Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 004

message: I believe that the present NPOV policy fallaciously attempts to cover too many different aspects of journalistic integrity.  First and foremost, understanding POV is pretty simple.  POV means that an article's potential meaning to a variety of audiences is compromised because of the author's assumptions about the audience.  The most common POV error is the assumption that the reader holds the same set of assumptions about the world as the author.  Elsewhere on this page there is a classic example of the Northern vs Southern hemispheric POV on seasons and climate... referring to December as "the winter months" is definitely POV.  There's no insidious intent or ulterior motives there... just a ripe opportunity for misunderstanding arising from the limitations of one's habitual experience.   It's simple enough, yet Wikipedia seems to insist that POV also covers all types of bias as well.  Bias and POV are related problems, but they are not (or shouldn't be) interchangeable terms.   
Also, an article that is completely NPOV by Wikipedia standards can still end up being ridiculously biased because it contains information that is factual and NPOV but overwhelmingly in support of a particular agenda or skewed toward a particular interest due to lack of participation from alternative viewpoints.  I call this PPOV, or "partial point of view", which is a form of bias arising from the abuse of Wikipedia NPOV policy as it stands today.
I believe this sort of ambiguity fuels a lot of edit wars and causes people unintentionally to provoke one another.  It also prevents people from easily getting to the heart of what really causes disputes.  The NPOV policy should be reduced to what truly is POV, and editorial bias should be controlled by a separate policy.  We should not be afraid to call bias what it is.  The Hokkaido Crow 19:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present NPOV policy ambiguous, flawed, too general 

message: Where would it be appropriate to add a blurb about quotation marks being used as a form of bias? As quotation marks aren't words, we can't put it into "words to avoid". A good example of (somewhat hilarious) quoatation-bias is this: America "invaded" Iraq. We can see how the quotes give a certain bias. It would be better, of course, to simply say: America invaded Iraq. Other examples are: Abortion is the "killing" of a fetus; (or the creationist favorite) the "theory" of evolution; Michael Moore claimed* that America itself was in possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Where could a note about this be added?
::*see also the entry into "words to avoid" about "claim".
ChadThomson 1 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)
::Scan the main article for "scare quotes" for why quotation marks can be "abused" in certain circumstances. 72.15.90.142 20:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: quotation marks etc.

message: I have noticed that articles that are critical of the US are almost always kept. Articles critical of anti-American attitudes are as a rule deleted as "POV". 
Examples: 
Arab dictatorships - deleted
Ameriphobia - deleted
Islamophilia - deleted
Islamophobia - kept
911 conspiracy theories - kept
So it seems that anything too critical of anti-American terorrism or bigotry is immediately deleted, because it is "POV", while POV articles whose very titles imply a position (Islamophobia, History of US Imperialism, etc) are rigorously defended. Even editing such articles brings a swarm of RVs. 
The funny part is that arguments made for deleting one article are the dismissed out of hand in the case of keeping another. The most important matter seems to be whether the admin agrees with the article or not politically, ie. fringe Leftwing.  
17 June 2005 Dragonlance
Whew, you took the words right out of my mouth! I rarely hear someone talk that way; mostly it's bashing Americans! Scorpionman 02:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-American point of view

message: There has been a great deal of discussion and disagreement regarding the use of prefixed-styles originating with the new Pope Benedict XVI article which currently begins with the formal style of address, "His Holiness." The question was broadened because it was claimed by Jguk to be an established style policy to begin biographical entries with formal styles, and discussion was moved/continued on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) page. Prolonged discussion resulted in no apparent consensus, and a survey was proposed and discussed for another week before being submitted. The current survey is posted at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles with discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles.
The survey is still ongoing, and not scheduled to be closed until after May 14. However, there does not seem as yet to be any consensus forming, rather, there seem to be divided camps which will probably block ultimate consensus for any outcome. By no means is this absolutely certain, and I would not foreclose the survey and discussion prematurely, but I thought you might want to take a look and in particular to provide any suggestions or guidance on what sort of policy would conform with Wikipedia's NPOV requirement. Whig 07:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) 

