Wikipedia talk:Neutrality enforcement/Archive 1

Title could be misunderstood
I think "Neutrality enforcement" has the potential to be misunderstood. This is meant to be, as I understand it, the proposal of a type of sanction where people are required to Write for the enemy. The enforcement of that sanction is different from the sanction itself. The other point is that there is a general misunderstanding among some admins that they can "enforce" content policies such WP:NPOV (sometimes called "neutrality") and WP:V ("verifiability"), when in fact admins should really only be enforcing editor conduct policies. It is difficult to draw the line, but the best way to put it is that editors should change the content of articles, while admins should be wary of doing so when they have or might be using their tools in relation to the same article or its editors. While not wanting to get into a big debate about when admins are WP:INVOLVED, or when an admin editing an article should be doing so as an editor, could the title of this proposal be changed? Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It could, yes, though personally I think it would be good to keep it. NPOV is our most important content policy, and it's the one thing that very few editors engage in on I/P pages. Overall, articles may turn out to be NPOV, but only after an enormous amount of pushing and shoving, back and forth, over endless minutiae, which drives most reasonable people away eventually. It seems reasonable to say to people not willing to be demonstrably neutral in such a contentious area that they would be better off not editing it.


 * This sits on the borderline of enforcing behaviour and content. The group I propose would not try to decide on content. They would be looking only at the efforts of each editor to approach the topic neutrally. But the hope is that content would thereby be improved.


 * Did you have anything in mind as an alternative title? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What writes Carcharoth is reasonnable and right.
 * Instead of "neutrality enforcement", we could title "Systematically orientated editing".
 * Ceedjee (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A few preliminary questions / concerns

 * What checks and balances are there on the proposed panel (or any privileged groups) to ensure that they do not simply form their own POV or otherwise engage in a process problem?


 * Their decisions would have to be seen to be fair. The panel would be composed of experienced and uninvolved editors, expressly chosen for their ability to be neutral. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there really a Wikipedia policy against editing with a POV bias? As I read it WP:NPOV is a content policy, not a behavioral policy.  It says articles must represent all significant views, not that each editor's must.


 * Right. This is a proposal to apply the NPOV policy to editors in cases of intractable disputes where other forms of dispute resolution have failed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One cornerstone of the modern American concept of free speech is the Marketplace of ideas, by which all participants in a forum may advance their own without censorship, and the best ones emerge. American Jurisprudence is based on an Adversarial system in which two parties with different opinions, goals, objectives, etc., present their best case and the system finds the solution, not the individual advocates.  In academia, individual scholars with very different conceptions of their field try desperately to tear each other down; only the rare new theory that survives a harsh vetting process may gain acceptance.  Wikipedia is not a free speech forum, nor is it a legal system, nor a college.  There is, though, the notion of consensus, by which editors with difference of opinion agree to get along, if not to agree.   Is it not a rejection of some models of finding truth in favor of others to suggest that each participant be judged for perceived neutrality?  Is there even such a thing as neutrality on an individual basis?
 * Some editors watch articles for bias, but only do so on one side. In the Israel / Palestine case, for example, it is clear that some views of the world demonize Palestinians as terrorists, fundamentalists, etc., while others demonize Israelis as genocidal, etc.  Further, there seems to be a considerable industry of deliberate manipulation, attack politics, faking, propaganda, etc.  If an editor is attuned to improper content on one side but not the other, is it wrong to improve the encyclopedia by opposing clearly improper content or behavior on one side, but not the other?  That could be seen as disruptive.  In many systems of management / organization, any improvement is an improvement regardless of the motivation, bias, etc.


 * I agree with all this. But what we are saying here is that, in the I/P conflict articles, the marketplace of ideas hasn't worked, for a number of reasons. This proposal is only intended for situations where other things have been tried and have failed. It's an experiment. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But has is failed, or are you applying unreasonable expectations in a naturally contentious area? Why not give new blood a chance after the coming topic bans? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on a democratic (or one could say, collaborative, non-hierarchical, merit-based) system of community governance. Most every human experience suggests that centralizing authority increases opportunities for abuse, systematic bias, self-interest, etc.  How would a panel of six overseeing content be any less prone to bias than tens of thousands of editors bound by behavior policies?
 * What about concerns of WP:CREEP?
 * Is the IP debacle really a content problem? Even there most of the articles seem to be okay, with a few exceptions.  It really just looks like a management nightmare with lots of hurt feelings.  Sometimes the pursuit of quality is not pleasant for all involved.
 * Non-Wiki projects seem to be based on paid, professional, credentialed editors. We're based on a completely different model, yet according to some, we're more reliable, neutral, and informative than any other encyclopedia.  We can't afford a professional staff. Would a volunteer staff improve us, or would we just become an amateur encyclopedia, with all of the drawbacks but less capable management?

