Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 28

message: I know this seems ironic and unexpected, but I have seen countless times when people have cited NPOV objections to my (and other's) contributions (especially in the democracy article) without citing any justifications.  The authority of NPOV grants them their way without having to justify or explain how the authority of NPOV applies in each case.  I, of course, believed my contributions to be NPOV with no problems at all in most cases.  In some cases, these same people cited NPOV problems in contributions which exclusively contained source commentary by respected people (i.e. George Leef).  Any chance that we can revise the wiki policy to require anyone citing a policy to justify how they feel the policy is violated, with specific details?  Also, any chance that Wiki policy can forbid reversions unless there exists either vandalism or a consensus that material should be moved or removed?  Something tells me that there already exists a policy about talking before you make major changes, but I can't seem to figure out which one or if it applies to those who cite NPOV without details or justification at the same time that they make substantial changes.
It's like someone saying, "x," and then someone else deleting x, and saying see talk page, where that person says only that "x has obvious NPOV issues."  This has been common practice in the democracy article by two very active editors.  It might seem obvious the NPOV assertion should be explained, but despite repeated request, this is not happening.  It's almost like NPOV is being used as weasel wording (WP:AWW), taking the form of authority without actually citing such. --Landen99 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right of course.  But let us use this 1) issue and 2) your interventions to collect data on how we might fix what is wrong with the Wikipedia policy system--rather than push for a particular solution.  What do you say?  --Rednblu 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny that these issues arise over the Democracy article. Can anyone post specific links to show how NPOV has been violated?--Shtove 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV used as Weasel wording 

message: I floated this idea above, and here's a specific suggestion.  To the current version of WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, I propose adding text taken verbatim from principles in the ArbCom's December 2006 ruling on pseudoscience.  (The specific section quoted is here, from sections 15-18.)
With the appended material, the Pseudoscience section of the NPOV FAQ would read as follows:
(begin quote)
Pseudoscience
How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes  as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant.  However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view."  However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.
With regard to characterizing topics as pseudoscience, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee ruled as follows:
*Obvious pseudoscience:  Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
*Generally considered pseudoscience:  Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
*Questionable science:  Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
*Alternative theoretical formulations:  Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
(endquote)
Jimbo is quoted at WP:NPOV#Undue weight and I think the above comments from the ArbCom are equally germaine here.  Pseudoscience is usually controversial, and the above, well-reasoned decision should lead to better editing and help keep the peace.  What do you think?  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rednblu, I think the behavioral patterns you refer to are indeed evident among scientists, but extend to all domesticated primates as well.  Organized science is discernably less of a poster child for groupthinkish behavior than organized ... you name it, really.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, Ian, the above comments weren't meant as huzzahs for every aspect of that ArbCom decision.  I think the ArbCom tends to get ban-happy, and did in this instance.  But I did think the part of their ruling that I quoted was pragmatic.  I'm not a great fan of the term "pseudoscience", but I feel that as long as WP is going to use it, we should be internally consistent.  To be blunt, I'm willing to sacrifice stuff on the edge to the dreaded "pseudoscience" label if that means sparing significant minority views.  I realize the boundaries of the mainstream are not sharply delineated, and define it as most scientists do, i.e. in terms of whether (and to what degree) a topic has been discussed in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals.  best, Jim Butler(talk) 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Editors do not have the remit to judge certain subjects as pseudoscience; they are anonymous, potentially unqualified and unattributable. If, for example, the Electric Universe is deemed pseudoscience, I don't want to read that "the consensus of Wiki editors have deemed it so". However, if Prof. John Doe writes that he thinks it is pseudoscience, then I want to be able to refer to the source and find out why. And if he doesn't say it, and neither does anyone else, then we can't pretend that anyone does. --Iantresman 13:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I'm not saying that if it's not in peer-review, and claims to be scientific, it must be pseudo.  It could simply be a tiny minority alternative view.  Often, no need to label, just let facts (or lack thereof) speak for themselves.  That said, lots of WP editors are label-happy and category-happy, so here I'd suggest we at least shoot for consistency, and direct editors' attention to some relevant ArbCom principles.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Basically agree.  Labelling something "pseudo" is much, much less important than presenting the facts about what support it does or doesn't have.  Thanks!  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 04:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed addition to NPOVFAQ quoting ArbCom on pseudoscience

