Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 27

message: It says "If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred" (so much for NPOV) We Holocaust Revisionists are often likened to those who said that the earth was flat. But just the reverse is true: It is the other side that acts like a Holy Inquisition, institutionalizing one viewpoint and punishing heretics. Remember: We only accepted that the earth is round after the debate was opened. And since then, the round-earth adherents have not needed false news laws, hate crimes laws, and libel or slander laws to protect the truthfulness of their view. Likewise, all we ask is that the Holocaust story either stand or fall according to the evidence -- or lack of it. 
Saintrotter 3 March 2007
Please, try to see the truth
http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html
:Wikipedia does not have the truth only a reflection of informed opinion. Holocaust denial is still the opinion of a small minority and the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust should reflect this, though an article holocaust revisionist should deal with this in more detail. If you want the holocaust revisionist point of view to be more sympathetically dealt with then first you must get this point of view accepted amongst historians generally. The wikipedia article will only change after opinion elsewhere has changed - not before. Filceolaire 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality is "objectivity", nor is it saying two sides have "equal validity". It means refusing to evaluate either view's validity. --Uncle Ed 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing different views 

message: Hi.
Since you reverted my edit, I'd like to go and discuss it here. Does the "significance" of views have any relation to notability as defined in WP:N at all? How is "significant views" defined, anyway, and what is used to judge it? Should there be a guideline on it? Since Wikipedia:Significance redirects to Wikipedia:Notability, does this mean there is a connection? If there is, should it be mentioned, as my edit would have done? Sorry for any inconvenience due to the edit, however. 74.38.35.171 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Notability reference 

message: It is NPOV to describe misunderstandings as "misunderstandings" without qualification, when the misunderstanders do not believe themselves to be misunderstanding anything? This seems like a tricky, borderline issue, so I wanted to get a more general idea of what the community thinks about an article like Misunderstandings about evolution. -Silence 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of a misunderstanding is that the misunderstanders do not believe themselves to be misunderstanding. For example, when a child believes that you cannot subtract a 4 from 3, that is a misunderstanding. The child does not "believe" themselves to be misunderstanding but are believing in an incorrect rule of subtraction due to their own misconceptions about arithmetic. --ScienceApologist 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that they frequently do not believe that they misunderstood even after being corrected and educated on the matter, not that they didn't believe it beforehand. -Silence 20:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see WP saying that something appears to be a misunderstanding, because A said X and B said Y, where it is obvious and uncontested that there was a misunderstanding. If it is disputed, controversial, derogatory or just non-obvious that it is or was a misunderstanding, then IMO it can only be cited by a reliable source. Crum375 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The above comment manifests misunderstanding 1) children, 2) arithmetic, and 3) Misunderstandings about evolution.  Furthermore, that comment demonstrates "misunderstanders do not believe themselves to be misunderstanding."  Moreover, the current Misunderstandings about evolution page continues blatant censorship of the POV of what the non-religious scientists such as Arthur Strahler have actually written about the Creation-evolution controversy.  --Rednblu 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the issue here is that an account should be given of what mainstream scientists regard as misunderstandings, and a proportionate indication given where minority scientific groups or sections of the lay public (or religious public) hold different views. It should be made clear that, for example, creationist organisations such as AiG debunk misunderstandings which other creationists use as the basis for their claims. The article could also usefully cover any scientific misunderstandings about creationist viewpoints if reliable sources can be found. It should also be emphasised that many of the misunderstandings are by no means confined to religious groups – the idea that evolution should mean progress is quite widespread. .. dave souza, talk 00:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be what you wish the issue to be.  But apparently that is not the issue.  The issue here is that the majority of scientists tenacious on Wikipedia are violently opposed to NPOV.  --Rednblu 00:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstandings? 