That's all I can think of for now. Wikidemon (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You argued many points. I think too much. When I read, some look reasonnable and worth discussing; other sound just (to me ears !) as rhetoric.
 * Instead of "throwing the baby with the water of the bath", would you mind focusing on the main points and develop them ? Thx... Ceedjee (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Even there most of the articles seem to be okay, with a few exceptions'. My impression is the opposite. I'd appreciate being pointed (not to damage them!) to examples of consistently fine articles in this area. Anyone know offhand of how many GA or FA articles in the I/P conflict area exist? Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick scan suggests three FAs - Yasser Arafat, Operation Wrath of God, Yom Kippur War - directly related to the conflict, though I might perhaps have missed one. I'm not feeling up to sifting through the full list of GAs, but statistically for three FAs you'd expect about eight GAs - I note that both Hezbollah & the 2006 Lebanon War are listed.
 * So not marvellous, certainly, but it does show that we can manage it when we grit our teeth and try! Shimgray | talk | 16:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the too many points... I was just brainstorming. We would need to think things through before solidifying a big change.  On the other hand, I'm all for experimenting....I don't want my discussion to be a big logjam at the top of the page, so if nobody objects I might archive the section in a day or two. Another thought is that we might want to bifurcate this page, so that anyone who actually wants to work on the proposal can talk about that one place, and others who want to say yes or no, or just philosophize, can have their place too.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Worth a try
This is worth a try to see if some of the time-draining craziness can be mitigated. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A cordial objection
This would seriously inhibit the flow of information on Wikipedia. First off, it would violate WP:AGF, as a new editor to Israeli/Palestinian articles might add a new fact to the article would be labeled a partisan and sanctioned. Secondly, this may not solve partisanship issues at all, since I am sure the most extreme would push for the investigation and blocking of editors who disagree with them, leading to more conflict and confusion. Individual editors who create a problem can be brought to the attention of others, and though they may make sockpuppets, these can be blocked as well; it may not be as efficient or easy, but the right solution rarely is. One cannot bring everyone who edits these articles under suspicion and investigation, asking each one: "Are you now or have you ever been an Israeli/Palestinian supporter?" Remember, just because there were Communists in the State Department, does not make Joseph McCarthy right. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the intention is to stop needless wrangling, chat over generalities, and is designed to 'seriously inhibit the flow of useless, dubious or bad information' in Wiki's I/P area. The wiki rule book is huge, and if mastered, feeds conflict. In an area where litigation and re-explaining the obvious with tedious repetitiveness is chronic, something like a strict NPOV editing obligation, and a few other measures, would flense out the farce that stuffs up article-writing. Most of these articles would be done by an academic, single-handedly, in a few weeks. Just Tiamut and SlimVirgin got the Lydda page off its feet up to 52,000 k in a few weeks, doing 95% of the work between them. It was twice under threat of being bogged down. We've got nowhere on hundreds of pages slowly for several years. Nishidani (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No
NPOV is for content, not editors. If an article is slanted in one direction, then "POV pushing" in the other direction is actually beneficial. New editors who see a biased article should be allowed to improve it without having to do something else first. This enforcement can also be gamed too easily. I revert some silly pro-X vandalism and I can pro-X POV-push with impunity. Making an article less neutral is the behavior that should be punished. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right that NPOV is for content, not editors.
 * But I disagree with the remaining of your analysis.
 * you are asked no to always neutralize the same direction.
 * gaming is not possible at all, given the people who would check don't have rules to apply to analyse the respect of the principle. They just their reasonning capabilites and debate.
 * This being said, I don't say that I fully agree with the current version. We have time to discuss this.
 * The I/P articles are a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I think this proposal is a constructive suggestion to try to solve the issue. I remind that the point is : "is this worth trying this ?".
 * Ceedjee (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't agree on the desperate need to change how we edit. These articles are a lot better than they were a few years ago. I would like to see if the ArbCom topic bans will allow others to work more productively. I also don't believe there are any truly neutral editors in this area. This would just give power to those who are good at giving the appearance of neutrality. There is also a large amount of WP:BITE. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The approach seems to be a problematic because NPOV is what editors arrive at through the editing process, which is sometimes a difficult process. If we start out claiming to know what NPOV for an article is, the editors might as well be replaced with computers. It is easy, because human, for editors to decide that their preferred version of an article is the NPOV version, and that the differing (opposing) views are POV. We see an example here. The user who brought this case to administrators was sure that one version was pre-decided as NPOV, and would be happy to have NPOV police to enforce the that view. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is a misunderstanding about NPOV. If you take it as the final goal, or end result, the consequence is that you are given a pass to edit unilaterally to a POV. One can, under that interpretation, plug away with one's own version, careless of the final goal because that is the obligation incumbent on the page in the distant future. If, and this is the genius of Slim Virgin's proposal, NPOV is keyed to day by day work-practice and approach, operatively, there is less scope for malingering or tergivisating on the final goal. The final encyclopedic goal is what day by day edits must focus on.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think not. In articles, such as I/P articles, NPOV is a balance that is maintained by a difficult process balancing and compromises. There is no easy way to achieve it. Trying to have the NPOV police (thought police) enforce it will not be a positive step. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the problem. Instead of compromising with others, it is asked to people to study all points of view and to compromise with himself and with them.
 * That perfectly fits the way you see NPoV. Ceedjee (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Drama avoidance
I mentioned this on the thread at WP:AN, but won't this necessitate the creation of secret mailing lists and whatnot to discuss quietly the actions of editors in a highly charged area? Even if the activities of everyone on the mailing list itself are beyond reproach, conspiracy theories will start, participants in the dispute will start making allegations that the overseers are biased against their side, etc etc. Ultimately, I think this suggestion as is would just cause a tremendous amount of unrequired drama and cause more trouble than it's worth. You're to be commended for trying to come up with a way of resolving this thorny issue, but ultimately it's going to rely on better and stricted enforcement of our existing policies on I/P articles, not new policies and more bureaucracy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC).
 * 'a tremendous amount of unrequired drama' is the vademecum of I/P editing, and a good number of us are suffering battle fatigue when we only wanted to engage in an intellectual excursion, and ended up in no man's land.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This might be another avenue for violating NPOV
Re "The Arbitration Committee will appoint a group of six-12 uninvolved, experienced editors, who need not be administrators, to oversee the editing in this area."

There may be Wikipedians that have a stealth POV with respect to the Israeli/Palestinian articles who will end up on that committee through their influence and alliances. I recognize that this is always a possible problem with any group given special powers, such as administrators, arb com members, etc., but in those cases there is less chance that the stealth POV is focused on a particular subject. In this case of a committee for a specific subject, there is more chance that the committee members would favor one side.

I'm concerned that this proposal might be an attempt to move the POV conflict to an arena that might be more favorable to one side. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Also, there are editors who truly believe that they are completely neutral on, for instance I/P issues; and who are stunned, offended, and refuse to accept the reality that their views really are not neutral when that is pointed out to them. It is virtually unavoidable that editors will think the views they have absorbed over years, through the ambiance they live in, are neutral views.


 * On disputed issues, NPOV is arrived at through the editing process, and can not be predetermined. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No
It would be hard to imagine a worse direction for attempting to resolve this difficult area. I speak from experience. Reasons provided here. If that doesn't persuade you, please don't ask me again. Just try it and see what happens. Durova Charge! 15:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Durova that this should not be implemented as is. I would oppose making this policy without a clear demonstration that it actually works. And some understanding of where these people are going to come from that will monitor each area, that seems like a significant thing to sort out. This is an interesting idea though, and I think a trial is OK, but not a full fledged rush to policy. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The initial idea is appealing but that is not easy at all to implement this.
 * That is why, maybe, the ArbCom shoud just open the road to a trial and we can after a time analyse the results... Ceedjee (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts
While a supervisory group of admins and "one warning topic bans" would surely prevent much of the disruptive behaviors we see on such articles, I have reservations about these kinds of approaches in general. In general, moving towards proposals that are based upon "content judgement by arbcom/admins" or content arbitration, would be a concern due to their impact on content quality and traditional editing ethos.

Specifically, the use of admins to judge what edits are neutral, and which ones are not, suggests the admins will effectively be managing the writing. If so then this is close to other suggestions where we place a topic in the hands of specific users only. Although in this scenario anyone could edit, the concern would be that they do so subject to a small group of admins' view whether they are writing neutrally -- but we don't trust content writing to admins, or small groups. Content decisions in a topic are for the community as a whole. Whether content is well written or such (including neutrally written etc) is not an area we test admins on at RFA.

Second, if admins were able to perform this task, they would probably be doing so already. Either that they are unable to do so because they lack the skill or topic knowledge, or they can do this role but need some kind of special enforcement power and prevention of interference to let them get on with it. But "special enforcement powers" haven't worked well elsewhere, and if interference by other admins were the problem, we need to address that problem first.

Third, we expect "writing for the enemy" from our better writers, but the actual requirement is to edit collaboratively even if one has a strong view and disagreement. Excluding all editors other than those who can edit neutrally may lead to poorer articles, not better ones. I'd be happier to discuss rapid restriction to the talk page or topic bans, for editors who can't edit collaboratively and collegially, and who don't try to work with others and build on others work. That sounds more achievable, less demanding of admins, and less likely to exclude good input from the process, than asking sysops to judge neutral editing.