message: :"According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". "
How is this different from religious dogma?  It seems to me NPOV is taken to absurd extremes by some self-important administrators too enamored of their little barnstar award trinkets.  Not to mention it is overly sanitizing the pedia to where even a sense of humor becomes verboten, hence the need for the new admin award category: the award of the NPOV Nazi
Well, you do have to give some creedence to this argument. Whenever anything is taken to be an absolute, it opens the door for a person to manipulate that to their own ends. Let me give you an example: the Salem Witch Trials. All someone had to do was describe someone as a witch, and then they could freely assualt that person with no consequences. Well, isn't it possible (indeed, likely) that someone might take this sacred cow, NPOV, and accuse someone else of being not NOPV simply for the ability to attack them or their ideas free of consequences? Surely, there must be safeguards to protect those who are the unortunate victims of this sort of manipulation. May I ask what provisions you have thought of to prvent NPOV from becoming a tool for witch-hunters?Dave
:More to the point, the truth does not have a neutral POV. Some things are objective true, yet some POVs are opposed. So in effect, Jimbo Wales places his own personal dogma above the truth. 69.247.26.21 00:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the challenge "How is this different from religious dogma?" the apparently missing concept is that of an axiom. It is axiomatic at Wikipedia that logic is universally applicable, for example, that the playing field is as level as dispassionate though fallible observers can make it, and that rhetorical devices like misapplying culturally-freighted labels are not tolerable. --Wetman 18:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV as dogma 

message: An important policy discussion has started concerning ways in which our content-related polices, such as NPOV, No original research and Verifiability could be better enforced. I've made a proposal to give the Arbitration Committee the ability to consult Wikipedia users who are knowledgeable in   subject-areas that apply to cases before them. Such consultation is needed due to the fact that the ArbCom does not by itself have the requisite knowledge to easily tell what is NPOV, original research, or a fringe idea in every field. Please read my proposal at  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC#Alternate solution #9 by mav. Content subcommittee and comment. Thank you! --mav 02:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC]] 

message: It seems to me the concept of POV and NPOV on Wikipedia is very similar to subjectivity and objectivity respectively.  Is there a significant difference?  If not, why create acronyms for a concept that is already described? Spaully 18:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible to be objective and POV, by only reporting one side of the story. It's also probably possible to be subjective and NPOV (although that would still be inappropriate for an encyclopedia). Nickptar 20:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objective = NPOV; Subjective = POV? 

message: On the Neutral Point of View page itself, you use an I Drew This strip to illustrate a point.  The strip in question as much as states that the American media is a mouthpiece for the GOP, and implies that the GOP criminally slanders John Kerry.  If a reader were to go back or forward, the other strips would be anything but neutral on the subject of American politics; indeed, the artist would probably be insulted if anyone said he made an attempt to be neutral.  Because it is a policy article, I hesitate to remove the link, but I don't think it belongs there.
:This has been gone over before. I think the cartoon should stay because it's a good illustration of what's wrong with "equal validity", and you can ignore the politics if they bother you. Nowhere is it implied that Wikipedia endorses liberalism. Nickptar 22:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony? 

message: Am I the only reader who has observed an accelerating abandonment of the principle of neutral point of view in Wikipedia, especially in articles dealing with pop stars, current or recent movies, etc?  A lot of stuff comes across as fan pages, written with laudable enthusiasm for the celebrities in question, but "neutral" ? hardly.
:Can you cite specific examples? -- Essjay ·   Talk 14:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I retract the phrase "a lot of stuff" -heck, I retract the whole thing -- because try as hard as I might, I can't (with quick searches anyway) come up with any new, cogent examples of what I'm complaining about.  The article that inspired my rant was the one on Rob Zombie.  I still contend that, in regard to celebrities and pop culture figures, there's a fannish tone more than the "just the facts, ma'am" style that historical subjects, for example, seem to maintain.  But obviously, like every other article, these fan initiated pages just need judicious editing.
:It's probably just a case of nobody being interested in the articles other than the fans. Remember, Wikipedia only insures NPOV if there is a diverse pool of editors. If you see articles that are NPOV, edit them to make them more NPOV, or list them at one of the various cleaning projects. Perhaps you could start a WikiProject (of course, it would be good to register first!) -- Essjay ·   Talk
::Every article seems to find its appropriate tone and vocabulary. Celine Dion's biography doesn't share much vocabulary with Hildegard of Bingen's, just to take two gals in the tune biz. --Wetman 06:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Events

