Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 36

Wikipedia talk:No original research
Comments? Peter jackson (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV/FAQ status
Should the "Frequently Asked Questions" page for this Policy also be a Policy? From my understanding, FAQ's are never policy, they are merely a guideline to an actual policy or other areas that have a need for a FAQ on them. There was some material that legitimately fell under Policy, but it was moved over a month ago. Please weigh in on the RfC: Is a FAQ a Policy RFC to determine if there is consensus for this (or any) FAQ to be a Policy or a Guideline - if even that..it could be just left as a FAQ page with no designation. Thanks! Dreadstar †  23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Policies moved from Neutral point of view/FAQ
Following requests at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ I've moved the explanations of Making necessary assumptions and Giving "equal validity" here as part of longstanding policy which is inadequately explained in this policy page. In each case I've made minimal changes to rephrase them as statements rather than keeping them in the question-and-answer format that has been objected to. The positioning is logical in relation to other sections of the policy, this can be discussed and reviewed. Other editors may wish to review whether other sections should also be transferred in whole or in part, to achieve the expressed aim of several editors that Neutral point of view/FAQ should be a guideline or just a helpful FAQ page rather than a policy. . . dave souza, talk 10:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I support these changes, and see nothing baring them at the other talk page. Discussion about this page should continue here. Verbal   chat  12:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel this discussion should take place on the FAQ page, to keep all the material is a consistent place. I've made my responses at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ.  -- Ludwigs 2  13:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion here is appropriate to ensure that these policy statements are fully tied in with other aspects of NPOV policy. Until this matter is resolved, NPOV/FAQ can and should remain policy. . dave souza, talk 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes sense Dave. Thanks for doing this. These were in the orignal policy page and I participated in the original discussion that spun them out to the FAQ page, which was done on the condition that they remain policy. Fringe POV pushers have been trying to remove these specific clauses from this policy for years. having spun them off, they then tried to downgrade the FAQ page from policy to guideline. Moving them back here makes sense and I'll fight to make that happen. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

reverted additions
I reverted these additions. please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ for details. -- Ludwigs 2 12:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion at that page which bars these changes, hence I have reverted. Discussion and justification here would be more fruitful? Verbal   chat  12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * jesus, what the f@ck is wrong with you people! stop edit-warring over policy, give me chance to write an explanation, and discuss the damned changes like adults.  reverting again, and this time wait for the explanation.  -- Ludwigs 2  12:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I assumed that this thread was the explanation, as it was made by you about your edit. I found it didn't justify your edit. I'd ask you not to revert, and I find your personal attack and language highly offensive. I'm sure you're aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Verbal   chat  12:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, why don't you take your own advice - revert your "edit warring", as you like to call it, and then justify what changes you want made here. Dave has justified his above, and I agree with him. Verbal   chat  12:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * An editor can ensure that there is time to explain an edit/revert before it is reverted, by giving the explanation before making the edit/revert. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've justified my position on the wp:NPOV/FAQ talk page, and I will add for you and Dave that sheer common sense would suggest that one does not make additions to a policy page in the middle of a discussion of those very additions. that can only be viewed as tendentious behavior.


 * with respect to your other point - I'm not the one pushing a POV here - I'm not doing anything except keeping a page stable while a discussion is ongoing. so what-ever! -- Ludwigs 2 13:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't see a problem with "jesus, what the f@ck is wrong with you people!" then? Where is this ongoing discussion? I see Dave's post, and then your discussion after where you attack editors and fail to AGF. Please revert and apologise, and strike your comments. Verbal   chat  13:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * an outburst, nothing more, at a problematic revert that took you all of 10 minutes to complete from the time of my post. now perhaps those ten minutes were filled with deep, heartfelt, sober reflection on the issues, but if so, I see no evidence of that (yet) in talk.  let's go over to the FAQ talk page and discuss the issue; I have no interest in pursuing this personal matter any further.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stability is a worthy goal, and to maintain it NPOV/FAQ should remain policy until this is resolved. . dave souza, talk 14:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, it's not as if you don't have a dog in this race to downgrade these clauses from the original formulation of NPOV from policy to guideline, considering your historic areas of interest. I suggest stepping back and letting more neutral parties like Dave and verbal and those with a longer history of writing this policy handle this. Simply put, Dave is right, here and you're arguing for a huge change to this policy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a small, unrelated point: Although I'm new here (on this page) I wouldn't say I'm "neutral" (I think this stuff should be kept, and I disagree with Ludwigs regarding fringe/sceptical/neutral demarcation). However, I'm not saying I'm not neutral either - perhaps I'd say I have "less invested" :) Otherwise, I agree.  Verbal   chat  15:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty new to this page ((at least one previous edit, last year). As Dave says, NPOV/FAQ should remain policy until this is resolved, and discussion should be here. I'm very happy with the move across. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Felonious, the only 'dog' I have in this race is that I'd prefer to to see articles that are reasonable, balanced, informative, and fair. If you'd ever bothered to read one of my edits or one of my discussions with a non-prejudiced eye you'd see that I have no interest in promoting fringe topics and am generally reasonable and careful when I edit on them.  Frankly, I'm disgusted with the rabid, childish "we MUST have everything our way RIGHT NOW and anyone who disagrees with us is a scum-sucking FRINGE POV-pusher" attitude that wikipedia skeptics display on a regular basis.  it's arrogant, it's ignorant, and it's uncalled for; if you guys weren't so well-connected you'd have all gone the way of ScienceApologist.