message: I suggest removing this sentence:
The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.
because:
* The policy page has already made it clear that NPOV is non-negotiable, so there's not need to repeat it.  (This is a statement that Jimmy Wales has made several times, typically in the context of other language Wikipedias adopting policies different to NPOV.)
* The statement suggests that there are certain "principles" underlying NPOV, OR and V that are "non-negotiable".  However, there has been no statement by the foundation or Jimmy Wales that this is the case.  These policies, like most policies on Wikipedia, were adopted by a strong consensus of editors, not by any edict of Jimbo or a committee.  It's rather vacuous to make a statement that comes down to saying "there is a consensus that this policy can't be overruled by consensus".  
* Ultimately, the reason why these policies are so important and so well respected is that there is an overwhelming consensus in favour of them - not that they have some special status granted by authority.
Enchanter 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. Bensaccount 01:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, same as on WP:NOR and WP:V. NPOV is a foundation issue and that is stressed, but saying that all three policies are is unnecessary and possibly misleading. Trebor 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done Enchanter 00:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principles?? 

message: Period.  
Why pretend?  Concoct a guideline that makes some sense to replace it.   Relgif 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any suggestions? Trebor 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This common objection reflects a misunderstanding of the neutrality policy. NPOV does not say there is absolute objectivity. The idea behind NPOV is not to achieve an ideal state of objectivity but rather that where bias can be detected, it can also be eliminated.Bensaccount 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bensaccount, Declaring something "biased"  is in itself a form of bias.   "Bias can be detected"  everywhere, so "detected bias" becomes such an all-inclusive category as to become meaningless.  I believe the NPOV rule is all-too-easily used as a cudgel against a particular treatment of a subject when no other cudgel suffices.   Does it perhaps not suffice to grant my point?  It is not an outlandish one, and it is not a "misperception",  "common" though it may be.  Relgif 05:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bias can not be detected everywhere. Facts precede opinions. Bensaccount 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is pointless, as people just aren't reading the available policy material.  And, Relgif, you're talking in circles.  "Calling something biased is biased."  True, but unhelpful.  NPOV is a POV, you're right, of course.  People need to read all the material here on the subject.   NPOV is the POV of Wikipedia.  No one's arguing that it's perfect, or that ultimate objectivity can be achieved.  It's a process and a goal.  Why do people have such a hard time with this basic notion.  It's not a falacy, it's a set of working principles and practices, nothing more.  It's a goal worth striving for, even if it's not achievable.  Otherwise you have chaos, and continuous edit wars with no mechanism for determining how to resolve them and stabilize articles.  Anyway, this stuff is all addressed in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Common objections and clarifications --Christian Edward Gruber 07:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not pointless, and here's why:  Someone notes above, sensibly, that the central chunk of the available policy material to which you refer does not define its terms.  It does not define "POV"  prior to issuing NPOV policy.  Sounds like the available policy material needs some  fundamental work.   Relgif 21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  POV? Point of View. NPOV? Neutral Point of View. Upon this basic distinction we have managed to create an encyclopedia as well as community of proportions that never existed before. If you do not like it, there are other projects such as Wikisource. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I invite Relgif to take some time and read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Common_questions, if the answers there do not satisfy you, it could be simply that WP may not be for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Telling your readers what the letters POV and NPOV stand for is not the same as defining the terms.  This misunderstanding of yours dovetails nicely with another:  when I dissented from the notion that Wikipedia defines its terms adequately, you suggested - twice - that I might be happier elsewhere, ignoring the fact that Wikipedia has always depended upon the exchange of differing viewpoints for its very existence.  If anyone has plainly indicated here that he might be "happier elsewhere", it is you, not me. By the way, you failed to indent your comments - twice  (I have repaired this).  You do like to do things in pairs, it seems. Relgif 19:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: <<There is no such thing as a neutral point of view.>>
I find this an interesting observation.  So let's see why the following is not a "neutral point of view."
Counterexample one.  Let T be the TotalSet of all published points-of-view on a WikipediaPageTopic.  Lay out T across the hillside and make a photograph P of the entirety of T through a wide-angle lens (à travers l'objectif).  Compress the pixel representation of P to fit on a Wikipedia page WP.  That WP would be a "neutral point of view."
Just because we as a Wikipedia community have not figured out how to control our natural dog-pack politics that rips out NPOV from Wikipeda pages does not throw into question the existence of NPOV.  We just have a lot of work to do in being honest with ourselves about the power politics that currently determines the biased POV that "hot" Wikipedia pages promote.  --Rednblu 03:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no such thing as a neutral point of view 