message: While I have serious concerns about the likelihood of achieving NPOV in an article, that is not the issue I want to debate on this thread. I am in the middle of writing some articles on which it would be silly to claim that there is a scholarly consensus because the field is itself rather new. According to the stated policy, "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." The problem I am having is that there are very few published articles at all. I work on eighteenth-century British children's literature (one reason I am working in this field is because there is very little published - I can write the defining book some day). But when it comes to quoting sources for articles, there are usually only a handful of articles. They do not "agree" or "disagree" in any stark way (humanities scholars rarely do that) and to present one scholar's view as one side of the argument and another scholar's view as another side would be silly. Moreover, there are books published on 18c children's literature, but they were published many years ago and are now held in low repute by children's literature scholars. Unfortunately, those books are often cited in other books because they are available (so, a book about the 18c novel will refer to these or a book about 18c history, etc.). This situation is changing as others scholars become aware of the serious problems of these books and more articles on 18c childrnen's literature are published. Any thoughtful advice on this issue is welcome. Please refer to Sarah Trimmer, Ellenor Fenn and Anna Laetitia Barbauld for reference. Please remember that these pages are works in progress. Thank you. Awadewit 10:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An emerging scholarly field

message: I see these templates added from time to time with nothing in the talk (which I think should be a requirement).  It is not always apparent what the "POV" issue is or what bias the editor that placed the banner perceived in the article.  At that point there is little to do in regard to "fixing" an article. Every article gets its extremist that could see biased in anything that doesn't fit their perception. I find the banner itself can add more POV then whatever was perceived in the article, since such a banner seems to state that the article is inaccurate, not truthful, biased, etc.  I've also had editors that do post in the talk but can not state what is POV or what view is not present - they just seem to think the article is biased.  Again you end up with a banner that asserts the article is biased per some editor (that can't state what is POV) while you hope that someone unaffiliated will review it.  It seems there should be some guidelines to adding a POV banner to an article.  For example:
:A POV banner can itself be considered a very visible POV statement.  Therefore,  wiki-etiquette regarding the placement of NPOV banners is as follows:
#It is recommended that a dispute first start on the talk page and progress to adding POV banners if necessary.  It is appropriate to allow editors time to correct and respond before adding a tag.
#If a banner is added, there should be a talk to discuss the dispute.
#If no talk and no apparent POV is present, the banner can be removed with an entry added to the talk discussing the banner placement and its removal along with a request for further information.   (Perhaps leave the  if review is desired). 
#An article banner is for an entire article and should not be used for minor POV disputes in a section or sentence.  Use a section or sentence tag when possible to address the dispute.    
I think guidelines such as these (probably greatly improved by this group) would allow for improved resolution, less POV disputes, a common process, and general wiki-etiquette.  Thoughts -  Morphh  (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Policy on adding and removing the tags is currently very unclear and confusing, and frankly, the current practice is a disaster.  Editors often add the tag without comments on the talk page (can adding them be done automatically through some fancy template magic?), then other editors interested in the article often remove the tag immediately with an edit comment like, "I don't think the article is POV."  A big part of the problem is the glaring banner that goes right into the article.  Wouldn't it be more effective to encourage first starting with some kind of "Policy warning" banner on the talk page?  Groups of editors interested in particular policies (like NPOV-interested editors here) could watch for those tags on talk pages.  There would be time to go help because the article's editors wouldn't be freaking out about a banner defacing the article itself.  Obviously, a banner in the article would be appropriate if problems persisted.  Gnixon 06:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV banner guidelines

message: I think this FAQ question and answer itself betrays a US/UK/Ire focus as opposed to Can/Aus/NZ/SAfr, and should be edited to correct this. Joeldl 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo-American focus

