Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 29

message: I've started a subpage (Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Killing_NPOV) for discussion of an RfC regarding the proper unbiased terms to use for killings.  I've seen this problem in very many articles where a pejorative or biased label for a killing (murder, atrocity, massacre, brutal murder, etc.) is used as objective fact (rather than offered as someone's opinion).  Please direct any comments you may have there. Fourdee 01:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms for killings 

message: Pursuant to issues raised in the above discussion it seems to me that some clarification of NPOV is needed due to probably unintentional ambiguity in how it is phrased.  I have started another subpage (hope that is the right way to handle this) at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Fact_disputedfact_value which outlines the proposed addition of the following table:
 How to phrase propositions
Proposition    	Description                                                                                                         	Examples                                                                                                                    	Voice
Fact           	A factual statement which is not disputed.                                                                          	Mars is a planet.Tennis is played with rackets.Water is a liquid.                                                           	Voice of editor.
Disputed fact  	A statement of fact for which there are differing published opinions or which has been questioned by another editor.	John F. Kennedy was shot only by Lee Harvey Oswald.All events are pre-determined.Humans evolved from other mammals.         	Attributed to published source.
Value (opinion)	A statement of value, worth or morality.                                                                            	The holocaust was barbaric.Rembrandt is one of the most important painters.Powered flight was a significant  accomplishment.	Attributed to published source.
Again please direct comments to Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Fact_disputedfact_value as apparently there is some considerable dispute about the place of value judgments on wikipedia and this may take some time. Fourdee 10:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition to NPOV 

message: There has been some recent discussion about the neutrality of relative terms such as "tall" and "short" and other things. It has been said that it is never NPOV to call someone tall because that is a relative term. I'm almost certain that is not what is intended by NPOV, but I admit that a relative statement that doesn't specify what it is relative to is a potential source for dispute. It can be asked, "Tall compared to what?" The discussion that originated this question is rather silly, so I won't bring it up, but suppose I were to say, "Shaquille O'Neal is tall." Would that be a violation of NPOV? We've got reliable sources to say that he is over 7 feet. I am thinking that "Shaq is tall" is beyond serous dispute. -- Lilwik 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can something be relative and neutral? 

message: I've made a couple of edits to this section to fix a slightly misleading impression that may be given:
:* OLD - "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly."
:* NEW - "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that, where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, these should each be presented fairly."
Significance: It ensures the discussion of "conflicting views" is in relation to conflicting views within the topic, not conflicting views between editors. 
I've also tried to remove the impression that all views are discussed without heed as to weight, by a few minor wording changes elsewhere.
DIFF. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've followed your recent mods, FT2, generally I think it's a useful clarification. Good edits and good work. dr.ef.tymac 01:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV description 

message: Looks good to me. Morphh  (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly object to this, because it's badly written and therefore unclear. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What in particular do you find unclear? Do you think adding back the phrases "identifiable and objectively quantifiable population" and "generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views" from the old version would make this more clear? Tim Vickers 20:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To SlimVirgin: Can you please enumerate the specific deficiencies you are talking about? This will help clarify your concerns so other contributors can make a good-faith effort to address them. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 21:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Due to the rather fraught atmosphere around the policies at the moment, I think it would be a good idea to wait a week or so to see if anybody else has any substantive comments about this proposal for a clarified summary. Although the present section is roundly condemned by all the editors involved as unclear and badly-written, it might be a bad idea to assume that silence on this talk page implies acceptance. Tim Vickers 19:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on proposed addition of final draft shown above

message: Hi everybody. Is there anybody who has any objection to the current draft of the summary being added to the article? I'll put the two next to each other to allow simple comparison. Tim Vickers 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a vote, but that's a good point. Most of the size increase is the Sea of Japan example, and I can see this inclusion of a controversial example causing problems for stability, I've removed this entirely. Tim Vickers 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In an effort to improve the clarity of the guideline, I have added the new proposal. People are welcome to revert this addition, and if you do so, please explain your objections here so they can be discussed. Tim Vickers 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving towards consensus?

