Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 37

Renaming "Writing for the enemy"
In May I wrote on Jimmy Wales talk page suggesting that WP:Writing for the enemy be renamed/rewritten to WP:writing for the opponent as a more accurate and less hostile sounding phrase. As you can see he agreed. I brought this to Wikipedia_talk:Writing_for_the_enemy and got some agreement, some other suggestions, but no disagreement when said a couple times I was just going to do it.

Then searching for relevant text uses in wiki policy that might need changing to comply with the new name, I found mentions at Neutral_point_of_view and Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. So bringing this to this talk page now for any comments - preferably at Wikipedia_talk:Writing_for_the_enemy - before I make the changes sometime in next few days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias actively being practised?
I point you to the Cybersquatting discussion page. As you can see, there was an uproar when Wikipedia decided that Domaining (the 100% legal, as per many news sources, and multi-million dollar industry) was equal to "Cybersquatting" (the 100% illegal and wrong practise) and put in a re-direct as such.

After a lot of proof was shown, a Domaining page was set-up. However now, the same biased Wikipedia admin who caused the wrongful re-direct is now pushing to delete the Domaining page, probably to re-direct it back to the cybersquatting page. How is this in-keeping with Wikipedia's policies?

Please look at all the reputable links and proof given to support the fact that "Domaining" is a reputable and legal practise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.29.29 (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not move this to the noticeboard? WP:NPOVN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly the admin in this case is not as uninvolved as they should be. There is no consensus to do anything and whether sources support something or not has no bearing on whether it should be merged. But just as any user can do a redirect any other user can undo it so I don't see a real problem unless it gets deleted which would almost certainly be against consensus. Biofase flame | stalk 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant here, but the above is not correct. The AfD decision was to redirect Domaining to Domain name speculation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but there is one fundamental flaw in this reasoning. AfDs don't decide anything, the people who close them do. Biofase flame | stalk 03:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, what's your point? When a legal decision is made, it's not the law that's making the decision. It's the judge. SharkD (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Self contradiction
''Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.''

contradicts.

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into a neutral statement by attributing or substantiating it.

As far as I'm concerned, only one of these describes NPOV, and the other is someone pushing and pushing and pushing to give themselves the authority to push POV agendas under the color of NPOV. Kim Bruning (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. The simple act of citation does not address NPOV concerns because the claim can still be presented in the article as "true."  Attributing a statement goes far to address NPOV concerns.  Consider the two examples: "Wikipedia's Verifiability and NPOV policies contradict one another."  This violates NPOV because it it is phrased as if the proposition is true.  Second example: "Kim Bruning believes that Wikipedia's Verifiability and NPOV policies contradict one another."  This version with an attribution, does not violate NPOV because it makes it clear that the proposition is a view, not the truth. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why don't we word it that way? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC) incidentally the paragraph I quoted appears to contradict *both* verifiabiliy and npov. I don't think either policy contradicts each other... yet. ;-) ''


 * Hey, suggest beter wording and I am with you all the way! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You've rewritten the good statement to sound more like the bad statement? :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Which one is the good statement, in your view - and I guess I have to ask why? I did not change the top one, I changed the second one, which seems to me to be the one you accuse of "pushing and pushing and pushing to give themselves the authority to push POV agendas under the color of NPOV."  How did I misunderstand you?  Why don't you propose an alternative, I am open to it, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 *  The second statement is clearly worded, friendly, polite, to the point, and due to the way it is worded, it allows for soft security: it is woolly enough that it will A. make it easier to build a consensus, and B. be very hard to somehow find a loophole.


 * The first statement is worded in very hard and inflexible terms, and by the very nature of being so adamant, creates several loopholes, several of which are large enough to drive trucks through.
 * Example:
 * Some person named Nero is historically reknown for drinking too much. (not necessarily the famous historical emperor, but some arbitrary facsimile thereof)
 * Someone is a big Nero fan, and doesn't want that info in the article.
 * Possible arguments:
 * "Verifiability is only one content criterion, therefore your well sourced information that Nero actually drank a lot should be removed"
 * "NPOV is non negotiable. It is my personal opinion that Nero was really cool. I am well known to be very neutral. Therefore we should state that nero was very cool"
 * "Nero's alcoholism is given undue weight. This concern is not addressed in the slightest by the fact that your source is verifiable"
 * "I don't think that your selection of the fact that Nero was constantly drunk is at all neutral, therefore it should be removed"
 * etc etc... (I can keep this up all day ;-) )
 * All ended by "And the NPOV policy is non negotiable! So this data must be removed!", followed by bull-headed deletion and revert warring.


 * Seriously, have you really never encountered anyone trying to "non-negotiate" themselves out of having to follow NPOV (and/or (other) consensus?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, many times I have been able to get two editors in a contentious argument to reach a compromise, by both accepting NPOV and by both being willing to adhere to it equally. It creates a standard opposing people can agree to. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, getting two people to agree to accept NPOV is *easy*. It's the ones who think they understand NPOV and who think it means they don't have to negotiate with others that make my day a living hell. It gets even more "fun" when BOTH parties do it. I guess your answer means you've never had that happen to you before?


 * Incidentally, these days there are even more wonderful challenges:where you have to keep admins from cheerfully blocking or banning the parties, locking the page, and throwing away the key. Doing those things does not solve a dispute, those actions only hide it.


 * So at the end of the day, a bad situation gets worse to the point where people leave (or get banned from) Wikipedia, all due to people applying huge gobs of (semi-)hard security, where a little soft security would have sufficed. And this on a wiki: a system on which soft security is the known best practice.


 * You know, sometimes I wonder if there's still anyone actually concerned with getting things DONE around here. No wonder our rate of growth is dropping. Geeze! %-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry about the rant, but this just sort of happened to me. And despite all that, I still have (possibly misplaced) faith in humanity :-P

There was a recent article in slashdot technology with many comments that mention variants of the same, to wit, people using rules to avoid negotiating properly. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G: Let the facts speak for themselves
I think it's pretty much central to NPOV that one lets the facts speak for themselves. But the section as written is not so good anymore. Could we write a better version? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Kim. A brief, substantially rewritten section entitled "Let the facts speak for themselves" or "Stick to the facts", or reasonable facsimile thereof, might be helpful to newcomers, and would complement other important content-policy provisions such as NOR (where it's long been encapsulated in bold letters that editors are expected to "stick to the sources"). ... Kenosis (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, we cannot always "stick to the facts." In many areas, all we have are "views," views that are quite important and need to be presented.  Moreover, in science, facts never speak for themselves, which is why scientists need theories, and there is often vigorous debate over interpretations of facts.  Even when scientists agree on a fact, like the uncertainty principle, they have disagreements over how to interpret it.  In this and many other cases to let the facts speak for themselves distorts the facts.  And the same is true for social and historical facts too, many times!  We just need good criteria for which views to present and how to present them ... and personally, I think the policy already (or, used to) do a good of that! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you make a worthwhile point, SLR, one that has much to do with how folks can readily interpret the word "facts" in this context (which apparently is often very differently than I do). Glad the issue has been brought up so as to get more thoroughly analyzed. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it isn't central. That's the very point being made in the discussion above.  As such, here's a very crude ball:

Don't editorialize or moralize in Wikipedia's "voice"

An assertion that someone is (say) "good" or "evil" is a moral judgement. Such moral judgements should not be made in Wikipedia's voice. An article should not read "X is a good/bad person.". Instead, it should attribute the moral judgement to the person making it (which of course should be a reliable source, not a Wikipedian). Such opinions and analyses should be presented without added editorialization. Let the reader decide how to view X's judgement of Y.

Letting the reader decide is not the same as "letting the facts speak for themselves". To quote University of Birmingham historian Kevin Myers: "First, and to put it bluntly, the facts never speak for themselves. In writing [&hellip; history &hellip;], all historians must both establish the facts [&hellip;] and then select, arrange, and order them into a coherent historical account. The process inevitably requires the analysis and organization of material and it demands that the historian make a series of judgements about events, situations, and people." As Tej Ram Sharma states, "The facts never 'speak for themselves'. They must be selected, marshalled, linked together, and given a voice."

For Wikipedia's purposes, two things are important. It is important to, in the words of Peter P. Mollinga, "try to let the facts speak, while being aware that the facts never speak for themselves". It is also important that where facts are given a "voice", that voice be properly attributed to the person/persons who hold the point of view/make the judgement, and not be presented as moralizing or editorializing in Wikipedia's own "voice".  References  
 * Discuss, improve, and so forth. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't we already have lots of other sections of policies explaining that editors should not be inserting their own opinions or synthesis, but rather the properly attributed opinions/synthesis of prominent sources? Why do we need a specific section on "moralizing" at all, as if this were different (from the perspective of policy) from any other form of opinion? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncle G did a good job and I appreciate his work, but really, I agree with Steven G. Johnson on this. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)*Because "let the facts talk by themselves" is a widespread misconception, and both POV pushers and well-intentioned editors will keep saying it, so we can point them to this section. Btw, the wording is nice but it puts together moralizing and "let the facts", they should be two separate sections, to discuss by separate. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "No moralizing" and "let the facts" are definitely two distinct issues, and both probably need saying, but not yoked together as tightly. They are simply examples that illustrate specific points of how the basic NPOV/V/ATT/NOR policies should work, rather than policies in themselves. -- Karada (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that I have kind of admired this section of NPOV and I believe it has served a useful purpose, and the Hitler article is a good, and easily understood, example of how to handle a topic that is emotionally and ethically charged in a encyclopedic manner that emphasizes clear descriptions of events over moralistic opinions. In particular see the subsection on the holocaust for a prime example. Other good examples include slavery and slavery in the United States. That last article gives a good example (especially in the Treatment of slaves subsection) of how to handle the case where ethical opinions have to be discussed as facts by clearly attibuting such opinions to a source. I also disagree that "letting the facts speak" and "not moralizing" are separate topics. I think that not moralizing is an aspect of letting the facts speak. I realize that the current wording could be misinterpeted as "don't include opinions at all", which is a problem. Therefore I would recommend going with something like Uncle G's proposed wording but providing a couple of strong briefe examples such as the following quote from Hitler:

Between 1939 and 1945, the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, systematically killed somewhere between 11 and 14 million people, including about six million Jews, in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions, or through less systematic methods elsewhere. In addition to those gassed to death, many died as a result of starvation and disease while working as slave labourers (sometimes benefiting private German companies). as an example of letting the facts speak. In addition the following text from slavery in America could be used as an example of how to handle ethical judgements in articles:

Historian Kenneth M. Stampp describes the role of coercion in slavery, “Without the power to punish, which the state conferred upon the master, bondage could not have existed. By comparison, all other techniques of control were of secondary importance.” Stampp further notes that while rewards sometimes led slaves to perform adequately, most agreed with an Arkansas slaveholder, who wrote:

"Now, I speak what I know, when I say it is like ‘casting pearls before swine' to try to persuade a negro to work. He must be made to work, and should always be given to understand that if he fails to perform his duty he will be punished for it."

I think combining concrete examples like these with Uncle G's revised description would give us the best of both worlds. That is having a more clear statement of the policy while still having the impact of easily understood examples, which is a strength of the current wording. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think you are doing justice to Enric Naval's point. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Atomic Blunder: Wikipedia ethics and standards
Here's an idea: Journalism ethics and standards. --Atomic blunder (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, related and relevant articles: Media bias and Bias. --Atomic blunder (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this. Wikipedia needs better journalistic standards and some form of ethics. (Especially when it comes to children.) These are also some good reads, Society of professional journalists, Media college , Guardian , Reuter's style guide , Politics daily . Proper style and ethics are vital to Wikipedia's integrity. Zaereth (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current system seems a bit archaic. --Atomic blunder (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Atomic Blunder, you have been a registered user here for under three months. And you have shown little understanding of how Wikepedia works (e.g. this).  Here is some cheap but very useful advice: instead of trying to muck around with policy, why not do what most people come to Wikipedia to do: work on quality articles.  Do some research and contribute to existing articles, or do some research and start new articles.  Experiment with different ways of cooperating and collaborating with other users.  Learn how our policies work through the ways they are applied by real editors (by which I mean people who edit articles).  Some people spend over a year doing the real work of the project - encyclopedia articles - and gaining real experience in how our policies work, before ever showing up on the talk page of a policy to discuss how it may be improved.  Why not benefit from their example?  If you really care about Wikipedia, wouldn't you rather be reading books and journal articles on different topics and then work on actual articles? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, given that you've been questioning on WP:Areas for Reform about how to retain and recruit new editors, I am a bit surprized by the tone of this response. I think it would be beneficial in this aspect to comment on the editor's concern and not the editor himself. While I agree that working on articles is very helpful to learning policy, it took me a good three months before I dared to touch my first article. Zaereth (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone doesn't feel comfortable plunging into working on an article, I would say a fortiori that one is no ready to plunge into policies. You are not claiming to speak for Atomic Blunter so I will just speculate that during those three months you learned a lot by reading Wikipedia articles and perhspa by following discussions on their talk pages?  In any case, just to make things clear: my general position is that I want to encourage new people to come to Wikipedia and edit articles.  If someone does not know a lot about a topic they are interested in, I encourage them to research the topic and then try editing articles on it.  Now, to speak specifically to Atomic Blunder: I want to encourage you to edit articles.  If you do not know a lot about a topic you are interested in, I encourage you to research the topic and then try editing articles on it.  I have no reason to believe you can't do this more or less on your own but if you want any advice, help or mentoring I would be glad to give it to you and I know many other editors would as well!  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we agree to discuss what to do with the section instead of discussing other users here? It seems that most people's concerns are with how it is worded or because it's the words of one editor. Can we discuss how it should be worded and make changes to it instead of removing it again and starting another revert war. Biofase flame | stalk 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfC is clear that it should be removed, Biofase, so there would be no revert war, I hope. That said, you can of course suggest alternative wording for the section. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the user comment section should go. Many have indicated they would rather see an alternative for the rest. I already have something in mind and if nobody likes the end result it can always be removed but I think most may actually agree with it. In any event the old section will probably no longer be recognizable. Biofase flame | stalk 19:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have something in mind, why not present it here for discussion? If as you think everyone likes it it is an easy matter to cut and paste it into the article.  Obviously there are many people here who think alot about NPOV who may have comments or suggestions before you add anything to the policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We are encyclopaedists, not journalists. There are significant differences between the two that directly impact conventional journalistic ideas in this area and make them inapplicable to encyclopaedism.  Remember what we actually do in this project.  This is Wikipedia, not Wikinews.  Uncle G (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The central idea was ethics and standards. --Atomic blunder (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it's little more than vague handwaving with no substance, and as such with no real relevance to the issue at hand, which is what text (if indeed any text at all) should be in this policy to replace the text that is contested. Uncle G (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this with Google; it could be developed further: Ethics/Seraphimblade. --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Each main namespace article should have a neutral point of view (NPOV) and each editor should strive for an unbiased personal point of view when contributing to articles. If this is adhered to, I'm not sure that a "let the facts speak for themselves" or "don't moralize" section in this NPOV article is necessary. Alternatively, the essay, Ethics/Seraphimblade, could be developed further and turned into a policy or guideline. --Atomic blunder (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, a separate code of ethics specifically for administrators is in order. For example, they should adhere to an unbiased point of view when dealing with editors: no POV-pushing through blocking, etc. --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: FAQa for Newbies

 * You know, I am thinking about th way you are phrasing your position shere and I think maybe one positive thing that can comeout of this is the following: a set of guidelines - advice really (but i am thinking of a page that is comparable to FAQs) that provide suggestions to editors about how to explain our policies to newbis. Here is something I think we have all seen: edit ar, we explain to people our policies, edit war dies down ... and then we add to the policy what it was we said to cool things down.  This is a terrible way to revise policies!  It is ad hoc and taks things out of context.  On the other hand, it is motivated by the very positive desire to learn from our experiences, especially when from a practical perspective we see newbies makin the same kinds of mistakes (and arguments) all the time, so why keep reinenting the wheel?  So I am thinking of our creating a kind of FAQ page which consists of arguments we regularly get fron newbies, and responses that have worked.  This could really support and save time or editors who egularly try to help mediate conflicts governed by content policies.  But the idea behind an FAQ like this is NOT to change the policy but to give adice abouth how to explain how it applies.  What do you think? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a great idea! We tried this documentation thing before, and then someone started sticking great big ugly boxes at the top with words like "policy", "guideline" and "essay". You may have seen them around the place from time to time.
 * If you can figure out how to make sure we don't get Yet More Ugly Boxes, I'm all for it! ;-)
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FT2: Don't moralize
Try this updated draft:


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px" width="90%"


 * Don't editorialize or moralize in Wikipedia's "voice"

Wikipedia itself does not make judgments; it contains appropriately balanced descriptions of the significant notable sources and of their stances. It provides information on these in order to allow a good understanding of these views by a reader, not for advocacy.

It may be that a significant view does contain a judgment - that a person is considered evil or a group considered terrorists, or some person is an abuser or the like. But as an encyclopedia, we are not driven to make that claim. We note significant views that exist, and reflect them in a neutral and non-emotive way, as facts. Wikipedia should never need to make a moral judgment or claim. If a matter is held by a significant credible source or group, then the communal view is it is better to cite facts and evidence of the view, and of the credibility of the source, than to present it as a view Wikipedia has decided on its own.