message: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion 
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ATT]]: Join the discussion at 

message: I know this is a dumb question, and (even to me) it seems like I'm beating a dead horse. But what can we do if a particular topic or article series winds up being dominated by editors who:
* assert that the most popular view is the correct one
* turn passages describing the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint into an argument implying that one is better
* insist that articles be sympathetic to one view and come out in forthright opposition to the opposite view
* advocate the elimination of viewpoints from articles, on the grounds that the view expressed is "wrong"
* omit background on who believes what and why
* dismiss attempts to add significant published points of view which conflict with the mainstream, as "tendentious" or "disruptive" or "undue weight" - even when the contributor adding these agrees readily to describing these as "minority"
* resist attempts to fix articles which have bias towards one particular point of view and remove pov dispute tags from articles or sections
* engage in debates on talk pages and resist calls to "get back" to discussions on how to improve the article
I refer, of course, to that plethora of hotly disputed topics concerning history, politics and science (particularly the science of the environment) where a liberal point of view is exalted. I do not, needless to say, want to replace liberal bias with its evil twin, conservative bias!
All I want is for article to step back and refrain from drawing conclusions about conflicting views; to permit all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one; to refrain studiously from stating which is better; and to leave reader to form their own opinions. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue you raise is particularly relevant for articles like Creation-evolution controversy, Objections to evolution, Misunderstandings about evolution, etc., which almost always end up becoming a list of topics that begin with "Creationists say ..." and continue with unattributed statements like "However, [they are wrong because....]"  Editors of those pages are anxious not to let any creationist POV creep in, and many seem to derive significant pleasure from proving creationists wrong.  So even if the articles start out very NPOV, they gradually accumulate more and more anti-creationist bias.  Most of the articles seem to have been spawned by debates with creationist vandals of the Evolution page on Talk:Evolution.  With constant monitoring, editors of Evolution have been able to maintain a consensus that the article will reflect the view of scientists with only a brief mention of creationism in a controversy section, but obviously that option isn't available for articles on the controversy itself.  Many of the editors of Evolution have exported their monitoring practices and fervor to the controversy articles.  Gnixon 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumb questions and dead horses

message: See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion#RS_and_NPOV.  You can participate at Wikipedia:Undue weight (sources).  Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite WP:RS to make it consistent with the spirit of WP:NPOV and explain undue weight? 

message: I just put in a RFC on Talk:Intelligent design#Request for comment: lead.  This is a featured article with a large and long dispute that has gotten no where with great discussion.  Since it is charged as a NPOV issue - I thought I would post here as well as I'd like the thoughts of this group.  The NPOV dispute is over first part of first sentence "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,". Disputers charge that the article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is disputed as ID itself does not define who the designer is. A federal court case is used as a neutral source and has identified that proponents overwhelmingly believe the designer to be "God". Disputers want the term "God" changed to a less specific term or the opinion statement attributed so that it is factual. Defenders believe the statement to be factual and that changing it would be repeating ID rhetoric. This is the reason the article is protected, with heavy debate going back into the talk archive. Morphh  (talk) 2:05, 05 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: The warning templates indicate editors can be blocked for repeatedly violating WP:NPOV.  How are such editors reported for such violations and why isn't this information mentioned in this article?  Perhaps I'm just missing something that needs to be a bit more obvious? --Ronz 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to report NPOV violations?

message: I inquire a second opinion on categorization and treatment of non-defacto (country is not recognized by anybody) and non-dejure (country does not claim to exist) countries on wikipedia in the light of this very policy. -- Cat chi? 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-defacto non-dejure countries and their categorization 

message: Shouldn't the policy mention the moral resonsibility of editors to work towards NPOV? —AldeBaer 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This and related issues are discussed at WP:AGF and WP:5. dr.ef.tymac 02:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moral resonsibility 

