Talk:Neutral point of view

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Non-Wikipedia context

No offense, but the term the neutral point of view should have its own topic. I've killed off the redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Clearly, they should be different. This article should be a neutral article about NPOV. The one in the Wikipedia namespace is (rightly and necessarily) advocacy. Also if "neutral point of view" occurs notably in non-Wikipedia contexts this should be discussed. Fool 15:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self-ref

There was an opinion that this runs afoul of WP:SELF, whereas I feel this is not the sort of case that should apply to (or else the article Wikipedia would have to be deleted entirely). Fool 21:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

incorect!

[edit] Unreferenced

This article needs to WP:CITE a non-wikipedia related use of this concept. Kappa 04:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Google found plenty of non-Wikipedia references for the concept. jareha 03:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

Does neutral point of view have to involve writing? I would think any place where a position could be taken, yet a person chooses to remain neutral would be considered neutral point of view (e.g. politically, morally, etc). jareha 03:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV isn't that NPOV

Wouldn't NPOV also include no opinions? Please say yes, maybe we will at last get a better Chabad article. That article just talks about things where there are too many opinions, and because of that it doesn't accually talk that much ABOUT Chabad. 220.233.48.200 15:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it would include all NOTABLE opinion. However, WP:NOR forbids all personal opinons of wikipedia editors. --User talk:FDuffy 21:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR says "original research excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold." My reading is that NOR is really more about verifiability. Where NPOV comes in is that, often people attempt to justify an extreme minority view with a completely novel argument. If this kind of original research were accepted as fact, then you could say, "some people make this argument," distorting the POV of an article. It's the assertion (sometimes implied) about acceptance or belief in the argument, and not the argument itself that is biased. If the idea really is both novel and unverifiable, most likely the problem is just that it is wrong! Kyle Cronan 09:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, "no opinion" would be included as part of "all notable opinion" - it is notable to say one has no opinion. For example, Wikipedia's article on Jehovah's Witnesses notes that "Jehovah's Witnesses are politically neutral". --BenMcLean 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV With Political Parties

It is easy enough to present the ideas of a political party neutraly by simply saying "party X believes...", but how does one give eqaul time to all pionts of veiw in an artical about a spicific political party? Charles M 21:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

See the Giving Equal Validity section. I don't think it's necessary to treat all opinions about something equally - and certainly not in terms of inches of real estate devoted to an opinion. It is sufficient, I believe, to report on anything that is noteworthy, and add explanation where required for clarity. BreathingMeat 23:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of terms

I am currently involved in a dispute over a definition with a Pole(a person from Poland, not a metal construct) on Wikipedia. The word in question is Kulturkampf(comes from German). I contend that the word in English refers to the struggle between the German Empire under Bismark and the Catholic Church. This is backed up by dictionaries that include the term eg. http://www.dictionary.com and other book dictionaries that I have consulted.

It seems that the polonized term Kulturkampf has a slightly different meaning (in english your could translate it as germanization). My Polish friend argues that because Wikipedia is international, it should include the meanings of the word in Polish.

Although the English Wikipedia is an international project, the terms should be resticted to mean what it is understood to mean in English. That's my point of view anyway. What I'm asking is are we meant to accomodate the foreign meanings of the words? Or should they have their own pages? Or are they relevant at all? I realize that the English Wikipedia is in a way international, but it is useless when you don't know what definition of a word is being used. Disambiguation is, in my view, not appropriate in this case because the terms are far too similar in actual meaning, and the articles would merely repeate each other for the most part, or worse contradict each other.

Bobby1011 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've copied this over to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Definition of terms. More eyes will see your questions there. jareha 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV assessment editors

Since a large number of articles might be POV or slight POV as perceived by a few, would it be a good idea to have a group that has little interest in a localist or so called "POV" article to judge the neutrality by having a look at an article? Much like an editor, only that in this case the editor here has to check the neutrality, by verifying the sources etc and rewording any line that may be seen as biased in a larger perspective. Any ideas? Idleguy 11:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV issue

If Wikipedia is supposed to give consideration to ideas we may find morally offensive, how come there is no mention of people opposed to granting equal rights to all humans? Offensive or not, shouldn't it be considered?