message: This is a minor addition which I don't think needs to be discussed first.  People should be careful about using terms such as "might" versus "may".  May expresses what is possible, is factual, or could be factual. 'I may have turned off the stove, but I can't recall doing it.' 'Might' suggests something that is uncertain, hypothetical, or contrary to fact. 'I might have won the marathon if I had entered.' So, taking the most cynical view, "may" is about what's possible and "might" about what's uncertain. From American Heritage dictionary:
:might: "Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may"
People can slip in POV by using "might" where "may" is more correct (such as saying that something 'might' be possible when in actuality it 'may' be possible), and this can occur with other terms as well. If there are any linguistically-inclined folks out there who want to add this into the policy, I would suggest doing so now, at least on this page, and probably also in the proper Manual of Style section. --brian0918™ 22:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed addition to policy

message: Here is another possible source for POV: wikilinks being added to titles that have the same name (or a similar name) as the article to which they link, but which aren't necessarily related. Let's say the article is about a school that teaches fringe views, but the courses all have the usual names, such as "Biology", "Chemistry", "Physics", etc. At face value, the names look fine, but when you investigate what they're actually teaching, what textbooks they're reading, it turns out these courses either teach contrary to Biology/Chemistry/Physics, or teach their own fringe brand of the subject. By wikilinking the course titles to the articles on Biology, Chemistry, Physics, we are effectively converting these courses into the legitimate titles. I'm sure there are other examples on all sides and in all aspects, but this was the easiest example for me to cite. --brian0918™  15:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV through wikilinking?

message: I just tried to edit out the following bit of bias that suffers from the fallacy of argument from popularity of a point of view argumentum ad populum, aka the consensus theory of truth, and the obscurantists here immediately started a revert battle! Go figure. What's active here seems to be a big bias towards the consensus theory of truth, an absurd notion, as explained in the article on it.
quote:I've removed this quote - it's on the main page, go look at it there. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about in accord with policy, a little principled negotiation? -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 03:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What purpose would such negotiation serve?  Jimbo Wales established the NPOV policy, and as the head of the Wikimedia project, none of us have the authority to change the intent of the policies he has established.  We can alter how they are presented and discussed, but you seem to want to do more than just change the language.  You seem to want a different mechanism for how article space is allocated to different points of view.  No one save Jimbo can alter that.  Do I misunderstand your intentions?  Dragons flight 04:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
From my point of view it doesn't make sense for a community like this, allegedly open, to have a policy that entails either a dictatorship by Wales, or entails logical fallacy argumentum ad numerum, like the concensus theory of truth, if that is what you insist the policy is here. You can't be serious. -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 04:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: "without hystronics like obscurantists"??? Some of my best friends are obscuantists. It's just another POINT OF VIEW, deserving equal treatement here, like all the others, right? (I just wouldn't want my sister to mary one, would you?) -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 04:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your attacks based upon presumed philosophical bent now have have racial undertones.  Please see Bigot watch as to how your comment is likely to be interpreted. brenneman(t)(c) 04:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias towards [[consensus theory of truth]] 

message: The two are not the fully the same (whether in psychology, and especially colloquially).  It is irrational to attempt to dialogue with someone who wants to kill you, though it may very well be reasonable.
Predicated on this, I was going to modify the following sentence "We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.", until I noticed it was a direct quote.  If the creator would so modify it, I would appreciate it.  Being a non-reasonable person who is otherwise profoundly rational, I found it somewhat offensive (as well as psychologically a flawed interpretation of rationality). --24.22.227.53 21:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but unfortunatly these two terms suffer from synonymity (having the same, or nearly the same, meaning). See  -- 172.195.187.33 12:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes.  Dictionary editors tend to be blind to differences between rationality and reasonability, given they tend to be both.  The two are not synonymous in colloquial or psychological usage.  Self-serving egosim can and is considered to be rational (survival of the fittest justification).  It is however not reasonable.  I'm sicing the term. --24.22.227.53 02:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rational vs Reasonable 

message: Neutral point of view is redirected here. Is it really good to have this kind of redirects from the main namespace to a Wikipedia policy page? I suppose it should be possible to write an article about Neutral point to view from a non-Wikipedia perspective, and anyway I strongly believe a reader should not accidently be transferred from the articla name space to the Wikipedia namespace. / Habj 22:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from main namespace 

message: NPOV says "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view". There is a reall interesting edit war going on in teh [Creation Science] that revolves around whether the dictionary definition of "science" can be used as "fact". If it can, then "Creation Science" can be factually presented as "pseudoscience". This is basically a "definition point of view" because some editors wish to present the topic from the point of view of the standard dictionary definition. 
The alternative is that the definition for science depends on the point of view, and therefore Creation Science views itself to meet the definition of "science", and mainstream science views Creation Science as pseudoscientific nonsense.
Could someone who knows NPOV please explain whether a dictionary definition can be used as fact or must be presented as a POV? Perhaps the NPOV article could contain a new subsection titled "Defintion Point of View" and explain the correct answer.
===For reference===
I fully appreciate what you're doing with this, FeulWagon, but somehow I suspect that even Definition Point of View wouldn't settle the issue with some of our erstwhile editors. Besides, philosophers have a bugger of a time settling on definitions. That's why I think the NPOV policy is as good as it gets.
  