message: This page has recently been used as "evidence" that NPOV requires us to depict fringe theories of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays as "scholarly". The wording in question was inserted by a user on his second (and last) edit to Wikipedia. As the wording he inserted doesn't conform to reality, I'm changing it back to the wording before he got here, which is uncontroversial and conveys the point more effectively. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholeheartedly agree. That statement simply flew in the face of accepted academic knowledge and was clearly POV pushing. I wouldn't expect people glancing through this page to know much about the full situation unless they had spent any time looking into the topic. DreamGuy 01:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Damn straight.  That stuff just sneaked in there, huh? Embarrassing that it lasted this long. john k 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether the above editors are neutral or not matters little. We don't just go around and edit policies significantly, altering the text, without any discussion. Just because no one noticed it doen't make it policy (this page was only edited every few days back then). Also, calling the removal vandalism after it has been discussed here appears to be an attempt to cover up the reversion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "someone clearly POV changed it back to support their own argument." No, someone brought it up here, 3 people agreed it was POV and it was changed to something non-POV. And, as I said in my edit summary, this page is hardly the place to discuss the authorship of Shakespeare's works. To get more opinions, I've requested an WP:RFC/POLICIES and left a note on WP:VPP. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  restoring section 

message: "The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them."
What about the dispute concerning whether something is a dispute or not? Isn't that a dispute, and wouldn't choosing which one is a dispute and which one isn't be engaging in the dispute as to which disputes are true disputes? We should characterize disputes. OK. But there is no objective truth and unanimity as to the which things are true disputes, so editors have to choose which ones are disputes, engaging in the dispute as to which disputes are true disputes and which ones aren't. A.Z. 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're asking how we know if something is controversial?  Our sources should make that clear.  Friday (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how do you decide which sources are credible, without engaging in a dispute about which sources are credible? A.Z. 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can engage in all the good faith meta-disputing necessary on the talk page, this is about how our articles treat things, not our editors. --tjstrf talk  01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, at the end, the article will have the point of view of whoever won the dispute about which sources are credible. A.Z. 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh --tjstrf talk  01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An article will engage in the dispute about which sources are credible each time that the article uses any source, because using a source implies saying that the source is credible. So, every article engages in the disputes about which sources are credible. A.Z. 01:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I suppose our web-based format also implicitly takes a side in disputes regarding Luddism. Amusing logical diversions aside, is there a point to this thread? --tjstrf talk  01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would really like it if the policy acknowledged that it is impossible to avoid engaging in disputes, just as it acknowledges that objectivity is impossible. A.Z. 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that we require reliable sources does not mean we engage in disputes on article pages. The rule is about how we treat material that we do accept in our writing, in other words that Wikipedia does not "personally" make arguments for or against views, rather describing the arguments made by others. Which opinions we use are dependent on policies other than this one. --tjstrf talk  02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I fail to see the whole point of this policy. What do you mean by "how we treat material"? A.Z. 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I still would like an answer, even if it isn't by tjstrf. A.Z. 01:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Engaging in disputes

message: *The section Nazi human experimentation#References to Nazi results in scientific work‎ causes an unusual NPOV situation: the rules tell us to be NPOV in reporting a situation where scientists in the outside world are under a rule not to be NPOV, and accordingly someone tagged the section . Anthony Appleyard 05:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cllahes with outside-world rules about POV / NPOV‎ 

message: An editor is trying to distort the D. James Kennedy article by using unreliable sources. None of these people in the sources have qualifications to speak authoritatively on religious issues, yet by including them in the article who give credence to their outlandish claims that Dobson is a "leader" in the "Dominionist movement." I have checked sources, ranging from the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, to various religious, sociological and political journals and magazines carried by major academic databases such as Academic Source Premier and UMI/Proquest. I cannot find any other sources who make this outlandish claims except for these small group of journalists (and an activist website Theocracy Watch, which is even more unreliable as source). If this inclusion can be carried as NPOV, then I am not sure what can be excluded from Wikipedia at all. Please advice. --LC 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lampman uses Clarkson as source. Rolling Stone is an entertainment magazine. Theocracy Watch is ran by an environmental activist without any professional qualifications. Anyone can start a website. That's why they are not a reliable source unless they are the views of someone writing within their own professional specialization. These journalists are also known for their political activism, which make these sources even more spurious. --LC 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can express concerns in talk page about the reliability of these sources (see WP:RS#Aspects_of_reliability. You can also read and apply WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  marginal journalism 