message: I think this page needs a rewrite, and that the policy tag should come off it in the meantime. It's hard to see how an FAQ can be policy in the first place. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to removing the policy tag from the NPOV page itself or from the FAQ page only? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just from the FAQ page. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then I have no objection. In fact, I think the policy tag ought to removed from the page altogether. It is, after all, just a FAQ. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't see how a FAQ could be 'policy'. Crum375 18:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording in the FAQ was developed on this page. It's labelled policy because it was written into policy originally. Marskell 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, given the degree to which the FAQ has been referenced as policy, stability would be preferable (i.e. rewriting in a sandbox and de-policying it only when there's some sort of replacement to address the "common concerns"). Which aspects of it do you think need to be rewritten? MastCell Talk 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This page has always been policy ever since it was spun-off of WP:NPOV last year. I see no reason why any rewriting requires a change in that status, particularly when it can and should be done in a sandbox/subpage beforehand. I'm not even sure a rewrite is in order, particularly when one considers that some of this language appearing here appeared on the very earliest versions of the main NPOV page way back in 2002. Have our guiding principles changed that much? Odd nature 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. I believe it was Francis S. who initially spun it off because this page was so big. The argument then was that it would defeat the point in moving it if it ceased to be policy. The recent rewriting was undertaken without consultation. Marskell 10:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing in the FAQ 

message: I'm seeing a contradiction in this article:
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically.
Are we presenting them sympathetically or not? Richard001 05:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing out this inconsistency. I have changed "sympathetically" to "impartially" in the latter sentence. Presenting competing views sympathetically can result in an article that is still not neutral, but rather presents multiple POVs. I think the concept of "impartiality" more closely captures the purpose of NPOV rather than "sympathy". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 08:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the change, though I neglected to mention that this is stated three times in the policy page, I only quoted one of them. You may need to make a couple more changes as well. Richard001 08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh ... I'd missed that. Thanks for noting it. I think I've changed all but the first instance: "It is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 08:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had argued against the usage about a year ago, and had at least managed to change "Sympathy of tone" to "Fairness of tone." So I approve the latest change. "We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea..." was particularly bad. Marskell 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sympathy 

message: It's been a while since I checked but the references I added to the notability pages have been removed. The idea that "tiny minority" views "do not belong in Wikipedia" does touch on issues of notability, not just neutrality, sicne what's so unneutral about including them in separate articles if verifiable information exists? Not every verifiable, unoriginal research viewpoint can be included in separate articles. Does this suggest then a new "notability" criterion for viewpoints, namely the number of adherents as opposed to verifiable coverage? Furthermore the statement "If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. " The number of believers has absolutely nothing to do with it. A whole bunch of people could believe it but the first publication still cannot be in Wikipedia! (Of course if enough do believe it it could get published easily by someone else somewhere else but that's not what I'm talking about -- I'm talking about the bar for inclusion itself, not circumstances arising from some situation). Similarly you can publish a proof and if absolutely nobody at all believes it yet it stirred up a lot of attention and third-party reporting (see WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS) it may still be able to be mentioned in Wikipedia (although the article should of course be written the right way obviously) and this must be reflected. mike4ty4 07:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability refs removed? 

message: There is a big problem growing in the area of "logic" and "mathematical logic." The problem extends to perhaps many dozens of articles, and more every day. There is a group of people in the very organized WikiProject Mathematics who are of the strong opinion that "mathematical logic" is not "logic." This has lead to numerous territory issues in the creation of WikiProject Logic, which is intended as an interdisciplinary  subject connected to philosophy, and perhaps linguistics, computer science, etc. 
Well these guys don't have to share anything if they don't want to, and they don't want to. They have as many people babysitting the wikipedia as they need to A) keep anti-logicist propaganda in the articles, B) have split project areas for logic stubs/math-logic stubs C) remove all the mathematical logicians from the logicians category D) remove several categories out from under the logic category (including mathematical logic) E) disintegrate numerous articles into conceptx (logic), and conceptx (mathematics) which are the same concept. The issues go on and on. It is a serious issue to the intellectual integrity of the wikipedia. I am not sure that this discussion page is where to go, but perhaps someone can suggest a way to address this. I have started an account for myself on meta wikipedia, but it is not clear when to go in there either. Please advise. Gregbard 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See dispute resolution first? More eyeballs will often help. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big problem 

message: The following was recently added:
:: The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".
Whilst true, this feels rather like a sore thumb sticking out; the addition of a point to be used in debate.
Can other eyeballs help decide if this statement, added this way, is the most appropriate way to cover something like this? FT2 (Talk | email) 13:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote that addition.  I have had problems with other editors not understanding this policy and removing content by calling it "POV".  The addition of these two sentences are integral for debating with editors who continue to pretend to not understand the NPOV policy.  If you haven't met editors who have tried to by-pass NPOV by pretending to not understand it, then you are lucky.----DarkTea 13:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"" is basically correct (imho...) but incomplete.  (1) If the POV is that of some obscure minority (X considers that Christopher Colombus should have stayed at home, because...), the content may be eliminated from the main article because of relevance consideration (just direct it on a specialized article, this will usually kill the problem). (2) A POV may need to be presented for the information to be complete, but it has to be attributed in order to be neutralized and respect "N"-POV. EG: Even if the information is relevant on a nazi-related page, a formulation like "Jews should be killed because..." (obviously POV - and it hurts) is not acceptable, and must be turned into something lile "Nazi leaders thought that Jews should be killed because..." (or whatever - let's ignore the reference problem in that case). The style and vocabulary must be neutralized as well, by the way. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 16:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've met it, hence my comment "Whilst true". My concern is not that it's untrue. I don't have a problem with the factuality of it, but as it stands it looks like something added for an agenda, and to be used to provide carte blanche for any POV warrior looking for a justification why their pet view or cite or proposal can't be removed...... WP:NPOV has a few places where balance is needed in the phrasing and expression, so as not to provide ready support for non-neutral agendas. For me, this is one of those. Doesn't mean its 'wrong', just that added this way, it's a concern. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition 