Main Entry: sci·ence    
Function: noun
3 a</b> : accumulated and accepted knowledge that has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws : knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth : comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge; especially : knowledge obtained and tested through use of the scientific method b : such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCEsynonym see KNOWLEDGE</font>
"science." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (9 Aug. 2005).</font>
--Parker Whittle 07:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition Point of View

message: I fully appreciate what you're doing with this, FeulWagon, but somehow I suspect that even Definition Point of View wouldn't settle the issue with some of our erstwhile editors. Besides, philosophers have a bugger of a time settling on definitions. That's why I think the NPOV policy is as good as it gets.
  
Main Entry: sci·ence    
Function: noun
3 a</b> : accumulated and accepted knowledge that has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws : knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth : comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge; especially : knowledge obtained and tested through use of the scientific method b : such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCEsynonym see KNOWLEDGE</font>
"science." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (9 Aug. 2005).</font>
--Parker Whittle 07:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For reference

message: "Subjective language" is a myth.  There is no more such a thing as a "subjective word" than there is an "objective word," an "auspicious word," a "cynical word," or a "dangerous word."  You need guidelines, but the editors here should try to remember, especially when it comes to questions that ask for this sort of policy, that to weaken a pronouncement is not necessarily to make it neutral; and, of course, to strengthen a pronouncement is not to make it biased.  Someone objected to my "unequivocal" in Shamil Basayev (about the Russians' opinion of him).  Are we really so wooden-minded that we have to read "uneqivocal" literally?
I don't like this tendency to weaken that dominates political topics on Wikipedia.  I understand that it's a natural trend, that it's equillibrium given the current rules; but it shouldn't be.  --VKokielov 05:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comment 

message: Please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Eras#What.27s_the_real_problem_here on the long-running AD/BC vs. CE/BCE debate.
It's important because the NPOV policy doesn't seem to cover the issue of language use. I don't mean content but rather form. For example, this policy does not mention or cover Gender-neutral language, which is an issue that should not only be covered as content (what is the issue, what are the positions) but also as form (how does Wikipedia apply gender neutrality).
Because of this gap we now have a new and controversial debate about Anno Domini vs. Common Era. It's easy enough to cover this as content. The articles handle the POV issues of each one in a NPOV way. The problem is that wikipedia seems to lack a policy on language pattern usage in POV situations. This is form, not content. Does wikipedia use AD or CE? And why? This should be covered in the NPOV policy.
Some relevant questions:
* How well adopted/known does a new language pattern have to be before it can be adopted
* Does wikipedia take an active role in promoting NPOV language patterns?
* Can we list / categorize the language patterns that we currently use (like gender neutrality)
Sbwoodside 05:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ... --VKokielov 19:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a hornet's nest that we don't need to stir up, although it would be useful to state as a general principle that we should, wherever possible, choose to use terms that have widespread general usage throughout the world. Choosing to use a term solely because it is by a long way the internationally accepted standard amongst the general public is an objective test and a sensible criterion to have. Where there is more than one term in widespread usage, I suppose we'll find some articles using it and some not - but I'd hope the emphasis is always on what usage will be understood/welcomed by a wide international audience, rather than by a narrow group (eg a particular field of academics, or by only one national audience), jguk 20:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV policy doesn't cover language use 

message: ::Dear all,
:Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.
:Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.
:The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29
:The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.
:We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.
:Best regards,
:Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza
:I sterbinski 00:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski) 