message: The Tom Welham page is a textbook example of POV, but I don't know enough about the guy to do anything about it. Can someone help out here? Knight of Ashitaka 15:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Welham 

message: This page has been move protected for a year. Is it a good idea to keep it that way? I can not think of a reason why the page should be moved, but still... it is like not protecting user pages, just because it is a wiki and we should make sure it stays that way. // habj 01:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I'd guess nobody can think of a good reason why this page should be moved, so it stays protected. Neither here nor there myself. Marskell 20:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move protection 

message: I have tried to add a link to a list of film reviews (see Children of Men article) from a reviewer who is Catholic in a Catholic journal, and been told that any review by a Catholic in a Catholic journal automatically violates NPOV, and that only non-Catholic journals could be unbiased. I do not understand the concept of an unbiased review of artistic work, or how reporting the fact that there was such a review is biased. Especially since the reviews of the film from non-Catholics have been favorable and by Catholics unfavorable, I fail to grasp how this "only exclude Catholics because they are biased" reflects NPOV. This is not a science article, it's a movie review! Agent Cooper 12:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems to be a touchy concept. If you think about it, the makeup of the human mind makes true NPOV impossible. There are too many entrenched biases in our daily lives to be truly neutral. That being said, it is probably better to steer clear of sources that are overtly biased, such as a catholic journal. Not to say that the views of the catholic reviewer may be right or wrong in any way, but it is obvious that the entire point of his review would be to justify it to a purely catholic audience. This  is probably a pretty glaring violation of NPOV. The review itself may be great, but that does not preclude the fact that it was written with a catholic audience in mind, as opposed to a nuetral audience review that may be found elsewhere. Bigbrisco 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Reviews 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion says care should be used in using the term "fundamentalist." Is there a policy on how to use the word "Christian"? On some pages it is assumed that a certain theological test must be passed before it can be applied even if a group professes itself as Christian. The claim is made that since there is disagreement on this the term cannot be used of them. (This despite the fact that there are sizeable groups who would say Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are are not Christian Churches.) This has the effect of perpetuating the theological test of what a Christian group is. Do we go with a majority view and perhaps require a minimum theological perspective (is that even really possible?) or do we adopt a secular meaning of "Christian" for this resource? Dtbrown 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no policy other than our core principles and good editorial judgement.  If there's controversy, carefully attribute who uses what label.  Present the mainstream perspective of authorities on religious movements, and mention significant alternative points of view.  Leave out fringe points of view.  As an aside, if you believe that "sizeable groups" dispute whether Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are Christian, you might want to ask other editors to help you check your own biases about what is a significant minority and what is fringe.  Jkelly 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Should the term not just simply be used in reference to any group of people who congregate and share a belief that Jesus is their theological savior? Whether or not they practise what they preach should be irrelevant. The mere fact that they believe in Christ as a savior makes them Christian, does it not? Bigbrisco 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki policy on use of word "Christian"? 

message: Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class division.
This scentence is in the summary on bias.  It seems a little conflicted.
Is it biased to ignore class divisions and assume that you are talking to people on an equal level.
The way that this is worded is saying to somehow be classest, and not be classest at the same time.
I would attempt to fix it, but I am not 100% sure what is meant to be conveyed here.  I get the idea, but I think that someone with more experience than myself should give it a go.
:-)
Emry 08:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comment on the bias section: 

message: Would any neutral editor mind reviewing the version history of this article and weighing in there with their editing skill?  Thanks. Wjhonson 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC: [[David Barton]]