[edit] is Neutral point of view the proper name?

It seems to me that 'Neutral point of view' does not give the connotations implied by the Wikipedia policy description. Despite the description, the term 'Neutral point of view' does have a tone of objectivity to it. The policy seems more in line with the polyocular approach of Magoroh Maruyama , which recognises the influential role of different perspectives/epistemologies/mindscapes/cognitive structures/paradigms (see e.g. Michael T Caley and Daiyo Sawada, eds., 1994, Mindscapes: The epistemology of Magoroh Maruyama. Gordon and Breach). From this perspective ;-) more fitting terms could be Second order view, Meta point of view, or Polyocular point of view.

A key aspect of the polyocular approach is that including multiple points of view results in more than the sum of the views. This is illustrated by the binocular view that enables you to see the dimension of depth, which is not in the views of either eye. The term 'Neutral point of view' does not at all give the important connotations of (a) a plurality of perspectives and (b) that providing different perspectives gives more than the sum of the views. This is unfortunate, since this Wikipedia policy is an important characteristic (on line with the open editing, open access and web format) that, as far as I know, differs from most other encyclopedias, which have a much more unitarian approach.

[edit] The largest fallacy of Neutral point of view

Neutral point of view is an applaudable goal, and I can see why it was put in place, but to me it seems to have one fatal flaw. Basic human nature. There are people who will believe anything, and once they have been conned into believing it will fight for it - to the death in some cases. There are people who have intentionally misled the public, and will continue to do so until the day they die either out of personal malice, to avoid punishment, or out of a desire for gain.

The neutral point of view reached for here, and in other places, allows these people - those either greedy or deluded - to vastly sway how an otherwise uncontested point of view is presented. For example, if there were no racists in the world it would be permissible to write, simply, that racism is wrong. But if even one loud person should chime in with the justifications and excuses that such men used, instead of simply stating what I consider a fact - that such things are wrong - the reasons for it having a "Negative impact" must be explained. Along with the excuses, fraudulent or misguided as they are, for the racist attitudes of others. For example...

"Racialism is a term often found within white separatist literature, inferring an emphasis in racial origin in social matters. Racism infers an assumption of racial superiority and a harmful intent, whereas separatists sometimes prefer the term racialism, indicating a strong interest in matters of race without a necessary inference of superiority or a desire to be harmful to others. Rather their focus is on racial segregation and white pride."

Its neutral, certainly, and it accurately reports the views that racist people claim to have - of course the more likely explanation is that they are simply racist, and that this should be reported - if at all - as a fraudulent excuse for their attitudes. Neutrality does not allow this, however.

However, I do admit that by using "racism" as an example I may be allowing the issue to be overstated. Perhaps by using an example that can be proven, but that would never be allowed on wikipedia, I can make my point a little better.

Here goes *cough*

There were no WMDs in Iraq, and it seems likely that the American public was mislead about them. If not by our current commander in chief, than by those who led him to believe that these weapons were there.

Short, yes. Verifiable, yes. (At LEAST as much as the bigfoot page, but I won't get into that) Neutral? Not by the current definition.

In fact, several completely factual, neutral, and verifiable facts - when placed in close proximity - immediately become non neutral because they would offend some, and these people would then go on to claim they were false (while each of them can be proven)

1. President Bush, at the least, implied that Saddam Hussein was connected with the attacks on 9/11. (This can be backed by numerous audio and video broadcasts near the start of the Iraq war)

2. The 9/11 attacks were committed by Al Qaeda.

3. Al Qaeda is a religious terrorist group

4. Saddam Hussein considered religious leaders, and groups, a threat to his power.

5. Saddam delt with threats to his power by killing or otherwise eliminating them.

All of the above statements are factual and taken one at a time even the most militant Bush supporter would agree to their accuracy. But when put together they paint a decidedly un-neutral view. Why would things that can be verified as fact individually, and viewed as neutral separately stand little to no chance of ever being grouped in wikipedia? I think the rule should be amended, not in spirit, but in wording. Rather than "Neutral" the policy should be "Truthful". At best the policy of neutrality only approaches truthiness, and that's not quite the same thing, is it?