FT2 (Talk 16:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement
Slim Virgin's idea has much to recommend it in intractable disputes such as those surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian matter. I wonder whether there's a better term than "enforcement" (I can't think of one at the moment, but a positive term may be the way to go ... structured ... neutrality ... balance ... negotiation. I don't know, but these are the words that might be ingredients). The notion of "writing for the other side", conceptually akin to Edward de Bono's "six hats" technique, could well work in some situations. Another way of advancing Slim's idea might be for an admin or mediator to organise a pairing off of contributors who agree, one from each "side", to bounce back and forth sections of the text in a bid to come closer together.

The notion that it's hard to entirely avoid statements that may be perceived to favour one side or the other in all cases is entirely consistent with WP's pillars and policies of verifying claims via third-party sources. The linguistic vehicles for nesting alternate—even violently opposed—views in a text are phrases such as "one the one hand" [statement, reference]; "one the other hand", [statement, reference]. [Type A people] are more likely to view this in terms of ... (reference), while [Type B people are more likely to see ....(reference)]. In short, statements attributed to third parties can be knitted together with a degree of smoothness. A list of such linguistic devices could well be a stimulus to collaborating editors.

I hope Slim's idea gains support and is extended and refined. I'm interested to hear debate on it. Tony  (talk)  17:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See also
 * Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars
 * Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report.
 * Other areas that I know of were there are similar problems which SV has highlighted where there are arbcom decisions are:
 * Requests for arbitration/Macedonia Balkans warring.
 * Requests for arbitration/Digwuren Eastern Europe.
 * Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine
 * Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2


 * I am open minded to this proposal, but inevitably it runs contrary to several entrenched, policies and customs as have developed for editing Wikipedia pages. I don't think that the problem is so much where there is continual edit warring (annoying and as unpleasant for those who are involved as it is) it is when one side gives up and goes home. The result is that the article displays a non NPOV which because of the side that remains, it is very hard for a non biased editor to fix the article as the POV of the majority of those watching the page is skewed towards the POV displayed on the page.


 * A couple of points to ponder with SV's proposals
 * Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? an issue raised by several editors higher up the page
 * Countering the systemic bias of this project.
 * --PBS (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar concerns
I. Principle I do not agree that "pro-Israel editors must consistently add material favourable to the Palestinian, as well as to the Israeli, perspective" What is needed is that people add appropriate material, and that the balance of the article is preserved. It is to be expected that those on one side of an issue will have a stronger knowledge and access to material supporting their position. I don't edit in the Israel-Palestine area, but I am interested in it, and I do have a personal position, and I subscribe to some material from one aspect of that position's viewpoint that may not be widely known, but is reliable, and which i could add. I also of course am aware of material from my viewpoint that is not the least reliable, and that I would never add. Why should I search instead what other people can do better?

 II. Process the part which is not at all acceptable is the private off-wiki mailing list. Conceivably there might be need for a mailing list to which only the members of the group could contribute, but the read access should be open. If people want to enforce neutrality, let their own decisions be judged by others.

IIA As a subsidiary concern ,there should never be one warning and then a ban. Typically it's the second warning ( or the first short ban) which impresses offendors that the concern is serious. That's why even the most penally repressive jurisdictions have three-strike laws, not two-strikes. DGG (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you miss an important point for what concerns point I. It is impossible to respect WP:NPoV if you don't know what are all pov's. The equilibrium of the article must respect the equilibrium of what the scholars published on the topic. To have an idea of this equilibrium, you have to be aware of all pov's.
 * In most cases, today, people just focus on 1 pov. What should be done is to focus on all povs.
 * If an editor don't want to give all pov's and to read the "other side's litterature", then he should not edit an article at all, or with the support of an other editor, warned by advance, with whom he could work.
 * There are too many ways to cheat the system. That should stop once for all. Ceedjee (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a policy
We don't need a policy that we should enforce our policies. Any sanctions or actions that the Arbitration Committee impose are to be taken as policy anyway. This page is entirely unnecessary.
 * I'm not sure that's quite true. We don't have a behavioural policy at the moment which says editors to contentious pages should make edits that promote both sides of the debate - which is essentially what this proposal is. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea
I support this idea, though note we really need to flesh it out more. A key strength of this proposed policy is to realize that it will not be the only policy, but rather will act as one component that augments the policies already in place. Speaking specifically to concerns surrounding articles being forces into a status where a team of admins or neutrality enforcers suddenly create a situation where articles are being written by committee, it is important to recall that this is how all of our articles are currently written. Neutrality enforcement would only kick in when articles are already broken to a point where an uninvolved editor cannot make neutral edits to an article because, or for fear of, getting buried by a team of editors protecting one POV.

The actual principle of NPOV is actually pretty simple to adhere to. The main problem is that enforcing neutrality currently requires admins to enter into what can be considered content wars. I've run into this countless times, most recently on a bunch of articles discussing whether the Baltic states were, or were not previously part of the Soviet Union. Placing a committee on articles like that would work wonders because the committee would be able to check the bias of any individual committee member, as well as quickly and objectively identify POV pushers with the community's blessings. It isn't a perfect solution, but far better than simply ceding vast tracks of the 'Pedia to fanatics, which is the situation we find ourselves in right now. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Looks like the the plague has spread here too. Unfortunate. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Personnally, I have often been frustrated to see uninvolved admins taking decision without knowing anything of the topic that was discussed. Most of time, they can only consider behaviour while the dispute concerns content ! Depending on the admins, they consider everybody is biased or they consider everybody is smart but they failed to adress the most important : the content. We write an encyclopaedia. Ceedjee (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A key point is that we're not allowed to be "involved admins". The first thing every nationalist yells (usually in caps, but often in bold, underline, italics, or all at once) that anyone wielding the mop is either over involved, uninformed, or both. We already know that we can't fight the plague with the mop, that's why I like the idea of having teams of NPOV judges who are assigned to specific articles or topics, and thus are able to be both uninvolved and informed at the same time. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea
There are numerous problems with this:
 * Against the spirit of Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia
 * Open to abuse by those pushing their own POV cloaked in the mantle of "neutrality enforcement"
 * May lead to unnecessary disruption by those who have a poor understanding of the topic area
 * Discourages native Wikipedians who have an in depth knowledge of the topic (from their perspective) from contributing, leading to issues of WP:BIAS

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV actually entails, which is the presentation of all significant views that have been published by reliable sources according to due weight, not the melding of text into the lowest common denominator of what two or more view points can agree upon. Presenting the various viewpoints is WP:NPOV, while melding viewpoints is WP:SYNTH. If there are significant alternate viewpoints, then these viewpoints can be represented in separate sections within the article, for example.

Most editors involved in content disputes do not really understand the concept of NPOV. The solution is education. --Martintg (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I also have several concerns: - What do we do about editors who haven't accrued enough I/P-related edits for us to make a judgement about their motives?

A new editor comes along and adds a well-sourced mention of an incident where Israelis have killed Palestinian civilians (or the other way around) - do we treat them as a POV-pusher, or do we give them the benefit of the doubt until further edits make their attitude clearer? The first option makes it almost impossible for editors to establish a history; the second leaves the article vulnerable to socks.

- Would this policy extend to editors removing material that breaches other WP guidelines/policy, if that removal generally supports one side?

A professional-looking website regularly publishes articles critical of Side X. Several good-faith editors pick up this material and add it to a dozen different I/P articles as relevant. Another editor looks a little more closely at the website and confirms that it is actually a self-published source. Can he go through all I/P articles deleting material that relies on this source (since it's a violation of WP:RS)? Or, since this involves a range of edits on different I/P topics, all of which edits favour Side X, does he have to wait until he can come up with a suitable number of pro-Y edits to balance it out?

