Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 27

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)

\\\\\ In my not-so-humble opinion, here go two things:

a) The best/only way to implement Wikipedia's NPOV policy would be something like this: "*According to* Source A, abc=ABC; *according to* Source B, xyz=rst; *according to* Source C, 2+2=5;"; and so on;

z) if the nazis had not exterminated I-don't-know-how-many jews, the world as we know it today would be less bad than it is?

Most sincerely,

KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Significance redirects to 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)

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 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)

\\\\ "Misunderstanding is a point-of-view."

[Leia to Luke, in "Star Wars, episode IX('Second Revenge Of The Sith')"]

signed: KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight issue on Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)
This issue has gone to medcab Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-12_Nick_Baker_%28chef%29 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

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: Enchanter 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)

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 Neutral point of view --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 Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ, 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)

---


 * <>

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.161.110 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 January 2007
 * 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)


 * Too short, to the point of not saying anything anymore;
 * 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;
 * 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: Guide to writing better articles. Dhaluza 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Guide to writing better articles is guideline, not policy;
 * It nowhere recommends to use too short sentences. Too short sentences, that don't really say anything anymore, are an aberration of style. --Francis Schonken 18:56, 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. &mdash;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: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please, go read it, including the last paragraph of WP:POINT, 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)

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)

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)
 * WP:BRD is an essay - and for policies one needs also to take account of the content of the policy template: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus" - not taking account of that principle for policy pages would be challenging WP:POINT;
 * For actual guidance on how to write policy pages, see How to create policy;
 * Please try to get a grasp of Policies and guidelines, and of the namespace concept.
 * Further, it can be questioned whether you even grasped WP:BRD. Its principles are:
 * Boldly make the desired change to the page.
 * Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT Revert back!
 * Discuss with the reverter (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.
 * You clearly infringed on steps two and three of the recommendations of the essay, by reverting twice to the same version, while discussions were ongoing (above, ), without reaching a conclusion (you completely ignored the content remark enclosed in this edit in the discussion above). So, putting a faulty interpretation of the WP:BRD essay above a range of guidelines, and trying to prove *experimentally* on a high profile policy page that that faulty interpretation of WP:BRD outranks other guidance, goes against, ahem, WP:POINT. --Francis Schonken 10:01, 24 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 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)


 * Neutral point of view 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

NPOV FAQ and ArbCom ruling on pseudoscience
Suggest fleshing out Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ with some of the principles from 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)

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)

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)


 * Speciesism is not a fringe view. Check out Peter Singer, a well known philosopher with many supporters. Also, it's not obvious that non-human points of view should be left out. Suppose it turns out that higher primates are intelligent to merit some moral status, e.g. it would be wrong to kill them for fun. Why, in such a case, would it not be allowable to write an argument from the higher primate's point of view? If something cannot speak for itself, does it follow that that thing does not deserve to be spoken for? Agondie 06:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, for god's sake. The word "population" means "human population" unless otherwise specified.  Its roots comes from the Latin word for "people," just like the word "people."  This is so incredibly ridiculous.  john k 14:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not incredibly ridiculous. It was an interesting question and you had an interesting answer. A.Z. 19:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

\\\\ Right. Besides, the respective languages of many "primitive" cultures still define "human" or "people" as "anyone who belongs to *OUR* group/community/nation", whereas any type of "outsider" is not considered much better than an animal or something. Remember, the word "barbarian" was used for meaning "anyone who was not Greek/Roman".

KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. These include a wide range of views and persons: 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.
 * 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. 2: believes that headings such as "critical views" or "alternative views" are more appropriate and in line with 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)

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)

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, -- Asterion talk 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Undue Weight
I notice certain people are deleting anti-X material on NPOV 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)

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)

Opinions-of-opponents sections
In Neutral_point_of_view, 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.

Words_to_avoid 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)