 * so I'll say this again, in no uncertain terms: if you have an actual argument to make about content, make it. If you just want to make comments about me, well...  stuff a sock in it, because you obviously don't know jack-shit about me, and I'm tired of listening to you babble meaninglessly.  -- Ludwigs 2
 * Ludwigs, you really don't seem to have got the hang of assuming good faith or being civil. I'm sure several of us have had discussions with you in areas where these policies are significant, and if you dismiss them because you don't like their effect on these areas that's problematic. I'd hope that you'll appreciate that these explain and clarify parts of NPOV that not everyone seems to grasp, and indirect suggestions don't work as well as clear policy. . dave souza, talk 20:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, enough of bashing each other, let's focus on the issue at hand. NPOV/FAQ has been part of NPOV Policy for quite some time, so there should be no issue transferring the material from there to here. Once here, then the FAQ can become just a FAQ as it should be, and the current Policy there can be Policy here. Then if someone feels that this Policy needs to be changed, they can find consensus for that change - including any material moved from the FAQ - which, however unfortunate it may be, has been considered Policy for several years. Let's move the material, stabilize the FAQ and proceed with any discussions around this Policy. How's that sound? Dreadstar †  22:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This makes sense, if I understand correctly, and may be the only way to make progress. Put aside the issue of the notion that the FAQ should never have been a policy, and just take it as it is. It is a policy now. As such it can be moved into the "mother" policy page. Decide what parts should be moved and move them. Then later deal with whatever is left on the NPOV/FAQ page and its status as a policy. Am I getting this right? In a sense we are flipping the process from determine if the FAQ is a policy and then deciding what can be moved if anything, to, it is a policy, move agreed upon parts back onto the NPOV page then go back and deal with the FAQ policy status later. Good thinking. Wish I'd thought of it. :o)(olive (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Sounds like the right way of progressing (I thought that is what was happening). Verbal   chat  07:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that both pages are policy, and that as such there's no reason to oppose moving material from the FAQ to NPOV. The material at the FAQ can be safely downgraded to a guideline if and when there is consensus that no critical policy text remains there.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. Dreadstar  †  16:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
This section of the policy as written or intended does not seem to support statements in other guidance which utlise the section. I have amended WP:WAF accordingly, since I don't think this policy makes any pronouncements on uninportant information. It has also been suggested that this policy supports the idea that articles built from primary source are giving that source undue weight. I don't think the section as currently written supports that assertion either, I think that's better guided on at WP:V and WP:NOR and therefore better supported by those two policies. Appreciate thoughts. Hiding T 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Policies work together. All of those can apply. UNDUE certainly applies to unimportant information: in fact that's the whole point. Don't take it upon yourself to amend anything accordingly until you get full consensus to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with DreamGuy. There has already been a long discussion about this issue at WT:FICT, in which we discussed the relevance of WP:UNDUE to fictional topics. To summarise, where the primary source is the only source for a fictional topic, undue weight is placed upon the point of view of the author, by ignoring real-world commentary, criticism, context and analysis. This problem is associated with over reliance on an in universe perspective, whereby the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real. Hiding has removed reference to WP:UNDUE from WP:INUNIVERSE based on his view that pronouncements made on fiction are unimportant, but I think WP:NPOV applies to fictional topics just as much as real-world ones like History of the Balkans or Cold Fusion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with both of you. UNDUE is about viewpoints, not about importance of information. Now, unimportant information is rightly avoided. But it is a ridiculous creep of a policy about viewpoints to start covering the appropriate weighting of things that are not viewpoints - and one that opens itself to all manner of abuse. And I flatly reject any suggestion that primary sources support the viewpoint of the author - to enshrine that as a key point of Wikipedia policy is an egregious violation of NPOV, given that the nature of authorial intent and how it is reflected in a work of fiction is a hotly debated topic in literary studies. Your citation to Dalisay's book is wholly irrelevent for the point you're trying to make, since the difference between the narrator's point of view and the author's point of view is well documented. It is absolutely dead-on essential that no changes be made to any policy that suggest that a work of fiction, as a primary source, provides weight to anyone's view. To do so is itself a violation of NPOV, because it sets an official Wikipedia position on active debates about the nature of reading and writing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Phil that the intention of UNDUE is for cases of multiple viewpoints. I think it is frequently invoked improperly (I myself have done so a number of times) because of the connotations of the alternate shortcut, "WEIGHT".  When an article gets too large, it can be described as unbalanced, and that some sections have too much "weight".  So people, often reading a little too quickly, mistakenly feel that this section applies.  (That or the content of this section was once very different, I don't know, and frankly don't care; what it currently states is poignant).  Should there be a section that discusses the issues raised by Hiding? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean UNDUE should expand in scope. -Verdatum (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is important to remember that NPOV is the most important content policy on Wikipedia, because it is the only one that is mandated by the Foundation. As a result, no policy superceding NPOV is valid, period. It is vitally important not to over-expand NPOV as a result - it's an exceedingly powerful policy, and needs to be kept in a certain degree of check. Allowing its scope to creep is very dangerous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, great, so you have an opinion. But before you edit the policy page YOU NEED TO HAVE CONSENSUS. You don't. So don't go trying to push your opinions onto the policy page, after all it is the most important content policy on Wikipedia, is it not, and we don't need you pushing your POV onto the page that tells people not to push POVs. DreamGuy (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this getting a bit confused? I think hiding was debating amendemends to WAF to make it consistent with NPOV, not vice versa? I have argued this subject from time to time: each time coming back to policy pages usually means re-starting a difficult process of understanding precisely what the complicated language used actually means, and how it has changed since last viewed. I really wish people could stop inventing new policies, but obviously they won't. This debate is intended to be in the context of discussing a work of fiction, rather than a primary source about a real world topic. In this context I find it rather odd to debate whether the primary source might be biased. Patently the whole thing is fiction and none of it is 'true' at all. At the same time it is totally unimpeachable as the definitive source of precisely the full topic being discussed. It says nothing about the authors intentions, but absoultely everything about his actions. It is inviolable as a description of the thing in question, is anyone seriously suggesting we accept a secondary source which claims the primary source is wrong and in fact such and such section on page 37 never in fact existed? Ok, I know such debates do exist particularly about ancient works of fiction, but in general, the primary source is vital and needs no corroboration as a sufficient reference for the content of the work itself. Summarising a source, any source, is normally the responsibility of editors and there is a responsibility on them to neutrally and impartially represent it in the summary. In general there is no way to tell by additional referencing whether a source has been fairly summarised. Sandpiper (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Phil, it seems to me that you're holding a firm position with a lot of credibility in the academic field, but your mistake is to think that it can be applied to writing articles in Wikipedia. WP:PSTS makes it clear that you can't: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC) The bottom line is Phil that Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements, and fiction is not exempt from this stricture. Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have missed the whole point of the discussion, which is not about the primary source per se, the debate is about using the primary source as the only source, and in terms of coverage for fictional topics, that means placeing undue weight on fictional characters, events and narrative from which they originate to the exclusion of real-world in which a fictional topic exists. Fiction has can be viewed from a fantasy-world or real-world perspective, and this debate is about whether placing undue weight on one or the other makes a difference, which Hiding argues it does not. However, if you ignore the real-world characteristics of a fictional topic (e.g. orgins, development, influences, impact, criticisms, context etc.), then undue weight is being place on the plot and its fictional elements. Surely it is the consensus that coverage of fictional topics should be balanced between the fantasy and real-world in order to provide the reader with a complete, rather than an incomplete picuture. An analogy would be cover science based topics soley in terms of theory, whilst ignoring expiremental findings or practical application. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about using UNDUE to balance between a fantasy-world and real-world perspective as though they are equally valid viewpoints. That seems to me to suggest that fantasy-world perspectives have an entitlement to a place in fiction articles, just as long as it is in proportion with other perspectives. This seems to me to be a devil's bargain - yes, UNDUE can then be used to mandate real-world coverage, but we are stuck with the very unfortunate concession that in-universe coverage gets a place at the table. Frankly, fuck in-universe perspectives. They get nothing. Wikipedia is about the real world, period. If something is not a perspective about the real world, it does not matter at all to Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An in universe perspective is effectively the same as placing undue weight on the primary source - they are two sides of the same coin - a style and content focus which ignores the real-world aspects of the topic. I think that WP:UNDUE has to be referenced in WP:WAF, otherwise it is missing this key point.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're still ignoring the main issue - UNDUE does not cover the sort of weight in question. Here's the issue. It seems to me that excessive in-universe perspective, if it is an UNDUE problem, is one of three things.
 * A problem of excessive attention to a single viewpoint. But this can't be - a primary source is not a viewpoint. You've suggested that it is the author's viewpoint, but the idea that a work of fiction represents the author's view is a very, very contentious one, and if Wikipedia establishes that as policy, Wikipedia is taking an official side in a major debate in literary theory - in other words, establishing this as policy would render every article on fiction a NPOV violation by setting an official Wikipedia position on the relationship between the text and the author regardless of what critics say.
 * A problem of excessive attention to an aspect of the subject. But for a work of fiction, the work itself is the subject of the article, all portions of the article are, in that regard, about the work of fiction - so there's no undue weight on an aspect as such. Is plot an "aspect" of a work of fiction? I suppose, but in a very factual, dry sort of way. This seems to me akin to saying that a list of cities in Iowa would violate UNDUE in Iowa. Although we would not want to do this, the reason is clearly not UNDUE.
 * A problem of excessive use of a given source. But that's a very, very dangerous claim that sets a messy precedent where other articles have to balance their citations across multiple sources, forcing the use of less-good sources in place of the ideal sources for the same piece of information in an attempt to balance "weight" of sources. This is clearly not standard practice anywhere else, and so there is no compelling reason to make it standard practice for fiction.
 * So unless it is clearly explained what, exactly, is getting undue weight that is covered by UNDUE, this does not follow. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me put you right there. The primary work of fiction represents the author's point of view, whether it is written from the perspective of the first, second or third person narration. So if you rely on one source to describe a topic, you are definetly putting undue weight on the authors point of view for all your coverage. However, even before we can consider WP:UNDUE, the notability of a topic must be established in order to justify a standalone article. You already know that we can't rely on the primary work to establish notability, so the relationship between the text and the author must be verified by third party source (such as a critic or commentator) from the onset. Lastly, if you agree that the coverage of fictional coverage needs to be balanced between real-world and fictional content, then you have to admit that placing undue weight on the fictional elements (such as plot) is not a way of achieving balance. Remember, the fictional world created by an author is not dissimiar to a scientific theory - we need non-theoretical (real-world) coverage to provide balanced coverage, and placing undue weight on the primary work does violate WP:NPOV. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin, first of all, the citation you're giving does not say that the work of fiction represents the author's point of view. Second of all, the citation is a minor entrant (and I mean minor as "largely insignificant") into a larger debate on this subject. Try Roland Barthes's The Death of the Author for one of the largest and most important attacks on straight authorial intent. But the fact that you have found an obscure book that mentions point of view in fiction and utterly misinterpreted that book does not make you correct. You are completely and embarassingly wrong on this point. In fact, the statement "the primary work of fiction represents the author's point of view" is, in literary studies, a far more minority view than the opposite - that the primary work of fiction tells us nothing whatsoever about the author's point of view.
 * As for the rest - "the fictional world created by an author is not dissimilar to a scientific theory." I have no idea how to even begin parsing that claim as anything other than gibberish. You have some sort of point about notability, but it seems to confirm my point - that other policies are better suited to this issue than NPOV. And you've got another point about balancing real-world and fictional content, but you seem to think that anything remotely related to balance, regardless of its relation to viewpoints, is part of UNDUE and thus part of NPOV, which is a silly claim. Just as silly as pretending that "point of view" as used to describe types of narrators is in the least bit related to "point of view" as used in this policy.
 * I mean, I don't know what to tell you here - a huge swath of claims you are making are factually wrong or non-sensical. You are attempting to impose a minority view of how literature works as Wikipedia policy, and are blithely claiming that this view is absolute fact. As a professional in the field, this approach is about as worthwhile as asserting that Biblical literalism should be the primary adjudicator of sources in the sciences. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil, if a work of fiction does not represent the point of view of the author, then whose point of view is it? I think it is clear that when Swift wrote A Modest Proposal, it was not really his opinion that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies. Yet a point of view is still being expressed. In fiction, an author can hold as many points of view as he likes, even if they conflict with one another. You can dismiss these arguements out of hand, but it would be impossible to write an article about Swift's essay if you were to place undue weight on the primary source itself and the in universe perspective that this would entail. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin, I'm supremely uninterested in hashing out the authorial intent debate - a debate with over 60 years of history. Read Intentional fallacy and Death of the Author - and frankly, go read the primary sources there as well. You're holding a firm position with very little credibility in the academic field, and trying to enshrine it as Wikipedia policy. That is simply and flatly unacceptable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you have not bothered to explain what that means or provide a quotation, I can't vouch for your source. All I know is that a work of fiction expresses the point of view of the author. If you have a source that specifically says it does not, then cite what the source says here. But I can't accept bald assertions that this is not the case. At least other authors can look at this source and judge for themselves. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin, there are two links in resplendent bold in my previous comment. Go follow them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't read every post above, so apologies if I'm missing something, but I'd like to add that I agree with Hiding's change. UNDUE has nothing to do with this issue that I can see. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Phil, I read the two articles which you mentioned, which I now summarise so you can see whether I have understood or not:
 * Intentional fallacy: The design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art;
 * Death of the Author: Readers must separate a literary work from its creator in order to liberate it from interpretive tyranny.
 * Whilst I agree with the arguements in these these essays, this approach applies to literary criticism, but is disallowed by Wikipedia's content policies. Whilst critics and commentators can say what ever they like about a particular work or element of fiction (subject to peer review of course), editors in Wikipedia are prohibited from doing so by No original research. These essay suggest that if they can seperate a work of fiction from its original context, then critics and commentators are free describe a work of fiction in terms of a wider context in which it may be relevant. However, we can't apply this principle in Wikipedia as whether a fictional work is relevant in a wider context is a matter of personal opinion. Whereas critics and commentators need not be constrained by what an author says about their work, nor the author's intent or social situation, nor anything that previous commentators have said about a work in order to describe its wider relevance, Wikipedians have to tread more carefully and cite such ideas from secondary sources, rather than create their own ideas about a work of fiction.
 * I am not suggesting either of the essays as style guides for how to use sources. I am merely saying that we cannot, as a matter of policy, declare that works of fiction represent the viewpoints of their author, as to do so is to automatically set every fiction article in fundamental POV opposition to huge swaths of literary criticism. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they represent the viewpoint of their author, its common sense, otherwise every author would be free to commit liable by calling it fiction. If A Modest Proposal or Gulliver's Travels does not represent Swift's viewpoint (admittedly a satirical one), then whose viewpoint does his writing represent? And if a critic takes an opposite or a tangential view to the point of view of the author, surely that is in accordance with the recomendations of the Intentional fallacy and Death of the Author of which you are so fond?
 * Insisting "it's common sense" fails to erase the decades of debate and criticism predicated on the fact that a work of fiction does not represent the viewpoint of an author. To set "works of fiction represent the view of the author" as official Wikipedia policy is a much more egregious NPOV violation than an overly long plot summary is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From the perspective of a critic, you are right. But from the perspective of an editor of Wikipedia, you could not be more wrong. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that, in fact, Wikipedia's policy is explicitly opposed to large swaths of mainstream literary criticism? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand Phil's point, and I think it is a distraction to get bogged down in a debate in literary theory. Articles should not give undue weight to fringe views. We are now faced with a practical question: how do we identify fringe views? If the view is xpressed in one source, and is not refered to in any other sources, I would say that is a good sign it is a fringe view. If I write an article on why Barthes is full of shit (and I provide an original argument) and it is published in Daedalus we know we have a reliable and verifiable source ... but is my view mainstream or fringe? Well, if after ten years no other published article cites mine, and there is no evidenc that anyone assigns my article in their class except me, I'd say mine is a fringe view. Phil, are you saying you would consider my view mainstream? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say that a view published in a peer-reviewed, reliable journal, the view is mainstream, if not always hugely important, but that seems beside the point - the issue I'm raising is that there is a mainstream view that authorial intent is irrelevant in understanding literary texts. To enshrine as policy that works of fiction represent the views of their authors is to enshrine, as policy, the official Wikipedia position that the extremely mainstream view against authorial intent is wrong. That is a NPOV violation. I am not sure what you are responding to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not the arguement you have made above: that the primary work does not express a viewpoint. Swift clearly expresses viewpoints in his work. To place undue weight on the primary source written from an in universe perspective, for instance by repeating his arguments in A Modest Proposal that children make a nourishing food whether whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled as if they were true is clearly nonsense. You have argued that WP:UNDUE does not apply when an article about a fictional topic is written using only the primary source from an in universe perspective, by saying that the author's perspective is irrelevant. On the contrary, it is precisely his point of view that makes it such an interesting piece of humorous fiction, because its arguments cannot be repeated as if they were fact. And it is for precisely this reason that editors in Wikipedia cannot place undue weight on the primary source in order to provide balanced coverage of this work. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made no claims whatsoever on whether a primary source expresses a viewpoint, to my knowledge. In fact, I've remained pointedly agnostic on the subject, because my personal convictions on the matter are immaterial. The central problem is this - your claim is that reliance on a primary source in the case of fiction gives undue weight to the view of the author. I am relatively willing to grant this for articles about non-fiction. But for fiction? It is not clear and not common or accepted knowledge that a work of fiction represents the view of the author. And I've pointed to two major, major essays that establish that. So when you insist that a work of fiction represents the POV of the author, you are trying to step into a very old and long-standing debate - one that is unresolved, that we are not going to resolve, and that I am uninterested in rehashing on a Wikipedia talk page.
 * The problem - which remains - is this. The claim that a work of fiction represents the author's POV is itself a controversial POV about fiction, and thus cannot be enshrined as policy without violating NPOV. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Phil, this is not an argument about authorian intent -that might belong on the talk page for an article on reader response theory, or th article on any given text. The question is "what sources do we have for my views" and it seems very obvious to me that the sources are either article or books or bookchapters (and so on) I wrote, or similar stuf by other people but claiming to represent my views. The former are called primary sources or Wikipedia purposes (not perhaps for reader response theory so lets not muddy the waters or change the subjct, this is not a discussion of literary theory, it is a discussion of NPOV), and the latter are claled secondary sources for Wikipedia purposes. I think you are very wrong to claim that my peer-reviewed journal article demonstrates that my views are mainstream. Academic journals often publish articles that do not represent or do not emerge as mainstream. I suggest you read up on th sociology of science starting with Berger and Luckman's The social construction of reality. When a view is widely cited, or when the view circulates widely with no need to provide any citation for whoever first promoted it (like "gravity" - articles on physics do NOT cite the originl researh by Galileo and Newton establishing the existence of gravity, it has become a fact), then it is clearly mainstream. But you honestly think every view published in a peer-reveiewed journal is mainstram? Please give this more thought. Nature and Science sometimes publish an article promoting a view, over the next couple of years it then publishes articles clnvincingly demonstrating that view was wrong, and then no one ever mentions it. Academic journals publish articles expressing views that no one ever mentions again. Then sometimes it publishes an article tht over the next ten or twoenty years is increasingly cited by others. If you cannot draw distinctions between these different outcomes, then you are really ignorant about academia and scholarship. I'd prefer to think you wrote bfore you had time to think through fully what you warote. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say, other people have to find a view worth talking about (evidenced by a record of citation and discussion in other sources), to say it meets our notability standard. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you think I'm engaging in a different argument than I am, because none of that is even remotely relevant to what I'm saying. Are you confusing this with the debates I've had at NOR, or on the Tori Amos talk page? Because what you're saying here has no bearing whatsoever on any point I've made in this discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am addressing only your points considering this policy. I blieve that undue weight should be given fringe views and we need means to deterimin what is a fringe view or not, and I think considerable secondary sources about or citing a view expressed in a primary source is one good way to determine that. I do not see how bringing in reader-response theory does anything except to muddy the discussion. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiding has removed reference to WP:UNDUE from WP:INUNIVERSE based on his view that WP:NPOV is not important to fiction, and you are defending him based on the argument that WP:NPOV does not apply because a primary source about a fictional topic does not contain a point of view, or at least a fringe point of view. The question is, if an author is not expresssing an opinion in his work, then who is? I think he does, and Swift is a good example of this. The second question must be if a author expresses an opinon, then why would a primary source be exempt from WP:UNDUE? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem a relevant point to the question "is an excessively long summary of a work of fiction a problem of undue weight." And, more specifically, Gavin's contention "summary of a work of fiction is also expression of the author's POV, and thus an issue of NPOV." Where is the fringe views issue coming up? My sole point is that Gavin's claim is itself a POV on a work of fiction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the question at all, Phil. Go back to the start of this thread. Where the primary source is the only source for a fictional topic, undue weight is placed upon the primary source, which expresses the point of view of the author. This should be obvious to you, as real-world commentary, criticism, context and analysis has been omitted. This problem is not the same as expressing a fringe view, rather it is a problem associated with skewed perspective, namely an in universe perspective, that ignores the real-world significance of a work of fiction. An example would be where elments of a fictional universe are treated as if they are real, but ignores the fact that they may have cultural impact.
 * Every time you make the assertion "which expresses the view of the author," your argument goes irrevocably off the rails, because the assertion that a primary source expresses the view of the author is a POV. I have provided two sources that say that, in fact, the view of the author is immaterial in interpreting the primary source, or, in the case of Barthes, that the primary source has nothing whatsoever to do with the author. Barthes essay, it should be noted, is easily one of the most important essays in literary criticism of the 20th century. So every time you say "the view of the author," you are saying "Wikipedia policy explicitly repudiates Roland Barthes." This is unacceptable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These sources do not say this at all Phil. From the perspective of a critic or commentator, the view of the author may be immaterial, but in the context of Wikipedia, a primary source expresses a point of view, just like a secondary or tertiary source - see WP:PSTS for details. I am not sure you understand this.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "In the context of Wikipedia" seems here to be being used to say "actually, Wikipedia policy does explicitly repudiate Roland Barthes." Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if Roland Barthes writings supported Wikipedia policies, his writings would be cited directly in the content guidelines. There would probably be a big picture of him featured in WP:FICT, and Wikipedia editors would be urged to light candles in his memory on St Barthes Day each year when the Order of the Defenders of Roland Barthes (such of yourself) would award barnstars to those editors who tireless support of his cause against editors such as myself. However, since his writings are only relevant to critics and commentators which Wikipedian's have to cite, rather than emulate, otherwise they would be engaging in original research, his writings never have nor ever will reach such elevated status in Wikipedia's pantheon. This is not a matter of whether Wikipedia policy supports or repudiates Barthes, it is because his writings fall outside the scope of Wikipedia policy because his audience is not governed by WP:OR, whereas we are. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not advocating for a Barthesian view of literature as policy either. I am saying that our policy cannot explicitly repudiate major schools of thought about what literature is, because doing so is a NPOV violation. Outright rejecting authorial intent would be just as problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Recognising that a primary source contains a point of view is neither a repudiation nor an endorsement of any major school of thought. Wilipedia represents all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Relying soley on the primary source is to place undue weight on one source and the opinions and experience of the characters which the author has created. Whether these opinions are expressed intentionally or unintentionally, or whether they repesent the author's viewpoint or run directly contrary to it is a matter which only commentary from reliable secondary source (such as Barthes) can say. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A work of fiction may present a point of view, but whose point of view it is, or even what the view is is often a matter of intense debate - even among people who have read the primary source intensely. And thus simply describing characteristics of the primary source does not seem to me like it is inherently describing a point of view. The situation is much muddier than that. I mean, this seems to me analagous to saying that description of the geography of Columbia, Maryland is promoting the view of James Rouse. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are saying here conflicts with my views about attribution, but also your own views expressed in your proposal at Fiction. I still don't understand your analogy either - the boundries of Columbia have nothing to with fiction. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking more about the street layout, given that Columbia was a carefully planned community that, presumably, expresses the views on urban planning of its creator. If a work of fiction is expressive of a point of view, surely a town can be as well. I mean, where do we want to stop with expressions of point of view? The answer, I hope, is not "where you feel like it." And what I am saying in no way conflicts with the section on authorial intent. I agree that the author's intent is *an* aspect of fiction worthy of coverage. I do not believe that a primary source *necessarily* displays the author's intent. These are not contradictory statements. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Phil (and Gavin) - I see no problem with providing a lengthy summary of a work of fiction if it is simple and direct ... I wonder if the issue here is not the undue weight provision of our NPOV policy, but instead, the notability criteri for an article (i.e. is the work of fiction notable enough to merit an article or part of an article)? But this entire discussion belongs on the article talk page. That is where we discuss the application of policy. The point of my earlier comments was based on the premise that talk on this page is about the policy itself, and not how it applies to one article. And I continue to believe that if a view expressed in a primary source is significant, there will be sufficient secondary sources that index its significance. And we can then draw on those secondary sources for views about that view. I see no reason why this cannot also be applied to fiction. I am surprised Phil disagrees with me on this. For example, were I to provide a summary of the Odyssey, I am in a way expressing a view, in how I decide what to include in my summary (is this not consistent with the reader response theory that Phil has invoked?) Does not Wikipedia tell me that I (and any editor) should not put my on view into an article? For example, I might neglct to mention Odysseus's scar in my summary, because I consider it insignificant. Anyone who has read Auerbach's Mimesis could argue that it is significant and should go in to the summary, since it will be refered to in other sections of the article. That is a reasonable argument - we turn to secondary sources to guide us as to how to represent a primary source. If there are no secondary sources on the work, then I think one could reasonably suggest it is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia - but Gavin, that argument should be articulated on the article page and through a request for deletion. It is not an NPOV issue as such. This page is to discuss possible changes to the policy. I have no desire to get involved in the specii dispute between Phil and Gavin which like I said sounds like it belongs elsewhere. It is obviously not a good idea to change a policy in the middle of a dispute, but it ounds like Gavin's aim was to make sure the style guide is consistent with NPOV. That seems reasonable, but what should be discussed on the MOS talk page. My concern is to protect the NPOV policy. Now, are either of you proposing a change to this policy? If so could you restate it for me please as I keep getting lost trying to follow the discussion? If neither of you are proposing a change to this policy, can you take this to the MOS talk page, or the artile talk page, where it belongs? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see the issue. While I disagree with you about the secondary source/summary problem (I think you run into a "turtles all the way down" problem very quickly with the sort of logic you're using), indeed, this is not primarily an issue for this policy - the discussion on an attempt to remove reference to WP:UNDUE from a section on plot summaries in... WP:WAF, I think - got badly forked over several pages, and for reasons that I am unable to adequately provide, the extended discussion happened on this page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about NPOV/OR/etc
Kindly, please someone explain how can someone stay neutral when historical facts are twisted 180 degr. through economical bias ? And what exactly are the ways to fight the pheonomenon of promoting injustice through pseudo-historical articles written in Wikipedia ? And why, if you please, should personal research be banned, if valid ? Also, please confirm or deny, to my knowledge it is totally against Wikipedia policy to have someone's comments erased from the "talk" page. HMycroft (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the user's talk page. Verbal   chat  07:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Would someone explain to me how is it possible to be NPOV? Who decides what is NPOV? Also, this whole thing about consensus? Is it majority rule or is it based on some principle? Also, what is wrong with OR? Did not Pythagoras began with OR? May be even Einstein? Why is it so bad to go against or question Wikipedia policies? I seriously question the NPOV doctrine that is hastily believed and followed blindly by everyone, or most people on Wikipedia. Seriously, has anyone noticed that Wikipedia has become a cult of NPOV, no OR, and a Tyranny of the Majority? Is it just me, or is it that I am asking too many hard questions for the Wikipedia bureacrats who are totally ignorant of each other and the fancy, self-elected and majority-ruled admins who agree on a consensus that does not exist in the REAL world? Seriously? Someone?

User:Xinyu

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.173.155  (talk • contribs)  04:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "Would someone explain to me how is it possible to be NPOV? Who decides what is NPOV?" - If you haven't already, you might want to read the policy WP:NPOV for the answers to your questions. Then ask specific questions about anything there that is unclear. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal
I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, but it could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated. See Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific consenus
I suggest that the article be modified to discuss scientific consensus. --Atomic blunder (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific consensus certainly doesn't qualify as neutral.

How old is the earth ? 5,000 years ? 5 billion years ?

Is the earth warming ?

--InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We've made an active decision not to allow scientific consensus to be the defining viewpoint on Wikipedia. On the other hand, we do tend to operate under a sort of default assumption that scientific consensus is by its nature the most mainstream viewpoint available, and we tend to give it weight appropriate to that fact. So while we do not establish scientific consensus as true, we do make sure that every claim that differs from scientific consensus is clearly flagged as such. The result is usually an informative article that is neutral without being misleading about the facts. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Inexplicably, scientific consensus is not discussed in this article. Since it is a notable viewpoint, it should be discussed. Don't assume everyone knows what you just explained. --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also kind of wondering what or where is the boundary between scientific consensus and fact. "That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. "

At one time (not too long ago) the notion of a planet was not considered a fact, but rather an assertion within a scientific controversy. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is a scientific fact? See:. There can be scientific consensus about something that is not considered a fact, such as a hypothesis. --Atomic blunder (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the project page mentioning "scientific fact". It does mention "majority scientific opinion" and "majority (scientific) view", and it links to scientific consensus. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Scientific opinion and scientific viewpoints are both ways of thinking or perceiving held by scientists. Science and fact (as in scientific fact) though, are actually mutually exclusive words. Science is a process rather than a thing, and fact is a thing, and cannot refer to process but is in itself the end product of some kind of process. Mars may have been discovered/defined as a planet through scientific processes but once its existence is established the existence is the fact,  but not the scientific processes that proved that existence.(olive (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Actually the existence of Mars had been noted since ancient times; people just weren't sure what significance to attach to the fact that a few of the bright spots in the night sky didn't have fixed positions but instead wandered according to predictable patterns. Scientific consensus changes as available evidence and expert opinions change. As consensus updates Wikipedia follows. An interesting case of that is the Ivory-billed Woodpecker article: fifteen years ago it wouldn't have been neutral to assert very strongly that the species isn't extinct. Now? Well I sure hope those birds are out there hiding in the Arkansas wilderness (we probably all hope they still exist), but it wouldn't be neutral to affirm that they're alive (even if it's true). We report that the evidence has serious interest from experts in ornithology, reflect the strengths and the weaknesses of that evidence as it exists today, and (quietly) hope tomorrow's headlines contain a beautiful photograph of those great birds nesting. When and if that happens, the balance of that article will undergo substantial change. Best regards, Durova Charge! 07:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For a glimpse of how scientific opinion has shiftied with changing evidence during Wikipedia's project lifetime, compare the 2002 article to today's. Durova Charge! 07:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What is neutral by nature is not scientific consensus, but the scientific method. In practice, there are good and bad scientists, mistakes are made, some have a personal agenda, and what they can work on and what they can publish is decided by money and politics. As a result, scientific consensus can be just as biased as any other kind of consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and, the so called scientific method is as old as mankind's ability to observe and measure, to relate cause and effect and fundamentally to think. To see science as an frozen ideal or idea is a flawed view, because science is based on thinking and observational processes that must be by definition subjective, however much objective boundaries are designed to control that subjectivity. Subjectivity is not frozen but constantly changing process itself. NPOV needs to be underpinned by other policies and guidelines like WP:Weight,  more attempts to control subjectivity. Articles deemed scientific as with all articles, must present multiple viewpoints (mainstream and fringe taken into consideration... another bag of snakes) so that the reader is presented with the best information on all sides of the topic, and can make decisions on their own. This approach helps define the NPOV of the article itself, but not the NPOV of the topic, the editor, or the "science". Fact, and truth another subjective measurement, don't and can't enter into the actual act of placing  information into the  encyclopedia. My two cents:o).(olive (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Just to clarify, my suggestion was that "scientific consensus" should be discussed somewhere in the article; I never said that it should be called the defining viewpoint, the neutral viewpoint, or even the mainstream viewpoint, just that it should be discussed, period. --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * and to clarify further . My comments were to the editor asking about these points. I often find that unless a common ground of understanding is established it can be hard to reach agreement. I haven't commented here in a long time but have a bit of time to jump in again ... thus my comments . Best wishes.(olive (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Alternatively, the article should explain why scientific consensus does not apply to NPOV. --Atomic blunder (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It would add nothing, and as I see it the article is fine the way it is. These are rules, not theories.--71.162.70.211 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Role of Truth and NPOV
Does NPOV got anything to do with Truth? I mean, THE TRUTH. It would be interesting to see a discussion go on about this issue. I mean, seriously, does Truth have to follow the NPOV guideline? Or any guidelines?