- The policy succeeds in bringing peace to I/P articles, and participants on one side of a different controversy (say, homeopathy) apply for the same policy to be extended to that topic. Do we require editors to write for both sides of that debate? Or do we make a judgement that it would be inappropriate there - and if so, on what grounds? --GenericBob (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
Since everyone is starting a new section, I will start one also. It appears that this proposed policy has a strong potential for abuse, and is not a good idea. There is no such thing as a "neutral editor", this is why ArbCom don't resolve content disputes for example. In the field of nationalist disputes especially, each editor's world view is influenced by their environment, which is inevitably pro- or anti- [insert national claim]. The policies we already have for this (WP:NPOV at their head) are sufficient for resolving these disputes.

In addition, the 'writing for the enemy' principle is an extremely bad idea. The people most interested in nationalistically contentious articles usually comes from the participating nations, and therefore have sources predominantly from that country, which usually look favorably on that country's actions. This is how the sources are balanced—each editor brings academic sources from their "side". Most editors don't have access to sources from the other "side", and should not be forced to do cartwheels to try to get access (assuming they even understand the "enemy"'s language). —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You write that WP:Writing for the enemy is a "extremely bad idea" because the access to the other side sources is hard.
 * That is not correct. At the time of the internet, and when here on wikipedia everybody has access to other people, from other culture, it is easy to identify other main sources on a topic and to get access to them.
 * We are writing an encyclopaedia and we aim at excellence. Asking people to make this small effort, that will improve NPoV and reduce the number of disputes is far from being "extreme".
 * What is "extreme" is refusing this. Ceedjee (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea
Nice idea, thought provoking, but I'm not sure we should rush in yet. Incidentally, I did plenty of edits to the article Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006 and I think we overall did a pretty good job avoiding conflicts - it is possible!

First off it may be worth coming up with a User Templete Message encouraging users to put both sides of the story. Maybe try that first and see if that has an effect, before banning people. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerns per WP:OWN
Among the multiple potential problems with this idea is that it would undermine WP:OWN. The panel created would, in effect, "own" pages in a given subject area, by being able to lock out editors whose edits they dislike. I agree that there can be unpleasant cases where an editor is disruptive, but those cases should be dealt with through existing means. If an editor's actions are not bad enough to justify existing sanctions, then the other editors on a page just need to work with that person. (By the way, if anyone is wondering, I found this discussion from the Village Pump.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is true for wp:own
 * I guess anyway the "NPoV committee" will experience some "content debates" too because there should be people with different mind inside this. The big advantage is that they should not "dispute" but just "debate" because they know each other and work as a team, rather than adversaries.
 * For the second paragraph, I think you are wrong and lakc experience on these disputes. Too many valuable editors leave or are disgusted because of the continuous discussion and debate with people who knows the rule and fight to defend one "side" or one "pov" rather than to work to improve the content of the encyclopaedia. Ceedjee (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see you care a lot about this, from the way you are seeking to refute every comment by those of us who have reservations about the proposal. Thank you for seeing my point about WP:OWN. I only wrote a one-paragraph comment, so I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by the second paragraph. But please do not assume that I lack experience with NPOV disputes, just because I am not a participant in this particular one. In fact, it is my experience with NPOV disputes at other topics that makes me uncomfortable with this proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my English was not clear. You have developed two ideas in one paragraphs. You are right that I feel really appealed by this solution because I had this solution in mind for a long time.
 * But please, be fair-play. You didn't comment any of my arguments but just make suggestions on my personal involvment. You can see that I am the main contributors to 6 FA on the topics on wp:fr. One was already translated here (1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine) and was recognized for this NPOV.
 * I didn't object to all arguments. I don't see how to implement the idea but I think that the wiki-ethos of always rejecting new ideas should rather be to work constructevely on the way to implement that at best. Ceedjee (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I appreciate that. Please just let me clear the air in case you are uncomfortable with what I said, because I don't want you to be uncomfortable. I don't think I said anything about your personal involvement, so if we misunderstood each other, please understand now that I was not doing that. I just intended to say that I in fact did have experience with NPOV disagreements. In fact I'm not one of those editors who always reject change, quite the opposite. But here, I think that this is a change that would end up being for the worse. Bottom line: undermines WP:OWN. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Grave concerns over "uninvolved"
Any topic over which there is contentiousness which requires intervention can easily degenerate further given "uninvolved" editor involvement--which likely means uninformed involvement, that is, a moderator is forced to rely on one's own biases and perceptions, to accept the arguments of editors at face value, or even to allow themselves to be poisoned through the planting of a few strategic suggestions. I have been somewhat successful at moderating disagreement between Polish and Lithuanian editors, however, that is only because both groups respect my objectivity and intimate knowledge of the historical circumstances outside of any particular portrayal. These are disagreements which can benefit from knowledgeable editors moderating both sides as to objective representation of historical events. Most certainly, however, these are not disagreements which can moderated by an uninvolved, not deeply informed editor, as their solution will be representation of historical events using "objective" words. The two are in no way equivalent, as recent misunderstandings and apparently permanent poisoning of some participants in a recent dispute regarding the occupation of the Baltic states has shown. Believing the two are the same can lead to nothing but an escalation of grief. Believing objectivity regarding any historical relationship can succeed without moderating editors being as well (if not better) informed on the topic as the best informed editors participating in the conflict is either ignorance, hubris, or both. I regret and apologize for the need to be this blunt. PetersV     TALK 01:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure, I found this based on looking to see what else Martintg has been working on. As it turns out, above his entry is Hiberniantears' positive response to the proposal. Mine would be the opposing view to Hiberniantears' based on lessons learned from the same dispute--occupation of the Baltic states--and his and my involvement. It's likely not difficult to read between the lines as to our thoughts regarding the nature and impact of each other's involvement. PetersV     TALK 01:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Vecrumba/PetersV,
 * I understand what you write but I am not sure there is any disagreement or opposition here ???
 * You point out 2 issues :
 * the "objective representation of historical events"
 * the "representation of historical events using "objective" words"
 * For the first one, you need to know the topic, all main pov's on the topic and refer to good WP:RS secondary sources; for the second one, you need to be careful and take care of what you write and how it could be understood.
 * But both issues are important.
 * You titled this section with "grave concerns over uninvolvded" but I missed your point. That is clear a main concern is that there is no neutral or uninvolved editor here. Such people don't really exist even if there are any different levels. Ceedjee (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The comment about "Believing objectivity regarding any historical relationship can succeed without moderating editors being as well (if not better) informed on the topic as the best informed editors participating in the conflict" is not in fact accurate. A good moderator does not need to be as well or informed than any participant; that just raises the level of knowledge in the dispute without resolving the issue.