message: This is just a note to register support for the clarification just done by User:IanMSpencer. I recently flagged a subsection for copy editing but I never got around to it. Ian's edit provided precisely the modification that seemed necessary there. I add this just in case there was any misunderstanding about what I was referring to with the comment, which I've now removed. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 00:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article naming: recent edit by Ian covers exactly what I was commenting on 

message: Hello, all. I am a relative newbie on Wikipedia, and I have spotted a few articles which I believe should be tagged as not expressing a NPOV. Maybe only an administrator can do this, but otherwise, could someone please reveal to me the code that is used to insert those "notice" boxes? Thanks.--Surfaced 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general strategy is to find an article that contains an example of what you want, and then to edit that article and copy that example to the article you wish to place it at. Then use "show preview" and make adjustments as needed. WAS 4.250 17:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need an example or a referrer 

message: Please help decide a NPOV issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture. Thank you. WAS 4.250 17:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal liberation POV 

message: It would be easier for new people to find the Neutral point of view article if there were a disambiguation page, where, if someone types the commonly seen "NPOV" into a search engine, he can more easily find the link to this site. Brian Pearson 14:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Am I alone in finding it distasteful when wikipedia policy pages quote the words of Jimbo Wales as gospel?  Either our policies are justified  on their own merits or they are not.  I find it rather gauche. john k 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales quote 

message: Please see WP:BLP/N#Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns, particularly: WP:BLP/N#WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself, which pertain to questions pertaining to verifiability and reliability of sources of material about living persons (not only biographies but other articles concerning living persons as well), including questions pertaining to sources being linked via "external links" in Wikipedia space (WP:EL), whether it be in source citations, or in References and/or External links sections.  Some of the issues being debated in the talk page of that Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons) also pertain to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as well as WP:NOR).  Thank you. --NYScholar 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: [[WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] 

message: There is currently a debate about the use of the word "terrorism" in the narrative voice over at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. I believe its use violates the idea of letting the facts speak for themselves[WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves], and also violates the guidelines specific to the word at WP:TERRORIST. Furthermore, it shows cultural bias, because articles about attacks against non-americans (such as the Guildford pub bombings) are described using neutral language, in accordance with these two principles.
There are some editors there who believe that WP:UNDUE trumps all this, and are aggressively defending the use of this word, contrary to both policy and guidelines. They have plainly stated that they won't listen and will just revert any edit they don't like. I would appreciate some outside comment about this. Damburger 09:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word "terrorism" 

message: The more I think about it, the more I get to dislike the section name undue weight. I believe it has an unnecessarily forbidding ring to it and communicates a generally negative outlook. This could be avoided simply by renaming the section to Due weight, which far more accurately transports what the section is about: Instructing —ideally motivating— users to give due weight to all relevant aspects. It shouldn't preemptively instruct them not to give undue weight; that point follows logically while the opposite I feel is not so much the case. Aspects regarding fringe views should of course still appropriately state what they do now.
I also learned to despise the capitalized redirect WP:UNDUE, which likewise carries a connotation of general negativeness instead of far more desirable encouragement. Who would favour this biting buzzword UNdue over the simple, straightforward, positive and accurate due weight? Since use of WP:UNDUE is practically ubiquitous, it couldn't possibly be abandoned. But may I suggest introducing a positive counterbalance by creating WP:DUE? —AldeBaer 23:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and create it. Start using it, and in a year's time see which has more links to it. Cultural inertia around here is high, but not impossible to change. Carcharoth 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why so negative? 

message: What templates can be used to inform that an article/section/inline statement may have problems with WP:UNDUE?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . —AldeBaer 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for UNDUE? 

