User talk:Trishm/Inclusive introduction

Statement
I propose that NPOV policy have the following section added, to show that an inclusive indroduction helps to promote achieving neutral, encyclopedic articles.

Topics Prone to Bias
The opening paragraphs set the scope and the tone for the entire article. For topics prone to bias, the definition in the opening paragraphs is especially important. An inclusive encyclopedic style avoids the inherent bias present in a definition that focuses on the dominant view or views.

Dictionary Style:
If the definition in the lead is done in the style of a dictionary, giving the most common understanding of the topic, followed by others of lesser weight, a neutral tone is difficult to achieve. An example of a definition for dance, which would cover what most people would think of as dance, but not all forms of dance: While this definition is good, some forms of dance are outside this definition, and an effort will be required to include those forms as legitimate forms of dance.
 * Dance generally refers to rhythmic movement, usually following a sequence of steps.

Encyclopedic style:
A less contentious approach is to be inclusive. In this approach, the lead presents a definition which would apply to all views of the topic. The introduction can then provide the frame of reference for the different views, making the task of balancing view points and issues of  undue weight much more straightforward.

An example of an inclusive definition of dance, which would apply to all forms of dance: The author is free to introduce all forms of dance, with no inherent bias in the introduction that needs to be redressed.
 * Dance generally refers to human movement used as a form of expression, social interaction or presented in a spiritual or performance setting.

Examples of topics which benefit from an inclusive style are those especially prone to bias, such as:
 * religion
 * marriage
 * black people

Why an addition to to NPOV would be useful
The NPOV guidelines currently use a sense of USA-style journalistic balance, a "he said", "she said" approach, where if you balance it all out nicely, you should have a neutral article. There are some topics where the balance of issues of NPOV and undue weight are not clear to the editors involved, resulting in endless edit wars. These are usually topics that are prone to bias, such as marriage.

I think that an encyclopedia needs a little more than that. What is needed is to frame those thoughts, so that the article is not so much presenting opposing arguments, as presenting a framework in which these arguments all have a legitimate place.

The non-inclusive style focuses on the extreme positions. The inclusive style focuses on the common ground of all postions, automatically leading to a more balanced article. This approach has even had some support in marriage, compared with a more dictionary style of definition, which gives a number of possible perspectives, with the dominant definition firt. At the very least, the talk page has changed from heatedly discussing extreme positions to a more broad-based approach. For marriage, an example of the "umbrella" definition is: [here]

And the "dictionary" style is:[here]

The inclusive approach is used in Wikipedia for biological articles such as swan. Here, the definition in the opening lines applies to all swans, allowing a discussion of the differences between swans to take place in an unbiased way. A dictionary definition that I checked defines a swan as a water bird, usually white, with a long neck. The Southern hemisphere birds are already defined as non-mainstream.

Another example of an article that uses the inclusive style is religion. The article focuses on an inclusive definition, which allows for a strong neutral voice to come through. It would have been a reasonable and journalistic style discuss the majority religions, as a belief having in one God, and then mention exceptions according to prevalence, but, I think fortunately, the article was written in an inclusive style from its inception in 2001.

An example of a non-inclusive article is black people, which manages to exclude Australian Aborigines as non-black, because they are not African. This is nothing short of insulting in its bias. A month ago, The editors seemed to believe that this is OK, because they are describing the prevailing view. However, I just checked, and I'm pleased to say the discussion has become more inclusive than it was.

I believe that NPOV policy, especially the sections on bias, already show that an inclusive approach is the right one. This proposed addition would promote neutrality further by showing how the introduction can be used to facilitate the goal.

Previous Discussions about proposed policy
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Proposal_for_NPOV_to_include_section_on_inclusive_introductions. NPOV talk page]

Background discussions
Brief conversation with Seraphimblade about the merit of this idea in policy: my approach Seraphimblade's reply

Further discussion as between editors who wish the article to be inclusive and those who do not

The reaction to initial formulation of the "umbrella approach" to an article which did not already use this approach