 * A good moderator needs to be able to get the participants to collaborate despite their disparate views, which is very different. Because some participants will be unwilling to do this, there also needs to be a mechanism to deal with that. The key is that despite this, the article must remain "edited by the community", rather than edited by some small group. It may mean in complex situations, that there is a painstaking and frustratingly slow process. That might just be the cost of remaining within traditional wiki ethos. FT2 (Talk 11:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the "traditional wiki ethos" proved not to work on these articles. We don't count the number of editors with huge knowledge on the topic who left wikipedia because of the mess all around these articles.
 * Have also in mind that the current ArbCom decision will be a wide topic-ban of numerous editors. This is not either in the traditional wiki ethos.
 * This proposal is an alternative. Instead of inflicting a topic-ban on numerous editors (because it seems not possible for the ArbCom to sort the good from the bad) we suggest to give to "some people" the power to sort from the "content" and the real improvement of the quality of the articles. Ceedjee (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. See Requests for arbitration/Digwuren and Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II. Same editors, same problems, different article. And neither ArbCom, nor the admin corps have the capacity to hold everything together, and police every random article. Peters is a great case in point: An intelligent, well meaning editor trying to clear away a nasty Soviet POV from articles relating to his heritage. That's a good thing, but he's too passionately involved to actually think objectively on the topic... or to even be able to ponder the possibility that a NPOV view of the topics he deals with is achievable without turning our articles into Soviet propaganda. Rather than viewing admins as people to combat, a committee would be far more effective because editors trying to tell an objective story (like Peters) would be forced to act objectively by the committee. I think you would see that the editors who want to contribute meaningfully (regardless of POV) would gladly work with a committee, while the editors who just want to push a POV would be weeded out pretty quickly. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that in the example you cited you are simply wrong in this case. Requests for arbitration/Digwuren was from 2007 and originally about disruption concerning the article Bronze Soldier. The article name Occupation of the Baltic states was relatively stable since 2004 as this redirect hisory indicates, and unrelated to that case. The article content was stable without disputation since 2007. Hiberniantears involvement in that article has actually been more disruptive than any underlying "nationalist" dispute he claims he was attempting to fix. --Martintg (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah. Ever since Hiberniantears lost That Discussion on its merits, he's been trying to claim Peters is an SPA, a plagued wikizen and nastier things everywhere he gets.    Seen this, for example?  It's a case of confirmation bias serving the desire to not acknowledge his mistakes.
 * Peters has since proven me wrong with his latest suggestion for a new article move. Previously, I regarded him as an SPA, but his latest suggestions prove that he is here to grow the 'pedia. I commend him for his objectivity, and readily accept that he has proven me wrong about him. That's what makes Wikipedia so great. The question is, can you now also be more than an SPA? Hiberniantears (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Trolling here -- a thoroughly inappropriate venue -- is probably a part of a campaign to provoke Peters and others of his content opponents into saying things that have "funny" out-of-context interpretations, so as to whet that confirmation bias. I say, do not feed the troll.  Maybe it'll go away. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, is it actually that bad? As far as I know the I/P articles are far better today than they were a few years ago. So if we didn't need draconian measures then, we certainly don't need them now. I think this is a common problem at Wikipedia. We are making great progress, but our expectations increase faster than reality. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I had just expected to state my opinion and move on... Regarding Ceedjee's takes:
 * the "objective representation of historical events"
 * the "representation of historical events using "objective" words"
 * and that both are important--my experience is that in the absence of an editor being informed, those two tend to be confused if not considered the same thing. My point was that they are completely not the same, and that uninformed (as opposed to using "uninvolved") mediation at best can accomplish the latter.
 * traditional wiki ethos rendered non-functional, or topic bans which are likely unfair to at least one side of a (typically polarized) two-sided argument as they cannot distinguish good from bad...
 * my personal experience is that the likelihood of an all-out ban from Wikipedia for an extended period--a remedy already in place--is the only deterent that works.
 * Regarding both FT2's and Hiberniantears' takes:
 * going to some of the other points here, I can "write for the enemy" better than they can--I'm intimately familiar with the opposing position; but when the "enemy's" position is not based on historical fact (this is not about interpretations of events, this is about fabricating events which never happened), strong-arming one side into an arbitrary middle position between the protagonists, a middle ground which is an artificial construct, is not the appropriate response, especially when the "enemy's" position has already been amply described (just not accorded factual validity).
 * Perhaps it's a bitter non-idealistic pill to swallow, but it is not possible to write articles balancing all "valid POVs"--unless "valid" includes that a "POV" minimally stands up to historical facts. As I've stated elsewhere, on the Soviet issue, editors have bent over backwards to document the Soviet/post-Soviet position. But we cannot represent it as a "valid POV" as part of seeking a middle ground. If we do not apply the litmus test of historical facts (their very existance, not merely subsequent interpretations) to the representation of historical events, then we have nothing. That in this particular case, regarding Soviet and Soviet-based POV, such a litmus test favors my position is not my problem to solve to better represent a middle ground incorporating Soviet POV and post-Soviet Russian communal memory, nor is it Wikipedia's problem to mediate to "solve." I am glad to pursue an article examining the role of the Soviet legacy in Russian communal memory, but I'm not "stonewalling" when I insist Soviet/Soviet-based POV is not valid because it is (documented, numerous scholarly sources) based on invention, not merely interpretation.
 * We have imperfect remedies which are perhaps crude and indiscriminate, but they work and serve their purpose. If everyone sticks to historical facts, there is no issue, editors of good faith will eventually sort it through, further formalizations of resolution by committee are not required. PetersV     TALK 01:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. In my experience, even people paid to push POV on WP as their job can be dealt with as long as they stick to reputable sources to create their spin. The issue is contention without sources (for which, again, there are remedies.) PetersV     TALK 03:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Amending my prior comments, Peters has made a valuable good faith suggestion at the Baltic article I mention here. This is a solid example of what I think this proposed policy can achieve, because it encourages not just editors like Peters to step back and think, but it also forces admins like me to step back and value the views of editors we both respect and view as POV pushers to be considered with objective neutrality. That is a net positive to the project. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Presented in the wrong way
I fear this proposal got presented in the wrong way. When I initially voiced support at SlimVirgin's comment at the arbitration case, I specifically meant a lightweight Writing for the enemy approach, not a bureaucratic committee-type approach. All that I thought was necessary was for ArbCom to tell some people to try to write from both sides, not just one side. In other words, rather than arrive at an article claimed to be biased to a certain POV and try and address the imbalance, to start from scratch and write for both sides (in due proportion - that is the tricky bit). Or to put it another way, rather than say "this section is biased, remove this bit here to balance it", take the approach to remove the whole section and rewrite it from scratch, making clear how you are writing for both sides. That is how I see "writing for the enemy" working in practice. And to reiterate what I said above, admins should not touch NPOV enforcement with a bargepole. Getting articles to comply with NPOV is the job of editors, not admins. Admins should, rather, enforce conduct policies on editors, and that doesn't include "you are pushing a point-of-view, you are banned" (though discretionary sanctions does allow this, I believe). The key to NPOV has always been finding a way to determine who is pushing a POV, and to restrict them to talk pages (or more if they are being disruptive), and to restrict actual editing to those who can write for both sides. Though that doesn't really solve anything, as the focus then shifts to those doing the editing and how good they are at writing for both sides (or indeed all sides). But it might work. Similar to how those with a conflict of interest are advised to contribute only on the talk pages of the articles in question, those with a self-identified (or otherwise identified) bias or advocacy for a POV could be restricted to the talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Carcharoth comments.
 * What is really important is to convince people to make their behaviour evolve towards the WP:Writing for the enemy.
 * Everybody agrees that WP:NPOV is a key policy. But that is impossible to respect NPoV, for an editor, if he doesn't know all reliable analysis and facts, ie all POV's on the topic ! To respect WP:NPOV, an editor must then absolutely check several contradictory sources. Writing for the enemy will be a direct consequence of this. In case of problem, one editor will be able to write "A says... but B says..." etc.
 * The question is how to implement it but in keeping everything simple and efficient ! Ceedjee (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Noble goal, bad implementation
How would this proposal apply in cases of historical denialism, particularly Holocaust denial? Surely we don't want to start enforcing neutrality between a scholarly consensus and an entirely fictitious anti-semitic concept.