There are some huge flaws in your logical thread, as it is worded now.

You're missing the word "all" in point 4, for example. Saddam might have considered religious leaders generally to be a threat but may have made allowances for some. Without the word "all" in there, your point 6, which is what was obviously being implied by the others, ("Bush was wrong, since Saddam couldn't have been connected with people he was trying to kill or otherwise eliminate") wouldn't stand up.

Furthermore, your thread assumes that Saddam is a consistent, logical and rational leader who treats people and groups according a set of easily determinable rules, which is POV no matter how you look at it. --BenMcLean 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity (philosophy)

This entry was removed as part of the clean-up of the article Objectivity (philosophy). "Neutral point of view" is a concept of journalism and not of objectivity in philosophy. The clean up of Objectivity (philosophy) will also involve removal of erroneous sections. The author of that article made many redirect errors to that article and many errors in definition. Amerindianarts 06:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The term "POV"

This is something of a pet peeve of mine, but is their anyway to get editors to stop using phrases such as "that statement is POV" or "this article has POV" so frequently? By definition a "neutral point of view" is a still a "point of view", it simply is one that takes an objective approach to a topic without supporting a certain opinion on the arguement. A point of view that supports a certain opinion on a topic is defined as "biased", therefore an article that "lacks NPOV" would be from a biased point of view, and should be regarded as "BPOV", or something to that effect. Saying "this article shouldn't have a point of view" sounds ignorant and contridicts itself; If something conveys an idea, as all articles do, then BY DEFINITION IT HAS A POINT OF VIEW! The question is whether that point of view an article coveys is biased or unbiased, in which case a biased statment should be removed from an article as it contridicts the policy of neutral 'point of view'. If editors were to start using a different phrase in place of POV, is it not possible that others would catch on and use that ignorant phrase less often? I am not insulting the individuals who use the term "POV" to mean "biased", nor am I saying that they themselves are ignorant, I'm simply stating that, in my opinion, posts such as "articles shouldn't have POV" sound ridiculous and make the editors appear foolish. --69.205.162.73 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pet peeves are not pertinent to Wiki and are less than objective, just as are making edits based upon personal preference. I use both "not a NPOV" and "POV" and naturally assumed that any intelligent, level-headed person would understand these terms, as do many editors. As for your "BY DEFINITION",, perhaps you should reconsider your own position. The editor of the New York Times recently appeared on a Sunday news show in order to defend his paper's decision to print the Government's policy of freely investigating citizen's financial records according to Homeland Security, Patriot Act, etc. In defence, the editor stated the article was reported in a neutral, truthful manner, but in response to the distinction initiated by the commentator also stated that the New York Times has a point of view and has taken a position on the subject. Thus, both of these well known journalists are making the very distinction you wish to eliminate. Your pet peeve is exactly that, and doesn't hold water.