--XH 03:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)User:Xinyu
 * and on exactly what subject are you certain you know the truth, and are prepared to make a definitive statement  of it? DGG (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps NPOV depends on one's point of view? : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The best we can do is follow the standards of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and so forth to try to get as close to the objective truth as we can. People who think they know THE TRUTHTM typically have some ideology or product to sell and haven't really done any sort of critical thought about it beyond wanting to advance their own philosophical/religious or financial situation. DreamGuy (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear, DreamGuy. Though frequently objectivity requires the admission that there's more than one 'truth' to a subject. (Why is it that some people demand/feel the need for one simplistic, usually very reductive answer to complicated questions? That's the real problem here, if there is one.)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is NPOV necessarily the best way?
I assume this has been debated to death before now; if so, where would I go to see what people have said on the subject and/or have my 2p worth? 92.234.8.173 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Josh


 * As opposed to what?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As opposed to anything; isn't that the definition of best? I'm happy to have a debate about the advantages and disadvantages of NPOV if you like; I just wanted to make sure it was in the right place before we started.


 * Specifically, I was wondering whether NPOV is necessarily the best way of handling highly controversial topics; I find that the POV edits in the talk pages add a lot to my understanding of some issues, and so I started thinking about whether allowing some POV on pages - in a space for it - in addition to the main NPOV body of the article - might add something. If it could be adequately referenced, would it already be considered reasonable to say something like 'one side's view of X is commonly held to include [POV], and the other side argue [opposite POV]'? 92.234.8.173 (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

I don't see how it would benefit the current page.--71.162.70.211 (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Josh, isn't what you're talking about ("to say something like 'one side's view of X is commonly held to include [POV], and the other side argue [opposite POV]' ") covered in the 'Bias' subsection? (i.e. "...the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence...") --Tyranny Sue (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead end link on NPOV page?
When I clicked on the 'religion' link in the 'balancing different points of view' part of the 'Common objections and clarifications' section of the NPOV page, I was taken to an FAQ page that does not have a religion section at all (not in its contents list or in the actual article). Has this section been moved and the link not updated? Could it have been deleted by mistake? Although I do not belong to a religion, I am sure that there are many people who are unsure of how they can write objectively about their own beliefs. Where has the answer to this question gone? Myrtacea (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Religion section in the FAQ was moved to this policy. I've fixed the link.  Dreadstar  †  08:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV vios are a blockable offense
Feedback, on this, please? This is nothing as complex as Neutrality enforcement, which didn't gain consensus apparently. This is very simple. You violate our behavioral policies too much--you're gone, with blocks by uninvolved admins. You violate our copyright policies too much--you're gone, with blocks by uninvolved admins. You violate NPOV too much--you should be gone, with blocks by uninvolved admins.

Unrepentant POV pushers are no better than those who violate copyright, since NPOV is on the same level as our copyright policy. So why don't we do something about it? rootology ( C )( T ) 16:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the bold move by ASE Unomi (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably as the most obvious POV pushers are highly uncivil at the same time - and so are blocked in that regard. WP is still crawling with civil POV pushers - and why are they still with us?  Because they are not being uncivil and admins are flat out working that out - much less dealing with POV issues.  Shot info (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * typically the problem with the polite pushers for admins is that the extent of NPOV violation is often debatable, and requires following a complex history and learning something about the subject--by which time one may not have a completely neutral POV oneself. In contrast, behavioural problems are much easier to target. If two sides are debating content, one of them may be completely right; if two sides are exchanging insults, one can simply block them both--as we usually do. To deal with content and POV problems we need a subtler approach than blocks. I'm not saying we shouldn't deal with them better--it's an urgent priority; I'm just saying it is not going to be easy. DGG (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The NPOV policy, a core policy, indicates that we include all significant (notable I would say) views.

''Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.''
 * So the aggressive censoring of content some find objectionable and other highly abusive behavior towards editors with minority viewpoints is totally unacceptable. There's been a move to get rid of criticism articles since Obama was elected, but there's been no willingness to merge any of the notable controversies and issues into any of the main articles. And in fact, despite DGG's statement, Arbcom punished those trying without success to advance content positions not held by the majority and ignored the marathon of incivility by the self-appointed "patrollers" and "protectors". It's been a vile business that's involved the creation of a hostile editing environment and has included actions to intimidate and harass many good faith editors in order to keep them away from those pages. Sadly, Arbcom's ruling reenforced and encouraged these behaviors, which has led to their being used even more widely since the result was rendered. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The NPOV policy says we must "represent fairly" all significant views, and "fairly" does not mean giving WP:UNDUE weight to views that are significant enough to mention but not significant enough to take over a large part of the main articles or split off into new ones. Please do not misrepresent NPOV policy in a way that encourages pushing a POV (that there is notable controversy where none exists, for example). DreamGuy (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Clarification
Because we quote it here, I've asked the arbcom to consider a minor change to the wording of one finding, which would make it a bit clearer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems over at The Hardy Boys
Hi, all. Since being featured on the front page a few days ago, the Hardy Boys article has attracted some editors who have repeatedly either eliminated content from the article or retitled an evidently controversial section. They have announced on the article's talk page that they are making their edits to reflect "the truth" and to correct the "bias" of the article (they are angry that some sources discuss homoeroticism in relation to the Hardy Boys). I have tried repeatedly to talk about NPOV, OR, and so on, but they just keep making the same edits and saying I don't "own" the article (even when I ask them to dialogue about their changes!). I would really appreciate some input; I understand it may go against me. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a very biased and inaccurate summary of the actual controversy there. I imagine it'd be difficult to make edits to an article conform to NPOV when you don't even follow NPOV on a post to the talk page of the NPOV policy. You also labeled everyone who disagreed with you as homophobes, which is not cool at all. DreamGuy (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Example for undue weight
Currently, it is stated in WP:UNDUE (first paragraph) "the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority". As this "distinct minority" appears historical, any ideas on an illustrative, yet contemporary example that would help those with fringe views understand the principle? – Shootbamboo (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your premise there is or what you are trying to get it. This is a contemporary example. DreamGuy (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you're right. I didn't see that it is contemporary... Shootbamboo (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding NPOV
I didn't see any mention of this in the guideline, but what do we do when we're covering the reception or reviews of artistic works? In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games the idea was put forth that we should only include links to reception from popular sources; but if there are multiple sources that each meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, wouldn't this be a violation of the neutral point of view? The specific case in question involves services which aggregate review scores, providing a summary of reception across the board. Different sources don't necessarily provide the same scores. SharkD (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if "the masses" are ill-informed on a topic - usually due to media propaganda and possibly intentional disinformation, why are "minority" credible sources branded as pushing POV? I have seen numerous articles (which I will not mention here unless requested to do so) where the mainstream is seriously misinformed, and the admins refuse to even allow a section for links to credible studies that do not fit with what have become (for whatever reason) mainstream views. How does this policy benefit or improve Wikipedia? For example, if an issue were let's say "controversial" it would benefit by containing information such as: "Side A view is ___ Because ___ " and "Side B view is ___ because ___ ". Then any intelligent person would be able to quickly review both views, as well as the supporting evidence and arrive at a conclusion. At present any articles that are even mildly controversial are so devoid of any substance that they serve little purpose. Would some of you please inform all of us why Wikipedia insists on such uber-sterilized policies, and more importantly, with a genuine concern for actually improving this site, what can be done about it? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.77.27  (talk • contribs)  07:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Obligation to disclose sources?
I am party to an ongoing dispute here. Following advice found at WP:DR, I am seeking opinions about some questions raised.

1) I see that WP:UNDUE requires that neutrality match the proportion of prominence of opinions found in the published reliable sources.  (As opposed to the proportion of personal opinions of the editors which may be instead based on original research or on dubious sourcing.)  To verify that the proportion matches the published reliable sources it seems there needs to be discussion of what reliable sources are being considered.  The other editors in this dispute claim they have no obligation to disclose which sourcing they use to form an opinion about the proper neutrality balance.

Excerpts from the talk page discussion:

"Editors may choose to contribute based on whatever knowledge they have on the subject and should not be obligated to share the source of their knowledge."

"...nobody has any obligation to answer any of your questions"

"Editors ... are not required to disclose the source of their knowledge here on the discussion page."

For editor neutrality judgments: Is there an obligation to disclose how their sourcing is reliable and proportionate or how can we confirm that the sourcing being used is not the original research of the editor? In short, it appears to me that the opinion among the editors at that article tends to carry a certain systemic bias, and that we must "keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors" and to achieve that end we must disclose the sources for our neutrality metric. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The italicized quotes are not from me, but they seem appropriate in context. It's not appropriate to grill other editors about their education or what books they have read.  It's much better to stick to what's in the article, what's wrong with it, whether it's neutral, and how it can be improved.  AFAIK, editors at this article have not inserted statements into the article without disclosing sources.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * SaltyBoatr believes that his reading of the Second Amendment, which is contrary to that of the Supreme Court, should be given "top billing" (read here). Therefore, if anybody is failing to be neutral it's SaltyBoatr. SMP0328. (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I object to this false summary of my belief. I am only asking that WP:NPOV policy should be followed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Two of those excerpts are mine. I invite anyone to read that discussion to understand the context. The third excerpt, unabridged, read: "Editors are required to cite factual material in the article; they are not required to disclose the source of their knowledge here on the discussion page." It's unfortunate that SB chose to conpress this, since it provides some of the missing context from the first snippet. The overall discussion began after an editor removed the biased attribution "Per NRA attorney David Hardy," from a sentence in the article. (The sentence does not involve Mr. Hardy's role as an NRA attorney.) SaltyBoatr chose to characterize it as: "I notice that AliveFreeHappy, who identified himself with "civilian firearms" as a personal interest has reverted...", then launched into a discussion on UNDUE. The other editors would be glad to discuss any specific balance improvements, but the conversation digresses into setting up arbitrary rules for participation and determining NPOV by first disclosing our backgrounds and agreeing to a set of references. This has a chilling effect on participation. A more reasonable approach, IMO, is to assume good faith, acknowledge that the different viewpoints and opinions have some validity, and where we disagree on balance, fix it based on the prominence of different viewpoints. Any of the methods discussed in the NPOV tutorial may be reasonable, or a more reasonable way may occur to the editors at the time. If the editors march off on a POV rampage, I'm sure someone will use DR to stop that, but I resent the bad faith assumption that the editors can not set their own views aside and edit neutrally. Celestra (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally respect your personal point of view. I also respect that points of view must be neutrally represented in the article.  I disagree that the weight of the personal POVs of the editors trumps the weight of POVs of the reliable sourcing.  This is Wikipedia policy:  ...in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.  Therefore, we need to discuss prevalence in reliable sources, including the ones you use.  Lets start this discussion.  Reveal your sources please.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the sources are contained in the article text, properly cited, with article text supported by the cites that are reliable and verifiable. There doesn't appear to be any issue here.  Badgering editors to reveal all of their life experiences, where they lived, what books they have read, what their education levels are, etc., smacks of attempting to out editors, and is clearly a violation of AGF even if there is no intent to out editors.  This badgering of editors also appears to be done with the intent to drive editors away from Wikipedia on certain articles. This badgering and lack of AGF needs to stop.  Yaf (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf is trying to change the question to WP:NOR and uses an ad hominem attack. The question remains:  ...in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.  Do editors need to disclose the reliable sources for their opinions in light of this policy?    SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I endorse what SMP0328, Celestra, and Yaf have said above. The question that SaltyBoatr asked above was: "Is there an obligation to disclose how their sourcing is reliable and proportionate or how can we confirm that the sourcing being used is not the original research of the editor?" Ample footnotes have been provided in the article, and the footnotes satisfy WP:RS. If any editor believes that the sources or the Wikipedia article are skewed, then that editor can point to additional sources, and then a discussion can ensue regarding whether those additional sources should also be included in the Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, attempting to change the question, please stop.   The question is: ...in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.  Do editors need to disclose the reliable sources for their opinions in light of this policy? SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you dispute that I quoted your question verbatim? The opinions of editors are irrelevant as long as editors put those opinions aside to write a neutral article.  If editors are putting their own opinions into an article, instead of citing the reliably sourced opinions of others, then the editors need to stop.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you answer this question please: ...in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. Do editors need to disclose the reliable sources for their opinions in light of this policy?  Trying to be more clear here.  The issue is relative to editor expression of neutrality opinion.  In order to distinguish between "editor personal opinion" versus "prevalence in reliable sourcing", do editors need to disclose the reliable sourcing behind their personal opinion.  The answer seems obvious.  Can we move forward on that basis then?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the answer is obvious. I'm afraid we just have differing opinions on what that obvious answer is. You had a glimpse of an uninvolved party's opinion on that over at Verifiable: "... we cannot demand that an editor may not edit an article unless the editor remembers the source of every bit of knowledge the editor has relevant to the article." I was born around the time of the first space flights; there is no way I could provide you with a sources for my opinions even if I had the inclination. Reasonable people, though, can discuss and agree upon a balance, matching the prevalence of the viewpoints, without that. Rather than latch onto a quote from NPOV and use it as the basis for some arbitrary rules, read the rest and embrace the spirit. Celestra (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The spirit at Wikipedia is that this encyclopedia should be built from verified sources represented neutrally, and is not a place for personal opinion or political advocacy. That's why it is NPOV policy that it should represent the balance of opinion found in sources and not the balance of opinion of the editors.