This is not academic. For a wide selection of Holocaust-denying kooks, take, for example, a look at Talk:Fred A. Leuchter. A lot of these people would love to exploit an inappropriately designed enforcement framework in such a way as to give undue credence to their discredited ideas -- thereby bringing disrepute to Wikipedia at large. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The point would be to edit in accordance with NPOV, which includes UNDUE, and means edits have to be well-sourced, which deals with the concern of inadvertently promoting nonsense. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Test case
Let's assume one group of editors favor term "X", while another group opposes the term as partisan, and presents an immense number of reliable sources that support their view. Let's further assume that the "X"-favorers fail to find any support at all for their opposing view that term "X" is neutral — but still resist all attempts to replace it with a more neutral alternative.

How would the proposal solve this problem? I'm particularly interested in the original propounder's view, since her proposal apparently was prompted by a current ArbCom case dealing with precisely that situation. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur in requesting an interpretation for this case. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not exactly the point. The "Neutrality enforcement" is more a question of incititating people to stop fighting for one pov's rather than taking decision on what is neutral or not.
 * It is impossible to guess what will be the decision of a ArbCom before it endend. It is the same here and it is impossible to guess what these people would do.
 * Nevertheless, I think it is quite easy :
 * if an editor starts modifying everywhere "West Bank" by "Judea and Samaria", a discussion should start with him and he will finished topic banned.
 * if an editor sometimes uses "West Bank" (most often), sometimes uses "Judea and Samaria" (in particular cases, typically geographic as suggested by Ynhockey), than it is ok.
 * if an editor starts crying and harassing editor who sometimes uses "Judea and Samaria", he will be asked why and if he goes on, will be topic ban.
 * In other words, instead of having a ArbCom which will finish by a massive topic ban, there will be a discussion between people who know the topic, with the involved editors. The lattest will be asked to make efforts, taking into acocunt the other one analysis (if relevant) and using both wordings. And if a party refuse, he will be warned. And if he goes on, he will be topic banned...
 * But most important is the part where people must be convinced to WP:Write for the enemy. Ceedjee (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you missed the point, I will rephrase it: Every source attests to the non-neutrality of term "X". I repeat, every source. To write for the enemy, in this case, would mean adopting his bad editing practice of ignoring a complete consensus of sources, in order to promote a view that has no support at all in sources — in other words, creating wikiality. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Not every source attest the non-neutrality of "Judea and Samaria". I have several, perfectly neutral, that use it [in some contexts]. That is another good reason why content issues should be given to people who has an as good as possible know-how of the topic.
 * (EC) Every source that says anything at all about the issue does in fact agree that the terms are not neutral. Isolated examples of what may or may not be interpreted as neutral usage clearly carry little or no weight, and anybody familiar with WP:OR realizes that conclusions drawn from such examples are of even less consequence. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I answered to Nishidani here below. But I don't undserstand what you expect exactly. It seems to me you give the answer to your question... So what ? Go on your reasonning... Ceedjee (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, the inevitable conclusion is that the suggested NPOV/E will be totally ineffectual against coordinated stonewalling. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * MM, NPOV says to follow the reliable sources, giving DUE weight wherever possible. But the point of this proposal is *not* to try to force every edit to be "neutral," which is impossible, but to see whether an editor's contribs overall are balanced, and don't constitute advocacy. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To go deeper into practical issues, that is not possible to discuss out of concrete case.
 * To give an exemple taht reality fits your case : the expression Zionist Entity is not neutral, but the article is perfectly acceptable and the use of the words, in some circumstances, would be possible. Eg, "In his quest of deligitimization of the State of Israel, Hizbollah name this the "Zionist entity". Of course, replacing Israel by Zionist entity and even referring to Zionist entity in the article should be extremally hard to be accepted.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but nobody has been fighting for months to make articles state that this or that place in Israel is in the Zionist Entity, so your analogy fails. Obviously, there should be an article on ZE that explains who uses that term, and likewise the article on J&S should explain who uses that/those term/s. The fact is, all attempts to represent the fact that J&S are Israel-specific have been met with edit wars and stonewalling. This is a huge problem that cannot be solved by "writing for the enemy" (how? By pretending "J&S" enjoy global acceptance?) MeteorMaker (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Writing for the enemy also means referring to all sources and not referring only to "what we think". If I follow you, it seems that if people had referred more to sources, the problem would not have occured given "all the sources claim that one term is not neutral".
 * Writing for the enemy solves a lot a think. The only issue is the way to implement (my mind)/enforce(SV's mind) this. Ceedjee (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you do when the other side doesn't even acknowledge the sources? We had one admin who dismissed more-or-less verbatim quotes from Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia as "self-serving OR", "synthesis" and "disproven theories" simply because he didn't like the facts. When the enemy consistently resorts to this kind of stonewalling, how do you write for the enemy? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see your point here, Ceedjee. What occurred broke a distinction you held to be fundamental. Secondary sources prevail over constructions from primary sources. 81 secondary sources said 'Judea and Samaria' is a politically, religiously loaded term specific to Israel, and favoured by one political lobby in Israel. No secondary source denies this: 40 odd primary sources were instanced to show the term was used by Israelis, and Jewish people or Israelis outside Israel. This is a classic no-brainer viewed in terms of wiki policy on NPOV, and RS. Reconsider, my friend. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the context of the Mandatory Palestine period or of the 1948 Palestine War, all secondary sources talk about Judea and Samaria. Note about West Bank. Of course. From Khalidi to Morris, passing by Segev to Gelber.
 * You just focused too much on the political aspect. Ceedjee (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is entirely uncontested that the term/s are appropriate in the ancient history context, and that they were briefly revived and used as district names by the British Mandate administration. This dispute, however, is about modern usage. Again, if literally thousands of reliable sources (a small selection here) say term "X" is partisan, how do you "write for the enemy"? By breaking WP:NPOV for the enemy? By ignoring sources for the enemy? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I understand you, right now.
 * WP:writing for the enemy is the title of a proposal. It doesn't mean you have to absolutely use words that are forbidden if there is no source that agree with that, even if they are used by some (some and not really enemies ! We are not at war...).
 * Writing for the enemy means that when there is a controversy among reliable sources about a topic, you have to have read sources from different sides and add the information and analysis from both sides.
 * Writing for the enemy doens't mean that because some people sea the West Bank as a part that belongs to Israel that we have to 50/50 use West Bank and Israel.
 * Nevertheless, there is nothing against NPOV to use or state, at some places, and in sourcing this, that some Israeli commentators referst to West Bank as Judea and Samaria, marking them their wish to see these territories annexed to Israel. Ceedjee (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is exactly my point. WP:NPOV even requires us to state that. What we are dealing with here is a group of editors that steadfastly blocks every attempt to comply with WP:NPOV and refuses to let articles state facts like "some Israeli commentators refers to West Bank as Judea and Samaria". The only way that kind of enemy can be written for is by inserting information that falsely implies or states that J&S are widely accepted and neutral toponyms — which contradicts every reliable source we have. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I never actually bothered looking into this particular dispute - but what exactly was the nature of it? Was the dispute that "Judea/Samaria" were being used in the articles in question at all, or was it that they were merely being given too high a profile? Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