An assertion of opinion is original research. For Wikipedia's purpose as a neutral reference source, it is important that where facts are given a "voice", that voice be properly attributed to the person/persons who hold the point of view/make the judgment, neutrally characterized, not unduly rhetorical or emotive to make a point, and not presented as moralizing or editorializing in Wikipedia's own "voice".
 * }

FT2 (Talk 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, just as a start, I would change line three in paragraph two to say that we report significant views and facts, but not views as facts. It might be worthy to note here that the definition of a fact is: A truth that can be proven. A view, (opinion, POV), is a way of regarding situations or topics. What, where, when, who, how, and why all ask for facts. Do/does asks for opinion, and in journalism it's important to make the distinction when writing. Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Had something similar in mind but more to the point of not including unnecessary sensationalism and to instead consider the value of a judgement. People often come here claiming that Britannica does this so should we or Britannica does not do that so neither should we nonsense. Two major problems with this. First if Britannica jumps into the fire so would we. Second this is not how it happens in reality. Britannica doesn't have a need to label subjects as pseudo-science but wikipedia (or rather some components of wikipedia) does. Brittanica editors don't want to label people evil but wikipedia editors do. Biofase flame | stalk 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of editors telling others to do as they tell them to do and not as they do. Forget about what the rest of the world does and get something working that falls within acceptable practices. Only the tabloids call people evil and if wikipedia insists on doing the same then that is what it will be known as. As a reader I don't want to read in an article on anyone that some people think they are evil and I'm sure I speak for many readers. Anybody who still thinks diffently should forget about the writing aspect and consider the reading aspect for once, if there is a good reason to include an opinion then do so (nobody is saying you shouldn't) but if you are doing it because you "think" the NPOV requires you to explicitly state it then rather don't bother as you WILL get entirely the opposite reaction than what you were hoping for. Biofase flame | stalk 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your point, Biofase, as I've read far too often that WP is good for learning about a video game, but "take the rest with a grain of salt." I believe that making the distinction between fact and opinion clear would be a great step to improving the credibility of WP. From the Society of professional journalist's, (link is somewhere above)," — Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context. — Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. — Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability." Zaereth (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about wording the main principle. The actual implementation would be on a per article or subject basis as a policy dictating what should never or should always be included would have entirely the wrong effect. Just to make it clear that I'm not shooting down any of the previous ideas but they seem to be dealing with other issues that I think is already encompassed in policy and don't directly deal with the issue the original comment dealt with. My idea is to not prohibit inclusion of any views but rather caution readers to include such views only when appropriate and exclude them when appropriate. Sort of a "you really think this is a good idea, well think about it again just in case it's not." Biofase flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 22:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the revised text proposed by FT2, and I would suggest using it, but keeping the current example refering to the Hitler article (which could be reworded to avoid refering to any particular editor if that is a concern and to avoid the facts s) because I think it is quite effective and makes the point more concrete. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, here it is, all of wikipedia policy in a nutshell. http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp I don't see why it has to be so long and drawn out here. These are the ideals I have stuck to, and will continue to stick to. I have thought from the beginning that "Wikipedia does not report truth" is a fallacy, for that's the very definition of reporting all significant facts and views. But does wikipedia also report lies? What scares me is the blurring of the lines between the two, when views are reported as fact, (ie: the theory of evolution is theory, not to say I don't believe it, but until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt I would never report it as fact.) Zaereth (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To Biofase, (not to use the old cart and horse cliche), but I'm still trying to come to a definition of the problem before writing the advice, and I think it goes straight to the matter of "— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity." Zaereth (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe when both of you see my proposal you might see what I think the problem is. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 00:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Biofase wrote, "but if you are doing it because you "think" the NPOV requires you to explicitly state it then rather don't bother as you WILL get entirely the opposite reaction than what you were hoping for." I would like him to state exactly what reaction I was hoping for. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my comment was clear. This is not directed at you specifically. The policy is quote clear that major views and large minority views should be fairly represented. The operative word here is "represented". There is no requirement that every view be explicitly stated and likewise there is no requirement that they shouldn't. A requirement either way would be detrimental for article writing. Stating that Saddam is evil (even as an opinion) will only serve to antaganize me as a reader. If it's purpose is to be informative it will not have that effect. First of all being evil doesn't tell me anything more about the guy unless he is the definition of evil. Secondly it only sensationalizes it where I may already hold this view but believe it is not for me or anybody else to cast judgement over anybody, this is something the tabloids regularly do. Editors should consider everything they add from a reader's perspective first and apply better judgement as to when it is appropriate to explicitly state a view. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 00:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I really disagree. I mean, I have no problem with your first five sentences.  We run into trouble with "Saying addam is evil ..."  I agree with you that the article on Saddam Hussein should not say he is evil.  But I do not agree with you that we should make decisions concerning NPOV compliance based on what readers think.  I want to be clear in the hopes we may reach a mutual understanding: I think our policies are crafted ot help us write a great encyclopedia.  If in the course of doing this, we offend some people, or antagonize them, so what?  I am opposed to censorship.  I do not like it when a library throws out a book because it is offensive; I do not believe we should delete somethin in Wikipedia just because it is offensive if including it is necessary to comply with our core content policies, NPOV, V, and NOR.  Put another way, as long as we make sure two versions of a passage are equally compliant with out policies, then I would agree with you, to make the choice based on how readers might accept it.  But complying with policies come first.  This was precisely the same debate we had over how to illustrate the article on Vagina, and we resolved it with illustrations we hoped would not offend, but it was clear to us that a good encyclopedia article would have an illustration and if that offends someone, too bad.  Here is another reason I disagree with you: some readers will be upset if you choose version #1, others will be upset if you choose #2.  We have millions of readers, and they are not all the same!  It is simply impossible to please all readers.  So I think we can try to take readers reception into concern after we are sure it doesn't compromise our policies.


 * But the reason I agree with you that we should not say "Saddam is evil" is NOT because it might antagonize you, or any other reader. I believe we should delete the sentence "Saddam is evil" for two reasons:
 * 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.
 * I just do not see how such a sentence or phrase could possibly be considered neutral, fair, and without bias. My second reason is this:
 * 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.
 * If someone write "Saddam is evil" without providing any attribution, I can only conclude that it is the editor who believes Saddam is evil. And editor's views do not enter into Wikipedia.  Period.  Nor should we use an article to "argue" or to "support the argument" that Saddam is evil.
 * "Evil" only goes in the article if it expresses a significant view from a reliable source. If that be the case, we would never write "Saddam is evil."  We would write something like, "Several political leaders, most notabley US President George W. Bush, have repeatedly characterize Hussein and his regime as evil."  Now, this may antagonize some readers, but so what?  According to Wikipedia policy we put it in. It is part of writing an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I see what Biofase is getting at here, and the key idea which everyone seems to be trying to get at is objectivity, (judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices). We report documented observable facts and we report documented observable views. The biggest problem I see is that we don't define or distinguish between the two, and that is how objectivity is lost. Quoted below is journalist Carl M. Cannon:


 * Perhaps the seeds of the "objective" media's demise were sown in its very creation. Professionalism and a quest for objectivity made journalism a more attractive profession even as record profits made it a better paying one. The upshot was a generation of college educated reporters and editors, along with a set of cultural and political attitudes they brought with them from the nation's elite institutions of higher learning. In time, another technological innovation – broadcast – changed the historic role of newspapers and magazines. No longer deliverers of the news, print journalists became interpreters of events. That proved a slippery slope. As the elite denizens of newsrooms began to analyze the news instead of merely chronicling it, the confidence their audience had in the journalists' fairness and ideological balance began to wane.
 * This trend was only heightened by the ascendancy of television network news broadcasts, which had no convenient wall between opinion and fact-based journalism. And all this happened, mind you, before the advent of the Internet.


 * This is one of WP's biggest problems, as far as I can tell, is the lack of "convenient wall between opinion and fact-based journalism." In many cases WP policy follows the journalistic standards, (NPOV = "— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so. — Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others. — Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant"). Wikipedia does not follow other important and long held standards, (such as "— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context. — Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. — Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. — Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance. — Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. —Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. — Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.")


 * For example, stating that Soviet fighter pilots were not very good at the beginning of WWII is subjective, and so would need to be attributed to someone as a quote. This, of course, violates the rule of "good taste", and provides no reason why. So, we provide a more detailed quote for the opinion, and a fact to back it up, (the RS's interpretation, not mine): The Luftwaffe described their tactics, "The characteristic feature of the average Soviet fighter pilot were a tendency toward caution and reluctance instead of toughness and stamina, brute strength instead of genuine combat efficiency, abysmal hatred instead of fairness and chivalry...." It became common practice at this time for Soviet pilots to simply ram an opponent. Zaereth (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is this rule of good taste you mention? In what policy? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think those of you who oppose NPOV operate unders a fundamental misconception. You acknowledge problems with subjective biews but not objective views.  But the whole genious of NPOV is we do not have to care about fact/fiction or subjective/objecive.  After all, what you call "objective" may indeed be rejected by someone else as subjective.  What you call "fact" other people may challenge.  There are always cases where people can just end up in endless debates over whe is right.  NPOV short-circuits a of this because it says WIkipedia is not going to judge what is true (or I would add, factual or objective).  We simply provide all significant views from verifiable sources. That is it.  We do not have to worry about what is objective or subjective, or fact or fiction, or true or false.  All this discussion over how to deal with facts and objectivity is a waste of time.  Our brilliant NPOV policy means: we do not have to bother about such things. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The rule of good taste is from the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, (which I've linked a couple of times on this very page), and Wikipedia shall never be taken seriously if it ignores such long standing, internationally held fundementals.


 * When reporting an opinion as though it were a fact we are claiming that opinion to be true. We report that there exists an opinion, but never claim it is fact. There is no right or wrong when talking about a fact, it merely is "A truth that can be proven." That the green color of grass is caused by chlorophyll is a fact, (proven). That chlorophyll was created by God is opinion, (can not be proven). We need to take care to treat the two respectfully, and take care not to sell one for the other. This is how perfectly good articles go to crap, and how you lose perfectly good editors like me. Zaereth (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New proposal for "let the facts speak for themself"



 * Don't sensationalize

It may often be tempting to write e.g. that "x is a bad man/woman according to y". Resist the temptation to write articles that sensationalize a subject by applying labels or moralizing even if reliable sources appear to do so. The commentator may not be seen by all as a reliable "judge of character" on the subject. If a reliable commentator can be found there is still a possibility that another may hold an entirely different view. This may present a controversy to the reader rather than a conclusion of either view.

This is not to say that reactions or opinions may never be included; indeed, writing a truly neutral article may require such coverage. Rather the value of its inclusion should be weighed against other contradictory opinions which may negate its overall value, unless the point is to illustrate a controversy. If a reader would naturally be inclined to come to the same conclusion it may be unnecessary to include it at all. If it is overtly stating what would probably be the obvious conclusion it may be of marginal value and at the same time both readers who hold the view and those who don't may find it offensive. But above all after it has been decided that inclusion of a comment is necessary be sure to attribute it as a view of the commentator and not an indisputable fact. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 00:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * }


 * This sounds muddled. The more closely I read it, the more it seems to me that if this is read to be conistent with Wikipedia policy, it is not saying anything new, not adding anything of value to the policy.  If it is saying something new, then it is violating our policy.  I agree in general that we - we editors - should not sensationalize and we should say this in the MOS, writing in  sensationalist way is poor style for editors.  But this passage seems to be about sorces we may quote, not about the style in which we editors write.  If a reliable source expresses a significant view that is sensationalist, so hat?  We have to include it, and provide correct atribution, and also the context for the comment (often times, pople sensationalize by taking commnts out of context; the way not to sensationalize is to put them back in context - but our policies already require this).


 * Biofase adds that if an opposing view exists (and i note it must be significant and notable) we need to add it ... but the first sentnce of NPOV already says this.


 * I am deeply disturbed however by this sentence: "If a reader would naturally be inclined to come to the same conclusion it may be unnecessary to include it at all." First, what does "naturally" even mean?  How do we know what conclusion readers will "naturally" reach?  We have readers who look at the same evidence and some conclude that Darwin was right, others are creationists. People reash opposing conclusions based on the same facts all the time.  that is why we have an NPOV policy: to move us beyond the question of different conclusions.


 * Moreover, Wikipedia is not about promoting any argument. Our purpose is not to advocate for or against any conclusion.  What conclusions a reader may draw is none of our business.  Let's say polls in the US indicated that 80% believe Saddam is evil.  Okay, they have reached a conclusion.  Does this mean that we do not add to our article that a recent survey stated that 80% of Americans (or what the hell, 80% of Iraquis polled) believe Saddam was evil?  If this comes from a reliabl source and is widely reported, or used in a presidential debate, or used to justify US policy in Iraq, well, that is clearly significant and it has to be included in the article ... even if the very fact is reporting a conclusion that many readers have already freached!!  What our readers conclude is NOT OUR BUSINESS.  Our task is to write a great encyclopedia and one way we do it is by adding all significant views from reliable sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A proposal
Currently, the policy states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." This can be confusing, since there are times when the facts are in dispute.

I propose we replace it with this:

"Assert verifiable accounts, including accounts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves."