message: Neutral? Let me give a statement, and tell you why it isn't neutral.
"The FERTILE CRESCENT is generally defined as the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. It is currently inhabited by a population of about X (source: census of A)"
The sentence, if it were neutral, would say HUMAN population, rather than just population. In order to have a neutral point of view, it would be necessary to start an otherwise unnecessary inclusion of the word "human" in almost every article, in a way that is dissimilar to almost any other form of writing. However, the current article specifically states as an example of bias,
"Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism, regionalism and tribalism;"
Does the fact that "Speciesism" is not on the list mean that species bias is allowed, and that assumption that humans are the topic can be followed as is followed in most other publications?
Is it necessary to write the encyclopedia from the point of view of a deist's god? Or an alien observer? When we discuss rockets travelling through the atmosphere, is the atmosphere's perspective important?
I suppose the answer is partly revealed by the fact that the current version of this article says that a POV must be published to even be mentioned. But if someone publishes a fluid dynamics paper, or a poem, about what happens  to the atmosphere as a rocket passes through it, does that mean that this perspective is now important enough to deserve notice? -Todemo
:Just being published does not warrant inclusion. There are other criteria that must be considered: relevance, popularity, expertise come to mind. (NPOV should mention this). Bensaccount 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of a neutral point of view should be based on the collective equality of USERS of wikipedia. "Speciesism" is, at best, a fringe point of view and should be completely disregarded in an encyclopedia read by HUMANS, a single species. However, nuetrality to HUMAN groups in general (ie. not being sexist, racist etc.) should most certainly be practised. Basically, if person X can read the wiki, then person X should find group X defined in a balanced, neutral light. The atmosphere, to cite the above example, cannot read wiki and therefore neutrality policies should not apply (obviously). Bigbrisco 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speciesism is not a fringe view. Check out Peter Singer, a well known philosopher with many supporters. Also, it's not obvious that non-human points of view should be left out. Suppose it turns out that higher primates are intelligent to merit some moral status, e.g. it would be wrong to kill them for fun. Why, in such a case, would it not be allowable to write an argument from the higher primate's point of view? If something cannot speak for itself, does it follow that that thing does not deserve to be spoken for? Agondie 06:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, for god's sake.  The word "population" means "human population" unless otherwise specified.  Its roots comes from the Latin word for "people," just like the word "people."  This is so incredibly ridiculous.  john k 14:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not incredibly ridiculous. It was an interesting question and you had an interesting answer. A.Z. 19:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Humans

