suggest that the second paragraph does not belong, nor does the second sentence in the image caption, by proper application of the "Undue Weight" principle. However, it does not seem reasonable to suggest that these do not belong in the article Flat Earth, because it directly addresses the subject matter of the article.

A reader or contributor who wishes to make an independent, neutral assessment of the credibility (or lack) of the "Flat Earth" view would consider the second paragraph relevant. Moreover, it seems unnatural to omit justifying viewpoints (even if they lead to discredited conclusions) if they directly address the rationale and historical basis for that minority viewpoint. One may question or even ridicule the viewpoint itself, but if the article is going to be on WP, and it's going to satisfy NPOV, then shouldn't the essential elements of the minority viewpoint be addressed completely? If the article has survived wp:afd and the content is properly sourced, isn't the credibility of the viewpoint a matter to be left for the reader to decide based on the available evidence?

Additionally, on the question of sourcing and citing the minority viewpoint, it seems unbalanced to claim "Undue Weight" on the basis of citations that do not even address the subject matter of the article. For example, a scientific study that does not even address the "Flat Earth" viewpoint, or why and how it was discredited, and merely stipulates that all minority viewpoints are beneath consideration, would not seem to be of much use in the "Flat Earth" article.

Proposed clarification of the clarification:

   Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give 
   minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, 
   and may not include tiny-minority views at all unless those views directly
   relate to the subject matter of the article itself.

Thoughts? Critique? Feedback and comment on this are welcome. If no one complains, I will be happy to make the clarification. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe your point is already incorporated in the current policy. If you read further down in the "undue weight" section, you'll find this: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth." Crum375 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be helpful to clarify the relationship between this approach and WP:POVFORK. As I understand the intent of the clarification, separate articles ON alternative viewpoints are OK, but separate articles FROM alternative viewpoints are not. Perhaps this could be a bit more explicit. WP:POVFORK currently doesn't have a section explicitly permitting articles on alternative viewpoints. Perhaps it should. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the point by Shirahadasha is accurate. Also, the subsequent text cited by Crum375 is also in need of clarification. For example, at one point in time the "Flat Earth" hypothesis was actually the majority view. Under the current wording, WP contributors would be advised against depicting the "oblate sphereoid" view as the truth ... this wording is problematic for a lot of reasons, and should also be reworded to better harmonize with the letter and spirit of WP policy.

Proposed clarification of the clarification: (part 2)

   ... Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, although a view may be spelled out in 
   great detail, it should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint,
   and it should not reflect an attempt to rewrite the subject matter of majority view
   articles entirely from the perspective of the minority view. Also, such articles are 
   subject to the same WP:ATT requirements as all other WP content.
That's of course a 'rough draft' ... but the purpose of the clarification I think makes sense.

(NOTE: the "undue weight between articles" point below I think is a separate issue, and since every WP article can tend to have a "life of its own" I think it should be discussed separately). dr.ef.tymac 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Just a note to inform all interested parties I plan to make my proposed clarifications to the page soon. 20070328_065802. dr.ef.tymac 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: I just made a first attempt at the "Undue Weight" clarification regarding minority viewpoints. Hopefully this clarification is entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of the extant WP policy. Comments and criticism are of course welcome, but I think the discussion immediately above provides sufficient rationale for the modification. Regards, dr.ef.tymac 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight between articles

This discussion also touches on another issue with undue weight, since the current text is specific to a single article. There also is an issue with undue weight between articles. For example, if a separate article on a minority view covered it in greater detail than the article on the majority view, this would put undue weight on the minority opinion. Likewise, if the minority viewpoint was significant, but the article was deleted for a procedural or technical reason, that would also put undue weight on the majority opinion. Since articles can be merged or split by editors at any time, the focus of this section should apply to WP as a whole, and not just individual articles. Dhaluza 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think you can compare undue weight between articles. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject [..] Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them"
  • A general article on a subject has an obligation to cover all significant views.
  • An article on a specific significant view, need only mention that there are other views, and articles on those other views is the place to detail them --Iantresman 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What about those who insist that we say something like

The planet Earth is allegedly an oblate sphereoid.[fn1] Questions about the validity of this view is raised and alteranative theories like "Flat Earth" have been presented[fn2].

Would that be undue weight? // Liftarn

[edit] Undue weight?