message: There's a guy called Sean Wright who is blatantly using Wikipedia to market his vanity releases. The guy's the worst author in the world, a literary Ed Wood, and his books are printed in limited runs typically about 3,000 copies. He is not famous, in fact he only came to attention from spamming (under pseudonyms) a couple of book forums I use, a tactic he also uses for his own books on Amazon. I've worked with the article but he continues to change it to promote himself and now he is using Wikipedia to create pages for all of his books, his vanity press, authors going through his vanity press. 
On reading his article it looks like he's name dropping and the only source for many of the supposed "facts" he spouts off (such as the late Queen Mother owning his artwork) can only be found on his website, the original template for his version of the article.
It reads more like a mixture of recollections and ego massaging. I'm tired of editing this article as it is proving to be a waste of my time. It's certainly not a neutral point of view. Connor Wolf 13:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Wikipedia as a marketing tool 

message: If person A is employed by organization B or person C, should they be disallowed from editing articles regarding organization B or person C, to prevent bias, sanitized PR entries, or deletion of all criticism?
:MSTCrow 02:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
::Its a VERY difficult subject - for example whenever I go to edit an article about a certain group I'll generally get a lot of rockus from the people who are a member of the said group (accusing me of all kinds of things even though I really don't have an opinion on the matter). OTOH, in my experience it is possible to work with these people and in time they might become good editors even on that subject. Its just extremely difficult and requires a lot of time and effort. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no practical way to ban all those people, and besides multiple examples exist of people trying to whitewash information about themselves or their own organization and failing. The Sollog article is a good example. It was a pain to fight them (or in this case, likely him) off, but he did fail so far. Insisting on reputable references and adherance to NPOV can usually save the day. If you need help, ask, and more reasonable editors can help ensure neutral editing. - Taxman Talk 04:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, many people initially think that the way to build an unbiased article is to delete every biased statement in the article.
That may seem like a good idea at first glance, but these are the very people who are closest to the facts of the matter.
Would you block all earthlings from editing the article on Earth?
Also, consider the possibility that some of these people might actually be whistle-blowing critics of the organization they are associated with. Banning individuals because they might mess something up seems analogous to banning forks because they might be used to commit a felony.
I think the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Dealing_with_biased_contributors section covers it.
The problem is bias. Let us directly attack the actual problem, rather than attack people who we speculate might possibly be somehow associated with the problem.
--DavidCary 03:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Guidelines for Recusal for Editors Intimately Associated with Subject 

message: I sort of tripped over this page, but found it rilly hard to read - partly because of too many multiple negatives. I'm new around here, so I don't feel like fixing it; and anyway, if I'd written it orginally, I'd appreciate more the comment and the chance to fix it myself, than the fait accompli.
:My sugestion: We do not take sides when we word a paragraph so as to be acceptable to both, or all, parties. Banno 21:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV is important, can it be expressed more simply? 

message: I have already posted this at the Village Pump.
The cherished goal of NPOV for Wikipedia often seems to be getting farther and farther away from realization. One of the most intractible problems is that POV warfare is carried on in a highly organized basis, not only in the editing, but oftentimes in administrative functions as well. It takes the form of what have been described variously as WikiCliques or POV posses, which generally have one or more Designated Administrators, administrators who carefully avoid direct participation in specific conflicts, but will intervene with administrative powers on the side of their respective teammates. An example of such behavior is what I call the Protection Racket, where admins watch the Requests for Protection page in order to protect the versions desired by their buddies, and POV warriors time protection requests so as to intersect periods when their Designated Admins are on patrol.
At present, the remedies are inadequate. Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship seems very unwieldy and is seldom used. So, I am making the following proposal:
I think that there ought to be a higher echelon of administrators, whom I propose be called ombudsmen, who would be held to a far higher standard of propriety and neutrality than present administrators. A member who becomes an ombudsman could lose that status at the slightest hint of partisanship in any dispute where ombudsman powers are invoked. And here are what I propose ombudsman powers should consist of:
1. The authority to discipline admins by imposing temporary bans on their use of admin powers, just as admins may temporarily ban ordinary editors from editing. This authority would be used when admins are found to be using their authority to further the POV-pushing of their allies.
2. The authority to temporarily intervene into POV disputes by setting ground-rules for conflict resolution in specific articles (this idea needs some refining; my intention is to take some of the load off of the mediation and arbitration committees, and speed conflict resolution.) --HK 21:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ombudsmen proposal 