This is pragmatic, easy to follow, and short-circuits any debates about what a fact is. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose a compromise, "Assert verifiable accounts, including accounts about opinions — such as the fact that certain individuals adhere to some given opinion — but we cannot assert an opinion itself as if it were a fact." Ward20 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Vefrifiable accounts about opinions" covers any kind of account. Why provide one example? Why not provide fifty examples? Or why not keep it simple, and not favor any one example? I do not see what is gained by adding your example. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied below. Ward20 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Boris's proposal
What about leaving the text as-is, and adding this sentence to the end of the paragraph: "Likewise we can assert facts about opinions - such as the fact that certain individuals adhere to some given opinion - but we cannot assert the opinion itself as if it were a fact." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this is an improvement on the current policy? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose a compromise, "Assert verifiable accounts, including accounts about opinions — such as the fact that certain individuals adhere to some given opinion — but we cannot assert an opinion itself as if it were a fact." Ward20 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Vefrifiable accounts about opinions" covers any kind of account. Why provide one example? Why not provide fifty examples? Or why not keep it simple, and not favor any one example? I do not see what is gained by adding your example. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I replied to Slrubenstein's and Short Brigade Harvester's edits. Separating the discussions seems a bit like divide and conquer. I ask for that not to occur again. One problem is that editors try to assert an opinion as if they were absolute. Wording about facts conveys more clearly not to do this than talking about opinions. The second issue is that the first sentence needs to be discussed in context with the five sentences about facts that follow. Ward20 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The real problem is not people adding their own opinitons (NOR so conclusively ends that). The problem is that when people believe that it is okay to put fact is, or that the fact speak for themselves, all they are doing is disguising opinions as facts. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I should have been more specific that the problem is editors presenting opinions from RS as absolute or "facts". So it seems there is agreement in the principle, but disagreement about how best to describe the problem and solution. Some good word-smithing by editors working cooperatively should come up with something that is acceptable. I have noticed some awesome editing when that occurs. Ward20 (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think an issue is, there are some articles that are just about facts, which are uncontroversial - for exhample, "fuel injection" or "horse." But when you get to an article like "Saddam Hussein," we run into several problems.  First, there is no obvious complete and sufficient set of facts about his life.  What one considers a significant fact may very much depend on one's point of view.  We can strive to represent all significant points of view, and then include all facts that they consider significant, and probably feel good that we are presenting a thorough portrait of Hussein.  But my point is, in this case the views come first and the fact second (it is one's view that determines what a relevant fact is.)  And then of course there is the issue of interpreting the facts.  It is very dangerous to suppose that the facts speak for themselves.  Without putting those facts in their context, readers may not be able to understand the facts.  I am very suspicious of "let the facts speak for themselves" because in my experience they are always used by a POV pusher.  Well, in the case of "horse" or "fuel injection," let the facts speak for thmselves seems pretty obvious.  But when it comes to an article on health care reform, or the recession of 2008, I am very suspicious of "let the fact speak for themelves" because every lengthy article (in a magazine or newspaper) on the topics stress how much debate there is over the significance and meaning of cetain "facts."  This is not just the case in current events.  When it comes to whether one describes light as a wave or as a particle, the "let the facts speak for themselves" is silly and any competent pysicist would say that this is a very bad approach to take to science. We need a policy that fits both kinds of articles.  I think to difficulty here is that there are some editors, perhaps because they have experience with only certain kinds of articles, who think that one can divide all or most information into "fact" or "opinion."  This may be the case on some articles.  But it just does not work for most articles.  In the sciences for example, you start with observational data, then you have various attempts to interpret the data (what might correspond to an opinion) and only when scientists reach some general consensus about the interpretation of the data do you have a "fact."  When facts are uncontroversial (argonis a noble gas) the word "fact" can be used very casually.  But in other areas of science we have data and theories but the "facts" are not clear at all.  Frankly, I think that the first paragraphs of the policy is sufficient to guide is in dealing with virtually all these issues.  I think we always get into trouble when we move beyond the first paragraph and try to give more specific instructions about what to do in an article.  That is because those specific instructions will work well for many but never all or even most articles.  I;d be glad to cut everything but the first two paragraphs of the policy, and leave it to thoughtful editors to figure out the best way to apply the policy to any given article on a case-by-case basis. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again I agree with most of the points above. I disagree with some. When scientists reach some general consensus about the interpretation of the data you don't have a "fact.", you have a "fact" there is a general consensus about the interpretation of the data. When most people agree with a consensus they start calling it a "fact". I agree about the context of controversial articles, for example yours, "If someone write "Saddam is evil" without providing any attribution, I can only conclude that it is the editor who believes Saddam is evil. And editor's views do not enter into Wikipedia. Period. Nor should we use an article to "argue" or to "support the argument" that Saddam is evil."
 * In my mind the "fact" is, a RS wrote, "Several political leaders, most notabley US President George W. Bush, have repeatedly characterize Hussein and his regime as evil." Attributions and references should be provided of course. That is the reason I believe the wording, "such as the fact that certain individuals adhere to some given opinion — but we cannot assert an opinion itself as if it were a fact." is helpful. The wording "Assert verifiable accounts, including accounts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." seems a little too loose, and many editors already try to present an opinion as an absolute. Also, what would happen with the next five sentences that talk about facts with your version of the first sentence. It seems to me the paragraph is stongly dependant. Ward20 (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The remaining sentences would need to be rewritten. Look, I think thaqt your interpretation of the sentence in question is precisely the meaning of those who wrote it and in a very limited sense it is constructive.  But I think that it is easily misread. I thnk the point of the paragraph is that the only "fact" Wikipedia can really present are people's views of things.  It is a fact that biologists believe, on the basis of scientific research, that all living things are descended from a common one-cell ancestor. It is a fact that historians believe that the Hebrew Bible was largely written during the Babylonian exile.  It is a fact that most astrophysists believe that the universe began with the big bang.  And so on.  I think this is what the slogan, "Not truth, but verifiability" means - we can verify that x believes "a" is true; it is NOT our job to verify that "a" is the truth.  But people belive facts are true, and my point is that if this is the case, whatever we say about the truth, we need to say about facts as well.  We need to say, "we can verify that x believes "a" to be a fact; it is not our job to verify that "a" is a fact.  This is my main point.  I think people got so caught up in the fact/opinion distinction that they missed the entire point, that all claims we make about facts here are really claims about or that rest on some person or persons belief that such things are indeed facts.  If we looe sight of this, we end up with editors arguing over what are the "real" facts which NPOV was precisely written to prevent. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some serious flaws in your reasoning, Slrubenstein. First of all, look up the definition of the word fact. In science there are many facts. From these facts come hypotheses, and when a hypothesis is verified by mathamatical testing it becomes theory. Only when the theory passes all of the mathamatical and experimental tests is it deemed a law, and then the law can be said to be fact. There are relatively very few laws in science, and any scientist worth his salt is very careful to lable his theory/hypothesis correctly.
 * I have worked on several articles, placing facts in them and attributing opinion. Are you saying that all facts are opinion? Do you disagree that a flashtube is operated by connecting it to a charged capacitor capacitor and then ionizing the gas? Is it your belief that aerial combat did not begin in WWI, but perhaps in the Mexican Revolution, as some one else suggested? Do you disagree that air combat maneuvering is a contest of energy management? Is it merely someone's view that traditional Japanese katana are forged by folding the metal? If you are, then I defy you to find credible sources that say otherwise. You will not be able to, for these are facts, and any source that says otherwise would be incredible and adding them to these articles will only make them look ridiculous.
 * The same goes for opinion. Would you say that the Luftwaffe's view of the Soviet Air Defense is a fact, then go in and remove the attribution and make it a fact yourself.
 * I have to admit, I've never really had much patience for the long, drawn out policies of Wikipedia. I've held myself to the higher standard supplied to me by a lifetime of training in the field of writing, and have not had a single edit of mine reverted. (Corrected maybe, but not reverted.) I don't know if I'll be contributing to Wikipedia anymore, for I feel that it is not in my best interest to compromise my integrity by working, (freely), for an entity that has none. It may be your belief that Wikipedia policy is perfection itself, but to me it is far from it. Wikipedia favors quantity at the expense of quality, and that, Sir, is something in which I will take no part.
 * As I find this conversation to be a circular repeating of the same points over and over, I will no longer comment here. You have used the phrase "reinventing the wheel" here, and I believe this describes what Wikipedia policy is trying to do, except that it's still stuck with that damn triangle shape. I find Wikipedia policy to be substandard, and am greatly disturbed that so few people in this form of media have any idea what those standards are. Zaereth (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Boy, do you not understand Wikipedia. I don't really care whether you call any of the things you call "facts" facts or something else.  Let's take a look at the example of aerial combat.  You claim it was first used in WWI.  Another editor claims it was first used in the Mexican Revolution.  Who is right?  Does anyone care?  Mybe you care, because for you it is a "fact' that areal warfare first occures in WWI and you insist it is a fact.  But guess what?  Pancho Villapedia insists that it is a fact that it first occured in the Mexican Revolution.  Now, you can growl or pout all day long if you want to, the both of you can, but each of you arguing over facts is going to get us nowhere.  This is the brilliance of Wikipedia's slogan "Not truth, but verifiability."  And my point is that we could just as well (and therefore should) say "Not the facts, but verifiability."  Because all you can do is bring up reliable sources that claim that aerial warfare started in WWI.  And Pancho can do the same.  We can look at your sources and make sure they meet our reliability and significant threshold.  We may conclude that Pancho's view is the mainstream one, or majority, or minority, or fringe.  But in the end all we have is you and Pancho saying there are two views about this thing.  And according to NPOV, that is all one can say.  That is my point.  By the waqy, you do not understand the mainstream model of science, in which facts and theories are functions of one another and hypotheses come out of theories, not facts. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What's a "fact"?
AFAICT, a central aspect of the difference in opinion above revolves around what one means by the word "fact". For some, "fact" is something that is beyond a reasonable doubt to that person. For others, a "fact" is something much less than definitive, e.g., something put into evidence, whether that something be an opinion or a piece of physical evidence or any other kind of evidence, something which is expected to be subjected to further analysis by those responsible for making a decision about what to do based on the "facts" presented to them (e.g. as the legal community might differentiate the word "fact" from the word "law" in attempting to "apply the facts to the law" within that particular specialized kind of decisionmaking process). For yet other people, a "fact" is something they personally think is widely agreed and are willing to take as fact despite not even having seen &mdash; let alone analyzed &mdash; any evidence at all. For a scientist, a "fact" means something different than it does for a skilled legal analyst. For a philosopher or theologian, a "fact" means yet something else (and I offer no pretense of settling that widely debated issue among the community of skilled philosophers). For the sports-interested, a "fact" is yet something else, and for the math-interested, it means yet again something else. I give only a few of the many possible interpretations of the word "fact". Just a gut hunch at this stage of discussion, but perhaps it might in the end be wise for WP policymakers to avoid the word "fact" as a general rule in the community's presentation of its core content policies, just as the word "truth" is generally avoided in the core content policies. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is ultimately a sterile line of debate because we'll never get everyone to agree on the definition of any word, even the most basic verb in the language. But we have to use words nonetheless. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Problem is that the word "fact" is, well, sort of a meta-word that plays right into the wide confusion about the nature of human consciousness. Most words don't play quite so confusingly about what we mean by, say, "just the facts ma'am", or "stick to the facts". Point being &mdash; may I put it in the form of a question?: Where in the evaluative process of everyone in the world with internet access does the word "opinion" end and the word "fact" begin?. Perhaps the community might now proceed to define what the word "fact" means in the context of the core content policies w.r.t. presenting encyclopedic content? It's at minimum a herculian task, IMO. If you can do it, I would certainly have ears for your proposal about how to proceed to do so. E.g., "if your're in topic area "A", "fact" means "X", and if you're in topic "B", fact mean "Y" and if you're in topic area "C", "fact" mean "Z", but if you're in topic are "D", "fact" means "XX", and if in doubt, follow your local consensus process? If so, why use a word the meaning of which is so widely disagreed upon, both across different topic areas as against one another, and also a continuing matter of dispute within the communities interested in the various specific topic areas?. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what word do we use instead of "fact"? Sorry, but I'm just a dumb scientist; you lost me with the "meta-word that plays right into the wide confusion about the nature of human consciousness" stuff. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was referring to the ol' problem of epistemology and ontology, and about, in lay terms, the question "who can agree what's a fact?" across the entire wide realm of human inquiry and across the very broad and widely divergent range of assertions about what definable class of things might properly be regarded as "fact". Your take on this, AFAICT, is just one of many, as we just should have learned from the whole discussion above--IMHO of course. Your area of focus-- or area of expertise, as I just attempted to point out -- is just one of many areas of human interest, among all of which the word "fact" is not at all widely agreed as to just what the word means. IMO, why use a word whose meaning is widely differential when we can readily use other words whose meanings are more widely agreed? SBSH, my immense respect for your contributions in your chosen topic areas remains unequivocably intact, but I think I've already said my piece on this policy issue for the present. Lacking some compelling indication of anything important I might have missed here, I think it's presently time for me to move on to other things. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"This is ultimately a sterile line of debate because we'll never get everyone to agree on the definition of any word, even the most basic verb in the language. But we have to use words nonetheless." is sophistry. My point is that we only have to use the word "fact" if our sources use the word. And if they do, of course we use the word - we have to provide an accourate account of our sources. Nothing I have written (or Kenosis) disputes this. The question is, do we ned to use the distinction between fact and opinion in this policy. I am not so sure. This policy is about views. I do not think it matters to the policy whether the view is a fact or opinion. What matters is that it be significant and from a reliable source. Thus, imagine in an an article we write that "The majority view is .... However, some notable critics have argued that this view is opinion, unsupported by facts." Such a statement would be fully in keeping with this policy. My point is that in the policy itself - in this page - nothing is gained by using the word "fact." We have views. We need to know how significant they are, and whether they are from reliable sources. These are the essential elements of the policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll leave you guys to your ruminations on "sophistry" and "ontology" and all that high-minded stuff. Just don't mess with the policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't--we're just discussing. Also, I retract what I said above. I've no complaint with either "Boris's proposal" above or with the ongoing discussion here. I was thinking mainly about the residual notion, from a bit farther above in this talk section, of re-adding a whole section titled, e.g., "Let the facts speak for themselves" to replace the just-deleted section coming out of the above RfC. Upon rethinking it in broader context and rereading the "Simple formulation" section, many of the current uses of the word "fact" in the policy and in the talk subsection directly above this one, are extremely reasonable, even if arguably imperfect. The policy states "what we mean" by the word "fact", i.e., defines it, a definition which includes facts that consist of significant published opinions. Quite reasonable, and it generally applies across the vast majority of topic areas on the wiki. So I withdraw my points I made above. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. Then: currently, the policy states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." This can be confusing, since there are times when the facts are in dispute.

I propose we replace it with this:

"Assert verifiable accounts, including accounts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be the core of the verifiability rule. I don't think there's dispute about what the concept of a fact is. The dispute is whether something is a fact, and part of that problem is that sometimes it is not possible to determine facts. That can be because of lack of information, or worse yet, because of contradictions between so-called reliable sources. Editorial judgment comes into play. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure i follow you. Can you give an example? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made the following point several times before, and it seemed to help gain consensus on a related matter: ": As far as wikipedia is concerned, that's [an opinion, albeit an all-but-universally-held expert one] what a fact is. In the case of creation science, it's not all-but-universal, it is universal among all applicable sources. The sources do not say "it's the humble opinion of the scientific community that it's not a science", they say "it isn't, don't teach it".
 * "Spoon bending is pseudoscience"
 * "Spoon bending is considered pseudoscience by James Randi"
 * The first is a fact. The second is an opinion. Let's not concede to dressing up the simple fact that CS is pseudoscience in the guise of an opinion. User:M 03:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)"

It matters very much how we present opinions and facts, so I applaud a careful discussion of this issue. <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i> M   21:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Assumptions
I made edits to a section on assumptions, which seemed muddled. I do not think we are supposed to make "assumtions" when editing articles. As best I could tell, the point of the section was, that articles concern some things and not others. That is not making an assumption that is a straightforward matter of having clarity about the scope of the article. Some things that may appear connected to an article do not go in because there is another article for them to go into. And that is not about "assumptions" either, it is about POV forks. So I rewrote it so it would make sense. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While the section you've added looks valid and worthwhile, it's not the same as the longstanding WP:MNA policy which I've restored. I've just been looking at a discussion where an editor asserts "This does not disprove the argument; assume for a second Creationism were true; there can still be missing fossils. This also assumes that evolution is a fact." We don't argue that out on every page, we refer to the arguments and sources on the relevant main article. This is an important aspect of "Neutrality disputes and handling" and the section you've added doesn't cover it. . . dave souza, talk 11:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First version of proposal
I am perplexed by the last two sentences of the lead: The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Core content policy pages may only be edited to improve the application and explanation of the principles. If this passage is reliable (it doesn't appear at the other Core Content Policies), I take it to mean roughly the following: ''These three policy pages (NPOV, NOR, and V) are attempts to document, explain, and apply three respectively-named principles; the former being but Wiki-like and transient, the latter bold and eternal. Wikimedia mandates that obedience to the eternal principles trumps obedience to the Wiki-like policy pages. But if the three policy pages are but Wiki-like and transient, how does we know which qualities of their respective principles is stable? Do the underlying principles simply equal whatever is conjured up by their respective English-language labels? Then we're really saying that the policy pages entitled "Neutral Point of View," "Verifiability," and "No Original Research" are trumped by whatever is at Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and Original research...

This mumbo-jumbo really isn't necessary. The cool thing about Wikipedia is that we don't need Wikimetaphyisical and/or Wiki-Constitutional arcana to function. Here's all we need to say: These three policy pages cannot be superseded by other policy pages, because Wikimedia said so.  A small issue then arises:  Wikimedia has not said so. (Foundation issues only testifies to NPOV, but not to NOR or V.) This can be solved by asking Wikimedia to say so.

At this stage in Wikipedia's lifecycle, I find it highly unlikely that if we did this, a "consensus" will ever form that would enervate the "principles upon which these policies are based". That's because this isn't a democracy, it's a culture with an institutional knowledge -- as we learned in the PARC study. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On further reflection, the "Because Wikimedia said so" thing isn't really necessary either. We're all grown-ups here.  We've reached a consensus as to this and it won't get shaken.  Let's just substitute the following text:

The contents of these three policy pages cannot be superseded by other policy pages.
 * It's superfluous whether or not Wikimedia states that something is non-negotiable; what matters more is that it actually is non-negotiable. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with those sentences as they stand. A strict reading would leave them liable to create a constitutional crisis, but we're not subject to the traditional vagaries of constitutional law. Anyone that tries the time-honored trick of stitching together other policies to craft a contradiction will be dismissed with the same. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Second version of proposal
Sentences 2 and 3 read as follows: 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. What are we trying to convey here? Ridiculous interpretations are tempting: Both articles and article editors alike must not violate the policy that WP encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. I suppose we're really trying to convey something about professionalism and respect for our mission: we're not merely barring POV's from articles, but we'd also kindly request you to not blabber about them in the talk pages of articles. That's superfluous. Our mission is to write an NPOV encyclopedia, and we expect our editors not to distract us from it.

Here's how I see the lead looking: All Wikipedia content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Editors must not let their personal biases obstruct this goal. For guidance on how to do this, see the NPOV tutorial and the NPOV FAQ.

"Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research" jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. These core content policies are non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other policy page. Editors should familiarize themselves with all three, as they are complementary and cannot be interpreted in isolation.

It may seem startling that I've removed the first sentence, but it makes sense. There's no need to mention the core policies of WikiMedia (per my discussion in the previous thread). We don't do NPOV because WikiMedia says so; we do it because it's a good idea. And there's no need to mention the Pillars of Wikipedia either. They are not policy pages. They attempt to summarize what's here, not the other way around. And it's a bad idea to emphasize that NPOV is a pillar, when WP:O and WP:V are not. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You did read WP:5P before making that statement, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.114.131 (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * well, WP:NPOV is the second pillar, whereas WP:O and WP:V are scattered around the first and second pillars. You could argue that the first pillar combines WP:O and WP:V.  But how would you propose articulating that at WP:O and WP:V?


 * Anyhow, the Pillars page is emphatically not policy, it attempts to describe policies made elsewhere. That statement was made as early as August 2005 and the page was created in May 2005. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this doesn't get any more feedback before tomorrow, I'm going to unleash it on the world. Really, I was expecting more indignation ... Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 02:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Research

 * This section describes the history of the relevant features of the lead.


 * 08:46, 5 November 2003 introduced this text: "According to Jimbo Wales, "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". "
 * Comments: Actually, the link provided has changed. Here, Jimbo says "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though.  NPOV for example."  I found the link herethough the other links there have also changed.
 * Talk page: In the earliest talk archive, Larry Sanger wrote: "this is one of the rules that Jimmy Wales and many others on Wikipedia have said ... is non-negotiable, and really is a rule."


 * For a long time until 9 June 2006, the Lead ended with, "Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." 10 June 2006 was the first introduction of the policy/principle distinction, with the edit summary: "The principle is non-negotiable, this page is not." The prior and subsequent edits are much more nuanced than all that.


 * Talk page history:
 * This was preceded by adiscussion started on June 6 which started with User:AvB's suggestion, "... Would it be feasible to update the policy language to reflect that Wikipedia has three non-negotiable principles that are explained on their respective policy pages (which are negotiable)?"
 * In the subsequent thread, on 7 June 2006, the same editor proposed this text: "These policies are non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect practical explanation and application of each policy's principles."
 * AvB started another related thread on June 8.
 * On June 10, AvB started a great thread entitled "List of Wikipedia's non-negotiable key principles" which raises similar points. (incidentally, I'd really like to meet this person!)
 * Another very relevant thread was started on June 13, discussing the word choice.

Third version of proposal
I'm going to summarize the previous discussion for new participants. I have proposed some clarifications to the lead:

Pre-existing text: Neutral point of view (NPOV) 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. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Neutral point of view/FAQ.

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Core content policy pages may only be edited to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

Proposed text:

All Wikipedia content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly all significant views that have beenpublished by reliable sources. Editors must not let their personal biases obstruct this goal. For guidance on how to do this, see theNPOV tutorial and the NPOV FAQ.

"Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research" jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. These core content policies are non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other policy page. Editors should familiarize themselves with all three, as they are complementary and cannot be interpreted in isolation.
 * Some reasons for these changes


 * According to the research I've collected above, the phrase "non negotiable" has historically been attached to NPOV, based on a comment by Jimbo, but could just as easily have been applied to the others. I can't find the comment being referred to, but Jimbo has said, "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though.  NPOV for example."  Based on other evidence from the research, I don't think it would be wrong to attach the "non-negotiable" phrase to all three content policies.


 * I haven't had a chance to research the history of the first sentence of the existing text, but I would remove it. First of all, saying "because Wikimedia said so" isn't necessary to establish the "Constitutionality" of a policy; it's something we can do by consensus, and we do it because it's a good idea.  Also, it's inappropriate to "ground" any core policy in WP:5P.  They are not policy pages (that statement was made as early asAugust 2005 and the page was created in May 2005. ).  They attempt to summarize what's here, not the other way around.


 * The "policy/principle" divide has had a spirited historical debate, but I believe that if we simply say "Policy X cannot be superceded by another policy page", we will have provided ourselves all the "constitutional safeguards" we need. At this point in Wikipedia's lifecycle, I find it highly unlikely that revisions made to the NPOV "page" itself will ever degrade the NPOV "principle".  Our community and institutional knowledge is just too strong for that.


 * Previous feedback


 * Peter jackson's response to removing the last two sentences of the original lead: This is all rather academic, as there's no effective procedure for enforcing these policies.


 * PBS: "These core content policies are non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other policy page." This is a problem because it would have excluded theWP:ATT debate, and to date there has been no agreement that there is a hierarchy in policy pages.


