Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Proposed decision

I do not understand what "engaged in tendentious editing in the name of NPOV" means.

If there is a controversial topic, and the Wikipedia article is almost completely written so as to support one viewpoint against all opposition; and I add some information which describes an opposing viewpoint - then how is this tendentious or disruptive?


 * tendentious: marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view : BIASED (Merriam-Webster definition of tendentious)

If roughly half of people believe X or Y on a topic (say, evolution) and the article favors X, how is it "biased editing" to add some information on Y? I thought it was the very definition of NPOV to add some balancing information. --Uncle Ed 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, if that was the case, that would be fine. Isn't not and you aren't.  The proposed decision here is saying you are doing one thing and saying another - you need to address that accusation head on.  Morwen - Talk 10:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the burden of proof is on the "accuser". Who says I'm "doing one thing and saying another"? And what evidence do they give?


 * I've yet to see EVEN ONE EXAMPLE (in over 30,000 edits made in 5 years) of me "saying I'm trying to add balance" but rather "causing the article to be non-neutral" (if that's what I'm being accused of. Am I missing something? --Uncle Ed 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, a functioning introspective ability apparently. There is a pile of evidence at the evidence page, in particular of your propensity to create POV forks.  Morwen - Talk 14:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's a "pile", it should not be hard to point out ONE which is valid. I think you are confusing the size of the pile with the question of whether or not anything in it is valid.
 * Same for POV forks. FeloniousMonk spread the rumor that I "do it all the time", but has consistently refused to point out even ONE example of a spin-off article which is (1) created by me and (2) non-neutral. --Uncle Ed 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article Biological_evolution_(disambiguation), is a clear example of the latter and in itself should lead to your bannination.  Morwen - Talk 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The available evidence about this page suggests that User:Ed Poor is right. For example, the arguments for deletion appear to violate any reasonable interpretation of NPOV as the mandate to "represent all significant views fairly and without bias."  Does anybody have the text of this page handy?  All available evidence suggests that User:Ed Poor is correct in asserting that the "POV forks" accusation is itself a violation of NPOV policy.  That is, the "POV forks" idea here prevents the representation of all significant views fairly and without bias. --Rednblu 16:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how you can draw such a conclusion from the AFD page - certainly if you could see the page itself I hope you would be appalled. However, I was giving that example for Ed's benefit, not yours.  Morwen - Talk 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for examining with me the evidence that is available. I begin with the first sentence.  "The article is a WP:FORK of evolution from a perspective of creationists."  Apparently, the pack is determined to banninate as you say the representation of the view of "evolution from a perspective of creationists."  There it is--a clear violation of NPOV policy in the first sentence.  The second sentence proceeds to declare that the representation of "evolution from a perspective of creationists" is "unnecessary."  There it is--another clear violation of NPOV policy.  According to NPOV policy the representation of "all significant views fairly and without bias" is not only necessary but also non-negotiable.  The third sentence is a killer!  But I leave that one for the reader as an extra-credit exercise.  --Rednblu 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another scolding of User:Ed Poor is unwarranted here. Ed has pointed to some very real flaws in WP:NPOV policy on Wikipedia. A biased patrol of editors follows User:Ed Poor around to rip out the cited NPOV that offends their dogma. While it is true that the forum here has not yet manifested the beginning of an interest in actual NPOV, it is also true that User:Ed Poor seems to be operating under the mistaken impression that he has a duty to 1) remove POV and a duty to 2) remove Undue weight. But there is no such duty--witness--if User:Ed Poor repeatedly insists on NPOV, by reinserting the NPOV and Due balance that the biased patrol rips out, then he--sure enough--has displayed the repeated tendency--a tendentious persistence--in re-inserting over and over the same documented opinion of the reputable scholar that the thought police cannot stand. --Rednblu 14:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what this means. Some people use the term "POV" to mean "biased article text". I always use it as an abbreviation for "viewpoint" or "point of view".


 * I regard POV (i.e., points of view) as essential to Wikipedia's articles on controverial topics. The typical breakdown goes like this:
 * Major POV: Barney is intelligent, entertaining and good for kids
 * Other major POV: Barney is stupid, dull and bad for kids
 * Among schoolchildren and educators I have (informally) surveyed, these are the two main POVs. Both should be included in the Barney the dinosaur article.


 * Likewise, on a hot political issue like "Did Bush win the 2000 election?"
 * Democrat POV: No, Bush is not our president. The Supreme Court appointed him.
 * Republican POV. Yes, Bush is America's president. He won the election, as confirmed by the Supreme Court.


 * There is no reconciliation possible in these POV disputes. Fans and detractors of Barney either love him or hate him. Opponents and supporters of George W. Bush either hate him or love him.


 * Not all disputes are evenly balanced. We can identify a mainstream viewpoint and one or more minority viewpoints.
 * Pro-evolution POV: "Evolution is a fact, not a theory." (Carl Sagan)
 * Anti-evolution POV: Evolution is pseudoscience. (Ann Coulter)
 * Now, Coulter's views might be a tiny minority, but they merit description somewhere in Wikipedia.


 * Intelligent Design:
 * Mainstream science POV: ID is a pseudoscientific, faith-based attack on science.
 * Minority POV: ID presents a valid scientific argument against the Theory of Evolution.
 * Now, ID's supporters may be a tiny minority, but their viewpoints should be described - especially in articles with titles like Intelligent Design, Intelligent Design movement and Intelligent Designer.


 * If it's Tendentious editing to insert information about minority POV's into articles related to them, then there is a contradiction in the definition of NPOV. Because I thougt NPOV "contemplated" presenting "all relevant POVs" when there's a controversy. --Uncle Ed 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if you and I and anyone else interested could sketch here an NPOV policy without that contradiction.
 * First, a scholar's POV becomes NPOV if you say: "Scholar A stated POV1." Would you agree?  --Rednblu 16:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the formula I've championed for five years at Wikipedia: X said Y about Z. It's considered an "unbiased statement" to quote a scholar as stating a POV.
 * Possibly biased edit: POV1 is true.
 * Definitively neutral edit: Scholar A stated that POV1 is true.
 * Keep going. --Uncle Ed 17:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay. How about this one?


 * Second, it is tendentious editing for one editor to reinsert ten different times the statement "Scholar A stated POV1" if each of ten different editors removes the NPOV statement "Scholar A stated POV1." --Rednblu 17:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)