Actually a NPOV is not a point of view at all, if it conforms to the journalistic guidelines for objectivity in reporting. Stating the facts is not a "point of view" as determined according to Wiki NPOV. Amerindianarts 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I did state that in my I had a pet peeve toward the use of the term, my reason for posting was not because I had a pet peeve, but rather because I honestly believed that the term POV meant something it did not, I mistakingly belived there to be something of a grammatical error which was in fact not present. Further, I was not trying to remove the distinction between neutral point of view and biased point of view, but rather regarding them both as different forms of point of view, under a misdefinition I held of "point of view" being a broader category cointaining both neutral and biased points of view, where in fact it appears that the context in which the term "point of view" is used in journalism seems to mean "not holding a neutral point of view". However, the post after mine did bring up a valid point that an intelligent person should be able to understand the definition of POV as it is used in this context. From there, I will have to admit that I had been more hasty than usual with my post, and am going to have to ask editors to disregard my suggestion, as I was applying an innacurate definition of "POV" and failed to properly read up on the definition that was being used. I was thinking in the context that, if someone is observing information and recording it, then whether or not they are being objective in the sense of journalism ,that is to say that they are recording facts without supporting one opinion over another, that they as a human being have a subjective observation of the world, and that whether or not what they integrate their "point of view" into what they record, or just record the facts they observe, that regardless they are still observing the facts as a subject, and in that regard, what they record has been interpreted through a subjective "point of view". In essence, I was mistaking the term "point of view" for meaning perspective. Please disregard my previous post as I likely should have put more research into what was meant by the term POV. I honestly was not trying to deny the distiction between biased and unbiased, nor was my sole motivation for posting based on a pet peeve.

No problem. When I use "point of view" I mean non-neutral. However, the distinctions we make are not always so clear cut, especially when using the terms "neutral point of view", "point of view", and especially "objectivity". They may all ultimately be "points of view" even when claiming neutrality. So, "neutrality" often requires policy or prescription. I often see Wiki users making edits that involve personal preference, e.g. most commonly regarding variable spellings. You usually have to let these edits slide because the editor will argue till the cows come home that their spelling is the most commonly accepted. Isn't this a point of view? Wouldn't reverting the edit be a Point of view? What is "commonly accepted"? It usually is a point of view, and so on.... Changing one spelling to another spelling may be simply going from one fact (correct spelling) to another fact (correct spelling), which are each neutral so to speak, but, making the change itself is based upon personal preference, or a point of view. So, if you consider factual evidence (correct spelling) a neutral point of view, and changes according to personal preference as a point of view, then NPOV is not really a POV.-- Amerindianarts 22:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to read this essay (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NPOV_is_an_ideal)

I am familiar with it. Your point being?????? Amerindianarts 03:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV situation

The article Joe McCarthy is being controlled by to extremely POV people and I want to get the article reviewed to see if this is correct. Who do I ask to initiat it? Thanks!Judgesurreal777 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You can use the Help link on the left navigation box, or you can go to your user talk page and make a "helpme" request. You do this by inserting double brackets {{, then typing helpme, and then closing the brackets , After that you type your question and wait for an answer. Amerindianarts 16:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles tagged without explanation

What can be done about editors who tag articles as POV without giving any reasoning for the tag, or anything that they suggest needs to be done or changed in the article to make it NPOV? Is there a burden on the editor placing the tag to explain why, and what needs to be done? If the editor doesn't explain after a certain period of time, can the tag be removed ? Sandy 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page for a disambig. page. I think you need to go Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, or pose the question with a ( {{helpme}} ) tag on your own talk page. Amerindianarts 23:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Sheesh, one of the NPOV articles directed me here, so now I'll have to go back and find that and fix it. Sandy

[edit] Objectivity (philosophy)

Does anybody actually think that "Neutral point of view" can apply as a description to an academic field where there is no agreed definition of "objectivity" and most philosophers cannot agree as to what the objective is?? It seems inane to add it to this disambig page. NPOV may apply to the article itself, but "objectivity" itself as a philosophical concept does not fall under this heading. Amerindianarts 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect to Objectivity (disambiguation)

I just posted this message on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.

There is no need to have a disambiguation page when there are fewer than two main namespace articles to be linked to. It would be just as effective to redirect neutral point of view to Objectivity (disambiguation) with a top link to the Wikipedia page using the {{selfref}} template (which I notice the page already has).