 * Slrubenstein: I have no objection to Andrew's change, but I think the "non-negotiable" clause or sentence should stay in.  To my recollection NPOV is the oldest policy and most content policies in one way or another grew out of NPOV, and this clause has beeen part of thee page for a realllllllly long time.  I would say that its presence in the page for such a long time and the age of the policy itself are enough to support the argument that NPOV is central.  "Truth not verifiability" I think used to be part of NPOV until it was clear that we needed a lot more explanation about what we meant by verifiable, and NOR comes out of the point that editors cannot introduce their own views into articles.

Discussion
I'd like to open this up to discussion. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have several issues in this case, I've been lazy and never really gotten around to attacking the "non-negotiable" phrase, and it is hurting more and more.
 * First off, politically this would make it sound like consensus is deprecated. Consensus system is not exceptionally strong. If we give people a strong toe-hold with which to convince others to stop using consensus, and stop using the wiki-principle for editing. (Long story, see WT:CONSENSUS for current rumblings in this area)
 * A much more important issue is where people "non-negotiate" their way out of trying to gain consensus. They think that their POV is NPOV, and say "I don't need to negotiate with you, because NPOV is non negotiable". You now need a skilled mediator to even get started. If we make non-negotiability even stronger, even a mediator will not be able to resolve an NPOV dispute, and one side will have to be banned based on a coin-toss, essentially.
 * I have never actually been convinced that WP:V was essential. I'm pretty certain that WP:NOR is one of the worst mistakes ever made in the history of wikipedia (it started out small and innocent, and has grown to monstrous proportions, making certain kinds of content on wikipedia impossible, including for instance large amounts of potential content that could have been submitted by scientists. Oh well, life sucks.)


 * But I think we can live with the lot of them still, and I *am* committed to NPOV, at the least.
 * But even for NPOV, I think it would be easier to ensure NPOV if we could allow more negotiation on the matter. In mediation situations, you first need to handle peoples assertion that they refuse to negotiate (since that is a game-ender for mediation). Only then can you get around to actually mediating the case. I can't imagine how many attempts at self-mediation among editors fail because of this too.
 * How about if instead of saying "NPOV is non-negotiable", instead we say something like "NPOV is part of our Founding principles, that are fundamental to everything we do on wikipedia" or similar wording.
 * You're saying the same thing, but now less people are tempted to short-circuit consensus and get right down to serial 3RR violations. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Kim makes some good points about consensus and I also see the sense in the alternate wording (founding principles instead of noon-negotiable). I still see NPOV as non-genotiable ... but i take Kim's point to be that the actual application of NPOV is always negotiable and that we cannot deprecate processes that help make for an efective negotiation. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! This is not the first time that Kim has pointed out that what I perceive to be muddled language, actually reflects an underlying policy issue.  I think it would be wise to focus this discussion on the issues implicit in this proposed sentence:


 * These core content policies are non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other policy page.


 * In an effort to make an insightful contribution to this question of "non-negotiability", I have created a stub article for super statute which I am going to attempt to elaborate soon. I may take a break from this thread for a bit while I'm doing so, but I think that there's a fruitful analogy here. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 18:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following the discussion closely, but to me this seems an instance of "why fix what ain't broken". What problem are you going to solve? Remember policies have to be "descriptive" not "prescriptive": it summarizes consensus so that new editors can familiarize themselves quickly with what is being practiced. Since the application of NPOV hasn't changed as far as I know, neither should this page. -- Taku (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This page is perfect in every way, and came into existence by the word of god, to fully inform the wiki community of how to live in perfect harmony? ;-)
 * If not, it may need editing from time to time --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, any text that could say the same thing in fewer words is broken. Especially if that text is designed to help people familiarize themselves with practice  "quickly"!  In trying to "fix" (clarify) it, I exposed content in the previous version that might not represent consensus.  What we are doing here is trying to figure out whether or not it does in fact represent consensus. If it does not, the page is doubly broken.  Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it broken, and I don't see how the new wording improves anything at all. This just moves stuff around while dropping important things. I don't agree with this change at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section heading for convenience. The first sentence seems a little too important to disappear. It is a cornerstone, and this needs to be made abundantly clear as soon as possible. There are other places with different policies which have been founded and crafted specifically in response to this. Wikinfo operates on a "sympathetic" basis - all its articles present things favourably, achieving balance by Criticism of X counterpoint articles. Conservapedia employs WTFPOV, and enforces it strictly. Simplifying "articles and other encyclopedic content" to just "content" is a good move - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all other namespaces exist purely to support the main product. The rest is a pretty uncontroversial rewording, of which I approve. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this is right. Follow up question:  should WP:5P be included or is Foundation issues enough?  One is an authority, one is a fluff piece;I'm having trouble expressing this.  The following is an attempt.  (It also contains other significant differences from my proposal above. These are mostly for illustrative purposes.  Notably, it no longer says "significant views."  I don't pretend to have an opinion on whether it belongs. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 03:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC))
 * All Wikipedia content must present a neutral point of view. This core principle cannot be emphasized enough. Editors must not let their personal biases interfere with a fair representation of the views in our reliable sources.

"Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research" jointly define the scope of acceptable Wikipedia content. Editors should familiarize themselves with all three, as they are complementary and cannot be interpreted in isolation.

The rules on this page are illustrated at the NPOV tutorial and the NPOV FAQ.

Neutrality enforcement?
Thanks for summary and reboot of this since it confirmed my concern that at least some of the proposals were a way of preparing the ground work for implementing SlimVirgin's failed Neutrality Enforcement proposal that included creation of an NPOV monitoring group. It got shot down for a variety of reasons you can read on the talk page.

Strong wording that an article should be NPOV is great. However wording that an editor (in one article or across a series of articles) must be "NPOV" can be very destructive since there are a lot of reasons editors may represent one point of view more than others, mostly related to their areas of interest, expertise, or to balancing out chronic POV in one or a series of articles. Not to mention articles where you have 3 or 4 partisan editors with one view and one editor with the other view who is trying to keep things NPOV - and those 3 or 4 editors could gang up on them.

Now obviously there are obstructionist editors who pull every trick in the book to keep an article reflecting bias, but that must be described as a behavior issue which results in a POV, not necessarily a POV issue.

For example, all the articles that do not represent a libertarian viewpoint where one could be added; or all the articles that trash anyone who's ever criticized Israel, two areas I will tend to go in and add (or delete unsourced) info to make an ARTICLE more NPOV but where I as an editor COULD be accused of exerting a POV. In fact this diff a few minutes ago when someone complained that I and another editor had not used the "best" source on left libertarianism, implying POV, I replied: ''I am just trying to make sure content reflects what sources actually say and make sure things actually have a source and aren't just someone's unsourced WP:Original research. It's up to others to find the "best" quotes on that topic since frankly it's not my area of expertise so I wouldn't presume to do so.''

So my main comment is, let us beware of anything that leaves editors open to sanction because of alleged POV in one article or more than one article, if there is not an obvious behavior issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this resonates with another problem I had with the text. As I pointed out (flippantly) in a previous version of this proposal, trying to claim that any policy "is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors" is redundant, since articles are written by editors.  When describing NPOV, it could stand for any number of things:  1) Our articles must have no bias, and so must their talk-pages.  2) Our articles must have no bias, and so must your userspace.  3) Our articles must have no bias, and so must YOU.  4)  Our articles must have no bias, and you must cooperate with that rule.
 * I assume we're after 4), because 3) is impossible, 2) is undesirable (see e.g. DGG's userspace), and 1) is pernicious, since we don't want individuals to try to expunge their own biases solely by themselves, but actually believe that the use of dialogue on talk pages is the best way to do it. This is what I tried to convey in my recent changes to the NPOV pillar at WP:5P.
 * The striking thing about 4) is that it's the only formulation that requires two different verbs: NPOV requires different things of articles and users.  And while we roughly agree what it requires from articles (i.e., haha, everyone of us knows what is NPOV!), we all have a variety of experiences with POV users.  As I understand it, it is the stubborness of POV editors that constitutes the biggest difficulty with enforcing this policy, as well as the difficulty of determining which of our personal opinions is objective, versus which is a POV.  That is why my proposed revision of the first paragraph pust special emphasis on the ethic that editors must undertake to try to sort their own biases from objectivity:

All articles must present a neutral point of view. This fundamental principle cannot be emphasized enough. Editors must not let their personal biases interfere with a fair presentation of the views in reliable sources.
 * Articles are the grammatical subject of the first sentence, editors are the grammatical subject of the third. This solves our problem.  Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 19:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Inanimate objects

 * ''Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Naming conflict for further guidance.

There is, however, a problem, which makes this less than coherent. WP:Naming conflict in turn says:
 * ''A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

This is being read by a couple of editors at WT:Naming conflict as saying that we should always use self-identifying names, even when they are not common usage; it would be helpful to solve this by removing inanimate and making the last sentence into a see template under the header. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the beginning of  Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used; I do not believe we should  distinguish between animate and inanimate objects;WP:NCCN does not. Without that, I think the sentence redundant, but that tweak can wait. If any one objects, please explain here.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Please don't change the lead without strong consensus. The recent edits removed some important points. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. I certainly would be against such a change. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am 'strongly opposed' to people demanding "must get consensus first", if such a thing was possible, because it's such a meaningless phrase. I can't really oppose it, because there's nothing there to oppose.


 * Let's get some ground under our feet.


 * Slimvirgin, can you explain point by point which important points were left out?


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Slimvirgin's decision to revert my changes -- we had come nowhere close to consensus yet -- but since we really can't achieve consensus until we hear arguments from people who are opposed to these changes, I'd really appreciate if SlimVirgin and Dougweller can give specific feedback. Some changes do need to be made, because the text is ambiguous and wordy. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew, can you explain which parts of the lead are (a) ambiguous and (b) wordy? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * that being said, since you started a new thread, I don't know if you're aware that there's already a thread about this above, which could help keep the conversation all in one placeAndrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you mind explaining here? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just for example, trying to say that a policy is "expected of all articles and editors" is redundant.  Just ten minutes ago I wrote a post explaining why this thread above.  I don't blame you for not noticing it, since this thread is outrageously disorganized and lengthy.  I only am directing you to the thread because it's so recent.  I do owe a simple explanation for why the other text is wordy and ambiguous, and must apologize because I don't have time to do it now ... but you're right, it's my burden to defend teh changes, not yours to criticize them  Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than repeating the confusion of other sections, would you mind saying succinctly what is (a) ambiguous and (b) wordy about the current lead? Then we look at proposed replacements. But could we first deal with the current problems? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples of ambiguity in the current lead:



Examples of wordiness in the current lead:



Proposal

 * The proposed new nutshell is a good precis of how we do NPOV, which is entirely different from the what - the method is less important than what we get from it. That first sentence "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia." has to stay.  This policy in and of itself has inspired third-party projects, and the statement itself is true.  It's not wrong to say it's a cornerstone, because it is one.  I also don't buy into the "policy pages cannot link to non-policy pages" argument.  The earlier proposal was a good simplification, the one that actually went in not so much.  Use of "articles" rather than "content" is no good - we'll only get people saying "I don't have to adhere to this, because this is a talk page/template/sub-page, and NPOV only says articles".  It's happened before, it'll happen again.  The second paragraph should probably remain as is for the time being.  In other words, the first paragraph would be:
 * 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your feedback, but given that 1) I never made a "policy pages cannot link to non-policy pages" argument, and 2) my proposed draft retains the link to WP:5P, I'm having trouble believing that you have given my proposals a fair look. If you would like me to attempt to refactor what I've said above in briefer language, just let me know.
 * Again, this is my proposed first sentence:
 * Again, this is my proposed first sentence:


 * 81.111.114.131, I don't like your first sentence because the juxtaposition of "cornerstone of Wikipedia" with a link to 5P misrepresents the nature of 5P: it is just a restatement.
 * Also you use "neutral point of view" twice. That's not just a stylistic issue; there's been misguided efforts to distinguish NPOV as "policy" versus NPOV as "transcendental principle."  In the text you proposed, the bolded form of NPOV does not appear in the same sentence that explains what it is, so it perpetuates this needless distinction.
 * Finally, we should not be saying in two, isolated sentences the "importance" of NPOV. Your version expresses its importance in sentences 1 and 3.  If you think the "non-negotiable" language is very important, I would integrate it into my 2nd sentence.  I happen to think it's unimportant, since, once again, it tends to create a hierarchy among policies which is suggestive of a policy/principle divide. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS since another one of your problems with my text is grounded in the editors/articles distinction, I hope you will take a look at the discussion of this issue in the previous thread. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 00:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a version of your proposal that would not have these weaknesses. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am realizing that there may be an underlying ambiguity about this. We're trying to do multiple things. 1) Put distance between our articles and the opinions in our sources, 2) put distance between our articles and the opinions of our editors. I have tried to discuss that in the thread above, which is why I'm so frustrated that people keep starting new threads. 81.111.114.131, your text says "as far as possible without bias", which contradicts the view that NPOV is neutral, period, with no ambiguity. Many people protest that bias is impossible to suppress, but that's why it's helpful to introduce a distinction between neutral articles and editors who control their biases. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * but if you're crazy about "non-negotiable," I'd propose:

Hmm, I wonder if I can tackle Jwales on the non negotiable thing @ wikimania --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS 81.111.114.131, I think I violated "don't be a dick" by continually referring to the text you included as "your proposal", since it's almost identical to the pre-existing text.
 * PPS, SlimVirgin, before I make further attempts to describe why the existing text is 1) redundant or 2) unclear, I think I will need a better idea of what NPOV actually means. Is there a meaningful reason that Neutral Point of View redirects to Objectivity (journalism)?  If not, I think it's high time we create either 1) an independent article for NPOV, or 2) a separate section for it within that article. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't have redirected there, and the objectivity in journalism article was an essay anyway, so I've redirected both. Could you please say what you meant about ambiguity and redundancy, so we can move forward? Also, please use the section above, otherwise we get bogged down with long texts. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (address change) "My proposal" was an attempt to capture the spirit of the proposed changes without losing too much of the spirit of the original. I have read your arguments, but I don't buy this idea that linking "cornerstone of Wikipedia" to WP:5P is somehow inappropriate or disingenuous.  I don't find it inappropriate to refer to NPOV as a "cornerstone of Wikipedia", because it is, and no amount of argument will change this.  5P is a restatement (note the lack of a policy tag), but nobody is going to argue successfully that NPOV, NOR, V, free content, consensus and IAR aren't "cornerstones of Wikipedia", so I don't find the link to 5P in any way inappropriate, inaccurate, or misleading.  "cannot be emphasised enough" suggests it's important, and that we're continually having to remind people of it - it doesn't speak to the fact that NPOV is absolute, immovable, and set in stone, which is why we have historically described it as "non-negotiable".  IMO, removal of "non-negotiable" without replacing it with similarly strong language amounts to a weakening.  I also consider that a change from "three core policies ... that determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable" to merely something "editors should be familiar with" amounts to a significant downgrading.  The reason we consider these three policies as over and above any others is that they are.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you Andrew Gradman? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Side by Side Comparisons of leads
I was having fun with formatting to try to clear up my own confusion on new vs. old proposals which clarified my own thinking. When I did so I discovered my own main objections which will bring up separately. Maybe those coming up with critiques or other proposals (including above that look pretty confusing to me) should copy this to their own sandbox to clarify your thinking and/or to play with :-) So have fun! But leave this template as is. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's causing some formatting problems, so I've changed it a little. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's less clear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are we comparing August 21 and July 2? They seem virtually identical. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have mentioned that because of recent brouhaha, I thought there had been some massive change from the earlier version, but in fact it was a minor change. Also went back to January 2 which was also virtually identical except for formatting. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Current lead and some proposals

 * Slimvirgin, I can support your proposed text. It doesn't do everything I wanted in my proposal, but it's a fine compromise, and it makes sense.  Support. [that being said, there is always room for improvement, and I reserve the right to side with the next person who pokes a stick at it.  :) ] Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 08:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (I mean, for example, "these policies jointly determine the scope of acceptable Wikipedia content" would be nice. If that text could get picked up, I'd be very happy.  "Nature and quality" is pretty vague.) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 08:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (actually, if you could sort of explain what it is about my proposed second paragraph that doesn't work right. That would help.  I really like my proposed second paragraph and I was sort of surprised it didn't meet with universal acclaim.) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 08:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is "scope" not even broader than "nature and quality." The latter I can understand, but the former - when I read it, I have to ask myself what it means exactly. The ideal thing would be if every word and every sentence in this policy were both clear and necessary. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your second paragraph was fine, but it didn't emphasize enough that the three policies have to be read together, because each is meaningless (or not quite right) without the other two. Ideally, they should be combined into one policy, and I've long thought of trying to do that. But yes, your second para was fine too. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it some more, I think I'm doing what I criticize others for, namely hanging on to long-winded text just because I'm used to it. I could therefore support your second paragraph, perhaps with a tweak or two, i.e.