message: In order to have a neutral point of view about the subject of pseudoscience, those who are accused of practicing pseudoscience (creation scientists in my case) should be able to point out, with reference to the definition of pseudoscience given in the article, why they think evolutonism is pseudoscience according to the definition given, as:
"On the other hand, Evolutionism, or the belief that modern life evolved from one-celled organisms, is considered by some scientists to be pseudoscience because of its over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, and the discouragment of scientific testing by interested scientists who do not accept evolution to attempt to refute the basic assumption that life evolved, as well as the suppression of the position that life did not evolve."
Eddiejoe 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should take a look at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.  It is my suspicion that the label of "pseudoscience" applied to evolution would fall under a fringe point of view that shouldn't be given the undue weight of being mentioned even within the context of the evolution debate, but that's something for local editors to work out. Jkelly 02:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow.  That "definition of pseudoscience" was added by Eddiejoe himself.  Without consensus.  Enough times to get a 3RR block.  The notion of evolution being a pseudoscience is a minority view and certainly doesn't belong in that article, especially unsourced.  I assume it would probably be fine in the Creationism article, but I'm guessing that is said there already.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Evolution is not a psuedoscience, though it should be noted in the article that it does in fact lack refutable evidence. However, many scientific theories lack refutable evidence and yet are accepted as fact without thought. In mathematics for example we know that 2 + 2 = 4 because if I have two apples and you have two apples and we put all our apples into a basket, there are four apples in said basket. We accept this as obviously true, regardless of political or religious biases towards the 'theory' that 2 + 2 = 4. However, we have not presented any evidence that 2 + 2 /=/ 4, only that it does. This does not make basic mathematics a psuedoscience. So just citing the fact that some sceintists (no quantitative value given) may regard it as a psuedoscience does not warrant  the statement "evolutionism is thought by some scientists to be pseudoscience" appearing on the page. However, stating that it lacks refutable evidence is fine. This compromise does not cheapen the article, and adequately presents the opposite point of view. Bigbrisco 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is mathematics really a science? It's indispensable to scientific enquiry, but to make the evolution analogy you really ought to use a discipline that involves experiments and the like.--Shtove 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Very well. Replace grade school mathematics with high school chemistry. Elements replace apples and chemical compound equations replace 2 + 2 = 4. The same basic principle applies here. One Oxygen atom plus one Iron atom = Iron(II) Oxide (FeO). Again, I can illustrate the creation of FeO by showing you what DOES happen, but there is no way to absolutely prove it by showing what isn't happening. As a matter of fact, instead of picking nits, you might attempt to further the discussion by coming up with something that can be proven using refutation. Bigbrisco 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apes pick nits. So do humans. Therefore humans are apes. QED! But that's logic, not science. Anyway, thanks for your polite suggestion.--Shtove 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a better way to approach it is that science allows the making of testable (falsifiable) predictions. Even in the 'historical' sciences, such as cosmology and paleontolgy, theories can be used to make predictions about future discoveries. Thus, the theory of evolution led to predictions that forms intermediate between fish and tetrapods should have existed. Every new 'missing-link' form (such as Tiktaalik) that is found leads to refinements in theories of how tetrapods evolved from fish, which are then used to make new predictions. It is not whether a prediction is supported or rejected by the evidence that makes a theory scientific. It is the fact that a prediction can be falsified, or refuted, that makes it science. Any discipline that makes predictions that cannot be falsified (refuted) is not science. -- Donald Albury 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is ridiculous that there is a movement of human beings that would categorize Evolution as they would UFOlgy. What have we come to. Bigbrisco 01:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no dog in this fight but I know Ann Coulter went into this in good detialed in her last book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.  You could use it as a source for the evolution psuedoscience.  However, I'd try to find out her sources and use them directly.  Morphh  (talk) 2:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience

message: An anonymous editor made changes to the Bias section, and this was reverted citing consensus although it is not clear that action this was supported by the policy there. In any event, the changes were mostly an improvement which carried the same meaning with far fewer words. I have further refined the changes. If the new verbiage does not reflect the consensus view of what the policy should say, then please improve it (without adding back unnecssary words--make every word tell). Do not return to an inferior formulation citing consensus, because consensus is not status-quo. Dhaluza 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you, but I prefer much more the previous formulation. Your simplified version loses some of the strength. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You replace "bias" with "favoring or disfavoring". I would argue that bias in the context of NPOV goes beyond just favoring or disfavoring something. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the redundant "bias" from some list items because it was stated before the colon on the intro line. If you think it needs to be repeated, then it needs to be moved in front of the colon and repeated on each line. I think that will look awkward, but you are welcome to try it. Please restore the edits you reverted, and change them to the extent you think is necessary. Dhaluza 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have raised what I believe to be a well presented concern about your edit, in particular about the dilution of "strenght" about bias. It would argue that you would be better than me to apply these concerns to your edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Jossi is right here. FeloniousMonk 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll start over and work methodically. Dhaluza 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I wikified the list making it linkable, and making the important points stand out to people scanning the page. I changed the intros to remove the redundant instances of "bias" and introduce parallel construction throughout. This should not have any material effect on meaning or emphasis. I did not address wordiness in the rest of the items yet. Dhaluza 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concerns have been addressed in the current version, Thanks for your patience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. There are two more things I see that I think could help make it even more concise. 1. Do the items need to start with "including" because "includes" is stated on the intro line? and 2. Isn't "bias favoring" redundant because favoring requires bias, so can't we just say "favoring". Dhaluza 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would ask you, Dhaluza, to be gentle with your application of WP:BETTER. Sometimes extended wordiness actually add value. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Words can add value, but wordiness cannot. Comfort words are like comfort food — it makes you feel good, but it also makes you fat. Policy pages should set a good example by saying what needs to be said as economically as possible. I will proceed cautiously, however. Dhaluza 11:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I'm sure this comes up all the time - an article is given a biased but much more familiar title, rather than a neutral, less familiar title eg. POV Glorious Revolution over NPOV Revolution of 1688. Does NPOV just relate to content, or does it trump the 'Best known' policy on article titles?--Shtove 15:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Offhand, it sounds like the title may have "nationalistic bias" which is part of this policy. The title should reflect a worldview, being the one most commonly used worldwide. The references seem to be split on this, but one title suggests a reasonable compromise could be "Glorious Revolution of 1688". Dhaluza 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If "Glorious Revolution" is the name by which this revolution is known, and that is not disputed, there is no issue here. But if there is controversy reported in published sources about the use of that term, then there is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to you both. There is controversy, reported and published. So, how to determine the issue? If there's a better page for discussing this, my apologies.--Shtove 17:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to address the controversy is to get WP:V information from WP:RS and add it to the article, then discuss the change on the article's talk page. You can also apply the  tag to the article to call attention to this if you have the facts to back it up. You do bring up a good point here, though, because although the POV title tag is listed, the NPOV article body does not mention title. Is it safe to assume this is an oversight that should be corrected? Dhaluza 17:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If both terms are used, then it is acceptable to have both names. The most used one as the article name, and the other one as a redirect. Be sure to [[WP:ATT}attribute]] the competing use of the term by those that assert the use of these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV title for historical event 