message: Is it correct to use the concept of "undue weight" as it is used in "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Notability and undue weight"?
Regards, G.A.S  20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it there and I think it is, but that's pretty obvious, so let's hear it from others. —AldeBaer 21:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: NPOV is non-negotiable, as Jimbo said, but of course that's not true. It should rather be "the spirit of NPOV is non-negotiable". The wording of WP:NPOV can indeed be interpreted and twisted in an non-NPOV way, and I think the policy should explicity warn against doing so, if only by prominently linking to Wikipedia:Gaming the system, the related behavioral guideline. — [ aldebaer⁠] 22:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spirit over wording 

message: Does  meet NPOV? I look at it and I say "who cares?", but that's not a policy. --NE2 18:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks neutral to me.  Needs a reference. I see that the website is listed, but the quote itself needs to cite the reference. 74s181 03:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is really an issue of POV, it is more is it appropriate to an encyclopedic article? What is the point being made? It seems to me that the article is unfinished and I would tend to let it rest for the moment on the basis that further editing is required to make the article work properly. For example, given that there is little real discussion of the route, making this point prominent looks like undue weight. Spenny 09:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree with Spenny and others above.  I question its relevance to a road -- this material more properly belongs in an article about the area, but not the highway itself.  Wikipedia is not a travel guide.  I think it looks out of place and if it's included at all it should be removed until the author writes a lot of tidbits.  Otherwise this looks like an awkward commercial for southeastroads.com.Journalist1983 13:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion requested 

message: :Please see this for a brief synopsis of what is being discussed and why. To see everything in it's proper context, then much reading will be required, including going through the Archives for the page. In short, we are not attempting to weaken the policy, but to make clearer by moving WP:PSTS somewhere more appropriate, and linking to it's new location (wherever that is). The types of sources and their definitions are not really part of a policy that discusses "No Original Research", much like your house insurance policy's definition of "Acts of God" don't really pertain to your insurance policy. It's just included for further clarity, but the actual definition has nothing to do with your policy, just its final interpretation of what is covered (or not). This is not something that some are trying to impose overnight, much discussion still needs to be done, but the sooner others participate and help, the quicker the additional work can progress. wbfergus  Talk 13:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOR discussions that may have an effect with the interaction of this policy 

message: I've made this removal from the undue weight section, as the same thing is said at least twice, in only slightly different words, above it. Seems unlikely to be controversial, but I note it anyways. Picaroon (t) 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor removal from undue weight section 

message: An interesting discussion broke out in Talk:Anti-gravity about the concept of Undue Weight. To me the definition is clear as it is, but in retrospect it seems that it is definitely possible to misunderstand it. Specifically, the issue is that the definition does not clearly define who's "weight" needs to be considered. As I understand the definition, possibly incorrectly, the weigh has to be among people "in the field". If this is the case, then I believe this should be made more clear. Maury 13:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying Undue Weight 

message: It would be best not to unilaterally add examples to the policy page. Please discuss them on the talk page and achieve some sort of consensus that they are appropriate first. The Shakespeare examples recently added (and removed by me) do not seem particularly illustrative. If an example is in fact needed, it should be to a stable article rather than one which is in constant flux. The balance in the cited article is tenuous at best , and it shouldn't be enshrined as a gold standard. - Nunh-huh 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare examples 

message: "...I can see the arguments group X use."  Why can you 'see' them, what is it that you see?  You see that they are plausible, or worthy of belief.  That doesn't mean that you believe them, but some non-tiny-minority group does, and we're not calling for straitjackets. 74s181 13:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly would not see that. I can see that some people make claims and we can report them - that is fair. The fact that I can see the claims are tosh is my business that I keep to myself. I can see that they are entirely unworthy of belief, even that those who make such claims may not honestly believe they are plausible, but we look to sources to fight the argument. What we do not do is take those sources and then look at the result and say: Shoot! that result doesn't look very believable, we better change the article. Spenny 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really. The point was to observe that there is a context in which we can present a view as fair, and there is a different context where it would be unfair to present a view as plausible. Spenny 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That Scientology was created by L Ron Hubbard is documented fact. That it undermines the reader's ability to believe it as a religion is you expressing your POV, it is a fact the reader has to deal with. Similarly, you see pulp fiction author, again a factual position (though I am not convinced pulp fiction is an encyclopaedic term, I'd use dreadful or similar!), as undermining plausibility, therefore this fact should not be juxtaposed. However, a truly neutral view has to present this rather implausible piece of information, that an author of little note should have stumbled on the secret to life, the universe and everything. We should not distort reality in our effort to make the case in favour. It is not an easy task to get this right, and it seems to me that fairness of tone could encompass a certain amount of incredulity when preposterous suggestions are made. That is fair. Plausible has the potential to be more than fair. There is no easy formula. Spenny 14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More explanation by 74s181