Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 007

message: A discussion on the reformulation of the NPOV policy is taking place here: Wikipedia:Policypedia/NPOV. FeloniousMonk 17:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A discussion on the reformulation of the NPOV policy

message: Talk:Redshift is currently involved in a Point of View discussion, whose scientific nature may interest some people. I am one of the two editors involved. The argument centres around whether the "astronomical" use of the word redshift, is the only acceptable definition of redshift, or whether other scientists use the word in an acceptable way in their fields. --Iantresman 17:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redshift: NPOV

message: Following discussion above, with several users, I've posted up a draft policy for discussion on Information suppression. previously this was discussed under the title "POV suppression".
* Why a policy is felt to be needed:
:* A source or viewpoint may be notable and verifiable, but not all notable verifiable views may be given a fair hearing on equal terms. This is a common NPOV dispute issue.
:* POV suppression and misrepresentation is one of the favorite attacks of POV warriors. It contains its own typical tactics. A specific policy to point to, with relevant examples of these tactics, will be of value and use to editors seeking to respond more specifically than "that's POV".
:* It's a tight and well-defined subject that multiple users working on WP:NPOV have stated they consider worth enlarging upon beyond the basic outline in that policy.
In other policy areas, major and well-defined sub-policies are often covered in more depth on their own pages despite being contained within an umbrella policy. (For example, WP:NPA can be viewed as a sub-policy enlarging on an aspect of WP:CIVILITY.)
Draft policy for discussion is at Wikipedia:Information suppression -- please help improve it, or leave an opinion and contribution on the talk page.
FT2 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft policy for comment: Information suppression

message: This policy may be well-intended, but it puts the heavy hand of officialdom on each editors article. The articles end up reading more like the lifeless prose of a EULA. - Xed 13:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  NPOV I don't think refers to displaying no opinion whatsoever, it simply refers to displaying an acceptable balance of the different opinions surrounding subjects. For example, a controversial subject such as abortion could include both opinions for and against, so long as they are qualified as opinions and preferably balanced with the counterargument as well. --Christopher 02:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wooden tongue syndrome

message: Whats the earliest formulation of NPOV? 
I found this []
but I don't know how old it is. I tend to prefer it to the current formulation of NPOV. Bensaccount 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting indeed. It may be good to check if the current formulation has not drifted away on some places from a better way of presentation-- not all change is always beneficial. Harald88 19:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you liked that you may also find archive 1 interesting. Bensaccount 20:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see: . Bensaccount 03:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically: "NPOV was drafted originally for Nupedia by a philosopher". -- I would like to see this version and know who this philosopher was. Bensaccount 19:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Larry Sanger. The earliest version is the first link I posted. I am now trying to find where the Jimbo post came from. It seems to have appeared when NPOV moved to here from meta. Bensaccount 18:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of NPOV

message: Ok that is an opinion 
But from my POV it seems that there are many subjects that can not be adequately described without using POV language to one degree or another. There things out there that require a POV to describe them in part or in whole. More than one side of a POV must however be required in addition to the “NPOV” description where possible for full understanding in those cases.
If a zPOV is required to describe subject “题”, there will also be a parallel yPOV to counter that description in addition the NPOV.  Many descriptions are going to be colored somewhat by human attitude and behaviour to one degree or another.  
I have seen what could be could content removed because it was removed due to it’s POV’ness. What I would have believe (there’s a POV!) maybe it should have been moved to a sub section and paired with it’s counter POV(s).
Is NPOV a POV in itself?  I can’t tell, sometimes it seems so. Sometimes it seems not.
It was once said that “Understanding is a three edged sword;” I see some articles that require dueling POV’s to describe a topic and give it understanding; however it is critical to delineate and identify the POV’ness of the descriptions  in the two or more sides in any inclusive article.
There is a slippery slope to this POV in that it may allow for the inclusion of kooks  and shills, therefore it must be used with care.   
There are cases in which NPOV makes the article incomprehendible as the article may require a POV to describe it. A previous writer wrote that many articles end up reading like an EULA and I tend to agree. 
Neutrality in itself is a point of view. A table has more then the edge to look at. It has a top and a bottom, the table has a front and a back. The light shining on the table through the window may make its color change from light to dark depending on the aspect angle in which you gaze upon it’s surface. Total NPOC risks loosing nuances needed to garner to a fuller understanding.
Is NPOV important? Yes; I believe so. Is POV also important? Yes, I believe so too. Just so long as the slant of an article is clear, sectionalized and is proven.    Bdelisle 02:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes the term NPOV is overemphasized and we confuse the issue. The neutral point of view is a point of view. It is just the consensus point of view. Otherwise the term would instead be the non-point of view. It is trivial to show that any meaningful statement has a point of view. Even statements which are properly couched have a point of view. For example, "POV pushers assert their point of view," takes a point of view about what POV pushers say. A nice well-defined way of stating NPOV is to say it means that we make only uncontroversial statements directly. Controversial statements must always be contained inside an uncontroversial statement of a form similar to "Those of XXX assert YYY". To address your point, Notable POV's are of course important(by definition). We can fully discuss them, uncontroversially, merely by couching them. Points and counterpoints can easily be so couched. In effect NPOV mostly just means that those of POV anti-Z who delete statements of the form "Z supporters say foobar" are not welcome here, so long as most everyone agrees that Z supporters really do say foobar. NPOV does not place serious limitations on our language. You can even do block quotes of arguments to avoid repetitious couching. It is possible to present every notable POV in a neutral manner which both encourages editor editpeace and promotes user understanding. (Anyone feel free to prepend 'According to Intangir,' to each sentence above which you strongly disagree with, so long as you state your NPOV dispute on the talk page in reply) --Intangir 13:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV possibly impossible?