Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Draft (Rewrite proposal)

Do we include WP:V and WP:NOR?
I ask this question because the title "Editorial policy" suggests that we do. Perhaps it is time that we propose another name than Neutral Point Of View, but not a name that is so vague as to include all content policies.


 * that's a temporary name, you can change it, (and everything else)

Illustrating the subject: accuracy and thoroughness
IMO, there is no need for such a section. Thoroughness is covered by significance. There is no need for a policy to say that every thing that is significant should be included. It won't help it. Accuracy must be reduced to verifiability. --Lumiere 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll remove it for now. --Anon84.x 19:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Relevance to the subject.
I could not find any paragraph in any WP policy that states that criticisms are not acceptable. Perhaps unfortunately, we can only refer to WP:NOR and WP:V to suppress low level criticisms. OTOH, many of the low level criticisms that is currently going on in WP could be avoided if we enforced correctly WP:NOR and WP:V.

Also, I am aware that there is a lack in the current WP policies with regard to relevancy. This is acknowledged in the Talk page of WP:V. I believe that some people are working on this, but I am not sure. --Lumiere 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments
In the first sentence, can we change some of the phrasing: --Iantresman 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The word "expository"; I'm sure it means exactly was it is required, but it goes right over my little college-educated head.
 * 2) The phrase "does not engage in the views it describes.", again, I am sure is very accurate, but I'm not sure what it means.
 * 3) "encyclopedic significance"; perhaps just significance, since a relationship to an encyclopedia is just one example of significance.
 * 4) I also quite like the origina, current introductory sentence (a) because of historical reasons (b) it kind of summarises what it is (c) It connects with Jimbo, and gives a flavour of what he means.
 * 5) Should we also have a sentence indicating that significance is also determined by the subject matter of the article, and will differ depending on whether the article is a general article about several viewpoints, or an article about a specific viewpoint.

With regard to your last point, I agree with the objective which is that a narrow subject that naturally contains only one viewpoint (that satisfies NOR and V) should only contain that viewpoint. However, I don't see why it should be necessary to make a special rule to achieve that. --Lumiere 16:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, in general, the issue of relevancy is a difficult one, but this is true even for non narrow subject. It only shows up more when the subject is narrow. When we expand, it will be fine to mention that some subjects naturally have room for only one viewpoint, and that is allright. --Lumiere 16:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's only because I have had much experience of editors trying to "balance" an article on a specific subject because they can only see it as part of the wider subject. I've been told that "people have to know the main view"... in an article about an alternative view, instead of pointing people to the article on the main view. Perhaps this could be included by way of example, rather than a special rule?


 * I guess we should go through the existing article on NPOV and the tutorial, to see whether what is current presented, fits in will with suggested NPOV as applied to Style and Facts. --Iantresman 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) - Expository - is supposed to be a style of writing that "explains a difficult subject" rather persuades to a certain opinion. I found this on a dictionary somewhere, never heard it spoken, though. This might be inappropriate, edit it.
 * 2) - Yes that wasn't really thought out.
 * 3) - I wanted to signify it is only "significant" within the context of the encyclopedia. Not generally. But whatever, you can change it.
 * 4) - So edit it
 * 5) - Edit it --Anon84.x

Combined intro
I've taken the liberty of attempting to distill Anon84.x's introduction, and taking in some of my suggestions above.

--Iantresman 17:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, I feel that the distinction between the aspect of the policy that applies to how each individual view are presented and the other aspect that applies to how views are selected and eventually given proper space in the article is lost in your version. More importantly, I suggest that we do not spent time on the intro at this time. After we agree on the actual content of the policy, it will become much much easier to discuss the Intro. What is important at this stage is to go directly into the essential of the policy. --Lumiere 18:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is anything that you don't like or don't understand in the essential point of this small draft policy (i.e., what it actually implies in practice), let us discuss it. --Lumiere 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Point of View
Is it worth mentioning, and is it accurate to say that, "Point of View" is not the opposite of "Neutral Point of View". I've had editors tell me that I can't include a "point of view" as a NPOV be cause it is still a point of view. This would be a way of saying that POVs are acceptible, as long as they (a) significant, and (b) presented in NPOV style and ? --Iantresman 20:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There should be a place for this clarification, which I think is important. I have a related issue, which is I don't think there is any difference in normal english between "a point of view" and "a viewpoint", but I might be mistaken. It is related because then The fact that we have a criteria to select viewpoints implies that we are open to different viewpoints or points of view. It is also related to the idea that we should write every viewpoint or point of view with a sympathetic tone. --Lumiere 20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason I used "point of view", and perhaps we should use the phrase consistently, is (a) the policy concerns "point of view" (b) there could be an ambiguity if a synonym is used.
 * I only wanted to say that they are synonyms. I don't understand why some propose to change "Neutral Point Of View" to "Neutral ViewPoint". Any way, I striked this part because you misinterpreted it as a critic. The paragraph was not a critic at all of your comment. --Lumiere 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "point of view" is sometimes misunderstood as "outlook" as in "neutral outlook" on the subject. The sysnonym "viewpoint" is less easily misinterpreted.--Anon84.x 07:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise, when we agree on what NPOV applies to, it will be prudent to consistently refer to, for example, "NPOV style" and "NPOV significance" --Iantresman 23:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, consistency in terminology should help. However, I still believe that at some point we should change Neutral Point of View (NPOV) to something else. I like "style" and "significance". It is the "NPOV" in front that I don't like. --Lumiere 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What about "Neutral Style and Selection" or maybe "Neutral Style and Fair Selection" instead of "Neutral Point of View". I know that it is not the time to discuss the title since it will be much easier to do that after we agree on the content, but I just propose ideas like that as they come to me. --Lumiere 01:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)