 * (a) "Editors should also be familiar with Verifiability and No original research, as these three policies help define one another and determine the scope of acceptable Wikipedia content." or


 * (b) "Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with Verifiability and No original research. These policies jointly determine the scope of Wikipedia's content, and should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one another." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I spliced our suggestions. "Scope" survived. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for historical purposes, here it is below. I like the fact it removes that troublesome language about editors. Though it feels rather bare :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is very elegant. I have new faith in the power of writing by committee!  now, who wants to start a pool: how long before someone gets upset that "non-negotiable" is gone? (on a serious note, this version does lack the urgency of the original, but since I stay far and clear of POV pushers, I'm not qualified to say whether that's a bad thing]).
 * PS I suppose that the new "second paragraph" text here ought to be reproduced at Verifiability and No original research? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of the frantic language stems from the period when Wikipedia got popular and was overwhelmed by new editors -- 2005-2006-ish. We were suddenly having to explain to people that, no, even if dozens of you agree on a talk page, you can't ignore NPOV, V, and NOR! So all kinds of language crept into the policies to reflect that panic: "Founding principle, non-negotiable, a policy that will last for a thousand years!" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia policy is generally malleable. It needs to be made explicit in the lead that the core content policies are absolute.  It need not be worded in an urgent manner, but it needs to be there.  A glance through a day's action on AfD reveals that all too many people don't understand this (especially in relation to WP:V).  "non-negotiable" at least had the advantage of conveying in just two words that the three are effectively set in stone, and are likely to stay that way for some time to come.  "These policies, which are [preferred term here], jointly determine ..."  81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that a small tweak should be made to convey this. I am pretty much satisfied with SlimVirgin's current proposal, but I will throw out some alternatives that might meet the conditions suggested by 81.110.104.91. (I'll put a bunch of changes in one place, and you can pick and choose what you like.)  (What makes the effort awkward is 1) "non-negotiable" was historically applied to NPOV only because it was grounded in a quote by Jimbo:  "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable.  NPOV, for example."  2) NPOV is the only one of the three that is listed as a Foundation issue.)   Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 21:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have used the phrase "core policies" rather than "core content policies" because 1) we use "content" later in the sentence and 2) it seems to convey the importance better (?). Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing
The writing in this policy is very unclear -- at best, wordy, but often in such a way as to introduce confusion. I just moved one example out of the policy:

This could and should be said in one sentence. By making it so wordy, it starts to become unclear what it's trying to say. The whole policy would benefit from a rewrite/copy edit to tighten it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not clear what "this policy" refers to or if this whole section was written by SlimVirgin or she is replying to something some unsigned editor wrote. From Carol who also finds herself having to clarify her posts :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "This policy" refers to this NPOV policy. The section above was not written by me, but moved by me to talk, because it's not written clearly. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, wasn't clear it was from the main page cause I missed the diff about it. Put a little box around which helps too. And I agree it was problematic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The text removed says much the same thing about four times: assertions can be sourced, and accurate, without being neutral. (Presumably four different editors' favorite ways of putting it.) Would anybody object to saying it once, and restoring the vivid Hitler example? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is the problem throughout the whole page. The same points are repeated over and over. Also, the Hitler example above is an entirely different thought from the rest of the section that seems just to have been tacked on at the end. We also agreed in the RfC not to advise editors not to moralize, in case they take it to mean don't add the opinions of sources. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a common thread. One point here is pejorative language is non-neutral, even if (correctly) sourced; I think that sound policy. The Hitler instance supports the policy by showing that pejorative language is unnecessary.
 * What RfC? There's an abyss on either side here, and if editors are not warned they will bring in the opinions of their high school textbooks. In some areas of the world, it is perfectly possible to source both X is a national hero and X committed genocide, even without material disagreement on the facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

for and against sections
Some policy articles have for and against sections... is there a better style because I think that this can cause problems. i.e. imagine if there is a reasonably fringe view (there is a prominent adherent, but they are pretty much alone), stating their view and then waiting paragraphs to state the mainstream response seems damaging to the readers understanding of the topic to me. Could this page suggest an alternative, or perhaps this style should be forbidden outright. PDBailey (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That style does tend to be a cruft magnet, emphasizing (both) extreme views at the expense of the mainstream. I don't think it should be banned - there are doubtless articles where it is useful and wisely employed. Some sort of warning seems indicated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think not banning it is the same as saying all rules can be broken, but maybe you can point to a place where it benefits an article? Currently I am dealign with right-to-work law where there is a debunked argument in the for section and the debunking was just moved to 4 (long) paragraphs later because it was considered to be an argument against. I think this sort of though is right on the face of it, but does not add to the Wikipedia looking or feeling very encyclopedic.
 * In my mind the worst part about the for/against is that there is a feeling that those who find more for/against points should get to edit their part and those who find more against/for should not be allowed to play in their section. PDBailey (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about saying that such sections are rarely useful, and referring to WP:SOAP? Where they exist, they should be based on a secondary survey of the literature, not on the polemics of the two sides, which are primary sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that some sort of "rarely useful" text be added to this page? If so, I'd support that. I think your points on the topic are insightful (or they were to me) and they illuminate what can go wrong. I agree that if what you said is not happening, it could be okay, but I'd have to see it to believe it. PDBailey (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Somewhere, some time, Wikipedians will do things right. Let's not give the vandals an excuse to claim policy violation when it happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * One example, not quite for and against, is in Macedonia_(terminology). Instead of letting the Greek and Macedonian viewpoints shout at each other, we quote a neutral scholar, the Australian Loring Danforth, who desribes both sides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you just made my point--there is one section and not two and the text reads like an encyclopedia, not a bunch of people arguing until they agree to draw a line in the sand and not cross the lines. I can understand not wanting to have too many rules, but there is also value in setting out best pratices. Again, your arguments against the for and against helped me see very clearly what is wrong with this in most cases, and having them in at least a guideline or even essay would be worth something to other editors like me. Maybe you can also tell me more precisely what you were thinking when you wrote, "How about saying that such sections are rarely useful, and referring to WP:SOAP?" PDBailey (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree that "criticism" sections and the like are "rarely useful". On the contrary, I think that on a project like Wikipedia, which anyone can edit and which frequently has articles edited by partisans from both sides, it is probably essential to retain such a structure. The alternative is to have an endless succession of tit-for-tat "but on the other hand" statements throughout the article that make articles completely incomprehensible to read and which only end up demonstrating a critical weakness of this project. Gatoclass (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is whether such sections make a bad situation worse or better. Generally I think they make it worse, leading to WP:Coatracking as people bung in any old criticism or negative content (rarely happens with praise, in my experience...) and over time the thing becomes a hideous Godzilla of Assorted Reasons Why This Thing Is Crap And Assorted People Who Think It's Crap And Assorted (OR?) Evidence Why It's Crap, but there may be exceptions. Rd232 talk 10:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look more closely at the Macedonia example; I linked to a main section, but there are two subsections, one on the Greek PoV, one on the Macedonian. Both quote the same neutral source. That will work, if done in good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Septentrionalis, again, you are right that this part of the article is of incredibly high quality, an excellent example. Even if you can't use one review article, I think using review articles is probably best. However, given the extensive length of the reference to the one article, is there a copyright issue? I know abstracts are legit derivative works, but this is paragraph upon paragraph of summarizing and quoting, when have you taken too much for the source? PDBailey (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my pidgin. I didn't do this section of the article - and don't do WP:COPYVIO; but it passed through FAR recently, and those quotes were discussed (and reduced). Less than a paragraph all told of Danforth's text, out of a quite long paper, seems to me like fair use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WT:NOR regarding examples
FYI there is a request for comments on a proposal to replace the examples in RFC - Replace examples in WP:SYNTH with link to examples. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The RFC has evolved into an alternate proposal to keep the examples and move one of the paragraphs within the same section WP:SYNTH. Your participation would be appreciated. See Alternate proposal (only reorganizes within section and keeps examples) --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Last edit of August
The last edit in August inserts a sentence that seems mostly redundant with the following sentence to me. The word "conflicting" is added, but doesn't NPOV suggest representation of all the significant, supported viewpoints? Does it matter an editor would describe those viewpoints as "conflicting"? - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the redundancy. No NPOV does not suggest representing all significant or reputable or supported or sourced viewpoints. This seems like a common misconception. Actually NPOV is about representing views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

Did you forget that Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge, not of views? We are here to provide the best possible definition and description of the subjects, not a list of related quotations. There is nothing wrong with presenting a list of quotations, provided that they help to define the subject. It is better however to provide facts-items that are undisputed. (Facts precede opinions).

NPOV only needs to come into play when there are conflicting viewpoints. This is how it works:
 * 1) The editor boldly adds information (whether cited or not).
 * 2) Unless there is a conflict, that information is accepted as consensus.
 * 3) Users assume that this information was added in good faith, unless they sense bias (know of conflicting viewpoints).
 * 4) If there is a conflict, it is taken to the discussion page, where NPOV is referenced. NPOV.

Bensaccount (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, consider the current health care reform debate in the U.S. Some believe the major issue is the cost, and some believe it's the coverage.  Some editors would consider these two viewpoints "conflicting", others wouldn't.  Does it matter?  Do we need to have that argument?  If both viewpoints have substantial coverage in reliable sources, doesn't a neutral treatment require both? - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * NPOV or "Neutral treatment" comes into play only when there is no way of providing a fact and the editors must defer to a series of opinions instead. Once this happens, these opinions must be represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. This is a less than ideal situation. Whenever possible the editors should find the source of the conflict and work it out so that a factual statement can be agreed upon instead. See Facts precede opinions. Bensaccount (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Facts can be presented in a way that suggests an opinion. By necessity, we must select facts for an article, since facts are countably infinite - which facts are selected or omitted can itself present a bias.  In fact, there have been some lame revert wars over the matter.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When an editor notices that the selection or omission of facts presents a bias towards one viewpoint over others (a conflict of viewpoints) there are two options:
 * Resolve the conflict.
 * Cite the opinions.
 * The former method takes precedence. The latter method requires following NPOV. Adding opinions to the article is not the ideal solution. Bensaccount (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit of lead
Wolfkeeper reverted. WK, would you mind saying what you felt was wrong with the copy edit? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the copy edit. I do (for what it is worth) think that in the body, maybe immediately after the lead we need to say that the principle itself is non-negotiable, although we often discuss how best to apply it. I also think that we need to say somewhere in the body that in effect we are not making any claims about th truth, only that a view is significant and verifiable. I also think we need to state explicitly in the body that editors should not be guided by their personal views. I am calling attention to what I consider VERY important points, but that can be made in the body, not the lead. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the original text. For all its elegance, the proposal is watering down the wording. Why? Is there an error in the original? I find the original to be totally refreshing as a no-nonsense guide, while even the start of the proposal ("One of the founding principles...") suggests that another founding principle may very well override NPOV. I can't put my finger on it, but there is also something wrong about the way "significant views" is treated in the proposal. Perhaps it is the suggestion that a minority (if significant) can have any crazy idea and it must be in Wikipedia because the minority is significant (yes, I know the "reliable sources" should cover it, but I am concerned about the extreme wikilawyers). Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the original too wordy and a bit club-like, as though it's bashing us over the head with the idea. "[E]xpected of all articles" is repetitious; we already say it's a policy, so clearly it wouldn't only apply to some articles. It's false to say that NPOV is expected of all editors. I wish it were, but we have lots of SPAs who do nothing but push strong POVs in specific areas, and there's usually nothing we can do about them. If someone would like to start a drive to change that, I'd be 100 percent behind it, but it's been tried before and has failed. "Type and quality" of material = scope. And so on. Lots of unnecessary words. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with SlimVirgin and Slrubenstein (i.e. in favor of the copyedit).
 * Johnuniq, one of your major concerns is its treatment of "significant views." Since this is probably one of the most difficult elements of NPOV to articulate, I think the best we can do is to elaborate this in the body of the policy; the header can at best present a skeleton -- and I think the revision does this effectively.  Andrew Gradman 05:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, you mentioned that you wanted to see "non-negotiable" in the text. Another user proposed that above and   I proposed a further reversion that meets this requirement. Andrew Gradman

This is the edit I suggested in order to accommodate people who want the word "non-negotiable" in the text. I'm not trying to make this more complicated than it is; but I do think it's a valid option. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hand surgery so can't type much, but I do want "non-negotiable" in. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The shorter version is better. The severe wording is detrimental to our policy. Wikipedians don't need to fear POV when editing, in fact some people think POV is unavoidable. They just need to be aware of what to do when they are accused of bias. ;). Bensaccount (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * nothing is actually non-negotiable, per IAR anything can be modified if necessary--I can't immediately see why we would use it here or think of a possible instance, but the principle remains that we make the rules,and we can always modify them. Agreed that the short version is better.   DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you envisage a scenario in which Wikipedia relaxes to allow biased, unverifiable synthesis? IAR is a cure for legalism, nothing more.  It's there to close loopholes, thereby justifying actions that aren't entirely in line with policy but are otherwise sound (speedy closure of a debate before the usual timescale, an "involved" editor at a contested page rolling back blatant vandalism, etc.).  It's an understanding that we can ignore the rules, not a licence to break them.  In this case, the wording of the page can change, the underlying policy cannot (I'd love to see someone try sometime, and I'm surprised it's not in WP:PEREN).  81.110.104.91 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer shorter version but think original one is written better. I agree with Slrubenstein and dougweller. Hope hand is better. I bet I could write a better shorter version.Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer


 * All articles must have a neutral point of view (NPOV) meaning they're fair, without bias, and reflect majority- and significant-minority views. NPOV is one of three non-negotiable core content policies along with verifiability and no original research.Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh? My two cents. I agree with Slrubenstein that shorter is better.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted material
I went to quote a particular bit of policy (None of the views should be asserted as "the truth" and "An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively.") and noticed it was missing and see no discussion on it's removal. Does the current material convey the same message or is this in some other part of policy, or have we removed this bit of policy? Morphh  (talk) 13:53, 09 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been changed to:


 * The statements "None of the views should be asserted as "the truth" and "An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively." are already covered. Asserting one view as the truth over others is an obvious example of bias. And the page makes it clear that bias should be avoided. The "Bias" header used to be a section on all the different types of bias. I guess it was removed, but you can still follow the link. Bensaccount (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there was a great deal of discussion, and I do not see why the change was made. I support restoring the original wording because I understand the problem expressed by Bensaccount, namely that this policy should have quotable bites to oppose POV language in articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When did I express a need for sound bytes? I support the non-redundant version. Those quotations are already covered. Bensaccount (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of nn author's name
Editors had agreed that a nn author had (nevertheless!) written a WP:RELY book on a topic. Editors did not agree on whether the author's name could be mentioned in the article, since the use of his name seemed gratuitous. It was not required to distinguish between statements. There was no "Aaron said this but Zeno said that" entries. Is use of nn author's name permitted in article or must editors confine use of nn author's name to footnote? (And please don' tell me this is a notability issue - they sent me here!  :) That is problem #1.

Number 2 problem. Notable novelist has written on a topic for which she is definitely nn. Editor expanded on her otherwise unknown credentials within the article. Editors decided to allow this since the topic was a bit on the vague side, but it seemed funny - both mentioning the notable person as if she would ordinarily have standing and then describing her credentials which would be overwhelmed by her novelist credentials for those readers who linked to her bio. It's almost like she shouldn't have been mentioned (not reliable) in the first place, or, allowing her book on the topic, disallowing use of her name (see problem #1 above). In other words, must her notability on one topic, allow editors to use her name in the text when being quoted on another topic, presuming she has written a single book on the topic (as above)? Student7 (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
Due to the current legal action relating to this article, could people who have expertise in dealing with difficult WP:V and NPOV issues please review this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of World War II evacuation and expulsion articles
I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. Participants in this area have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves
I was linking to the other day when I realized to my horror that this simple, eloquent recommendation was removed....By consensus! Now, I know that only jaded, old WP editors hang out in the WP:discussion pages, but I always loved this simple "You don't need to say Hitler is bad" guideline. It tended to focus the mission of WP and always seemed very... Jimbo. Do you think there is a way we can reintroduce it? --Knulclunk (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See the RfC and Let the reader decide. --Atomic blunder (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this. From what I gather, the main offense seem to be the inclusion of Saddam Hussein. I will offer a rewrite in the next few days.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will support any effort to reinstate a subsection which has the merits of simplicity and clarity that the removed section had, without the deficiencies raised in the RfC.
 * It is a long-standing cornerstone of the NPOV policy that we should let the reader decide their own position based upon the facts (according to reliable sources) and upon a balanced and fair presentation of viewpoints described in reliable secondary sources per WP:V. We should not thrust a particular worldview down their throats or tell them how to interpret the information we present. Too many of our articles try to tell the reader what to think about a topic even in the first sentence, and this is counterproductive and contrary to any encyclopedic goals. This subsection is a vital element in countering that unfortunate trend. Geometry guy 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about undue
There is this user who kept claiming a single source is undue/minority unless more sources could be brought up to support it. However, the source at that moment of the claim is the only source in that article and it is deemed a reliable source in the related wikiproject. Thus I told him to find sources presenting other views to prove it to be minor. S/he refuses and keep saying one cannot prove a double negative thus s/he do not have to find any sources to prove his view on that single source is a minority, and claimed that since it is a single source, it must be minor and undue because if it is not minor, one can easily find other sources supporting it. I do not find it necessary to do so since if it is minor, it must be easier to display the majority view point with sources. And questioning the single source is also questioning the notability of the article because that is the only review on the subject and other sources at the time are only media release information. The user keep bothering me with his view point on my talk page since he can get no support in that article's talk page. My question is simple, can anyone claim the single reliable source undue just because he think it is untrue and minor? Is this claim against the undue policy? Thank you. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if your summary is correct, you have worse problems than that. If there is only one source for the article the topic may not be notable enough to have an article in the first place. You clearly need better sourcing than that. Being a minor source may be enough to make a source be undue weight, but agreeing on what is minor can be tricky... but merely being the only source currently on the article does not automatically mean it's not undue weight. We would need to see specifically what's being discussed. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At that point of time, the article is rather new, and an edit war took place while one user kept claiming the source to be incorrectly using a term(which was actually not quoted in the article anyway, it seems, which another user point out) so the concern is to stop the edit war. The article got more sources now and none is the major view claimed by the user, yet the user kept saying if it is a single point, it is by default minor.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  06:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the original discussion at the article: 1 and this is the user claims on my talk page: —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  04:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

69.221.233.230
who just started yesterday, at least under that IP, is methodically going through looking for "peacock" terms like "popular", "influential", etc. He might well be right, but it just seems odd for a "new" user to have such a narrow focus. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
I have a contradiction!
 * Neutral point of view represents views that are biased towards a neutral point of view, thus Neutral point of view is a point of view and a violation of Neutral point of view. But if Neutral point of view was deleted due to a violation of Neutral point of view, then it could be recreated because Neutral point of view has been deleted and a point of view is now allowed. Attinio (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing is better than God, and a ham sandwich is better than nothing, so a ham sandwich is better than God.Angryapathy (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * John Lennon said that god is a concept, by which we measure our pain. A ham sandwich also is not universally considered better than pain. skip sievert (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV is about editorial neutrality in presenting topics as they appear in the body of available reliable sources, not some objective or arbitrary neutrality. Contradiction resolved. Vassyana (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect it was a joke, but isn't the resolution somewhat simpler? WP:NPOV applies to articles: WP:NPOV is not an article. Geometry guy 22:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A Logical Point of View
From a logical stand point. The transition from AD/BC to CE/BCE is unnecessary. If people are complaining that using "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" are too offensive to their non-belief of the Chirstan faith, then they are being biased, so their opinion is null and void. To see things in a WNPOV then you need to be neutral. To be neutral is to be unbiased. To be unbiased is to put all emotions aside. So we can ignore everyone that says they are offended that the Standard Time has Christan Reference. Now we can break down the options. BC and AD are an accepted standard in time for over a thousand years of recorded history. They are based on an inaccurate base of the birth of Christ. But at least BC and AD have something to base their words off of. BCE and CE are based on BC and AD and have a time difference of zero milliseconds. If we use BCE and CE then we have to understand their stand point and basis of origin. When is the Common Era? Should we start from when Christ was born? Because the years before and after Christ has no difference in how common the time was. They used the same currency, same sun to base off the time of day. Their was recorded history before and after. So using the birth of Christ doesn't show and difference in a common time. How about we use the time history was recorded on stone by cavemen in France? We should approximately be in the year 20000CE according to that. What about when currency was started to be based off of gold and precious jewels? Now were approximately in the year 9000CE. What defines common? Should we reset our calenders every time a new pair of shoes goes out of style? Now were buying a new calender every ten minutes. Since there is no basis of a "Common Era" there is no way to define time. Anyone who uses the words BCE and CE are hypocrites for using the Christan time. That is the same as an artist stealing a painting from another and putting his signature on the canvas. And what is more valuable then time? And for all of you people who are sensitive about using something not of your faith. Suck it up. Your just whining that you non-Christians didn't think of a way standardize time.