Does anyone agree? Khatru2 05:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tragedy

In I-35W Mississippi River bridge, someone removed the word "tragedy" due to its POV meaning. Dictionary.com defines it as "a lamentable, dreadful, or fatal event or affair"[1]. I believe the facts indicate that the bridge collapse was a "fatal event" and therefore the word is appropriate. Any thoughts?--Appraiser 14:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if dictionary.com is the best referance. This is where I give a shameless plug for the Oxford English Dictionary. But in anycase, why not just say it was fatal instead of a tragedy. Because it was undeniably fatal. Tragedy, as a word, should only be used when refering to drama. Just my humble thoughts.--Erobos 20:06, 8 January 2008

[edit] NPOV biased against truth?

At first glance the notion of NPOV seems reasonable. However, in cases where there is an objective truth, it seems that NPOV is forced to give undue credit to ideas contrary to the truth. Maintaining truth is more important than maintaining the notion of "NPOV"...Mickeyg13 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Some people, a lot of people, have "opinions" that are directly, verifiably, objectively false. It's important to state their opinions as their opinions, but it's biased to suggest that it's reasonable to believe they're true at all. --Jammoe 01:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case you'd talk about, I don't think you'd find anyone suggesting it's reasonable to believe they're true. You might find a statement such as: "Group X believes that Y," without further clarification as to the fact that they're wrong, but absence of a declaration of falsehood is not a declaration of truth. --Shortgeek 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates and Categories

When NPOV problems or problems of WP:UNDUE arise in the body of an article, there is usually a remedy, which is to provide a balancing POV from other published sources. However, in the past months, I have encountered a number of disputes over the use of templates and categories. If an organization or living person is assigned to a pejorative category, there is no opportunity to present balancing cites -- being in a category is like being pregnant, either you is or you ain't. My personal feeling is that any contentious assignment to a template or category, regardless of how many sources can be produced to support the move, should be avoided altogether, and such contentious material should be placed solely in the body of an article where it can be rebutted. Has this question come up before? Do other editors have a solution in mind? --Marvin Diode 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi. I have a similar situation but I'm in the 'categorise' group. John Bodkin Adams was tried for murder but acquitted. In 1957. The police files were opened in 2003 and a book, Cullen (2006), is quite clear that he was a serial killer. Even the judge in the case (Patrick Devlin) called Adams a "mercenary mercy killer" in his 1985 book. Another book (Hallworth, 1984) agrees he was a killer. Basically, there is a consensus that he was a killer, though a (less reliable ) minority (written by people with less access to evidence) hold that he wasn't (eg. Hoskins, 1984, Surtees, 2000). This debate can be reflected in the article to conform with NPOV, but what about categorising him as a serial killer? As you said, it doesn't show NPOV subtleties. But weight of evidence suggests it should be applied.
I contend that we go with consensus. Having him in the category would enable readers to find his article more easily where they can then decide for themselves. Cullen (a 680 page book) is so thorough (or at least seemingly so), and the only book written since the police files were declassified, that it is authoritative and reliable to such an extent that it seems it should take precedence over the 'not-guilty' books (- two of them, which never saw any evidence that wasn't presented in the court case).
Additionally, in a further complication, two other editors have decided that the verdict cannot be questioned at all. (Their rationale isn't clear why.) This is problematic since Cullen also presents evidence that the trial was fixed by the government for an acquittal (see the article for details). If this is true, then do cited sources outweigh a dodgy verdict from a former time when justice wasn't quite so blind? (For a comparison, an article on a woman convicted of being a witch in the 17th century wouldn't categorise her under 'witch' if nowadays sources convincingly questioned this.)
SO, to close - can a category be used to reflect a consensus shown in an article's cited sources (yet being a binary definition, the category itself doesn't show shades of NPOV)? Secondly, if the verdict in the trial is unreliable (and if this too is cited fully), can the category of "serial killer" be used, ignoring this verdict of not-guilty? What are people's views? Malick78 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Your views are carefully thought out and well presented. You even offer a reasonable benefit to be had from categorization, i.e., to help readers find related articles. My views, on the other hand, are colored by the fact that I have witnessed many battles where categorization became a weapon in the hands of POV-pushers, and to me, this outweighs the potential benefits. After all, Wikipedia's reputation has been soiled when it has been used as a vehicle to defame public figures -- that's why the BLP policy was written. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your opinion. It should be noted though that Adams died in 1983 and so BLP does not apply in this case. Would that not give us more leeway? Also, not categorising him is also POV (it gives undue weight to a judicial verdict, which in this case is highly suspect:) ). Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharing experiences about things that helped NPOV in controversial situations?