message: Hello, I know this isn't about neutral point of view directly, but since the major three (or major two, if WP:ATT is successful) policies do work in harmony, it does seem relevant.  WP:ATT is basically intended to combine WP:V and WP:NOR together without changing them. Anyways, if you have anything to say on the matter, you are of course welcome to share your comments at WT:ATT.  Thanks! — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Attribution]] replacing [[WP:Verify]] and [[WP:NOR]] 

message: The Srebrenica massacre article is currently bogged down in a seemingly irreconcilable discussion about what to call those who are critical of the established view of the massacre. These include a wide range of views and persons:
*those, mainly Bosnian Serbs, who claim that the massacre never took place or that only soldiers were killed
*those that accept that the massacre took place but are critical of the ICTY's finding that it constituted an Act of Genocide
*those who believe that the numbers killed in the massacre are fewer than the generally accepted range of 7500-8000 persons
*those who believe that Bosniak killings (mainly by Naser Oric) of Serb civilians in the Srebrenica region 1992-1993 should be considered when describing the motives for the massacre 
*those who believe that the memory of the Srebrenica massacre has been politicized by Bosniak politicians 
Group No. 1: believes that all of these views should be labelled as "revisionist" or as "genocide denial". As I see it their main argument is that criticism of the generally accepted view is per definition revisionist and that those who do not agree with the ICTY legal finding of the massacre as an Act of Genocide are, again, per definition, Genocide deniers.
Group No. 2: believes that headings such as "critical views" or "alternative views" are more appropriate and in line with Wikipedia:NPOV. The main arguments for this are that this is avoids casting all critics as "revisionists" or "genocide deniers", terms which insinuate that these persons and views belong in the same category as Holocaust revisionists and Holocaust deniers. I belong to the second group. 
As the discussion on the Srebrenica massacre Talk page is going nowhere, I would very much like an opinion on this matter. Maybe even a suggestion.
Sincere regards Osli73 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one doubts ICTY judgements/findings etc, he/she is revisionist; if one doesn't accept reality that genocide happened in Srebrenica, then he/she is genocide denier. If one thinks that the UN / Bosnian Government / Serbian Government / etc could have done better to prevent mass scale massacres, then he/she has Alternative Views. I have also posted my final reply to your games here. Bosniak 05:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: use of the terms "Revisionist" and "Genocide denier" in relation to the Srebrenica massacre 