 * What is the purpose of this nonsense? There is nothing in this policy that has anything to do with AD/BC vs CE/BCE, and the policy that does cover it, WP:DATE clearly says that neither style is preferred. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Elimination of article content
edit-semiprotected The phrase "elimination of article content" in the WP:YESPOV section should link to the WP:PRESERVE policy -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅     17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation economics project
A mediation request Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines has the interpretation of the policy on weight as one of the items to be mediated on. 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OR A Simple Formulation - Not So Simple
The so called "simple formulation" is not as clear and simple as it may seem.


 * Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

If you define opinions as matters which are subject to dispute among Wikipedians, this works somewhat better.

The problem is the trend of defining opinions as matters which according to reliable sources are subject to dispute.

For a single statement like "theft is wrong". This is fine. You might find a journal with an article about people disputing this statement.

But what about for an entire paragraph like

"In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny."

You are never going to find a journal article about two prominent individuals disputing this exact paragraph. Not necessarily because it is fact, but because it is original. This specific formulation of what order of words and ideas best define and describe theft doesn't exist anywhere else.
 * You can reference it by simply adding references to the individual claims. Provided the writer hasn't put and A and B together to make claim C then there's no problem. You're allowed to just collate information.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Now take an entire article about theft. Like it or not, it is our original research. It is the picture that readers take away with them of what theft is.

Now sometimes we encounter a paragraph that we sense is biased, so we alter it a little. Change the order of ideas, the words, the tone, etc. Then we have two different versions of a paragraph, or maybe two different versions of an entire article. Which one is biased? There is no published source that will tell us the answer. We have to decide for ourselves what is fact and what is opinion.
 * We have to decide what is balanced and what isn't. But none of the facts should be invented.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not made clear by the policy. So what wins out is often when someone adds a bunch of quotations. Look: it contains more citations therefore it only has facts and facts about opinions so it is less biased.

This is not how NPOV is meant to work.

Citing opinions does not make them equal to fact. I drafted an article about this kind of thing. I am going to modify it to fix/replace this "simple" formulation. Bensaccount (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Careful here. That's not the way the wikipedia works, and could never work that way; there would be too many arguments.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of people think that when they first come to this website. Actually, with some good faith it does work. Bensaccount (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the value system of people varies, and this causes them to have violent disagreements sometimes. If the people have to do actual research of reliable sources, it tends to work a lot, lot better.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The only facts that are agreeable to be used here is where there are opinions that are expressed in a verifiable source. The fact is that those opinions are expressed, the opinions they hold are not considered facts. The editors of the wikipedia do not hold themselves up to be judges between these opinions, we just report them.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We do make judgments. The only way what you are suggesting would work is by copying the entire article directly from a pre-existing encyclopedia and citing it. If you do that you would have an encyclopedia article with no original opinions. Fortunately we do make judgments about what to include and how best to define and describe our topics. If we didn't the process would grind to a halt (a phenomenon which people like you are slowing causing).Bensaccount (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't believe everything you've heard. Fact is, the wikipedia's growth is slowing because the low hanging fruit has been picked. It used to be easy to come up with a new article to write, but now, the article is already there. The world is not ending. The quality is improving. It's got little to do with the policies.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Really NPOV as neutral point of view is a misnomer, it's really notable points of view; we try to capture all of those.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If they were correct there would really be no reason to have the NPOV policy. We already have verifiability for that purpose. The key point in NPOV is NEUTRALITY/NON-BIAS not verifiability/notability.

NPOV helps when there are conflicts, but it can not create an article for us. Like it or not we have to synthesize the article ourselves. If we refuse to write anything that isn't already written we will not get articles. Wikipedia articles aren't already written.

Why are there so many people like you on campaigns to ensure that editors do nothing but repeat verifiable sources? Do you not realize how impossible this is?

Bensaccount (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I do not realise how impossible this is. I've seen very few examples where what I know to be true was not able to found in reliable sources. I do know that simply relying on what editors 'know' is a fundamentally bad idea. Too many things that people know, aren't so.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If what you are saying is true, it would mean that there is some gigantic encyclopedia somewhere that I don't know about that people are repeating word for word. Do you know what the word "repeat" means? I don't mean take a bit from here and there and synthesize something new. I mean EXACTLY DUPLICATE. Otherwise you are changing it. Modifying it. Relying on your own knowledge. Bensaccount (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To a limited degree, but encyclopedia's always try to minimise this for reasons that should be obvious, but I'm not sure they are for you. An encyclopedia is essentially a summary of knowledge. Summaries always lose something, but we do at least try to include references so that the material can be checked and further investigated, and corrected; without those references the wikipedia cannot improve.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ben, our job here is to summarize fairly, in our own words, what reliable sources are saying about a subject. If necessary, we add pertinent quotes. What is 'fair', as far as content and weight, is up to all of us to decide by common sense and consensus. This is what WP is all about. Crum375 (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Crum375, that is a good way to put it. I think what is important to understand is that a fact is verifiable. Fact is the same as verity; the two are synonyms. A fact can be proven and will be listed in reliable sources. If a fact is somehow wrong, which, due to misprints and misunderstandings, they often are, multiple sources can be used to verify its accuracy.
 * A point of view is the same as an opinion. The two are synonyms; directly interchangeable in a sentence. A point of view can be verified only in that it exists, and this is done by attributing it to the point from which it came (a direct quote, or So-and-so said..., not just an inline citation which could make it look like a fact). Where there is an opinion there is usually an opposing one, so neutral POV is about providing all opinions that are notable (significant) in an unbiased tone and an even amount of coverage. There is no such thing as a wrong opinion.
 * The hard part is often telling a fact from an opinion. They teach us in journalism that all inquisitive questions can be boiled down to these seven: What, where, when, who, how, why, and do/does. The way to tell a fact from an opinion is to ask what question it is answering. If it answers the first five, then it is either a fact or a mistake. If it answers the last two, why or do/does, then it is an opinion. Zaereth (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Zaereth, we are not journalists here. Our job is not to find out what happened or why (from primary sources or eye witnesses), or any of those points you mention. Our job is to summarize what reliable sources have published about a subject, and present it in a fair and balanced way. We don't distinguish 'facts' from 'opinions'. All we care about is that reliable source X said A, and Y said B, and we summarize what they said per above. We try to rely mostly on secondary sources, to help us get a good overview. Crum375 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I disagree. True, we are not journalists, (I am not a journalist either), but anyone who's ever worked for a real encyclopedia knows that one is written in a journalistic format, and such training is generally a prerequisite for hire. The point is, if talking about POV, you're really talking about opinion. If talking about verifiablility, you're really talking about fact. To not define them and distinguish between them is simply ludicous to me, which is why Wikipedia should never be used a reliable source.
 * That is my opinion, and I will leave you with it in hopes that the quality of Wikipedia can be improved. I dislike arguments, so I'm going to go back to boosting the quality of technical and scientific articles, where such distinctions never come up as an issue. Zaereth (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Zaereth, I dislike arguments too; I am only responding to your points. You are absolutely correct that Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source for anything. It is written by unknown people, with unknown credentials and unknown motivations. At best, it should be used as a source for a general overview and further reading and research on a given topic, based on the provided references. More specifically, I think you have a confusion about the meaning of 'verifiability' on Wikipedia. For us, this means that the statement we make in the article can be verified by our readers to have been made by a published reliable source. Not that the underlying fact or opinion is 'correct' or has any merit. Thus we don't distinguish between 'facts' or 'opinions' or 'beliefs', we simply report that X said A and Y said B, per reliable publications. Unlike journalists, we do not seek the 'truth'; our goal is to summarize what reliable sources have published about a subject, and present that information in a neutral manner. Crum375 (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. For the most part, I agree with everything you're saying, except for one. Facts should be double checked for accuracy, even the facts about an opinion. Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, we need to verify that the published sources in fact say exactly what we say they say. We also need to find the highest quality sources available. Crum375 (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, it's nice to be on the same page. I like your idea about using the highest quality sources. Through my own research, I've often found that a university study is usually better than a book, which are always better than periodicals. But everyone makes mistakes. I guess what I meant, by example, is that if source X says Colombus sailed the ocean blue in 1942, we might have reason to question that date, (when), and find a few more sources to validate it, (or find out how he avoided all those German subs.) Zaereth (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We certainly need to vet our sources, and compare them against each other. If we suspect a typo, like your example, we need to find another source that confirms our suspicion. If there is a typo in an original quote, we may add a 'sic'. But we can't just modify or 'correct' information on our own, as it would constitute OR. All this has little to do with this page, which focuses on neutrality. Crum375 (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * blah blah blah original research blah blah....


 * "What is 'fair', as far as content and weight, is up to all of us to decide by common sense and consensus." No really? EVERYTHING THAT GOES IN THE ARTICLE is up to all of us to decide by common sense and consensus. Yes we cite as much as we can so you can stop saying "blah blah blah....reliable sources....blah blah blah....verifiable....blah blah. That is not the issue.


 * Our job is to determine what is fact and what is opinion. What is true and what isn't. What defines the topic and what doesn't. What is relevant and what is not relevant. It is not complicated. Define and describe. Yes it would be nice if there were some gigantic encyclopedia that we could just copy and cite, but there isn't. We have to determine how best to define the subject ourselves. That means sometimes we have to say that some of the ORIGINAL content on our page is fact. And sometimes we have to say that it is opinion. No outside source can do this for us.


 * What NPOV does is tell us that when we find opinion we have to attribute it and present it proportionately. Fine. What I am saying is that Fact takes precedence. Can you please address this issue and not start with the blah blah blah verifiable blah blah again?


 * Furthermore, Crum & Wolf I suggest reading the section I am referring to. Read how it defines opinions and facts. The definitions you are basing your arguments on is actually only a trend, the definitions in the section are quite different.

Bensaccount (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Zaereth's objection

 * First of all, if there were some "giant encylopedia" we couldn't just copy it down. That would be plagiarism. We find information in sources and we write it down in our own words. The writing must be original but the information accurate, as portrayed in the reliable source. We can not omit information we do not like, nor can we rearrange the context to achieve an unintended meaning.


 * We have to decide what goes in by means of notability. (ie: Does the subject or topic have significant coverage? Is the opinion a widely held belief?) I also believe that policy should state that information needs to provide further knowledge of the subject.


 * I have read your essay, and disagree. An editor can not decide which fact is true. A fact is either correct or it is not. If multiple reliable sources comfirm that another source got its fact wrong, its sort of a majority rules case, with the exception that some sources are obviously more reliable than others, (you get a sort of "grapevine" of information effect).


 * Opinions, on the other hand, are different. There are no wrong opinions, so they all must be treated equally. In this case, what is truth to you may not be truth to me, so both truths must be represented fairly. The exception to this case, once again, is notability. The way to properly represent it is to display the facts about it, as in what is it about, where did it come from, when did it originate, and who came up with it? These questions look for fact, and can be answered by the evidence. We do not seek this evidence ourselves, for others who are more qualified have already done that. We simply find it in reliable sources, and build this giant encyclopedia which you are looking for, from the ground up.


 * What is important is that Neutral point of view, (which could be renamed Neutral opinion and still have the same meaning), Verifiability (factualty), Reliable sourcing (expert testimony), and Notability (does anyone care) all go hand in hand. It's really very basic stuff, and I believe, with a little effort, all of wikipedia policy could be condensed down to one or two pages, simplifying things for so many users, new and old alike. Zaereth (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That is quite a bunch of scattered ideas. Your main concern seems to be that you, as an editor, can not decide which fact is true. If this is the case, I think you should not be editing. Can you imagine an encyclopedia written by someone who makes no effort to decide how relevant the content of the articles are to the topic? How much truth they convey about the subject? It would just be a random jumble of scattered thoughts, none with any specific pertinence to the title of the page. (kind of like your above rant). And don't start with the notability blah blah again. In deciding what highly notable, well cited, verifiable, non-original, super-reliable opinion to include you STILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER IT CONVEYS SOME TRUTH ABOUT THE TOPIC.Bensaccount (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to examine any article I have edited. Start with the laser pumping article, and see if it has improved with proper sourcing versus the original research provided previously. Zaereth (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was using you as a hypothetical example. I am not going to that article because I am sure that you improved it. The point is that to improve it you had to decide that the sources you added conveyed some truth about laser pumping. You also decided that the previous content was opinion. Bensaccount (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, other editors who also have expertize in the field helped me to pick out what was incorrect and make it factual. If there was an opinion, I did not touch it. Zaereth (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoever made the edits had to decide that the sources added conveyed some truth about laser pumping. Now lets try to relate this back to my proposal. Once we admit that yes the editors determine what is truth and what is opinion on the page, does it not make sense to give fact precedence? Bensaccount (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, which I mentioned in my "ramblings" above. I think policy should state that information should further one's knowledge of the subject. I see this as falling under the notability catagory. (Notable, significant, relevant, use whatever synonym you like.) In example, someone inserted in the flashtube article that flashtubes were used for some outrageous application in the movie Andromeda Strain, (and added it to the application section, as if it were an actual use). While interesting to the movie article perhaps, or an article about Flashtubes in movies, it provides no real input to that particular article. Failure to control the mindless trivia will soon lead Wikipedia to, (pardon the laser term), a population inversion, where as the inane will quickly overrun the useful. Zaereth (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, then we are in agreement. Would Wolf and Crum care to return to this discussion? Bensaccount (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify, my answer of yes was before you altered your previous comment. You can't always give fact precedence. Most scientific articles are based solely on theory, which is just an extremely well thought out opinion, often backed up with evidence, but not provable with that evidence. The article gravity wouldn't exist without them, but we must fairly represent Einstein's theory of gravity with Newton's theory, and other notable theories which come up. We should never claim either one to be a factual answer as to why things fall. But, in my opinion, the WP:Notability would probably be a better place to discuss this particular aspect of policy. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are arguing that facts shouldn't take precedence over opinions because scientific theories are opinions, and they should take precedence over facts? What kind of convoluted definition of fact are you using? Its not the one I am using, which I defined in FPO. Nor is it the one in ASF 23:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm simply saying that facts can verify that an opinion exists, but can never verify the conclusions of the opinion. That doesn't mean the opinion should not be included, if notable it should. But the facts surrounding the opinion should be included as well. (ie: Einstein's theory, to answer who). You can look at my user page for the definitions for fact and opinion, which came from multiple dictionaries. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. I am defining fact as Undisputed content among editors (similar to the ASF definition). 2. Make up your mind. Why shouldn't facts/undisputed content be given precedence over opinions/disputed content. Bensaccount (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Well, we're playing on a slippery slope when we start redifining words for a specific use in policy that doesn't match the RS's definition. I think the word you're looking for is concensus. The answer is because people want to know why. Since we can not answer that question definitively, all we can do is provide the various opinions that exist.

In example, working on the dogfight article, I came across information in multiple sources that indicate that during WWII the Russians often rammed their opponents in midair. This makes one wonder why. I found an opinion from a very notable source, in which the Luftwaffe indicates they didn't think much of the Russian's flying ability at that time. I could simply write, "The Soviets were not very good pilots at that time," but that makes it seem either my opinion, or, to the untrained eye, possibly a fact. I could add, "According to the Luftwaffe..." but that sounds a bit cheesy, and the results are bound to stir up some controversy. So, I include the entire quote, "The Luftwaffe described their tactics, "The characteristic feature of the average Soviet fighter pilot were a tendency toward caution and reluctance instead of toughness and stamina, brute strength instead of genuine combat efficiency, abysmal hatred instead of fairness and chivalry...." It became common practice at this time for Soviet pilots to simply ram an opponent." Now, having provided an answer to why, I have added the fact behind it, because of purposes of timing and pacing it simply fits better there.

So, if by precedence you mean that a fact should always precede the opinion, I would say it doen't necessarily have to be in that order. If you mean that a fact should replace an opinion, I would say that is impossible, for no one can honestly say why, even a quote from the Soviets would be another opinion, (which I've been looking for to help balance the article out).

Now, I'm going to be leaving for the weekend, so I won't be able to respond until Monday. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In your example on dogfight your paragraph with the quotation actually looked quite biased. I edited so as to present the German propaganda in a more factual way.