If the commonly accepted fact is that X is Y, but some dubt it would it be correct to in the article write that "X allegedly is Y" or would that be to give undue weight to a minority opinion? Like "Elvis allegedly died..." or "Armstrong allegedly landed on the Moon". // Liftarn

Using your examples, the term 'allegedly' does not seem appropriate. That is, unless the subject matter of the article itself specifically relates to the dispute. Even then, it would probably be best to replace "allegedly" with different wording, consistent with WP:RS and WP:ATT. An allegation is a statement that the proponent readily admits has yet to be proved as fact. Few (if any) proponents of the statement "Elvis is dead" would readily admit it has yet to be proved as fact. dr.ef.tymac 13:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Any suggestions on better wording? // Liftarn
Probably not, since we are talking in general terms with hypothetical examples. Also, such questions and suggestions are more appropriate on article talk pages, where all interested parties can provide input, don't you agree? dr.ef.tymac 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears deadlocked. Time to call for help I guess. // Liftarn
No. The word allegedly has no place in an article, as it is a severe weasel word and I'm hard pressed to think of any situation where it wouldn't be an NPOV violation. In both examples you give, Liftarn, the view is significant enough that it does deserve mention (generally, I think the undue weight section doesn't have strong enough wording that in some circumstances, any weight is undue weight), but the proper construction would be a sentence, "Some people continue to insist [[minority held viewpoint]], but this is rejected for <cited reason 1>, <cited reason 2>, etc." The Literate Engineer 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree that "allegedly" is a horrible weasel word. However, the "proper construction" offered by TLE has big problems with making unattributed POV statements. There's a better way. For example: "Some(^citation) believe Elvis is still alive, despite documentation(^citation) of his burial and other evidence to the contrary. The vast majority of mainstream historians accept the standard record of his death.(^citation)" Gnixon 03:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm hard pressed to think of any situation where it wouldn't be an NPOV violation. ... It seems the word would be appropriate if used to identify an historical fact:
   Elmer Fudd was under investigation by the FTC in 1962 for allegedly 
   "huntin' wabbits out of season."(^fn)
   The investigation was subsequently dropped when Fudd was pronounced mentally
   incompetent.(^fn)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreftymac (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] moving instead of removing

Hi. I was thinking that it may be good to add additional sentence to this policy regarding frequent deletions I've seen on wikipedia. It often happens that when some valid, verified, etc. sentence is put in for example lead of article, or some other section, an editor will delete it with a short explanation: not appropriate for this section, should be elsewhere, and sometimes they even say where. However, they don't put it there. This is not a big deal if sentence was added by regular editor, he'll just put it again (hopefully) in more appropriate section. However, if it is put by a one time visitor to that article, and than deleted, it may not appear again for who knows how long. I suggest that there should be a guideline saying that valid sentences like that should not be removed but moved! In this way, beside already mentioned problem, there will be less edits of a page - 1 instead of 2 or more (including discussions about removals etc.). I particularly noticed that this happens when editors in fact don't like the sentence in question, and actually they give explanation more as an excuse for removing it, than as real consideration of having it elsewhere. Lakinekaki 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

don't like the sentence in question, and actually they give explanation more as an excuse for removing it ... if someone gives an excuse for removing content, then the additional sentence you propose won't really amount to much, because the person can simply give an alternate excuse the next time. What's really needed is for people to resolve editorial disagreements with discussion. Your suggestion may be better suited for one of the pages at Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia. dr.ef.tymac 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Help tutorials expanded a lot since I joined WP!
If sentence is valid in regard to V, N, and NOR than it is not so easy to find an excuse for removal, while 'shouldn't be here but somewhere else' is quite easy to say.Lakinekaki 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I just put in a RFC on Talk:Intelligent design#Request for comment: lead. This is a featured article with a large and long dispute that has gotten no where with great discussion. Since it is charged as a NPOV issue - I thought I would post here as well as I'd like the thoughts of this group. The NPOV dispute is over first part of first sentence "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,". Disputers charge that the article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is disputed as ID itself does not define who the designer is. A federal court case is used as a neutral source and has identified that proponents overwhelmingly believe the designer to be "God". Disputers want the term "God" changed to a less specific term or the opinion statement attributed so that it is factual. Defenders believe the statement to be factual and that changing it would be repeating ID rhetoric. This is the reason the article is protected, with heavy debate going back into the talk archive. Morphh (talk) 2:05, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to report NPOV violations?

The warning templates indicate editors can be blocked for repeatedly violating WP:NPOV. How are such editors reported for such violations and why isn't this information mentioned in this article? Perhaps I'm just missing something that needs to be a bit more obvious? --Ronz 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV in first sentence?

Is it proper form to begin an article with something like "Jennifer Hudson is an Academy Award winning American actress and singer"? As it reads to me, opening sentences such as this imply a bias, and proper tone would be. --FuriousFreddy 16:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Without looking at this specific situation closely, it seems a reasonable start to the WP:LEAD of the article, given that those facts are verifiable and that there are sources that present her as such. --Ronz 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/u/Wikipedia_talk%7ENeutral_point_of_view_3315.html"