message: I think we need some sort of explicit policy to deal with apologetics.  There are a lot of articles, especially those dealing with the historicity of the Bible, that tend to become filled with apologetics.  Now, of course, the traditional understanding of the historicity of various books of the Bible ought to be discussed.  But apologetics are very distinctly not the traditional understanding.  For instance, the traditional understanding of the Pentatech is that it was largely written by Moses, with the probable exception of the end of Deuteronomy, which describes Moses's death.  But the traditional basis for this was simply that it was traditionally ascribed to Moses.  Modern scholarship then came along, and came up with numerous arguments as to why the Pentateuch should not be ascribed to Moses.  As far as actual mainstream scholarship goes, nobody any longer believes in Moses as the author of the Pentateuch.  Many traditional Christians and Jews, however, continue to accept Mosaic authorship.  But, given that there are now arguments being made against the traditional understanding, apologetics are needed to reconcile the traditional account.  So, arguments that the Pentateuch is all of a piece, and that it seems to have been written by one person, and that various elements of it strongly suggest that it is quite old, perhaps as old as the second millennium BC are essentially apologetics.  They are neither a mainstream scholarly position (no mainstream scholars that I am aware of believe the Pentateuch to have been written by a single source in the 2nd millennium BC); nor does it represent the traditional Judeo-Christian viewpoint (which simply accepts that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, without relying on any kind of textual or other arguments to prove it).  Both the traditional view and the scholarly view should be represented on wikipedia, and wikipedia should not say that the scholarly view is "correct" and the traditional view is "wrong."  It would be a violation of NPOV to do this.  But that does not mean that we have to give equal time to apologetics.  Apologetics are the equivalent of pseudoscience.  Pretending that there is a legitimate dispute among scholars as to whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch is like pretending there is a legitimate dispute among scientists as to whether or not intelligent design provides a better view of the development of life on earth than Darwinian evolution.  It is mistaking religion for history.  And the works of scholars who are already predetermined to come to a given conclusion (that the Bible is invariably accurate) simply cannot be taken seriously as scholarship.  For an example of a discussion of this sort, I'd refer you to Talk:Book of Esther.  I'd like to propose that some sort of policy for how to deal with apologetics be put into place. john k 23:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologetics is a point of view, and if it is sufficiently notable and not original research, it deserves a place in articles, no matter how much it strains credibility to you and me. However, if an article is tending to become overwhelmed by apologetics, to the neglect of positive information, you can bud-off an article dealing specifically with the issue of controversy. For example, if the radiocarbon dating article were to become overwhelmed by the apologetics of young-Earthers, you could start an article called radiocarbon dating and creationism. I don't think the NPOV policy is any different with regard to apologetics than it is to any other POV. COGDEN 00:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologetics 

message: How to deal with them who continousely delete the NPOV tag while the article is being discussed?--Nixer 20:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag continousely being deleted by the opposite side 

message: Are external links subjected to NPOV? How? Does it mean that we should remove any link that bring wikireaders to a biased page? Does it mean that we should have various links pointing to various POV? This problem needs to be adressed ASAP and included in the next revision of NPOV policy--equitor 02:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: no answer? It's an important matter.--equitor 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: FYI: a discussion of many of the issues touched on this page
:[Is the Wikipedia Neutral?] - an (early draft) extension of A Case of Mutual Aid: Wikipedia, Politeness, and Perspective Taking to tease apart what is meant by something being neutral, and is it the right term to describe Wikipedia efforts: 
::Claims of neutrality and accusations of bias are common themes of contemporary discourse about the media, government, education, and technology. In this essay I extend earlier work on the collaborative culture of Wikipedia (an on-line and free encyclopedia) to specifically focus on the fundamental but often misunderstood notion of neutrality.... This essay is inspired by earlier debates on neutrality of technical standards, literature on bias in technical systems, my present fascination with this Wikipedia norm and a change in my belief that while an important concept, the label of neutrality was an unfortunate coinage in the Wikipedia context. - Reagle 17:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wikipedia Neutral? 

message: It has been propsoed that Wikipedia:Dealing with fringe science be merged into with WP:NPOV. While my comments, and indeed the whole issue of dealing with fring since, do derive from the NPOV policy 9and to soem extent the verifiability policy, I feel that this is an imporetant special case. I therefore oppsoe the merge. I wrote the text no present in connection with the debate on Jack Sarfatti, but it applies in a wider context. i intend to expand the current text a bit, making it into a useful essay or perhaps a proposed guideline, a fleshign oput of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V as they apply in this specific and often controversial area. This proposed merge is now being discussed at Wikipedia Talk:Dealing with fringe science#Proposed Merge DES (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merge