 * As per my proposal, I clarified it so that the wording precisely fits both my meaning and the dictionary definitions: Content accepted as factual precedes content that is contested.  Can we agree on this version? Bensaccount (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's a good example. Where did you get your information that was inserted into the dogfight article? Did the Germans really refer to themselves as "Knights of the sky", or is this just a video game reference. Personally, I've never heard this phrase used until the PBS documentary on the Red Baron, later made popular by the movie Flyboys. I have never read this term in historical documents, so I would ask, what is your source? Did the Germans actually refer to themselves as such, or is that just made up? Zaereth (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you contesting the content or are you just asking for a source to be difficult? I provided a source anyways so you would move on. Now do you or do you not agree with the statement that  Content accepted as factual precedes content that is contested. ? Bensaccount (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I still think you may possibly be confused about what is factual and what is make believe. I have checked out the source, and it only uses the word "Knight of the sky" once. "From almost the beginning of aerial combat the most successful fighter pilots became lionized as "Knights of the sky." When Germany's favorite and perhaps greatest ace, Oswald Boelke, died in combat in October 1916 he was given a funeral worthy of a kaiser (Fritzsche 1992, 74-81)." This is in reference to WWI, not WWII, and never says they actually called themselves that. This source never uses it in reference to just the Germans, but implies that all the aces were idolized. The PBS documentary also uses the term in reference to all aces of the time, (while talking about the British), and the transcript for this is linked in the article.


 * So, as this information does not have any reliable source to back it up, I would advocate its removal until one is found. So, I would agree with you that the content that remains factual, by means of reliable sourcing, should take precedence over disputed content that is not sourced. I would not say that facts should necessarily take precedence over reliably sourced opinions, but the facts surrounding those opinions should be included as well. Zaereth (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see that you have changed the article to match the source, although it's leaning toward plagiarism and the placement seems a little incorrect. Actually, its well documented that pilots often had great respect for their opponents. The Red Baron commented in his own book on how good the English were, and similar comments can be found throughout reliable sources. What's also well documented is the Soviet Air Defense was in a complete state of disarray, with the "purging" of dissenter who were often some of their best commanders and pilots. The Mig-1 was strikingly bad in combat, and was often the favorite choice for ramming. Aftenr a complete reorganization of the Soviet Air Defense directly following the war, Soviet technology and skill quickly surpassed the Americans, which became evident in the Korean War. (But this is probably best discussed at that article.) Zaereth (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Read before you speak. Your propaganda example is not furthering your point. How does including propaganda in line with text prove anything? Bensaccount (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Who's to say it's propaganda? Do you have a source? As I recall it was from official Luftwaffe documents and not newsreels of papers, but I'll have to go back to the source. It is merely an opinion, and I couln't think of anyone more qualified to give one about that particular subject, as no one else was fighting them at the time. Zaereth (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So your argument against my proposal is that it messes with your attempt to present what may or may not be Luftwaffe propaganda as if it were an unbiased description? Bensaccount (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is totally biased. The proper way to handle it is to find an opposing opinion, and list them both. That's what NPOV is all about. Find a point of view and neutralize it. Believe me, that article was put together in haste, as it was possibly about to be deleted due to plagiarism, and I have every intent upon expanding upon it as soon as my time allows. some of my good friends were in the Soviet air force, and they find no disrespect in admitting past failures. Sometimes that's just the way it happened.


 * Now, is the statement from the section below about the inferiority of the American fighters during the Korean War biased? Or is that the way it happened? What about the American "propaganda" beneath it? Do we need a statement that says the Chinese were actually incompetent in battle, to even things out? All signs indicate that they gained a great deal of experience during WWII, (two of the most useful maneuvers, the high yo-yo and the low yo-yo were named after Yo Yo Noritake), why wouldn't they be competent?


 * My point is sometimes you have to go with the information at hand, but that info needs to be accurate. We can't just make up stuff willy nilly just because it "sounds good to us." One of the biggest problems I see with Wikipedia is summed up by the following paragraph, which is is a path which your proposal will lead us further down. Away from quality.


 * "The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up this way: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." – Lore Sjöberg, "The Wikipedia FAQK" – Wired


 * Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The quotation assumes that most editors are idiots out to harm Wikipedia. Read Assume Good Faith. Then read Peloponnesian War and look for skeletons. Then come back here, apologize for that bs quotation, collect your scattered thoughts, and try again. When does disputed content take precedence over content accepted to be factual? Bensaccount (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (Previous answer)So, as this information does not have any reliable source to back it up, I would advocate its removal until one is found. So, I would agree with you that the content that remains factual, by means of reliable sourcing, should take precedence over disputed content that is not sourced. I would not say that facts should necessarily take precedence over reliably sourced opinions, but the facts surrounding those opinions should be included as well. Zaereth (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll not apologize for a made up example that someone from Wired magazine wrote. I found that at Anti-elitism. How you interpret it is up to you. As I believe I have made my point as clearly as possible, I shall leave no further comment here. Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Lengthy and scattered does not equal clear. You provided some Luftwaffe propaganda disguised as an unbiased description, a random elitist quotation, and said blah blah blah reliable sourcing about 2 dozen times. You failed, however, to provide any example of when or why disputed content should take precedence over content accepted to be factual. Bensaccount (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One last time, example in point. You edited the dogfight article to say that the Germans called themselves knights of the sky, and their enemies evil. While you may have believed that information to be correct, and I assume good faith in that you did, there was no source to back it up. When called on it, you hastily provided a source and altered the words to match, word for word with the sources, changing the previous meaning entirely. (Now copying something word for word is a clear copyright violation called palgiarism, which basically amounts to stealing. However, you probably could've gotten around that with some quotation marks.) Now in your essay you define a fact as: "A statement that the editor considers to be true." It should say, "A statement that is confirmed by one or more reliable sources." Now the dogfight article is still left with half an unsourced sentence, and the other half is directly plagiarized from the source. I can not condone a policy that would allow that. But I have no intention of getting into an edit war over it. I'll bring it up on the talk page and let others decide, which is what I'm going to do here. Zaereth (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In the dogfight article you thought that using a NAZI description of Soviets was accurate and unbiased. Every time you bring up this worthless argument I will remind you that it is simply a case of you introducing bias and later realizing it and allowing me to fix it. It has nothing to do with my proposal. It is the equivalent of arguing against theft by repeatedly referring to the murders you have committed. You can't talk your way out of murder, but even if you could it still wouldn't have anything to do with the theft. Bensaccount (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. No. There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. That is why we have NPOV. If you actually read any of my statements instead of just reading "blah blah blah" into them you may begin to understand the rules, instead of simply ignoring them. I don't know what murders you think I've committed, or how pointing out your theft implicates me somehow. Zaereth (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

On editing policy
It would be nice if someone would learn about the current NPOV policy -- what it says, how it works and why it was written that way -- before trying to make a drastic change that defeats its entire point. User:Bensaccount, please do not make major changes to a policy without a clear, demonstrated overwhelming consensus of other editors to do so. What you are trying to do is like some guy off the street showing up and rewriting an entire chunk of official hospital procedures and expecting all the doctors and nurses to just do what you want. This is policy, and one of, if not THE, most important ones. You can't just make stuff up as you go, especially when it makes no sense. DreamGuy (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not written in stone, its not life or death. Anyone can edit (policy or not). Be bold. Revert and discuss what you don't like. This method is what has shaped the policy as it currently stands. I know this because I have done so myself - Look at my contributions in the history.

What does not make sense? Bensaccount (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

An important question about what is majority view and what is minority
There are some fields like male gender and sexuality, where the prominent, majority in the West (which is majorly represented at Wikipedia) is at loggerheads with the dominant pov in most of the non-West/ natives.

Now, what will constitute the majority view, as per, Wikipedia rules? The non-West is numberwise much more prevalent than the western view. However, its the Western view that rules (inspite of being a minority in the world as a whole) especially on forums such as Wikipedia, grossly underrepresented by non-Western/ native point of views.

E.g., sexuality between men is considered an LGBT issue by the heterosexualized West, which has marginalized this trait to a few 'homosexual' identified males. These males, who also tend to be third gender, as the non-West would define it, tend to define, view and present, sexuality between men in a certain 'alternative' way, which the mainstream males who desire men in the non-Western societies, have no way of relating with.

The LGBT also tend to view sexuality between men prevalent in the ancient world, which was again, a mainstream kind, in an alternative way, which would make no sense to those people who practised it. It's the same when this group views sexuality between males in the wild.

It's seen that, since the issue of sexuality between men has been allocated by the Wikipedia to the LGBT group of editors, in keeping with the western practise, the LGBT editors aggressively refuse to give ANY space to the non-western view, even if the additions are supported by several western editors, albeit non LGBT, and views that have been validated by authorized universities in the West itself, and included in published works from reputed, valid sources.

Unfortunately, the LGBT portal on wikipedia has a strong 'homosexual' agenda (and its no use asking it to mediate), which wants to present the entire issue of sexuality between males in the non-west, as well as in the non-human species, through a particular ideology which is strong in the West. However, if this information is not qualified, accepting that things happen differently in other societies, it would be a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Also, there has been a pov in the West itself, which is against the concept of relating sexuality between men to a group of 'different' males. There have been several studies and scientists who have warned against this approach, and this opposition is well documented with published works. However, the LGBT group aggressively stops giving any space to this pov, not even a separate page. Several separate pages devoted to this pov have been struck down by this strong, aggressive lobby, which doesn't want any other pov, but its own to find space on Wikipedia. This is a dangerous trend, by a group that claims itself to be victimized.

The western, LGBT concepts of male sexuality for men have been given shape by certain historical and cultural developments peculiar to the Western society. Eg, there is a tussle in the West between Christian fundamentalist groups and the LGBT. Issues, such as whether sexuality is a choice or not, that are so important in the West, mean little to the rest of the world, where, for some its a choice for others its not. Similarly, the earlier prevalent group of third genders, who were the 'different' effeminate males who indulged in receptive anal sex, all over the world, have long been 'unacknowledged' in the West, and they have been merged in the larger homosexual group. But, for the rest of the world, the third gender is a living reality, and the difference of 'gay' and 'straight' is essentially that of third gender (transgendered males and masculine males), rather than of whether you desire men or women. So, the non-western views are bound to differ from the western, LGBT views. Now, for the moment, if we don't go into the debate about what is the right approach and what is wrong, shouldn't Wikipedia give 'EQUAL' representation to both POVs, without bias to either, even if hurts the LGBT ideology.

There is a strong case for removing the LGBT portal from the sole 'control' of issues relating with sexuality between men.

Please, can someone clarify this important issue? (Masculinity (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * This talk page is concerned only with improving the policy. Have you read the head of the page? The Neutral point of view noticeboard may be more appropriate for queries or the Dispute resolution process for disputes. Dmcq (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the policy here. I don't think you've really read my query. I've given the background for the reason for a policy on this. It's not a 'dispute' as you make it out to be. It's a matter of policy. (122.162.168.32 (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC))


 * "Now, what will constitute the majority view, as per, Wikipedia rules?" is a query about the application of the policies as far as I can see. If there is a section of this policy you disagree with then please specify it and what exactly you disagree with, or if there is an addition to the policy you would like to propose then please write it up and say where in the policy it would go. It is up to you to propose the changes. By the way decisions should be made by consensus not majority rule. Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Let the reader decide": Appeals to readers' own biases
(This is not an objection by me to the article given below as an example.)

Perhaps here something should be said about not presenting arguments sympathetic to a particular POV. For example, from Republics of the Soviet Union:
 * Their [the Baltic states'] position [that the period 1940-1990 was an illegal occupation] is supported by the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United States, and the European Union. In contrast, the Russian government and state officials maintain that the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was legitimate.

(My emphasis.) To me, since most of English WP's readers will have a positive bias to the aforenamed institutions (European/UN/US ... hmmm!), it is apparent that the editor is motivated to strengthen the Baltics' opinions.

I recognize that this is merely but a special case of bias. But perhaps something against loading the facts should be added, like
 * "Avoid appealing to reader's own biases."

BTW on that article, an editor insists that since its sourced, it belongs. Given what I've just said above, I think something should be done about it... (If this is already on the main page, forgive me for poor reading.) Yether (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you checked at WP:NPOVN before trying to change the policy? Looking at that talk page you say "My intention was to put across the idea that it is clear that there are two opposing opinions", lets just assume you're trying to correct a failure of neutrality rather than having one yourself. You can't remove citations just because you don't like them, what you need to do is find a good citation that says whatever it is you're saying and put that there as well. If the other citations are marginal compared to that then you'll be able to remove them too but that doesn't look like it would be the case here. WP:NPOVN anyway is the place to go any further here. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not trying to change the article! I put a disclaimer at the top of this thread in full knowledge of WP:NPOVN. Yether (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see any circumstance in which it would make any difference. A person trying to achieve a neutral point of view would not try appealing to bias. In effect you are alleging another editor is deliberately editing in a biased manner after you pointed it out. Such bias cannot be measured unless there are citations saying something else and they are ignoring or removing them. So as I said above if you disagree then find a citation that backs up your point of view. And WP:NPOVN is the place to go first about such things. Dmcq (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sports coverage
In general I fiind that sportswriters use a completely different writing style than do encyclopedists. Sportswriters try to build rapport with the reader by using as many nicknames, abbreviations and insider terms as possible. The sportswriter's goal is to artificially create an inside group and to make the reader feel included. An encyclopedia is written so that someone completely unfamiliar with a topic can gain reference information without struggling with insider terms. Further, sportswriters who work for local media typically show great bias or sympathy for local teams. They also strive to use very colorful language, speaking in terms of death, robbery, etc. outside the normal literal meaning of those words. Hence, most normal sportswriting would not pass the NPOV test. The problem is that if a statement has a sportswriter source can it still be excluded on POV grounds, or at least distanced with a phrase like "Some sports commentators felt that the team was robbed...."?

Another inherent source of POV comes from different people's views on the role of sports in education or society. Sportswriters typically write as if the role of colleges is to prepare professional athletes and they criticize schools for not devoting more resources to athletics. Academics, in contrast, belief the role of college is to graduate well-educated students, and may take the opposite view on resource allocation issues. It seems that Wikipedia articles about college sport teams have attracted a group of editors who are bringing sportcaster sensibilities to their coverage of college sports. In one case, I removed some blatant POV from an article and asked an editor why he kept restoring the POV-pushing adjectives and judgments. He answered that my version was "too plain."

Over-written, judgemental POV articles are very common in Wikipedia's college sports articles. Is there anything that can be done to address this problem, particularly when the volunteers who work on them have great passion for their local teams? I trust that I am correct that NPOV applies to sports-related articles just like the rest of Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Honourifics (other than in Islam)
If the policy at WP:PBUH is that Islamic honourifics should not be used, what is the corresponding situation for Christian honourifics such as Saint and Reverend (Rev.), or for Jewish honourifics such as Rabbi (eg. Rabbeinu Tam, rather than Jacob ben Meir) and the acronymous forms (RaMBaM, RaMBaN, etc.)? Newman Luke (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone has just pointed out Naming conventions (clergy) to me. This answers the Christian side of things, but unfortunately not the Jewish side of things (the Jewish section is fairly empty - it just links to an article about transliteration of spellings). Does anyone know about this? I'm particularly interested in relation to, eg., Rabbeinu Tam, Rashbam.

Please alert me to responses by my talk page (I don't watch this page). Thanks. Newman Luke (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying WP:WEIGHT
There is a specific situation I have encountered multiple times, across various article. I believe the section on Undue weight could be clarified to more accurately give guidance on this.

I have found that sometimes material is added to a (new) section of an article by some enthusiastic editor, and that section winds up occupying the majority of the whole article, despite being relatively unimportant to the whole topic. In the case of articles that are short or stubs, the solution is often simply to expand other sections to a similar degree of detail. However, in many cases, the new material would be disproportionately long in the WP:PERFECT article. In the situation I have in mind, the new material is not WP:SOAPBOX or terribly WP:POV, and generally it has (or can easily be made to have) adequate citations meeting WP:RS. The problem is simply one of relative length devoted to a minor sub-topic is unbalanced for the article. To some degree this is covered in the lead sentence of WP:SPLIT, but not in nearly enough detail IMO.

Let me give a specific example I encountered recently, which also feels like one of the clearest examples I have seen. More often I have seen this concern in biographies of people, where some specific incident or event is disproportionately represented (often in violation of WP:RECENTism and WP:NOTNEWS). In the example I have in mind, an editor added a large volume of material to Tattoo ink about medical/health concerns and reactions to inks. For the most part, other than some general cleanup issues, the content was of good quality. However, everything discussed in that section, while indeed mentioned in medical literature, was about rare occurrences, and should not take the bulk of the article on this topic. I refactored the article to link to a child Tattoo medical issues, and left just a summary and link in the parent. This also had the positive effect of letting me do the same thing in Tattoo, which had different (but also somewhat WP:UNDUE) material on the child topic. In this case, the editor who had introduced the material was cooperative and thankful for the refactoring; however, in some other editing matters, I have encountered editors who are very resistant to such sensible refactoring. I believe a clear policy/guideline nudging in the right direction would help things. LotLE × talk 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
This edit made some good changes to the WP:NPOV section, but it introduced one potential flaw. It nows says that POV material should not be deleted, but may be shortened or moved. That gives too much support to the drop-in edits which add a POV point because by one reading of the new material, it would be wrong to remove such a point (even if it is clearly inappropriate based on undue weight). Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The following quote is itself problematic with regard to NPOV: Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology ... The products of professional research in parapsychology are not correctly described here. In fact there has been a steady accumulation of sound scientific evidence for as yet unexplained interactions of consciousness and environment in recent decades. The evidence both in quantity and quality is out of proportion to the minuscule investment of time and money, and it comes from unambiguously scientific research with better protocols and controls than in most mainstream sciences. Using parapsychology as an example of pseudoscience not only reflects a lack of knowledge of the professional field, it encourages biased editors of the parapsychology article to believe they are justified in using "pseudoscience" as descriptive (even pejorative). Rogunnar (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on parapsychology says 'the consensus of the scientific community is that psychic abilities have not been demonstrated to exist'. There is no point presenting your evidence to the contrary here, present it on the talk page Talk:Parapsychology If you think this policy is being applied wrong there then contact NPOV Noticeboard Dmcq (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

rethinking purpose of the policy (new section)
seems to me that this policy was created just to bring some media attention to Wikipedia as a god-like justice herald entity, but it really has no core meaning inside it:
 * Nothing in the world is neutral, not a single topic, everything can be expressed from a different point of view and most of the time those are opposites between. Think of Encyclopedia Britanica, or Encarta, these two for example expressed their own points of view, and guess what, people have been buying them anyway. Wikipedia has just been trying to promote itself as a new, fresh encyclopedia different from the traditional ones, besides how free it is(whatever that means).
 * The only NeutralPOV is the one that cites both points of view of the subject on the same page. The Neutral point of view should not exist at all, and many problems this wiki is experiencing would dissapear.