20,000 reasons to oppose the policy
1. I am quite new editor, lacking knowledge of all the policies and experience. However, this policy, if implemented, would hinder or even halt completely my contribution. So far, during last month, all my efforts were put into Gaza War article, since from my POV it has numerous inaccuracies, sentences out of context and so on. It is my strong unobjective feeling that right now I am almost alone, others are neutral or anti-Israeli editors. So, according to the proposal, in case of one vs. many, the views from the minority side will simply be unheard.

2. To emphasize my previous point, in the course of discussion I provided some pro-Israeli info based on some Israeli think-tanks. Again, in my opinion, not to push my POV but to balance the existing bias and to put things in context. This stuff is rarely cited by mainstream media. With all the modesty, I believe this is very useful encyclopedic data, that perhaps wouldn't have found its way in the article without me.

3. You might reply: 'then write for the enemy'. And if the anti-Israeli claims I found were already made by other editors? And if the overall sum of my sources is inclined towards my side? And if the articles I choose to edit wouldn't allow such balance? For example, if I choose to edit articles about Hamas charter and The Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing, how exactly am I supposed to preserve neutral score?

4. You might say: 'then, if you are so biased and unobjective, don't write on the matters at all'. This I can't accept. If someone is making a blood libel on your child, and you have evidencies that, in your opinion, could share another light on the issue - would you refrain for the sake of neutrality?

5. All this suggestion seems to me like making 'neutrality' to be the goal, rather than a means for better encyclopedia. Let's articles be neutral, not editors.

6. You know, for all the world, no matter how grave is the issue, refugee problems are held by UNHCR. Only in case of Palestinian refugees, there is UNRWA with all the controversy. Feels like the same here - there is the whole world with wars and conflicts, and there is Israel vs. Arab world/Palestinians. Why? Is there the same proposal about UK-Ireland conflict? US War in Iraq? Turkey vs. Kurds conflict? I will probably think of more, but for now it will suffice. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Editor with wp:rs source against 10 without should always win. That is not the case today. That would be the case with the committee. But that has nothing to deal with our discussion.
 * 2. You are right.
 * 3. For Delphinarium, in giving the context from different sources and maybe in giving a few words of the causes of the suicide attacks given by the other side. For the Hamas charter, there is this study in French that give the "other side" pov : Jean-François Legrain, 'Les voix du soulèvement palestinien 1987-1988', Le Caire, Centre d'Études et de Documentation Économique, Juridique et Sociale (CEDEJ), 1991, p. 211-231. Your job is to find others.
 * but if you don't want to work and to seek, just want to defend a pov and explain how much the Arabs and the Hamas are bad, it is better you are topic-banned.
 * 4. ... no comment.
 * 5. WP:NPoV is a foudning principle and is absolutely required to write an encyclopaedia.
 * 6. ... no comment.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 3. 'it is better you are topic-banned' Better for whom? Let's say, for the sake of example, that I come across notable source, claiming that the study you are referring to has numerous mistakes, misquotes, inaccuracies and so on. Am I not entitled to add this information to the article, assuming that no one before me did so? I'll give an example of the article I am working on. For more than 3 month, before I joined in, there was a section in 'Gaza War' about propaganda and psy-war. It contained about 5 sentences, 3 anti-Israeli and 2 anti-Hamas. That seemed odd to me. After opening the same sources that provided anti-Israeli sentences, I found out that some info regarding Hamas means of psy-war in the very same sources was simply not included. So, I simply put it in, plus added some new staff. Am I biased? Of course. Did I provide useful encyclopedic info that no one did before me? I think I did. Is the section neutral now? I don't know, maybe not. But I wouldn't mind if somebody else brings another piece of info putting Israel in the bad light.
 * 4. I don't dispute the principal, I am ready to play the game. However, I object confusing principle with the new form of religion. I am seeking here freedom to include valuable encyclopedic information. This policy would deny me doing so and in my humble opinion, it will be lose-lose situation, both for me, for my side and for Wiki.

7. How do you define pro- and anti- I-P edits? Example: 'A study by military analyst Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies claimed that Israel did not violate the laws of war during its operation in Gaza'. Is this edit pro-Israeli? On the one hand, it is - puts Israel in positive light. On the other hand, I would appeal for its neutrality - CSIS and A. Cordsman has no affiliation to Israel, Cordsman in the past critisized Israel (during second Lebanon War he critisized both Hizballah and Israel), moreover his report contains some minor criticism of Israel. He is neutral military analyst, so how come the edit based on his report is not neutral? On the other hand, I would argue that the following edit is clearly anti-Israeli biased: 'Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist, wrote that Cordesman's study lacked credibility because it was based almost entirely on official Israeli sources and ignored information that was readily available from the UN, NGOs and News reports'. This is because Norman Finkelstein is a prominent Israeli critic, he is neither neutral nor objective. In the source provided, he states that third of the casualties of the war are children. By doing so, he relies solely on figures released by PMoH, ignoring other sources (even according to PCHR, percent of children killed is 22%).

8. 10 biased editors with one RS will beat 1 other-sided editor with 10 RS, simply because that 1 editor will breach his limit of one-sided contributions. So in the end, even if some topic is debatable and numerous RSs for both sides exist, you will be stuck with huge pile of non-neutral articles simply because majority will overweight minority. Wiki is not a democracy but encyclopedia, is it?

9. As for 'writing for the enemy', I have no problem to say that 'according to Hamas, rockets on Israeli towns is a legitimate form of fighting the occupation'. But then, I can't help saying that 'HRW points out that regardless of excuse, rockets are not legitimate', 'according to X, claim that Israel occupies Gaza contradicts IL definitions' and so on and so forth. Again, why should I be dependant on other editors to include this viable encyclopedic info? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to largely agree with you, even though I think in many cases the sources support much more of a negative view of Israel's behavior than the Palestinians. Wikipedia should let the sources speak, not administrators who may have carefully hidden their biases to obtain a position of power to effect content. Plus, of course, on this issue, one can be sure that if one only has the energy to present the factoids of greatest interest according to one's biases, usually within a few hours someone will come along to present a balancing viewpoint, if there are any WP:RS that present them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * '...in many cases the sources support much more of a negative view of Israel's behavior than the Palestinians' - exactly, Carlo. I would argue, and excuse me for soapboxing a bit, that there is some sort of confusion in Wiki between RS and Mainstream-Mass-Media source. Mainstream media in the modern world (and Israel is no differ) seeks obsessively for headline. Routine rocketing of Israeli towns is no headline. Hatred education is no headline. A suffering of the oppressed is. But then again, it depends upon what sources to look at. If one looks at sources like think-tanks on security and terrorism issues, not necessarily Israeli ones, the picture is somewhat different. The problem is that at least some editors use accessible mainstream media, copy-paste headlines and that's it.
 * I am glad there is at least someone with at least patial agreement to my statements, since I am quite a new here. I thank you for reading and responding. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This proposal will not help
This proposal will not rescue Wikipedia's morass of Middle East coverage from the turgid, convoluted and just bad writing that characterizes almost every I-P article. These articles are bad not in spite of, but precisely because of Wikipedia's policies of reliable sources and neutral point of view.