 * Certain topics at Wikipedia disproportionately attract people interested in advocacy for a cause. At least two editors at the 2A article have declared their happiness that their pro-gun advocacy work at Wikipedia appears to have favorable influenced the US Supreme Court.  I agree that if an editor primarily reads from the published sourcing of just one POV, that the neutrality point appears different than if you read the full spectrum of POVs.  It is telling that here we are discussing a book review published by the NRA senior attorney criticizing a book, and not actually discussing the book.  I don't know how to fix this problem of disproportionate drawing from advocacy sources, one suggestion is for us to discuss just what sourcing we are using and then to check whether political advocacy sourcing is skewing our NPOV judgments.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The spirit is that the article should present all significant viewpoints in a reasonable balance based on their prominence. Everyone understands that that is not based on the personal viewpoints of any of the editors. It is also not based on a mathematical balance of all available sources. That is simply unworkable as well as unlikely to present a reasonable balance in this particular case. A vast number of texts have been produced that reinforce an interpretation more popular among academics. This makes the prominence of that viewpoint appear to be much greater than the other viewpoint in a simple counting of books. But the latter viewpoint is the interpretation recently supported by the Supreme Court. Whether you agree with that decision or not, that suggests a degree of prominence at least equivalent to other interpretations. Other suggestions are made in the NPOV policy and in the NPOV tutorial. You need to work with the other editors to find a way to find an agreeable balance. Picking solutions in advance that are biased toward one POV over the others is just a waste of everyone's time. Celestra (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Celestra asserts: "Everyone understands that that is not based on the personal viewpoints of any of the editors." No, everyone does not understand this.  Further, it should not be necessary to leave it to the honor system.  WP:NPOV policy requires editor opinions to be set aside.  At the very least we should be able to discuss it on the talk page, but when I ask, I am met with stonewalling.  Celestra also reveals some personal bias here too.  It is astonishing that his interpretation of a 2008 court ruling can have anything to do with Wikipedia policy.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the core of the AGF problem that truly prevents reaching a reasonable balance. Of course all of the editors understand that the balance is other than their own personal opinion...with one possible exception. Do you feel that a balance based on the system you propose would differ significantly from your personal opinion? Also, I am not interpreting that decision, I am making a verifiable statement about that decision's expressed interpretaion of the 2A: "Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia...." Celestra (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer to this is binary, and always holds with no exceptions ever really allowed. If any content or line of text is included in an article and is challenged, the onus is always on the person that wants to include it to justify it meets all our content policies. There can't be any secret sourcing, or anything of the sort. You have to disclose for the reader who the content, attitude, idea, or whatever is from so that they, the reader, can follow it back to it's source. We don't publish anything 'original'. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rootology is 100% correct. SaltyBoatr has not asserted any difficulty following anything in the text back to its source. Editors do not have to justify their own general opinions or knowledge that are not inserted into the text.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? I have asserted difficulty following editor NPOV opinions to their source!  Editors have repeatedly refused to identify their sources, quoting:  "Editors ... should not be obligated to share the source of their knowledge.", "...nobody has any obligation to answer any of your questions", "Editors ... are not required to disclose the source of their knowledge..."  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please identify article content or line of text that you are referring to.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are confusing WP:NOR with WP:NPOV. The question is neutrality balance and does it match prominence found in reliable sourcing.  The section we are discussing presently has eight paragraphs, seven of which favor the POV of the insurrectionist 'individual right' wing of the POV spectrum.  (Plus, an iconic photo commonly used by that POV in their literature.)  A ratio of 1:8 does not seem neutral.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, then, let's focus on the photo. What POV does this photo represent here?  And why is the footnote in the caption biased?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See also here. And many other modern militia, white separatist, insurrectionist groups have adopted the militiaman as an icon. We should be careful with the use of this iconic image.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many fascist organizations use the word "the" very often in their hate literature, but that does not mean we have to strike the word "the" from Wikipedia articles; so, your objections to this image seem typical of your objections overall. The image is used by partisans on all sides, as well as by neutral sources, and the caption cites a partisan on the pro-gun-control side, so I cannot understand your objections.  Likewise, of the 8 paragraphs in the section, only two seem to discuss any kind of opinions: in one of those paragraphs, the opinions of Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan are fairly contrasted with the opinion of Jack Rakove, and in the other paragraph we contrst the opinion of "some scholars" with the opinion of "other scholars."  That seems extremely evenhanded, and everything is carefully footnoted.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Lets focus on the 1:8 ratio. Does this emphasis on the insurrectionist POV match the proportion found in reliable sourcing?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we return this conversation to the article's talk page? The only question that belongs here is SB's query about whether an editor may demand the sources that make up the personal opinions of the other editors in a talk page discussion about the NPOV balance of an article. I'd say that that answer should obviously be no, but some reasonable people may disagree. Celestra (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, lets focus on the question: "Whether an editor may demand the sources that make up the personal opinions of the other editors in a talk page discussion about the NPOV balance of an article." If the obvious answer is no, then how can one be objective that personal opinion is based on reliable sources and not on personal opinion? The obvious answer would be the transparent answer, yes, which is for disclosure. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The simple answer is to assume good faith. If that is not sufficient, then the clear answer, based upon privacy expectations, is NO, for short of a Vulcan mind meld, there is no way to resolve anything, as the complaint is really one of perceived editor intent, not cites in an article, nor even article text, nor verifiability, nor reliability, nor the sum total of all cites in an article. Or, perhaps, SB desires to drive more editors away, such as occurred here.   That would "solve" the incessant requests by SB for lists of books read by other editors, lists of books to be read by other editors, and other incessant requests made on other editors an nauseum. Anastrophe's life is undoubtedly less stressful without SB.  Or, perhaps the issue could be solved with a topic ban on just one editor. NPOV does not mean in accordance with but one editor's point of view, but in accordance with all of the major points of view in the literature, as well as with the more  prevalent lesser points of view, with lessened coverage, all with cites from reliable sources that are verifiable. If there is a perceived imbalance, then nothing is preventing any editor from adding material with proper cites to "balance" an article.  But, demanding incessantly that content is UNDUE, and must be removed, through not adhering to but one editor's view of the world, is a path ultimately to destruction of the project, ending in forced censorship upon articles by arbitrary editors that arise, one for each topic.  What ever happened to active editor consensus in writing an article?  Why should one editor be permitted to cause such disruption?  This is less of an NPOV issue than a WP:OWN issue. -- Yaf (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should we be forced to assume anything? It would be easy to discuss the prominence of POVs in reliable sourcing, except for this stonewalling.  No, Wikipedia is not implicitly trustworthy.  Wikipedia is trustworthy because of its transparency.  Transparency, not assumptions, is most important here.  (Also, I object and disregard Yaf's ad hominiem attack on my character just above. Lets discuss the policy.)  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Facts
No true facts exist outside of what is seen, heard and documented, such as mathematics, geography and proven historical record. A fact can be "established," but this should require a qualifier in an article. For example, we should not say "Saddam Hussein murdered 148 people and tortured women and children" but instead say "Saddam Hussein was found guilty by an Iraqi jury of killing 148 people and torturing women and children." This is the only way to remain neutral. Majority opinion on any issue should not become fact in an article, and such should require a "considered" statement rather than an "is" statement. For example "Abortion is considered murder by pro-life advocates" should be favored over "Abortion is murder," regardless of how many people hold this view. True facts should be desired in an article over any "established" facts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anybody have an opinion about the inclusion of the above (or a version of it) into this article? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the article kind of says that already. See WP:ASF. We convert opinions into facts by attributing them to reliable sources.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So then the use of an "is" statement when referring to an opinion is frowned upon? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm hesitant to make general sweeping statements of the form given above. Sometimes very widely held opinions are stated as fact; this is particularly relevant given that you've raised the matter of philosophical objections re. facts. Perhaps it'd be more appropriate to ask a more case-specific question at The NPOV noticeboard. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've posted on that page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The policy kinda says that but it's generally not followed or perhaps it's not explicit enough. If an editor makes a fact from a considered fact statement and another turns it into a generally accepted fact then the latter shouldn't be prevented from doing so. Converting opinions into facts by "attributing them to reliable sources" means absolutely nothing, the reliable sources still convey only an opinion. Biofase flame | stalk 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting
Hi folx, I've done a bit of copyediting and clean-up to the top of the 'Explanation of...' section. I've divided my edits into groups to make it easier to digest (or revert) them. For the most part, I've tried hard not to change the underlying meaning of any sentence or paragraph, but in a few cases I felt the meaning was pretty unclear, so to write more clearly required me to extend the ideas a bit. I hope my changes will be well received by the many who are sure to audit them. :)

The most significant change I made was to modify the definition from "conflicting perspectives ... should be presented fairly" into "must be presented fairly". I think that's only fair. I replaced one or two (but not nearly all) other 'shoulds' with 'musts'. Also, I clarified (extended?) the concept of undue weight by explicitly pointing out that perjorative mentions imply a preference, and reinserted mention of the idea that NPOV does not mean "NO Point of View".

In any case, I think this article is becoming a rather difficult read after many years of tweaking. I think it needs quite a bit more copyediting, but I'm not so confident in my editing that I want to spend 4 or 5 more hours before I've "tested the waters", as it were. But if nobody vociferously disclaims my work so far, I plan (hope) to come back in a day or two and go over the entire article with an eye on simplifying sentence structure and generally making this article easier to read (as I feel policy pages, in particular, should be as clear and simple as possible (but not simpler, of course!)). I look forward to feedback. Eaglizard (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not looked in detail at the wording of this section for a long time, and I agree that it is very repetitive and could do with pruning. For example one specific thing I noticed when looking at your differences. "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor opposes its subject: it does not endorse or discourage specific viewpoints. " Better writing would couple "endorse and oppose" and "sympathizes and discourage" together. --PBS (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, I took a stab at it. I hope I understood you correctly. If not, just revert it.  Brangifer (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really "endorse/oppose" " sympathizes encourage/discourage" are opposites. The initial wording mixed the two and the current version is not much clearer. --PBS (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. Eaglizard (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Ok, I'm proceeding with more copyedits and such, and the section on article naming has me a bit baffled. In particular, almost the entire second paragraph seems obscure. I've detailed my questions here,


 * "This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue."
 * My first thought was that this sentence really needs an example or two, but I honestly couldn't think of any good ones. Suggestions?


 * "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. "
 * What does that mean? How does a neutral title 'contextualize' the topic? Also, WP:NC seems to say that titles should reflect the most common usage and be "optimized for readers", so doesn't that trump the need for neutrality, at least sometimes?


 * "The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs")."
 * Baffling. Might cover what same material? Isn't covering broader material and renaming articles as suggested precisely what WP:SYN tells us not to do?


 * "Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."
 * They do? In way, exactly?

If anyone can help clarify what's being said here, maybe it can be edited into something better.

I've also copyedited the sections on Article structure and Undue weight; please check my work there to make sure you agree with it. :) Eaglizard (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How do we flag an article to dispute its neutrality?
I have moved my question about a specific article to the Noticeboard. But I would still like to know where those notices come from, such as "the neutrality of this article has been disputed" or "this article does not cite any sources". MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN


 * For articles, you add to the top of the article. But you also need to go to the article talk page and describe how you think the article is biased. A tag without discussion helps no one and will usually get removed. FYI: here is the general link to article templates, and here is the link to POV templates. Hope that helps... Auntie E (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt reply, very helpful! --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

Mental reservation
It seems that one of the most common criticisms of the NPOV policy is that it gives editors the feeling that they are under a kind of forced mental reservation, which is a Jesuit doctrine that is meant to create doctrinal orthodoxy. Maintaining a feeling of prolonged mental reservation can actually be bad for your health, and I think this is one of the reasons that so many conflicts have erupted on Wikipedia. ADM (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

UNDUE
At least once a day and usually more often, I see UNDUE cited by editors to justify removing material they simply don't like. Because they don't like it (or, often, because they've never heard of it), it jumps out at them as UNDUE, but that's simply a result of their own POV or lack of knowledge. I'm not sure what we can do about this, but it's so prevalent, and such a misuse of this policy, that it's worth raising to see whether we can tweak the wording to reduce the chances of it being abused in this way. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously I don't want to turn this into a rehash of any specific content dispute, but would it be possible to give 1 or 2 examples of the problem you're seeing? It might be useful in terms of deciding what, if any, policy changes would address the issue. MastCell Talk 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with SlimVirgin. This is not using policies in the spirit of how they were meant or perhaps someone is under the impression that their view is more in the majority than it actually is (systematic bias). Quoting from the text (emphasis added):
 * In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
 * In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
 * The "support" in this case is generally tribes and communities secluded from the rest of the world. In this case it is simply a fact for them and to be quite frank they really don't care as it makes no impact on their lives one way or another. I think we can agree that everybody who reads it is educated enough not to hold a different view so there's not any real problem there. Anybody who continually tries to "push" a view that the earth is not flat would just antagonise me as that is NOT the information I am looking for in an article on the flat earth.
 * But then we get to the more contentious articles. I think the "allowed" should be changed to "should" first of all. Then the second paragraph I quoted is ambiguous and contradictory. It's simply not possible to properly deal with an article if someone feels they have to continually state that it is the minority view. More than that it's quite easy, as I already said, for someone to thik their view is more prevalant than it actually is.
 * Then there's the problem of how to deal with articles of a scientific nature. Some think that only the scientific opinion is valid, I disagree. Some issues are as much in the public realm as they are in the scientific and if the public opinion varies much from the scientific one an article should state so or it can't be claimed as expressing a neutral view. More than that is the issue of what happens if the public lose faith completely in the scientists. Should everybody continue to insist that the scientific view is the only relevant one? That's not neutral, it's bias. Unfortunately the nature of wikipedia makes it unable to be unbiased. The US is NOT the world and consequently the opinion of the US scientists or groups of scientists for that matter is not the only opinion that exists. If scientists start setting up conditions to exclude other scientists and only include themselves somebody has to play the referee and the only one that makes sense is public opinion. Biofase flame | stalk 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The section n Pseudoscience has been part of policy since the day this became policy. It was spun off to a sub-policy for a while, but recently remerged as part of a reworking of the sub-policy. Much of it is still identical to then. So, yes, science is privileged; otherwise, we would not be writing anything that could reasonably be called an encyclopedia. Britannica does not present evolution as a lie by Satan, and neither do we. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Peh. Translated from User:SlimVirgin-speak to normal language: She's upset that her ideas of what undue weight means contradict with the vast majority of other editors, including the Arbitration Committee's rulings on pseudoscience and the paranormal, so she sticks her fingers in her ears and claims nobody but her understands what undue weights means, and the problem couldn't possibly be her so she wants to change policy to reflect her rather skewed ideas. See, for instance, her complaints over on Talk:Ian Stevenson where she claimed that the term "pseudoscience" is "meaningless" and that only "ignorant" people use it... despite the fact that plenty of reliable sources use it and ArbCom specifically stated outright that the term is appropriate when cited. Nothing to see here except an editor grasping at straws to try to push her already soundly rejected views onto the project. DreamGuy (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not an inappropriate venue for criticising or attacking another edtior, Dreamguy; I highly recommend you redact your comments and stick to the editorial content and provisions of the policy this talk page is related to. Dreadstar  †  02:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, attacking people seems to be the norm around here and AGF is only pushed onto the noobs so "established" editers can continue pushing their warped views without criticism. Absolutely no good faith was shown to me when I started so I'm no longer assuming, if someone wants it they have to prove to me that they deserve it. And if someone attacks me I will attack back, afterall in every normal place I have been before it's the instigator that's wrong and not the people simply defending themselves. I suggest wikipedia falls in with the rest of reality. Biofase flame | stalk 15:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, this is a project page and it therefore seems inappropriate to name and criticize specific editors in such a fashion. If you feel you have a valid complaint about another contributor there are several more appropriate venues to discuss it. Please do consider redacting the personal portion of those comments so that discussion can more productively focus on the topic at hand. Thanks, Doc  Tropics  15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Never said this was appropriate. My comment is meant more as a criticism against the way things are usually done. I would like for DreamGuy to rather substantiate his ideas than to throw around wild unsubstantiated accusations. Simply removing stuff will not solve anything and only protects the people that made the comments. There's the old adage you can't unring a bell. SlimVirgin raised a valid issue I think and I don't see anyone besides me really trying to address it. Shoemaker's Holiday similarly discussed another tangent rather than the real issue. But while he brought it up I see no reason not to comment on it as a perfect example: No Britannica does not "present evolution as a lie by Satan" but I haven't seen anybody here suggesting we should. What I do see is that real and professional encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta don't have a need to call creationism pseudoscience but here it is labeled as such in the second paragraph. Can anybody else see the simple fact that while wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia "its" policies do not reflect those of a real one? Biofase flame | stalk 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Btw. this is called neutral point of view and not neutral scientific point of view. ONLY a policy that is itself non-neutral would demand scientific "consensus" to be the deciding factor while public opinion that is much more widespread is thrown to the wayside or not mentioned at all. Biofase flame | stalk 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems quite proper that science articles (and all related science-type topics) are governed by mainstream scientific consensus because quite frankly, only the opinions of scientists count on these matters; other people may have opinions, but they are not informed opinions. If Creationism supporters refered to the topic strictly as a religous belief, there would be no need to label it psuedoscience. Only because the supporters insist on claiming it is scientific does it become necessary to clarify the subject as psuedoscience. This is entirely proper because Creationism is not only unsupported by evidence, it fails to define itself in terms that admit the possibility of scientific treatment. Possibly Creationism isn't the best example of Undue Weight issues, because I'll willing agree that I have seen the problem SV describes in other areas. Doc  Tropics  17:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I believe people who watch this page have valuable perspectives and I hope you will look at this new page, and do what you can to help make it work: Areas for Reform Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A Minor Problem
I recently noticed an interesting comment on a webcomic called xkcd. It postulated that there could be some events that Wikipedia could not cover neutrally, and gives an example. I think that there may need to be a provision for the possibility that a Wikipedia article may affect the very subject that it describes. While the given example is admittedly unlikely, the premise itself remains valid. Bennoman (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to have WP:UNDUE updated to reflect proper etiquette concerns
I wonder if those who run Wikipedia might consider updating WP:UNDUE to indicate that, although giving undue weight to the claims of actual Holocaust deniers is, of course, a good example of what this policy is trying to prevent, it nevertheless is bad Wikipedia etiquette to imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial or engaging in anything akin to Holocaust denial. What I'm concerned about is that some editors invoke this in order to put a chill on debate on the Talk pages, e.g., "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier." A Holocaust denier is someone who wants to spread the manifest falsehood that millions of people were murdered. The average person whose edits manifest a potential issue over WP:UNDUE are people who have merely not sufficiently demonstrated that a substantial minority of people agree with some specific statement. I'm okay with the principle of WP:UNDUE, it's the tenor of the discussion that I have a problem with. We shouldn't be here to belittle people's edits, but to tell them what will fly and what won't. In the specific case I've confronted (on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis page) I've found that some elements first criticized as WP:UNDUE turned out not to be as reliable sources began to report on those elements in more detail. In other words, the "Holocaust deniers" turned out to be people trying to report a dimension of the crisis but simply not having enough evidence yet to make their point. It was legitimate of people to make edits citing WP:UNDUE until those sources emerged. It was not legitimate of those people to compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis. Is there something that can be added to this policy to make it clear that name-calling and guilt by association are not okay according to WP:UNDUE? Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually this is already covered by WP:Civility. Somehow some people still get away with this form of attack causing numerous good editors to be driven away so only the uncivil POV pushing cabals remain. Ironinally the best way to deal with this is to ignore WP:Civility and call a spade a spade like it's done in the real world. Fortunately wp is losing it's grip and credibility more and more in the real world. Many of us no longer accept any reference to it in debates so the cabals have essentially only succeeded in driving people away from their articles. Biofase flame | stalk 20:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, and I agree it is covered elsewhere. What I'm saying is that I think the suggestion to be more civil should also be right in the text of WP:UNDUE, because this is the policy people are citing as they blast people with guilt-by-association innuendo. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I have seen people fly right past one paragraph and refer only to the next. Your intention is good but if you are hoping that duplicating some of the information here will work I can tell you now it simply won't. The problem editors know very well that they should not be doing what they are doing, unless they are new which happens very rarely. This is more the unwillingness of the people in charge being too soft to do anything about it than the ingorance of the editors. Biofase flame | stalk 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, I don't doubt it...but it would help me to be able to say "Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Less emotionally-charged example
While I think that ZK is misreading the policy, I do agree that it would be better to use a less emotionally-charge example to illustrate the principle. Thus I changed the statement from denying that the Holocaust occurred to denying that the Apollo moon landings occurred. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is completely separate from this. ZK is also talking about another policy and not misreading this one. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, I find it hard to figure out just what he's talking about. But the point remains that mentioning Holocaust denial tends to bring emotional reactions, so it would be better to use a more mundane example. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 02:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My concern is that WP:UNDUE doesn't contain within it an express warning not to condemn other editors to guilt-by-association. My point was that calling someone a "Holocaust denier" when the debate concerning content on a particular page has nothing to do with the Holocaust.  I would have the same problem if someone were called a "moon landing denier" when discussing content on a page having nothing to do with the moon landing or even space travel in general.  The point of that kind of language is to stigmatize the editor and conduct argumentum ad hominem, not merely correct a page so that it doesn't give undue weight to theories supported only by a tiny minority.  If this is said in other policies, fine, but I see editors using WP:UNDUE as something which sanctifies their incivility.