message: There is a vigorous debate on the issue of difficult lists in Wikipedia as it pertains to maintaining NPOV and not only verifiability. Please  comment at Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#The_difficulty_with_Lists_in_WP_needs_to_be_addressed 
The discussion is based on this disputed addition to the guideline: Wikipedia:List_guideline#Lists_and_NPOV.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists and NPOV 

message: The page says: "Scientific- favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason."
What does that mean? That 'favoring a scientist, inventor or theory for scientific reasons' is NPOV? I don't check wikipedia that often but for me this is a new addition. 
Isn't all of science a 'point of view'? And shouldn't that point of view be favoured if wikipedia hopes to educate people?--80.56.36.253 04:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific 

message: I have done a major edit on a page Warwick_Manufacturing_Group following a new corporate identity for the group. It has been tagged with an alert message accusing it of being advertising. I have made some changes and put an apology in the discussion area. But the alert is still there. What can i do to get it removed? This is the first major edit I've done so I would be very grateful for some help from more experienced editors. Thanks Zoehoward 15:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cleaned up the article and left some comments for you in the talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can i get an accusation of advertising alert message removed from a page? 

message: It's very important for every major project to be founded with the thouth-out phylosophical concept.
Unfortunately, the majority of the people who use Internet, are westerners. To me, being non-westerner, every second historical or political article represents a clear WPOV. Eg., Apostle Peter wasn't a Pope of Rome, yet, the page with list of Popes claims otherwise. There are as much of examples... Of course, I can't do anything with that, because the wikipedia commnity have western education, western mind, western values. And, what's especially bad, the west always tried, and still tries, to represent their values as universal ones. Especially these dangerous and spiritually wrong things like neoliberalism, protestant ethic and so on. These aren't mine. And I guess that NPOV thing is another way of spreading western propaganda around. Unfortunately, also it's very hard to make someone who are grown up in another culture to understand the people of other culture. Also, some things, like spiritual parts of life, aren't visible to many of human beings. There are some westerners, like Oswald Spengler, who were able to understand and respect other civilizations, but not many. QuestPc 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your efforts my be better spent with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.  Although I find your statements contradictory - stating what is dangerous or spiritually wrong (or even that spirituality at all is right).  I'd love to see the mind pretzel that would ensue after reading Atlas Shrugged.  Anyway...  There are other policies that go into practice with NPOV such as WP:WEIGHT.  "All things are possible until they are proved impossible - and even the impossible may only be so, as of now." — Pearl Buck (1892 - 1973); Morphh  (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm being a working family man and I don't have too much time to spend my efforts elsewhere. There are many books on phylosophy, the point is what they are trying to achieve. The human happiness, but define happiness and freedom. In the west both are wrong defined - the happiness is drugs (escape from real world), the freedom is "liberty" - escaping from being real person - a father or a mother, instead being liberal homosexual. The majority can well be manipulated, so current state of "democracy" (especially here in Russia, but to some extend in the west as well) is more remnicsent of Plutocracy. So if that's WP:WEIGHT is a kind of voting - sorry it wouldn't work at all. Nothing will help. I am don't even trying to be neutral - it's laughable and impossible thing. Lots and lots of articles here aren't neutral, such as Kosovo conflict and so on. Also, BTW, neolibaralism is also a power of corporations, which methods of work are far away from democracy. They impose very strict regulations on their staff. They will work with anything for money  - they love China, no matter how much you cry about Chinesse human rights violations.So much for western pseudo-democracy. QuestPC 14:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Western machinegy and logic thought is great, yet, when you look at human habits and ordinary life - all is horrible. You forget the words of Blaise Pascal that logic have very little value to real human life (look what great brains had the west - like Pascal, Hehel, Spengler and so on - yet you don't even follow works of your own geniuses..). All your modern life is about "success", "competition", "being tough" - useless silly attempts to praise yourself. Everything is about enforcing western styles of lives to the rest of the world - who gave you right to do so? Just every aspect of life - let's say women rights. They are treated incorrectly as woman should become like man - stop bearing childs, being violent, going for mythical "success" and so on. These are male vaules! Western world is a world of males and females that are forced to behave like males.. Western mass culture is horrible - it's used to brainwash majority of population - we already see it here in Russia. QuestPC 14:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Dreftymac, the problem with this is that you are now asking for an essay, which is in the realm of western, educated, academic elite. What happens to societies where essay's aren't the norm? Or for people who haven't had the training in essay writing? You're putting the essay-writing-populace as the NPOV, and this is clearly not neutral. QuestPC is right, there is no NPOV. The very idea is based upon the western modern philosophy of objectivity, which postmodern philosophy has undermined. Indeed, NPOV is a fraud and a way of holding power over those who do not hold your POV. If you want 'credible' references for this (from your beloved academic elites) then look to Foucault, Wittgenstein, Arendt, Nietzsche, any Feminist Philosopher, and many many others. NPOV is not possible and perpetuates a dangerous myth that legitimates the rich elite exploiting the poor. Wikipedia is contributing to this in its naïve attachment to a non-existent, impossible NPOV. It should remove this ideology or admit its oppressive, evil nature. thugsb 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone already suggested here sometime ago that MPOV (multiple points of view, with pro's and con's) is more objective. I'd also suggest Erich Fromm as alternative to neoliberalism. I'd put neoliberalism to the list of totalitarian ideologies, which are especially dangerous because they are trying to hide their true exploiting intentions. But I guess that it's too hard to change the policy of such huge project, like Wikipedia, also every society have their myths, which are very strong and die usually only when the socity/civilization dies completely. So, I'm perfectly aware that my thread is useless. Future will teach humans. QuestPC 04:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV is impossible 