 * Well said. The more I look at it the more it seems to be exactly that. "A god-like herald entity with no core meaning". Avoid bias is fine, but beyond that it just causes problems. Taking a good look at Britannica or Encarta is an excellent idea for those who have forgotten why they are here. But "citing both points of view" is ridiculous, I don't agree with that. Bensaccount (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your complaints are very general. Could you be more particular please. Have you read the policy? Could you point to the first statement that you consider wrong please and if possible could you say what you think it should say instead. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and the Status Quo
I am hoping someone with more experience here can provide a rationale for the NPOV policy in light of a concern of mine. My specific issue with it is that the meaning of political neutrality, within a given society, is de facto support for the existing distribution of power in the society. This fact is reflected in the the policy's section covering the "majority viewpoint." At certain points in history, then, neutrality would have required (judging by some of the more zealous editors I've observed on Wikipedia) the deletion of certain information currently in the article on slavery in the United States and related articles to subtly minimize the possible moral implications that could be drawn from them. For example, that article says, "Slaves were considered legal non-persons except if they committed crimes." Because this statement or one like it would likely conflict with the majority view during the time of slavery (which we can assume would be represented by a fair statistical sample of the hypothetical 19th century Wikipedia editors), it might be edited to say, "Slaves were considered legal persons when they committed crimes." But leaving out the potentially incendiary word "non-persons" and this background fact about slaves' status importantly draws attention away from the abolitionist perspective it could imply. I have seen these kinds of revisions occur for "NPOV" reasons, over and over, when a minority view elicits a strong reaction from opponents, and it is in fact what the policy mandates. This led to my realization that Wikipedia's claim of being the people's encyclopedia is only true in the most trivial sense. When the weight of views such as slavery abolitionism are minimized in subtle but pervasive ways simply because they are the minority view, there is no potential for the content to be any more diverse, enlightened, progressive, etc., than any traditional encyclopedia. Unless majority views in Wikipedia are held in check by some mechanism at least as effective as the "undue weight" rule, the moral hazard of leaving mainstream practices and institutions like slavery unexamined and propagating them in subtle ways will persist, and I believe this policy undermines the educational potential that would otherwise set Wikipedia apart from other sources. As it is, it is no more "the people's" than Britannica. I would be very pleased if someone could allay my concern. LC | Talk 02:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I really did try to follow what you said but I'm not at all sure what your concern is. Do you think you could simplify and phrase it down somewhat please? Dmcq (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for kind of rushing into my point. I should have explained, first, that every culture has an implicit value system. This fact is one of the fundamental assumptions of anthropology and sociology. ("You can't be neutral on a moving train.") These values may change over time, as they have in the United States and elsewhere on issues like slavery. The result of these changes is that something like slavery can be a norm at one time, and after a few generations of cultural change it is quite the opposite. So-called neutrality varies depending on the cultural context. Human rights, civil rights, animal rights--these things weren't in the lexicon two-hundred years ago. All of them would have been "minority views" according to Wiki policy, where they existed at all. Obviously many minority views today will follow a similar course as these have. Now slavery is widely seen as totally immoral. Now, I hope you or someone with experience with these normative problems can respond to the concern of the initial post. 74.62.159.114 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a snapshot of current human knowledge, not a means of directing societal evolution. As editors, we present information from reliable sources. If the reliable sources are racist, sexist, speciesist, or just plain wrong, the content of our articles will be similarly tainted. That's just how it is. Until society itself changes, and the sources change consequently, Wikipedia can't bend to support fringe causes just because someone thinks they're important. The "mainstream" is what it's all about. Yes, there are some people who believe the H1N1 vaccine was created in a racist, totalitarian UN plot to depopulate the world. Perhaps one day, when the hidden JFK returns with Elvis as his VP, this view will be mainstream. We don't know that, and we likewise can't predict which if any of the many fringe ideas will gain acceptance, so we can't prejudice one over the other. Each should be presented only to the extent it is notable and covered by reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your responses. For now I'll reply specifically only to Keepcalmandcarryon, since he/she said most directly that the "mainstream" is what it's all about. It is precisely the achievement of this objective that is the source of my concern, as you understood. Not only is Wikipedia a snapshot of current human knowledge but also of the dominant values implicit in every article. My suggestion is that an encyclopedia that gave a greater voice to alternative values would be a better, actually more encyclopedic one.
 * It sounds like, far from being an educational tool that can help us transcend the blinders of our own culture, with Wikipedia's current policy its greatest claim is that it aspires to produce nothing more than a highly efficacious historical artifact of "present knowledge." Speaking for myself, I don't really find such a modest goal worth working toward. LC | Talk 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your concern should be alleviated by noting that while calling the project a snapshot is accurate, that includes being a snapshot of the current take on the historical trajectory of thought on a topic. So this allows for describing the state of a topic in some past time, but always with the most up to date knowledge and perspective.  Indeed, the only way to transcend blinders is to use the most comprehensive and up-to-date sources (or time travel to the future ); ignoring vast bodies of knowledge (which is what increasing the voice of alternate values essentially entails) increases blinders.  I hope you agree that this meaning of being a snapshot is indeed a better goal than your interpretation, which I agree is not the best we can do.


 * Others have alluded to this: Wikipedia describes the state of knowledge, it does not attempt (despite a history of quite a few disruptive efforts) to change or move it forward. That is not to say a project which attempts to do this is necessarily a bad idea (I can easily think of a couple of topics that people 50-100 years from now will look back and think we're a bunch of ignoramuses).  Only that, Wikipedia is not, and was not designed to be, such a project.  Hope that helps.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes you are correct. That is Wikipedias aim. It does not aim at predicting anything. It is an encyclopaedia not a think tank. See WP:Five pillars. A sister project like wikibooks or wikiversity might suit you better. Producing a good encyclopaedia is quite demanding enough, getting a neutral point of view for instance can be like herding cats. Dmcq (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we're all on the same page. While I understand the theory behind WP:NPOV, and I know that it is an iterative process--like "herding cats"--I can't let go of my own reservation that we are surely herding in the wrong direction in many cases. It's all well and good that Wikipedia reflects a historical trajectory of thought, but in hindsight that trajectory will undoubtedly be recognized as going in a totally different direction than the mainstream view today thinks it is. On some level, I appreciate the work of editors who find it a worthwhile goal to achieve Wikipedia's stated aims by "herding cats." I must politely disagree, and I think many others might too, if this problem were given better voice in WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV/FAQ, and elsewhere. Others like me ought to be directed outside of Wikipedia (as Dmcq suggests) if we are more interested in exploring alternative views than in maintaining the neutrality of the mainstream. Wikipedia has such high visibility that folks flock here without a complete understanding of the aims that we have been clarifying, and inevitable conflicts ensue. Some of these contributors (including myself) would be happier, and dedicated Wikipedia editors would be happier, if everyone had a full understanding of these aims and were aware of good alternative outlets for contributions not appropriate here like wikibooks and wikiversity. I think this is a goal that we all share. How can we make it happen? LC | Talk 17:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this related to real disputes, or just hypothetical? Have you looked through WP:NPOV carefully?  Just because Wikipedia gives prominence to majority viewpoints, doesn't mean other, significant viewpoints are not presented. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Words like notability and verifiability in wikipedia policies aren't closely related to what people normally mean by them. The basic problem is that it should be possible to resolve disputes about content. To do that there must be easily observable facts and rules. This policy gives consensus rules about how to ensure a 'neutral point of view' and it gives ways to measure that. As the OP says there is no absolute neutral point of view. However editors on Wikipedia have agreed that that the policy here will in the main give something that they can in general agree about and reflects something in the real world that one can characterize as a neutral pint of view. As to slavery it is liable to lead to a bit of dispute so the policy will lead to some sort of consensus that people can go forward with. Three hundred years ago the conclusion might have been completely different Dmcq (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the phrasing under the Morally Offensive Views heading, and I decided to make an edit accordingly on the Neutral point of view/FAQ page (which does not reflect on this one). As it reads here, one of the common questions about NPOV is, "What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold?" On the FAQ, I changed "most Westerners" to "many people." Why should we align morality-by-consensus with morality according to the West? The modifier "most" doesn't erase that implication. It's true that some Westerners do hold these "offensive" views, and that some non-Westerners do not. On top of that, and perhaps more importantly, "the West" is a contentious term in itself. Wikipedia's own article on the Western world acknowledges that "the exact scope of the Western world is somewhat subjective in nature, depending on whether cultural, economic, spiritual or political criteria are employed." We can't arbitrarily employ just one of those criteria here, so the term becomes a weak as a descriptor, but powerful as a means of reinforcing an ethnocentric power structure. DrewZuma (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To fork, or not to fork?

 * The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article except in the case of a content fork.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such should cover the entire range of notable discussions on a topic. Some topics are so large however that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic. For example, Evolution, Evolution as theory and fact, Creationism, and Creationism-evolution controversy are all in separate articles. This is called a content fork and it helps prevent wasted effort and unnecessary debates: by covering related topics in different articles, we do not have to argue over covering everything in one article.
 * It is critical to understand the difference between point of view forks and content forks; the former are forbidden, while the latter are often necessary and encouraged.

On the other hand, POVFORK says:


 * "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia"

So, which is it? I ask because I got in trouble several years ago when I tried to make content forks (now considered good?) to clarify various controversies.

I found that contributors often objected to clarification. For example the article I wanted to have on "unguided evolution" was deleted, as well as the Evolution poll article I made which was specifically about the distinction between "it just happened" and "God did it". I was accused of POV "pushing" or "forking", but no one ever explained which particular edit, sentence or section wasn't neutral.

It doesn't violate NPOV to describe a POV, does it?

Anyway, I'd like some clarification on if and when a content fork is okay to have here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that article spinouts and WP:CFORK in general, cover this topic very well and in my opinion answer all your questions. Crum375 (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. I see a contradiction between saying that
 * "content forks ... are undesirable" and
 * "content forks ... are often necessary and encouraged."


 * Can you please tell me which idea is correct? After I get your answer, I will correct the one that is wrong. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But WP:CFORK starts by defining "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject" before saying "content forks and POV forks are undesirable". It is clearly not desirable for there to be more than article covering the same subject. By contrast, it is good for a large and complex topic to be split into components, with articles on each component. What is bad is to take a topic such as evolution and create articles with content that would never be accepted in Evolution because the content fails WP:RS or WP:UNDUE. There is no contradiction. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no contradiction. Both are true. Content forks are undesirable but in some circumstances they are necessary and encouraged. In your case of 'unguided evolution', that is not a separate subject from evolution. I suppose you could put a bit about guided and unguided evolution where it refers to theistic evolution. Dmcq (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Undue fork
WP:UNDUE was changed by this edit which included adding In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow these subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating an article to which they are non-central. That can be read to suggest that if I can't add some nonsense to the main article (because it gives undue weight to a fringe view), then I should make an entire article espousing my nonsense. I think the new text should either be removed (it's not relevant to explaining "undue weight"), or should be expanded with a number of caveats regarding notability. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Ooops, diff link above was wrong; have now fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the diff given was not recorded quite right. But this is about an edit I made after posting to this talk page.  I would welcome wording improvements.  I definitely recognize the danger of content forking, and obviously do not wish to encourage that.  What I am concerned with is the different—but related—matter of WP:SPLITing (which is what I link to in the addition).  Of course it is not encouraging WP:FRINGE nonsense in children, but rather that children with encyclopedic merit are a way to use WP:SUMMARY style to present related topics that would overburden the article where they may have started as a section.  Notice the sentence starts with "In some cases...".
 * There are lots of example here that I have encountered. I mention in the prior talk page section how I refactored Tattoo to split out much of the newly added material to Tattoo ink, and later to Tattoo medical issues.  Both of those daughter/sister topics deserve presentation on WP, but neither warrants outweighing the main material in the original Tattoo article.  Another place I have encountered the issue frequently is with biographies.  Some particular incident or event that someone is involved in often grows in discussion until it makes up the bulk of the article, even though it amounts to only a small part of the bio subject's life and notability.  We did this a bunch with Barack Obama, where child articles were split off for Presidency, Cultural perception, Family, and so on (it's up to dozens in the family of articles by now).  It would be absurd to put everything related to that person in one article, but unfortunately, there was a lot of resistance to a good refactoring there, and the clarification I have now added here would have helped the discussion.  I have had very similar experiences in relation to much less prominent biographies: a certain book by an academic, or a certain court case or public action by a public figure, or some other minor but noteworthy incident often grows to dominate a biographical article.  There's something like that, I think going on, with the biography of Wolfgang Werlé whose current C&D is most of his article (except I'm not sure the person actual merits an independent article, so I'm not sure what the best factoring is (and someone just nominated the whole thing for AfD anyway).
 * Of course, there is a line to walk here. It certainly happens also that the side event in a person's life (or side aspect of some other topic) is only interesting from some fringe perspective, and a summary style risks promoting material that shouldn't otherwise be on WP.  However, even there, the words of encouragement I add are useful in the long run.  Say we have an article "Foo", and someone starts a child "Fringe Theories about Foo" (probably not under that name).  Ultimately, the fringe child is a clear candidate for AfD, and the merits of that fringe aspect can be clearly judged independently of the notability of Foo itself.  LotLE × talk  06:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything in your above comment is commendable, but it does not seem relevant to WP:UNDUE. WP:NPOV is a strong policy – articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Problem: a creationist (for example) may interpret NPOV to mean Evolution must include "equal time" for the creationist POV. Therefore, WP:UNDUE explains that articles should represent "significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" and minority views (which still need reliable sources) should have less weight. Since Evolution is a science-based article, "reliable source" rules out, for example, a creationist website.
 * In summary, the purpose of WP:UNDUE is to prevent the NPOV policy being used to inject fringe stuff into serious articles. The recently-added text pointing out that subtopics may be split out is fine, but it is not relevant in the WP:UNDUE section and is a potential problem because it carries the suggestion that if WP:UNDUE prevents someone from putting fringe nonsense into a science article, then that person should create a separate article which attempts to portray the fringe material as scientifically based. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What you describe is indeed part of the purpose of this policy. Another part that you skip over is that article should not contain material that is WP:UNDUE weight.  That's why one of the sections is about weight, and why we have a shortcut to that part of policy.  Nothing in what I added/clarified is even remotely suggestive of the idea that creationism should go into the evolution article, nor that any non-notable topic should be covered in its own article.  It looks like you're trying to imagine that I included something different than what I did include.
 * Actually, the example you mention is probably a particularly good reason to include my clarification. If we had an Evolution article that suddenly grew a long section of "Creation Science" that outweighed the rest of the article--or that even simply took a substantial portion of it--something precisely like my clarification would explain WP policy and goals.  Even though I entirely concur that Creationism is a completely bogus and foolish endeavor, it is also one that has "got enough press" to be mentioned on WP, even discussed at considerable length: just not in the Evolution article.  If we had suddenly grown that section, but there was not already an article on Creationism, refactoring according to WP:SPLIT and WP:WEIGHT would be exactly the right thing to do (I recognize that this specific factoring is hypothetical, since those topics were well-tread years ago; but in structure that's exactly why the clarification was needed).  LotLE × talk  03:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My quick example was not intended to describe all possible violations of WP:UNDUE, however the fundamental point is what I said: The NPOV policy is very strong: articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Therefore, many editors jump to the wrong conclusion, namely that all quirky views need to be mentioned. The purpose of WP:UNDUE is to firmly block that conclusion: NPOV only applies to "significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" (plus the other things it says). Creationism is notable and so has an extensive collection of articles, following the notability guideline. WP:NPOV has absolutely nothing to do with why articles (such as those dealing with creationism) should be created. You are probably approaching this from experience with Obama related articles, where people keep wanting to raise some ephemeral news story as if it proved some point about Obama. WP:UNDUE helps to exclude untested drama from political articles, but WP:UNDUE is still not the place to give advice on when to create other articles. If you really want to keep your wording (why here?), it needs a linked phrase like "if sufficiently notable..." (it's the business of WP:N to describe when an article should be created). Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Obama-related articles are indeed one of several dozen topics where I have encountered the concern for clarifying WP:WEIGHT over the last six years I've been editing. But certainly not not nearly only that.  For example, I mentioned in the initial thread the example where the discussion of Tattoo ink came to occupy disproportionate space in Tattoo.  There is nothing non-neutral about covering the details of what chemicals are used in tattoo inks, and it's not particularly political or contentious (as evolution/creationism or many Obama-related topics are).  It also just isn't of sufficient significance to dominate the more general Tattoo article.  However, I think your suggested additional clause "if sufficiently notable" is perfect to help clarify further, and I'll add that.  LotLE × talk  08:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That other example was more to the point. We do have POV forks, and the series of articles on evolution and creationism are an extremely good case. It is impossible to write understandably about evolution with the need to keep saying that a very small minority of scientists, and half the people in the US, think all of this is wrong, & explain why--the this does have to be mentioned somewhere. It is impossible to write understandably about creationism if we need to keep saying that essentially all modern scientists from 1900  think this is nonsense, and explain why--though this certainly does have to be prominently mentioned.  The NPOPV on one is inherently the positive POV on the other, and we do well to keep the main arguments separated. There are other examples, but I pick the most extensive. We normally find some way of dividing up the subjects, or specializing them, but what they really are is POV forks. Personally, I see nothing wrong with an article called explicitly, Republican views on Obama--it's absolutely clear that there is going to be a complementary POV and what we need to do is to ensure that the overall treatment will be balanced and POV considering the articles on the subject as a whole. Better to be up front about it.  (I know my view of this is not the standard one, but I think we're fooling ourselves)  DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)