 * In the particular case of the page 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, upon which I've been working, I've seen WP:UNDUE brought up reasonably, with positive effects on the page, when people were not able to demonstrate that opinions are held by a more sizeable minority. However, when people have been able to find sources backing up their claims, they receive no apologies for being unjustly labeled Holocaust deniers.  I'd like a policy that allows people to make the proper WP:UNDUE criticisms while reining in the bullies. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the Apollo moon landing hoax is a good choice: I added the example (as part of a minor attempt to clarify the wording), and merely wanted to choose something almost everyone could agree was clearly an extreme minority view and wrong. But if it's giving the impression of an accusation of anti-semitism when the policy is linked to, it's not serving its purpose very well, and a different clearly-wrong minority claim - without the emotional baggage - will be better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Zachary, do you have any diffs that establish that someone is "calling someone a 'Holocaust denier,'" or of "people ... being unjustly labeled Holocaust deniers"? I'd hate to think you're writing something that's clearly untrue.
 * Please, show us a diff where an edit has "impl[ied] that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial".
 * Please provide the diff for this direct quote: "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier."
 * Please provide the diff that shows how "those people," "compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis."
 * What y'all are not being told, is that there was a military coup in Honduras. Members of the coup-spawned government denied that it was a coup. Most Interested Persons have been fighting for the elimination of the word "coup" everywhere it appears in Wikipedia, even though all the reliable sources -- that I have seen (WP, the Times in Britain, AP, Reuters) -- have been regularly, simply referring to the coup as a "coup", knowing that the de facto government denies it was one.
 * The Most Interested Persons fought for changing the name, and a single admin changed it, and it was whitewashed.
 * I -- as one of "the bullies" -- have argued that there are more people that deny the Holocaust, than that deny the coup, but we have an article called, The Holocaust. Zachary Klaas was on the other side of that "extremely small minority" argument. '''
 * I've not been "bullying", by making this argument -- and there's nothing "defamatory" about it. There has never been any "accusation of anti-semitism." You're being conned. Klaas has written about what he thinks I think, or why I've posted things, and his mind reading has been inaccurate, both times.
 * Helping Zachary Klaas censor people's valid arguments is an extremely poor reason to change a 5P. Klaas admits, here, that this is his reason for wanting NPOV policy changed: "it would help [Zachary Klaas] to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed.' " -- Rico  18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only place here you are mentioned is in your comment itself. He did not campaign to "change policy" as you put it. By him own admission he knows it is already a policy so nothing would change in effect. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 18:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "He did not campaign to 'change policy' ".
 * He wrote, "updating WP:UNDUE to indicate that, although giving undue weight to the claims of actual Holocaust deniers is, of course, a good example of what this policy is trying to prevent, it nevertheless is bad Wikipedia etiquette to imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial or engaging in anything akin to Holocaust denial." -- Rico  18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's awkward wording, but I think he just meant that people were interpreting being linked to that as saying they were, or were as bad as, Holocaust deniers. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be -- I don't buy it -- but it does request a change to a 5P policy.
 * I haven't seen anyone "imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial" but I'm satisfied to wait for the diffs.
 * And -- to be more truthful -- the claim was "extremely small minority," not just "WP:UNDUE". -- Rico  18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't have an issue with changing the Holocaust denier text to the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax text. However, in principle, I agree with Rico that we should try to establish a community consensus before changing one of the 5P policies. No big whoop. Somebody start an RfC (or whatever) and let's get this ball rolling. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already policy so there's no net change in policy. And please try to make less edits and use the preview button, it's hard being bombarded by edit conflict alerts. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 19:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the consensus for both of the changes, and I think controversial changes to a 5P should be discussed here first -- especially in the case of a con job. (Have the diffs been provided?) -- Rico  19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)There's only one change made Holocaust -> moon landing. 4 agree with the change, you seem to be the only one not agreeing and on the point that we shouldn't "make changes without consensus" rather than giving an opinion. While there's no problem let it stand. And there's no reason to tell me not to revert again when I have only reverted once and you have reverted twice. Also please as I already asked use the preview button instead of making 10 edits per comment Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 20:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not in numbers. Read WP:Vote. Levine2112 believes we should get community consensus. There's not been time to achieve that. We've only been discussing this for an hour and a half.
 * I wouldn't have had to have rereverted if you hadn't violated BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. -- Rico  20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to refer me to anything you think I should read. I did not violate anything: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is an essay NOT a policy. You are the ONLY one opposing the change on the "merit" that "there is no consensus". No voting is needed when nobody has opposed it. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I am not the "ONLY" one that opposes the change, because Levine2112 wrote, "we should try to establish a community consensus before changing one of the 5P policies. No big whoop. Somebody start an RfC." Do you have some problem with giving other editors a chance to chime in? We've still only been discussing this for under two hours. -- Rico  20:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please quote people fully or not at all. He does NOT oppose it as he also wrote "I personally don't have an issue with changing the Holocaust denier text to the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax text". So far you ARE the ONLY one opposing it because you think "there is no consensus for the change". If you want an RfC then start one, I dont see a need to waste other editors' time over non-controversial changes. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then we two just disagree, then, don't we?
 * I agree with Levine2112, who wrote, "we should try to establish a community consensus before changing one of the 5P policies".
 * You are the ONLY one that seems to have a problem with this.
 * So far, what I see, is an editor coming in here and trying to trick people into changing a WP:5P, by posting lies -- and also by posting that he wanted these changes for himself, personally, to help him censor another editor.
 * I'd think the community would like a chance to discuss such a thing, and come to a consensus, before making a controversial change to a major policy.
 * Establishing a community consensus before changing one of the 5P policies isn't a waste of time.
 * Read the box at the top of the policy page: "The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus." (emphasis added)
 * You seem to be ignoring the very small amount of time we've been discussing this.
 * Trying to rush through a controversial change to a 5P looks like a WP:OWN violation.
 * I don't know if an RfC is required, but certainly a certain amount of time is. Either of us can start one, as long as it's worded neutrally.
 * NPOV is a heck of a thing to try to WP:OWN. -- Rico  21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is already 4 editors supporting the change. You are disagreeing not with me but with an already established consensus rather than supporting or constructively arguing why the change should not be made. You have NOT shown that there isn't a consensus and please don't refer to WP:VOTE again, non-controversial changes are made regularly without any discussion. Zachary has not been trying to trick anybody here. He has made it clear why he wants the change. But that's a completely SEPARATE issue and no use trying to bring in consensus when the change hasn't been made anyway. For the record I DO regard your insinuation that I am trying to WP:OWN anything as a personal attack. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 21:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there are not, 4, editors supporting the change -- because Levine2112 wrote, "we should try to establish a community consensus before changing one of the 5P policies. No big whoop. Somebody start an RfC."
 * That's not "supporting the change." That's supporting exactly what I'm supporting.
 * What you have, after a couple of hours, is exactly 2 people supporting the change. That's a drop in the ocean of Wikipedia editors.
 * Klaas has asked for something different. Klaas wrote that "it would help [him] to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed'."
 * I don't think that has a snowball's chance in hell of getting into the policy.
 * The way you count suggests that maybe you should read WP:Vote.
 * And speaking of counting, I only count one person that's suggesting that we should violate Wikipedia policy, and the box at the top of this page, before we "make sure" that consensus is to eliminate Holocaust deniers as an example of an "extremely small minority" that has no place being in Wikipedia.
 * And, yes, I seem to be arguing just with you.
 * I think that Holocaust denial is a great example of a viewpoint, held by an "extremely small minority," that should not be in Wikipedia.
 * I don't believe it should be expunged from everywhere it exists in this policy.
 * That looks too much like sweeping under the carpet something that should never be forgotten denied.
 * I think other Wikipedians might feel that way too.
 * Re: "You have NOT shown that there isn't a consensus". That would be something someone wanting the change would have to do.
 * Please tell me why you want to make the change so fast that other editors will not have time to discuss the change in question, too.
 * Why, after two hours, are you declaring "an already established consensus"?
 * One look at this talk page establishes that these are not "non-controversial changes" -- and that is not your sole decision to make.
 * If these are such, "non-controversial changes," why is it so important to you that they be made?
 * I'm 100% willing to abide by consensus. Aren't you willing to wait and see what it ultimately is?
 * Your contributions history goes back one month. How can you be so sure you're right? You're already reverting reverts to WP:5P policies??
 * A lot of people care about the 5Ps. We must give people a chance to contribute to the discussion, so that we can come to a community consensus.
 * Re: "Zachary has not been trying to trick anybody here."
 * Read between the lines. I gave him a chance to substantiate five different allegations -- or that he was not able to, because they weren't true.
 * If he can't substantiate his very serious accusations, then what we're left with is a request for changes to a WP:5P, to try to help Zachary censor editors with opposing viewpoints.
 * Re: "He has made it clear why he wants the change."
 * He came in here and lied his rear end off to people to get NPOV changed for his own personal purposes -- to try to censor one side of a debate concerning an article.
 * Re: "no use trying to bring in consensus when the change hasn't been made anyway".
 * Two changes had been made. I reverted the last one of them.
 * I wrote, "Trying to rush through a controversial change to a 5P looks like a WP:OWN violation" -- and it looks to me like you're still arguing for that to be done. I wrote, "NPOV is a heck of a thing to try to WP:OWN."
 * These reflect on your editing, your revert revert, and your continuing argument -- not on you personally -- so they don't qualify as personal attack(s). -- Rico  00:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice, still continuing the personal attacks:"I wrote, 'Trying to rush through a controversial change to a 5P looks like a WP:OWN violation' -- and it looks to me like you're still arguing for that to be done." Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was writing about what you've been writing, not about you personally. Arguments like, "an already established consensus" (after two hours) are open to critique -- and it's incivil to accuse people of personal attacks where there aren't any. Accusing someone of levying a personal attack, that hasn't, is a personal attack in and of itself. -- Rico  01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Accusing people of trying to WP:OWN an article (or policy actually) is considered a personal attack under the very policy you are using to make the accusation. Saying you were writing about what I've been writing doesn't change this fact. And as I already stated, I'm not interested in discussing other changes of other contributors so please stop referring to them in comments directed to me in this thread. If I want to discuss them I'll do it in their own thread. So far Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Shoemaker's Holiday, Levine2112, and me support the change, that's 4 people. I think Levine2112 might be misreading the issue (apologies if you're not). So far your position is that "change should not be made without consensus", fair enough, but nobody opposed the change in the first place and you still haven't even indicated if you agree with the change or not. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 01:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And it was done at 01:21, 28 July and commented on several times since then including 15:15, 28 July, not merely the '2 hours' that you mention. During that time there was no objection from the large amount of users that monitor this page which is enough to consider consensus for a non-controversial change. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Before I saw that Klaas was being taken seriously, something I hadn't expected, no one here knew they were being snowed. People may have gone for Klaas' specious argument, not realizing that all these things that Klaas said were happening, hadn't happened.
 * The people that you claim "support the change," wrote what they wrote before I jumped in to blow the whistle on Klaas' lies. (Klaas may still be looking for those diffs, and OJ may still be looking for the real killer.)
 * It would be enlightening to hear from them again, now that I have challenged the truth of statements that were made as if they were facts.
 * The argument that we need these changes was based, in large part, on false statements that gave a false impression.
 * I know that a lot of people mightn't like to admit -- even, maybe, to themselves -- that they've been bamboozled. But I'd still like to hear from them again.
 * Levine2112 has made it clear, twice now, that s/he supports an RfC to get consensus. Levine would not oppose the changes, if there is consensus for them -- so stop adding Levine2112 into your count wp:Vote violation.
 * I would also be fine with an RfC to determine consensus.
 * Your repeated counting suggests a lack of respect for wp:Vote. Is that your whole argument for making these changes?
 * I just read the wp:Own policy and it doesn't say what you say it does. -- Rico  03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody was snowed. The change was made because people agreed it is a better "less emotionally-charged" example to illustrate the principle, not because of Klaas' comments. Levine2112 has clearly stated even after you misquoted him that he supports the change so I won't stop citing his support until he withdraws it and your most recent remark of a WP:VOTE violation can be taken as another attack towards me. The section I pointed you to clearly states: "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack". As I already said I have no problem with an RfC but please stop attacking editors by accusing them of lying and conning people. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 03:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to archiving, I don't see any of Rico's original contents on the talk page for 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, but an example does still appear in the section marked "Top", along with my response at seeing the Holocaust language I had already seen plenty of elsewhere. If someone can go through some of the archived Talk pages for 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, you'll see similar comments to this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That is what you would need to show that what you wrote, while trying to get a 5P changed -- to help you censor the argument of an editor with whom you disagree -- wasn't deceiving. -- Rico  20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would please you point out where I:
 * "Call[ed] someone a 'Holocaust denier'"?
 * "Unjustly labeled" "people" "Holocaust deniers"?
 * "Impl[ied] that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial"?
 * Wrote: "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier."
 * "Compare[d] my adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis"?

Oy vey. Let me be absolutely clear about this. I have no problem with the change as described here. If there was an RfC asking if it was okay to change Holocaust Denial to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, I wouldn't be opposed to that change (barring the possibility of any convincing arguments). I think when changing a 5P policy - even in a way that seems innocuous - it sure isn't a bad idea to get input from the community. We've tried the WP:BOLD approach and per WP:BRD we are now discussing the merits of such an edit. There still seems to be a dispute - even if it is only one versus four (or whatever). So per WP:DR, now is the time to actively seek outside opinions. This talk page alone might not be enough to attract others. Try listing a simple RfC and see what happens. That's my advice anyhow. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 00:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Diffs requested (from the Honduran coup debates)
This -- and "it would help [Zachary Klaas] to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed' " -- were the reasons cited for the need for this 5P change. -- Rico  19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone "calling someone a 'Holocaust denier'"
 * Showing "people ... being unjustly labeled Holocaust deniers"?
 * Where an edit has "impl[ied] that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial".
 * This direct quote: "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier."
 * One that shows how "those people," "compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis."

Okay, here's one: The Request for Comments vote at the end of this archives has one of Rico's exchanges about how people who disagree with him about Honduras are essentially the same as people who endorse the Holocaust denial of Iran's President Ahmedinejad. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another...and note that one person who had family who died in the Holocaust took issue with Rico bringing up the Holocaust in this exchange as a way to argue about Honduras. In this particular exchange, two other editors demonstrated they were exasperated with Rico's repeated use of the Holocaust example, and neither of these persons are me: Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

== Trying to change NPOV, because "it would help [Zachary Klaas] to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed.' " ==

I don't agree with this, and I think it needs to be discussed by more than just a very few editors. I think it's unbelieveable that someone would come here to try to stop me from arguing that only an "extremely small minority" denies the Holocaust, and we have an article named, "The Holocaust" -- so we can name the coup a "coup", even if there exists an (extremely small) minority that deny it was a coup. -- Rico  19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of badgering to which I've been referring. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen you referring to any "badgering" -- but I would like to know if you are going to post the diffs, because it looks like you made a lot of claims that were simply untrue. Are you conceding that they were all untrue? Conning people on a 5P talk page to get a major policy changed -- just to help you censor another editor -- is very serious, so I'd like to believe you didn't just do that. -- Rico  19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does someone who is not either me or Rico have access to the archived Talk pages for 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis? There are ample examples there.  I'm new enough here not really to know how to do that yet. Please note that any comments I made on those pages were not actually even related to contesting that a coup took place in Honduras, as I have completely accepted that.  My comments were about Rico badgering others that disagree with him by comparing them to Holocaust deniers or isolated defenders of stereotypical top-hatted Snidely Whiplash right-wing elitists.


 * If you want a more recent example, as I said look here for a similar kind of comment about the Holocaust from Rico on the Talk page for Chronology of 2009 Honduras coup d'état. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That is what you would need to show that what you wrote, while trying to get a 5P changed, wasn't deceitful. -- Rico  20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, would you point out where I:
 * "Call[ed] someone a 'Holocaust denier'"?
 * "Unjustly labeled" "people" "Holocaust deniers"?
 * "Impl[ied] that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial"?
 * Wrote: "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier."
 * "Compare[d] my adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis"?


 * I've added "Note this comment" in bold to something Rico said under the previous heading of "Less emotionally-charged example" which is very representative of his comments on the Honduras pages. Someone who disagrees with him is implicitly made out to be a Holocaust denier. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with using diffs to point to exactly to what I've written, so that you can substantiate your accusation (that, without substantiation, is a personal attack)?
 * You keep pointing to, as evidence that I "implicitly made out" "Someone who disagrees with [me]" "to be a Holocaust denier."
 * Problem is, I didn't "implicitly [make] out" "Someone who disagrees with [me]" "to be a Holocaust denier." -- Rico  20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific consenus
My edit was reverted. I request that someone put the words "of scientists" back in. The Scientific consensus article linked in that sentences states, "Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study." A section I added that sought to explain how scientific consensus is related to the mainstream view of society was also reverted.. --Atomic blunder (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all mainstream views of society are influenced or related to scientific consensus, a point which I still have to get across in another thread. If it is to be readded in should be expanded to also make this clear and I will support such an attempt. On your first point I agree though that scientific consensus is the majority view of scientists (and ONLY scientists) towards a topic. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The best anchor for additions to any article is reliable sources. Any good faith editor will think twice before deleting content that has a strong reference. Doc  Tropics  18:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave a reference: Scientific consensus. --Atomic blunder (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he was referring to content to articles in general. Unfortunately that still does not address the problem itself. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream view of scientific topics
Scientific consensus is a point of view of scientists and is usually the mainstream view of society or becomes the mainstream view of society. Does Wikipedia emphasize the point of view of scientists or society on a scientific topic when they do not coincide? --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a point of disagreement. And it doesn't help for anybody to say that "of course we should emphasize the point of view of scientists" because that IS itself only their point of view. I would like for this to stay generic on the topic but I don't doubt somebody will bring in another specific example that will derail it. My point is that some issues become very much society issues and then it may happen that the public opinion varies considerably from the opinion of the scientific community. It then frankly looks quite stupid when an article keeps on referring to "the scientific opinion" when the real mainstream opinion has considerably more to say about the issue. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind

 * My viewpoint has been heard, and it's clear not everyone agrees with me. I still think that including the Holocaust example in this fashion is harmful, and encourages people to trivialize the mass murder of six million people by using the example in utterly unrelated contexts (like the person on the baseball chat site who thinks my minoritarian views on Derek Jeter's fielding competence renders me the baseball statistics version of a Holocaust denier).  At the very least, if the Holocaust example is to be left in WP:UNDUE, there should be some comment along the lines of "People will be reasonably upset if you use the Holocaust analogy while discussing matters not relating to something of equivalent moral gravity to mass murders."  But if I can't persuade people along those lines, then so be it.  I will merely continue to indicate my distaste for this sort of thing wherever I see it, and then move on.