Here is how RS and NPOV make hash out of an article: A writer refers to that place as "Judea and Samaria". Another editor objects - it is called West Bank. The first author cites reliable sources, the second editor cites other sources. Thousands of words are poured onto the talk page. Angry reverts and rereverts prevent the article from ever settling into a stable work. In the end, there is a compromise which includes a paragraph-long discussion with half a dozen footnotes about what the place should properly be called - and the article itself is about something else entirely!

Because the problem is that there is no neutral point of view. There might be some convoluted attempt at "balance"; but that is the opposite of neutrality. For one who believes in the fundamental mendacity of spokesmen for the other side, to include their positions is a violation of neutrality, not a guarantee of it. Do we give equal time in the Wikipedia to creationists? Do we give equal time to Holocaust deniers? Then why should we give equal time to spokesmen for terrorists, or for war criminals - take your pick?

Here is another problem that this proposal will not address: article spawning. There are dozens - perhaps hundreds - of articles out there that have no conceivable reason for being included in an encyclopedia. But nobody has the authority or the gumption to get rid of them. Here are two examples: The Skies are Weeping, a 4,000-word panegyric to a cantata by Philip Munger about Rachel Corrie, that was performed once in history, and will not likely be performed again. The cantata was momentarily notable because... well, you can read all about it, if you have a computer in your bathroom. Or Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, a book self-published by an acknowledged crackpot that contains nothing of value other than its inflammatory title.

I don't want to cast aspersions on the motivations of the authors of these articles. But the end result is hundreds of thousands of words of hatemongering.

Is there a better way? I doubt it. The failings of these articles are inherent in the way Wikipedia works. I once proposed a radically different approach, that you can read about at User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia - but that idea was, I have to admit, contrary to Wikipedia's deeply ingrained weltschaum. So I suppose we will just have to live with the status quo. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, The Skies are Weeping...haven't seen that one...and there's almost nothing for Peter Maxwell Davies' compositions and even less for Tōru Takemitsu's...very sad. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) The better way, I think, is better enforcement of existing content policies. The example you gave misrepresents the actual case, which was much more clearcut: a massive amount of reliable sources against none at all. As long as editors can get away with stonewalling a complete consensus of sources, the problems you describe will persist. Note that the POV/NPOV distinction is irrelevant here: Any fact that is explicitly stated in hundreds of reliable sources is WP material and blocking its inclusion in the encyclopedia is disruptive by definition. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember looking into Judea and Samaria and West Bank and the controversy. At least there it was different names for the same place that actually exists. And when opinions are so heated, a whole paragraph explaining the naming problem is likely the valid response. But not the same as the Soviet legacy, about history some of which existed and some of which was pure invention. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>    </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 01:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Modification: Edits are paired up
A pro-X and an anti-X edit are done together, as a pair. In the contentious area, editors can edit articles in ways that affect POV only if they have already discussed the edits on the talk page and there have been no objections, or there is rough consensus including at least one editor from each "side" for an edit or a set of edits (usually two). (Edits which don't affect POV, such as fixing spelling mistakes, are allowed in any case.)

Advantage: this would lead to editors spending time in (relatively productive and collaborative) discussion about "are these two edits, taken together, acceptable? If not, how can they be modified? rather than endless, acrimonious, repetitive and time-wasting discussion about "Has editor X done too many pro-Y edits, or not?" Second advantage: it pretty much eliminates having a committee, who might have their own biasses, make the ultimate decisions. Third advantage: provides a way to resolve subjective disagreements about whether two edits in opposite POV directions are of similar weight. Disadvantage: it's more restrictive than the original proposal.

With either this proposal or the original, I think it would be convenient to maintain on talk pages lists of proposed edits for each "side", so that when someone wants to do an edit they can easily choose one from the other "side" to pair it with.

Again with either this proposal or the original, there is a danger that articles or sets of articles will become entrenched in a certain POV. Mechanisms are needed to allow the POV to be re-adjusted towards what the broader community considers to be neutral. RfCs are one such mechanism. Another: Established editors who have never done more than a small number of edits in the topic area are allowed to edit to adjust POV towards what they perceive as neutral, (subject to consensus as usual? How would consensus or BRD work under such a system?) until they've done about 5 or 10 edits, after which they are considered involved and subject to the same rules as everyone else. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This proposal is, essentially, the proposal I made in my essay User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia and in my bounteous modesty, think it is a great idea. The idea would be to create two parallel articles in the same article space ( Gaza War/ProPal and Gaza War/ProIsr ), with strict rules about how editing would proceed:


 * Each side must explicitly include all the facts and sources included by the other side.
 * Editors from one side may not edit the article of the other side.
 * A short introductory article on the root page, written by an uninvolved editor, would introduce the subject and explain the crux of the controversy.


 * The result would be two articles covering exactly the same facts, the only difference between them being the presentation. It then might be possible to merge the two articles (though probably not in every case). In any case, we would be doing the reader a service, by presenting two cogently-written presentations of the subject presenting different points of view, instead of one convoluted and incomprehensible mishmash.


 * In my essay I give an example of how presentation can be different, using exactly the same facts. I know this is a radical approach, but I think it is the best way. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your essay is very interesting (I've read it before BTW) and you manage to identify a number of the problems. I'm afraid I can't endorse your proposed solution however. The problem is that there aren't really two opposing POV's in something as complex as the I/P conflict. There are a whole range of views, and trying to shoehorn them into two opposing "camps" would obviously be highly problematic. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What about the problem of linkage from other articles and the biased nature of the POV forks? For example I am involved in a dispute over Recognition of the Armenian Genocide and Denial of the Armenian Genocide. I think that it would be better to have one article, take for example the BBC's article title "Armenian genocide dispute" in which both sides of the question and those in the middle can be presented ((1) "It was not a genocide the events are exaggerated for political ends" -- (2) It was a crime against humanity but the evidence that there was an 'intent to destroy' a protected group is missing (see for example many of the Judgements of the ICTY over the crimes committed in Bosnia) -- (3) "It was a genocide") The British government takes the middle view into which of the two article should its views be placed? Names like "Denial of ..." carry a bias in rhetoric similar to "Do you still beat your wife". Such POV forked articles spread a bias into other articles as editors with a strong POV will link the name which they think best presents their POVs in other articles.  There is a similar problem at the moment with the template Template:Falsification of history it seems to be to be a instrument that can be used to present a biased POV into WP:BLP articles "No I am not accusing this person of being a falsifier this template is just a useful navigation aid." --PBS (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)