Another editor, working with me on some challenging articles, suggested the NPOV noticeboard for a particular problem. The noticeboard led me to this page. On reading much good advice here, I have a sense that many of the resolution methods deal more with POV disputes between individuals and less with either overall article structural/POV issues, or fighting camps of editors supporting certain POVs. May I suggest some things I've seen work, some possible suggestions, and perhaps see if there is wisdom for the group as well as the individual problem? At the moment, having been accused of POV by one editor, while in a collaborative effort to bring more NPOV to a particular situation, I'm in something of a philosophical, or meta-POV, mood. :-;

First, I must say that I admire the way the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation‎ has evolved a means of resolving difficult NPOV issues. An unrelated article I was editing, counter-terror, had used, as an example along with several other countries, Sri Lanka as an example. One of the editors at the Sri Lanka project objected strenuously, for reasons that were not immediately apparent to me. Several exchanges on the project talk page indicated that we were, somehow, talking about different things.

Apparently, it's common enough, on that page, for informal volunteer moderators to take initiative and try to clarify. Before long, we realized that while I was using "terror" and "counter-terror" as specific military terms of art, the other editor was accustomed to hearing "terror" as a political and rhetorical, as in "Global War on Terror". That last is specifically relevant, since the other editor assumed that I was bringing the Sri Lanka civil war into the current US administration's definitions.

With a little help, we realized we were using a word in two different ways, and, after several more increasingly pleasant encounters, both articles were improved, and I like to think I made some Wikifriends in the process. Now, the Sri Lanka project has some quite strong dispute rules (e.g., 1RR) -- see their talk page as well as their project page. Nevertheless, they have an obvious culture of taking it seriously when any editor suggests something is POV, at which time multiple people suggest alternate wordings, ask clarifying questions, etc.

A different approach seems to have helped at Central Intelligence Agency. Last October, the article was over 300K long, and had many accusations, counter-accusations, and arguments about sources. Purely for mechanical reasons, such as some browsers being unable to handle the page size, something needed to be done.

The basic approach to reducing size was to create a series of linked sub-articles. With this specific topic, these sub-articles variously were divided geographically, or by transnational topic. Within the geographic articles, there was room for discussing the continental or multicontinental regional issues, then major sub-regions, then country, then date, and then type of event under date (e.g., clandestine intelligence collection, covert action, intelligence analysis, approval of covert action proposal).

With a reduced scope, it became easier to discuss controversies in detail. While I have no real explanation (although several guesses), there was much more tolerance to removing material unsourced after several months, and a generally more professional than conspiratorial style of discussion.

Incidentally, the most controversial subregions and countries are getting large enough that there are frequent edit conflicts, but the existing structure is very friendly to creating country-specific articles below the existing regional level.

Should this be called NPOV through "divide and conquer"? Is taking on too large a scope an invitation to POV fights?

I'm currently embroiled in POV issues with a completely separate article, and this matter may need to go to the specific NPOV noticeboard. Nevertheless, several of us are trying the approach of sub-articles on the more controversial subjects, which can, to some extent, be discussed in isolation.

One observation, from the current problem article but confirmed by other editors about totally unrelated articles, is the role of an infobox when the infobox becomes a major battleground. Another way to say it is that there may be a POV desire to have certain [over]simplifications in an infobox. It's occurred to several editors that when this happens, when the infobox stops being informative and becomes its own controversy, it might be very useful to be able to ban the infobox from the article. Protecting it won't help if there can be no consensus on POV within it.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)