 * I would like to point out in closing, however, that we were having a civil discussion about whether this policy should be changed up to a certain point, and then everything degenerated into personal attacks and massive paragraphs of Wikilawyering. Look back at this discussion page, and see if you can see where the discussion degenerated. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should Holocaust denial be replaced by Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Should Holocaust denial be replaced with Apollo Moon Landing Hoax text, throughout the WP:NPOV page? -- Rico  03:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be expunged from everywhere it exists in this policy. That looks too much like sweeping under the carpet something that should never be forgotten denied. -- Rico  03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I think that Holocaust denial is a great example of a viewpoint, held by an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, [that] does not belong in Wikipedia." (Jimbo)


 * No. (1) Holocaust denial is used in the article as an example of something that is morally offensive.  The Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories is not.  (2) Also, Holocost denial seems to be much less common than belief that the Moon landings were fake (which is as high as 25% of the people in some polls). Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 03:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. The Apollo Moon landings is a "less emotionally-charged example" as Short Brigade Harvester Boris calls it. There is no reason to include morally offensive examples and they have only caused more contention in discussions than less offensive examples. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 04:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I cannot see why the Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories suffice as morally offensive. MythSearchertalk 04:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should it be required that they are offensive? Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 04:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an example on the main page and uses Holocaust denial as an example. Substituting Moon landing there makes no sense. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 05:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is under Neutral_point_of_view, Morally offensive views. MythSearchertalk 06:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the recently published photographs of the Apollo lunar landing sites have created instability in the article and is now in a state of flux. If we're looking for a better example, there's Intelligent design which is a featured article.  04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No - I think the current example is fine in terms of illustrating potential problem articles. It is tempting to nominate this section of the RfC for WP:LAME though. Ironholds (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No - Denial of Apollo is a harmless exercise in silliness. Denial of the Holocaust is serious stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - Though the Apollo example doesn't go to the heart of my concerns, changing the Holocaust example does help make it so people do not profane the memory of the Holocaust by comparing some trivial difference of opinion they have with someone to the mass murder of 6 million human beings. And yes, the Holocaust is serious, which is why I don't want it dragged into a discussion of anything that doesn't similarly involve mass murder of innocent people. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)  P.S. - Quick example of what I'm talking about...I was debating the capacity of Derek Jeter as a shortstop (and Robin Yount in the outfield) on a baseball statistics site, and was told that my view that he is a passably good fielder is not accepted by many baseball statistics people...so my view is the baseball statistics version of Holocaust denial.  Here's the example for you if you want to see that this actually happened.  Look at the entry right at the bottom of the page.  Granted that wasn't on Wikipedia itself, but this gives you an idea of how Wikipedia ideas are affecting the rest of the world.  (Imagine all those Jews that died so someone could critique my baseball statistics so incisively.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - The holocaust is too much of an emotionally charged issue to be a good example in this case. Even discussions of this topic by Wikipedia editors tends to stoke overactive imaginations and opens old wounds. --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No - The Moon Landing denial is a kind of a joke, like Flat Earth. It is not "morally offensive", and thus does not belong in a list of morally offensive examples. Crum375 (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In some instances - There are three cases where holocaust denial is used as an example:
 * WP:ASF uses denial as a minority view. We could use moon landings there.
 * WP:PSCI talks about fringe theories. We could also use moon landings there.
 * The section on "morally offensive views" under Common objections and clarifications uses denial as an example. We could not substitute there.
 * My feeling is that it would be desirable to vary the examples, so I would suggest using moon hoax advocacy for one of the first two examples, and substitute something else for the other. The third one should stick with holocaust denial.Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I guess I missed the first two, I agree with this proposal. I'd say the second one sounded better, from some polls, moon landing hoax is not all that minority any more. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No - Within the context of this article, this is a perfect example. Removing it, now that it's already there, could be argued by holocaust deniers as a legitimization of the holocaust denial point of view. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please note that the requested documentation of how Rico has been using the Holocaust example are described above.  Here are the links again   ...look in the discussion about the numerous votes we've had on these pages, where Rico has repeatedly used the Holocaust example. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No Within the given context, citing Holocaust denial as an example of veritable falsehood that shouldn't be allowed to be misconstrued as an alternative scholarly view is entirely pertinent. WilliamH (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No The purpose of the Holocaust Denial incident is to illustrate the extreme limit.  I do not follow the logic of those that claim that "changing the Holocaust example does help make it so people do not profane the memory of the Holocaust."  First of all, the claim that using Holocaust denial creates an equivalence with claiming that Derek Jeter was a passably good outfielder (?) is wrong.  Holocaust denial is the extreme.  Derek Jeter is somehere short of the extreme.  To say that Holocaust denial exemplifies an unacceptable fringe view does not mean that it stands in for all unacceptable views.  Second of all, it is not a profanation of the memory of Holocaust (actually, I doubt anyone who still remembers the Holocaust gives a shit about what Wikipedia says).  The exanple is of people who deny the Holocaust.  These people are the ones profaning the memory, and saying that their views are unacceptable is hardly fueling the fire. Slrubenstein   |  Talk
 * 'Infielder. :)  And no doubt that it is the actual Holocaust deniers who profane the memory of the Holocaust's victims, but if even the most moderate individuals are carelessly compared to actual Holocaust deniers, then people may lose sight of that.  Or such was my point, anyway.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of listing both, just to show there are a range of possibilities, which listing one doesn't do. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 183 FCs served 20:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your alterations. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to me as well to be a step in the right direction. There's at least some difference in regarding one's adversary as unreasonable as opposed to regarding that person as malevolent.  Ideally (and it's not an ideal world, admittedly) I'd like to see some kind of statement against guilt-by-association.  Ideally, I'd like to see editors just say "Demonstrate through the use of reliable sources that this view is not held only by a tiny unrepresentative minority."  Bringing in unrelated examples of views held by tiny unrepresentative minorities to potentially label one's adversary isn't helpful.  Challenging them to do what they would have to do to demonstrate that the view is more substantively minoritarian would be...and real "fringe theorists" wouldn't rise to that challenge. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see why the article has to be so uniform that it can only have either the Holocaust deniers or the supposed Apollo Moon Landing hoax. Both topics are both significantly inherent to the neutral point of view policy and both could accurately depict a debate that could occur on Wikipedia. Cases that have points of contention about what really happened where this policy would apply, does not have to be a topic that is offensive. — <font color="DD0000">ℳℴℯ <font color="0000FF">ε  17:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A new theory: "MICHAEL JACKSON faked his own death to escape the pressures of fame..."

Can we keep our eyes on the ball here? This is a policy on "views." We wanted an example of a morally repubnant view that under certain conditions could still be expressed here. If another editor tells me that they do not believe in the moon landings, I think he is a nutcase. I think the chances of someone coming here saying that cannibalism is a good thing is pretty slim, and I just do not think of cannibalism as a "view" in the same way that Holocaust denial is a view. I actually can imagine someone coming here saying the Holocaust never happened, which is why this is a good example. If we really want substitutes, more likely ones could be "pedaresty is a good thing." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial a morally offensive view?
This article states, "What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold?"

I believe this statement is incorrect. It would be true to state that most Westerners consider the Holocaust or support of the Holocaust to be morally offensive but not denial of the Holocaust. Most Westerners would probably consider denial of the Holocaust to be wrong but not "morally offensive". Perhaps it would be true in Western countries where denial of the Holocaust is banned by law. --Atomic blunder (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as the opinion of a random human being in a western country where it is not illegal to hold that view, I do consider it morally offensive, and I don't think that's an unusual stance. I don't think it should be censored, but it's not a bad example of that which Wikipedia does not want to be seen as promoting in any way, shape, or form to avoid a visceral backlash from readers.  SDY (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where it is illegal, it is illegal. In the US the whole idea of the first amendment is that people should have the right to express morally repugnant views.  That doesn't make them any less morally repugnant. I would say the sentence is pretty accurate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose it is similar to theists considering atheism to be morally offensive. --Atomic blunder (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you bring this up? has anyone proposed putting this in as the exemple for the point in question? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to find what is morally offensive to Westerns, you have to examine what is lawfully offensive to them. Things that are morally offensive are usually outlawed. Western countries such as the countries in Europe do outlaw Holocaust denial. Western countries like the United States do not hold it to be illegal to have the belief the Holocaust didn't exists, it is in the First Amendment, however it is highly frowned upon. Personally, I don't find it offensive, though I tend to discredit such a person. With the other examples, racism and sexism, there can be penalties of law for race and gender discrimination. Holocaust denial doesn't fit in with that sentence, since some Western countries believe in a freedom of speech, while others outlaw Holocaust denial (mostly out of respect for what happened). Something more painfully obvious, such as cannibalism should replace Holocaust denial. I think every Western country can hold it true that it is morally wrong, and legally wrong, to eat another human being while de facto committing murder. — <font color="DD0000">ℳℴℯ <font color="0000FF">ε  16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most Jews would consider it morally offensive. Also, this statement from the Council of Europe may be relevant here, "Modern Europe has been conceived as a total rejection of nazi ideas and principles." --Atomic blunder (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That statement by the Council of Europe seems to mirror the prevailing philosophy of established Wikipedia editors. --Atomic blunder (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Flat Earth
This page mentions that the Earth article does not mention flat earth, but a quick search confirms that flat earth IS mentioned in the article (and correctly referenced). The example is patently false! Oops?

You could argue that the MODERN belief in flat earth should not be mentioned; But the Flat earth link refers to both. More oops.

The discussion of flat earth then continues on about the historical belief in a flat earth... whilst the existence of a historical belief in a flat earth has been largely debunked. Oops quota exceeded.

I think we want a different example!

Failing that, perhaps the abysmal example illustrates issues with the concept of undue weight itself. UNDUE introduces politics, where before there were none. Balancing the weight gives an article more clarity, but at the expense of the risk of failing to be fully NPOV. Kim Bruning (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We may indeed wat another example, but I think this example exemplifies something important. In the earth article, "flat earth" is brought up in a historical context.  Basically three thousand years ago, the view that the earth is flat was not a fringe view, at that time it was a mainstream view.  The article does not at all bring up "flat earth" as an example of one of many views people hold today.  So from this I infer that:
 * when discussing views held by people at the present, some views -like that the earth is flat - are held by such a tiny fringe that they should not be mentioned.
 * views that are held by such a tiny fringe of people today that they should not be mentioned in an account of present views, may have been held my a strong minority or even majority in the past. In an account of the past, views that are fringe may be mentioned. This is because in the past they were not fringe.


 * There is another reason "flat earth" may be mentioned: in discussing history, people may hold the view that people in the past believed in a flat earth. It may be that no educated person in the past believed the earth was flat.  But the belief that people in the past believed this is a belief held by the majority of people today.  In other words, the topic that the article is addressing is not the extremely fringe view that the earth is flat, but the mainstream view that people once believed that the earth was flat.


 * It is as Kim points out inaccurate to say that the Earth aticle does not mention th lat earth. But the article mentions flat earth in ways that are entirely compatible with our NPOV policy.  When the article mentions "flat earth," it is not doing so in order to include a fringe view in the article.  We need to be clear about this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's a good thing though. It might be wise to mention that the "fringe view" exists; if only to prevent politics from intruding into what is supposed to be an NPOV discussion. (think of examples that are apparently less bright line, such as global warming or creationism).


 * Also, your assertion that 3Kyears ago the earth was thought to be flat should be treated as somewhat speculative. We can find documented evidence of people discussing Round Earth going back at least 2.6Kyears, I would be fairly careful of claims going back that far in time. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually share your caution. My point though is that what is considered "fringe" may mean different things in an article and perhaps we should clear it up e.g. fringe view presently, or  viw that was (known!) once not to be fringe and is included for historical purposes. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC about policy template
Fresh eyes would be appreciated at Template talk:Policy. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Let the reader decide
This has been removed several times over the past year when it was added to the Other resources section. It's back again; was there any discussion about re-adding it? - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the article in question. I believe it shows an important aspect of NPOV. Not only do I believe it should be linked on this page, I feel it should also be a policy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hah! I hope not!  It is a bunch of vague non-sequitors.  Whoever wrote it is reacting to something, I am not sure what, becayse she sure doesn't know ho to communicate.  I far prfer to stick by our policies: Wikipedia articles should provide accounts of all significant points of view from reliable and notable sources.  If it is the mainstream POV that WWII started in 1939 ... if there are no minority views to the contrary - we just say so.  No, what need is there for any other essay or god forbid one more policy that says nothing?  And of course the title of the essay is well embarassing.  Does Wikipedia have any means to prevent a reader from deciding (deciding what?  Still not sure about, so let's just say, deciding anything)?  Does Wikipedia have the means to prevent anyone from making a decision?  The answer of course is no, so any argument that Wikipedia should let someone decide is just silly.  If there is anyone out there shivering in a corner because they think Wikipedia won't let them go to the bathroom, let them shiver and suffer, it is entirely their own fault. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the point of the article is to state that wikipedia should present facts without implying anything about the fact. It should present the facts and let the reader decide. This is a concept similar to WP:NPOV. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let the reader decide what?
 * When has anyone ever gotten into an argument for writing that the political capital of the United States is Washington DC?
 * What is there to decide about this? This is a soft but hot fact?  This is a wrinkley but cold fact?  I don't get it.
 * Wikipedia has a WP:V rule so whether you think it is a fact or not, should it be verifiable? What is wrong with our policy?
 * Many times what people think are facts are views. Wikipedia is not aout "truth" so it seems to me that often times WIkipedia will not oten be about "facts."  What you think is a fact is actually a view.  If there are other non-fringe views, shouldn't we include them?  Wikipedia says yes.  Why not?
 * I still do not understand what you mean about "decide?" Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An example would be: "Hitler is a bad man." I'm sure many reliable sources can reflect this and it is a rather extreme example but instead of stating that "Hitler is a bad man," an article should instead state the fact that he killed 6 million people in concentration camps. From this the reader can come to their own conclusion about Hitler.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, excuse me, but if the article says "Accorcing to x, Hitler was a bad man, but according to y, he was a good man," I think our readers can still decide for themselves! Nothing we do will prevent readers from thinking anything!  But so what?  Wikipedia is not about making people thing any thing.  But it is about providing an account of all significant views on a topic.


 * The view that "Hitler was a bad man" is a significant view that is found in many notable sources and must be included in articles. There may be other views, even opposing views, significant and in notable sources.  They belong in the article too.  I do not see your point.  NPOV means all significant views are given an account of.  And what this has to do with "letting" the reader decide is still beyond me.  You cannot make it a policy to "let the reader decide" unless Wikipedia has the power to prevent readers from deciding.  We do not have that power, so who are we to "let" anyone de anything? The ONLY thin that is an issue is what we "let" editor's do.  Wo do not let editors violate NPOV, or V or NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree he was a "bad man", still as a reader I do not like being told what to think. Such judgemental POVs do not have a place here when as it says, "the facts speak for themselves". By adding such a view, even when you think it is correct, you are effectively trying to influence my thought process instead of letting come to that conclusion on my own. And after you have done this what have you actually achieved? Either I already believe that and you don't need to tell me or I don't and you only alienate me. It's just silly to risk this by pushing such a view when the advantages are negligible. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is, you add a view like this even when you think it is wrong. That is the point of NPOV.  It doesn't matter whether we think it is right or wrong, Wikipedia isnot about "truth". Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth
Hello! I can see that a great deal has been made of a single comment I made a long time ago, that has been pressed into service by others as a general principle. Although I'm flattered to be taken as an authority in this regard, perhaps I should clarify what I meant when I said it.

Firstly, just for the avoidance of doubt, let me make clear that I have no doubt, if the word "evil" is to have any objective meaning at all, that Saddam, and Hitler, and many others, were truly evil men. Secondly, the comment was intended to specifically refer to the particular case of the Saddam article, and cited the case of Hitler as another example of a historical figure that could be used to illuminate the argument I was using regarding Saddam.

Contrary to what has been read into my comments, I am not saying that we should not report the POV that Saddam Hussein was evil. We can certainly say: "In a speech on [DATE], George Bush described Saddam as 'evil.'", or "When polled in 200x, X% of the world's population stated that they regarded Saddam as evil and detestable." All of these are clearly in the spirit of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:ATT, and are fine by me, as is saying, for example, "Hitler is regarded by most people in the Western world as being one of the most evil men who has ever lived {specific citation for that exact wording}"

What I am saying, in these and similar cases, is that we should not say, in Wikipedia's own impersonal voice, "X was an evil dictator". If we do, whose opinion is it? "Wikipedia"'s? Good and evil are notoriously difficult concepts to define objectively. Where do we stop? A great many of the major figures in human history were warmongers or wilful murderers, at the very least. Do we write "Henry VIII was an evil king of England", "Julius Caesar was an evil Roman emperor"? Was Richard III good or evil? Genghis Khan? What about people who were only partly involved in evil? How about we write "Marie Stopes, heroic proponent of women's rights and evil proponent of eugenics?" Or, where good and evil depend on which side you are on, "X, evil terrorist and/or heroic freedom fighter" for any of a large number of values of X?

As to the issue of "facts": in the particular case of Hitler, is anyone really saying that the Holocaust is not a fact (from the viewpoint of NPOV, as in "attested to by a wealth of historical records, agreed with by essentially all reliable sources, and not seriously contested by anyone other than fringe groups") or that stating the bare details of its events will not cause most emotionally normal readers to recoil in horror from the evil of which Hitler was the main architect, inspiration and embodiment? -- Karada (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Karada, thank you for joining us. I am pretty sure no one has suggested that WIkipedia should not provide uncontroversial facts.  I also agree with you that Wikipedai should not say "Hitler was evil."  My own view, if it is not entirely clear to everyone by now, is expressed in two principles:


 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable source, and.


 * Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.


 * It is my view that these two principles together are sufficient to prevent an editor from writing something like "Hitler was evil," or, to be more practical, provide all the explanation any other editor would need to justify reverting such an edit.


 * I also believe firmly that "Wikipedia does not publish ... any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." I am all for adding facts to articles, but if any editor added facts in order to advance his or her own argument, I have to say I would revert that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with everything you have just said above. I think the crucial distinction is that I was arguing in my text quoted in the article that "you don't need to explicitly tell us Hitler was evil, the bare NPOV facts that should be in the article anyway according to the existing policies are already sufficient to do that", rather than "you should stuff the article with lots of appropriate facts so we can draw the conclusion he was evil ourselves"; it's definitely not intended to make policy, but rather to illustrate how the existing NPOV/V/ATT/NOR policies already work effectively, and don't need fixing. -- Karada (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A false impression
I do not know when the following was added to this policy, but it is either based on a misunderstanding of the policy, or it misleads editors as to policy:


 * Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
 * You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.
 * You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.


 * Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize&mdash;readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.

This passage muddles two separate issue. The first issue is this silly fact versus view distinction. Facts do not speak for themselves, and we should not "let" readers decide anything. In fact, we cannot have a policy saying "let" the readers decide. Wikipdia is in no position to make readers do or not do anything. it is not in our power, so we cannot have a policy about it. Moreover, there is no Wikipedia policy that restricts articles to "facts." This is indeed a dangerous road, since a "fact" can come perilously close to a "truth" and then this runs up against that most valuable Wikipedia principle, "Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verfiability." Sometimes we may all agree about the facts but in many cases there are different views of the facts. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is not about "facts," whatever they are (the point is to avoid philosophical debates about what facts are) it is about views. NPOV is simple: all significant views from notable sources go in. If there is a significant view that Hitler or Saddam hussein were evil, well, then, yes, we do need to put it in the article. And if there are other significant views, they have to go into the article too. There is no way around this, it is what NPOV is all about. Karada's poetry about the voices of the dead have no place in policy. I am sure it was part of an interesting talk page discussion, but does not belong in policy.