message: As so often I am inclined to suggest a slight revision in Osli73's account of the situation as set out so clearly above.  Rather than "their main argument is that criticism of the generally accepted view is per definition revisionist" I think "their main argument is that the promotion of an alternative version of facts established by judgments given in a court of international law is by definition revisionist" describes the position more accurately. --Opbeith 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one doubts ICTY judgements/findings etc, he/she is revisionist; if one doesn't accept reality that genocide happened in Srebrenica, then he/she is genocide denier. If one thinks that the UN / Bosnian Government / Serbian Government / etc could have done better to prevent mass scale massacres, then he/she has Alternative Views. I have also posted my final reply to your games here. Bosniak 05:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a. Comments by editors of the Srebrenica massacre article belonging to Group No. 1 

message: I am not sure that this project page is the right place for this? I reckon this not be discussed here but in the article talk page. You could then post a link here and announce it at WP:RFC to get more uninvolved users' attention. Regards, --Asteriontalk 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  c. Comments by third (ie previously uninvolved) parties

message: Is it OK to have a sentence that isn't neutral POV, assuming there are other sentences elsewhere in the article that present the other POV?  I'm talking specifically about sentences that omit something like "Supporters/critics say..." and are worded to make an opinion sound like it's presented as a fact.  For example: "Bigfoot is said by some to be a big hairy creature" versus "Bigfoot is a big hairy creature" and later "Critics doubt its existence" (excuse my terrible example, but I hope it gets the idea across).  I would think that all statements in an article need to be clear whether they are fact or opinion, and in the case of disputed ideas, the nature of the dispute should be clear as well.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the presence of a dispute, attributing both sides may be a good idea. Rather than using vague phrases like "supporters/critics say...", it is often helpful to be specific in attributions, e.g. "Proessor X of the University of Y says..." Best, --Shirahadasha 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - overall vs individual sentences. 

message: Neutrality of this article is debated because neutrality is never achievable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psyphen (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a goal. The more editors that contribute to an article, and the more reliable sources that they bring to it, the closer it will approach to perfect neutrality. -- Donald Albury 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can something really be neutral? 

message: I notice certain people are deleting anti-X material on NPOV#Undue Weight grounds, claiming that there is not enough pro-X stuff. Isn't the onus on them to WRITE some pro-X stuff, if they can? X being the usual suspects. Fourtildas 06:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is, and we should say so. If there is no pro-X stuff to be found in a given case, and sometimes there isn't, then anti-X is consensus of the sources, and should be reported without weaselwording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that, at one time, I read something in the policies to the effect that, if an article is unbalanced by virtue of including much more information on one side than the other, the solution is to add the missing information, not to delete material that is otherwise proper (on-topic, written neutrally, sourced, not original research, etc.).  I can't find that passage now, though.  Is this stated explicitly somewhere in the NPOV policies?  If not, it should be. JamesMLane t c 15:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Weight 

message: This statement in "Fairness of tone" has me a little confused.  "— for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section."  How is the term "worse" used here?  Is "worse" good or bad for fairness of tone?  If worse is bad then it would seem to imply that users should create a criticism section, which would go against WP:Criticism and statements by Jimbo "[...] it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."  Perhaps someone could clarify.  Morphh  (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe both "fairness of tone" and "sensitive tone" are important. Particularly when the subject involved is a political or relgious group, a philosophy, etc., the encyclopedia needs to present the viewpoint fairly as its proponents see it, followed by criticism from outsiders. Shooting down the group as its viewpoint is being presented is neither fair nor sensitive and can look a lot like an ambush. Thus, whether criticism is in a separate section or not, the viewpoint needs to be presented as a coherent idea -- perhaps at least a coherent paragraph -- before the first criticism. I fully agree with Jimbo's statement that criticisms need to be "properly" incorporated and that in particular permitting "random" criticisms is inappropriate. --Shirahadasha 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you've stated it much clearer here.  Could you rewrite the sentence to better articulate these thoughts?  As it is now, the sentence very confusing. Morphh  (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is always interesting to see what happens whenever the 1) grammar or 2) clarity of the WP:NPOV text is improved.  We shall observe in this particular case who does what.  --Rednblu 23:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fairness of tone

message: In Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone, it says "for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section", but this isn't true.  Collecting all criticism into a single section is not a neutral way of presenting information, and we shouldn't be encouraging it.  
Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure explains this well:
— Omegatron 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions-of-opponents sections