message: To repeat:
:I cannot state this emphatically enough:
:* A separated criticism section does not necessarily always equate with "bad writing";
:* Even if we assume that such sections *do* always equate with "less than absolutely stellar writing"  that does not constitute an appeal to the "lowest common denominator"; 
:* We should not let hypothetical ideals force the "Excellent" to become the enemy of the "Good"; and
:* Even if we ignore all the evidence to the contrary, there is simply no substantiation for the assertion that a repudiation of "criticism sections" will result in an improvement of writing in WP articles (let alone a meteoric rise to the standard of "universal excellence"). dr.ef.tymac 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick summary of objection 

message: Now comes the good part. I've given you a concrete example (even though I'm not the one with the burden of proof). So now it's your turn. I would be more than happy for you to prove my objections unwarranted. I would be more than happy for you to substantiate your principles, glib generalizations, and theoretic abstractions with with a concrete demonstration:
Please go to the XML article, and take out the "Advantages and Disadvantages" section, and integrate that all into "well-integrated and unified prose". Your modifications must reflect the highest levels of quality and professionalism.
Oh yeah, by the way:
* you will still have to comply with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V and WP:OR;
* you will still have to address the concerns of readers who want a "quick summary" so they can fairly and quickly evaluate whether XML is a suitable tool for their next project;
* you will still have to maintain the standard of "characterizing debates, but not engaging in them";
* you will still have to make sure to keep an eye on the discussion page to make sure your edits are not considered jarring or otherwise disruptive to people who do not visit WP every day and may not discover your changes until weeks or months hence.
Please get that done ASAP. 
(Bonus points: you will *really* win me over if you start with the "raw material" of the "Before" version, as the basis of your concrete demonstration.)
dr.ef.tymac 15:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple way for Vassyana to 
win this debate
 convince dr.ef.tymac 

message: Please read the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23#Crystal Gail Mangum.  I've put forward a view of the application of this policy to biographies of living persons, and a suggestion that we can work on.  There's discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#The new section people are putting in, too.  Please contribute to the discussions.  Uncle G 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-sided accounts of events as biographical articles