There is a second issue, and I happen to think it is the real issue in Karada's muddled post. Let's remove what is inconsistent with our NPOV policy, and see what the real issue is: editors should not put their own views into an article. Now, if it is not clear already, let us go back and add this one simple sentence. I have been involved in many impassioned debates where I had to remind people that editors do not put their own views into articles.

But this is not because views are not allowed and no editor should ever suggest to another editor that views are not allowed. NPOV demands - demands - that all significant views from notable sources go into articles. The views should be properly identifies and contextualized. That is our job, whether the view is that Hitler was a saint or a sinner. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't jump in to edit the article just yet, but I rather liked the "Karada offered the following advice..." section that you removed. The section seems to be present all the way back to at least 16 December 2006 (I did not check earlier), and I will be interested to hear what others think because that is a pretty good history of consensus. I haven't thought through your recent changes yet, but I do note that in your comments above you have not mentioned WP:UNDUE which is an important qualifier for your "all significant views from notable sources" sentence above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with UNDUE. I jst thought that UNDUE is already well-covered in a separate section. Please tell me what it is that karada said that has to do wtih NPOV please.  To be clear, policy should not say "Please resist the desire to moralize."  First of all, it is too narrow: editor's should put non of their views in articles, period.  It isn't just moralizing - it is any view.  And it is not a question of resisting temptation.  We simply do not put our own views into articles.  period.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have readded it as it has been in there from the first time I saw the policy and don't think it should be removed. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 17:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, I don't really understand where you are coming from. Readers can be led to believe one thing, with the language that is used in an article.
 * For example, before the FAC of Geraldine Ferraro, the article read that "The evidence against Zaccaro was weak."
 * I feel it is better to simply state the facts of the case instead of using the label "weak", and therefore it was changed to: "The case against him was circumstantial, a key prosecution witness proved unreliable, and the defense did not have to present its own testimony."
 * This is my understanding of the policy, and I believe it is useful for similar situations to the above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you, but (1) we do not need another section withing NPOV saying that in addition we have an NPOV policy, and (2) the above does not address the problem in your example. You have simply brought forth an example of a violation of NPOV. The first paragraph of the policy covers it. No Wikipedia article should present a view as if it were truth, that is the esense of the policy. But your solution is all wrong, You just compound the problem by providing three more views as if they were truth. The policy is clear: we provide all significant views from reliable sources. The solution to this problem is "According to x, a leading (attorney, journalist, law professor, politician) the evidence against Zaccaro was weak." This is what the policy calls for: identify it as a view, and tell us whose view it is. Same goes for your three equally problematic propositions: "According to the district attorny, the case against him was circumstantial," "One juror later gave as a reason that a key prosecution witness proved unreliable," and "Political analyst Joe Smith also suggested that the defense not having to present its own testimony implied that the evidence against him was weak." NPOV is NPOV. The section above does not solve a problem, it muddles it - clearly, you thought three more violations of NPOV were somehow solutions. The solution is always to identify a view as a view, and to tell us whose view it is. Why make things any more complicated, when the result is just to muddle them? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for another qualifier in that sense, since the facts of the case can be easily shown. I think an editor should be more apt to state the facts surrounding an issue rather than affixing a label. Perhaps this is part of the overall NPOV policy, but I think it is something that should be pointed out. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The above section cannot remain in the text You cannot have instructions telling people to violate NPOV in the NPOV policy! The second and third sentences of the policy read:
 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

Get it? We INCLUDE all significant view. Well, whether you like it or not, it is a significant view from reliable sources that Sadaam Hussein is evil. It is not a fact, it is not the truth, because Wikipedia does not present truths. It presents views and this view goes in. Karada's argument to keep the view out is argumentative and a violation of this policy. If a significant number of people, especially notable people, in reliable source express the view that hussein was evil, we should report: "According to then-President Bush," or whomever else was a vocal proponent of this view, and then provide the view.

I am removing it again. NPOV is non-negotiable, get it? You cannot have a section of this policy telling people to violate the policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you feel it is okay to state in an article: "Saddam Hussein is an evil [reference added] dictator who ruled Iraq from 1979 until 2003"?
 * Because that is the impression I am getting from you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am getting this impression as well. And Slrubenstein, it is not telling anybody to violate the policy, in fact it is telling the opposite: remain neutral without coming to conclusions one way or the other. What do you want to achieve by telling people what to think? And your comment "The above section cannot remain in the text" is not valid, you are the only one arguing it should be removed. If somebody else doesn't add it again I will. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where in anything I have written do I give that impression? I would appreciate it if you would quote me.  Also, I do not understand this question "What do you want to achieve by telling people what to think?"  Please quote the sentence or sentences where I advocate telling people what to think. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, whether you like it or not, it is a significant view from reliable sources that Sadaam Hussein is evil. It is not a fact, it is not the truth, because Wikipedia does not present truths. It presents views and this view goes in.
 * From this, I came to the conclusion that you approved of stating that "Saddam Hussein is evil." I don't think there is a dispute that somebody's views should not be stated when the person's view is the subject. However, it must be attributed. I don't see how the current policy contradicts this. The policy is aimed at preventing statements such as those written above when describing something.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing a quote. I do not approve of stating "Saddam Hussein is evil" because stating the proposition in that way presents it as a fact or as the truth.  In your quote of me I am quite clear in opposing presenting any view as a fact or as the truth.  It is not merely a matter of attribution.  For example, providing the sentence you constructed, and a citation, would not in my mind comply with NPOV. The statement must be presented as a view (e.g. "Some believe," or "Many believe" or "It is widely held" and then attricutions).  I wish you had also quoted this statement of mine: " No Wikipedia article should present a view as if it were truth, that is the esense of the policy." I am also fond of " The solution is always to identify a view as a view, and to tell us whose view it is."  But Karada is explicitly discouraging someone from including a view in an article.  Karad seems to think that including the view may persuade people that it is the truth, or a fact.  This violates the spirit of NPOV which is guided by the principle, "Not truth, but verifiability."  We make no judgment whatsoever on whether something is true or not.  in fact, lt us assume just for the sake of argument that the statement (SH is evil) is demonstrably false.  NPOV still demands that, as long as it is a significant view, it must be included in the article.  We are not in the game of implying or suggesting that anything is true or false.  We are only concerned with: do we have a verifiable source that A holds view x and B holds view y and C holds view z."  No experienced editor should ever discourage anyone from adding a view to an article if it is significant and from a verifiable and reliable source. Karada is violating NPOV. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did say I get that impression and not that you actually said it in such words. From what you say it still sounds to me like you are trying to tell me (as a reader) what to think. That is the only reason I (and a lot of other readers) can think of for including such a statement and the section on biased statements also say this: "A different approach is to specify the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual." It sounds to me (from how you phrase your sentences) like you are more concerned with including opinions than actual verifiable facts. NPOV may be a core policy but it does not dictate that verifiable facts can't be included. Facts have always been preferred over opinions that could be seen as biased and speculative. You seem to be interpreting the policy that if it is a verifiable POV it should be included. That is not what a neutral view is, from verifiability; "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." The term present is not a blanket invitation to include all views in just so many words and doing so is discouraged in other sections. It is NOT violating policy, it IS policy. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 20:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Few people, if anyone, want an encyclopedia telling them that someone is good or bad, etc. Just tell me what they have done and I'll form my own opinion. If I want to read someone's opinion, I'll read the editorial section of a newspaper (something I rarely do). --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, friend, with all due respect you should not be editing this policy. This policy is all about our obligation to provide different views. Sadaam Hussein is only one kind of example.  In th Jesus article, for example NPOV is crucial to ensure that different views be included.  The core of the policy is simply 'non-negotiable.  If you do not like NPOV, work on something else. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect I don't see how you can tell another editor he should not be editing this policy when you can't abide by consensus and single handedly remove parts of this policy. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 20:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the title of this section is suited perfectly for Slrubenstein's view of WP:MORALIZE. The policy does not prevent an article from stating that somebody holds a view, it prevents articles from stating the view itself as fact. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, if you were to add a statement to the Saddam Hussein article calling him evil, who would you cite? --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not working on that article, and I am not sure what the reliable and relevant sources are. I only see one editor being quoted telling another editor to remove a view and "to let the facts speak for themselves."  I find this all troubleing and underhanded.  First let us discuss the particular case:what does it mean for karada to say that you do not "need" to say he is evil, that the facts will speak for themselves?  I interpret it thus: he is saying that the facts will convince readers he is evil, so we not need need to say he is evil.  This sickens me because it implies it is okay to use facts to achieve another goal, to use them argumentatively, that is to convince people of a position in this case that SH is evil.  Terrible!  We at Wikipedia should never make arguments or use facts argumentatively.  Karada's suggestion that we can use facts to convince people SH is evil is in my view a violation of several policies.  We present facts such as they exist because they are relevant, regardless of any impact they may have on the reader.  But I am skeptical even of the idea of "facts."  Where do we get our "facts" bout what Sadaam did?  I bet some sources will provide facts like number of hospitals he built and miles of highways. Shouldn't we include these facts?  other facts will be of people he tortured and killed.  I am NOT opposing presenting these facts.  I am saying that in almost every case the facts themselves come to us through someone or organization that someone considers biased.  So we return to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  Wikipedia is NOT about "truth" and not really about facts.  It is about views.  First we find the major notable sources on Iraq and Saddam Hussein.  If there are sources that provide differeng views we make sure we include all reliably sourced significant views. Then we provide an account of those views - which may include or take the form of fact, opinion or both e.g. "Mr. Bush, citing Hussein's use of chemical weapons against his own citizens, called Mr. Hussein Evil."  Or "A recent statement by Amnesty International, citing x number of torture cases in 1970-1979, concluded that Mr. Hussein is evil."  In both examples it is clear that we have two views.  I identify whose views they are.  I provide a good account of the views, meaning their judgment of SH and their reasons for the judgment.  None of this is to help readers decide anything.  It is to write a great informative Wikipedia article following oour NPOV policy.  I agree with William Saturn 100% when he write, "The policy does not prevent an article from stating that somebody holds a view, it prevents articles from stating the view itself as fact."  Because I agree with him, I am even more certain that this section with Karada's claims must be deleted.  First, it is unnecessary (we should make our policies as short and direct as possible) because the policy makes itself very clear on these points in the beginning.  Secondly, Karada's statement does not make the claim William Saturn is making - Karada is saying we should not provide the view (only "the facts).  Indeed, thirdly, karada undermines this policy because it suggests that a view may be correct or at least convincing or persuasive because of the facts - YIKES! -Wikipedia just CANNOT take sides with views! Finally, karada's statement blatantly violates NPOV because it instructs an editor NOT to include a view.  Karada should have said, "Let's include the view that SH is evil, but let's say whose view it is and provide context and let us see if there are not other views out there.  But Karada SAID NO SUCH THING!!!  karada just dissed our NPOV policy! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading too much into it, but let's ask Karada for a clarification. Honestly though, I will continue to edit with my interpretation of the policy, because I feel it is important that editors not moralize. This policy removes the urge to label a subject as a "racist," "pervert" or any other label, and instead state the facts of the subject, such as their participation in lynching or alleged sexual assault. It's good to point to, when a new user insists on using such a label on a subject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Willim S. Saturn, You seem to be saying that certain views (e.g. how many people died) are more informative than other views (George Bush called Hussein evil). Maybe you are right, but if so this is a matter for another policy, for something on the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia perhaps.  It is not relevant to NPOV (different policies cover diferent matters).  Be that as it may, fromthe view of NPOV, I do not think the distinction you make matters.  Some readers will come to an article wanting to know about statistics on human rights violations etc.  Others will want to know about the views of politicians.  We do not have the right to tell them which view they have a right to know and which one they do not.  As long as a view is significant and comes from a verifiable source, it goes in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, first the distinction between fact and truth, (opinion, point of view), is pretty obvious by simply asking "What is this information telling me?" "Hussain is evil." doesn't answer what is Hussain? (Unless he's evil itself.) It doesn't even answer who is Hussain. The question being answered is "What does so-and-so think of Hussain. Placing such an opinion in any article is cheesy and quite demeaning to the reader, which is why you will never see it done in a paper encyclopedia. This goes to the most basic and fundamental rule of writing ... show not tell. No one wants to be told at the beginning of the movie that Darth Vader is the evil villian. Show us his black mask, menacing voice, and cold ruthless actions and trust that the audience is capable of forming their own opinions. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Break for ease of editing

 * What we're really talking about here is expletive POV versus explanitive POV. Expletive POV is the use of utterly meaningless words or phrases to convey an opinion, (ie: "Darth Vader is evil." Who says, where is it written and on whose authority? Do they think I'm an idiot?), whereas explanitive POV gives opinion based on factual evidence> (ie, An excerpt from the air combat maneuvering article: Manfred von Richthofen (the Red Baron), wrote in his book The Red Fighter Pilot, "The great thing in air fighting is that the decisive factor does not lie in trick flying but solely in the personal ability and energy of the aviator." The first sentence is a fact, while the quote is a very notable explanitive opinion.) Zaereth (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Zareth, how do you square your opinion with our NPOV policy, which requires us to add views we do not like? I get that you do not like this view, but isn't that all the more reason to include it under our policy? You make a distinction between expletive and axplanative views.  Where does this distinction come from?  Is it in policy?  According to the policy, we add ALL views that are signifiant and from reliable verifiable sources.  If I can show it is significant, and from a verifiable source, what right does anyone have to remove it just because we do not like the view? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Above, Biofase wrote, "NPOV may be a core policy but it does not dictate that verifiable facts can't be included." Where did I ever suggest that what you call verifiable facts canot be included?  I really wish you would stop putting words in my mouth, it makes it hard to have a good faith discussion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not putting words in your mouth. From an above statement of yours:
 * Wikipedia is NOT about "truth" and not really about facts.
 * You have said this over and over. I am getting the impression that you want to include opinions (views) rather than real verifiable facts. Again the policies (including this one) clearly states they are not to be interpreted in isolation from one another. Facts have always been prefered over opinions or views that could be biased. As long as people keep insisting that this is not the case wikipedia will remain a non-encyclopedia compared to the real encyclopedias that for some reason do not see it necessary to include such "moral" labels. Again NPOV does not require explicitely stating any view and such a requirement would be detrimental. It only requires that views be represented in roughly the proportions as their coverage in sources. The section does not violate NPOV, it is accepted as part of the policy and before you remove it you must have consensus as it says on the poclicy itself. Removal will not be valid until you have consensus to do so. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree very much agree with "show, don't tell," a skill often lacking in article writing on Wikipedia. However, I wonder how that squares with allowing editors to add that something is "pseudoscience." It's a label that serves only to insult; it doesn't actually mean much, if anything, yet this policy allows it, to the significant detriment of many of our leads, which try to label as pseudoscience anything seen by a handful of Wikipedians as a bit fishy. It would, indeed, be more honest and just as meaningful if we were simply to use that phrase&mdash;"psychoanalysis, widely regarded as a bit fishy"&mdash;rather than using a pseudo-word that serves only to betray a pseudo-intellectualism. So, back to my point, is there not a bit of an inconsistency there? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Show, don't tell is indeed a better form of writing an argumentative essay. But we editors are not supposed to be writing argumentative essays.  We are supposed to be neutral about what views we put in, as long as they meet a certain threshold of significance and come from verifiable sources.  The problem is, Zaereth is not being neutral with regard to views. he has created a distinction between two views, one of which he favors and the other of which he does not.  This is not being neutral towards views.  The criteria should be uniform for all viws.


 * If there is a widespread view that Hussein was evil, we report that as a view, and attribute it so people know whose view it is. If there is a widespread view that certai people keep "Telling" us that Saddam is evil, without "showing" us the proof, well, we report that view too, identify it as a view, and then attribute it.  But it is not for us editors to take sides, as Karada does. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify, simply stating that Saddam is evil doesn't give us any information about Saddam. The same could be said about light bulbs, but doesn't tell me about them. The statement itself is meaningless, and therefore insignificant. There was a user on the potential energy article who claimed that it was evil. As for "show, not tell", it works for all writing, and Wikipedia is never going to be taken seriously until it stops pushing the tabloid and trivia and gets in step with other acedemic writing. I'm not advocating taking sides, but merely the presenting of information that is useful without burying it in the irrelevant.
 * There is a widely held view that broccoli is yucky, but adding that to the broccoli article would be useless, childish, and quite insulting to the reader's intelligence. Zaereth (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking about slightly different things here, but that we basically agree on the core issues. It's a question of good writing, and "show, don't tell" is a big part of that. It's also about Wikipedians not inserting their own opinions, or overegging the pudding with other people's opinions, but that also boils down to good writing. The issue is how it was worded in the policy. The quote was not good because too flowery, and the rest was a little ambiguous. Policy needs to be very clear so people can't easily misuse it, by accident or design. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This I agree with. I'm not often sure if policy knows what it's talking about, and the quote itself is a good example. This is why I mentioned above that I believe it's trying to make a distinction between expletive and explanitive, without seeming to even know it. Zaereth (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with you, though I can think of situations where someone's quoted opinion that didn't add much information would nevertheless be interesting and relevant, and I wouldn't want to see anything in this policy that allowed editors to use it as an excuse to remove that kind of thing. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to revert Slrubenstein
I propose that Slrubenstein's edit,, be reverted. All in favor or opposed please state so below. --Atomic blunder (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So far he is the only one saying it should be removed. It's part of policy atm so it's removal that requires consensus. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 04:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Slrubenstein. First, the quote should go, for two reasons: (a) we shouldn't be quoting individual editors on a policy page, because it looks as though their opinions are being elevated in some way; and (b) the colorful language&mdash;"the voices of the dead cry out afresh"&mdash; is too flowery for a policy page, and is itself arguably POV, even if most of us would agree with it.


 * I also agree with his main point, which is that its the personal opinions of Wikipedians that aren't allowed. The opinions of reliable sources are allowed, of course. I realize the latter are not intended to be included in, "let the facts speak for themselves": what the section is trying to say is don't write, for example, "That monster Saddam Hussein murdered hundreds of entirely innocent people." I think it's enough to say "don't moralize," or "don't add your own views." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, it needs to be rewritten. Whose personal opinion of Saddam Hussein would be notable enough to include in the Saddam Hussein article? Who would you cite? Please give a direct answer. --Atomic blunder (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Atomic, this is the talk page for the NPOV policy and we should only be discussing matters of policy. Atomic, your questions would be appropriate on the Saddam Hussein page.  Obviously if no one can demonstrate that this is a significant view fround in verifiable sources, then the statement about Hussein cannot go into the article.  If you agree with what I just wrote, then you are supporting my edit of the NPOV page.  Because the only principal of policy I have been advocating is that all significant views from notable sources should be included. Do you agree with this principal, or not?


 * There was a section of the policy page that contradicted this principal. It did not call for editors to identify viewpoints or to provide sources for views (as you seem to be advocating right now); instead it instructed editors not to include certain kinds of  views.  This is flat out wrong.  No editor has a right to tell another what kind of view is appropriate and what is not, and NPOV does not favor one kind of view over another.  Instead it has a simple threshold of inclusion that applies to all views: they must be significant, and they must come from verifiable sources.  Indeed, if a view is sigfnificant and does come from a verifiable source, NPOV demands that we put it in.  But there was one section on the policy page that contradicts the actual policy.  All i did was remove that anti-NPOV passage. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My question was directed at editor SlimVirgin. --Atomic blunder (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...let me think about this further, but I'm sympathetic to Slrubenstein's line of reasoning. Elsewhere in NPOV, it states, "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that 'The Beatles were the greatest band ever', locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: 'Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever', and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made."  This section doesn't make sense if we're not allowed to present opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. There's a danger of editors using that section to remove opinions they dislike, even if very well-sourced. I see UNDUE being misused in this way too. There really shouldn't be anything in this policy that seems to undermine the position, even if unintentionally, that all majority- and significant-minority views published by reliable sources are valid for inclusion. ;SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I could see Rolling Stone magazine presenting a poll of the greatest rock bands ever that ranked The Beatles in the number one position or even if they had a story titled "The Beatles: The Greatest Rock Band Ever?" but I would be surprised if they just came right out and declared The Beatles the greatest band ever. --Atomic blunder (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For my part, I don't like either the original quote or slrubenstein's replacement; the important thing is to attribute views, not avoid including them in the first place. There's nothing wrong with including your own view in an article, as long as it is indeed a mainstream view and you have properly cited and attributed it. (My paragraph explaining this is suboptimal, though. I would welcome any suggestions on how to improve it further.) Ben Standeven (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Ben, my point is, you never add your own point of view because you believe it is true. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I must still object to its removal. I can not believe the disregard for a long existing policy by a few editors who think they may remove it when others don't want to. Let is stand first and then get consensus if you want to remove it. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether an editor adds their own point of view or not is irrelevant as long as they do it in a way that adheres to Wikipedia policies. Likewise, it is also irrelevant whether that point of view is mainstream or a minority POV as long as it is notable per Wikipedia policies. --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't think this is the right way to look at this and the wording might inadvertently encourage WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Editors should never insert their own viewpoints into an article.  Instead, they should insert the viewpoints of WP:RS with weight roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that viewpoint.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with not looking at it that way is that editors get to know each others' POV and when they see an editor adding their own POV, they can be accused of POV-pushing, even if they were following Wikipedia policies. Instead of being discouraged from adding their own POV, they should be encouraged to also add other points of view in accordance with NPOV. Let's face it, we are not robots, we are people with points of view and telling them not to insert their own viewpoints is not realistic. --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Atomic burner wants to revert this edit by SLR because they contend that text makes the Neutral point of view policy better. Well the problem is that that text has nothing to do with neutral point of view policy.  Yes it proposes a neutralized form of writing (which is actually a common misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV is).  Yes it gives good guidance re: weasel / peacock wordings.  However, it actually doesn't belong here for the following reasons: 1) It gives no guidance re: sourcing. 2) It has nothing to do with weighting. 3) It actively contradicts the central point of this policy: that "encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".  Let me clarify the last point.  On its face, yes the text gives sound advice - because in context (the Saddam Husein bio in 2006) it works.  However take the same advice and apply it to the definition of Evolution or Homeopathy or Scientology, or another "hot-button topic" where mainstream sources have a very clear definition of the subject, but which is disputed by others (be they adherents/fringe scientists/campaigners/etc etc).  If mainstream sources overwhelmingly describe something as 'X' then the article should state that view and attribute it - they should not ignore it.  The NPOV policy is explained by ArbCom in the RfArs in relation to most of, or all of, the above hot-button disputes. And every time the wording comes back that (and I'm paraphrasing) 'per NPOV Wikipedia reflects mainstream sources'.  In a nutshell, whereas in a contentious evolving situation (like the bio of Saddam Husein in 2006) Karada's advice might be common sense - it does not hold true in all cases/situations.  That is a critical failing for policy text.  A failing that would allow pointless wikilawyering and waste of time.  That's why the disputed text should be left out--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">talk 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, my main concern was that Slrubenstein was not following the consensus and there was reverting back and forth. --Atomic blunder (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Quest's reasoning. If an editor wants their own opinion published they should go get it published in a reliable source. When it's accepted then it can go here, provided, (in my opinion), that it's relevant to the subject. Where as the subject should meet notability requirements, so should the object. I believe that WP:N should also apply to content. (For instance, merely stating that the Sun is hot, or that some actor drinks Pepsi, is not very notable information. Unless giving the actual temperature of the Sun, or letting me know that it's a hot ball of hydrogen gas, the info is just plain obvious. And unless the actor was a spokesperson for Coke, until the company found out, and was fired, or something like that, their soda preferrences are mere trivia.) This is how WP gets it reputation for being tabloidish and unreliable. Now we can call this relevance, significance, or whatever synonym seems to suffice, but it all boils down to clutter.
 * While the term expletive POV, as I've used it above, would usually seem to denote derogatory opinion, in this case it is not limited to such. Gushing praise should also be excluded as insignificant, otherwise we'd have endless rounds of praise uselessly cancelling out scorn, cluttering up the information which readers have come seeking. To me, this all goes to the notability of the information, and is one of the biggest reasons for the readers to distrust the facts and useful speculation we actually do provide. Zaereth (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is that a person's point of view often coincides with a notable point of view with a reliable source that should be included in Wikipedia; so telling people in a blanket statement not to insert their own point of view is wrong. Since a mainstream point of view usually has the greatest number of adherents in the general population, telling people not to include their point of view is probably telling them not to add the mainstream point of view to an article. --Atomic blunder (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is why we're encouraged to find stuff that supports our own opinion, and hopefully, also stuff that does not. For instance, in my opinion, dogfighting is still useful despite all of the advances in combat aviation, so I found sources that support that. Others claim that this may no longer be true, so I challenge them to find sources, but in the meantime I am also looking for sources that will prove or disprove this. However, encouraging readers to put in their own opinions, (directly), would yeild horrible results. Zaereth (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think everybody is talking to the wind here. The main point is one section which Slrubenstein wants to remove. The title here is a non-sequitur. There is no consensus for its removal so there's no question that he should be reverted. Until there is a clear consensus to remove a section of policy it should stay, that is what the policy says: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." The changes DO NOT reflect consensus, they should be reverted. This is non-negotiable. Once this is done we can discuss what should go for what. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your post amuses me for some reason.
 * A revert never reflects consensus (at least not perfectly); because there will always be at least one person opposed to it. (Unless you are reverting yourself). We all do it from time to time though, even though it's a bit naughty.
 * More importantly. If you declare something to be non-negotiable, you are placing yourself outside the consensus system. "We must follow consensus, and that is non-negotiable" is a contradictio.
 * You're not negotiating? Ok, that's pretty much a self declared bad faith intent to ignore consensus. Are you really sure you want to do that?
 * Referring to reverts and non-negotiability in the same line as consensus, and somehow thinking they fit together? Priceless! :-)
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you find it funny enough but I'm afraid you might be misunderstanding how things should be done as opposed to how they are usually done. While there is a discussion going on whether something should be removed or not it is presumed that it will not be removed. If someone removes it and another reverts the removal there is no consensus to remove it and it should stay. This is especially true for policy as stated on the top. Established consensus is to keep it until a different consensus can be reached so I am not placing myself outside the consensus system by declaring that established consensus should be abided by, wikipedia policy itself demands this. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 18:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I call. Please quote the relevant policy, and/or any previous consensus discussion on that topic, and explain how and why it applies here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I am not sure myself where such a discussion would be located. The earliest known addition is on 11 August 2003. Back then wikipedia had about 2700 contributors and about 1000 active ones. If something remains for 6 years it's safe to assume that the established consensus is to not remove it which in this case turned out to be wrong. Most were simply not bothered to have it removed. Removing it to the talk page might not have been a bad first move but after this was reverted further removal while discussion was going on indicated a decision not to abide by consensus. Consensus is needed to add new policy and to remove existing policy. Consensus does change over time as the community changes (as was the case here) but until a new consensus is established it is wise to assume it hasn't. Finally the way policy is worded and the way it is applied in practice are not always the same. If you want an illustration of this fact take part in a RfA, though it says adminship is not a vote it very much is a vote. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 04:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am slightly inclined to drop the paragraph. I don't think its contents are a big problem, but its style is way off - and it does seem redundant. I think it could be explained more clearly that we can only introduce sources' views - never our own and that often a matter of factish list of actions may make a better characterization than any subjective .·Maunus· ƛ · 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm strongly opposed to dropping it. A large part of NPOV is that we don't go beyond the facts - and that is what that paragraph is trying to say, though it could say it better.  Different people will form different opinions based on the same facts, so a preference for facts over opinions avoids a lot of arguments.  Trying to agree on facts can be hard.  But trying to agree on a balance between contradictory viewpoints is so much harder.  In fact, it isn't just about opposing views, it's more about redundant ones.  The reason to avoid saying things like "Hitler was an evil person" isn't that there is disagreement about the claim, the reason to avoid statements like that is they are redundant.  True or false, they convey no useful information.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Full protection
I have added full protection to this page to prevent the ongoing edit war over this change. It will expire in 48 hours. Please continue to work toward consensus by discussing the changes on the talk page during this time period. This protection should not be seen as an endorsement of the current version. Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC to remove "Let the facts speak for themselves"
Should the section be removed from the policy? Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 01:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No I think it is a good example to stop editors from moralizing. Removing it would lead to including biased points of view in articles to state conclusions that a reader could come to on their own. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 01:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes This section quotes Karada instructing an editor not to moralize.  But the problem is not editors moralizing.
 * The problem is editors using Wikipedia to forward their own arguments, a clear violation of WP:NOR but something this passage actually encourages: "You won't even need to say he was evil ... we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over" - this is compliling facts in order to make a WP:POINT, in order to support an argument (in this case against Hussein). This is just moralizing by another nanme, because it does not get to the real issue, that a Wikipedia editor wishes to use an article in order to make a point, to "convict" Hussein.
 * Moreover, the passage encourages editors to violate NPOV. Prior to the Second Gulf War, U.S. President George Bush called Hussein "evil," and many political and civic leaders in the US agreed.  Yes, they were moralizing.  But it is not for any Wikipedian to say that moralizing in general, or this moralizing in particular, is right or wrong.  This is even in the policy: "Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth." (WP:VALID)  In fact, it is a direct outcome of the fundamental principle of NPOV: Even if we believe it is wrong, NPOV demands that we include significant views from reliable sources.
 * Karada misidentified the problem. The problem was that by not identifying the label "evil" as a distinct point of view, and by not attributing that point of view to those prominent people forwarding it, the editor was presenting the label as truth rather than as a verifiable view.  Karada was without doubt well-intentioned.  But what karada should have said is:"Do not use the label as if it is the "truth" because Wikipedia is not about the truth.  Wikipedia is about providing accounts of significant points of view.  You have to make it clear that this is a point of view, and let us know whose view it is."  That would have fixed the problem.  Instead, Karada made things worse, as I explain in the two points above. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes WP:NPOV explicitly states that, "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that 'The Beatles were the greatest band ever', locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: 'Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever', and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made." This section doesn't make sense if we're not allowed to present opinions. In fact, several other policies/guidelines will need to be rewritten (at least in part) including WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OR.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should remove that section. Policy should be worded so as to avoid misreadings of it, and this section can easily be misread (or just plain read) as excluding certain opinions, even if published by reliable sources, that some editor deems "moralizing." I can see what the section is trying to get at, I think, but Bioface's interpretation of it above &mdash; namely, "Removing it would lead to including biased points of view in articles to state conclusions that a reader could come to on their own." &mdash; exemplifies the problem. Editors must be allowed to included biased points of view to state conclusions, even if obvious ones, even if moralizing ones, if the writing and context require or would benefit from them. It would be more appropriate for the section to focus on editors not adding their own opinions, and trying not to overegg the pudding in order to emphasize particular points, even where they're published by reliable sources, though the latter boils down to the difference between good and bad writing, which can't be dealt with here. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree with SlimVirgin. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Slrubstein and SlimVirgin both put it well. The text at issue was added in August 2003, only four months after Iraq had fallen to the U.S. invasion and before Saddam Hussein had been captured. Six years later that example is no longer fresh, and the issues don't look as simple as they did to many people at that time. For many editors it's ancient history. While Hitler is still valid as an example, the issues of attributing opinion and of giving due weight to significant expert views are covered elsewhere. NOR means we don't just let the facts speak for themselves, we cite experts who support the synthesis of the facts or selection of the facts that we're presenting. If the section is needed, it needs to be rewritten to be clear what it's meant to convey. . dave souza, talk 11:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone can present a rewrite, but the current version is bad. I have encountered POV pushers that used "Let the facts speak for themselves" and "let the reader decide" to remove sourced opinions that explained how certain facts were not correct, or that placed the facts in its correct historical and politic context, or that explained why those facts happened, or how people reached certain conclusions about those facts due to certain circumstances and not because the facts really validated the conclusions. The principle behind the sentence is wrong because you can't present decades-old facts from a specific social-political environment that no longer exists without good quality scholar sources that interpret them in the proper context. (I edit-conflicted with Dave, who also raises the same issue) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.D.: the "don't apply labels and don't moralize" part should be preserved in its own section, as useful advice. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Enric Naval has put it better than I would have been able to. I too have found pov pushers behaving as described. And as Dave says, we should be reporting what experts in the field have had to say, not just bare facts. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. There's a reason the facts "speaking" for themselves is a metaphor - because that's not something they can actually do, even if we agree that there is such a thing as a "fact". Agree also with Enric Naval - particularly on developing the "don't apply labels" (as objective truth) part. Attempts to "let the facts speak" easily lead into WP:COATRACK territory of quasi-list-like reams of Bad Stuff. But: Karada's basic idea can be an important one for some newbies, that labels aren't always necessary because a NPOV presentation of the facts makes things clear in their full awfulness (in that example) rather than hiding behind a generic, redundant POV label. Something of that concept shouldn't be lost, I think, just because the current text can be (mis)read in problematic ways. Rd232 talk 12:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The passage at issue has always been marginal at best. If it ever was at all genuinely helpful in the early stages of the wiki, it has long ceased to be a useful example of how to implement the policy. Wikipedia is not a provider of bare facts, but of a neutral point of view based on reliable sources. ....As rd232 points out, it is important for "newbies" to understand that part of NPOV involves essentially "sticking to the facts", but at this point in the wiki's development the Karada example isn't a useful illustration of how to go about doing so. "Stick to the facts" is a point already made clear for newbies in a number of other places in the core content policies. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think it should be rewritten in a more appropriate style and it should be clarified that editor's opinions are not welcome in articles in any form, but only sourced statements. I think that we can still have a mention that a matter of factish listing of events is preferrable to painting topics with subjective adjectives.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been through Special:Contributions/Karada for the time period indicated, and cannot find the edit where xe actually wrote this. Has policy been including an unsourced quotation for all of these years? Uncle G (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was added to the policy on August 11, 2003, which might help us find it.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think the section is well intended, but not really thought through. I think we need something that speaks directly to the spirit behind it, but it should definitely be rewritten to avoid confusion. It should also be able to be summarized with one or two sentences in the lede, as every section should. Many newbies are only going to read the first few pararaphs anyway, so the lede needs to cover entire scope of this article, and all following sections should only expand upon the lede. Zaereth (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - remove the section, which falsely implies that we do not include (properly attributed) opinions from prominent and reputable sources. I don't see that it needs to be replaced with anything; we already have lots of things explaining that editors shouldn't be inserting their own opinions (moral or otherwise). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - NPOV requires that we include significant views, and this paragraph implies the opposite.   Will Beback    talk    19:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes We need to include opinions. We need to attribute those opinions to specific people or groups of people. There's only so many facts before you get into theories and such. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * no The meaning of this passage was always clear to me, and I don't see why everyone is misinterpreting it. I don't think it was ever intended to exclude properly attributed opinions, as people think it is. we may say "in a poll of historians Nixon was considered America's worst president" but not "Nixon was a bad president [1]". Elsewhere, under the heading "A simple formulation" this policy states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." The Saddam Hussein/Hitler example is just an illustration of that. Some of those opposed to this section seem to be implying that, with sources judged sufficiently reputable, Wikipedia can assert opinion as objective fact. 146.151.21.117 (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I defy you to provide one example of an editor saying that "Wikipedia can assert opinion as objective fact." "Seem to be implying" are weasel words: all they add up to is, "Did not write..."  Either you believe someone hee has expressed themsleves so poorly that their words somehow really do suggest this - in which case have the honesty and integrity to point out who, and through what words - or all you are sayinis, you admit that you are not reading other people's reasons carefully and therefore do not understand what they wrote.  But just because you do not understand someone else does not mean you have any right to misrepresent them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * come to think of it, the problem with the section is not that it discourages the inclusion of sourced opinions (it doesn't), but that a "just the facts" approach could be used to violate NPOV. Selectively citing facts that support a position, while disengenously claiming not to be doing so, is a tactic commonly used by POV-pushers. I think its still important to encourage editors not to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to attack minority positions, but to trust that an appropriately weighted neutral presentation of facts will lead most readers to the "right" conclusion. 146.151.21.117 (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "but to trust that an appropriately weighted neutral presentation of facts will lead most readers to the "right" conclusion." This frightens me.  What is the "right" conclusion?"  When I work on an article I do not ask or wonder what would be the "right" conclusion.  I ask what are the reliable sources with significant views.  Often they reach a conclusion I did not anticipate, so I learned something new.  But what is a "right" conclusion and what is a "wrong" conclusion and who is Wikipedia to judge this?  It is not our business what conclusion readers derive, as long as we know we provided all significant views neutrally.  How can you present then neutrally and believe there is a right or wrong conclusion? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. As written, this passage seems to encourage violations of WP:SYNTH. Uncle G's rewrite below is considerably better, IMO. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 20:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)